Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I would agree with much of this. Though your point of due to modesty of there day negates in part my point Paul uses clear teaching this is not restricted to culture but is a aspect of divine order. It was propriety but in relation to divine order of a covering that was needed do to divine order not due to custom demand.

Let’s look at the text putting each verse in context:

I Corinthians 11:1-16
{11:1} Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of
Christ.

{11:2} Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me
in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them]
to you. {11:3} 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.

Here Paul lays down divine order, next he begins to address an issue…

{11:4} Every man
praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head.

If a man prays with head covered, as do the Jews, he dishonors Christ by living as though under the Law.

{11:5} 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.

Wow. Here it is, if a woman goes without a covering it’s as though she were shaven. In other words it’s immodest and unsightly.

{11:6} 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.

If a woman will not wear her covering, let her be shorn. Why? Because she’s acting like an immodest harlot. But since it’s a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her simply obey and be covered.

{11:7} For a man indeed ought
not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

A man ought not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. He’s been set free from the Law and symbolically represents Christ, the groom of the bride. The woman is the glory of the man, as the church is the glory of Christ.

{11:8}
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the
man. {11:9} Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man.

Women may not like this standard, but they are called to be in subjection because they were made for their husbands.

{11:10} For this cause ought
the woman to have power on [her] head because of the
angels.

The woman is to have authority and reverence given to her head (her husband) instead of this immodesty failure to cover, because failure to cover is rebellion and she will reap judgment for her rebellion as did the angels.

{11:11} Nevertheless neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
{11:12} For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the
man also by the woman; but all things of god.

In light of this however, each should give mutual respect. Women are not door mats to be bossed around because even man owes his life to woman.

{11:13}
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto
God uncovered?

Paul asks them about their cultural sensitivity. Is it proper that a woman be uncovered? The answer would be an obvious “no” in first century context.

{11:14} Doth not even nature itself teach
you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
{11:15} But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

Paul now appeals to nature itself, for even nature teaches us that a woman should be covered, her hair serving as this example.

{11:16} But if any
man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.

If any man be contentious against the principles of modesty that Paul is laying down, the church has no such custom.

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

So Aquila are you saying women don't need a covering at all now? That clearly goes against the meaning of the text.

The eternal principle is modesty. Paul was addressing the necessity of head coverings to maintain modesty. Today we don’t wear head coverings, but this serves as an example showing us how to address other modesty issues in all cultures. If attending church in Pakistan a woman should most likely wear a head covering. In America, it’s not issue. But we might ask, should a woman wear panty hose? Some don’t care. But in today’s culture it’s alluring and if she is uncomely or improper in worship, she dishonors her head, her husband. As you can see, the same principle is in play though head coverings aren’t required anymore.

That’s my understanding bro. God bless ya.

[LUKE2447]

I re read and see you don't believe in any head covering.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let’s look at the text putting each verse in context:

I Corinthians 11:1-16
{11:1} Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of
Christ.

{11:2} Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me
in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them]
to you. {11:3} 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.

Here Paul lays down divine order, next he begins to address an issue…

{11:4} Every man
praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head.

If a man prays with head covered, as do the Jews, he dishonors Christ by living as though under the Law.

{11:5} 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.

Wow. Here it is, if a woman goes without a covering it’s as though she were shaven. In other words it’s immodest and unsightly.

{11:6} 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.

If a woman will not wear her covering, let her be shorn. Why? Because she’s acting like an immodest harlot. But since it’s a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her simply obey and be covered.

{11:7} For a man indeed ought
not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

A man ought not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. He’s been set free from the Law and symbolically represents Christ, the groom of the bride. The woman is the glory of the man, as the church is the glory of Christ.

{11:8}
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the
man. {11:9} Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man.

Women may not like this standard, but they are called to be in subjection because they were made for their husbands.

{11:10} For this cause ought
the woman to have power on [her] head because of the
angels.

The woman is to have authority and reverence given to her head (her husband) instead of this immodesty failure to cover, because failure to cover is rebellion and she will reap judgment for her rebellion as did the angels.

{11:11} Nevertheless neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
{11:12} For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the
man also by the woman; but all things of god.

In light of this however, each should give mutual respect. Women are not door mats to be bossed around because even man owes his life to woman.

{11:13}
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto
God uncovered?

Paul asks them about their cultural sensitivity. Is it proper that a woman be uncovered? The answer would be an obvious “no” in first century context.

{11:14} Doth not even nature itself teach
you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
{11:15} But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

Paul now appeals to nature itself, for even nature teaches us that a woman should be covered, her hair serving as this example.

{11:16} But if any
man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.

If any man be contentious against the principles of modesty that Paul is laying down, the church has no such custom.



The eternal principle is modesty. Paul was addressing the necessity of head coverings to maintain modesty. Today we don’t wear head coverings, but this serves as an example showing us how to address other modesty issues in all cultures. If attending church in Pakistan a woman should most likely wear a head covering. In America, it’s not issue. But we might ask, should a woman wear panty hose? Some don’t care. But in today’s culture it’s alluring and if she is uncomely or improper in worship, she dishonors her head, her husband. As you can see, the same principle is in play though head coverings aren’t required anymore.

That’s my understanding bro. God bless ya.

Sorry can't agree with your end result. Paul clearly teaches women should as a matter headship. To say "WELL, we don't wear headcoverings today" is not argument that we are not to....

Culture does not determine principle and biblical truths. It might be applied in part to culture but it does not negate it. Head covering per Paul are of divine order and his reasoning goes beyond the bounds of "well you don't have to as this is only a temporal thing and if this not where you are it doesn't matter"! Sorry that tone is not given by Paul!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Isn't it true that for something to truly be a Biblical doctrine, it should be supported elsewhere in scripture? Where else in the Bible does it say that a woman is required to wear a physical headcovering?

Or, for that matter, where else does it say that a woman should not cut her hair (if you believe that this is what those scriptures teach)?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Sorry can't agree with your end result. Paul clearly teaches women should as a matter headship. To say "WELL, we don't wear headcoverings today" is not argument that we are not to....

Culture does not determine principle and biblical truths. It might be applied in part to culture but it does not negate it. Head covering per Paul are of divine order and his reasoning goes beyond the bounds of "well you don't have to as this is only a temporal thing and if this not where you are it doesn't matter"! Sorry that tone is not given by Paul!

The way I see it is that you’re looking at the letter of the law, so to speak. Paul was talking about head coverings, therefore head coverings are required. I’m looking at the spirit of the law, so to speak. Paul was addressing a modesty issue in relation to head coverings worn at the time. While head coverings are no longer worn or required, the principles of modesty still stand. If a woman isn’t modest and wearing appropriate attire in worship, while praying or prophesying, she dishonors her head, i.e. her husband. So your position might say that a woman dishonors her husband without a head covering. I say it’s more than that. She dishonors him if her blouse is cut too low, her dress is too tight, her skirt is too short, her slit to open, etc. It’s all part of the same big picture, Paul just happened to be addressing head coverings in the first century Corinthian church. If a woman rebels against modesty in any way, the point not being head coverings, she rejects headship and dishonors her head, her husband.

It’s a principle, not a law.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Isn't it true that for something to truly be a Biblical doctrine, it should be supported elsewhere in scripture? Where else in the Bible does it say that a woman is required to wear a physical headcovering?

Not necessarily. The Bible is God’s Word. If something is taught only once we are bound to heed it. Though I think here the issue is a principle of modesty, not a law requiring head coverings.

Or, for that matter, where else does it say that a woman should not cut her hair (if you believe that this is what those scriptures teach)?

Technically, the Scriptures do not condemn a woman cutting her hair. It simply implies that it was a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. This was typically done to publicly humiliate harlots.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let’s look at the text putting each verse in context:

I Corinthians 11:1-16
{11:1} Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of
Christ.

{11:2} Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me
in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them]
to you. {11:3} 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.

Here Paul lays down divine order, next he begins to address an issue…

{11:4} Every man
praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head.

If a man prays with head covered, as do the Jews, he dishonors Christ by living as though under the Law.

(It does not say that! Though I am not going to say nothing can be pointed in total in that direction it totaly is out of bounds as Paul clearly would have said "law" if he was addressing such. He is addressing the realization of Christ but you argument that is due to the detriment of the Jews etc.... is at best speculation)

{11:5} 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.

Wow. Here it is, if a woman goes without a covering it’s as though she were shaven. In other words it’s immodest and unsightly.

{11:6} 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.

If a woman will not wear her covering, let her be shorn. Why? Because she’s acting like an immodest harlot. But since it’s a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her simply obey and be covered.

{11:7} For a man indeed ought
not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

A man ought not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. He’s been set free from the Law and symbolically represents Christ, the groom of the bride. The woman is the glory of the man, as the church is the glory of Christ.

(Again speculation not saying it's not possible but it still seems out of bounds as Paul clearly would have referenced "the law" as is his normal trait and give more direct teaching. Also your arguement does not help for a temporal aspect to veiling but gives a even more permanent aspect of which I would agree. Also we are not freed from "law" we just realize it through a different administation. We are set free from the body of sin and death which is the flesh as it is cricumcised from us, so we can live according to the "law" of the Spirit which is the "the law" put on our hearts. The law was not sin but the flesh being weak caused sin due to us realizing that which was right and us being contrary to it in action and deed)

{11:8}
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the
man. {11:9} Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man.

Women may not like this standard, but they are called to be in subjection because they were made for their husbands.

Which is why women fight headcoverings today as it is clearly an outward demeaning symbol to them. Gotta look that part ya know!

{11:10} For this cause ought
the woman to have power on [her] head because of the
angels.

The woman is to have authority and reverence given to her head (her husband) instead of this immodesty failure to cover, because failure to cover is rebellion and she will reap judgment for her rebellion as did the angels.

(Again, the text shows for a permanent aspect not temporal. Again it is immodesty of headship of divine order not in reference to pagan culture but within the church and of order within the body. This being the case we should not change a truth because of womens lib or whatever but embrace the clear teaching of Paul that is order and culture given by God himself. Who are we to cast of this aspect of truth which CREATES THE CULTURE. Gods truth creates a culture. So to cast of this truth is to deny the culture which God creates in his body. I see no way this can be temporal)

{11:11} Nevertheless neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
{11:12} For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the
man also by the woman; but all things of god.

In light of this however, each should give mutual respect. Women are not door mats to be bossed around because even man owes his life to woman.

Would agree, again also shows a more permanent vs temporal teaching.

{11:13}
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto
God uncovered?

Paul asks them about their cultural sensitivity. Is it proper that a woman be uncovered? The answer would be an obvious “no” in first century context.

(true, but Paul pointing to something in which they all understood would be a argument of familiarity not that it is only for that time and place.)

{11:14} Doth not even nature itself teach
you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
{11:15} But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

Paul now appeals to nature itself, for even nature teaches us that a woman should be covered, her hair serving as this example.

TOTALY agree!

{11:16} But if any
man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.

If any man be contentious against the principles of modesty that Paul is laying down, the church has no such custom.

Again, you keep making it about only modesty in relationship to the pagan culture. Paul's point all throughout is that headship and being covered is a principle of divine order not just some little aspect to be modest of local custom.

The eternal principle is modesty.

True in part but propriety due to the divine order is the central point and the "eternal principle" . Modesty is a recognizable attribute not the central figure.

Paul was addressing the necessity of head coverings to maintain modesty.

Again not modesty but divine order! The covering being modest is only recognized as such do to the emphasis of divine order. Because distinction in headship is needed the covering is seen as modesty and thus the symbol of it. Why? Because of creation. To say women don't need a covering today, negates the very eternal principle by which Paul taught.

Today we don’t wear head coverings, but this serves as an example showing us how to address other modesty issues in all cultures.

Why don't we? Maybe because of feminism and women casting off there natural role?
Paul is not talking about other cultures he is talking about the creating of culture within the church and headship due to the revelation of Christ.
Also your point that we don't wear headcoverings today means nothing! Because our culture has cast of the divine order of headship for todays' feminism doesn't support your argument. Also lack of discernment of what the scripture says is not an excuse for negating the creative order and how our relationship to God in that order should be maintained when approaching him.

If attending church in Pakistan a woman should most likely wear a head covering. In America, it’s not issue. But we might ask, should a woman wear panty hose? Some don’t care. But in today’s culture it’s alluring and if she is uncomely or improper in worship, she dishonors her head, her husband. As you can see, the same principle is in play though head coverings aren’t required anymore.

Because the churches are wrong about alot of things that has a effect on the culture gives the reason to negate the truth? Again, Pauls points are clear concerning the reason for a covering is headship due to his divine order in creation and submission before him. When we come to him we are to be seen in submission in the proper way in which he created us. To say women do not need to be covered today negates the whole chapter and teaching of Paul is virtually meaningless teaching that one need to be covered.

That’s my understanding bro. God bless ya.

God Bless you and I enjoy your take on things!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The way I see it is that you’re looking at the letter of the law, so to speak. Paul was talking about head coverings, therefore head coverings are required. I’m looking at the spirit of the law, so to speak. Paul was addressing a modesty issue in relation to head coverings worn at the time. While head coverings are no longer worn or required, the principles of modesty still stand. If a woman isn’t modest and wearing appropriate attire in worship, while praying or prophesying, she dishonors her head, i.e. her husband. So your position might say that a woman dishonors her husband without a head covering. I say it’s more than that. She dishonors him if her blouse is cut too low, her dress is too tight, her skirt is too short, her slit to open, etc. It’s all part of the same big picture, Paul just happened to be addressing head coverings in the first century Corinthian church. If a woman rebels against modesty in any way, the point not being head coverings, she rejects headship and dishonors her head, her husband.

It’s a principle, not a law.

sorry, have to disagree again. Modesty is all those things and they are clearly taught in scripture! Sorry but Spirit does not negate letter. The Spirit of the law is considerate of all the law into one action. The teaching of the letter vs spirit is taking one part of the law and negating the whole teaching of the law to come to a conclusion. To bring judgement to the letter, without love, mercy etc... is judgment by the letter. Paul's teaching has nothing to do with the Spirit of the law directly as you put it. Paul is clearly teaching something that is not to be done away with. Having and not having a covering on the head is clear. Now how to cover it properly could be seen in the SPirit of the law but not the direct teaching that someone should have a covering. You negate the WHOLE teaching for the excuse of "Spirit of the Law" In reality you are negating truth all togethor letter or Spirit.

Being covered is law brought about by the principle of headship and divine order which in reality is law as well. Law in many cases can be principle as well! Depends on the context and application.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

sorry, have to disagree again. Modesty is all those things and they are clearly taught in scripture! Sorry but Spirit does not negate letter. The Spirit of the law is considerate of all the law into one action. The teaching of the letter vs spirit is taking one part of the law and negating the whole teaching of the law to come to a conclusion. To bring judgement to the letter, without love, mercy etc... is judgment by the letter. Paul's teaching has nothing to do with the Spirit of the law directly as you put it. Paul is clearly teaching something that is not to be done away with. Having and not having a covering on the head is clear. Now how to cover it properly could be seen in the SPirit of the law but not the direct teaching that someone should have a covering. You negate the WHOLE teaching for the excuse of "Spirit of the Law" In reality you are negating truth all togethor letter or Spirit.

Being covered is law brought about by the principle of headship and divine order which in reality is law as well. Law in many cases can be principle as well! Depends on the context and application.

There are many things in the law that are no longer required, everything from eating pork, to sabbath observance, and so on. The issue is that these things all had a purpose in their time and place, however, the principle is what we are to abide by, not the letter of said law. Paul was giving practical advice on modesty and explaining that immodest women dishonor their husbands and if they rebel from said modesty they are denying the headship of their husbands. It's about more than head coverings. Paul wasn't talking about a mystical meaning in a head doily, or the talismanic virtue of a magic head covering (be it cloth or hair). It just some really practical down to earth advice to women regarding how they should appear when attending worship. The women's refusal to wear a head covering just forced the issue and so Paul was addressing it in relation to the issue at hand.

Today, he might have to talk about women making sure their knees are covered. Same deal, he'd explain they were dishonoring their husbands by being immodest.

[mfblume]

Women are always required to submit to husbands. But how that was symbolized so as to not offend in the culture of the day was Paul's issue.