womens headcoverings

[ih8censorship]

ok i was wonderin what everyone thought about women wearing headcoverings when they pray my mom and some of her freinds wear them and they use this scripture1 Corinthians 11: 1 - 34 to base it on. now i know what it says and i belive everything in the bible is true, but wasent that like before jesus died and after he did the blood took the place of the headcovering? i remember reading somewhere in the old testament that preachers (or preiests whatever) were supposed to wear headcoverings and they were men any thoughts on this??

[undead]

Asking a bunch of theologians about women's headcoverings will almost certainly get you a dissertation on why they should not be applied (culturally specific). However, most discerning people will soon cotton onto the fact that culture does not feature as reason for action or non-action anywhere in the NT.

It is obvious that 1 Cor 11;2-> is nothing to do with culture, or if it is, it is speciific to the culture of the true church (as opposed to the gnostic church that abandoned obedience to the apostles).

So I would congratulate your mother.

The OT regulations were specific to the OT covenant. That has gone, and in place Paul says: 1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.

I don't have an explantion to hand as the what particular aspect of the NT covenant the turban of the priest type'ified, but I am sure someone will know.

[Solly]

Here's one who accepts the head covering, and so do the women in our churches, and for the scriptural reason given above. I HATE it when woolly evangelicals bring out the "it's all cultural, not for our day" argument, and then have nothing to counter that argument when it is used by the Homosexual lobby, or the Women ministers lobby, or any other lobby that seeks to overturn a part of scripture.

BTW undead, great siggy line!!

[Bill the Cat]

03-10-2003 @ 03:49 AM Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=31298#post31298)
Solly:

Here's one who accepts the head covering, and so do the women in our churches, and for the scriptural reason given above. I HATE it when woolly evangelicals bring out the "it's all cultural, not for our day" argument, and then have nothing to counter that argument when it is used by the Homosexual lobby, or the Women ministers lobby, or any other lobby that seeks to overturn a part of scripture.

BTW undead, great siggy line!!

A Wolly Evangelical here!!:thumb: :yipee: :yipee:

I think it is one of those things like religious observance of days. Some do, some don't. Paul was normally addressing problems in his epistles. Women were trying to usurp authority from the men, so Paul reminded them that they needed to be humble. To do this, he told them to cover their head. We have some women who cover and some who don't. I really don't see any difference in their submission to God in either circumstance.

[Tufernhel]

ok i was wonderin what everyone thought about women wearing headcoverings when they pray my mom and some of her freinds wear them and they use this scripture1 Corinthians 11: 1 - 34 to base it on. now i know what it says and i belive everything in the bible is true, but wasent that like before jesus died and after he did the blood took the place of the headcovering? i remember reading somewhere in the old testament that preachers (or preiests whatever) were supposed to wear headcoverings and they were men any thoughts on this??

Paul wrote the passages you are referring to to the church at Corinth. That was AFTER Jesus died. Our preacher just preached on this subject and taught that it is God's order. If you read the passages, Christ is the head of the man, God is the head of Christ and the man is the head of the woman. Everyone has their "role" to play in God's order. This includes proper conduct and attire, of which the headcovering is a part of. Being that there are angels present in the assembly, it is a shame for a man to have his head covered when praying or prophesying, and it is a shame for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered. It is speaking of the authority from the Godhead to man (and women). Everyone should play their proper role.
Think of it this way...if you were invited to have dinner with the President of the United States, or the Queen of England, how would you dress and conduct yourself? Would you dress like a slob and show rude table manners in their home? If you wouldn't do that for the mere leader of a country, why would you do it to the Lord who is King of all kings??

[Steadfastlove]

:smile: most of the ladies in our church prefer to cover their heads also:girl:

[Genesius]

ok i was wonderin what everyone thought about women wearing headcoverings


Personally I think the passage is figurative more than anything.

And I think Paul was really trying to reach for something that he could praise the Corintinthian church about. We know that there were sexual issues in the church, perhaps the women were dressing/acting like men and vice versa.

But more importantly it is a recognition of submission and honor. What does it mean to have your head 'uncovered' if your head is Christ vs man. Well, Christ is pure and perfect, man is not. The women Paul is referring to were perhaps speaking out of turn and perhaps even exposing some of the mens' sins in their prayers, essentially uncovering them. In anycase I don't think that it is a clear statement that women should wear some form of hat or scarf on their head. Perhaps Paul was deliberately trying to be unclear here. He seemed to be talking about a situation unique to the Corinthian church in the sense that it was something that he never had to discuss otherwise.

The Spirit of the Lord certainly does not lead me to think that the 'law' of having womens' heads covered is the point.

[James Peter]

Personally I believe that the verse is better translated in a way that conveys that hair rather than headwear is what is being spoken about. The verse certainly does have to be understood in context (i.e. Corinth's worship was disorderly and too like certain ecstatic cults) and to just completely ignore it is quite flawed but so it to just read it and assume it is speaking about wearing hats or veils. Personally I think the key thrust of the passage is that worship should be orderly and that the distinction between male and female should be maintained (rather than women dressing and acting like men). Paul doesn't say that every woman in the church, anywhere, ever should have their heads covered - he says that the women in Corinth should and that it is obvious that they should. Today I'd say that shifting cultures mean that Paul would probably use different words, but the stress on orderly (though still charismatic) worship and appropriate conduct and attire would stand.

And what does this have to do with Eschatology?

[Lady Gooner]

And what does this have to do with Eschatology?

if you continue in context verse10 clearly says....For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the Angels.

headcoverings are a sign to the angels, therefore a women with a headcovering is acknowledging God's order. that is :

God the Father
Jesus
Man
Woman

or as a good friend of mine says women are just above animals and just a bit more above plantation lol :lol:

Paul then issues instructions about how men and women should conduct themselves in an assembly to demonstrate this order.


as to what it has to do with eschatology interestingly enough I said the same thing but even more interestingly enough whilst relooking at the parable of the wheat and the tares recently I noted that there could be a tenuous link :ahem:

Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

the tares did not appear until fruit was "brought forth" (Matthew 13:26) they were indistinguishable from the wheat until that time,

The "tares" were actually "darnel" a type of bastard wheat bearing a close resemblance to the noble grain and impossible to detect until harvest. But the servants (angels) noticed them and the headcoverings are a sign for the angels :ahem: ok ok I said it was tenuous :wink:

[Steadfastlove]

Personally I believe that the verse is better translated in a way that conveys that hair rather than headwear is what is being spoken about. The verse certainly does have to be understood in context (i.e. Corinth's worship was disorderly and too like certain ecstatic cults) and to just completely ignore it is quite flawed but so it to just read it and assume it is speaking about wearing hats or veils. Personally I think the key thrust of the passage is that worship should be orderly and that the distinction between male and female should be maintained (rather than women dressing and acting like men). Paul doesn't say that every woman in the church, anywhere, ever should have their heads covered - he says that the women in Corinth should and that it is obvious that they should. Today I'd say that shifting cultures mean that Paul would probably use different words, but the stress on orderly (though still charismatic) worship and appropriate conduct and attire would stand.

And what does this have to do with Eschatology?Maybe in all the other churches the ladies did cover their heads, and was why Paul had to specifically address Corinth. If you look at them, they were independent, childish in the faith despite having the gifts, no respect for the Lord's table, and so this is yet another issue Paul has had to pull them into line over. He finishes the letter reminding them that God is a God of order and that's their meetings should be conducted.. and Lady G has pointed out God's order so I don't need to again.:wink:

[Steadfastlove]

... also, just a thought on hair being a covering... for a long time I held to the opinion that to have long hair was sufficient as a head covering ( mainly cos it gave me an excuse NOT to consider an external covering), in fact this position now causes me some doubts. Mainly that some women actually cannot grow their hair long, others find it thins as they grow older, and some even may go bald.... in which case surely these ladies would count as being uncovered? To have an external covering is non-discriminatory..
My two cents:wink:

[flower]

Maybe in all the other churches the ladies did cover their heads, and was why Paul had to specifically address Corinth. If you look at them, they were independent, childish in the faith despite having the gifts, no respect for the Lord's table, and so this is yet another issue Paul has had to pull them into line over. He finishes the letter reminding them that God is a God of order and that's their meetings should be conducted.. and Lady G has pointed out God's order so I don't need to again.:wink:


It is interesting that you mention the Lord’s table in connection with women covering their heads when praying and/or prophecying, steadfastlove… as I’ve been reminded of:

Hebrews 12:22-24:
We have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

As another indication why it is because of the angels that women ought to cover their head is found in Isaiah 6:1-2. The Seraphim covered their faces and their feet with their wings.

Also, in Revelation 8:2-4 we read that the prayers of all the saints went up before God out of the angel’s hand.

Revelation 8:2-4
And I saw the seven angels who stand before God; and seven trumpets were given to them. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer, and much incense was given to him, that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand.

There are many accounts in the scriptures, both Old and New Testament where angels were used in communicating and revealing prophecy from God to men. For example: Daniel 8:16 / Daniel 9:21-22 / Daniel 10:5-6 / Zechariah 1:8-9 / Matthew 1:20 / Luke 2:9-11 / Hebrews 2:2-4 / Revelation 1:1 and so on…

:daisy:

[Sparko]

But doesn't it say:

14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.


Sounds to me like her hair IS her head covering.

[flower]

But doesn't it say:

14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.


Sounds to me like her hair IS her head covering.


:yes: I agree Sparko, a woman's long hair is her covering... it is her glory, as per your quoted verse.

The external headcovering however is the symbol of authority to God's glory – an outward sign to all, including the angels that a woman submitts to the order of God.

:girl:

[dav4]

Good point flower!

Dave

[spitndirt]

Hi all,

I'm amazed at the extremes some will go to nearly make 'doctrine' out of hat wearing no less.

Is it not absolutely CLEAR that Paul is speaking of AUTHORITY here??? Am I to understand that I ought to be offended if my wife isn't wearing a HAT in church? - vs 5 '...dishonoreth HER head (me)...' And what about single women? Who do they dishonor if they have no hat? And if a little girl is wearing a hat am I to assume that I woke up in Kentucky where they've been know to marry young?

Vs 10 '...ought to have power on her head...' Seems to be speaking of authority still! What will the Angels care if you wear a hat and are yet a contentious woman always challenging your husband's authourity? Will the Angels say '...oh well....she DOES have a HAT..., and a pretty one at that...'

Notice how the word 'ought' is being used in these scriptures. And what do you make of vs 16 '...if any man seem to be contentious we have no such custom, neither the churches of God...'? Well......are we not splitting hairs so as to loose focus on the 'heart' of the matter? I heard a song once '...I fight authority,authority always wins...' - very true, very true....

Now, I personally don't give a hoot if women where hats or not as long as ALL (men included) are submissive to their rightful authorities. ORDER is the issue - not so much attire. Wonder what the women would do if the church were to provide the symbolic coverings - all the same color and style. Guess we would find out who was wearing for 'fashion' and who was wearing for conscience.

My opinion

[Sparko]

I agree Spitndirt.

[micah4]

But doesn't it say:

14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

Sounds to me like her hair IS her head covering.

If long hair was the only covering in view as being necessary, then why would it say in v. 5-6, "every woman that prays with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for it is the same as if she were shaven. But if the woman is not covered, let her also be shorn."?

If hair is the covering, then it makes no sense to say "it is the same as if she were shaven", because the only way she couldn't be covered would be if she was already shaven. This is obviously a situation where a woman still has her hair, but is considered uncovered.

And if he says, "if she is not covered, then let her also be shaven", what of this? If hair is the covering, then if she has hair that could be shaved, then she would be covered ; but if the only way she could be uncovered is not to have her hair, then what are you going to shave?