SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The doctrine of having a spiritual covering: by Eddie L. Hyatt

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
myfirstLove
Member



Joined: 2005/11/26
Posts: 496


 Head Covering for Women - Zac Poonen

Head Covering for Women - Zac Poonen

We begin this study with the conviction that the entire message of the Bible is the Word of God without any error.

There are two fundamental truths that we must bear in mind as we seek to understand God’s Word for us today.

On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), God abolished the old covenant and began to deal with man thereafter under the terms of the new covenant (Heb.8).
There are historical and teaching sections in the New Testament. We must find the basis for new covenant doctrines only in the teaching sections. The historical sections merely tell us what the apostles and early Christians did. Many false teachings have developed from doctrines based only on the Acts of the Apostles - two examples being: (i) all believers must speak in tongues (based on Acts 2:4); and (ii) all believers must share a common purse (based on Acts 2:44).
Jesus told His disciples just before He went to the cross, “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear (understand) them now. But when the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth” (Jn.16:12,13). Jesus wanted to teach His disciples many more truths than He did while He was on earth. But they would not have been able to understand them until the Holy Spirit came to dwell within them and renewed their minds and gave them revelation. Some of these truths are what we find written in the New Testament epistles. So the epistles also contain commands from the Lord Jesus – but given through His apostles.

If we reject any command in any of the New Testament epistles, saying it was only for the time and place when it was written and not for us today, then in order to be consistent, we must give equal freedom to other people to reject other commands in the epistles and in the teachings of Jesus as also being only for that time and not for us today. For example, we must, in that case, give freedom to people to teach that forbidding homosexual behavior and same-sex marriages and divorces and premarital sexual intercourse, etc., were only for the first century and not for us today. Otherwise we will be inconsistent.

It is inconsistent, therefore, to say that every command in the New Testament is relevant for us today, and then to reject just this one command to women to cover their heads when they pray or prophesy (1 Cor.11:1-16).

(Note: We must distinguish between commands given by God and mere greetings given by the apostles. For example, the apostles give greetings and good wishes such as these in their letters: “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (Rom16:16) and “I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers” (3 John 2). These were obviously mere greetings and good wishes – and not commands or promises given by God – for there is no Divine principle taught in those verses, as is the case with head-covering, water-baptism and breaking of bread(Rom.6; 1Cor.11)).

Meaning of head-covering

There are at least three reasons given in the New Testament why a woman should cover her head when she prays or prophesies in the meetings of the church:

First: The Bible says, “A man should NOT cover his he…” – and the reason given is: … because he is the image and glory of God”. In contrast, we are told, “but the woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor.11:7). The glory of man must be covered in the church – and since woman is the glory of man, she testifies to this fact by covering her head. This is the plain and simple meaning of this verse.

Second: The Bible says, “A woman’s long hair is her glory” (1 Cor.11:15). The glory of the woman also must be covered in the church, just like the glory of man. And so she must cover her head which has the glory of her long hair. Almost all women are conscious that their long hair is a major part of what makes them look attractive – and that is why even among those women who do put a covering on their heads, most of them cover only a part of their hair!! If a woman does not want to cover her head, then the only alternative that the New Testament offers is to remove that glory, by shaving her head completely: “If a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head” (1 Cor.11:6).

Third: TheBible says: “Man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (1 Cor.11:10). The head-covering symbolizes the fact that a woman accepts her God-appointed role as having been created “for man’s sake” as his helper and therefore her willingness to be submissive to male authority – whether as a wife to her husband, or as a daughter to her father, or as a sister in the church to the church-elders. It is significant that the disappearance of the head-covering from women in Western churches (on a large scale) coincided with the time that the movement for “Women’s Liberation” (a phrase used in a book in 1949) began to spread in Western countries – about 60 years ago. The “angels” mentioned in this verse could refer either to the fallen angels or to the angels in heaven. So it could either be a reminder to women to bear in mind that the fallen angels fell because they were not submissive to authority. Or it could mean “A woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man’s authority – a fact for all the angels (in heaven) to notice and rejoice in” (as The Living Bible paraphrases that verse).

1 Corinthians 11:16 says that every church that is a church of God, will insist on this head covering for women when they pray or prophesy. The Holy Spirit recognized that 20 centuries later this would become a controversial issue; and so He made Paul to state (in this same verse) that if anyone was going to be argumentative about this matter, he would not argue with such a person. He would just allow that person to continue on in his/her disobedience and inconsistency.

Some Questions

Some may say that the head-covering is only a symbol and therefore not so important. But baptism and the breaking of bread are also only symbols. The first half of 1 Corinthians 11 (v.1-16) explains the meaning of the symbolic head-covering for women. The second half of the same chapter (11:.20-34) explains the meaning of the symbolic breaking of bread. In the same way, Romans 6 explains the meaning of the symbol of water-baptism. Would we say that the Lord’s table and baptism also are unimportant, because they are only symbols? If we insist on baptism and breaking of bread as essential for believers, then we are inconsistent if we say that head-covering for women is not essential.

Some may say that head-covering for women is mentioned only once in the New Testament. Breaking of bread also is mentioned only once in the epistles. Likewise, the truth that God loves us as much as He loved Jesus is also mentioned only once in the whole Bible (Jn.17:23). But once is enough – to know this glorious truth. If Almighty God has given a command, then even if it is given only once in Scripture, that is sufficient. The importance of a command is determined by the importance of the Person Who gave it.

In ancient Babylon, Daniel stood for a law (Dan.1:8) that had been commanded only once in the Scriptures (about food in Lev.11; and wine in Prov.23:31). In the same way, in the midst of Babylonian Christianity today, we also stand for the commands of God – whether small or big, whether mentioned once or many times.

Some say that since we are commanded to pray at all times (Lk.18:1; 1 Thess.5:17), therefore a woman should cover her head all 24 hours of the day. Scripture must always be read in its context, if we are to understand it aright. The entire section (1 Cor.11:1-34) is dealing with the meetings of the church (Verses 16 and 18 make that clear). So it is obvious that the Holy Spirit was referring to church meetings when He gave this command. If we add to that, and insist that women should cover their heads at all times, then we will be adding to the Scriptures.

And further: If those who preach a 24-hour head covering are consistent, they must also teach that men (who should also be praying at all times) should never cover their heads at any time – and therefore should never wear a cap or a hat, at any time – whether it be hot, raining, or snowing. Such teachers must also then teach that women should keep their heads covered even when sleeping or showering/bathing (=24 hours). But they do not preach that – proving that they are inconsistent in their teaching. We can safely ignore such inconsistent teachers.

I have also observed that many sisters who practice a 24-hour head covering do not cover their entire heads. They cover only the back portion of their heads or just the small part of their hair that is tied up in a bun at the back of their heads – so that the glory of their hair is still visible. A small piece of cloth at the back of the head however is only an excuse for a head-covering – and not a head-covering at all, because the head and the glory of the hair are still not covered. Such “namesake head-coverings” are worn by legalists only to ease their conscience and to appear “holy” before others. But their teachers do not object to this, because they themselves are inconsistent in their teaching.

Some say that the hair itself is called the head-covering for women in 1 Cor.11:15. If one has understood the Divine principle taught in the first 14 verses of this chapter, then this verse will not cancel out the need for a woman with long hair to still cover her head with a covering. Paul could not possibly have taken 15 verses merely to teach that a woman should have long hair! That could have been stated in just one sentence! What does not come out in the English translation of the Bible is the fact that in the original Greek language (in which Paul wrote his letters), the Holy Spirit prompted him to use a different Greek word for “covering” in verse 15 than the one He used in verse 6. The Greek word used in verse 6 is katakalupto; whereas the word used in verse 15 is peribolaion (which is translated as “mantle” in Heb. 1:12). This makes it crystal clear that the mantle of hair referred to in verse 15 is not the head-covering referred to in verse 6 or in the rest of the chapter. Another proof of this is: If hair is the “head-covering” being referred to in this section, then every man who prays or prophesies would have to have his head completely shaved, if he is to obey this Scripture that tells him not to have his head covered!! The clear teaching of the Holy Spirit in this chapter is that the “mantle of hair” that nature has given a woman as her glory must be covered with a covering, when she is praying or prophesying.
Finally, we must bear in mind that:

- If we ignore any command of God in Scripture (however small) we will suffer some eternal loss (Rev.22:19).
- Those who cancel (or teach against) the smallest command of Scripture will be called “the least in the kingdom of heaven” (as Jesus said in Matt.5:19).
- The truths of Scripture are hidden from the clever and the intelligent and revealed only to the humble (“babes” - Matt.11:25 with Matt.18:4). The teaching of 1 Cor.11:1-16 will be simple and clear to the humble, childlike person. But one who depends on his human cleverness and intelligence will argue against the plain meaning of these verses.
- God tests our honesty in the way in which we deal with such verses of Scripture. He does not see whether we understand everything in His Word, but He does see if we are honest in dealing with His Word. The Lord says, “To this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word” (Isa.66:2).
If a sister is still in doubt about what this passage of Scripture teaches, let her consider this: Isn’t it better for her to do more rather than less – and especially so, when there is no inconvenience or cost involved. What will she lose by covering her head when she prays and prophesies? Nothing. But think of what she will gain by covering her head, if she discovers at the judgment-seat of Christ that this was indeed God’s command? She will have the joy of having pleased her Lord on earth, in spite what other Christians taught and practised. So, every woman, if she is wise, will cover her head with a covering, when she prays and prophesies.

And in conclusion, as to the practice in our churches: We do not force any sister to cover her head (against her wish/conviction) in our meetings – because if she does this under compulsion, it will be a dead work; and God wants only cheerful givers of obedience (2 Cor.9:7). We will not judge such a sister either. We will graciously assume that she does not have light on this subject. But at the same time, if she does not cover her head, we will not permit her to publicly pray or prophesy in our churches – because we understand this to be the command of God – as explained in this article. We also believe that this is how it is practiced “in all the churches of God” (1Cor.11:16). We do not judge other churches that do things differently from us, in this or in any other area. But we fear God and desire to obey Him fully, even if some sisters (or their husbands) are offended by our stand on this matter and as a result, leave our churches.

“If anyone is truly determined to do God’s will, he/she will definitely know whether this teaching is from God” (Jn.7:17).

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

Amen.


_________________
Lisa

 2012/2/4 19:14Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1330


 Re: Head Covering for Women - Zac Poonen

With much respect for Zac’s ministry, I must say that this quote along with this article is disappointing.

quote-
“If we reject any command in any of the New Testament epistles, saying it was only for the time and place when it was written and not for us today, then in order to be consistent, we must give equal freedom to other people to reject other commands in the epistles and in the teachings of Jesus as also being only for that time and not for us today. For example, we must, in that case, give freedom to people to teach that forbidding homosexual behavior and same-sex marriages and divorces and premarital sexual intercourse, etc., were only for the first century and not for us today. Otherwise we will be inconsistent.

It is inconsistent, therefore, to say that every command in the New Testament is relevant for us today, and then to reject just this one command to women to cover their heads when they pray or prophesy (1 Cor.11:1-16).”
-quote

I find it very hard to believe that he would take clear teachings from the bible regarding sins that are called works of the flesh that would keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God to enforce his understanding on head covering for women. Then at the end of the article he lightens up and says this and then twisted back to the beginning of his forced argument:

quote-
"And in conclusion, as to the practice in our churches: We do not force any sister to cover her head (against her wish/conviction) in our meetings – because if she does this under compulsion, it will be a dead work; and God wants only cheerful givers of obedience (2 Cor.9:7). We will not judge such a sister either. We will graciously assume that she does not have light on this subject. But at the same time, if she does not cover her head, we will not permit her to publicly pray or prophesy in our churches – because we understand this to be the command of God – as explained in this article. We also believe that this is how it is practiced “in all the churches of God” (1Cor.11:16). We do not judge other churches that do things differently from us, in this or in any other area. But we fear God and desire to obey Him fully, even if some sisters (or their husbands) are offended by our stand on this matter and as a result, leave our churches."
-quote

Brethren, there is a big difference in the sins of the flesh that will cause one not to inherit the kingdom of God than in his understanding of a head covering. I am disappointed that he would place it in the same category.

That's all I need to say. I haven't posted in a while and may not post again in a long time. I don't know why I even posted this time although I have really enjoyed some of the posts recently by Dianne, Frank, and some others. It blesses people when people post with a excellent spirit that is of and led by the Holy Spirit.

Blessings to all!

 2012/2/4 21:22Profile
learjet
Member



Joined: 2010/4/19
Posts: 447


 Re:

I just reread the article and the points that brothagary and the gal who inserted Zac's article here. Zac's article is probably the best laid out case, and it specifically deals with the issue in the context of marriage, and church meetings. It has nothing to do with 'spiritual covering' that is mentioned in the article. To me, these are two separate issues that are not related to one another, the link comes where he tries to explain 1 Cor 11:1-16.

The other day while browsing the site I was researching the early brothers like Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement. While researching the subjects I stumbled onto the issue regarding head coverings and if you read their quotes compared to what Zac has written there are no differences whatsoever.

Frankly, this is an area where I lack revelation and I've asked the Lord about it, He'll answer me. I had the same lack of wisdom regarding 'ornaments' and got light on the subject.

 2012/2/4 22:00Profile









 No Head covering; No Grace.

"Brethren, there is a big difference in the sins of the flesh that will cause one not to inherit the kingdom of God than in his ["ZAC POONEN" ] understanding of a head covering. I am disappointed that he would place it in the same category."

That's all I need to say. "

Me too Rbanks...Tom

 2012/2/4 23:49
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: No Head covering; No Grace.

It is likely no coincidence that we have here two articles about coverings for females even though on the surface they seem to address different issues: a human covering for the conscience, and a cloth covering for the head. The articles can both help us address a practice that is far more reaching than these articles encompass.

Poonen, of course, did not invent his views. He has obviously accepted a long standing tradition which he attempts to support biblically. But his exegesis is highly problematic. You can see yourself the many times he uses shaky assumptions and human reasoning to support his conclusion. If his doctrine was sound, he would not need to do that. His rationale here is the characteristic black-and white thinking we see in legalism. Here he treats scripture like a book of rules, deliberately divorced from context, authorial intent, or the spirit of the law. For him, a rule is a rule; don’t think further. Yet he does think further, as in this advice:

Quote:
Isn’t it better for her to do more rather than less


Okay, why not be super-spiritual and wear a burka. It can’t hurt. It might bring you extra rewards when you get to heaven. Paul himself put forth a male counterpart: “I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves.” Gal. 5:12 While you might find a reference to Islam offensive, keep in mind that in essence it is no different. It is legalism. And it obstructs salvation. It is a yoke around the neck (ie: on the conscience) – a damnable “head covering” which Jesus condemned it in his day.

The tragic outcome of this faulty “head-covering” philosophy is well-documented in evangelical history. However, it is not well-preached. I guess, that is because, while preachers are busy promoting this hellish teaching, the Christian counselors are busy in their offices cleaning up the mess. We don’t hear enough from them. Women share among themselves; some write. But the males who dictate the doctrine often do not hear. It doesn’t help that being the “head” they may regard themselves as beyond revelation from “below”.

We cannot deny that there are many godly women truly liberated in Christ who practice head-coverings in some way or another. But there are many, many, many who are paying the price. The entire church of Jesus Christ suffers – not just the 50% women. When women are kept in a state of emotional/spiritual dependency on males you have all kinds of immaturity issues and relational problems. Then there is indeed a reason to worry about them taking over and running the ship. The solution is not more heavy-handed restrictions, but Jesus Christ. You can be sure that women truly submitted to Jesus Christ will grow in godly submission in human relationships – and will assume appropriate responsibility for their “neighbor” – male or female, young or old.


Poonen’s article indirectly underscores the need for women to get their covering in order. They need to submit to their Lord, get their head well-covered with discernment, thinking skills, and a rigorous knowledge of good biblical exegesis. Here is where truly Godly male leaders can indeed serve as a covering for women – and shelter them from spiritual abusers.

When women take responsibility for their spiritual maturity and their intellectual growth, they will strengthen the church protect the men themselves from assuming ungodly roles. But it is often a costly obedience for women. They may even be labeled “feminists” or “Jezebels”.

On that final Day there will be no man standing between her and her God to defend her. Her only secure covering will be Jesus himself.

Thank you again to Brothertom for posting the article. It shows that there are men who really do understand and care. It benefits all.

Diane



_________________
Diane

 2012/2/5 17:00Profile
learjet
Member



Joined: 2010/4/19
Posts: 447


 Re:

Quote:
Poonen, of course, did not invent his views. He has obviously accepted a long standing tradition which he attempts to support biblically. But his exegesis is highly problematic. You can see yourself the many times he uses shaky assumptions and human reasoning to support his conclusion. If his doctrine was sound, he would not need to do that.



Hi Diane,

I couldn't help but notice that Zac's belief on this subject is a thorough study of scripture, and your take on the issue mentions no scripture at all. In doing so, your analysis boils down to the same thing that you accuse him of: "shaky assumptions", you provide no "exegesis" based on scripture, in the end we are left with your personal opinion. Which is fine, no worries there.

My problem with your take on it is the core(secular) assumption hidden inside the issue (please don't take this as me accusing you of 'worldliness', I'm not, but I used that word to make a point):

"The wearing of a head cover is oppressive"

If we start from this point of reference then the Lord, since His word instructs this, is oppressive.

Since I believe that the Lord is NEVER oppressive, never unkind, and always loving (this is my starting point of reference), what does this scripture mean?

 2012/2/5 17:33Profile









 Head covering. Greater issues and observations.

Wow, Roadsign...sometimes your logic shocks me, even though we disagree, this last post was brilliant, and I must say amen!

In it though, I would like to address another related issue to you, Roadsign, and to sisters here; whoever.

The issue of modesty, and dress. At what point does a woman's dress become unacceptable? I, obviously am male, and attracted to the female by my nature. This does not mean I lust though. I must walk in the Spirit , and deny my nature, which allows fellowship. I must not, and will not, know any man or woman after their nature, physical or soulish.

Often it seems, that women with the head-dress ARE the more modest, and there is a plague today that allows our sisters to dress with seducing intent, after the nature of their bodies. THE BLUE JEAN. How many women wear pants today....and I notice it...tight seductive, curve revealing clothing designed to arouse male intention.

This is a plague, I tell you, and it draws men into their old nature. As I said, I am not promoting the head dress, nor am I against it...let a sister be free...but I wanted to interject the Word here. This is the goal;[ about Godly womanhood.]

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

"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.

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:"

This places the intent of the Holy Spirit clearly where it should be, IN THE HEART!..Not outward legal adornment.

The second issue that can be related to the head covering, as a symbol to remind and obey, that it is a MEEK AND QUIET SPIRIT that God desires, and especially that in Submission to their own Husbands.

Paul even goes so far as to say "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."

So, in a general way, not to any one person at all, I ask to the Christian sister;
ARE YOU INDEPENDENT AND BRASSY?..it will show.

Are you meek and quiet? and love God...it will show.

Are you chaste, and for the married, obedient to your husbands? To many reformed sisters, especially, the head covering represents this, and to many it is not legal, but voluntary, and helps them, reminds them of their daily walk to perform it. I didn't read Zac's article, but in this light, it may be interpreted differently I bet.

There is a great battle going on against women in general in the spirit realm...on one side, Jezebel is waiting as queen of the kingdom enticing her to be all that you can be, and take command, and the Throne...subtly manipulating all the way....and the other...meekness and submission. This is where the joy of womanhood is displayed, or stolen by a life of lust and power over all.

And the head-covering can be death to, for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

Your Thoughts?

 2012/2/5 18:12
jimp
Member



Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 1481


 Re: Head covering. Greater issues and observations.

hi, the important thing is ; do not put anyone in bondage that God did not put them in. my pastor has a church that i think is one of the great churches in the world and he has asked an elder who is proven in the Christ as faithful to watch over my pastor in case he drifts into error or danger of error.it has worked well. but to say that someone musthave someone like this could move into the area of bondage. same with women... if a husband is loving his wife like Christ loved the church and is leading his family as a Godly man in the LOrd than his wife would be proud to have this covering...if her husband is a critic or an immature idiot, it would b e bondage for her.jimp

 2012/2/5 19:10Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re:

Learjet, you refer to my:

Quote:
core(secular) assumption


Would you mind noting what you see “secular” in what I have written? Many thanks.

Also, I avoided an exegetical dissection of Poonen’s article, being that others have already alluded to that, and I wished not to make an even longer post. I hope it’s not “secular’ because I left out bible verses!

You include this quote in your post:
Quote:
"The wearing of a head cover is oppressive"



I did not write this, so I trust you are not referring to me. I am addressing an unhealthy relational dynamic among God’s people that is often validated by headcovering teachings (be that human gender, fabric, or merely in ideology).


Quote:
Often it seems, that women with the head-dress ARE the more modest, and there is a plague today that allows our sisters to dress with seducing intent, after the nature of their bodies.


I say Amen to this! Interestingly, even our secular society is raising the issue. In a recent MacLean’s edition ( a magazine similar to Times) the front cover has a Muslim women entirely covered in black except her eyes - standing beside a Western women with (obviously) nothing covering her except an identity-obscuring black strip over her eyes. The article title reads: “Veils: Who are we to judge. Extreme modesty or freedom gone wild?”. The Muslims are, it seems re-sensitizing us to the issue of modesty.

I have been round the mountain on this issue more than I care to recall. However, since you asked, I will attempt to go around the mountain yet once more – hopefully this time a rung higher. Here’s my thoughts:

When a church teaches its members the full implications of salvation then you will see a growing maturity in attire choices. The choices will reflect an awareness of one’s effect on others. You don’t get that kind of maturity in a highly legalistic environment. It's too self-focused. (It took me many years to figure that out)

Females want to please males, but many today have fallen for the lie – that their bodies must be sexually appealing. The male-driven fashion industry, the video music industry (run by white males), and so forth are exploiting females, who in turn have been seduced by feminism into believing that this is indeed liberation. I quote from MacLean’s regarding the slavish exploitation of teen girls: “How did those steeped in the women’s lib movement produce girls who think being a sex object is powerful?”

When females learn the value of being responsible, mature, decision-makers, and become less dependent on male approvals (be that secular or in church), they will dress accordingly.

The solution for God’s people regarding attire, I firmly believe, is the ancient law that Moses taught, Jesus taught, Paul taught, and James taught. “Love the Lord ….. love your neighbor as yourself.”

(That’s developed in my submission thread – and maybe I’ll get to the attire issue)

Thank you for raising a valid concern. Let’s keep our eye on the REAL solution: Jesus Christ. We’ll have better results. And they'll last for eternity.

Diane



_________________
Diane

 2012/2/5 19:46Profile









 Re: Honrstky why bother????

This thread started out with such great promise. And now it has degenerated. Honestly. Why bother????

Bkaine Scogin

 2012/2/5 21:22





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