Christian Headcovering Or Veil ?

[JN Anderson]

Wearing a material headdress is not relevant for New Testament women. It can be a decision of conscious though. In actuality, it is given secondary status to natural hair as the divinely given characteristic for women.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

...
Such was never considered a damnable sin but rather an issue of Christian practice and decency.

Many women have found deep spiritual blessings in accepting this practice. I've discovered their meek and humble spirits speak volumes as they seek true Biblical womanhood.

The real question is...does it apply today?

In the United States in 2008, long or short hair on a woman, or a veil on a woman is not a moral issue. In some other countries, it is. In my opinion, how the hair/veil thing applies depends on where (geographically and socially) you are.

[Michael The Disciple]

The veils worn by Catholic Women are a carry over from the New Testament Apostolic Church.

[Sept5SavedTeen]

I've studied this out and I go to an assembly that used to practice the headcovering for the women and I have had the opportunity to study this out with the pastor of the assembly I now attend, very much indepth, and as for the second headcovering video that some posted from youtube, I have written back and forth with that woman concerning the headcovering principle.
Michael the Disciple, your saying that others have simply "given up on this truth" is short-sighted. I admire anyone that has given serious consideration to 1 Cor. 11:1-16, regardless of the conclusion they have come to, because it is not an easy text to decipher, and when I thought I had it figured out I certainly didn't.
Bro. Hall, I noticed you used the ESV in your post, and from my study of the text, paraphrases can be deceiving, especially on verse 16. The Greek is of course the best, but as for myself I only know a few key words in the Greek, and I only have the Strongs to back me up. However, I would use a translation my pastor has (which name I can't remember now) which has the text in the Greek, and each word has it's most literal meaning in the English below each Greek word, which can make the passage sound strange in the English, but it's helpful, especially with verse 16. "We have no SUCH custom" (arguing of contention in the universal church over headcovering) and not "We have no OTHER custom" (meaning no other custom, but that all the women must cover their heads in the church) is the most literal understanding in my studying of the text.
This was such a big issue for me because the preacher that convinced me of the oneness message was also a headcovering preacher, and I wanted to follow in his footsteps and men like him, who all taught headcovering, so when I came across people that didn't practice headcovering or had stopped teaching it, I thought AT BEST they would just squeak by into Heaven. When I finally got a better understanding on this whole topic, it helped a lot, and the Church is a lot bigger and diverse in my mind than it was before. There are wrong teachings on this topic, of course, but none that have to cause division or contention, and none that will make or break anyone's salvation. When I come across brethren that are headcovering, I don't start a debate about it with them, and since I'm a brother it's not something I have to worry about, the only time it can become an issue for me is if my opinion is asked, and it's often not asked if I keep my mouth shut.

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

[TCSQ]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The veils worn by Catholic Women are a carry over from the New Testament Apostolic Church.

THANK YOU!

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The veils worn by Catholic Women are a carry over from the New Testament Apostolic Church.

Do we know fopr a fact that early church women wore veils? Other than what we know of Jewish tradition. They did not see fit to impose veils on the Gentile women. (along with a few other things they decided were not important to impose also) That seems to me to say that it really isn't impotant. No heaven or hell thing here. If someone wears one fine if not fine. IMO Believe me I really searched this out and read it and prayed about it for a long time. When I finally come to an understanding of it well that is something NO ONE can take from me.

[Traci]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Here is another view.http://actseighteen.com/articles/uncuthair.htm

This was actually some very good reading and the best explaination I have come across in all my 40 years of being in or around the UPC (raised in-no longer in).

[PraiseHymn]

Originally Posted by jdm05

That's exactly what I would bring up all the time. The bible does not say what color veil to wear but that's what we were taught. I don't believe that is what Jesus wanted me to wear. That was my argument with others, if the bible says you have to wear a veil, then why do not the UPC women or any other religion wear veils? I did not ever feel convicted when I did not wear a veil at church. Then I was told out of respect I should wear one AND was given a white veil to wear. I said no thank you. They made me feel like I was being rebellious, but I wasn't. I just did not like being forced to do it.

Thanks Scott for the welcome!!!

FYI The Church Of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith teach that women should cover their heads (veil or hat) we are a very large black apostolic organization...larger than the AAOCFCJ. We broke away from the PAW back in 1919 because we believed I the veil and no second marriages with a living divorced spouse while the PAW begged to differ (oh and we don't ordain women pastors) Bible Way World Wide wears the veil too as well as other organizations in Europe and abroad..trust me you were not alone.

However we don't require certain colors for the married or unmarried.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Sept5SavedTeen

Bro. Hall, I noticed you used the ESV in your post, and from my study of the text, paraphrases can be deceiving, especially on verse 16. The Greek is of course the best, but as for myself I only know a few key words in the Greek, and I only have the Strongs to back me up. However, I would use a translation my pastor has (which name I can't remember now) which has the text in the Greek, and each word has it's most literal meaning in the English below each Greek word, which can make the passage sound strange in the English, but it's helpful, especially with verse 16. "We have no SUCH custom" (arguing of contention in the universal church over headcovering) and not "We have no OTHER custom" (meaning no other custom, but that all the women must cover their heads in the church) is the most literal understanding in my studying of the text.
This was such a big issue for me because the preacher that convinced me of the oneness message was also a headcovering preacher, and I wanted to follow in his footsteps and men like him, who all taught headcovering, so when I came across people that didn't practice headcovering or had stopped teaching it, I thought AT BEST they would just squeak by into Heaven. When I finally got a better understanding on this whole topic, it helped a lot, and the Church is a lot bigger and diverse in my mind than it was before. There are wrong teachings on this topic, of course, but none that have to cause division or contention, and none that will make or break anyone's salvation. When I come across brethren that are headcovering, I don't start a debate about it with them, and since I'm a brother it's not something I have to worry about, the only time it can become an issue for me is if my opinion is asked, and it's often not asked if I keep my mouth shut.

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

Bro. Alex,

You might want to look into the ESV. The ESV follows the school of formal equivalence regarding translation.

Here's a bit about it from the website:

http://www.esv.org/about/other.translations

How is the ESV Different from Other Translations?

All Bible translations seek to faithfully communicate God’s Word. But, depending on translation philosophy and purpose, significant differences are evident when comparing Bible translations.

There are two main kinds of Bible translations. The first is commonly referred to as (1) “word-for-word” (or “formal equivalence”) translation, the second as (2) “thought-for-thought” (or “dynamic equivalence”) translation. The main difference between these two translation philosophies is that the first one places the primary emphasis on what the words of the original say and mean (in their context), while the second one places the primary emphasis on the main thought or idea in the phrases of the original.

As an “essentially literal” translation, the ESV is committed to the principle of “word-for-word” translation, as the translation philosophy that most accurately conveys the Bible’s own understanding that “all Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16), or as Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).

This page explains how the ESV differs from eight of the most widely used Bible translations and paraphrases. You may also want to compare the ESV with selections from many of the translations discussed here.

King James Version (KJV) – The ESV Translation Team holds a deep respect for the work of the KJV translators as well as for the immeasurable impact this Bible has had on the English language and the English-speaking world for centuries. Though the KJV Bible is appreciated greatly for its literary beauty, much of the KJV language is now archaic and hard to understand. Also, the KJV was based on only a few original language manuscripts that were available 400 years ago. The ESV’s translators, however, had the advantage of access to much earlier manuscripts and the most up-to-date scholarly research. The result is that the ESV carries forward the KJV’s literary beauty and the essentially literal translation legacy, based on the best original language manuscripts. The ESV also retains the classic theological terms found in the King James Version, which modern translations often do not retain—terms such as “grace,” “justification,” “sanctification,” and “propitiation,” which are central to Christian doctrine.

New International Version (NIV) – Unlike the ESV, the NIV is a “dynamic equivalence” translation, though it is on the more conservative end of the dynamic equivalence spectrum. Thus the NIV focuses primarily on translating thoughts and ideas rather than translating the meaning of each word. While this translation philosophy emphasizes readability, readability can be achieved only at the expense of the word-for-word precision and consistency of an essentially literal translation. The NIV also lacks the historical legacy carried forward by the ESV.

Today’s New International Version (TNIV) – The TNIV (published in full in February 2005), like the NIV, is a dynamic equivalence translation, focusing primarily on thoughts and ideas rather than the literal meaning of each word. Further, the TNIV has adopted a “gender inclusive” translation philosophy resulting in thousands of gender language changes as compared to the NIV. In contrast, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture.

New Living Translation (NLT) – The NLT is on the looser end of the dynamic equivalence spectrum, describing itself as a “thought-for-thought” rather than a “word-for-word” translation. The NLT was intentionally translated at a junior high reading level. Also, the NLT has avoided using theological terms, and has adopted a “gender inclusive” translation philosophy similar to that of the TNIV. As with other “thought-for-thought” translations, the NLT emphasis on readability is achieved at the expense of word-for-word precision and consistency.

New King James Version (NKJV) – The NKJV translation philosophy is quite similar to that of the ESV. The NKJV, however, is not based on the earlier Bible manuscripts used by the ESV and by almost every other modern Bible translation. The ESV also benefits from translation work that was completed more recently than the work on the NKJV (2001 vs. 1982) and that was carried out by a much more extensive team of international evangelical Bible scholars.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) – The HCSB calls its translation philosophy “optimal equivalence.” Thus the HCSB sometimes follows a “word-for-word” and sometimes a “thought-for-thought” approach, as decided by the HCSB translators for any given text. The HCSB also differs from the ESV in that the HCSB is not part of the historic KJV translation stream.

The Message –The Message is a paraphrase, rather than a translation. As a paraphrase, The Message expresses the ideas and thoughts of the original Bible languages in a loose, informal, and unconventional way. The result is often fresh and arresting, but at the expense of close correspondence to the original words of Scripture, and at the expense of consistency and precision in rendering theological language.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) – The NASB is a strictly literal translation, making it highly accurate. However, the NASB’s commitment to strictly literal translation often results in wording that sounds awkward. The ESV translators, while striving for accuracy and faithfulness to the original texts, also made clarity of expression and literary excellence high priorities. The language of the ESV, therefore, often flows more naturally than that of the NASB.

On this site you can watch a really good video on the ESV translation:

http://www.esv.org/churches/church.video.2005

I've checked it against several Greek commentators and it's pretty accurate.

[comeasyouare]

For my view go here: http://studyholiness.com/doc/Headcovering_blog.pdf