Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I have seen many scholars point this out of why we don't do that today because it would be demeaning etc....

Scholars may say that, but it's not true of God-fearing women. If a God-fearing woman felt that God required that of her, she'd wear one.

I don't believe that God requires it, so I don't wear one. If I felt that he did, I would. It has nothing to do with it being demeaning.

Those same scholars probably feel that submission is demeaning, too.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm just no longer sold on talismans, tokens, symbols, and sacraments. I believe that the most beautiful thing about the Christian faith is that it is so dynamic it isn't locked into a cultural mold, it' can flurish anywhere. Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, you name it all have their "token" dress standards ranging from jewelry to clothing and even head coverings. It's all of the world. We walk by the Spirit. The women in Paul's day renounced the veil and were thereby appearing immodest and bringing dishonor on their husbands. Their refusal to be modest was upsetting the divine order of authority and prevening them from approaching God in proper relationship. So for them, this issue was an example, they were to obey and wear the veil. But 2,000 years later on the other side of the planet in a different culture altogether, I don't believe it applies literally. However, we still address modesty and those women who reject it dishonor their husbands and cannot approach God in proper relationship.

It's like a beard. The Bible does't condemn beards. But for many years pastors set a standard against beards because of their worldly associations. In American culture, the beard was a symbol of rebellion. Hippies and bikers were the poster children for beards. It became an issue of submission and separation from the world. However, today things are changing. It's not seen like that so much anymore, therefore we're seeing more pastors allow beards. Paul set the head covering standard in the first century Corinthian church to preserve modesty and submission. But as time passed it became less and less relevant. Today, it would just be an empty religious observance that is considered "quaint" by outsiders and a reason to feel more holy than the next guy by those who observe it.

Let's not fail to see the forest for the trees.

I understand and glad your seek freedom in God. In the end it doesn't change the scripture of the text and seeking to honor by divine order of creation in veiling is not throwing a Talisman in front of God demanding authority.
You my friend are cutting down the forest, spite the trees.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Show me where he is rebuking them like you said in 1 Cor 11? I wouldn't think Paul would have to directly say " I command" veils considering what being covering entails and his argument! If his argument is not clear enough then I really have to question your ability to comprehend the depth and force of Pauls argument. I teach my kids truth all the time and I don't have to "command" them. they understand the depth of what things mean after I explain what they mean to God.

Chapter 11 is a rebuke to the church in Corinth about coverings based upon Chloe's letter of complaint to Paul about the goings on there. That is the context of the entire epistle, brother.

Any way we slice it, the command is not in the bible aside from a rebuke to Corinth about not doing it. That is no coincidence that this chapter follows chapter 10's issue of offense.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Sorry Blume but Paul is on to other things and the text is not directly what you want it to be in relation to Chapter 11.

It has nothing to do with what I want it to be. Why does this sort of thing always come up from folks now and then when disagreement arises?

I allowed context to teach me what it was saying while all the while for years my wife and I believed in her practicing head covering. I did not want it to say otherwise than what I thought.

Also yes the veil is a sign and recognition of authority and submission. Because it is a sign and symbol of it does not negate the need for it!

If the context shows it is a sign under a certain culture, then that is the context in which we must understand it.

Is not the veil here the point in order that a women when she prays and prophecy she truly brings her authority and sign of submission to God in his presence thus "because of the angels?"

The angles are mentioned in lieu of submission and obedience. And the woman in that day had to do that in obedience as much as the Romans and Corinthians had to refrain from meats to not offend, although refraining from meats was not an issue in itself.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Chapter 11 is a rebuke to the church in Corinth about coverings based upon Chloe's letter of complaint to Paul about the goings on there. That is the context of the entire epistle, brother.

Any way we slice it, the command is not in the bible aside from a rebuke to Corinth about not doing it. That is no coincidence that this chapter follows chapter 10's issue of offense.

Sorry you are putting a square in a round hole as Paul admonishes them in the beginning of the Chapter and THEN says after the covery teaching

1 Cor 11:17 Now in giving the following instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.

Why is he making a break from the previous. The first part of the chapter is not rebuke but teaching. Also your whole argument clearly negates the clear teaching of WHY they are to wear a covering. Paul changes subjects completely and comes from a totaly different point and tact. He is praising them and then gives further instruction on WHY do to divine order one is to be covered etc... For you to make it local makes nonsense of the points he makes for the reasoning a covering in order with headship. Sorry Blume but you are wrong and the context and content of the message shows that. Your argument makes the text and depth pointless when he could have easily said something else instead of teaching why being covered is important in view of divine order. If it was just obediance to local custom etc... There was no reason to give support for headcovering the way he did and in the manner and style he did. Instead he would have taught on other things and would have made more sense.

I also don't see any depth to being rebuked anyway as you don't have a clue what had been said or taught before. Again, the clear context shows the depth of the subject and simply telling them to honor local tradition does not need that type of depth for a covering. Nothing in his wording or argument supports your argument as temporal.

[mfblume]

Deleting the repetition, and getting to your new point...

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I also don't see any depth to being rebuked anyway as you don't have a clue what had been said or taught before.

That is my entire point. lol.

We need bible basis for Paul's rebuke. You cannot rebuke someone for something they never knew. And if they did not know it from God's Word, we know that distinct issue was not a commandment of God. How then did they know it? It was culture.

Again, the clear context shows the depth of the subject and simply telling them to honor local tradition does not need that type of depth for a covering. Nothing in his wording or argument supports your argument as temporal.

Incorrect.

The simple fact you try to avoid is that the rest of the Bible did not teach this outside of Paul's rebuke. You can run around that as long as you wish. I agreed with you until that point hit me. And I could not run around it.

We're only repeating our points. Thanks for your input.