| Re: HEADCOVERING FOR WOMEN by Zac Poonen|
Thank you to the moderator for posting something so religiously incorrect.
It seems to me that the issue of the headcovering, and the great angst it causes, reveals a great deal about not only ourselves, but also about our entire modern western Church today.
Those of us that have read the early Church fathers know what their general practice was. We know that the Corinthians (the ones to whom the practice was expounded), practiced a real cloth veiling of not only their wives, but of their unmarried women as well. For those of us that have studied the issue with total abandon, there is no doubt as to the proper meaning of what the covering is in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
However, there is grave doubt about our modern western Church. We live today in a bubble culture of "me." We were all taught in government school or by a near-sighted society, that "truth is relative" and "culture is relative." We are all almost completely disconnected from history, and instead look around and see the Muslim women and the so-called "legalistic" denominations like the Mennonites wearing coverings.
Compounding all of this is that the vast majority of us came to Christ through modern Christian denominations. All of our faith-traditions are less than a few hundred years old. Most of these denominations were "reactionary-movements", reacting for the most part against either the spiritually dead Roman Catholic Church, or later against her many backslidden "daughters." Some of these reactionary movements jettisoned what they viewed as unnecessary external "Catholic" practices at that time. The rest got rid of what they deemed to be unnecessary externals later on. Thus, the ancient, apostolic, and biblical practice of headoverning fell out of general use in the west, and now these western faith traditions are "stuck."
Compounding all of this is the nature of "conservatism." Good Bible-believing Christians want to be conservative with the truth they have received from their faith-traditions. But what does this mean? Conservatism generally equates change, (any change), with error. Therefore women trying to revive the practice of covering are viewed suspiciously, or are outright attacked.
Compounding all of this is the peer pressure women experience in our western culture. Women are treated as objects. They are expected to comply with the culture's expectations of them. Should they cover their hair, they could face the wrath of others. (For instance, I know of one case where the young woman's own mother ("a Christian",) would have nothing to do with her after she began covering).
Brothers: What do you expect the women to do? They are being crushed by the culture, by their recent, conservative faith-tradition, by the women they know in their lives, and by their own carnal expectations of personal beauty that the false culture constantly foists upon them. Don't you think when faced with all of that, they are going to bring up every argument they can against it? Appealing to demonstrably false theories about the original reasons for the headcovering, appealing to a recent faith-tradition bible teacher's exposition against it; appealing to the authority of other nice Christian ladies who were members of recent faith traditions who also didn't wear the headcovering but still did good things for God, etc.
Dear Brothers: Let patience have her perfect work...
"...let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 12:28-29
But for the grace of God, there go I...
Grace and Blessings to all.
| 2011/10/4 23:34||Profile|
| Re: |
I want to just state that many of you are defending this tradition on the premises that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that women should veil then goes on the contradict Himself in all revival moments even now throughout the world where women, UNVIELD are preaching, healing the sick, raising the dead, and prophesying. I speak as someone from a part of the world that there is a real revival going on right now and I am so sad to see those who could usher in revival here quibbling about these silly things
putting half the body of Christ in bondage to doctrine of men. Now we need to understand that translators are not flawless and can be biased (we cannot worship any man however saintly they are). Especially when it comes to passages regarding women. Quick examples then I will deal with head covering:
The literal greek translation says Who can find a valiant wife? (The word חיל (chayil) means "forceful," "mighty," or "valiant"
) Why translate it virtuous then
God forbid a women be VALIENT/MIGHTY?
Psalms 68:11 Clarks commentary: המבשרות צבא רב hammebasseroth tsaba rab; "Of the female preachers there was a great host." Such is the literal translation of this passage .. but is that what your bible says? Why did the translator leave out women? In the revival of the last days GREAT WILL BE THE WOMEN WHO PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS OF JESUS.. its really ok if that doesnt sit well with you. God will always find another generation. Amen.
Now on the veiling. I recommend the site at the bottom but here is a summary of a Godly women used by him as a missionary in China.. a Greek and Hebrew scholar .. who reads the Greek plainly like this:
But I wish you to understand that of every [Christian] man Christ is the Head; but of a wife the husband is a head [also]; and God is Christ's Head. Any [Christian] man praying or prophesying, having his head covered [as is required among the Jews, in sign of guilt and condemnation] dishonors his Head [Christ, who has atoned for all his sins]. But any wife praying or prophesying bareheaded dishonors her [other] head [her husband], for it would be one and the same thing as [having] her head shaved. For [Jewish law provides that] if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn. Now if it would bring disgrace to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a [Christian] man ought not to veil the head because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is [also] the glory of man. For man is not originally from woman [as from a despised and inferior source], but woman is from man. Nor was the man created for the woman [to help her], but the woman for the man [to help him, see par. 34]. For this [additional] cause ought the woman to have authority over her head [to unveil it] because of her angels [who always behold God's face]. Nevertheless, in the Lord, [i.e. among believers,] the woman is not [to be legislated for] apart from the man, nor the man from the woman. For just as woman came out of man, so is man [born into the world] through woman and all Christians born of God. Judge of this matter among yourselves. It is proper for a woman [at least] to pray unto God unveiled. Nor is there anything in the nature of hair itself that teaches you that if a man wear it long it is a dishonor to him, while if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her, for her hair has been given her instead of a veil. But if anyone thinks to be contentious [in defense of such a custom as either men or women veiling for worship], let him know that "we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God."
**** "For if the woman be not covered, let her be shorn." Paul refers to the Oral Law of the Jews. (and you MUST know that neither Paul or Jesus ever cared for or defended these oral laws (extrabiblical) but vehemently opposed their doctrines of men. )
**** Then why did Paul not command unveiling outright? Its the principle of not offending in anything/bearing with the weak at play: An unveiled Jewish wife might, then, be tried for adultery; and when so tried, be "shorn or shaven." Paul here cites this obstruction to commanding women to unveil, but he permits it (verse 10). "Now if it is a shame," The word translated "but" (de) readily admits of the translation "now" in this sense, see John 6:10, 19:23; 1 Corinthians 15:50, etc. That is, if it be a case in which disgrace and divorce would follow, she is permitted to cover her head, "Let her be covered." A little historical evidence at this point ought to go a long way. If the Apostle, as is so often assumed, was accustomed to forbid women unveiling, how did it come to pass that women "sat unveiled in the assemblies in a separate place, by the presbyters," and were "ordained by the laying on of hands," until the eleventh canon of the Church Council of Laodicea forbade it, in 363 A.D.?
| 2011/10/5 11:31||Profile|
| Re: |
Then why did Paul not command unveiling outright?
Paul beleived that a woman must be covered that's why..
Paul begins to outline in (v 3-10) the building blocks that a woman does indeed need a head covering when praying or prophesying. Everything that Paul says through (v 10) is something that Paul firmly believes. He believes that woman was created in the image of man; he believes that woman are dependent on man and that man was created independent on womanhe believes all of this to be true. But he does not believe it to be the whole truth. Yes, woman was, in a sense, created in the image of man (v 7) (it was from Adam that Eve was created), but ultimately she, too, was created in the image of God (v 12). Yes, woman are dependent upon man for her initial existence (v 9), but so are men dependent upon women for his further existence (v 11-12)
But then Paul shifts his tone in (v 11) In the Lord, however, and from that point on begins to explain how this principle correctly applies to the church.
In (v 13-14) Paul asks the Corinthians two questions:
1) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?;
2) Does not the very nature of things teach you that . . . if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?
The two questions are to be answered as a set. The second question is intended to buttress the first. In other words, by answering the second question first, the answer to the first question should then be obvious
To answer the second question first: yes, a womans long hair is her glory (that is, it keeps her from the shame of being uncovered). This makes the answer to the first question obvious: no, it is not proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered.
Paul says womans long hair, is the glory of a woman (v 15). he further argues this point in the very next phrase: For, long hair is given to her as a covering. The word as here is anti, and means literally instead of.The word for covering in this verse is not the same as has been used by Paul up to this point. Everywhere else in this passage Paul has used katakaluptos, which is a very generic term for covering. Here Paul uses the word peribolaios, which means literally that which is wrapped around [the head].
In other words, Paul is saying that, yes, women do need coverings (katakaluptos) on their heads when praying or prophesying. But, in the Lord that covering is not a peribolaios (cloth wrapped around the head) but rather the womans own long hair. In fact, in the Lord (i.e., in the church), long hair is given to a woman instead of (not as) that which is wrapped around the head. Women in the church have a ready-made covering and are therefore not necessarily in violation of the principles expressed in v 3-10.
| 2011/10/5 15:14||Profile|
| Re: |
Thanks for that teaching,that makes sense to me.
I think the principle is very important.I am getting hard to articulate what I think about the subject.I hope Zac Pooonen doesnt have this high on his list of priorities and it is only a one off message.Head coverings isnt going to bring about revival but Gods grace will.
I dont think I could personally bring potential new christians into a church that would say a women cant pray or prophesy unless they wore a cloth around their head and for me it would point to further problems in that church.
I dont see the results of revival will be a church full of head covered women nor do i see it help with bringing about revival,
| 2011/10/5 20:30||Profile|