| Re: Head covering a witness?|
I was going to pick up on this point made by ginnyrose, but will also with you.
I don't personally think that we want to identified by our clothing. There are many religions and sects that have a counter-culture dress code. Take muslim women in western society for example.
Don't get me wrong, I believe we (and women particularly) should dress modestly. My wife does and that in itself can be a witness, but not in a obvious and starkly different way that would draw attention to her, which I think is a danger of some Christian attire.
Surely what we want is for people to see that we are different in the way we live, the things we do and who we serve and yet they can relate to in lots of other ways. It is when folk see that we have something real and it changes how we live that they are open to hear the gospel and realise it applies to them, where they are and in their situation. Not that we belong to a particular group who have a different dress code or culture. That they will easily dismiss as "nice for you, but that's not me".
I don't think I have explained it very well, but I hope you get the heart of what I'm trying to say.
Yes we are different as Christians, but let the difference be Christ and not anything else that we have added.
| 2011/10/13 17:14||Profile|
| Re: Given Her for a Covering by Mike Atnip|
The more important question is in my opinion,
Why is the head covering linked to prayer and prophesy?
Also What are consequences if the head of woman is not covered?
(we see later that many are sick as a consequence of taking the lords supper inapproapriately)
| 2011/10/13 17:18||Profile|
| Re: |
If would love to talk to you about John 6. I spent two years in this and other subjects in Catholic chat-rooms back in the middle ninties, oh boy, talk about a lions den :) Yet, they were so outlandish to me in there, one Catholic woman actually got saved because she e-mailed me and wanted to know why they hated me. We went back and forward and she was gloriousy saved and delivered from the Catholic church. My wife and I actually got to meet her when she came to Kansas for a Baptist convention:)
Perhaps another thread would be more appropriate though. Can I ask how long has it been since you came out of the Catholic church? .........brother Frank
| 2011/10/13 17:41|
| Re: Heydave|
"I don't personally think that we want to identified by our clothing. There are many religions and sects that have a counter-culture dress code. Take muslim women in western society for example."
I actually don't think so either.
"Don't get me wrong, I believe we (and women particularly) should dress modestly. My wife does and that in itself can be a witness, but not in a obvious and starkly different way that would draw attention to her, which I think is a danger of some Christian attire."
I think it is good that you take this sort of thing seriously in your family. As for being starkly different however, that is a matter of perspective, isn't it?
"It is when folk see that we have something real and it changes how we live that they are open to hear the gospel and realise it applies to them, where they are and in their situation. Not that we belong to a particular group who have a different dress code or culture. That they will easily dismiss as "nice for you, but that's not me"."
Well, couldn't folks seeing a lady who isn't afraid of the intense peer pressure of our culture be, (at least), one example of a heart that is "real" for God?
Of course, there are always going to be people who do not consider, but merely "react" against such things. I have determined however in my heart, that I am going follow God wherever He leads me. Even though there may be people who hate me for it. Which reminds me, Jesus promised that all who live Godly, will suffer persecution. Whether people blow me off, or hate me, or open their hearts because of the some powerful example of obedience, or act of Love, this all must be fine with me. I am not my own anymore. I just have to accept whatever God allows.
You finish with:
"I don't think I have explained it very well, but I hope you get the heart of what I'm trying to say.
Yes we are different as Christians, but let the difference be Christ and not anything else that we have added."
Yes, I think you explained it well. I think I understand you, my Brother. I would only say, that there is a whole New Testament that Jesus wrote through His apostles. I didn't pick what He wrote for us to believe and obey. He did. He was perfect in it.
There is a cross for everyone of us Bro. If you've been in Christ for any length of time, you know exactly how true this is. You know that we dont' get to pick and choose our crosses. Jesus does, and He bestows not only all the grace to do so, but also all the blessings that come with each one.
I appreciate you taking the time to reason with me.
Be well, and may God bless you and your family,
| 2011/10/13 17:49||Profile|
| Re: Given Her for a Covering by Mike Atnip|
I was not going to post to this thread but after I shared some with my husband the question arose that we are seeking to understand. In the teaching that Greg posted the word veil is used and the description is given that sounds as if the entire head must be covered. Now I have seen some of the pictures that were shared through links and some of the descriptions given that those who wear the head covering do not sound like a veil and they do not sound like they cover the entire head? I am trying to understand this better can someone explain why the difference.
here are the part I find confusing: This study is not about the size of the covering, but as a side note we need to come to terms with the fact that it is a covered head that signifies submission, not a covering on the head. Many women have a covering on their head, but their head is not really covered. The Greek word for cover is rooted in the idea of hidden. The covering is supposed to hide the head, which signifies that the head (authority) is covered over by a mans authority. In addition, we need to remember that to have the symbol (the hidden head) without the reality (submission to the man) is hypocrisy.
editing: I read the other thread posted and I do feel like I have some better understanding on this now.
| 2011/10/13 19:12||Profile|
| Re: Given Her for a Covering by Mike Atnip|
I have thought about the head covering/long hair issue a number of times over the years so it caught my attention. This post is not to provoke controversy, but to give a thought for honest consideration.
To start with, I respect it if women feel they should wear a head covering (in addition to long hair). Personally, I feel like the passage is referring specifically to long hair on women and short hair on men, not to an additional covering beyond this.
One line of thought I didn't see mentioned was regarding the OT priests. God designed a specific attire they were to wear especially for the holiest of duties--ministering in the Temple. The high priest had his special headress and the rest of the priests were to wear what is termed "bonnets." This is interesting because in the OT, the priests were to be the examples, the holiest of the Israelites. If you read in the law, they had additional requirements put upon them to be holy--more than the average Israelite. Yet, we read that when they were sacrificing and performing the temple duties (including ministering and prayer), they were to be wearing these priestly garments.
In other words, the men who were the human examples of holiness to the Israelites were commanded to wear a specific type of hat/head covering while ministering before God.
When Paul makes his arguement regarding headship, and includes his discussion on hair, he was not giving a new revelation regarding hair, rather basing his argument on what they already accepted regarding hair and used it in his arguement for God's order of headship. If we consider he is not giving out a whole new idea about hair and covering, then we could conclude he must NOT be talking about an additional covering beyond the hair as that would be saying that it was all right in the OT for men to wear a covering while praying, but now in the NT it is no longer right or proper to do so. If we look at Jews today, their men still wear a special cap, especially for prayer. This is not to say we need to do so, but this is a carryover from OT days.
Considering Paul was familiar with the law and Jewish prayer, he must not have been talking about an extra covering for woman and no extra covering for men as that would seem to contradict the law itself and their very culture. It seems he would have stated that this was a new thing and made that very clear. It rather appears to have been referring directly to long hair as a covering (I Cor. 11:15). Long hair for women and short hair for men. Then we are always ready to pray, whether in the Canadian Artic or the African desert, wherever we are, whether man or woman. JLM
| 2011/10/21 3:20||Profile|
| Re: JLM|
Interesting to consider the OT priesthood and the fact that they (men) wore headcoverings when ministering before the LORD.
However I don't quite understand your point in saying that Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians is not changing anything from the OT.
As you said, the (male) priests wore head coverings when ministering and Jews even today wear a cap. However Paul says very clearly that for a man to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying is a dishonour to his head (Christ) and therefore he MUST NOT wear a head covering when ministering to the LORD. So it has changed hasn't it?
In fact I think the reason it has changed is that now Christ (God the Son) is our direct head, where as in the OT that relationship was not possible due to Sin not being taken away.
Am I mis-understanding what you are saying?
| 2011/10/21 10:34||Profile|
| Re: Heydave|
"In fact I think the reason it has changed is that now Christ (God the Son) is our direct head, where as in the OT that relationship was not possible due to Sin not being taken away."
Yes. A precise word dear Brother.
Christ, as conqueror of Sin and Death, is now the progenitor of a whole new race of men on the earth. He is now, by right, DIRECT Head of Mankind, (being the Head of "the man" in particular, since Man is yet the particular head of Woman from the time of the Creation.)
The implications of this profound and now revealed "mystery" are expounded by Paul, (at times, it would seem to the reader, in breathless adulation), on page after page of his many epistles...
Visibly displayed by this tradition of the apostles, is the Mystery of God's new relationship with MAN, through His Victorious Son.
May He receive our Glory! And Honor! and Praise! Forever! Amen.
Take care dear Brother... and,
God bless the reader.
| 2011/10/21 10:58||Profile|
| Re: What is the head covering exactly|
The point I was trying to bring across was to clarify the issue on whether the head covering/no covering referred to in I Corinthians is long (women)/short (men) hair or if it is an additional covering/no covering beyond the long/short hair.
In the first post I replied to, it was stated that the greek word "anti" that is transalated "for" in the KJV could be translated as
her long hair is given her as a response to a covering.
her long hair is given her because of a covering.
her long hair is given her for the cause of a covering.
her long hair is given her in light of a covering.
her long hair is given her in consequence of a covering.
her long hair is given her in consideration of a covering.
and it was stated in that post that the English Websters dictionary defined "for" as:
In the place of; instead of; as a substitute or equivalent
As representative of, on behalf of
With reference or in regard to
Because of; on account of, by reason of
With a view to the use and benefit of.
The view taken from these meanings was that it specifically pointed to a second covering (Long hair being the first one). I believe though even if we look at the possible options of meaning posted here, the question of whether there should be an additional covering is still ambiguous.
Strong's defines "anti" as (I quote) "opposite, that is instead of or because of (rarely in addition to): - for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, corresposdence, etc."
The author of the original post said this:
"Both definitions can be grammatically correct. So we have to look to the context for our answer. Contextually, it is clear that her long hair was Gods response to her submission to the authority of the man. He glorified what was in submission. And, 19 centuries of church history back up that interpretation.
What can we say, except that the Christian woman should cover her head as a symbol of submission, and with long hair in a natural response to that? And if she does not wish to cover her head with authority, she should also be stripped of her glory."
So we see the writer of the post stated both definitions can be gramatically correct. This means the definition of "anti" does not clearly show us which meaning to use.
The writer stated we needed to look to the context for an answer. The other mention of context I noted in that post was stated this way:
"Concerning context, the replacement aspect of anti makes little sense in verse 15 when we look at verse 6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. If her long hair is given to replace her covering, it makes absolutely no sense to say, But if the woman doesnt have long hair, let her also be shorn or shaven.
The assumption made in this paragraph was that in verse 6, the long hair was given to REPLACE the covering, so it couldn't make sense. To start, I think we would agree that Paul was not giving a new commandment that woman should now have long hair, but was stating a known and agreed on fact that women naturally did have long hair. It has been that way since creation.
So I would agree, long hair was NOT given somewhere along the way to replace a covering, but long hair at creation was made for (or as or instead of) a covering in the first place. There was no replacement, it was the covering in the first place.
I realize that in looking only at I Corinthains 11, this is just my opinion as compared to the next person's since we can see that there is not absolute certainty that either verse 15 or verse 6 clearly shows if there is to be only one or two veils.
I would just note here that I feel there is no question on whether long hair on woman is a type of veil. I believe this is clear from the passage. Rather the question is, should there be a second veil.
This is where my thought on the headwear of the OT priests comes into my thinking. If it is not absolutely clear what the Bible is saying at any one point, we can look to other scripture for clarification. Paul used the illustration of a woman's hair being a natural veil from historical record.
If we look back to Biblical history, we see God commanding the priests to wear a head covering. Considering this, it was obviously not wrong for men to wear a covering on their head while ministering or praying then, and in fact some, at least, were commanded to do so.
Since, at least, as I understand it, it is not wholly clear in I Corinthians 11 whether or not, an additional non-natural covering is needed for women and conversely for men, it would make sense to align it with other commands God has given. It is true that God could have changed the command due to a change in the Testaments. If this is the case though, I feel He would have clearly and unambiguously showed this, either in making I Corinthians 11 clearer and separating the issue of long hair and addtional coverings, or by mentioning it in another passage that clearly stated the fact.
Since this is not done and we are no-where told that such a change has been made, I feel we can reliably look at God's clear commands in the OT as unchanged. I do not mean that we live under the law, but that an external covering was not wrong for men then, therefore still is not wrong now. If this is true, then I Corinthians 11 could not be referring to it being wrong for a man to wear an external covering, but rather for it to be wrong for a man to wear the natural covering (long hair).
I know this is long, but I hope it makes more sense. We have had good friends that believe in external head coverings and I do appreciate anyone who is trying to be faithful to obey God. Personally, I do believe for the above reasons that long hair is the veil or covering Paul intended in this scripture.
| 2011/10/21 15:28||Profile|
| Re: JLM|
Thanks for your reply. I understand what your are saying now. I will have to digest it and think about it a bit.
However it does seem strange that Paul would talk about 'covering' rather than make it very clear that he is referring to 'hair'. He could have said "A man who has long hair when praying or prophesying dishonours his head". BUT this does not make sense does it? You wouldn't have short hair when praying, but then it's OK to have it long! Unless it grows very fast!:) So he would more naturally say "A man who has long hair (anytime) dishonours his head".
What do you think Paul means when he says at the end of this discourse "We have no such custom, nor do the churches of God"?
| 2011/10/21 16:54||Profile|