Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside

1Corinth2v4 · #1 01-20-2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Bump...

Whatever your interpretations on 1 Corinthians 11 may be, the early church - for more than 1,000 years - understood Paul to be referring to a literal cloth type head covering.

From the catacombs - late 1st century or early 2nd century A.D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Veils are custom, as 1 Cor 11:1 begins with Paul's words to follow his example, which is a carry-over from chapter 10 which speaks of not offending people with customs. What is divine is order of submission, not the symbol of the veil that shows it. My thoughts, anyway.

Pelthais & Mblue,

Please read carefully and open-minded.

There's no indication within the Old Testament where women were required to utilize a veil during worship/prayer (see Deuteronomy). In 1st Corinthians 3:13 the Apostle Paul mentions Moses' (Greek:Kaluma), an actual veil. There's no other Greek word utilized within the New Testament specifically referring to only "veil." Therefore, we can't positively conclude that Paul's statement about a female's covering referred to an actual veil, in oppose to her hair.

Now, Mfblube and Pelthais, I would like to explore your ideology, that possibly Apostle Paul referred to an actual cloth as a head covering within the eleventh chapter of 1st Corinthians, as you claim this was a practice amongst the early church. Well allow me the opportunity to prove you wrong!

Read the following very carefully:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
3) Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

Should I also mention that in the Old Testament, the high priest (a male) prayed while wearing his garment. Needless to say this garment had a hood attached, which the high priest wore on his head while praying, etc. Or should I also mention that Ezekiel prophesied while having his head covered (Ezekiel 24:17)?

If Paul in fact was actually speaking of a "cloth" as a covering in 1 Corinthians 11:4, then Ezekiel, the high priest, and various others dishonored their head!

1 Corinthians 11:
4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Also notice Romans 1:
27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly........

Romans states that nature teaches sexual relations are only between men and women (after marriage).

Now read what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11

14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Regarding a covering, how natural is a cloth on a female or male's head? Remember, Paul referenced nature itself teaches us about this head "covering." Understanding veil (cloth) is nowhere near natural, the only natural reference Paul can address is hair and hair length, which is natural on a human being.

mfblume · #2 01-20-2009, 06:12 PM

Bro., you miss something.

Paul said there was no other CUSTOM than what he showed for the church. He was delineating Old Covenant and every other religion or group from the church's UNIQUE custom of women ALONE wearing veils, and not men. Old Covenant saw both. Other cultures had men alone wearing coverings. But ONLY the church at that time had ONLY WOMEN wearing them.

mfblume · #3 01-20-2009, 06:15 PM

Also consider this, openly.

The BIBLE did not demand a covering outside of Paul's words in 1 Cor 11. Paul would not rebuke a people for doing something demanded by God in and of itself if it was not already written in the scripture. For example, you can tell someone not to kill in a rebuke because it is written in commandment form outside of rebuke. A rebuke is always referencing something already commanded.

But Paul, here, rebukes them from something not already commanded in scripture. So why rebuke them for that? It is for the same reason Paul rebuked people for eating meat IF IT OFFENDED A BELIEVER. And that is actually the same sort of context in which 1 Cor 11 falls into after reading 1 Cor 10.

As you ask where it was commanded for women to wear veils, I am asking you where it was commanded for women to not cut their hair outside of Paul's rebuke? If it cannot be found in commandment form outside of a rebuke, then it has to do with not offending due to culture or whatever other NON-SCRIPTURAL requirement.

1Corinth2v4 · #4 01-20-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Bro., you miss something.

Paul said there was no other CUSTOM than what he showed for the church. He was delineating Old Covenant and every other religion or group from the church's UNIQUE custom of women ALONE wearing veils, and not men. Old Covenant saw both. Other cultures had men alone wearing coverings. But ONLY the church at that time had ONLY WOMEN wearing them.

I believe you missed this:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
3) Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

Hoovie · #5 01-20-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Corinth2v4

I believe you missed this:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
3) Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

The instruction was for specific times (while engaging in prayer or prophesy) - Paul did not instruct her to cover her head at ALL times.

mfblume · #6 01-20-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Corinth2v4

I believe you missed this:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
3) Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

The veil was only for prayer and prophesying, not all the time, bro.