Head Covering

[non dignus]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Jumping in. Please see this thread. It answers the "cultural only" issue (please look throughout history and various cultures...the headcovering has literally stood the test of time). It also addresses other issues. Much of the offerings are of prominent church leaders, both past and present.

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9794#pid195390

On a personal note...I have never had anyone be offended by my covering that wasn't already offended by my being a Christian before I started covering. Most actually find it interesting, disagree, or open themselves up to a discussion on it. Some have come to cover themselves.

I know many ppl that practice the holy kiss and footwashing. I avoid the kiss unless it's on the cheek...I know of too much illness passed around due to this practice. On the footwashing note, I would not be against the practice, however it is not part of the churches we attend. I do not criticize those that don't cover, but I do encourage and inform. I have a variety of lovely coverings (that completely cover, not the "doily" as one of you pointed out either to be snide or because that is the only kind you have seen...I'll hope it was the latter). A covering doesn't have to be an ugly, stiff, or prescribed thing. You will find on the link plenty of links to places that offer a variety of similar to what I have. If you go to my blog and backtrack a couple of pages you will find a recent picture of me in a covering.

Thank you for the link on the historical stuff. I am thinking, perhaps ignorantly so, that history will bear out that everybody wore head gear all the time. ?!

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
I don't say this lightly - but the above is not a scriptuiral argument for head coverings, though it may be a very good argument for chastity. However, head covereings do not belong to that category. They belong in conjunction with pagan temple worship and temple prostitutes (of which I have heard nothing in this or any other thread just yet) verses how Christian worship is to be conducted.

Murray makes this mistake as well and incorrectly says, " This is within the scope of the particular agrument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. " This is simply not the case, since, as would have behooved him, to take into consideration why coverings at all were needeful in light of temple prostitution, and how that carried over into Christian worship.

Some thoughts to ponder - 1) What did temple prostitutes look like, and what was their role, and 2) how would this have affected their conversion and interaction int he social climate of the Jewish Christian synagogue?

Don't argue about practice under you undergird the theology behind it.

I do not follow exactly what you are getting at . . . perhaps referring to an argument that the command was given at that time because women would have resembled pagan temple prostitutes if they removed their coverings?

But given that this is not the express basis of Paul's argument as he writes it in 1 Corinthians, how do we conclude that this was the real reason? How is it that extrabiblical historical trivia is allowed to guide so decisively our interpretation of a passage of Scripture which does not even mention the said trivia?

And if the headcovering passage was really about commanding women not to take liberties which would make them look like temple prostitutes, then why, pray tell, does Paul also devote attention in the passage to commanding men not to pray or prophesy with their heads covered? What do men and their being uncovered have to do with temple prostitutes?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Great questions. Finding the answer to them before coming to a conclusion on head coverings would be very prudent! (Just a note: I don't think the historical context is trivial for any passage. It would be very important to any passage to ascertain the historical data. Be assured, the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was talking about.)

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
(Just a note: I don't think the historical context is trivial for any passage. It would be very important to any passage to ascertain the historical data. Be assured, the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was talking about.)

I do not disagree that understanding the historical background behind passages of Scipture is important. (The word "trivia" was perhaps not the best word I could have used in my post above . . . substitute the words "data" or "information" and they would do just as well). But I believe that the limits of historical information should be clearly delineated. Such information can supplement or enrich our understanding and appreciation of certain passages, but I do not think that it should be used in such a speculative way to define the meaning of a passage if the passage does not even bring up that historical issue.

In the present headcovering example, I believe we should trust that the Lord in His providence provided all the information needful for us to understand the injunction within the Scriptures themselves. It seems a strange notion to me that a believer would need to have access to extrabiblical historical anecdotes concerning pagan temple prostitutes in order to make heads or tails of 1 Corinthians 11. Is the Bible sufficient or is it not? If someone was in a remote village with the Bible alone, would he/she be able to come to the correct understanding of this passage in your view?

And how could we be certain our speculation as to the reason for the command is accurate? If the passage itself hinted at the historical reasons suggested, that would be one thing . . . but if the passage itself does not hint at these things, is our conclusion on how to apply the passage to be based on nothing more certain than our own hypotheses built on whatever level of historical learning we have attained?

The reliability of the historical sources on which we are relying, as well as contradictory evidence from different sources, call this method of interpretation into question even more.

Perhaps you see why I fear that the very principle of sola scriptura is imperiled by this view.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by Jie-Huli]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by non dignus
Thank you for the link on the historical stuff. I am thinking, perhaps ignorantly so, that history will bear out that everybody wore head gear all the time. ?!

From my posts in the other thread (I would really appreciate if ppl new to the topicwould read the entire thread...may seem tedious, but much of this as far as info I can provide and my own views are already posted there at great length):

The text states specifically prayer...not just assembly. So, yes, personal prayers and devotions are included. In fact, I carry one with me if it isn't already on my head...I used to wear all the time and I am getting back to it, but don't hold legalistically to EVERY WAKING MOMENT--though the thought there is 1) we should always maintain a prayerful attitude (but that then defeats men wearing hats for protective reasons) and if you are a mennonite there is a superstition that you are physically protected from ill by wearing your covering (obviously we don't go with superstitions). My reason for wearing it out and about is in case I need it, I don't have to fumble with it...and dh requested such.

and:

Look to the women in historical context as well...they covered always for prayer. Many times they covered when going out in public (to the market, etc...sometimes for protection and I believe also it was simpler to just keep the covering on as a part of their attire). Many women did cover with something at home but not neccessarily 24/7 etc...it wasn't something that they panicked over should they be seen without one. That's kind of where I am with the issue. (btw, men always removed their hats and such for prayer, unless you were a cardinal or pope with the titled headwear--which I find ridiculous).

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

I find Calvin's comments on men wearing hats in church quite humorous.

I find his most famous comment on women (not) covering to be humourous (and sadly true looking at society around us) as well.

"When women stop covering their heads, they shall start revealing their breasts" John Calvin

Do you agree with Calvin that men can certainly wear hats while worshipping in church?

 

[LadyFlynt]

No...haven't read his comments on that. I presumed from his stand on women covering that he would support men not. Well, shoot! Someone just go throw at him LOL!

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
"When women stop covering their heads, they shall start revealing their breasts" John Calvin


WOW!!!



That's one slippery slope!!



The funniest quote I've seen all week.

Well, it is downhill from the head . . .

 

[LadyFlynt]

Look around you at society...I'd say a prediction that came true.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
"When women stop covering their heads, they shall start revealing their breasts" John Calvin


WOW!!!



That's one slippery slope!!



The funniest quote I've seen all week.

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Look around you at society...I'd say a prediction that came true.

I have not seen any bare-breasted women in church recently. Have you?

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by tcalbrecht]

 

[LadyFlynt]

I've seen close to it...in fact I've seeing half a girl's rear end (literally!) is becoming a common site in church. Was afraid I was going to be exposed to such again this past Sunday when two girls sat down a few chairs ahead of me...the waistlines are that low and the midrifts exposed (and after 6-9in of snow...I'd be freezing!).

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by LadyFlynt]

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Look around you at society...I'd say a prediction that came true.

Yes, definitely.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

1 Cor 11:3-10
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

I've known a few women that believe that this means women ought to wear a shawl or hat or some other type of head covering during worship. I was reading through this the other day and re-read it a few times. It seems that the natural reading of the verses would indicate that the "head covering" Paul is referring to is having a full head of hair and that he's not talking about hats or any other accutrement.

Thoughts?

in my opinion, which is worth zero....the use of coverings draws undue attention to the piety of a believer much like someone who talks about their fastings.



r.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Great questions. Finding the answer to them before coming to a conclusion on head coverings would be very prudent! (Just a note: I don't think the historical context is trivial for any passage. It would be very important to any passage to ascertain the historical data. Be assured, the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was talking about.)

Matt.

As I recall....apparently there was quite a bit of celebrity promotion going on in Corinth - especially with the feminist agenda. (We aren't the first...) This is the background Paul refers to in his points about modesty and feminine attire. (Remember, the goddess Diana being a huntress/Xena warrior-type?)

Robin

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Robin]

 

[bond-servant]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

I have not seen any bare-breasted women in church recently. Have you?

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by tcalbrecht]

Ummm.. close! One of the many reasons we left our old place of worship....

Anyway, no one has addressed these questions in this thread or the other head covering thread...

Originally posted by bond-servant

1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.
1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
ESV

To take this and apply it to our culture,
Questions arise for me that I don't remember being addressed in either of the threads:

V4-5, Does this mean that men and women still prophesy? Personally? Corporately? Wouldn't we have to believe this to translate this to our day?

v13: The context here is that the woman should not pray or prophecy corporately uncovered. Culturally then, women were to be covered all the time. If we are to say that we are not to take these Scriptures as culturally only, and apply them to our day, then women cannot pray to God without being covered.So, she would have to be covered 24/7 to NOT adversely effect her prayer life. Wouldn't this be a hinderance to prayer life and minute-minute communion with God? Bedtime prayers?
If we do take this corporately, that women should not pray or prophecy without a head covering, this implies women are then ALLOWED to pray and prophecy in the church. Didn't Paul tell women to be quiet in church and ask thier husbands at home?

v14: Men and long hair: what about the Nazerite vow where they let thier hair grow long until the vow was performed. Scripture suggests that Paul may have done this. Samson of course too...

Anyone?

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by bond-servant
Anyway, no one has addressed these questions in this thread or the other head covering thread...

V4-5, Does this mean that men and women still prophesy? Personally? Corporately? Wouldn't we have to believe this to translate this to our day?

Here is an answer from John Gill:

"This is to be understood of praying and prophesying in public, and not in private; and not to be restrained to the person that is the mouth of the congregation to God in prayer, or who preaches to the people in the name of God; but to be applied to every individual person that attends public worship, that joins in prayer with the minister, and hears the word preached by him, which is meant by prophesying; for not foretelling future events is here meant, but explaining the word of God, the prophecies of the Old Testament, or any part of Scripture, unless singing of psalms should rather be designed, since that is sometimes expressed by prophesying: so in 1Sa_10:5 "thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them, and they shall prophesy". The Targum renders it thus, ו×נון משבחין, "and they shall sing praise"; upon which Kimchi observes, that it is as if it was said, their prophecy shall be שירות, "songs" and praises to God, spoken by the Holy Ghost. So in 1Sa_19:23 it is said of Saul, that he "went on and prophesied". The Targum is, he went on, ומשבח, "and praised". And again, "he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied". Targum, ושבח, "and praised", or sung praise. Once more, in 1Ch_25:1 it is said of Asaph, and others, that they "should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals"; which Kimchi explains of Asaph's singing vocally, and of his sons playing upon musical instruments. "

 

[non dignus]

Anyway, no one has addressed these questions in this thread or the other head covering thread...

Originally posted by bond-servant

1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,

ESV

v14: Men and long hair: what about the Nazerite vow where they let thier hair grow long until the vow was performed. Scripture suggests that Paul may have done this. Samson of course too...

Anyone? [/quote]

You raise a thorny issue for those affirming a universal context for this. I don't think Samson was disgraced.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I've never seen scripture suggesting that Paul was a Nazarite.

I answer the 24/7 arguement in the other thread.

What does it mean to "prophesy"...Hubby did a word study on it and came up with "to give testamony or witness". So yes, women do still prophesy.

 

[non dignus]

Pastors are NT prophets.

Elders are NT kings.

Deacons are NT priests.

??

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by non dignus
Pastors are NT prophets.

Elders are NT kings.

Deacons are NT priests.

??

What? Where did this come from and what's your point?

 

[gwine]

I've never seen scripture suggesting that Paul was a Nazarite.

Not from birth, but he may have taken the vow when he came to Jerusalem.

Act 21:17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
Act 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
Act 21:21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
Act 21:22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
Act 21:24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

And from Gill . . .

Act 21:24 - Them take, and purify, thyself with them,.... That is, join thyself to them, make one of their number, and attend to the rules prescribed to a Nazarite, who is to be holy to the Lord; and in case of any ceremonial uncleanness, is to be cleansed, or purified in the manner directed, Num_6:5.

And be at charges with them; join with them in the expense, for the offerings to be made at the end of the vows, or when the days of separation are fulfilled, Num_6:13.

That they may shave their heads; according to the law in Num_6:18. This was done in לשכת הנזירי×, the chamber of the Nazarites (r); for there the Nazarites boiled their peace offerings, and shaved their hair, and put it under the pot, in the fire that was under it: Maimonides says (s),

"if he shaved in the city it was excusable; but whether he shaved in the city or in the sanctuary, under the pot his hair must be cast; and he did not shave until the door of the court was opened, as it is said, "at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation", Num_6:18 not that he shaved over against the door, for that would be a contempt of the sanctuary.''

Moreover, it may be observed, that a person who had not made a vow, or fulfilled a Nazariteship himself, which was the apostle's case, yet he might join in bearing the expenses of others, at the time of their shaving and cleansing: for so run the Jewish canons (t);

"he that says, upon me be the shaving of a Nazarite, he is bound to bring the offerings of shaving for purification, and he may offer them by the hand of what Nazarite he pleases; he that says, upon me be half the offerings of a Nazarite, or if he says, upon me be half the shaving of a Nazarite, he brings half the offerings by what Nazarite he will, and that Nazarite perfects his offerings out of that which is his.''

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

Originally posted by non dignus
Pastors are NT prophets.

Elders are NT kings.

Deacons are NT priests.

??

What? Where did this come from and what's your point?

Sorry. That was a little abstract.

My point was that yes, women still prophesy in a teaching and witnessing role. I suppose it is "post-canon prophecy".

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
What does it mean to "prophesy"...Hubby did a word study on it and came up with "to give testamony or witness". So yes, women do still prophesy.

Do they still do so while in assembly?

In other words, are there still cases today where a woman is able to speak up in church through prophecy or prayer?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Purifying himself with them does not indicate that he took the same oath. Seems to be reading too much into the text. Also, I've never seen historical reference to Paul being a Nazarite either. Either way, I don't see where it would contradict what he says on the hair or covering.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Again...I ask that you read the other thread and take it up with the writings there first.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
What does it mean to "prophesy"...Hubby did a word study on it and came up with "to give testamony or witness". So yes, women do still prophesy.

Do they still do so while in assembly?

In other words, are there still cases today where a woman is able to speak up in church through prophecy or prayer?

In churches I have attended there have been times that the pastor has opened the floor to testamony. Women included. One pastor required that the woman's husband or father stand with her...in the case of a woman not having someone to stand with her an elder of the church would. In my view, her head being covered would be enough. This is different than a woman having a role in the service...ie teaching, reading, etc.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
What does it mean to "prophesy"...Hubby did a word study on it and came up with "to give testamony or witness". So yes, women do still prophesy.

Do they still do so while in assembly?

In other words, are there still cases today where a woman is able to speak up in church through prophecy or prayer?

In churches I have attended there have been times that the pastor has opened the floor to testamony. Women included. One pastor required that the woman's husband or father stand with her...in the case of a woman not having someone to stand with her an elder of the church would. In my view, her head being covered would be enough. This is different than a woman having a role in the service...ie teaching, reading, etc.

Whether or not churches should allow such "œtestimonies" aside, in such an event I would agree with you. Paul made it clear that women were not to speak in regards to ruling or teaching during the assembly, yet he also addressed that women were empowered by the Spirit during the Apostolic times with spiritual utterances of prayer or prophecy. In order to not despise such utterances (1 Thessalonians 5:20), women were certainly permitted to speak in such events; however, to avoid confusion and maintain the order, Paul required them to wear a covering signifying there submission even though they are speaking up during the assembly.

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Purifying himself with them does not indicate that he took the same oath. Seems to be reading too much into the text. Also, I've never seen historical reference to Paul being a Nazarite either. Either way, I don't see where it would contradict what he says on the hair or covering.

Again...I ask that you read the other thread and take it up with the writings there first.

My apologies, but I really had and have no intention of entering the debate. All I was trying to point out, and I'm sure you've read this many time, is that if you read Acts 21:23 ff it seems obvious that the four men were under a Nazarite vow and it also seems obvious that Paul lived in observance to the law. I don't think I am reading too much into the text because I did say that Paul may have joined with them in taking the vow. Gill seems to thinks so, as he also does in Acts 18.

But I digress, and I will learn to stay out of these discussions.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Okay, just going to be honest here.

I think this thread has gotton way off track. I think there are those that are intentionally doing so (gerry thanks for responding, I don't think you were one of those...you were just answering a question). Personally, the subject is burnt toast and unfortunately I don't have the power to shut this one down. For those that are new to the subject...really...read what's already been written in the other thread...I'm fine if you disagree...I appreciate Matt's honesty on the subject...but the strawmen are going the same direction the submission thread went...to the stars and moon next.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Agreed - stick a fork in it - its done for now....