Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside

[1Corinth2v4]

Bump...

Whatever your interpretations on 1 Corinthians 11 may be, the early church - for more than 1,000 years - understood Paul to be referring to a literal cloth type head covering.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3213183202_f29fd6e65c_m.jpg

From the catacombs - late 1st century or early 2nd century A.D.

Veils are custom, as 1 Cor 11:1 begins with Paul's words to follow his example, which is a carry-over from chapter 10 which speaks of not offending people with customs. What is divine is order of submission, not the symbol of the veil that shows it. My thoughts, anyway.

Pelthais & Mblue,

Please read carefully and open-minded.

There's no indication within the Old Testament where women were required to utilize a veil during worship/prayer (see Deuteronomy). In 1st Corinthians 3:13 the Apostle Paul mentions Moses' (Greek:Kaluma), an actual veil. There's no other Greek word utilized within the New Testament specifically referring to only "veil." Therefore, we can't positively conclude that Paul's statement about a female's covering referred to an actual veil, in oppose to her hair.

Now, Mfblube and Pelthais, I would like to explore your ideology, that possibly Apostle Paul referred to an actual cloth as a head covering within the eleventh chapter of 1st Corinthians, as you claim this was a practice amongst the early church. Well allow me the opportunity to prove you wrong!

Read the following very carefully:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
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;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

Should I also mention that in the Old Testament, the high priest (a male) prayed while wearing his garment. Needless to say this garment had a hood attached, which the high priest wore on his head while praying, etc. Or should I also mention that Ezekiel prophesied while having his head covered (Ezekiel 24:17)?

If Paul in fact was actually speaking of a "cloth" as a covering in 1 Corinthians 11:4, then Ezekiel, the high priest, and various others dishonored their head!



1 Corinthians 11:
4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.


Also notice Romans 1:
27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly........


Romans states that nature teaches sexual relations are only between men and women (after marriage).


Now read what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11

14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Regarding a covering, how natural is a cloth on a female or male's head? Remember, Paul referenced nature itself teaches us about this head "covering." Understanding veil (cloth) is nowhere near natural, the only natural reference Paul can address is hair and hair length, which is natural on a human being.

[mfblume]

Bro., you miss something. :)

Paul said there was no other CUSTOM than what he showed for the church. He was delineating Old Covenant and every other religion or group from the church's UNIQUE custom of women ALONE wearing veils, and not men. Old Covenant saw both. Other cultures had men alone wearing coverings. But ONLY the church at that time had ONLY WOMEN wearing them.

[mfblume]

Also consider this, openly.

The BIBLE did not demand a covering outside of Paul's words in 1 Cor 11. Paul would not rebuke a people for doing something demanded by God in and of itself if it was not already written in the scripture. For example, you can tell someone not to kill in a rebuke because it is written in commandment form outside of rebuke. A rebuke is always referencing something already commanded.

But Paul, here, rebukes them from something not already commanded in scripture. So why rebuke them for that? It is for the same reason Paul rebuked people for eating meat IF IT OFFENDED A BELIEVER. And that is actually the same sort of context in which 1 Cor 11 falls into after reading 1 Cor 10.

As you ask where it was commanded for women to wear veils, I am asking you where it was commanded for women to not cut their hair outside of Paul's rebuke? If it cannot be found in commandment form outside of a rebuke, then it has to do with not offending due to culture or whatever other NON-SCRIPTURAL requirement.

[1Corinth2v4]

Bro., you miss something. :)

Paul said there was no other CUSTOM than what he showed for the church. He was delineating Old Covenant and every other religion or group from the church's UNIQUE custom of women ALONE wearing veils, and not men. Old Covenant saw both. Other cultures had men alone wearing coverings. But ONLY the church at that time had ONLY WOMEN wearing them.

I believe you missed this:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
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;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

[Hoovie]

I believe you missed this:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
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;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

The instruction was for specific times (while engaging in prayer or prophesy) - Paul did not instruct her to cover her head at ALL times.

[mfblume]

I believe you missed this:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
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;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

The veil was only for prayer and prophesying, not all the time, bro. :)

[mfblume]

Lookie here, Bro Hoover and I said the same thing in the same minute,. Now, is that a witness, or what?

[Hoovie]

Lookie here, Bro Hoover and I said the same thing in the same minute,. Now, is that a witness, or what?

Ten points for veils. LOL!

[mfblume]

Ten points for veils. LOL!

Woohoo!

And 0 for hair. ;)

Just kidding, 1cor. All in good fun.

Anyway, we can disagree while we fellowship.

[1Corinth2v4]

The veil was only for prayer and prophesying, not all the time, bro. :)


I see......so subjection between women to man, and man to God is only intermittent? :D

[mfblume]

Regarding a covering, how natural is a cloth on a female or male's head? Remember, Paul referenced nature itself teaches us about this head "covering." Understanding veil (cloth) is nowhere near natural, the only natural reference Paul can address is hair and hair length, which is natural on a human being.
__________________

A veil is not natural, and that is the point. Paul proposed the covering, and did not say what it was. He only said a woman must be covered for various reasons. WHEN is something Paul noted when he said "praying or prophesying." Hair cannot be put on or off around such times. If it was hair, he would not have stipulated a time.

Anyway, amongst all the arguments he gives for a covering, he finally appeals to NATURE. And when he does, he says hair is "A COVERING". Nature had not been introduced before this, which is why hair was not said to be a covering before this. Paul only said that if a woman refuses a covering she should be shorn or shaven, which means embaldened using scissors or razor. Since NATURE became an appeal to Paul, HAIR was mentioned. As much as a man looks shameful with long veil-like hair, and a woman looks glorious, so does a veil suit a woman and not a man. Hence, the reference to nature showing its form of a covering to support Paul's argument.

[mfblume]

I see......so subjection between women to man, and man to God is only intermittent? :D

One has to follow the pattern of glory and veiling from the old covenant to get this point.

All are submitted under God, anyway. Christ under God, man under Christ and woman under man. But woman and man both showed it before grace because man is God's glory (1 Cor 11:7) and glory of God was not revealed until the cross. The veil was removed from the holiest to reveal God's glory.

1 Corinthians 11:7 KJV 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.

God's glory (represented by man) was not revealed, so men and women were both covered before the cross.

[LUKE2447]

The role of veils in the OT does not make it relevant in the new. Paul is teaching on headship in view due to the revelation of Christ as our head thus he gives divine order and reasoning on how women and men should be covered. This is in respect to the Bride of Christ in relationship to Christ and God.

Also Paul showing and teaching on how the Body of Christ should be covered in relationship to others would be proper. As local custom would have been a issue and thus Paul gives REASONING why we cover the way we do. Thus Paul gives reasoning starting at the top with headship and goes on to the order of creation etc... He was presenting the theological purpose WHY Christians should and should not be covered. to say this is simply only to appease local custom makes little sense of his argument. Teaching how and why we should due to confusion brought forth by pagan customs in which there acts would disgrace there head. Thus Paul at the least is not appeasing but arguing for proper head covering for the daily Christian in view of headship in the body of Christ, thus NOT appeasing local pagans.

In all his comments don't allow for a temporary view to local custom but a view of Christian life and how we relate to our head.

[Aquila]

The role of veils in the OT does not make it relevant in the new. Paul is teaching on headship in view due to the revelation of Christ as our head thus he gives divine order and reasoning on how women and men should be covered. This is in respect to the Bride of Christ in relationship to Christ and God.

Also Paul showing and teaching on how the Body of Christ should be covered in relationship to others would be proper. As local custom would have been a issue and thus Paul gives REASONING why we cover the way we do. Thus Paul gives reasoning starting at the top with headship and goes on to the order of creation etc... He was presenting the theological purpose WHY Christians should and should not be covered. to say this is simply only to appease local custom makes little sense of his argument. Teaching how and why we should due to confusion brought forth by pagan customs in which there acts would disgrace there head. Thus Paul at the least is not appeasing but arguing for proper head covering for the daily Christian in view of headship in the body of Christ, thus NOT appeasing local pagans.

In all his comments don't allow for a temporary view to local custom but a view of Christian life and how we relate to our head.

I'm curious, does your wife wear a had covering as Paul required it? Not a doily or bonnet or snood, but what Paul was talking about?

[LUKE2447]

I'm curious, does your wife wear a had covering as Paul required it? Not a doily or bonnet or snood, but what Paul was talking about?

She wears a covering by her own conviction and not mine. Cloth covering the head to the shoulders. Pretty much same way in which her hair covers so does her cloth. I don't get picky on that as sometime it cover half the top of her head and sometimes all of it. I don't see any legal or technical way except hair as a possible example.

[Aquila]

1Corinth2v4, I’d like to share my thoughts if you don’t mind.

Pelthais & Mblue,

Please read carefully and open-minded.

There's no indication within the Old Testament where women were required to utilize a veil during worship/prayer (see Deuteronomy). In 1st Corinthians 3:13 the Apostle Paul mentions Moses' (Greek:Kaluma), an actual veil. There's no other Greek word utilized within the New Testament specifically referring to only "veil." Therefore, we can't positively conclude that Paul's statement about a female's covering referred to an actual veil, in oppose to her hair.

You’re right, there was nothing requiring the use of the veil, however, it was a common custom throughout the Middle East…. and still is today. There are plenty of references of women wearing veils throughout the Old Testament to demonstrate this.

Read the following very carefully:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
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;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

This is a tragic leap of logic. Anyone schooled in history and the arts knows that Hellenist women and women throughout the Middle East not only styled and plaited their hair, but then wore coverings that were often ornate and made of fine fabrics such as silk. Peter’s guidance in no way disproves the widespread use of various head coverings in the ancient world.

Should I also mention that in the Old Testament, the high priest (a male) prayed while wearing his garment. Needless to say this garment had a hood attached, which the high priest wore on his head while praying, etc. Or should I also mention that Ezekiel prophesied while having his head covered (Ezekiel 24:17)?

If Paul in fact was actually speaking of a "cloth" as a covering in 1 Corinthians 11:4, then Ezekiel, the high priest, and various others dishonored their head!

1 Corinthians 11:
4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.


Also notice Romans 1:
27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly........


Romans states that nature teaches sexual relations are only between men and women (after marriage).

Now read what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11

14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Regarding a covering, how natural is a cloth on a female or male's head? Remember, Paul referenced nature itself teaches us about this head "covering." Understanding veil (cloth) is nowhere near natural, the only natural reference Paul can address is hair and hair length, which is natural on a human being.

Details and context are needed:

Paul was instructing Christian men not to follow after the custom of the Jewish men who pray with their heads covered. If a Christian man prays as though still under the Law he dishonors Christ, so men are told they are not to follow after the custom of the Jewish authorities. However, the women evidently felt that they too were not expected to maintain a head covering. Paul refutes this notion. While a Christian man is no longer bound to pray with a head covering, women are. Why? First, they were told that if a woman prays without her head covering it was the same as if she were shorn or shaven. This is an allusion to the Law and ancient custom of cutting the hair of a harlot or adulterous woman to shame her. But since it is evident that it is a shame to be shorn or shaven, let also a woman wear her head covering. It’s a modesty issue. Paul continues by explaining that a woman should be in submission to her head, her husband, and refusing this propriety dishonors her husband. She is to submit and wear the veil so as not to be condemned in rebellion as were the angels who refused to accept headship. Then he asks them a question going back to their cultural understanding of modesty, he asks them to judge in themselves as to if it is comely (proper) for a woman to pray uncovered? Then Paul pulls an example from nature, doesn’t even nature teach that a woman is to be covered? Is not her hair given her for a covering by nature itself? This being evident from common understanding and nature itself, women should embrace the head covering and maintain a proper and modest appearance in worship.

The issue was modesty and propriety during worship and how the ladies were abandoning the common standard of modesty of their day. You could say he was addressing some early women's libbers. lol

[LUKE2447]

1Corinth2v4, I’d like to share my thoughts if you don’t mind.



You’re right, there was nothing requiring the use of the veil, however, it was a common custom throughout the Middle East…. and still is today. There are plenty of references of women wearing veils throughout the Old Testament to demonstrate this.



This is a tragic leap of logic. Anyone schooled in history and the arts knows that Hellenist women and women throughout the Middle East not only styled and plaited their hair, but then wore coverings that were often ornate and made of fine fabrics such as silk. Peter’s guidance in no way disproves the widespread use of various head coverings in the ancient world.



Details and context are needed:

Paul was instructing Christian men not to follow after the custom of the Jewish men who pray with their heads covered. If a Christian man prays as though still under the Law he dishonors Christ, so men are told they are not to follow after the custom of the Jewish authorities. However, the women evidently felt that they too were not expected to maintain a head covering. Paul refutes this notion. While a Christian man is no longer bound to pray with a head covering, women are. Why? First, they were told that if a woman prays without her head covering it was the same as if she were shorn or shaven. This is an allusion to the Law and ancient custom of cutting the hair of a harlot or adulterous woman to shame her. But since it is evident that it is a shame to be shorn or shaven, let also a woman wear her head covering. It’s a modesty issue. Paul continues by explaining that a woman should be in submission to her head, her husband, and refusing this propriety dishonors her husband. She is to submit and wear the veil so as not to be condemned in rebellion as were the angels who refused to accept headship. Then he asks them a question going back to their cultural understanding of modesty, he asks them to judge in themselves as to if it is comely (proper) for a woman to pray uncovered? Then Paul pulls an example from nature, doesn’t even nature teach that a woman is to be covered? Is not her hair given her for a covering by nature itself? This being evident from common understanding and nature itself, women should embrace the head covering and maintain a proper and modest appearance in worship.

The issue was modesty and propriety during worship and how the ladies were abandoning the common standard of modesty of their day. You could say he was addressing some early women's libbers. lol

I would agree with much of this. Though your point of due to modesty of there day negates in part my point Paul uses clear teaching this is not restricted to culture but is a aspect of divine order. It was propriety but in relation to divine order of a covering that was needed do to divine order not due to custom demand.

[Aquila]

Paul’s point was that women should be modestly veiled in public worship. Paul then gives four reasons why:

1.) Refusal to adhere to modesty dishonors their husband.

2.) Its shamefully immodest, like a woman having her hair sheered or shaven (penalty for an adulterous woman).

3.) Rebellion brings judgment as we see with the angels that rebelled.

4.) Even nature teaches that a woman should be veiled because it has given her hair for a covering.

[LUKE2447]

So Aquila are you saying women don't need a covering at all now? That clearly goes against the meaning of the text.

[LUKE2447]

Paul’s point was that women should be modestly veiled in public worship. Paul then gives four reasons why:

[indent]1.) Refusal to adhere to modesty dishonors their husband. ( I would say more to submission or divine order as modesty in many ways is negated in many people minds as optional)

2.) Its shamefully immodest, like a woman having her hair sheered or shaven (penalty for an adulterous woman). (Would not disagree. I would also say here hair is to be long as that is here natural covering of distinction and glory given by God.)

3.) Rebellion brings judgment as we see with the angels that rebelled. ( I don't necessarily disagree but it is up for debate of whether his points was of rebellion on there part of more toward ability to minister)

4.) Even nature teaches that a woman should be veiled because it has given her hair for a covering. ( I would agree see my points on 2)

Points Above!

[Aquila]

I would agree with much of this. Though your point of due to modesty of there day negates in part my point Paul uses clear teaching this is not restricted to culture but is a aspect of divine order. It was propriety but in relation to divine order of a covering that was needed do to divine order not due to custom demand.


Let’s look at the text putting each verse in context:


I Corinthians 11:1-16
{11:1} Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of
Christ.

{11:2} Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me
in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them]
to you. {11:3} 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.

Here Paul lays down divine order, next he begins to address an issue…


{11:4} Every man
praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head.

If a man prays with head covered, as do the Jews, he dishonors Christ by living as though under the Law.

{11:5} 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.

Wow. Here it is, if a woman goes without a covering it’s as though she were shaven. In other words it’s immodest and unsightly.

{11:6} 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 a woman will not wear her covering, let her be shorn. Why? Because she’s acting like an immodest harlot. But since it’s a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her simply obey and be covered.

{11:7} 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.

A man ought not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. He’s been set free from the Law and symbolically represents Christ, the groom of the bride. The woman is the glory of the man, as the church is the glory of Christ.

{11:8}
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the
man. {11:9} Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man.

Women may not like this standard, but they are called to be in subjection because they were made for their husbands.

{11:10} For this cause ought
the woman to have power on [her] head because of the
angels.

The woman is to have authority and reverence given to her head (her husband) instead of this immodesty failure to cover, because failure to cover is rebellion and she will reap judgment for her rebellion as did the angels.

{11:11} Nevertheless neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
{11:12} For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the
man also by the woman; but all things of god.

In light of this however, each should give mutual respect. Women are not door mats to be bossed around because even man owes his life to woman.

{11:13}
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto
God uncovered?

Paul asks them about their cultural sensitivity. Is it proper that a woman be uncovered? The answer would be an obvious “no” in first century context.

{11:14} Doth not even nature itself teach
you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
{11:15} But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

Paul now appeals to nature itself, for even nature teaches us that a woman should be covered, her hair serving as this example.

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

If any man be contentious against the principles of modesty that Paul is laying down, the church has no such custom.

So Aquila are you saying women don't need a covering at all now? That clearly goes against the meaning of the text.

The eternal principle is modesty. Paul was addressing the necessity of head coverings to maintain modesty. Today we don’t wear head coverings, but this serves as an example showing us how to address other modesty issues in all cultures. If attending church in Pakistan a woman should most likely wear a head covering. In America, it’s not issue. But we might ask, should a woman wear panty hose? Some don’t care. But in today’s culture it’s alluring and if she is uncomely or improper in worship, she dishonors her head, her husband. As you can see, the same principle is in play though head coverings aren’t required anymore.

That’s my understanding bro. God bless ya.

[LUKE2447]

I re read and see you don't believe in any head covering.

[LUKE2447]

Let’s look at the text putting each verse in context:


I Corinthians 11:1-16
{11:1} Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of
Christ.

{11:2} Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me
in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them]
to you. {11:3} 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.

Here Paul lays down divine order, next he begins to address an issue…


{11:4} Every man
praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head.

If a man prays with head covered, as do the Jews, he dishonors Christ by living as though under the Law.

{11:5} 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.

Wow. Here it is, if a woman goes without a covering it’s as though she were shaven. In other words it’s immodest and unsightly.

{11:6} 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 a woman will not wear her covering, let her be shorn. Why? Because she’s acting like an immodest harlot. But since it’s a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her simply obey and be covered.

{11:7} 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.

A man ought not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. He’s been set free from the Law and symbolically represents Christ, the groom of the bride. The woman is the glory of the man, as the church is the glory of Christ.

{11:8}
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the
man. {11:9} Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man.

Women may not like this standard, but they are called to be in subjection because they were made for their husbands.

{11:10} For this cause ought
the woman to have power on [her] head because of the
angels.

The woman is to have authority and reverence given to her head (her husband) instead of this immodesty failure to cover, because failure to cover is rebellion and she will reap judgment for her rebellion as did the angels.

{11:11} Nevertheless neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
{11:12} For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the
man also by the woman; but all things of god.

In light of this however, each should give mutual respect. Women are not door mats to be bossed around because even man owes his life to woman.

{11:13}
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto
God uncovered?

Paul asks them about their cultural sensitivity. Is it proper that a woman be uncovered? The answer would be an obvious “no” in first century context.

{11:14} Doth not even nature itself teach
you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
{11:15} But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

Paul now appeals to nature itself, for even nature teaches us that a woman should be covered, her hair serving as this example.

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

If any man be contentious against the principles of modesty that Paul is laying down, the church has no such custom.



The eternal principle is modesty. Paul was addressing the necessity of head coverings to maintain modesty. Today we don’t wear head coverings, but this serves as an example showing us how to address other modesty issues in all cultures. If attending church in Pakistan a woman should most likely wear a head covering. In America, it’s not issue. But we might ask, should a woman wear panty hose? Some don’t care. But in today’s culture it’s alluring and if she is uncomely or improper in worship, she dishonors her head, her husband. As you can see, the same principle is in play though head coverings aren’t required anymore.

That’s my understanding bro. God bless ya.

Sorry can't agree with your end result. Paul clearly teaches women should as a matter headship. To say "WELL, we don't wear headcoverings today" is not argument that we are not to....

Culture does not determine principle and biblical truths. It might be applied in part to culture but it does not negate it. Head covering per Paul are of divine order and his reasoning goes beyond the bounds of "well you don't have to as this is only a temporal thing and if this not where you are it doesn't matter"! Sorry that tone is not given by Paul!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Isn't it true that for something to truly be a Biblical doctrine, it should be supported elsewhere in scripture? Where else in the Bible does it say that a woman is required to wear a physical headcovering?

Or, for that matter, where else does it say that a woman should not cut her hair (if you believe that this is what those scriptures teach)?

[Aquila]

Sorry can't agree with your end result. Paul clearly teaches women should as a matter headship. To say "WELL, we don't wear headcoverings today" is not argument that we are not to....

Culture does not determine principle and biblical truths. It might be applied in part to culture but it does not negate it. Head covering per Paul are of divine order and his reasoning goes beyond the bounds of "well you don't have to as this is only a temporal thing and if this not where you are it doesn't matter"! Sorry that tone is not given by Paul!

The way I see it is that you’re looking at the letter of the law, so to speak. Paul was talking about head coverings, therefore head coverings are required. I’m looking at the spirit of the law, so to speak. Paul was addressing a modesty issue in relation to head coverings worn at the time. While head coverings are no longer worn or required, the principles of modesty still stand. If a woman isn’t modest and wearing appropriate attire in worship, while praying or prophesying, she dishonors her head, i.e. her husband. So your position might say that a woman dishonors her husband without a head covering. I say it’s more than that. She dishonors him if her blouse is cut too low, her dress is too tight, her skirt is too short, her slit to open, etc. It’s all part of the same big picture, Paul just happened to be addressing head coverings in the first century Corinthian church. If a woman rebels against modesty in any way, the point not being head coverings, she rejects headship and dishonors her head, her husband.

It’s a principle, not a law. ;)

[Aquila]

Isn't it true that for something to truly be a Biblical doctrine, it should be supported elsewhere in scripture? Where else in the Bible does it say that a woman is required to wear a physical headcovering?

Not necessarily. The Bible is God’s Word. If something is taught only once we are bound to heed it. Though I think here the issue is a principle of modesty, not a law requiring head coverings.

Or, for that matter, where else does it say that a woman should not cut her hair (if you believe that this is what those scriptures teach)?

Technically, the Scriptures do not condemn a woman cutting her hair. It simply implies that it was a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. This was typically done to publicly humiliate harlots.

[LUKE2447]

Let’s look at the text putting each verse in context:


I Corinthians 11:1-16
{11:1} Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of
Christ.

{11:2} Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me
in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them]
to you. {11:3} 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.

Here Paul lays down divine order, next he begins to address an issue…


{11:4} Every man
praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head.

If a man prays with head covered, as do the Jews, he dishonors Christ by living as though under the Law.

(It does not say that! Though I am not going to say nothing can be pointed in total in that direction it totaly is out of bounds as Paul clearly would have said "law" if he was addressing such. He is addressing the realization of Christ but you argument that is due to the detriment of the Jews etc.... is at best speculation)

{11:5} 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.

Wow. Here it is, if a woman goes without a covering it’s as though she were shaven. In other words it’s immodest and unsightly.

{11:6} 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 a woman will not wear her covering, let her be shorn. Why? Because she’s acting like an immodest harlot. But since it’s a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her simply obey and be covered.

{11:7} 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.

A man ought not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. He’s been set free from the Law and symbolically represents Christ, the groom of the bride. The woman is the glory of the man, as the church is the glory of Christ.

(Again speculation not saying it's not possible but it still seems out of bounds as Paul clearly would have referenced "the law" as is his normal trait and give more direct teaching. Also your arguement does not help for a temporal aspect to veiling but gives a even more permanent aspect of which I would agree. Also we are not freed from "law" we just realize it through a different administation. We are set free from the body of sin and death which is the flesh as it is cricumcised from us, so we can live according to the "law" of the Spirit which is the "the law" put on our hearts. The law was not sin but the flesh being weak caused sin due to us realizing that which was right and us being contrary to it in action and deed)


{11:8}
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the
man. {11:9} Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man.

Women may not like this standard, but they are called to be in subjection because they were made for their husbands.

Which is why women fight headcoverings today as it is clearly an outward demeaning symbol to them. Gotta look that part ya know!

{11:10} For this cause ought
the woman to have power on [her] head because of the
angels.

The woman is to have authority and reverence given to her head (her husband) instead of this immodesty failure to cover, because failure to cover is rebellion and she will reap judgment for her rebellion as did the angels.

(Again, the text shows for a permanent aspect not temporal. Again it is immodesty of headship of divine order not in reference to pagan culture but within the church and of order within the body. This being the case we should not change a truth because of womens lib or whatever but embrace the clear teaching of Paul that is order and culture given by God himself. Who are we to cast of this aspect of truth which CREATES THE CULTURE. Gods truth creates a culture. So to cast of this truth is to deny the culture which God creates in his body. I see no way this can be temporal)

{11:11} Nevertheless neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
{11:12} For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the
man also by the woman; but all things of god.

In light of this however, each should give mutual respect. Women are not door mats to be bossed around because even man owes his life to woman.

Would agree, again also shows a more permanent vs temporal teaching.

{11:13}
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto
God uncovered?

Paul asks them about their cultural sensitivity. Is it proper that a woman be uncovered? The answer would be an obvious “no” in first century context.

(true, but Paul pointing to something in which they all understood would be a argument of familiarity not that it is only for that time and place.)


{11:14} Doth not even nature itself teach
you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
{11:15} But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

Paul now appeals to nature itself, for even nature teaches us that a woman should be covered, her hair serving as this example.

TOTALY agree!

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

If any man be contentious against the principles of modesty that Paul is laying down, the church has no such custom.

Again, you keep making it about only modesty in relationship to the pagan culture. Paul's point all throughout is that headship and being covered is a principle of divine order not just some little aspect to be modest of local custom.



The eternal principle is modesty.

True in part but propriety due to the divine order is the central point and the "eternal principle" . Modesty is a recognizable attribute not the central figure.


Paul was addressing the necessity of head coverings to maintain modesty.

Again not modesty but divine order! The covering being modest is only recognized as such do to the emphasis of divine order. Because distinction in headship is needed the covering is seen as modesty and thus the symbol of it. Why? Because of creation. To say women don't need a covering today, negates the very eternal principle by which Paul taught.

Today we don’t wear head coverings, but this serves as an example showing us how to address other modesty issues in all cultures.

Why don't we? Maybe because of feminism and women casting off there natural role?
Paul is not talking about other cultures he is talking about the creating of culture within the church and headship due to the revelation of Christ.
Also your point that we don't wear headcoverings today means nothing! Because our culture has cast of the divine order of headship for todays' feminism doesn't support your argument. Also lack of discernment of what the scripture says is not an excuse for negating the creative order and how our relationship to God in that order should be maintained when approaching him.


If attending church in Pakistan a woman should most likely wear a head covering. In America, it’s not issue. But we might ask, should a woman wear panty hose? Some don’t care. But in today’s culture it’s alluring and if she is uncomely or improper in worship, she dishonors her head, her husband. As you can see, the same principle is in play though head coverings aren’t required anymore.

Because the churches are wrong about alot of things that has a effect on the culture gives the reason to negate the truth? Again, Pauls points are clear concerning the reason for a covering is headship due to his divine order in creation and submission before him. When we come to him we are to be seen in submission in the proper way in which he created us. To say women do not need to be covered today negates the whole chapter and teaching of Paul is virtually meaningless teaching that one need to be covered.

That’s my understanding bro. God bless ya.

God Bless you and I enjoy your take on things!

[LUKE2447]

The way I see it is that you’re looking at the letter of the law, so to speak. Paul was talking about head coverings, therefore head coverings are required. I’m looking at the spirit of the law, so to speak. Paul was addressing a modesty issue in relation to head coverings worn at the time. While head coverings are no longer worn or required, the principles of modesty still stand. If a woman isn’t modest and wearing appropriate attire in worship, while praying or prophesying, she dishonors her head, i.e. her husband. So your position might say that a woman dishonors her husband without a head covering. I say it’s more than that. She dishonors him if her blouse is cut too low, her dress is too tight, her skirt is too short, her slit to open, etc. It’s all part of the same big picture, Paul just happened to be addressing head coverings in the first century Corinthian church. If a woman rebels against modesty in any way, the point not being head coverings, she rejects headship and dishonors her head, her husband.

It’s a principle, not a law. ;)

sorry, have to disagree again. Modesty is all those things and they are clearly taught in scripture! Sorry but Spirit does not negate letter. The Spirit of the law is considerate of all the law into one action. The teaching of the letter vs spirit is taking one part of the law and negating the whole teaching of the law to come to a conclusion. To bring judgement to the letter, without love, mercy etc... is judgment by the letter. Paul's teaching has nothing to do with the Spirit of the law directly as you put it. Paul is clearly teaching something that is not to be done away with. Having and not having a covering on the head is clear. Now how to cover it properly could be seen in the SPirit of the law but not the direct teaching that someone should have a covering. You negate the WHOLE teaching for the excuse of "Spirit of the Law" In reality you are negating truth all togethor letter or Spirit.

Being covered is law brought about by the principle of headship and divine order which in reality is law as well. Law in many cases can be principle as well! Depends on the context and application.

[Aquila]

sorry, have to disagree again. Modesty is all those things and they are clearly taught in scripture! Sorry but Spirit does not negate letter. The Spirit of the law is considerate of all the law into one action. The teaching of the letter vs spirit is taking one part of the law and negating the whole teaching of the law to come to a conclusion. To bring judgement to the letter, without love, mercy etc... is judgment by the letter. Paul's teaching has nothing to do with the Spirit of the law directly as you put it. Paul is clearly teaching something that is not to be done away with. Having and not having a covering on the head is clear. Now how to cover it properly could be seen in the SPirit of the law but not the direct teaching that someone should have a covering. You negate the WHOLE teaching for the excuse of "Spirit of the Law" In reality you are negating truth all togethor letter or Spirit.

Being covered is law brought about by the principle of headship and divine order which in reality is law as well. Law in many cases can be principle as well! Depends on the context and application.

There are many things in the law that are no longer required, everything from eating pork, to sabbath observance, and so on. The issue is that these things all had a purpose in their time and place, however, the principle is what we are to abide by, not the letter of said law. Paul was giving practical advice on modesty and explaining that immodest women dishonor their husbands and if they rebel from said modesty they are denying the headship of their husbands. It's about more than head coverings. Paul wasn't talking about a mystical meaning in a head doily, or the talismanic virtue of a magic head covering (be it cloth or hair). It just some really practical down to earth advice to women regarding how they should appear when attending worship. The women's refusal to wear a head covering just forced the issue and so Paul was addressing it in relation to the issue at hand.

Today, he might have to talk about women making sure their knees are covered. Same deal, he'd explain they were dishonoring their husbands by being immodest.

[mfblume]

Women are always required to submit to husbands. But how that was symbolized so as to not offend in the culture of the day was Paul's issue.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Which is why women fight headcoverings today as it is clearly an outward demeaning symbol to them. Gotta look that part ya know!



This is an absolutely untrue statement.

[LUKE2447]

This is an absolutely untrue statement.

I have seen many scholars point this out of why we don't do that today because it would be demeaning etc....

[LUKE2447]

Women are always required to submit to husbands. But how that was symbolized so as to not offend in the culture of the day was Paul's issue.

Pauls points are clear. Heads should be covered and uncovered respectively BECAUSE of creation not culture!

[LUKE2447]

There are many things in the law that are no longer required, everything from eating pork, to sabbath observance, and so on. The issue is that these things all had a purpose in their time and place, however, the principle is what we are to abide by, not the letter of said law. Paul was giving practical advice on modesty and explaining that immodest women dishonor their husbands and if they rebel from said modesty they are denying the headship of their husbands. It's about more than head coverings. Paul wasn't talking about a mystical meaning in a head doily, or the talismanic virtue of a magic head covering (be it cloth or hair). It just some really practical down to earth advice to women regarding how they should appear when attending worship. The women's refusal to wear a head covering just forced the issue and so Paul was addressing it in relation to the issue at hand.

Today, he might have to talk about women making sure their knees are covered. Same deal, he'd explain they were dishonoring their husbands by being immodest.

I would have to disagree here as well. I also thought you believed observing sabbath was a blessing? Also concerning pork etc... either you can observe common sense given by God or ignore it at the peril of your own health. Also neither of the things you bring up supports not wearing a veil,when Paul basis his reason on creation and headship with Christ in view among a few things. The rest of your points are subjective and speculation. Paul does not give a reason not to but the reason for.

[Aquila]

The issue Paul was addressing was how the women were dishonoring their husbands through their immodesty. Today we demean women if we force them into a first century mold. No magic head coverings or magic hair is needed. Just modesty.

[LUKE2447]

The issue Paul was addressing was how the women were dishonoring their husband through their immodesty. Today we demean women if we force them into a first century mold. No magic head coverings or magic hair. Just modesty.

Absolute speculation and is not supported by the text by which Paul gives creation the reason for coverings not culture.

Also Paul is creating the culture due to the revelation of Christ! He is teaching the body how one is to approach God in prayer and prophecy with creation and divien order in mind. Sorry but you have no support from the text for extras you teach.

[Michael The Disciple]

Luke 2447 is doing a fine job here with the scriptures. Mike and Aquila also but then they fall and say it was just for back then.

Paul in no one meant it that way but rather as an ordinance of the Church.

2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

He introduces the topic by saying so.

Its good to see this truth being brought forth and will deliver Apostolics from the error of uncut hair doctrine and into the light of obedience to the teaching of Christ.

[Aquila]

Absolute speculation and is not supported by the text by which Paul gives creation the reason for coverings not culture.

Also Paul is creating the culture due to the revelation of Christ! He is teaching the body how one is to approach God in prayer and prophecy with creation and divine order in mind. Sorry but you have no support from the text for extras you teach.

Paul wasn’t “creating” anything. He was just addressing the issue of women ditching a head covering in public worship. It offended the cultural sensibilities of the men and dishonored their husbands. Most likely a letter from the Corinthians preceded this explaining how some men had complained to the elder about the women’s renunciation of head coverings and the elder was seeking advice as to how to address this issue. Paul’s letters aren’t didactic teachings. Paul most likely never knew his letter would become canon when it was first written.

Bro Luke, why “head coverings”? Nowhere in Scripture is any deeper relevance established. I’m glad Paul wasn’t addressing the inner garments worn by women; you’d demand they were necessary today. lol

[LUKE2447]

What I find amazing is with this divine order in which we properly approach God. Would not Satan want to destroy such? So he brings along false doctrine which goes against order and for disorder "because of the angels" yet the one fallen angel wants to destroy that order. He brings in false teaching and thus culture is changed among the church to scratch the itching ears. Then we have Aquila pointing to culture and today that we don't do this and thus it doesn't matter. Which is not based on scripture and the principle of divine order and creation but current feminism and culture based on false teaching which NEGATES, the needing of divine order and a covering which Pauls says you need to approach God properly. LOL! Nice circle for a argument! I will stick with the plain teaching of the text while you say NO COVERING is needed at all because...........


1) todays' culture does not wear them (not sure how that is based on biblical truth and not circular)
2) was only for that culture (when Paul basis wearing a covering on creation, angels, headship,submission, nature which are all eternal principles except maybe the angels which depends to what aspect Paul is referring)

[mfblume]

Luke 2447 is doing a fine job here with the scriptures. Mike and Aquila also but then they fall and say it was just for back then.

Paul in no one meant it that way but rather as an ordinance of the Church.

2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

He introduces the topic by saying so.

Its good to see this truth being brought forth and will deliver Apostolics from the error of uncut hair doctrine and into the light of obedience to the teaching of Christ.

Bro., to say this was not for back then is to say that the bible teaches elsewhere, outside of rebuking people in 1 Cor 11, that a covering is to be worn. And the bible does not teach this anywhere else. So where did the Corinthians gain that understanding in order to be rebuked for not doing it, if it was not from the bible? Answer? CULTURE.

And to disagree is to also overlook the fact that chapter 10 immediately before this deals with offending people due to cultural issues. And chapter 11 begins its first verse with a note from chapter 10 about following Paul in not offending.

At any rate, we agree the issue was a veil and not hair.

[mfblume]

What I find amazing is with this divine order in which we properly approach God. Would not Satan want to destroy such? So he brings along false doctrine which goes against order and for disorder "because of the angels" yet the one fallen angel wants to destroy that order. He brings in false teaching and thus culture is changed among the church to scratch the itching ears. Then we have Aquila pointing to culture and today that we don't do this and thus it doesn't matter. Which is not based on scripture and the principle of divine order and creation but current feminism and culture based on false teaching which NEGATES, the needing of divine order and a covering which Pauls says you need to approach God properly. LOL! Nice circle for a argument! I will stick with the plain teaching of the text while you say NO COVERING is needed at all because...........


1) todays' culture does not wear them (not sure how that is based on biblical truth and not circular)
2) was only for that culture (when Paul basis wearing a covering on creation, angels, headship,submission, nature which are all eternal principles except maybe the angels which depends to what aspect Paul is referring)


Divine order only dealt with submission, not symbols of it. :)

[MomOfADramaQn]

I believe you missed this:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
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;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.


OH NO - I know a BUNCH of pentecostal/apostolic women that don't follow this!!! They better quit making that long hair look so glamorous - God is NOT pleased :pullhair

[LUKE2447]

Paul wasn’t “creating” anything. He was just addressing the issue of women ditching a head covering in public worship. It offended the cultural sensibilities of the men and dishonored their husbands. Most likely a letter from the Corinthians preceded this explaining how some men had complained to the elder about the women’s renunciation of head coverings and the elder was seeking advice as to how to address this issue. Paul’s letters aren’t didactic teachings. Paul most likely never knew his letter would become canon when it was first written.

Bro Luke, why “head coverings”? Nowhere in Scripture is any deeper relevance established. I’m glad Paul wasn’t addressing the inner garments worn by women; you’d demand they were necessary today. lol

Not didactic? LOL! There are view arguments in all the Bible if any that have more cross usage than 1 Cor 11. You point of culture is extremely weak and you know it. Paul does not appeal to culture he appeals to Christ and that God is the head of him and Christ is the head of the man and man the head of the woman. You don't go to the depth of argument and a need for a covering to simply say the covering does not matter. When all Paul had to say is follow the local custom concerning wearing veils so you don't tick them off or bring offense. He doesn't say that nor does he even come close to even giving it as a reason. He does point to God, Christ, Man and woman.

His points are not how to pray in the pagan culture and not to offend but how to approach God in prayer and prophecy not matter the place. To point out that man is the IMAGE AND GLORY of God and should not be covered because of this is not about cultural taboo but my position before him due to creation in the following verses. Sorry but he is creating or reinforcing this teaching to the church. This is brought about by the new relationship we have before him through Christ. That could not have been taught before hand as it was just realized in there lifetime.

[mfblume]

Not didactic? LOL! There are view arguments in all the Bible if any that have more cross usage than 1 Cor 11. You point of culture is extremely weak and you know it. Paul does not appeal to culture he appeals to Christ and that God is the head of him and Christ is the head of the man and man the head of the woman. You don't go to the depth of argument and a need for a covering to simply say the covering does not matter. When all Paul had to say is follow the local custom concerning wearing veils so you don't tick them off or bring offense. He doesn't say that nor does he even come close to even giving it as a reason. He does point to God, Christ, Man and woman.

He points to those cases for the issue of SUBMISSION. If it was for COVERING, then why is not the man and Christ covered in veils, since they are under coverings themselves?

SUBMISSION and COVERING are synonymous, but that is not a physical covering. Physical coverings SYMBOLIZE that. But since God is head of Christ, then Christ is covered. Since Christ is head of man, then man is covered. And since man is head of woman, then woman is covered. But only WOMEN show this physically.

So it is out of context to say the divine issue was a veil, when it was submission which a veil merely represents.

And the context from chapter 10 is dealing with culture.

1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1 KJV (31) Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (32) Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: (33) Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. (11:1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

[LUKE2447]

Divine order only dealt with submission, not symbols of it. :)

According to what?

1Co 11:7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.(NO SYMBOL)
1Co 11:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (Which are ministers of God when you approach him)

Submission is realized in many aspects of our life and the covering is clearly the very sign of such acceptance of her authority and the lack of covering the acceptance of his authority according to creation in the body of Christ.

[Aquila]

What I find amazing is with this divine order in which we properly approach God. Would not Satan want to destroy such? So he brings along false doctrine which goes against order and for disorder "because of the angels" yet the one fallen angel wants to destroy that order. He brings in false teaching and thus culture is changed among the church to scratch the itching ears.

So, you believe that preservation of the divine order rests upon a woman wearing or not wearing a doily??? ROFL

Then we have Aquila pointing to culture and today that we don't do this and thus it doesn't matter.

No, what Aquila is pointing to is that the preservation of the divine order wrests upon a woman’s modesty which illustrates her submission and honor to her husband; something far, far, far more important than a mere doily, magic talisman, or token worn on her body. In Paul’s day the propriety of head coverings brought the issue of modesty and submission up for address. Today, it’s often skirts, dresses, and blouse cut. It’s bigger than you’re realizing.

If you told your wife that you thought a pair of shoes was improper and she wore them anyway, she’d be attacking the divine order and dishonoring you just as badly as the women who refused to wear a veil in public. The issue isn’t the article of clothing… the issue is submission to divine order and a woman honoring or dishonoring her husband.

[LUKE2447]

He points to those cases for the issue of SUBMISSION. If it was for COVERING, then why is not the man and Christ covered in veils, since they are under coverings themselves?

SUBMISSION and COVERING are synonymous, but that is not a physical covering. Physical coverings SYMBOLIZE that. But since God is head of Christ, then Christ is covered. Since Christ is head of man, then man is covered. And since man is head of woman, then woman is covered. But only WOMEN show this physically.

So it is out of context to say the divine issue was a veil, when it was submission which a veil merely represents.

And the context from chapter 10 is dealing with culture.

1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1 KJV (31) Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (32) Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: (33) Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. (11:1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.



Sorry Blume but Paul is on to other things and the text is not directly what you want it to be in relation to Chapter 11. Also yes the veil is a sign and recognition of authority and submission. Because it is a sign and symbol of it does not negate the need for it!

Is not the veil here the point in order that a women when she prays and prophecy she truly brings her authority and sign of submission to God in his presence thus "because of the angels?"

[mfblume]

According to what?

1Co 11:7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.(NO SYMBOL)
1Co 11:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (Which are ministers of God when you approach him)

Submission is realized in many aspects of our life and the covering is clearly the very sign of such acceptance of her authority and the lack of covering the acceptance of his authority according to creation in the body of Christ.

Then show me in the bible, outside of rebuke, that the word commanded women to wear coverings.

You can find rebukes in the bible about killing, and that is because there is a commandment in the bible that says to not kill.

To command the covering in 1 Cor 11 is to command something not laid out in scripture. You cannot rebuke someone for something God requires in and of itself if God never stated He required it in scripture. Paul was rebuking them for something God never laid out in scripture. But the reason he did it was for the same reason he rebuked people for eating meats offered to idols in sight of those who would be offended by it. You refuse to see that point.

Why did Paul rebuke people for eating meats before those offended? Because meats in and of themselves were forbidden by God? No. He did not forbid meats due to the meat in and of itself. He forbid them due to the issue of offenses. That is why Paul said meat is only meat and it does not empower a false god, nor does it diminish from our relationship with God. Paul taught such things when there was no singular command against them. That is the case for the veil. Unless you can give me a passage that commands a veil in scripture, outside a rebuke similar to that over meats, then I am satisfied with my conclusions whether anyone else is or not. :)

[LUKE2447]

So, you believe that preservation of the divine order rests upon a woman wearing or not wearing a doily??? ROFL

I find it sad you don't understand the clear teaching WHY she is to wear a covering. You basically make the covering nothing because other areas show submission and modesty as well. Nice logic! Paul clearly goes into depth on why women should wear them. hmmm God wants order, the devil doesn't. You negate that order and I support it. I like my side!

No, what Aquila is pointing to is that the preservation of the divine order wrests upon a woman’s modesty which illustrates her submission and honor to her husband; something far, far, far more important than a mere doily, magic talisman, or token worn on her body. In Paul’s day the propriety of head coverings brought the issue of modesty and submission up for address. Today, it’s often skirts, dresses, and blouse cut. It’s bigger than you’re realizing.

Yeah, I'll take panty hose and other things as symbols of submission "FOR THE HEAD"
I agree modesty and propriety is not just about the veil. Just because modesty is not all summed up in a veil does not negate the veil as you are so proud of.

If you told your wife that you thought a pair of shoes was improper and she wore them anyway, she’d be attacking the divine order and dishonoring you just as badly as the women who refused to wear a veil in public. The issue isn’t the article of clothing… the issue is submission to divine order and a woman honoring or dishonoring her husband.

I love how you just negate truth because of culture today. Way to accept a lie because somehow today's worldy culture determines the culture of the church and truth!

I'll base my views on divine order and creation as the reason for a covering when approaching God and you can stick with today's culture as the reason for women and men to and not to wear a covering.

[LUKE2447]

Then show me in the bible, outside of rebuke, that the word commanded women to wear coverings.

You can find rebukes in the bible about killing, and that is because there is a commandment in the bible that says to not kill.

To command the covering in 1 Cor 11 is to command something not laid out in scripture. You cannot rebuke someone for something God requires in and of itself if God never stated He required it in scripture. Paul was rebuking them for something God never laid out in scripture. But the reason he did it was for the same reason he rebuked people for eating meats offered to idols in sight of those who would be offended by it. You refuse to see that point.

Why did Paul rebuke people for eating meats before those offended? Because meats in and of themselves were forbidden by God? No. He did not forbid meats due to the meat in and of itself. He forbid them due to the issue of offenses. That is why Paul said meat is only meat and it does not empower a false god, nor does it diminish from our relationship with God. Paul taught such things when there was no singular command against them. That is the case for the veil. Unless you can give me a passage that commands a veil in scripture, outside a rebuke similar to that over meats, then I am satisfied with my conclusions whether anyone else is or not. :)


Show me where he is rebuking them like you said in 1 Cor 11? I wouldn't think Paul would have to directly say " I command" veils considering what being covering entails and his argument! If his argument is not clear enough then I really have to question your ability to comprehend the depth and force of Pauls argument. I teach my kids truth all the time and I don't have to "command" them. they understand the depth of what things mean after I explain what they mean to God.

[Aquila]

Sorry Blume but Paul is on to other things and the text is not directly what you want it to be in relation to Chapter 11. Also yes the veil is a sign and recognition of authority and submission. Because it is a sign and symbol of it does not negate the need for it!

Tokens, talismans, magic coverings, and magic hair. It’s all the same ol’ stuff. Focus on the external. Bro, I’ve seen women that wear head coverings who are absolutely not submitted to their husbands or under divine authority. It’s just a doily, dude. Paul’s point is much bigger. For them the issue was veils, for us, it might be dress length, style, or blouse cut. It’s a very flexible principle that applies any time and any place.

Is not the veil here the point in order that a women when she prays and prophecy she truly brings her authority and sign of submission to God in his presence thus "because of the angels?"

The “Magic Veil” doctrine is born ladies and gentlemen. Lol

The issue is simple…immodest ladies who refuse their husbands authority dishonor their husbands and break the divine order. I’m sorry, a woman can wear ten doilies to symbolically say she’s submitted but be unsubmitted in her heart and she still has done violence to the divine order and shouldn’t approach God in prayer or prophesy.

[LUKE2447]

Tokens, talismans, magic coverings, and magic hair. It’s all the same ol’ stuff. Focus on the external. Bro, I’ve seen women that wear head coverings who are absolutely not submitted to their husbands or under divine authority. It’s just a doily, dude. Paul’s point is much bigger. For them the issue was veils, for us, it might be dress length, style, or blouse cut. It’s a very flexible principle that applies any time and any place.

Yes, submission is bigger than just veils but again the other aspects which Paul and others taught on does not negate the clear teaching in 1 Cor 11 on veils and there role in coming before God etc... Sure anyone can use something external and not be internally right. That does not negate though the need for the covering or anything else. Just as a person can be baptized without the right heart it does not negate the need of baptism.

The “Magic Veil” doctrine is born ladies and gentlemen. Lol

You shame yourself!

The issue is simple…immodest ladies who refuse their husbands authority dishonor their husbands and break the divine order.

Which "in part" is seen in veiling.


I’m sorry, a woman can wear ten doilies to symbolically say she’s submitted but be unsubmitted in her heart and she still has done violence to the divine order and shouldn’t approach God in prayer or prophesy.

Again nobody is disagreeing with this but your argument does not change the aspect of needing a covering as a symbol of authority. Also you negating scipture because of "we don't do that today" and other poor arguments shows a possible lack of submission in your theology and you might be compromised in some way. Again I will stick with creation as my reasoning and you can rely on today's culture as your pillar in the stand.

[Aquila]

I find it sad you don't understand the clear teaching WHY she is to wear a covering. You basically make the covering nothing because other areas show submission and modesty as well. Nice logic! Paul clearly goes into depth on why women should wear them. hmmm God wants order, the devil doesn't. You negate that order and I support it. I like my side!

So if my wife wears a rag on her head it proves she’s submitted to me? LOL

The order God wants is a submitted wife who is modest in all things be they head coverings, dresses, shoes, blouses, or even attitude. God isn’t banking entirely upon a rag on her head. That’s silly. God’s order isn’t focused on a rag on some woman’s head. It’s modesty and submission in general.

Yeah, I'll take panty hose and other things as symbols of submission "FOR THE HEAD"
I agree modesty and propriety is not just about the veil. Just because modesty is not all summed up in a veil does not negate the veil as you are so proud of.

Bro… the issue was modesty and submission. If Paul would have been preaching in the 1960’s the question would be women burning their bras and not wearing them even when attending church. It’s so much bigger than a magic rag on a woman’s head.

I love how you just negate truth because of culture today. Way to accept a lie because somehow today's worldy culture determines the culture of the church and truth!

Bro… I’m saying it’s far more expansive. You’re saying all that matters is a rag on a woman’s head. I’m saying that the veil was only the immediate catalyst for Paul’s instructions. Paul’s instructions apply to all a woman wears, does, and even the attitude that she holds. It’s bigger than a magic rag on the head. lol

I'll base my views on divine order and creation as the reason for a covering when approaching God and you can stick with today's culture as the reason for women and men to and not to wear a covering.

Again, if a wife wears a rag on her head it PROVES she’s submitted? Not hardly.

[Aquila]

Show me where he is rebuking them like you said in 1 Cor 11? I wouldn't think Paul would have to directly say " I command" veils considering what being covering entails and his argument! If his argument is not clear enough then I really have to question your ability to comprehend the depth and force of Pauls argument. I teach my kids truth all the time and I don't have to "command" them. they understand the depth of what things mean after I explain what they mean to God.

Bro, the entire passage is an instruction addressing uncovered women in the worship service.

[Aquila]

Give me a loving and submitted wife over a cranky woman wearing a doily any day. lol

[LUKE2447]

Hey Aquilla want to take your logic to it's end and make baptism it magic as well. Which is basically according to the above you are saying. If a person uses anything given by God it's a Talisman or whatever. Guess you fall in line with those who basically say baptism is witchcraft or anything else. Seems you got in trouble for this before didn't you.

[Aquila]

Hey Aquilla want to take your logic to it's end and make baptism it magic as well. Which is basically according to the above you are saying. If a person uses anything given by God it's a Talisman or whatever. Guess you fall in line with those who basically say baptism is witchcraft or anything else. Seems you got in trouble for this before didn't you.

Water baptism is a clear cut command of Scripture. Head coverings aren't. This is the only place they're mentioned and the context is entirely debateable among far more brillian scholars than us. Bro, don't attack baptism to defend the doily. lol

[LUKE2447]

So if my wife wears a rag on her head it proves she’s submitted to me? LOL

No, but it is something that she should do as part of here submission and sign of authority before the angels and God.


The order God wants is a submitted wife who is modest in all things be they head coverings, dresses, shoes, blouses, or even attitude. God isn’t banking entirely upon a rag on her head. That’s silly. God’s order isn’t focused on a rag on some woman’s head. It’s modesty and submission in general.

Again you are making argument out of nothing as nobody said modesty is not about alot of things. we are dealingSTICTLY WITH A COVERING and you should stick to the text instead of bringing otehr things in that PAUL DOES NOT MENTION to thwart what Paul clearly says and you throw off like yesterday's garbage.

I find it funny you use God isn't banking "entirely" upon a rag upon her head. Yet Paul gives reason and you can sit back a make all the "current" culture arguments you want but it doesn't negate creation.


Bro… the issue was modesty and submission. If Paul would have been preaching in the 1960’s the question would be women burning their bras and not wearing them even when attending church. It’s so much bigger than a magic rag on a woman’s head.

Yes, it is bigger but it doesn't negate clear teaching of which you give more authority to today's culture than the Word of God and the order of creation.



Bro… I’m saying it’s far more expansive. You’re saying all that matters is a rag on a woman’s head. I’m saying that the veil was only the immediate catalyst for Paul’s instructions. Paul’s instructions apply to all a woman wears, does, and even the attitude that she holds. It’s bigger than a magic rag on the head. lol


You have not read what I have said or you are lying!

Again, if a wife wears a rag on her head it PROVES she’s submitted? Not hardly.

No, but it is something the angels look for and Paul teaches is a parallel of spiritual authority.

[Aquila]

Bro. If the angels are looking for anything it's modest submitted women. The neglect of the head covering in the first century was just the issue that underscored the deeper issue, honoring headship.

So tell me, if my wife doesn't wear a magic doily will she be lost? lol

Can the be colorful?

What if I (her head) ask that she not wear a magic doily? hehehe

[LUKE2447]

Water baptism is a clear cut command of Scripture. Head coverings aren't. This is the only place they're mentioned and the context is entirely debateable among far more brillian scholars than us. Bro, don't attack baptism to defend the doily. lol

Your point was that the abuse of the outward means that it can be negated. Just because your argument is weak and was shown such doesn't mean you have to hate the truth presented.

Also, yes baptism is commanded and it has principle meaning that back it. Paul does not have to directly command such when he says you shame Christ and your head if you are not covered. Paul doesn't have to say "I command" when his total explanation is based on creation and everything else. The need to be directly "commmanded" to do what Paul is teaching and turn around and say I don't have to do it because I was not commanded boarders on the edge of absolute spiritual stupidity and intellectual suicide. Especially when he just in the first part of the chapter praises them in following his teaching and the traditions.

If you can't get the depth of why I am sorry but it is pointless to continue this as you base your opinion on current culture and addition by subtraction to negate one truth because of others that show modesty and order before God. You create a fictional chapter of 1 Cor 11 and make it say completely unrelative to what Paul is saying. Sure 1 Cor 11 has a aspect of modesty but that doesn't mean all other aspects of modesty negate clear truth of divine headship and approaching God.

[LUKE2447]

Bro. If the angels are looking for anything it's modest submitted women. The neglect of the head covering in the first century was just the issue that underscored the deeper issue, honoring headship.

So tell me, if my wife doesn't wear a magic doily will she be lost? lol

Can the be colorful?

What if I (her head) ask that she not wear a magic doily? hehehe

I am not going to anwer your stupidity anymore. You attempt to negate divine order with other modesty! Congratualtions!

[LUKE2447]

Bro, the entire passage is an instruction addressing uncovered women in the worship service.

I am arguing against that how?

[Aquila]

Luke, relax bro. You're really sold out on this head covering thing aren't you? That's cool bro. But the question remains... what about those of us who don't observe this? Are we lost?

[LUKE2447]

brother, I don't decide that. I just report what I am told to do and not to do. Doesn't mean I don't love ya and think less of ya but in the end it is what it is. How God judges our ignorance is bigger than me.

[Aquila]

brother, I don't decide that. I just report what I am told to do and not to do. Doesn't mean I don't love ya and think less of ya but in the end it is what it is. How God judges our ignorance is bigger than me.

That's fair.

Did I ever tell you that I used to have my wife wear a second covering?

[LUKE2447]

That's fair.

Did I ever tell you that I used to have my wife wear a second covering?

Nope, didn't know that. Maybe it's something you should allow her to choose again.................... LOL!

[Michael The Disciple]

And my wife also covers in the meetings.

[Aquila]

Nope, didn't know that. Maybe it's something you should allow her to choose again.................... LOL!

LOL

No seriously bro. My standard was that there had to be a "token" of authority upon her head and it had to be "cloth". I didn't care if it were a veil, snood, bonnet, doily, part of a barret, ribbon, or what. My standard was when she was in church she was to wear some form of cloth in her hair. She didn't see it, but bless her heart, she did it anyway for a long time, because she loves me. I allowed her to use different styles and colors to coordinate with her outfits. We were attending an ultra conservative church. Bro, we didn't play or watch sports because we didn't believe in fresh air. I mean, there was no phone, no light, no motor car, not a single luxurie. I was on the verge of disengaging all media, including radio and the computer. But then I had a son. The retention rate of the church's youth department was less than 6%. Yes, 94% or more of our youth FLED the church upon graduating. That troubled me as a parent. It was so strict bro, I can't begin to tell you. Men were expected to wear white shirts with no more than one pocket. You were expected to be "dressed up" all the time. If spotted in jeans you were asked why. My wife and I began to suffer from spiritual burnout, and we're still recovering. One night I was expected to lead service and my wife was on the praise team, she rushed out of the house and forgot her "token". Bro, we were running late and I snapped. I began to curse and berate her, demanding that she never act so spiritually irresponsible again. By the time we got to church my precious wife was sobbing and in tears. I demanded that she stop sobbing and that she clean herself up and try to find something to use in her hair at church before approaching the platform. I watched her wipe her tears and pull herself together like a good soldier. I'll never forget her shake her head yes while gazing down when I demanded that she find something to put in her hair. I realized that I was abusing her over a cloth. I was hurting a woman, the woman I loved, a daughter of God... over a cloth. I began to seek the Lord on it and he began to show me a better way. He began to show me that Paul's issue wasn't a focus on a cloth, but rather modesty and submission. For the first century Christians the women were abandoning what was proper and modest. This rebellion from modesty and submission is what crossed them up with God, not the fact that they abandoned a cloth. It was their spirit not a doily or veil that God was concerned with. There isn't anything magic in the hair or in a cloth. God began to reveal to me many things about that church and the extent of abuses that we tolerated because we thought that it was par for the course, the narrow path, if we expected to be saved. Today we're not attending that church. We're still healing and we're still hurt in many areas. But I know this much... I will never again become entangled with a religion that is built on external focus and pleasing men with token jestures or talismanic magics of hair or doilies. I've found Jesus. And I'm learning for the first time what it means to live in the shadow of the cross.

[LUKE2447]

LOL

No seriously bro. My standard was that there had to be a "token" of authority upon her head and it had to be "cloth". I didn't care if it were a veil, snood, bonnet, doily, part of a barret, ribbon, or what. My standard was when she was in church she was to wear some form of cloth in her hair. She didn't see it, but bless her heart, she did it anyway for a long time, because she loves me. I allowed her to use different styles and colors to coordinate with her outfits. We were attending an ultra conservative church. Bro, we didn't play or watch sports because we didn't believe in fresh air. I mean, there was no phone, no light, no motor car, not a single luxurie. I was on the verge of disengaging all media, including radio and the computer. But then I had a son. The retention rate of the church's youth department was less than 6%. Yes, 94% or more of our youth FLED the church upon graduating. That troubled me as a parent. It was so strict bro, I can't begin to tell you. Men were expected to wear white shirts with no more than one pocket. You were expected to be "dressed up" all the time. If spotted in jeans you were asked why. My wife and I began to suffer from spiritual burnout, and we're still recovering. One night I was expected to lead service and my wife was on the praise team, she rushed out of the house and forgot her "token". Bro, we were running late and I snapped. I began to curse and berate her, demanding that she never act so spiritually irresponsible again. By the time we got to church my precious wife was sobbing and in tears. I demanded that she stop sobbing and that she clean herself up and try to find something to use in her hair at church before approaching the platform. I watched her wipe her tears and pull herself together like a good soldier. I'll never forget her shake her head yes while gazing down when I demanded that she find something to put in her hair. I realized that I was abusing her over a cloth. I was hurting a woman, the woman I loved, a daughter of God... over a cloth. I began to seek the Lord on it and he began to show me a better way. He began to show me that Paul's issue wasn't a focus on a cloth, but rather modesty and submission. For the first century Christians the women were abandoning what was proper and modest. This rebellion from modesty and submission is what crossed them up with God, not the fact that they abandoned a cloth. It was their spirit not a doily or veil that God was concerned with. There isn't anything magic in the hair or in a cloth. God began to reveal to me many things about that church and the extent of abuses that we tolerated because we thought that it was par for the course, the narrow path, if we expected to be saved. Today we're not attending that church. We're still healing and we're still hurt in many areas. But I know this much... I will never again become entangled with a religion that is built on external focus and pleasing men with token jestures or talismanic magics of hair or doilies. I've found Jesus. And I'm learning for the first time what it means to live in the shadow of the cross.


Sad to hear about your experience! I understand your point that it is not all about the veil and again it not being just about the veil does not negate the veil. Your issue with her not having a covering def could be looked at in the Spirit of the Law. God knows the heart beyond the veil. Though he sees it and will still love you and use you it doesn't negate a good approach before him. God accepts the sinner and the saint by faith. The veil in itself is the symbol of that faith not of judgment. As I have said before I don't get technical and if she forgets........ God understands and knows her heart. Her faith is the relationship and it is symbolized not incarnated in the veil.

[Aquila]

Sad to hear about your experience! I understand your point that it is not all about the veil and again it not being just about the veil does not negate the veil. Your issue with her not having a covering def could be looked at in the Spirit of the Law. God knows the heart beyond the veil. Though he sees it and will still love you and use you it doesn't negate a good approach before him. God accepts the sinner and the saint by faith. The veil in itself is the symbol of that faith not of judgment. As I have said before I don't get technical and if she forgets........ God understands and knows her heart. Her faith is the relationship and it is symbolized not incarnated in the veil.

I'm just no longer sold on talismans, tokens, symbols, and sacraments. I believe that the most beautiful thing about the Christian faith is that it is so dynamic it isn't locked into a cultural mold, it' can flurish anywhere. Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, you name it all have their "token" dress standards ranging from jewelry to clothing and even head coverings. It's all of the world. We walk by the Spirit. The women in Paul's day renounced the veil and were thereby appearing immodest and bringing dishonor on their husbands. Their refusal to be modest was upsetting the divine order of authority and prevening them from approaching God in proper relationship. So for them, this issue was an example, they were to obey and wear the veil. But 2,000 years later on the other side of the planet in a different culture altogether, I don't believe it applies literally. However, we still address modesty and those women who reject it dishonor their husbands and cannot approach God in proper relationship.

It's like a beard. The Bible does't condemn beards. But for many years pastors set a standard against beards because of their worldly associations. In American culture, the beard was a symbol of rebellion. Hippies and bikers were the poster children for beards. It became an issue of submission and separation from the world. However, today things are changing. It's not seen like that so much anymore, therefore we're seeing more pastors allow beards. Paul set the head covering standard in the first century Corinthian church to preserve modesty and submission. But as time passed it became less and less relevant. Today, it would just be an empty religious observance that is considered "quaint" by outsiders and a reason to feel more holy than the next guy by those who observe it.

Let's not fail to see the forest for the trees.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I have seen many scholars point this out of why we don't do that today because it would be demeaning etc....

Scholars may say that, but it's not true of God-fearing women. If a God-fearing woman felt that God required that of her, she'd wear one.

I don't believe that God requires it, so I don't wear one. If I felt that he did, I would. It has nothing to do with it being demeaning.

Those same scholars probably feel that submission is demeaning, too.

[LUKE2447]

I'm just no longer sold on talismans, tokens, symbols, and sacraments. I believe that the most beautiful thing about the Christian faith is that it is so dynamic it isn't locked into a cultural mold, it' can flurish anywhere. Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, you name it all have their "token" dress standards ranging from jewelry to clothing and even head coverings. It's all of the world. We walk by the Spirit. The women in Paul's day renounced the veil and were thereby appearing immodest and bringing dishonor on their husbands. Their refusal to be modest was upsetting the divine order of authority and prevening them from approaching God in proper relationship. So for them, this issue was an example, they were to obey and wear the veil. But 2,000 years later on the other side of the planet in a different culture altogether, I don't believe it applies literally. However, we still address modesty and those women who reject it dishonor their husbands and cannot approach God in proper relationship.

It's like a beard. The Bible does't condemn beards. But for many years pastors set a standard against beards because of their worldly associations. In American culture, the beard was a symbol of rebellion. Hippies and bikers were the poster children for beards. It became an issue of submission and separation from the world. However, today things are changing. It's not seen like that so much anymore, therefore we're seeing more pastors allow beards. Paul set the head covering standard in the first century Corinthian church to preserve modesty and submission. But as time passed it became less and less relevant. Today, it would just be an empty religious observance that is considered "quaint" by outsiders and a reason to feel more holy than the next guy by those who observe it.

Let's not fail to see the forest for the trees.

I understand and glad your seek freedom in God. In the end it doesn't change the scripture of the text and seeking to honor by divine order of creation in veiling is not throwing a Talisman in front of God demanding authority.
You my friend are cutting down the forest, spite the trees.

[mfblume]

Show me where he is rebuking them like you said in 1 Cor 11? I wouldn't think Paul would have to directly say " I command" veils considering what being covering entails and his argument! If his argument is not clear enough then I really have to question your ability to comprehend the depth and force of Pauls argument. I teach my kids truth all the time and I don't have to "command" them. they understand the depth of what things mean after I explain what they mean to God.

Chapter 11 is a rebuke to the church in Corinth about coverings based upon Chloe's letter of complaint to Paul about the goings on there. That is the context of the entire epistle, brother.

Any way we slice it, the command is not in the bible aside from a rebuke to Corinth about not doing it. That is no coincidence that this chapter follows chapter 10's issue of offense.

[mfblume]

Sorry Blume but Paul is on to other things and the text is not directly what you want it to be in relation to Chapter 11.

It has nothing to do with what I want it to be. Why does this sort of thing always come up from folks now and then when disagreement arises?

I allowed context to teach me what it was saying while all the while for years my wife and I believed in her practicing head covering. I did not want it to say otherwise than what I thought.

Also yes the veil is a sign and recognition of authority and submission. Because it is a sign and symbol of it does not negate the need for it!

If the context shows it is a sign under a certain culture, then that is the context in which we must understand it.
Is not the veil here the point in order that a women when she prays and prophecy she truly brings her authority and sign of submission to God in his presence thus "because of the angels?"

The angles are mentioned in lieu of submission and obedience. And the woman in that day had to do that in obedience as much as the Romans and Corinthians had to refrain from meats to not offend, although refraining from meats was not an issue in itself.

[LUKE2447]

Chapter 11 is a rebuke to the church in Corinth about coverings based upon Chloe's letter of complaint to Paul about the goings on there. That is the context of the entire epistle, brother.

Any way we slice it, the command is not in the bible aside from a rebuke to Corinth about not doing it. That is no coincidence that this chapter follows chapter 10's issue of offense.

Sorry you are putting a square in a round hole as Paul admonishes them in the beginning of the Chapter and THEN says after the covery teaching

1 Cor 11:17 Now in giving the following instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.

Why is he making a break from the previous. The first part of the chapter is not rebuke but teaching. Also your whole argument clearly negates the clear teaching of WHY they are to wear a covering. Paul changes subjects completely and comes from a totaly different point and tact. He is praising them and then gives further instruction on WHY do to divine order one is to be covered etc... For you to make it local makes nonsense of the points he makes for the reasoning a covering in order with headship. Sorry Blume but you are wrong and the context and content of the message shows that. Your argument makes the text and depth pointless when he could have easily said something else instead of teaching why being covered is important in view of divine order. If it was just obediance to local custom etc... There was no reason to give support for headcovering the way he did and in the manner and style he did. Instead he would have taught on other things and would have made more sense.

I also don't see any depth to being rebuked anyway as you don't have a clue what had been said or taught before. Again, the clear context shows the depth of the subject and simply telling them to honor local tradition does not need that type of depth for a covering. Nothing in his wording or argument supports your argument as temporal.

[mfblume]

Deleting the repetition, and getting to your new point...

I also don't see any depth to being rebuked anyway as you don't have a clue what had been said or taught before.

That is my entire point. lol.

We need bible basis for Paul's rebuke. You cannot rebuke someone for something they never knew. And if they did not know it from God's Word, we know that distinct issue was not a commandment of God. How then did they know it? It was culture.

Again, the clear context shows the depth of the subject and simply telling them to honor local tradition does not need that type of depth for a covering. Nothing in his wording or argument supports your argument as temporal.

Incorrect.

The simple fact you try to avoid is that the rest of the Bible did not teach this outside of Paul's rebuke. You can run around that as long as you wish. I agreed with you until that point hit me. And I could not run around it.

We're only repeating our points. Thanks for your input.