Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside

[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]

Originally Posted by 1Corinth2v4

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

Originally Posted by 1Corinth2v4

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]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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!