Headcover

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Context is everything John.

Ageed. Contextually, there's no biblical command for men to keep their heands uncovered, or women to keep their heads covered. The context is one of analogy to spiritual headship. </font>[/QUOTE]Contrariwise, John; You are ignoring both the context and the explicit command of both the uncovered head for the man, and the covered head for the woman. The principle of headship is taught. The command to carry out the principle is given. One cannot simply dismiss explicit commands of Scripture, by allegorizing Scripture. Both Paul and Jesus used parables and symbols to teach the principles. The J.W.'s deny the reality of Hell, and completely dismiss the reality of Hell in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. They claim that because the story is only a parable that Hell is not real. It is purely symbolic.
Likewise Paul used the analogy of marriage in Romans 7 to demonstrate our relationship to the law. The law has dominion over us as long as we live. He is actually talking about the law, but using marriage as an illustration. Does that mean that the truths about marriage are irrelevant, and don't apply to us today simply because they are used as an example? No, not at all. In fact we see them being applied many times. A woman is bound to her husband as long as she lives. She is only loosed or freed from her husband, and her wedding vows, when her husband is dead. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. These truths don't change just because they are used as an illustration. Though Paul uses a headcovering to illustrate a truth, the command to wear it still stands. Nothing has changeed simply because you believe it to be an analogy. The Bible uses many analogy. That doesn't negate the truth of Scripture or its commands.
DHK

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
You are ignoring both the context and the explicit command of both the uncovered head for the man, and the covered head for the woman.

That's because the context isn't there. Clearly, you and I disagree with this, which I can respect. I think we've beaten this dead horse sufficiently. Best at this point to simply allow others to read the thread for themselves and decide for themselves.

The J.W.'s deny the reality of Hell, and completely dismiss the reality of Hell in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. They claim that because the story is only a parable that Hell is not real. It is purely symbolic.

Using the parable of Lazarus is probably not the best example, for a number of reasons. First, there's debate as to whether it was a parable, or a real event (since it mentiones "a certain man named..."), or a parable which simply contains the name of a real person for the purpose of exemplification. All those debates are speculative at best, but certainly do make for interesting and fruitful discussion. Second, the word translated "Hell" is the Greek word Hades, which is Greek for Sheol. Sheol is not Hell, but is, in Jewish tradition, simply the place where the souls of the dead resided. It was neither Heaven nor Hell. OTOH, there are plenty of other biblical references that define Hell (such as scriptural descriptions of Gehenna) as we understand it according to Christian doctrine, thus refuting JW claims to the contrary.

 

[MennoMan]

Originally posted by Johnv:
However, since you made the comparison, no one is required to partake in communion.

Where do you get that? Christ said: "This DO in remembrance of me."

 

[Johnv]

The emphasis is on the "in rememberance of me", not "this do".

We're supposed to engage in communion voluntarily, not out of compulsion.

 

[MennoMan]

Communion was commanded for the church to practice. I don't see how you escape that.

 

[7-Kids]

how did y'all get from headcovering to Communion?

BTW I use a headcovering.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by SixKids:
how did y'all get from headcovering to Communion?

BTW I use a headcovering.

I do also! It's called my God given 'hair.'

1 Cor. 11:15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her *hair* is given her for a covering.

So simple!

MEE

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SixKids:
how did y'all get from headcovering to Communion?

BTW I use a headcovering.

I do also! It's called my God given 'hair.'

1 Cor. 11:15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her *hair* is given her for a covering.

So simple!

MEE

</font>[/QUOTE]if you think that the hair is the covering go back in the rest of the passage and try to replace the word cover with hair it will not work.

The hair given for a cover is using the word for in the same way it is used in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" one demands another

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by John3v36:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SixKids:
how did y'all get from headcovering to Communion?

BTW I use a headcovering.

I do also! It's called my God given 'hair.'

1 Cor. 11:15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her *hair* is given her for a covering.

So simple!

MEE

</font>[/QUOTE]if you think that the hair is the covering go back in the rest of the passage and try to replace the word cover with hair it will not work.

The hair given for a cover is using the word for in the same way it is used in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" one demands another </font>[/QUOTE]John, ahhh...maybe you should break it down for me. All I see is that a woman's hair is given her for a covering.

MEE

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Context is everything John.

Ageed. Contextually, there's no biblical command for men to keep their heands uncovered, or women to keep their heads covered. The context is one of analogy to spiritual headship. </font>[/QUOTE]Contrariwise, John; You are ignoring both the context and the explicit command of both the uncovered head for the man, and the covered head for the woman. The principle of headship is taught. The command to carry out the principle is given. One cannot simply dismiss explicit commands of Scripture, by allegorizing Scripture. Both Paul and Jesus used parables and symbols to teach the principles. The J.W.'s deny the reality of Hell, and completely dismiss the reality of Hell in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. They claim that because the story is only a parable that Hell is not real. It is purely symbolic.
Likewise Paul used the analogy of marriage in Romans 7 to demonstrate our relationship to the law. The law has dominion over us as long as we live. He is actually talking about the law, but using marriage as an illustration. Does that mean that the truths about marriage are irrelevant, and don't apply to us today simply because they are used as an example? No, not at all. In fact we see them being applied many times. A woman is bound to her husband as long as she lives. She is only loosed or freed from her husband, and her wedding vows, when her husband is dead. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. These truths don't change just because they are used as an illustration. Though Paul uses a headcovering to illustrate a truth, the command to wear it still stands. Nothing has changeed simply because you believe it to be an analogy. The Bible uses many analogy. That doesn't negate the truth of Scripture or its commands.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]It is very simple the word “FOR” has 10 definitions. You are using the 5th definitions “5: on behalf of : REPRESENTING &lt;speaks for the court&gt; “

But the Texts is using it the 1st definitions “1 a -- used as a function word to indicate purpose &lt;a grant for studying medicine&gt; “

One is intended for the other. “hair is given her for a covering”.

it is not in place of.

You will ask me how do I know which for is being used?
Let look at the texts before. If you are saying it is “in place of”

If you put hair in place of cover or covering the passages would make it comprehendible
Vs . “6 For if the woman be not (HAIR) covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be (HAIR) covered.”

So it would say if a woman does not have hair she is to have her head shaved.
And you are saying in vs 4 if a man has hair when he pray or prophesying dishonoureth her head.

So all the men need to go hairless when he pray or prophesying.

Read below and replace the word hair for covering and tell me if it make more comprehendible.

1 Corinthians 11

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 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 (HAIRED) covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (UN_HAIRED) uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not (HAIR) covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be (HAIR) covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to (HAIR) cover his head, 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. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God (UN_HAIRED) 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. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Context is everything John.

Ageed. Contextually, there's no biblical command for men to keep their heands uncovered, or women to keep their heads covered. The context is one of analogy to spiritual headship. </font>[/QUOTE]Contrariwise, John; You are ignoring both the context and the explicit command of both the uncovered head for the man, and the covered head for the woman. The principle of headship is taught. The command to carry out the principle is given. One cannot simply dismiss explicit commands of Scripture, by allegorizing Scripture. Both Paul and Jesus used parables and symbols to teach the principles. The J.W.'s deny the reality of Hell, and completely dismiss the reality of Hell in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. They claim that because the story is only a parable that Hell is not real. It is purely symbolic.
Likewise Paul used the analogy of marriage in Romans 7 to demonstrate our relationship to the law. The law has dominion over us as long as we live. He is actually talking about the law, but using marriage as an illustration. Does that mean that the truths about marriage are irrelevant, and don't apply to us today simply because they are used as an example? No, not at all. In fact we see them being applied many times. A woman is bound to her husband as long as she lives. She is only loosed or freed from her husband, and her wedding vows, when her husband is dead. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. These truths don't change just because they are used as an illustration. Though Paul uses a headcovering to illustrate a truth, the command to wear it still stands. Nothing has changeed simply because you believe it to be an analogy. The Bible uses many analogy. That doesn't negate the truth of Scripture or its commands.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]It is very simple the word “FOR” has 10 definitions. You are using the 5th definitions “5: on behalf of : REPRESENTING &lt;speaks for the court&gt; “

But the Texts is using it the 1st definitions “1 a -- used as a function word to indicate purpose &lt;a grant for studying medicine&gt; “

One is intended for the other. “hair is given her for a covering”.

it is not in place of.

You will ask me how do I know which for is being used?
Let look at the texts before. If you are saying it is “in place of”

If you put hair in place of cover or covering the passages would make it comprehendible
Vs . “6 For if the woman be not (HAIR) covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be (HAIR) covered.”

So it would say if a woman does not have hair she is to have her head shaved.
And you are saying in vs 4 if a man has hair when he pray or prophesying dishonoureth her head.

So all the men need to go hairless when he pray or prophesying.

Read below and replace the word hair for covering and tell me if it make more comprehendible.

1 Corinthians 11

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 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 (HAIRED) covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (UN_HAIRED) uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not (HAIR) covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be (HAIR) covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to (HAIR) cover his head, 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. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God (UN_HAIRED) 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. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by John3v36:


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.

John, sorry that you had to refer to other teachings, but verses 14 & 15 says it all.

It is plain to see that God meant for a man to wear his hair short and for a woman to wear her hair 'long.'

It plainly says, "...if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?" But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her for her hair is given her *FOR A COVERING.*

Don't get upset...I just don't agree!

MEE

 

[tamborine lady]

Hey Mee,

I read the scripture and I see it the way you do. Our covering is our hair.

Sorry boys, you can't have every thing your way.

Peace,

Tam

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:
Hey Mee,

I read the scripture and I see it the way you do. Our covering is our hair.

Sorry boys, you can't have every thing your way.

It is not my way But Gods way.

Mee take the whole passage and see if you can get the same out of whole passage.

Put yourself aside and tell God to show you the WHOLE truth. God's word is not to be pick apart but taken as a whole. there is more to the topice than verses 14 & 15 What are you going to do with verses 1 & 13?

 

[DHK]

John3,
The debate between me and Johnv, (so long ago now), centered around the literalness of the passage. If he was willing to take the headcovering as only symbolic, why not the rest of Scripture? The argument was that Paul used bread and wine (both symbolic) in the Lord's Table0, but the symbolic elements remained for everyone to see and use. Paul would not use a symbol that couldn't be seen. Why refer to a headcovering to refer to headship, and then not wear it. That doesn't make sense.

To address your argument, it also does not make sense, especially in the light of the fact that there are two entirely different words for covering in verses 4 and 5, than there are for the word covering in verse 15. Even different translations will clear that up for you.

1 Corinthians 11:5-6 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. (ASV)

1Co 11:5 And every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled dishonors her head, for it is the same as being shaved.
1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn, or to be shaved, let her be veiled. (LITV--Literal Translation of the Bible)

1Co 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head; for that is even the same as if she were shaved.
1Co 11:6 For if the woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. (MKJV)

Now consider your logic in the light of this verse
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man.

If the covering refers to hair, then a man should be bald because he is the image and glory of God. According to your logic, every man should have his head shaven before he enters church!
I would rather just take off my "headcovering" thank you very much.

DHK

 

[Marcia]

I usually agree with DHK, often disagree with JohnV, and almost always disagree with MEE, but here it is all reversed! I disagree with DHK and agree with JohnV and MEE.

For about 6 mos. I was in a church where I had to wear a headcovering (not a Baptist church but sort of a Brethren church, I think; they always said they had no name). I was a very new believer and did not know the Bible well. I eventually left that church (not because of the headcovering but other issues) and went to the church where I am now. I had a conversation with my pastor re the headcovering issue. He said that we apply the principle of that passage but not the cultural practice. It was normal for women to have headcoverings in those days, now it is not unless you are a Muslim woman.

If you see a woman walking down the street in the US today with a veil or headcovering, you either think she is Muslim or is dressed strangely. It does not cause us to automatically say, "Yes, as a woman her head should be covered."

It was the norm then for a woman to have her head covered (but I don't think prostitutes did this) and it represented her submission to her husband's authority. We can still submit to that authority but the head covering no longer makes sense as a sign of that. This is how my pastor explained it, more or less, but he did it better. I think Jim1999 on page one said the same thing.

Also, this was said to the Corinthian church and is not mentioned in any other passage. To use one rather obscure passage unsupported by any other scripture is not a substantive way to support a required practice.

But I am not getting into a discussion on it as I have learned discussions on this are fruitless.

 

[DHK]

Marcia,
It is hardly an obscure verse or passage when half the chapter is given to the subject (or at least the first 16 verses). That is quite a bit of Scripture. Paul spends more on this subject than on Christians taking other Christians to court (Romans 6). Is that obscure and cultural as well?

The wearing of a headcovering was not cultural. The only cultural part of it was the type of headcovering you wore. You might wear a different style of "hat" today, rather than a veil or a scarf. There is a command to wear a headcovering nevertheless, and one ought to be careful to heed God's commands. Look at the context and the reasons why God commands women to wear a headcovering:

1. Because of the headship of man (vs 3-6)
2. Because of God's order in creation (vs 8.9)
3. Because of the angels (v 10)
4. Because of a sense of propriety (v 13)
5. Because of the natural order of things (the distinction between male & female and the woman's natural covering; vs 14,15)
6. Because of the practice of all the churches (v 16)

This was no small matter that Paul was addressing. He gave specific and definite reasons why a woman should wear a headcovering, and a specific penalty if one should not. It is not that a women was ever shaved bald (the consequence of not wearing a headcovering), but that she would be so ashamed not to wear a headcovering that that would never happen to her. In some mid-eastern countries it is like that to this day. You would never see a Christian woman at a church service without her headcovering.
DHK

 

[mioque]

DHK
"If the covering refers to hair, then a man should be bald because he is the image and glory of God. According to your logic, every man should have his head shaven before he enters church!"
''
You do understand that I am now forced to adopt that viewpoint.
Start running men of God, here I come with a razorblade.

"The only cultural part of it was the type of headcovering you wore."
''
My church happens to be into headcovering, so all the ladies attend wearing headscarfs, and I go around in something like this.
http://home.concepts-ict.nl/~rijk/annelies/img/muts.jpg

What?

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by mioque:

My church happens to be into headcovering, so all the ladies attend wearing headscarfs, and I go around in something like this.
http://home.concepts-ict.nl/~rijk/annelies/img/muts.jpg

What?

Cute picture mioque! For a woman to have to put on a hat, scarf or whatever, everytime she prays is about as sensible.

What if she is driving along and decides to pray, does she pull over and get out her covering? I don't think so! God gave her a covering and if her hair is 'long' she is ready to pray at all times.

MEE

 

[DHK]

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

My church happens to be into headcovering, so all the ladies attend wearing headscarfs, and I go around in something like this.
http://home.concepts-ict.nl/~rijk/annelies/img/muts.jpg

What?

Cute picture mioque! For a woman to have to put on a hat, scarf or whatever, everytime she prays is about as sensible.

What if she is driving along and decides to pray, does she pull over and get out her covering? I don't think so! God gave her a covering and if her hair is 'long' she is ready to pray at all times.

MEE

</font>[/QUOTE]Keep things in perspective please. Paul was correcting problems in the local church. He goes on to correct abuses of the Lord's Table, which is not taken "as you drive along in your car," but only amongst the members of the church. This is a specific command to the local church. It does not apply to the public or other places. It applies to the church. He was correcting problems in the church.
DHK