Sarah,

Approved is correct. I was actually going to quote the same thing as Approved from Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council. If ever there was a time to delineate exactly what is required from the Gentiles in following the Lord this would have been the time. There was no mention of Head Coverings. Why?

Because outward requirements are not in harmony with the Spirit of Grace and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. And outward requirements to prove an inward grace has always been only religion. We cannot cover ourselves with anything that will give us standing with God. Only the blood of Jesus Christ is our covering and it is sufficient.

The reality of anything Godly inside us, is always the Fruit of the Spirit, against which there is no law (dogma).

This is only spoken of in one Epistle and no where else in the NT. Which is curious, isn't it? Many teachers have set forth good explanations for why Paul talked about it to the Corinthian believers and the explanations cohere perfectly with the Spirit of Grace and the nature and character of Jesus.

Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Don't be troubled.

Pilgrim

So far the responses in this thread have been typical for a topic like this. Instead of looking at the scriptures in question, and in context, people seem to respond with emotional responses that have nothing to do with what the word of God says.

------

Sarah said: "Why some men be-labor this "teaching" is beyond
me. What is the purpose? And with so many, many words
they seek to rationalize 15 verses in the scriptures as
if it is a major doctrine. Truth be told, it is not even
a minor doctrine.

"a timeless and transcultural spiritual reality, namely
woman’s submission to man."

How Islamic of you! Husbands and wives are brothers and
sisters in Christ first and foremost! They are both
mutually submitted to the Lord and each other in Love
not outward ordinances. "
------

It should go without saying, that If God decides to spend half a chapter on the subject of head coverings, when He's speaking about instructions for the churches, then it is an important topic. To say that it is not important it to tell God that He was wrong for teaching on such a worthless topic. God saw fit to dedicate 16 entire verses on the subject. Since God is infinite in wisdom it would do us good to understand why He took such time to do so. In fact, He dedicated more verses to this subject than to tongues, how prophecy should work in the church, etc.

As far as wives submitting to their husbands; that is clearly taught in the scripture. If it's "Islamic" then you are calling God Islamic. Again, if you want to prove that it is unbiblical then please address the scriptures that speak to it.

I'll post some verse that you can address:

Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.
(Eph 5:22-24)

In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear.
(1Pe 3:1-2)

as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose children ye now are, if ye do well, and are not put in fear by any terror.
(1Pe 3:6)

God has established order in the church and in the family. Brethren are to submit to each other, but there is also an aspect of wives submitting to their husbands as they follow the Lord. To say this is not true is demonic, comes from the evil one, and does not come from God.

------

Sarah said: "And, to be honest, I can think of one:
close relative of mine by marriage is a direct
descendent of one of the names mentioned in the article.
Whatever happened, and if it relates to her parent’s
divorce, remains a mystery. She refuses to talk about
this entire movement. She doesn’t want to relive the
pain. As she said, “It’s better to put it out of my
mind.” All she disclosed is that the movement took
precedence over the family. The full story remains
hidden… for now.

------

Simply because a doctrine has abused and hurt someone doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Many people have been abused by Pastors and Elders. Does that mean Pastors and Elders are irrelevant? Spiritual gifts have been abused. Does that mean Spiritual gifts are irrelevant?

Again, it would be best to just try to stick to the verses in question and see what they say. Can you show from the verses in 1 Corinthians that head coverings was only a cultural practice and command? If you can, please explain it to me.

------

Blain said: "As you debate this all important issue of the
head covering none of you have any idea what is being
set in place for the remnant in America. As a matter of
fact if you knew the reality of what awaits the
followers of Christ in America it would scare you.
Honestly a number of you would be frightened out of your
minds. If you think shipping containers and death camps
are in Eritrea and N. Korea guess again.

------

It's interesting that people can make idols out of anything, even martyerdom. The Apostle Paul was persecute more than any of have been, yet he still found it necessary to write on issues that some people here consider irrelevant. Paul said:

Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one--I am talking like a madman--with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches.
(2Co 11:23-28)

Paul had experienced intense persecution, and he spoke about churches of God that experienced persecution, and yet he still saw fit to address something as "trivial", as head coverings. How odd? Persecution, with Paul and God, did not minimize the need to address and speak of biblical truth. If it was ok with Paul and God, it should be ok with us as well.

------

Lysa said: "Where is the original thread? I thought that
this was a "new" thread and said, "Ugh, here we go
again." I wish people didn't just see "Post New Thread"
and think that was "Reply." I will look for the original
thread.
------

Hi Lysa, the intent was to start a new thread to just speak on this one article dealing with Head Coverings. The other thread spoke in the broader context of "coverings" which includes more than head coverings. I posted this thread as to not distract from the other one.

------

Approved said: "Paul would not have gone over and above
this command hearing from the foundation itself and from
what the Holy Spirit was instructing them. He would not
have placed more burdens on top of burdens to people as
he later said in the same chapter, "We have NO SUCH
CUSTOMS, neither the Churches of God."

------

First, the instructions given in Acts 15 had to do with the LAW. Obviously Paul gave other instructions for the believers to follow. He gave instructions on the Lords
Supper, on Church order, on Spiritual gifts, and qualification for Elders, and on head coverings. Instead of using one verse to disprove another verse, how about just addressing the verse on Head Coverings in context. The article clearly explains why they are valid today and not culture. Also, when Paul says we have no such custom, he is say the churches have no such custom as not covering their heads. Why would Paul spend 15 verses teaching on the necessity of head coverings, relating them to God's authority and Christ submission, relating them to the Angles, relating them to mans glory, and then say "uh, we actually don't practice this". That makes no sense.

------

Approved said: "Sarah it's a control issue. It has nothing
to do with true submission, it has all to do with
control.

If anyone were to look into the spirit as to this
teaching, they'd see the devil laughing back at them.
It's devilish because it brings rebellion. That is why
Paul said that we have no such custom, he was releasing
people from this obligation if they wanted to.

Paul knew that if you bring some external law that HAD TO
be obeyed, he knew that it would bring about lawlessness.

------

If it's a control issues then Paul must have been controlling! However, it's not a control issue. It's an issue that relates to God, Christ, Angles, Man, and glory. Pretty clear from the text. It seems like anytime someone doesn't like what the bible says on an issue they start saying that "obedience is legalism". Acts 15 says believers were not to eat meat that had been strangled, to keep from things polluted by idols etc. Was Paul putting the people back under law? Paul gave instructions/rules on how Spiritual gifts were to operate in the fellowship, was Paul putting people back under law? Paul gave qualification for elders, was Paul putting people back under law?

Again, it seems that anytime someone doesn't like what the word teaches on a subject they will speak about all kinds of scripture EXCEPT the scriptures in question. That is certainly not a sound way to understand the bible. The guy in the article did what we should all do. We should examine the scripture in context and see what they say.

Would anyone like to comment on the article and the scriptures that relate to head coverings and show why the bible teaches they are not valid for today? (if that can be shown)

_________________
Lisa

_________________
Diane

myfirstlove,

Be happy with your interpretation and allow others to be happy and serve the Lord with theirs.

Why don't you join us in the other thread that roadsign posted?

Pilgrim

myfirstlove said: "that If God decides to spend half a chapter on the subject of head coverings, when He's speaking about instructions for the churches, then it is an important topic".


What version are you reading from?

Paul wasn't instructing anyone. He was making statements and after talking about it gives this happy ending,

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

In other words, if this is going to cause a fight among the Churches, we don't have this custom. However, if some people accept it, great, then do it before God in all sincerity.


myfirstlove said: "It seems like anytime someone doesn't like what the bible says on an issue they start saying that "obedience is legalism".

Now that was pretty low statement to make, especially in this forum seeing that we all are here to glorify God. This is not your ordinary run of the mill christian forum. We are all here longing for a move of God without compromise. We are all here longing for Christ to manifest His righteousness through us flawed vessels.

We are not here to push away this issue, nor are we here to make compromises so that we can rewrite the bible to say something else.

But Paul new this subject would be contentious therefore he said that such customs are not in the Churches.

He is not saying that men and women don't follow their respected courses of how they must be in this world. All men and women who have an ounce of Christ in them understand that they are to be subjected to the authority to which they have been subjugated. However, WE can't beat them there.

Love is the only thing that will work. Love your neighbour as yourself. Let it come from God. In other words, let God speak to them and not an outside source, yea, not even the bible.

I know that sounds like blasphemy saying that. Jesus said, "Out of your innermost being shall flow rivers of living water". He didn't say, out of your bible shall flow rivers of living water.

I am not being disrespectful of the bible. But you can't take those words and try to apply them to your life, if you do that your going to make yourself into a twofold child of hell. That is why we have so many religions, so many denominations, men trying to live the bible.

The most needed thing in reading the bible is having ears to hear. Once we hear it we take that hearing and ask the Lord to make that real in our lives. Then God goes to work on our behalf.

Now if I read that I should have long hair and wear a blue bonnet and I put that on because it's written there, I am just dressing up the flesh, I'd be no different than those who tried to obey the law in their flesh. But if I wake up one morning and I feel that I should let my hair grow longer because I feel it's the right thing to do, then who gets the glory? God or me trying to obey the bible?

When we came to God for the first time, that pull to repent came from the Holy Spirit, it didn't come from us. All we did was respond to it. The same goes when the Holy Spirit woos us in a certain direction and we respond to it. How can I respond to His wooing when I am not being wooed?

Seeing that this subject is contentious, we have no such customs neither the Churches of God.

God Bless

Sean unless I misread your profkl you have been a member of this forum since the mid 2000's. Surely you must know this is one of those hot button topics that has been debated almost to the point of divisiveness. You can go to the archives and find those threads though they are not particularly edifying.

If you believe the scriptures teach the head covering then do what Pilgrim said. Be happy in your interpretion.

My own understanding of the issue is it was particular to the Corithian church. The Corithians had some issues, practices, and questions that Paul wrote to correct and answer. After addressing divisiveness, immorality of incest, and law suits among believers, he turns to their questions. In 1 Cor.7:1 he says 'Now for the matters you wrote about'. The rest of the book addresses the matters of marriage, Christian freedom, head covering, Lords supper, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection of believers. Thus from my observation the head covering issue was a peculiar issue to the Corithian church not binding to the other churches. I do not think you will accept my understanding which is fine. But please do not try to bind others into wearing the head covering if they so choose not to. Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind.

By the way bro I do not glory in martyrdom. I am simply saying there are far more weightier matters facing the American church than the head covering. Bro you have the last word for I exit this thread.

His blessing.

Blaine Scogin

_________________
Christiaan

Miccah,

I think you misunderstood what Approved said.

_________________
Christiaan

Hi Approved,

Here are the verses that are all tied together when speaking on Head Coverings:


Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 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. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
(1Co 11:2-16)

Sorry, it's a verse or two under half a chapter. The fact is, Paul does not lay out 15 verse about authority and head coverings and then say "by the way, everything I just told you about head coverings, how it's tied to God and Christ, how it's tied to Angles, how it's tied to the glory of man....actually we don't practice any of that".

Here's what other have had to say about these verses...

ALBERT BARNES:

1Co 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious - The sense of this passage is probably this: “If any man, any teacher, or others, “is disposed” to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in public, I would add that in Judea we have no such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the churches. This, therefore, would be a sufficient reason why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would offend the prejudices of many and should, therefore, be avoided.”

We have no such custom - We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.

Neither the churches of God - The churches elsewhere. It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.

ADAM CLARK

1Co 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious - Ει δε τις δοκει φιλονεικος ειναι· If any person sets himself up as a wrangler - puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have already seen that the verb δοκειν, which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.

JOHN GILL

1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious,.... That is, if anyone will not be satisfied with reasons given, for men's praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered, and women's praying and prophesying with their heads covered; but will go on to raise objections, and continue carping and cavilling, showing that they contend not for truth, but victory, can they but obtain it any way; for my part, as if the apostle should say, I shall not think it worth my while to continue the dispute any longer; enough has been said to satisfy any wise and good man, anyone that is serious, thoughtful, and modest; and shall only add,

we have no such custom, nor the churches of God; meaning, either that men should appear covered, and women uncovered in public service, and which should have some weight with all those that have any regard to churches and their examples; or that men should be indulged in a captious and contentious spirit; a man that is always contending for contention sake, and is continually cavilling and carping at everything that is said and done in churches, and is always quarrelling with one person or another, or on account of one thing or another, and is constantly giving uneasiness, is not fit to be a church member; nor ought he to be suffered to continue in the communion of the church, to the disturbance of the peace of it. This puts me in mind of a passage in the Talmud (n).
----------

Brother, it seems with this issue and a few others, people always cry legalism when it's brought up. Everyone says it's cultural but no one shows from the scriptures how it was cultural when the scriptures actually show they exact opposite. That is why you see few people actually address the passages in context but instead either appeal to something they heard from some pastor or they give an emotionally charged response.

You said: "Seeing that this subject is contentious, we have no such customs neither the Churches of God."

So does that mean that since spiritual gifts are contentious to some we don't bring it up? The baptism of the Spirit is contentious in some circles so should we not bring it up? The five fold ministry is contentious in some circles so should we not bring it up? I could go on and on and on.

Paul is saying that the contentious ones are the ones who do not observe what he has said and listen to the reason that he gave for what he explained.

IN Christ,

Sean

_________________
Lisa