PART 2
A Few of Today's Arguments
Many today, in mimicking what they've heard, say that the woman's hair is her covering, as it seems to imply in verse 15. Such statements are not at all original or honest. Besides, the Greek word used for 'covering' in
1 Corinthians 11:15 ("for her hair is given her for a covering") is completely different from the one translated 'covered' prior to this in Chapter 11. This Greek word (peribolaion), here in verse 15, means to 'wrap around'. Hence the meaning would be ... "for her hair is given her for 'to be wrapped around'". There is no clear idea here, nor from any early Church writer, that the 'hair' is the women's 'covering'. Furthermore, it would seem to be negating what Paul had just spent 13 verses on prior to this in chapter 11. The words translated "covering", "covered" or "cover" prior to verse 15 in Chapter 11 use an entirely different Greek word (katakalupto). This one means to 'veil or cover up oneself'.
But just suppose we take this word translated 'covering' to mean 'the hair', instead of a veiling. It doesn't take very long to see the folly of such an idea. Just simply insert some words meaning "with hair" in place of "covering", "covered" or "cover" in Chapter 11 and the truth will be as clear as day (only to an honest heart, that is). For example it would read starting from verse 4:
(NIV)-"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head with hair dishonours his head. :5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head without hair dishonours her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. :6 If a woman does not have hair on her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should have hair on her head. :7 A man ought not to have hair on his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. :8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; :9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. :10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. :11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. :12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. :13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head without hair?
(KJV)-"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head with hair, dishonoureth his head. :5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head without hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. :6 For if the woman be not with hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be with hair. :7 For a man indeed ought not to be with hair on 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 without hair?
As any honest person can quickly see, the entire meaning of the text is changed. Instead of being about authority and headship, the whole discussion would appear to centre around the subject of having or not having "hair". It's as if Paul was confronting the whole Corinthian Church about a strange new heresy concerning "hair". Paul would now appear to be concerned that the Corinthian men weren't shaving their heads before prayer like they were supposed to, and the women were into shaving off all their "hair".
Then, of course, verse 6 makes no sense at all. It now seems to be saying that if a woman has no hair, then she should be shaved so she has no hair. This is absolute nonsense. Besides, the teaching that a woman's hair was her covering can never be found once amongst the early Church. Surely, it must be obvious by now that something other than the "hair" is meant here for a woman's covering.
But, What About This?
It may be argued that since neither Finney, Wesley, Luther, or Calvin taught about the headcovering, why should we practice it? Some may 'hope' that these men didn't teach about it, but such is simply not the case. Of these men, some taught specifically about it, while others only wove it into their teachings on Modesty and Godly attire. Included in their teachings are exhortations to dress "exemplarily plain in your apparel; as plain as Quakers or Moravians", who, by the way, all wore headcoverings (Wesley Jour. Vol. VII pg. 116). John Wesley even stated that all Methodists should hear his "Thoughts upon Dress" read "at least once a year" (Wesley Jour. Vol. VIII pg. 307).
Truthfully, it wasn't a problem for these to practice the headcovering. They read their Bibles and preached and practiced what it said. If God said do it, they did it. If He said it was a 'Sign' to be practiced, they simply obeyed. They didn't look for some way to rationalize it away, like we do.
Even the Catholics, with all their abuses back in the dark ages, were obedient enough to practice the headcovering. Why is it so hard for us in America to "obey God rather than man"?
__________________
….and since Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, we cannot be defeated!
http://thepopeofpentecost.wordpress.com/ 
olaroid
Linear Mode
