1 Cor 11:4-10. Headcovering for women!

This culture is not applying it and we are seeing the fruit of it.

But, again where in the text can we prove that the veil itself was only for that time? </font>[/QUOTE]HCL,

Do you really think that a lack of head covering is to blame for the ills of society? </font>[/QUOTE]Brother,
I truly believe that yes, the lack of women following the principle is to blame for many of problems we have. And the lack of the sign came off right around the time the feminists were pushing for "equal rights." And look at us now....

Calvin in his sermon on headcoverings predicted that once the covering came off the clothing would come off too. He was absolutely correct.

 

Well HCL I must admire your consistency !

 

Think I'll get myself a turban!

Cheers,

Jim

PS. My wife doesn't wear a hat, except on really cold days and we are gathering firewood, and she has never gone about naked or acted out of place. That is just plain foolishness. Wearing a hat or a veil has nothing to do with morality any more than women fighting for eqaul treatment in a pluralistic society. God bless the women for daring to take a stand on what is right. That's how women got the vote.

 

Where, in the text can you prove that it wasn't?
I still feel it falls into the "gray area". If that is what God has convicted, or laid upon your heart, to show submission then by all means obey. I have yet to have that conviction laid upon me. And if it is to apply to *today* why isn't God laying it upon more women to do such?

I have a question, and I am in NO WAY meaning ANY disrespect, but this is an honest thought process that I have wondered about, who is the outward sign of a veil for in *todays* culture? Secular humans, members of the church, the family, the husband, the person wearing it, God?
The reason I ask is why is a "outward sign" needed. If I am submissive to my dh, my actions will show it to other people, and my heart will show it to God with or without the veiling. Same as if I were not submissive. Or is the wearing of the veil there to remind the wearer to be submissive?

 

This rediclous. I am neither the casue of any of the world's problems, nor am I a feminist.
What am I? A bible believer, the bible taken in context as a whole, through proper bible study. Taking each verse in context. Not making it say what I want it to.

The world's problems have nothing to do with what I wear on my head if anything. The world's problems come from not knowing Jesus, period! When christians are involved it comes from a lack of seriousness about who Jesus is,and not tending to their relationship with Him.

 

A woman is not necessarliy submissive becasue she wears a veil, nor is a woman automatically not submissive becasue she does not wear a veil. It's a matter of the heart being right with God, not clothing.
Jesus condemned the need for a sign, why would He tell us we need a sign then to tell angels we are christians. The bible says God knows His own, and He is the one who sends angels, they do not go about on thier own making thier own decisions, therefore they would need a sign as to who belinged to God and who didn't. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit, thats all thats needed for the spiritual world to know whose we are.

 

Where, in the text can you prove that it wasn't?
I still feel it falls into the "gray area". If that is what God has convicted, or laid upon your heart, to show submission then by all means obey. I have yet to have that conviction laid upon me. And if it is to apply to *today* why isn't God laying it upon more women to do such?

I have a question, and I am in NO WAY meaning ANY disrespect, but this is an honest thought process that I have wondered about, who is the outward sign of a veil for in *todays* culture? Secular humans, members of the church, the family, the husband, the person wearing it, God?
The reason I ask is why is a "outward sign" needed. If I am submissive to my dh, my actions will show it to other people, and my heart will show it to God with or without the veiling. Same as if I were not submissive. Or is the wearing of the veil there to remind the wearer to be submissive? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The book of 1 Corinthians begins like this:
1 Cor. 1:2, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, TO THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED IN CHRIST JESUS, called to be saints, WITH ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE WHO CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, our Lord both theirs and ours."

The letter to the Corinthians was also written to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ.

Also, most people do practice the second part of 1 Corinthians 11. Why was not that just for that culture?


Verse 3- What is this text about? Headship.

"But, I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ." Uncultural-eternal.

Verse 4, What is this text about? How a man shows his submission to Christ?

"Every man praying or prophesying, having HIS HEAD COVERED, DISHOUNERETH HIS HEAD." Uncultural-eternal.

Verse 5.How shall a woman show obedience? "But every woman that prayeth or prophesyeth with her HEAD UNCOVERED dishounereth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." Uncultural-eternal.

Verse 6, What should she do if she won't cover her head?

"For if the woman be NOT COVERED LET HER ALSO BE SHORN: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, LET HER BE COVERED." uncultural-eternal.

I think most of us would agree that verse 3 is uncultural-eternal. Why then do we take out verses 4-6 can call them cultural? What is it about them that makes them cultural? And where in the Bible are we told to follow popular culture?

Dear Sister, you ask why aren't more women today convicted of this? There are women all over the world convicted of this. I have heard testimony after testimony, of ladies who were convicted to do this and they were the only ones in their congregation or even town.

For the last part of your post I will answer with verse 10 of the text:

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

 

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.


Then why the need to veil?

 

Her hair is given to her for A covering. It is not the THE covering as spoken of in verses 5-6. You can find this information by checking your Vines Dictionary, that the two words used are different words in the Greek for covering.

 

I asked:
&gt;&gt;And if it is to apply to *today* why isn't God laying it upon more women to do such?&lt;&lt;

Sorry for the confusion, but what I meant was: And if it is to apply to *today* why isn't God laying it upon ALL women to do such?

 

I do understand what you mean.

The Word of God says if she will not cover, let her be shorn or shaven. We are to follow whether we are convicted or not.

Also, this is just my observation. I have never met a covered woman who is unsubmissive. However, I have met many women who are uncovered and unsubmissive.

I have met some women who are uncovered, even in short hair who are submissive.

Notice, I did not say that you were unsubmissive. You have said that you are, and that is what I have to go by since I do not know you.

 

I just noticed this,
"For if the woman be NOT COVERED LET HER ALSO BE SHORN: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, LET HER BE COVERED."

And this is how I think it ties into verse 15
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

but IF it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, meaning having short hair or shaved, as it applied to the culture of that time, which in that culture and time, short hair represented prostitution, then yes, they should've worn a covering, but if they had long hair, THAT was their covering. But short hair in our time and culture does not represent prostitution.

 

ok, Let me get this straight, you are interpretting it to say that I should be shorn/shaven because I will not cover, whether convicted or not, whether already submissive or not?

 

1 Peter 3

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

[ November 14, 2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

I just noticed this,
"For if the woman be NOT COVERED LET HER ALSO BE SHORN: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, LET HER BE COVERED."

And this is how I think it ties into verse 15
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

but IF it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, meaning having short hair or shaved, as it applied to the culture of that time, which in that culture and time, short hair represented prostitution, then yes, they should've worn a covering, but if they had long hair, THAT was their covering. But short hair in our time and culture does not represent prostitution. </font>[/QUOTE]It could not possibly be the hair, because it would then read like this:

For if the woman DOES NOT HAVE LONG HAIR LET HER ALSO BE SHORN: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, LET HER HAVE LONG HAIR."

We can't cut off what has already been cut off.

If it is only the hair then verse six makes no sense. Also, it is WHEN a woman prays and prophesies that she is to have her COVERING ON. It can't be the hair only as hair cannot be removed and put back on, (except for wig wearers, that's another topic).


Also the verse about men would make no sense. It would have to mean that men have no hair when they pray and prophesy.

Also, there is nothing in the text about prostitution.

The text is about creation order and headship, which are eternal principles.

 

You've confused me there Hank.
Can you explain how to me relates to 1 Cor. 11?

 

ok, Let me get this straight, you are interpretting it to say that I should be shorn/shaven because I will not cover, whether convicted or not, whether already submissive or not? </font>[/QUOTE]That is what verse six says, "For if the woman be NOT COVERED LET HER ALSO BE SHORN: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, LET HER BE COVERED."

If the woman is not covered, let her also be shorn or shaven. I can think of no other way to interpret this.

Shorn means short hair, shaved means shaved off with a razor.

If she is not covered, let her also be shorn or shaven.

 

HCL,

Its good to see you back.

I enjoyed each one of your posts that I have read.

J5Grand

 

Go through this Scripture and take note of the attributes of the woman in subjection to her husband.
These are the attributes of which in the sight of God is of great price.
What does the wearing of a veil prove if these attributes are not manifest?

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

HankD

 

Thank you brother, you are one of the people I missed from here too