Headcover

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Show me how I have taken this out of context.

I successfully did that in the 5th post ini this thread. It's a done deal, but you prefer to believe differently. That's certainly your right, I suppose.


</font>[/QUOTE]I read your post John. You rightly said that it is a symbol of headship. That is about all you said. And so it is, and for that very reason it must be worn. That is what Paul is emphasizing. Another reason, (which we many not fully understand), and yet Paul states as a reason for wearing a headcovering is stated in verse 10:

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Just because we don't totally understand the reasons for the command doesn't mean we ought not to obey it. Just because the "culture" has changed doesn't mean God's commands have changed. Christ is still the same: yesterday, today, and forever.
DHK

Edited only to repair link

[ April 21, 2004, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by gb93433:


Should we lie down when we eat too? That was biblical.

Not all the time. We have that example at the Last Supper. We also have banquets recorded in the Bible where people dined at tables.
DHK

 

[dianetavegia]

1 Corinthians 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless in the Lord Jesus, there is neither male nor female - Neither is excluded; neither is preferred before the other in his kingdom.

1 Corinthians 7:17
Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.

Acts 18:18
Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. R1115 In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow.

Contentious (piloneikoß). Old adjective (piloß, neikoß), fond of strife. Only here in N.T. If he only existed in this instance, the disputatious brother. Custom (sunhqeian). Old word from sunhqhß (sun, hqoß), like Latin consuetudo, intercourse, intimacy. In N.T. only here and John 8:7 which see. "In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short" (Vincent).

 

[rlvaughn]

If the meaning of the covering in I Corinthians 11:2-16 is spiritual, I have a few questions:
</font>

• Is it spiritual only?</font>
• Is it possible to be both spiritual and physical?</font>
• If the covering is spiritual only, what is the spiritual meaning of being shorn? Of being shaven?</font>
• What is spiritual long hair? Spiritual short hair?</font>
• What is spiritual nature of the glory and the shame?</font>
• Is God only the spiritual Head of man?</font>

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:


Should we lie down when we eat too? That was biblical.

Not all the time. We have that example at the Last Supper. We also have banquets recorded in the Bible where people dined at tables.</font>[/QUOTE]They reclined (were laying down) at the last supper, and at banquets. That was the norm. Sitting (as in a chair) was considered rude at meals, since it implied you were getting ready to leave.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:
They reclined (were laying down) at the last supper, and at banquets. That was the norm. Sitting (as in a chair) was considered rude at meals, since it implied you were getting ready to leave.

I may concede that John, that their custom was to recline at couches when eating or feasting. But there was never any command to do so, therefore your point is moot. Here we have an explicit command with several reasons given why a woman should wear a veil or a headcovering. All Scriptural, not cultural reasons. Read the passage carefully and see if you can discover the reasons why a woman should be covered and not shorn or shaven. Those are pretty strong words.
DHK

 

[Johnv]

Not only have I read the passage carefully, I've read the passage intently, and done considerable study on it. I've been familiar with this passage for years. It IS NOT, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, a command for a woman to keep her head covered. You're simply perverting the passage by not applying the Paul's contextual intent. I can't stress that enough.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Not only have I read the passage carefully, I've read the passage intently, and done considerable study on it. I've been familiar with this passage for years. It IS NOT, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, a command for a woman to keep her head covered. You're simply perverting the passage by not applying the Paul's contextual intent. I can't stress that enough.

You can and have stressed it. But you have not demonstrated it through Scripture. Do a Scriptural exposition. Show to me through Scripture why women should NOT where a headcovering other than the fact that you assert it to be so. Show me where I am wrong in my interpretation, where have I perverted the Scripture in any way.

Don't accuse without evidence. Lay your cards on the table so to speak. Where is the evidence that one should not obey this command. I don't want your opinions and accusations anymore; I want solid biblical evidence.
DHK

 

[Meercat]

This is actually an interesting debate to me as well. I was raised in the United Pentecostal Church where it is taught that the woman's HAIR is the covering and that is why it should never be cut let alone trimmed,.......been there, hated it,......but to those who like it, God Bless! It becomes a matter of conscience in my opinion. But now that I'm Catholic, I find it interesting to note that the prevailing custom was for a woman to wear some type of head covering such as the "mantilla" which is a lacy scarf over her head during the Mass. It is no longer compulsory, but even I wonder if it shouldn't be observed? What do the majority of Baptist make of the eleveth chapter of I Corinthians? I'd like to know for further input. I agree with Gina that there is no need to get ugly about the topic. I find it more fascinating in the fact that it's interesting rather than a doctrinal issue. - God bless all! - Meercat

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK what's the appropriate covering?

Is a pillbox hat enough? A hairpin?

Would a wig be considered a covering?

What about died hair?

OK I know I'm being silly - but I do wonder how much is enough?

 

[donnA]

One problem I see is that when I see women who believe in covering their head it is usually not covering their heads but the back of their hair only, not the head. And then some of those it is only a cover over their bun. Just like the hair covers the top of the head so should a head covering if your going to use one.
Paul of Eugene , I happen to think it should be the kind women in biblical times would have worn, no where does it give permission to change anything, if you use the pro headcovering arguments.

 

[MEE]

If one reads 1 Cor. 11, it is talking about a man having short hair and a woman having long hair.

I don't see where it talks about a woman wearing anything on her head; but long hair. Veils, hats, scarfs aren't mentioned in these scriptures.

13) Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have *long hair,* it is a shame unto him?
15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: FOR HER HAIR IS GIVEN HER "FOR A COVERING."

Where does anyone get that a woman should were anything on her head, except her long hair?
Or, that a man should wear long hair like a woman. In looking at a man or woman, one should be able to tell the difference by the length of their hair.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
If one reads 1 Cor. 11, it is talking about a man having short hair and a woman having long hair.

I don't see where it talks about a woman wearing anything on her head; but long hair. Veils, hats, scarfs aren't mentioned in these scriptures.

13) Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have *long hair,* it is a shame unto him?
15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: FOR HER HAIR IS GIVEN HER "FOR A COVERING."

Where does anyone get that a woman should were anything on her head, except her long hair?
Or, that a man should wear long hair like a woman. In looking at a man or woman, one should be able to tell the difference by the length of their hair.

MEE

Then read a translation that more accurately translatels the word for "headcovering" which is different than the word for "covering" in verse 15.

1 Corinthians 11:3-8 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:

This same Greek word, referring to headcovering or veil, as it is translated here, is used throughout these 8 verses. It is an entirely different Greek word that is used for "covering" in verse 15, relating to the hair as a covering. The Bible commands a woman to have a veil or head covering. No amount of cultural diversification can change that command. If one chooses to use a veil, a cowboy hat, a scarf, or whatever is proper and modest according to the dictates of the culture that you live, then you ought to wear it. That is wear culture comes in. The command is to wear a headcovering. The principle is one of headship--and even that is only of the principles that is being taught here. If you are not willing to wear a headcovering you ought to be willing, and indeed should be shorn or shaven (bald). The Scripture is very plain here. I don't even see why there should be any argument except for the stubborness of man's (women's) hearts.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:

Then read a translation that more accurately translatels the word for "headcovering" which is different than the word for "covering" in verse 15.

DHK [/QB][/QUOTE]

OK, however you see it. I suppose everyone has their view. It doesn't make it or break it! I just don't happen to agree with you.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:

Originally posted by DHK:

OK, however you see it. I suppose everyone has their view. It doesn't make it or break it! I just don't happen to agree with you.

MEE

This is the problem with most topics isn't it. I can provide you Biblical evidence. But when it comes to obedience or belief, the conclusion is "I don't agree." And there is no Biblical reason for disagreement other than "I don't want to obey the Bible, or, I don't want to believe the Bible."
But you are entitled to your opinion.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:

Originally posted by DHK:

OK, however you see it. I suppose everyone has their view. It doesn't make it or break it! I just don't happen to agree with you.

MEE

This is the problem with most topics isn't it. I can provide you Biblical evidence. But when it comes to obedience or belief, the conclusion is "I don't agree." And there is no Biblical reason for disagreement other than "I don't want to obey the Bible, or, I don't want to believe the Bible."
But you are entitled to your opinion.
DHK </font>

DHK, what you provide, at times, isn't always Biblical; it is your opinion of what you think the Bible is stating.

As far as Biblical reason, I did give scriptures to show what I feel the Bible is referring to, concerning a 'covering' for a man or woman. It is the length of hair on both men and women.

I didn't say that I don't obey or believe what the Bible says! I said, "I don't agree with you."
Yes, you are correct, I am entitled to my opinion.

MEE

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
John3v36 or anyone~"Headcoveredlady sent me an email & asked me to tell y'all that she would be very happy to send your wife a covering or tell you where to get one...or if anyone wants more info on headcoverings she said to just pm me & I will give you her email. She also said that many of the sisters are being *attacked* by satan lately. Sad.

Thanks I contacted her. she was very helpful.

 

[John3v36]

http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=181119

 

[Living4Him]

I don't see what the big deal is. If she wishes to wear a modesty veil or chapel veil to church that's her right.

Here is a link with some pretty lace ones:
http://www.modestyveils.com/modesty_009.htm

She can also find more styles by searching google for:
Chapel Veils
Modesty Veils
Mantillas

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
I don't see what the big deal is. If she wishes to wear a modesty veil or chapel veil to church that's her right.

That's akin to saying::
"I don't see what the big deal is. If she wishes to be baptized that's her right."
Is this the attitude that we should have toward all the commands of Scripture?
DHK