Headcoverings for Women

Yes. good point about the cultures. Let me tell you something and you go back and re-read it. I'm going to say that we are still talking about headship. I don't believe Paul has changed the subject yet. It's all connected. The headcovering is something women do. Having no headcovering is something men do. Having long hair is something women do. Having shorter hair is something men do. If a woman were to try to have a head covering, she would be acting like a man and not showing the correct headship. If a women were to have short hair like a man, it would be the same. Could it be that Paul is saying that there should be a difference in they way they dress as a sign of headship?

Let's move away for the time being if we should still follow the headcovering today. We moved too quickly away from the text. Let's get a better understanding of the "why" and then we can apply it to our lives better today.

What you seem to be saying is that Paul said that women should wear a head covering and men shouldn't. (which I would agree that is what Paul said). What I don't understand is how you divorce it from the original point of headship. Paul starts out about headship and then immediately goes into having a head covering. Then moves on from there. I don't see any change of subject.

 

As I said to DHK, let's examine the "why first. In other words, let's look for the biblical truth. What is Paul trying to say. He says for women to wear a head covering. Why does Paul say that. I think if we can establish that first, then we can move on to the application.

 

1. This has nothing to do with a Jewish synagogue, but with the local church. Paul said that if your contentious with the teaching then you have no place in a Biblical local church. Pretty strong words aren't they?

2. You are making this a fashion issue. It is not. It is about wearing a head covering to symbolize headship, among other reasons. There is no valid reason that you can give not to wear a head covering. There is no way that you can completely dismiss this passage of 16 verses and simply say it doesn't apply when Paul has so much to say on it. Why is it included in the Scripture if you think it is so insignificant?

3. The attitude taken toward a woman's head covering reveals the heart attitude. Here is a command in Scripture. I may or may not like it, but the issue is will I obey it whether I like it or not?

 

We agreed on head ship. I have given you other reasons. You really didn't respond to the reasons I gave you that were right out of Scripture. But I am willing to hear what you have to say.

 

Ok. I'll talk another look.

 

That is my point too.

 

Where did I ever say the historical context was a Jewish synagogue because it was not.

2. You are making this a fashion issue. It is not. It is about wearing a head covering to symbolize headship, among other reasons. There is no valid reason that you can give not to wear a head covering. There is no way that you can completely dismiss this passage of 16 verses and simply say it doesn't apply when Paul has so much to say on it. Why is it included in the Scripture if you think it is so insignificant? It has nothing to so with fashion but respect and what that meant in that particular culture.

3. The attitude taken toward a woman's head covering reveals the heart attitude. Here is a command in Scripture. I may or may not like it, but the issue is will I obey it whether I like it or not?[/QUOTE]It has absolutely nothing to with a head covering being applied today as a head covering in church. In fact if you did then one would recognize that lady as a Muslim and not a Christian. Is that what a Christian lady would want to communicate today. Would that give Christianity the respect it should have? A head covering then has more to do with what was respectful in that particular culture.

If you take it as a command then do not pick and choose. Why do you wear pants? Nobody would have worn them then. In fact scripture says in Mt. 5:40 that if someone asks for your inner garment then you are to also give him your outer garment. The people then would have worn garments nothing like what we wear today. Do you wear those same garments today? If not then why not?

 

That is right--16 verses, all explaining why women should wear a head covering in the service of a church. The validity of this should not only be apparent from Scripture but from other nations and cultures as well. As I have repeatedly pointed out 80% of Christendom still practices this. Where do you think the practice originates?

Then that is the weakness of Christianity isn't it? In fact, since Islam came 600 years after Christianity it was no doubt Islam imitating Christianity when they made their women cover their heads, only they weren't influenced by the rebellious feminist movement. And no one said you would have to dress like Muslims! Who ever gave you that idea? A head covering is not a burkah or hajib. You are going to extremes here. Nor do you have to imitate Amish or the Hutterites either, although they have their own distinct styles. It simply says "head covering." It symbolizes the headship of a man over a woman, or her submission to her husband.

I am not picking and choosing. The Lord is. Paul doesn't speak of other garments. He speaks of a covering for the head as a sign of headship. We don't wear are outer garments and pants etc. on our heads. Why not use yours?

 

Where a practice originates has nothing to do with today. A lot of the world goes around with many less clothes than American women do too just as they would in Paul's day. Does you wife abide by that practice? There was a time when nobody in the world wore pants too. Why do you wear pants? I am unable to find dresses in scripture too. Does that mean that for a lady wearing a dress in not acceptable? It was not all that long ago that some clothes women wear in America and some other countries wear today were also worn by prostitutes and for a Christian woman to wear the same thing would have been disrespectful then. However today if the Christian woman does not wear those same clothes in church she is viewed with disdain. The vast majority of Baptists use wine in communion too. Do American Baptist churches? So who really cares what 80% of the other churches do. How many average Christians exemplify Christ? Southern Baptists supported slavery for a long time. How many of those people at the time spoke against stealing people? How many spoke against segregation? I would also bet that 100% of the Muslim women practice head coverings too. I can remember when American women in church did too. The RCC was especially good at doing that. According to you then Paul would have highly commended the RCC for that. In addition he would have highly commended Muslims today because they are so godly and show such respect or their husbands. Didn't you know that the Christian service is all about what a woman wears on her head. Sure wouldn't want Jesus to show up with the woman at the well at the same time.

A headcovering was as understood then as pants are today. It would have resembled what Muslim women wear today. I can remember when women wore that same head covering we see among many Muslim women today. You need to study what women wore during that time. Like I said earlier Ben Witherington III has a picture in his commentary on 1 Cor. It is not an artists sketch but a photo a carving during that time period.

Why would you want to pick and choose a particular head covering and not be authentic according to the time then? It amazes me how many men want to pick and choose for themselves but not for their wives. Would your wife visit France and do what they have declared illegal and come alongside the Muslim women?

All scripture is to interpreted in light of its historical context. I have no problem with how you might interpret that passage. I have a problem with how you apply it. You interpret in detail but apply it in limited way. Nobody wore pants in scripture. Why do you wear pants? Scripture says that if someone asks for your inner garment then you are to give that person your outer garment. It uses specific words for the particular garment. Pants would not meet that criteria. You have selected what is convenient for you. If you are going to practice the totality of scripture then why limit yourself to wearing anything modern by what was practiced during the time scripture was written.

My God is not bound by a woman looking like a lady from the old country but rather by her respect for others and her dignity. My wife respects me by the way she dresses and conducts herself as a godly woman should.

What you completely ignore is the respect issue in a service. A woman can wear a head covering and be a gossip. The picture Paul gives and Jesus gives is much more than just a head covering for women. If a prostitute came in the door with her head shaved but wanted to know about Christ how would they have dealt with her? Jesus addressed those kinds of issues many times in the Gospels.

 

A complete non sequitor.
Head coverings are quite withing the limits of the law in France. Parisians are some of the most fashionable people in the world when it comes to covering the head. It is the burkah that they disallow--that which covers the entire face, so that not even the eyes are seen. Why are you bringing this red herring into the discussion. This Islamic practice was never Christian, and has nothing to do with Christianity nor with 1Cor.11:1-16.

Nor does this passage has to do with the quantity of clothing a person is wearing--another red herring. It specifically speaks of head coverings. Try and stick with the OP: Headcoverings for Women

Look to the OP, the topic of the thread.
Man, you are way off topic. Can't you stick to the topic of the thread.

Start a thread on wine then. Stick to the OP.

Apparently you don't care what other Christians do. You don't care about sticking to the OP either.

Since I said that in my last post it is a good observation by you.

There are some things that are more commendable in other cultures than in ours. In a nation like Pakistan, for example, you will never find a bar. Alcohol is prohibited. In most eastern nations: India, and those surrounding nations, you don't often see the immodesty of the women we see here in the summer. Here they walk around in something close to bathing suits or as little as possible. There, where the temperatures are consistently above 100 degrees they are still fully clothed, whether Hindu or Muslim or Sikh. In that respect they put most of our "liberated" Christians to shame.
But again, this has nothing to do with head coverings. You are not addressing this topic head on. You are simply making excuses. In effect you are making a case for antinomianism. If it is okay to rebel here (1Cor.11:1-16), then why not in many other areas of the Bible. That is the argument that you are putting forth.

Right, and the thief on the cross wasn't dressed very modestly either.

I can remember my mother wearing a head covering to church. It was called a hat. I see pictures of the Queen of England wearing a hat almost every time she is in public. Your tone seems to think that it is a sin to wear one. The Bible speaks of head coverings not pants. There is no equivalency here. You can't substitute pants for headcovering. It is a command of Scripture and you can't explain it away.

Head coverings are not illegal in France, not for anyone. There you are mistaken. It simply says "headcovering."

A headcovering is a headcovering. If I were going to be limited then I would go back in history and find the exact type of veil they were wearing and insist on that. That would be limiting. But I don't do that. The command is to have one's head covered to symbolize headship, and you don't seem to get that.

Off topic. Stick to the OP. Read the title of the thread.

A Godly woman would have no problem obeying the Scriptures, no matter what the command is.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't even make sense. Your logic leads to antinomianism. You don't know how to stay on topic. You also refuse to go through the Scripture and look at it and therefore refuse to be taught by Scripture.

 

Yes and they made it illegal to wear the coverings a Muslim woman wears. What you fail to conveniently understand is that what women called a head covering is much different then than today. It was a head covering not just something on top of their head like an adornment. If you study what a headcovering was then you will learn that is somethi9ng that covered the head. If you to other countries where the women wear a head covering you will notice that it varies in what is worn from one country to another.

You are wrong. I can remember when women wore a hat and veil that completely covered the head and face. So it was then and until recently more than just a hat on the head. I can remember when there were ladies who wore more than just a humble hat but a hat to be noticed by. I am sure Paul did not have that kind of head covering in mind.

Was it not you who wrote something about 80% of what Christendom does? So if that is your standard then apply it to other things too. Most of Christendom uses wine in communion. Do you? Shouldn't you be consistent in your arguments? I was simply using the same argument which you have conveniently dismissed because your hermeneutic will not allow a consistent practice throughout your theology. You conveniently pick and choose what to accept and dismiss on the basis of what you are comfortable with. You have chosen head coverings as an adornment for women as transcendent through cultures. If you do that then should you not also do that with everything else?

I am more interested in studying scripture and what God inspired than the ignorance of those who do not study.

Immorality is not limited to one culture. It is in every culture, everywhere. So I just do not buy such nonsense. Morality and modesty is much more than what one wears. 100 degrees is cool compared to where I once lived. In that kind of climate it is cooler to have more clothes on than showing your skin to the sun.

It has nothing to with rebellion. It is about correct interpretation and application. It is obvious that you do not know what a covering is that covers the head. That is what Paul is specifically talking about. If you were to see some pictures taken of images during that time you would easily recognize that it is not something that just adorns the top of the head but it covers the head.

David danced too.

Wearing a hat has nothing to do with what Paul taught. The queen also wears white gloves. Some men wear white gloves too. When I shovel dirt and manure I wear work gloves too. Jesus also taught that if someone asks for your inner garment to give him your outer garment. Is that not something Jesus taught? Pants would not qualify because there were none until modernity. Al they had was an inner and outer garment.

 

Your arguments are ridiculous. Paul is addressing one thing and one thing only. You fail to address that; fail to address Scripture. Here it is:

There are a series of arguments in the first 16 verses of 1Cor.11, that establish why a woman should wear a head covering:

1. Because of the headship of man (vs 3-6)
1 Corinthians 11:3-6 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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 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.
--Paul is very dogmatic here; so dogmatic that he insists that if a woman does not wear a head covering that she should be shaven. It is important. The corollary is important as well—that a man remain with his head uncovered. This indicates that a woman shows that she takes her place in submission to the man, a principle taught from Genesis 3 onward. We find it also in Eph.5. Throughout the Scripture we find the principle of headship; that the man is the head of the house. In the church service there is an outward sign—the head covering. It is a shame if a woman does not cover her head.

2. Because of God's order in creation (vs 8.9)
1 Corinthians 11:8-9 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
--One may look at this as a sub-point under headship. But it is another reason nevertheless. The Lord explained in Genesis 3 that the man is created first, and then the woman. The head covering also indicates this order in creation. It is a second reason.

3. Because of the angels (v 10)
1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
--Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown quote Bengel:

--The angels look down from heaven and inquire into the redemption of man, not fully understanding redemption for they have never been redeemed. The women ought to be covered because of the angels. You may not understand it, but you should accept it by faith.

4. Because of a sense of propriety (v 13)
1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
--The word “comely” is otherwise translated “appropriate” or “proper” in other translations. It is just the proper thing to do. Most women in most nations would never think of entering into their church without a head covering, even today.

5. Because of the natural order of things (the distinction between male & female and the woman's natural covering; vs 14,15)
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, 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.
--This is what nature teaches us. No matter where you go a man’s hair is shorter than women’s hair. Her natural covering is her hair. It is a lesson from nature.

6. Because of the practice of all the churches (v 16)
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--Paul’s argument here is not to be contentious about this teaching. We do not have a custom about being contentious. We separate from those that are divisive and contentious. We don’t want you around. For this is the teaching of God, and the teaching of all the churches. This is his conclusion and strongest argument. He is saying don’t argue about it; accept it.

 

My point is this: whatever is the equivalent of that to day is what should be done. Today a hat can be made out to be very prideful. Paul mentions in another passage to not be adorned with gold. Gold shows wealth and pride. Whatever shows submission to those in authority over us and respect is what should be done. Paul point is not about wearing something that completely covers the head but about submission and respect. In contrast he mentions about the woman who comes in looking like a prostitute. Again I will mention that not all that long ago women prostitutes wore some undergarments that most Christian women wear today. Times have changed whether we like it or not. What was once considered conservative, respectful and submissive is not today. So do you choose to have your wife wear undergarments for what is proper today or what was proper less than 100 years ago? The two cannot be the same.

I do not have any exegeting the passage properly. You have failed in even doing that in properly understanding what a proper head covering was then when Paul wrote the letter. The problem you have is in not fully understanding what the custom was and taking liberty in your application of it. If yoiu go back and lok at some major problems in American missions it was that they tried to make the people adhere to American customs. What you are doing is selectively applying parts of scripture to yourself and literally trying to apply the passage in 1 Cor. In some countries women show up to worship without a top. That would not fly very well here but it is perfectly acceptable there. Did God change from one country to another? God does not change. God works through people. When Paul was in Rome he did as the Romans did for the sole purpose of reaching them. If he had given them offense in himself then that would have preceded the real message he needed to deliver.

While that is true there are also things American women would find disrespectful that those in other countries do.


6. Because of the practice of all the churches (v 16)
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--Paul’s argument here is not to be contentious about this teaching. We do not have a custom about being contentious. We separate from those that are divisive and contentious. We don’t want you around. For this is the teaching of God, and the teaching of all the churches. This is his conclusion and strongest argument. He is saying don’t argue about it; accept it.[/QUOTE]You missed the major message. The point is not to be contentious. When I go to another country it is not my place to complain about the differences and want them to conform to my customs. I was in a country several years ago where almost everything we value as Americans they saw as stupid. To reach them I had to force myself to think about wkat they value. A friend of mine went to a country in the Middle East with his family. As a Christian woman his wife wore what every woman wore. She was completely covered.

When I have walked into a Jewish synagogue it is not my place to convert them to my custom but the do as they do in terms of dress while still holding my faith in Christ. If I choose to rebel against their customs I will not reach any of them. The last time I went I had a great discussion with the former rabbi's wife. Most of the conversation was centered on Christ but it started with what we had ion common--the OT. When I talk with Chinese I do not try to convert them to my customs but rather talk about what we have in common and then steer it to Christ. I learned in one conversation that the lady I was talking to was given information about what it meant to be a Christian and she refused. She refused because the explanation was given in terms of what you and I would understand. When I explained it in terms of what she understood considering her background then it made sense to her and she had the look on her face that she understood and was faced with the decision she needed to make.

So I think you are completely missing the point of Paul's teaching in that passage. The major point has nothing to do with head coverings. Head coverings is a way that his point is demonstrated in that culture.

Would you want your wife coming to church without a top on? In some cultures the men would have no problem with that in their culture. Is not the God they worship in their local church the same God we worship in our local church?

You are trying to press on our culture something that is present in another culture.

I may be missing something but I am unable to find any commands in that passage.

If you use the argument of headship as authority then it does not agree with vs. 3 "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." Is God really the authority of Christ? I take the position not as an authoritative position so typical of the western church such as the RCC but that being the head is the same usage as the head of a river. The head of a river is the source of a river. It is where the river starts. It is well known that a husband and wife who go to church that almost 100% of their kids will. If only the man goes to church the number is about 93%. If only the woman goes to church it around 7%. There is very little a wife can do over her husband. In our society and around the world, men are dominate. When a man speaks he speaks with more impact than when a woman speaks. That is just the way it is. You as the head of your home are not the authority, but its source of encouragement and example. You can be the source of everything good or bad that comes through you into your home.

My wife does an incredible job where she works. I do not know of anyone who gets the kind of recommendations she does nor the accuracy with which she does her work. Her work if done poorly could kill someone. There is no way I could come close to what she does. She is the expert in that arena not me. When she talks about her job I listen. When we are in a room with several others she is the authority on her job and certainly not me.

I have seen men who are dumb as door nails when it comes to leadership. They just do not get "it." In fact I was dumbfounded at how stupid I saw some pastors being when it came to a discipline issue in a church. They could not even see the issue and were completely deceived in a matter of a few minutes by one person. Even when I pointed it out to them they were as though they did not have a brain. It was like trying to tell a blind man about sight. Even looking back I wonder how three pastors with over 25 years each in the pastorate could be so dumb and so deceived by someone. They were no authority on that issue inside or outside of their home. Yet everyone of them had great godly families. Were they the authority or were they the source of all that was good in their home? The major problem they had is that they did not recognize a deceiver and liar, and they did not know the limits of their giftedness and defer to someone else.

Headship is not so much about who rules the roost, but more about who rules the rooster.

 

A very unbiblical philosophy, as is most of your post. I would rather take what the Bible says over your philosophy.

 

Something for our ladies to aspire to—a Mrs. Paige Patterson Headcoverings Extravaganza:

The 'Black Bowler'

The 'Flower Pot'

The 'BF&M2000 Special'

The 'Cordovan Halo'

The 'Cowgirl'

The 'African Safari'

The 'Smurfette'

 

It is not about any particular philosophy. I was simply pointing out your "pick and choose" theology that is very inconsistent. However your attitude is telling.

 

What kind of a home did she grow up in as a kid?

 

This is hilarious stuff.

Some of you are also hilarious, although it's tragic that there are those who would still hold women back from being everything their Creator made them to be.

 

Isn't it sad that some think Christianity rises and falls with America and its customs.

 

Who's saying that?