Interesting UPCI Photo From India

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Paul wasn’t talking about hair. He was talking about the use of the veil, a first century standard of modesty. Most scholars see this teaching as an issue of “modesty” that Paul was dealing with in relation to first century culture that isn’t applicable today in our culture. Today, the issue might be clothing that is too tight or revealing. It's the same thing. If a woman wears clothing that is too tight or revealing, she dishonors her "head" (her husband) just like those who were refusing to wear a veil in the first century church of Corinth. This is an ancient modesty standard.

That's my understanding.

God bless,

1st Corinthians 11:15 But a woman, if she should have tresses of hair a glory to her is it; for the hair of the head instead of a wrap is given to her.

Literal translation of the text, couldn't be more clear.

Prax thank you for posting the information from https://bible.org/article/what-head-...apply-us-today

[rick g mcmahan]

read the bible if women were to be covered then what is considered a covering a hat a bow a blanket a berka ?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We also have nearly 2,000 years of commentary and cultural application on this topic. And still some continue to adhere to some obscure 20th century interpretation that isn't based on any serious study of the Greek or enduring cultural application.

The fact is... learn several key things in I Corinthians 11:

- A man is not to pray or prophesy with anything "hanging down over" or covering his head.

- Any woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled or uncovered dishonors her husband because it is immodest and is the same as if she were sheered or shaven bald like an unfaithful woman.

- Wearing the veil is an outward sign of a woman’s submission to her husband

- This properly places the woman under her husbands authority (whose head is Christ).

- The submission of a woman to her husband doesn’t mean that he is superior to her, but rather both need each other.

- Just as the woman is man's glory, a woman’s hair is her glory. Therefore both the woman and her hair should be covered in modesty.

- As a fitting example, even nature testifies that a woman should be veiled.

- A woman’s hair is meant to be wrapped and covered.

- This was a custom observed and obeyed by the entire Church of God for centuries.

Much commentary has been written about this down through the centuries. We only see a major departure from wearing head coverings among Bible believing Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries. Around this time we also see the false doctrine of uncut hair being the veil and notions of it having special virtues ("holy magic hair"). However, if one researches the subject commentary abounds.

Here's some commentary to consider:

Hermas (AD 150)
"A virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber...her head was covered by a hood."

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men."

"And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].

Tertullian (AD 198)
"Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men Will you be more modest in public than in Church Be veiled virgin."

"How severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who during the psalmsand at every mention of Godremain uncovered."

John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)
"Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare." Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: "' And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

"It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience." (Chrysostom, Homily XXVI. On The Veiling Of Women.)

Apostolic Constitutions (AD 390)
"When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons."

Jerome (345-429 a.d.)
".... not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command" [1 Corinthians 11:5]."

Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.'"Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head. "We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme....that is, in the image of God, ...especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: '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.'" Augustine - (Cited in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, ed. vol. 3, 523):

AD 800
"It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that headcoverings were worn by all women. It seems that a close fitting cap was worn by most women (perhaps similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin), which sometimes left the hair at the forehead and temples visible." (Angelcynn, Clothing and Appearance of the Early Christian Anglo-Saxons (c. 600-800 A.D.)

John Calvin (1509-1564)
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

Henry Alford (1810-1871)
"[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies."

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

Paul wasn’t talking about hair. He was talking about the use of the veil, a first century standard of modesty. Most scholars see this teaching as an issue of “modesty” that Paul was dealing with in relation to first century culture that isn’t applicable today in our culture. Today, the issue might be clothing that is too tight or revealing. It's the same thing. If a woman wears clothing that is too tight or revealing, she dishonors her "head" (her husband) just like those who were refusing to wear a veil in the first century church of Corinth. This is an ancient modesty standard.

That's my understanding.

God bless,

Very good Aquila, Todays "Apostolics" shy away from the faith ONCE DELIVERED to the saints. They prefer their own ways.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Very good Aquila, Todays "Apostolics" shy away from the faith ONCE DELIVERED to the saints. They prefer their own ways.

[Michael The Disciple]

Men say its cultural. Paul says its "because of the angels".

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Men say its cultural. Paul says its "because of the angels".

I have two questions about this particular teaching of women and head covering.

First, why is this teaching of "because of the angels" the only time this is mentioned anywhere in scripture? There is no other teaching anywhere throughout scripture that mentions doing something that is salvational or otherwise "because of the angels".

Second, one must also consider the fact that this particular teaching for women to wear a removable head covering is not mentioned anywhere else in the NT, not in any of the writings that we have of the NT, although submission to headship is dealt with a number of other times through Paul's writings and Peter's writings. Submission, and headship are the setting and context that this particular chapter was written from that deals with head covering.

You would think that scripture would interpret scripture. In this case it doesn't. This particular chapter seems to stand alone by itself in scripture with the two teachings of 1) women wearing a covering, and 2) the "because of the angels" statement.

It is for this reason that the particular cultural setting for this chapter being written would be most helpful, and necessary, simply because this teaching stands alone, and is not mentioned with other similar teachings on the same subject throughout scripture.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Men say its cultural. Paul says its "because of the angels".