SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Revivals And Church History : Head Coverings For Women In The Church?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

I am just afraid if all women wore a headcovering even if it went against their conscious regarding freedom in Christ and their understanding of said freedom, that then, that would not be enough by certain movements. Then, other outward dress, conduct, habits would be legislated, until you have a full blown cult that is more known by their habits than by the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Let me ask a question: Is it ok, if women who see this passage of scripture as cultural, not wear a headcovering? If they believe long hair is a headcovering as Paul seems to indicate in 1 Cor 11? Will they be accepted into fellowship? Or will they be looked down upon and shunned? Can they expect to receive invitations to homes apart from church and friendship from the heart by sisters that "cover"?

The whole spirit of this outward piece of clothing just seems so anti-Spirit of Christ. I can understand it culturally applying to a local or regional church but not spiritually to the whole Body. Christians are known by the sweet smelling savour of Christ that they manifest not by a small article of cloth on their head.

Has anyone answered this question? I have not looked. Why do you think they did not tell the Gentiles to do this in Acts 15? This was not required of them. Yet, the Corinthian church was a Gentile church which kind of gives more evidence that this was cultural. The Gentiles that came to the Jerusalem conference were from the Antioch church.

 2015/7/12 17:14
rainydaygirl
Member



Joined: 2008/10/27
Posts: 742


 Re:

by Julius21 on 2015/7/12 17:14:54

I am just afraid if all women wore a headcovering even if it went against their conscious regarding freedom in Christ and their understanding of said freedom, that then, that would not be enough by certain movements. Then, other outward dress, conduct, habits would be legislated, until you have a full blown cult that is more known by their habits than by the fruit of the Holy Spirit.


------

I am just thankful that the Lord looks at the heart and not outward appearances.

 2015/7/12 17:39Profile
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3699
East TN for now!

 Re:

Quote:
rdg wrote:
I am just thankful that the Lord looks at the heart and not outward appearances.


Amen!!


_________________
Lisa

 2015/7/12 17:52Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
Has anyone answered this question? I have not looked. Why do you think they did not tell the Gentiles to do this in Acts 15? This was not required of them. Yet, the Corinthian church was a Gentile church which kind of gives more evidence that this was cultural. The Gentiles that came to the Jerusalem conference were from the Antioch church.



From my understanding the list in Acts 15 the letter written was about judaziers who were requiring mosaic cleansing rituals and circumsion.

---
The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

---


There is no mention of Water Baptism, Communion or any other practice of the Church so they were not writing about those things but jewish regulations of the law or culture. Otherwise then all that churches would need to do in our modern day is:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.


of course the Church does much more and there are practices we all agree to.

here is a great question and answer that helps answer some questions that have been asked on this thread:

from: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/is-head-covering-cultural-what-about-the-corinthian-prostitutes

Is Head Covering Cultural? What about the Corinthian Prostitutes?


The Objection: In Paul’s day, prostitutes wore their hair short and did not cover their heads. Because it was customary in that culture for women to wear a head covering, failure to do so would readily identify a woman as a prostitute. Since the situation was local, a head covering is not necessary today.
While looking at the culture of the time can often be helpful, it becomes dangerous when we start assigning reasons for a command that are different than what the author gives.

R.C. Sproul says, “If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots.” 1) He goes on to say, “We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said.” 2)
In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul appeals to the creation order, nature’s witness and angels, all which transcend culture. He tells us that head covering is a part of official apostolic teaching and is the practice of all churches, everywhere. So that means a local situation in Corinth cannot explain head covering since it was the standard practice outside of Corinth as well. Earlier in Paul’s letter when he had a command that was due to the situation at the time, he mentioned it. He recommended not to marry “in view of the present distress” (1 Cor 7:26). Paul could have done the same with head coverings, but he didn’t because what was happening at the time wasn’t the reason for the command. Additionally, the fact that he commands men to remove their coverings (1 Cor 11:4) in the same sentence cannot be explained by a situation that deals only with women.

1000 Cult Prostitutes
In addition to exegetical grounds, there are also good historical reasons for rejecting a cultural explanation of head covering. The most appealed to reference in support of this position is the 1000 cult prostitutes at the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth.

Before we examine that claim, we’re in need of a brief history lesson on the city of Corinth. Dirk Jongkind (PhD, Cambridge University) says “The City of Corinth had a glorious Hellenic past before its destruction by the Romans in 146 bc. Yet when it was refounded in 44 bc, it was not rebuilt as a Greek city, but as a Roman colony.” 3) So Greek Corinth had been destroyed and it was rebuilt 100 years later as a Roman colony.

The primary source quoted to learn about these cult prostitutes is the Greek geographer Strabo (64/63 BC – 24AD). Strabo travelled widely and recorded what he saw in his work “Geographica”. Here’s what he said, “And the temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple slaves, courtesans, whom both men and women had dedicated to the goddess.” 4) Take note of the past tense of the quote. Strabo wrote this about 30 years before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and he was referring not to his present time, but to ancient times in Corinth’s past. He later stated, “The city of the Corinthians, then, was always great and wealthy”.5) The key words are “then” and “was”. In sharp contrast, in his day he saw on the summit “a small temple of Aphrodite” 6) not the “temple of Aphrodite [that] was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple slaves…”. 7)
David W. J. Gill (PhD, University of Oxford) writing on “The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head-Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16″ says:

Some have taken the urge for women to wear veils as Paul ensuring that they were not mistaken for prostitutes or hetairai. Part of the reason for this view lies in the interpretation of Corinth as a ‘sex-obsessed’ city with prostitutes freely roaming the street. The 1000 hetairai linked to the cult of Aphrodite, and the corresponding notoriety of Corinth, belong to the hellenistic city swept away by Mummius in 146BC. In contrast, the Roman shrine was far more modest… 8)
Dr. Gill agrees that Corinth did have a wild sex-obsessed reputation and 1000 cult prostitutes in the temple of Aphrodite. However, that belonged to Greek Corinth which was destroyed about 200 years before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

Mistaken Identity
Going hand-in-hand with this view is the claim that if women were seen uncovered, they’d be mistakenly identified as a prostitute. However, this claim is unfounded and there’s good reason to suggest that wasn’t the case. Dr. Gill explains:

Public marble portraits of women at Corinth, presumably members of wealthy and prestigious families are most frequently shown bare-headed. This would suggest that it was socially acceptable in a Roman colony for women to be seen bare-headed in public. 9)
As he points out, the archaeological evidence supports the fact that is was normal for women be seen bare-headed. This isn’t an isolated piece of evidence but what is “most frequently shown”.

What About Men?
Since the Apostle Paul also commands men to remove their head covering when praying or prophesying (1 Cor 11:4) let’s also see if men having something on their heads would be culturally out-of-step. Richard E. Oster, Jr. (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) writing on the “Use, Misuse and Neglect of Archaeological Evidence in Some Modern Works on 1 Corinthians” says:

This Roman custom [of male liturgical head covering] can be documented for several generations before and after the advent of Christianity in Corinth. This custom is clearly portrayed on coins, statues, and architectural monuments from around the Mediterranean Basin. 10)
Dr. Oster is saying that men covering their heads during this time in (non-Christian) worship has strong archaeological support. Since Paul instructs the men to go against a common cultural practice, a cultural explanation cannot be accepted. Dr. Oster then summarizes:

…the practice of men covering their heads in the context of prayer and prophecy was a common pattern of Roman piety and widespread during the late Republic and early Empire. Since Corinth was itself a Roman colony, there should be little doubt that this aspect of Roman religious practice deserves greater attention by commentators than it has received. 11)
Conclusion
Paul doesn’t leave us in-the-dark as to why women are to cover their heads and men are to refrain. The fact that he says, “For this reason” (1 Cor 11:10 NKJV) means the answer will be found in exegesis, not cultural analysis. Having said that, when we do examine Roman cultural practices in that day we see that: 1) men did cover their heads in non-Christian worship and 2) women being seen without a covering was not an outrage or an association with prostitution. Since cultural arguments for head covering must ignore Paul’s own explanation, they should be discarded.


from: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/is-head-covering-cultural-what-about-the-corinthian-prostitutes


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2015/7/12 18:30Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi narrowpath,

Quote:

in 2 Cor 13 it does not talk about doctrine but about establishing the state of those who have sinned and and not repented after Paul's detailed discourse about sin and disorder in the Corinthian church.



I disagree with what it is that you think the "two or three witnesses" means in this particular passage. Paul writes:

"This is the third time I am coming to you. Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of TWO or THREE witnesses.

I have previously said when present the SECOND time, and though NOW absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again I will not spare anyone, since you are seeking for PROOF OF THE CHRIST WHO SPEAKS IN ME, and who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you."

It seems to me that this Paul is confirming that Christ spoke in him THREE times to the Corinthians about the topics that he was bringing up in this epistle.

Still, this is something of digressing from the principle that I was trying to make. I wouldn't embrace the notion that Scriptures must address an issue two or three times for it to become a "doctrinal truth" (not at all). I am saying that many cults, sects, denominations and other groups have made dogma out of single passages of Scripture that they interpreted a particular way. It is easy to take a particular passage to mean something and turn that interpretation into something deemed "fundamental" or "foundational."

If there is anything that the corruption of Rome has taught us, it is that some groups will "strain a gnat but swallow a camel" when it comes to doctrine. They will take a single passage that is not absolutely clear and turn it into a "doctrine" that the sect finds indisputable for the faith. They will limit the extent of fellowship over matter like this -- not necessarily in terms of whether or not they can visit or meet with believers from that group, denomination or sect but whether they can be considered for ministry or leadership.

This is why I asked whether there are other verses in the New Testament that specifically support any sort of doctrinal "truth" regarding the wearing of a piece of material atop the hair as a "covering." I've read other passages about propriety -- but nothing else that I have found in the New Testament indicates an acceptance of a man-made "covering" that must be worn atop a woman's head. If there are passages pertaining to this, please let me know.

Quote:

Secondly, I am not suggesting that Eve wore a head covering. This would not make sense since the bible says the were naked and not ashamed.

Interestingly, it was after the fall God decreed that the husband shall rule over her.

Bevor the fall, the decree to rule over the wife was not neccessary because Adam and Eve lived in a perfectly harmonious relationship.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.



This is why I brought it up. Eve did not exist in the Garden with a covering -- irregardless of a "sign" for the angels about any particular natural God-ordained role (Adam was made first, Eve came from Adam). Even after the fall in the Garden and the subsequent curse upon man, woman and the serpent, God clothed Adam and Eve. The Bible does not say that God provided any sort of cover for Eve's hair/head. It simply states that God clothed them by making coats for Adam and Eve.

Quote:

The head covering for women and uncovering for men came only into place in the New Testament church. Again, I strongly suggest to check out the links Greg mentioned in the beginning.



I did look at the PDF of this. However, I still do not find any answer for my initial question. There doesn't seem to be a second or third mention of a head covering doctrine in the New Testament. I've read the Bible through many times. I searched for particular words about "coverings" and find nothing referring to such a head covering requirement other than how the passage in I Corinthians 11 is interpreted.

I am certainly not trying to be argumentative -- and I think that this should be clear (even if I might not agree at this point in my Christian journey). I am simply trying to understand the exact Scriptural basis (from the New Testament) for this sort of doctrine.


_________________
Christopher

 2015/7/12 18:31Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
I did look at the PDF of this. However, I still do not find any answer for my initial question. There doesn't seem to be a second or third mention of a head covering doctrine in the New Testament. I've read the Bible through many times. I searched for particular words about "coverings" and find nothing referring to such a head covering requirement other than how the passage in I Corinthians 11 is interpreted.

I am certainly not trying to be argumentative -- and I think that this should be clear (even if I might not agree at this point in my Christian journey). I am simply trying to understand the exact Scriptural basis (from the New Testament) for this sort of doctrine.



Dear brother, I do believe it is wrong to require 2-3 scripture witnesses for something in Scripture if we did that then we would lose many godly commands, bible verse promises etc. If God says it once it should be good enough for us. Could the entire church be wrong for 1900+ years until feminism has had a great influence on the Church?

I do not judge nor look down on a sister that does not practice headcoverings, but it is good to honestly ask if this is biblical and if it is then sisters who want to practice it should feel at liberty and not being judged as religious, etc.

Does one need to be water baptised to be saved? no, but it is probably good one does it, and looking at church history and the scriptures it would be unwise not to be baptised in water and be almost considered disobedience to God's requirement.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2015/7/12 18:53Profile









 Re:

I agree that in Acts 15 Peter, Paul and James were addressing a "sect of the Pharisees", Judaizers if you will.

And since the head covering was a Jewish custom, then the Judaizers knew that it was not for Gentiles so that is why they never mentioned it. They wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised, but they said nothing about their head covering custom.

I think we should listen to senior brothers like Derek Prince who would not mention it although his wife felt the freedom to wear one, and I have seen many in their congregation without one. It seems to be a personal choice. Stephen Kaung never preached about it and very few women wear one his Richmond fellowship, and Paul only mentioned it once.

Shouldn't we be like these three brothers and not major on (creating a movement) the putting on of apparel, but rather focusing on Jesus Christ and things which edify rather than divide?

Notice what Peter is majoring on in these verses, and also notice that "the putting on of apparel" is not the adorning that is important.

1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2 While they behold your CHASTE CONVERSATION (lifestyle) coupled with fear.

1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, OR OF PUTTING ON OF APPAREL (could be head coverings)

1Pe 3:4 But LET IT BE THE HIDDEN MAN OF THE HEART, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

 2015/7/12 19:18
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi Greg,

I am not really saying that there must be two or three passages for a doctrine. I am just saying that it would be very helpful in areas that aren't clear to believers from Scripture. There are many different divisions within the Church over singular passages that are debated. I think that there are also many pagan and demonic teachings too that are devised by cults that take passages out of context or through the notion that a passage means something that isn't clear from the passage itself. The blessing of having an additional "witness" elsewhere in Scriptures that reinforce the matter provides great clarity.

I used the example of Mormons and their assertion about "baptism for the dead." Now, we understand that Mormonism is a cult that introduces a false Gospel that differs greatly from the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is clearly written in the New Testament. Still, some of their doctrines are created by taking single passages from the New Testament and building obscure doctrines from it. The Roman Catholic Church was built out of many instances of this (along with combining the sacred with the pagan traditions of the day).

I think that it is good to compare the topic of head coverings with that of baptism. Whereas head coverings (as I understand it) is covered once in the New Testament, baptism is found several times in the Gospels as well as in the book of Acts and elsewhere in the epistles. There are localized and even organized churches that practice other traditions -- from "picking up serpents" to weekly foot washing ceremonies to many variances in what "communion" is supposed to consist of.

I would never think of judging a sister who does or does not practice head coverings (in any of the various ways that it is practiced). If she is convinced of this and follows the Lord as she is convinced, then she should not be commended for following what she believes to be from the Lord. At the same time, I would wonder how a local church, fellowship or group that embraces such a tradition would respond to a believing couple that did not embrace this practice. Would they be welcomed into full fellowship (like those who do practice it)? Would they be judged unworthy to engage in ministry or leadership roles within that local fellowship of believers? Would such a woman (or her husband) be rejected from teaching younger believers?

I have considered Church history in this matter. One problem is that much of Church history is mingled with certain extra-biblical traditions of men.

I have read websites that argued about the "history of the head covering" -- including some that had images from paintings, sculptures and mosaics that showed women wearing head coverings. However, I have seen other images contemporary to each of those where devout women (and unbelieving women too) were depicted without their heads covered. Thus, I do have questions about how much of a "norm" that it was in non-Roman, early Christian practice (for Jews and Gentiles alike). More importantly, I think that we can all agree that even thousands of years of practice or tradition might not necessarily make something "pure" in terms of Biblical doctrine.

I would definitely be open to reading specific references to head coverings in early church writings in the sense of it being a doctrinal practice. I would appreciate any citations or links to that end.

I would like to say that I am not "for" or "against" the head covering. I am for knowing what the Lord says of the matter and my mind (and heart) is soft and pliable to His Word. This is true on many matters upon which believers might not always agree. I don't think any differently of believers that disagree with me or even challenge me about something that I might believe. I don't think that we should ever take it personally when hearts are pure on any side of an issue or even a debate.

The Lord bless each of you. If anyone can provide me some Scriptural basis (if there is one in addition to I Corinthians 11) or citations/links to good well-researched history sources for this or writings of early church writers, I would appreciate it.


_________________
Christopher

 2015/7/12 20:32Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Brother,

Thank you for your deep thinking on this. Paul the Apostle said, ""If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37)

So it is clear the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 is from the Holy Spirit of God. But the question needs to be what is the proper interpretation of the passage as you have stated.

Here is a good article: http://earlychurch.com/HeadCovering.php

an interesting perspective: http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/headcoverings.aspx

Here is a good link that shows "some" of church history and people that held to headcoverings with references. Again MOST every spiritual leader and Churches practiced this, it has only changed dramatically in the last 100 years slowly to lose this practice: http://www.albatrus.org/english/living/modesty/headcoverings_in_scripture.htm

People that held to the practice (just to name a few, we could literally put 90% of church leaders here in the first 1900 years of the Church):
Augustine
John Knox
John Calvin
Matthew Henry
A. T. Robertson
John Wesley
John Murray
George Fox
Count Zizendorf
J. Vernon McGee
Charles Ryrie
William MacDonald
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
R.C. Sproul
K.P. Yohannan
Zac Poonen



"It may be argued that since neither Finney, Wesley, Luther, or Calvin taught about the headcovering, why should we practice it? Some may 'hope' that these men didn't teach about it, but such is simply not the case. Of these men, some taught specifically about it, while others only wove it into their teachings on Modesty and Godly attire. Included in their teachings are exhortations to dress "exemplarily plain in your apparel; as plain as Quakers or Moravians", who, by the way, all wore headcoverings (Wesley Jour. Vol. VII pg. 116). John Wesley even stated that all Methodists should hear his "Thoughts upon Dress" read "at least once a year" (Wesley Jour. Vol. VIII pg. 307)." from: http://rusbaptist.stunda.org/engl/headcovering.htm


Quotes from early church fathers and leaders from: http://www.earlychristiandictionary.com/Veil.html

Now after I had passed the beast, and had gone forward about thirty feet, behold, there meets me a virgin arrayed as if she were going forth from a bridal-chamber all in white and with white sandals, veiled up to her forehead, and her head-covering consisted of a turban, and her hair was white. Hermas (A.D. 150) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1 pg. 18

Although such a covering ought to be assumed as is requisite for covering the eyes of women. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.2 pg.265

It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it seemly for a woman to wish to make herself conspicuous, by using a purple veil. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.2 pg.266

And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.2 pg.290

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, engraved on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you?" - as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 96

Christ is the Head of the Christian man - (for his head) is as free as even Christ is, under no obligation to wear a covering, not to say a crown. But even the head which is bound to have the veil, I mean woman's, as already taken possession of by this very thing, is not open also to a crown. She has the burden of her own humility to bear. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 102

But that point which is promiscuously observed throughout the churches, whether virgins ought to be veiled or no, must be treated of. For they who allow to virgins immunity from head-covering, appear to rest on this; that the apostle has not defined "virgins" by name, but "women," as "to be veiled;" Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 687

"Every woman," said he, "praying and prophesying with head uncovered, dishonors her own head." What is "every woman”, but woman of every age, of every rank, of every condition? "Every man." As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of "man" even the "youth" is forbidden to be veiled; so, too, in the feminine, under the name of "woman," even the "virgin" is bidden to be veiled… For indeed it is "on account of the angels" that he said women must be veiled, because on account of "the daughters of men" angels revolted from God. Who then, would contend that "women" alone - that is, such as were already wedded and had lost their virginity - were the objects of angelic concupiscence, unless "virgins" are incapable of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 688

Why do you denude before God what you cover before men? Will you be more modest in public than in the church? Be veiled, virgin, if virgin you are; for you ought to blush. If you are a virgin, shrink from (the gaze of) many eyes. Let no one wonder at your face; let no one perceive your falsehood. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 689

Nay, rather banish quite away from your "free" head all this slavery of ornamentation. In vain do you labor to seem adorned: in vain do you call in the aid of all the most skilful manufacturers of false hair. God bids you "be veiled." I believe (He does so) for fear the heads of some should be seen! Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.22

It behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription - no space of times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.27

Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood. But I have proposed (as models) those Churches which were founded by apostles or apostolic men. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.28

"If any," he says, "is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God." So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.32-33

But even if it is "on account of the angels" that she is to be veiled, doubtless the age from which the law of the veil will come into operation will be that from which "the daughters of men" were able to invite concupiscence of their persons, and to experience marriage. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.24

And as they veil their head in presence of heathens, let them at all events in the church conceal their virginity, which they do veil outside the church. They fear strangers: let them stand in awe of the brethren too. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.35

For some, with their turbans and woolen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions - I suppose for fear of pressing the head - and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.37

Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face. A female would rather see than be seen. And for this reason a certain Roman queen said that they were most unhappy, in that they could more easily fall in love than be fallen in love with; whereas they are rather happy, in their immunity from that second (and indeed more frequent) infelicity, that females are more apt to be fallen in love with than to fall in love. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.37

To us the Lord has, even by revelations, measured the space for the veil to extend over. For a certain sister of ours was thus addressed by an angel, beating her neck, as if in applause: "Elegant neck, and deservedly bare! it is well for you to unveil yourself from the head right down to the loins, lest withal this freedom of your neck profit you not!" And, of course, what you have said to one you have said to all. But how severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who, amid (the recital of) the Psalms, and at any mention of (the name of) God, continue uncovered; (who) even when about to spend time in prayer itself, with the utmost readiness place a fringe, or a tuft, or any thread whatever, on the crown of their heads, and suppose themselves to be covered? Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.37



Trust that helps.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2015/7/12 20:59Profile
dspks
Member



Joined: 2006/3/15
Posts: 168
Dakotas

 Re:

JFW writes: "Tho I submit that this one, seemingly inconsequential, thing may indeed be a definitive test as to wether a woman has the right heart before the Lord regarding her position in His governmental body."


Whew... head coverings are: "a definitive test" to whether a woman has the right heart before the Lord...???

Where in scripture does THAT come from???

Are there actually Christians who conclude that if a woman does NOT wear a head covering "her heart is not right before the Lord"??





 2015/7/12 21:41Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy