Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

[MomOfADramaQn]

Originally Posted by 1Corinth2v4

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

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

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]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

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]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.