Why Apostolic women wear veils Pt 1

[TCSQ]

Originally Posted by connielori

'Apostolic' women DO NOT cover their heads. (Wearing little lace doileys on their heads IS NOT what I would consider a 'covering'.) If this is truly how you believe why isn't their head covered? For example,.... the islamic women COVER their heads.

....Also,... the new generation Apostolic women wear the little doileys AND cut their hair.

Of course they do! What YOU consider a "covering" really is kind of irrelevant to the vast majority of Apostolic women WORLDWIDE that DO practice this interpretation of 1 Corinthians chapter 11. The fact is that it is a TOKEN of something not the very thing itself. This is like saying that Rachab who asked for a TRUE TOKEN had to tie ribbons that were like a foot wide around her window and doorpost, not just an inch or two. The point in the whole matter is HOWEVER you interpret this practice or principle is OBEDIENCE to the way you perceive the word of God. Why the NEED to tear down anothers viewpoint on this scripture is kind of instructive in itself. (Or are you feeling conviction that there are some who see this differently you?)

Has anyone bothered to break it down in the greek?

Paul wrote that the hair was given "instead of" a material covering. The word interpreted "for" was the greek "anti" which means “instead of.”

Had the originators of this heresy been half the students that they thought they were then millions of misled women would've been, and yet still, spared much material suitable for diapers.

Not to mention that if a veil was the covering then why would Paul have to get after the women for what they did with their hair?

Furthermore, the pagans wore veils during prayer oftentimes as well, in fact, the goddess diana is depicted with a veil.

Paul wasn't a big fan of all that pagan nonsense that was going on throughout the regions. In fact we read that he was a great threat. Why do some believe that he would mimic it? Rather it is clear in the greek that he opposed it and clarified the matter with his words.

We'd be better off to study his words and leave the ten penny translations to the profiteers.

[TCSQ]

Originally Posted by old friend

Had the originators of this heresy been half the students that they thought they were then millions of misled women would've been, and yet still, spared much material suitable for diapers.

PART ONE
I really want to answer this post thought by thought, but not neccesarily in that order to demonstrate just how wrong something can be!

First of all the SPIRIT in back of the above reply is on display in the paragraph posted. Why is it that anyone with an understanding of a practice in the Bible who DIFFER from the common *US* accepted interpretation of said practice are HERETICS!?

And what do we DO with Heretics??? (Why do I feel like I am giving a Monty Python monologue here???) What do we DO with heretics?

WE BURN THEM! This lets me have real pause about any other point this poster wants to make, because the true spirit of accusation over a difference of opinion labelling those who differ from said poster HERETICS and people who are to be MARKED and SHUNNED comes through loud and clear.


Then of course there is the de rigeur insulting taunt to Hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of Gods daughters who DO feel that the veil is the God Ordained token of covering for their head nhe kind poster above labels their conviction..."Diaper Material" in other words a poop receptacle. That in and of itself is troubling and displays the HUMAN spirit we deal with when ever this subject is touched. And why shouldnt it, the whole topic has to do with SUBMISSION.

Why is it that the OTHER side of this issue the Veil people dont seem to be as worked up or nasty about their view? I think the spirit in back of it yet again is evident.

[TCSQ]

[QUOTE=old friend;555637]Has anyone bothered to break it down in the greek?


PART TWO
Yes actually MANY well respected Greek commentators such as Roberts , Jamieson, Fausett, Brown as well as the Reformation scholars who wrote the commentary on the Geneva Bible have. Lets take a look at what THEY have to say Specifically about THIS verse, SHALL WE?

[TCSQ]

[QUOTE=old friend;555637]Has anyone bothered to break it down in the greek?

Paul wrote that the hair was given "instead of" a material covering. The word interpreted "for" was the greek "anti" which means “instead of.”



Part Three

Oh, DOES it????
Lets start with the Geneva Bible Commentary

"12) He urges the argument taken from the common sense of nature. 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for (her) hair is given her for a covering e.) To be a covering for her, and such a covering as should procure another. (the sense of Anti Peribolian in their scholarly opinion.)

Next lets go to
The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

By Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

15.) Her hair... for a covering- Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay her long hair shows that she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with Nature. (Bengel)

And then Roberts writing in his
Roberts Word Pictures of the New Testament.

vs 15 have long hair (komai) Present Active Subjunctive of Komaw (from komh, hair)
old verb , same contraction (-ah=ai) as the indicative (aie=ai) but subjunctive here with an ean in the third class condition.
Long hair is a glory to a woman and disgrace to a man (as we still feel). The long haired man!
There is a Papyrus example of a priest accused of letting his hair grow long and of wearing woollen garments.
For a covering (Anti Peribolaiu) Old word from Periballw to fling around, as a mantle (Hebrews 1:12) or a covering or veil as here.
IT IS NOT IN PLACE OF A VEIL (capitals mine) BUT ***ANSWERING*** _TO_
(Anti in the sense of John 1:16) as a permanent endowment (deodotai, perfect passive indicative)

MY close here
The Peribolion ANSWERS *TO* the veil! That means it SUBORDINATES ITSELF TO THE VEIL it responds to the veil, and what does the veil "say" to the hair? "Wear me or cut yourself off!"

[TCSQ]

[QUOTE=old friend;555637]Has anyone bothered to break it down in the greek?

Not to mention that if a veil was the covering then why would Paul have to get after the women for what they did with their hair?

PART FOUR
If the passage is taken as a WHOLE rather than trying to interpret the WHOLE by just one verse, then it becomes obvious!

Paul here is NOT talking primarily about WOMEN covering THEIR heads. As in ALL these things this is addressed to the MEN!

He starts the theme by saying that if a MAN prays or prophesies having HIS head covered (VEILED) he dishonours HIS head which is Christ!
But virtually NEVER in this whole debate is that shocking statement even LOOKED at!

Why is it shocking to say that if a man VEILS or COVERS his head when *HE* prays or prophesies he is dishonouring Christ? Because that is almsot a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of the commandment of God in Leviticus Chapter 10 where God CLEARLY commands Aaron and those who come after him that when they enter the presence of God they are NOT TO REND THEIR GARMENTS OR UNCOVER THEIR HEADS ***LEST THEY DIE*****!!!!!


That is why the high priest and other priests in the temple and by extension ALL JEWISH MEN UNTIL THIS DAY Cover their heads with a Kepa or Yamulke AND when the Torah Ark is opened representing the entering into the presence of God through his Word, immediately the MEN in the congregation reach down to their shoulders and take their Tallis or Prayer Veil/Shawl and UP AND OVER THEIR HEADS! That was WORD OF GOD! It is the same understanding that we all have when we read the same word in II Corinthians chapter six where because of the Glory of God that shone from Moses face the people begged him to COVER his face. It is Ludicrous and I am sure that even you dont believe that Moses "Flipped his hair" over his face to cover it. Same word, same writer, same assembly, same sense!

The reason that it's the VEIL not HAIR that is the subject right out of the gate in I Corinthians chapter 11 is because Paul is speaking of the absolute REVOLUTION that Calvary Produced in the relationship between MEN and God! In the Old Covenant men had to come fearfully into the presence of God, VEILED ,trembling as they approached the Mercy Seat, the throne of God on earth because at any minute THEY COULD BE STRUCK DEAD! Aaron had already lost two sons exactly that way!

That is because UNDER THE OLD COVENANT between the Mercy seat and the priest there was NO MEDIATOR!

BUT CALVARY CHANGED ALL OF THAT!!! JESUS BECAME OUR MEDIATOR, HE COVERED HIS HEAD ON THE CROSS! NOT WITH A CROWN OF GOLD AS THE AARONIC HIGH PRIEST BUT WITH A CROWN OF THORNS! And when the veil of his FLESH was pierced the whole relationship between man and God changed ! That is why HAIR is NOT the issue here! The issue is that if MEN PERSIST IN VEILING THEIR HEADS AS THE OLD COVENANT COMMANDS THEY ARE OPENLY DISHONOURING CHRIST THAT VERY ACTION SAYING "CALVARY CHANGED NOTHING BETWEEN MEN AND GOD WE STILL COME FEARFULLY WITH VEILED HEAD!" but the New Covenant proclaims we DONT come fearing and trembling lest at any minute we are struck dead, but we come BOLDLY to the throne of Grace! with an UNVEILED HEAD! Paul is NOT talking here about HAIR!! He is talking about the difference between the old covenant relationship man had with God contrasted with the new and signified by the doing away of the VEIL FOR MEN!!!!

So the point HERE being that Paul is NOT discussing HAIR HERE but rather demonstrating that Because Christ COVERED HIS HEAD AND WAS SACRIFICED FOR US HE HAS OPENED A NEW AND LIVING WAY FOR MEN THAT THEY MAY COME UNVEILED TO THE THRONE OF GOD! HAIR! Ridiculous! Its Grace contrasted with Law typified in the SCRIPTURES by VEILING men verses UNVEILING!

[TCSQ]

[QUOTE=old friend;555637]

Not to mention that if a veil was the covering then why would Paul have to get after the women for what they did with their hair?

PART FIVE


But I didnt really answer your question completely here, so here is the rest and it makes all the sense in the world if we take the WHOLE passage instead of picking it apart.

Paul starts out discussing the KALUPTO/VEIL and the What and Why of it, and then he does something that is repeatedly done in the Bible. To help someone understand the principle at work in one thing (here the veil) you point to a NATURAL illustration that is easier to understand.

ANd that is EXACTLY what Paul does here. In order to understand his teaching on the VEIL he points us back to the NATURAL, something that is universally understood in nature! Not MOTHER NATURE but the nature that is in us, that of men created in the image and likeness of God.

And gender distinctions are just PART of that nature. He illustrates the issue of the veil by pointing to the HAIR. The hair is the natural "argument" not the subject itself which is why neither Paul nor any other writer ever said that hair is a KALUPTO the overwhelming and actually invariable word he uses in the whole first part of his argument.


Jesus wanting us to understand how much God loves and cares for us did the VERY SAME THING! He pointed to the NATURAL! He used Lilies and Sparrows to MAKE his point, we would be most foolish to look at that passage and claim that Lilies and Sparrows were the point or the purpose of his speech to teach us about Gods care for birds and flowers, no it was merely the BIBLE way of using the natural to illustrate the spiritual. The same with the Hair! Paul to make it click with us about the veil turns and points our attention to something we ALL understand HAIR!

The point here being that it is not an either or situation here. He is talking about veils for men and women and then illustrates the common sense of that by turning to the natural design of men and women and pointing out their hair.

To finish up THIS part of the answer. What Paul "GOT ON WOMEN" about was NOT the hair, it was the VEIL! And what he said was if a woman would not wear a KALUPTO (veil) then let her hair be cut! Cut hair is a PENALTY for not wearing a veil! If she wont COVER KALUPTO VEIL then let her be SHORN but if it be a shame for a woman to be shaven or shorn LET HER BE COVERED VEILED AGAIN KALUPTO! **NOT** Peribolion!

[TCSQ]

[QUOTE=old friend;555637]

Part Six (I am on a roll and even if no one but me reads this I'm ok with that)

Old Friend said.......
Furthermore, the pagans wore veils during prayer oftentimes as well, in fact, the goddess diana is depicted with a veil.

She is also depicted with clothes. That means NOTHING. BUT what DOES come much closer to what you are mentioning is something that again, because we in the 21st century are so far removed from it one of Pauls challenges about this subject of the veil goes right past us.
And it is this, The city of Corinth was close to one of the most famous international centers of pagan worship called the Delphi Oracle. It was both a Temple to Apollo to mark the spot he was believed to have cast down a supernatural serpent into the earth AS WELL as the Prophetess/Priestess who served as the oracle or mouthpiece of that god.

It was actually a simple but beautiful temple that still stands in ruins today, built over a fissure in the earth from which natural gas escaped.
The Priestess/Prophetess of the Temple at Delphi would position herself over this fissure and inhale its fumes all day long coming more and more into a delirious state of writhing and foaming and ranting and utterring all kinds of nonsense under the power (so the people thought) of the god of the temple.

As she would sit there rocking back and forth thrashing about under the influence of the noxious fumes, her hair and her clothes becoming wildly dishelvelled, kings and generals would come along with common people to enquire after the oracle. They might ask "Will I win the battle tomorrow/"


And she would rave "The sun shall crash into the blue blue earth and the elephants shall sing like morning doves, the mighty shall eat sand and the trees shall fall to the ground and the purple thistle shall be exalted!!!!!!"

Her aids would write this all down and interpret it later.

This was not only common knowledge in the Corinthian Church but many of the saints before their conversion had undoubtedly visited this oracle themselves.

Paul asked them specifically in regards to our Pentecostal women PRAYING (Priesthood) and Prophesying JUDGE WITHIN YOUR SELVES IS IT COMELY FOR A WOMAN TO PRAY AND PROPHESY WITHOUT A COVERING KALUPTO VEIL ? (So far NO ONE had challenged that Kalupto means veil so lets leave it for what it says.) He was pointing out something that even five year old Pentecostal kids know, that our services are NOT TAME! And a woman who has been dancing in the Holy Ghost it is NOT uncommon to see them there in the service with their hair all wildly dishevelled like they just got out of bed (or in Pauls day reminiscent of the wild nature of the pagan raving prophetess of Apollo just outside of town) and asks the people if it does not make sense to them that a woman in an Apostolic Service who IS used of God in Prayer and Prophesy ought to have her hair covered so she does NOT resemble the pagan prophetesses that they themselves were well familiar with.

[TCSQ]

Originally Posted by old friend

Part Nine Million and ten Comin down the home stretch...

Old Friend said...
Paul wasn't a big fan of all that pagan nonsense that was going on throughout the regions. In fact we read that he was a great threat. Why do some believe that he would mimic it? Rather it is clear in the greek that he opposed it and clarified the matter with his words.

We'd be better off to study his words and leave the ten penny translations to the profiteers.

You know you are so right about Paul not being a big fan of what was going on with the Pagans! Wild women in all states of dissarray and dishevelled hair imitating prophesy and prayer, that is why he most certainly addressed that subject telling Apostolic women that they were NOT to resemble that condition but rather to Veil their hair, NOT lettting it come into that state, maintaining the dignity of the Daughters of God.

There is so much more to be said on this subject...Angels who are referred to here ARE one of Pauls points...THEY watch this because it is an indicator of the spirit of the man or woman in the act of prayer and prophesy in the assembly. Angels cover!

Magic Hair??? Magic Veils??? nonsense no magic at all it is merely a WORD OF GOD given token of the invisible spirit of man in the act of submission!
Why do women veil their hair and men dont? That is a WHOLE NUTHER TEN PARTER I'M UP TO IT IF YOU ARE!

By the way I am NOT Hispanic, was just as bullheaded as you appear to be about the "A womans hair is given for a covering" retort that I gave many times to Apostolic Assemblies brothers who dared to try and put their ignorant "Catholic Tradition" on us... but when I came to the point I was willing to look at what the bible REALLY said on the subject and after looking outside the scant few articles available on the subject from the Pentecostal Publishing house at the time (which by the way were mainly guides on HOW to create interesting hairstyles) no when I actually began to read ACCREDITED Greek scholars on their understanding of this verse, I was amazed at how absolutely consistent the real teaching was and how idiotic I had been to go to the end of a long and thorough discourse in the scriptures, and take one poorly translated verse at the END of the discourse and use it to throw out the clear meaning of the text. I think the end of the matter is this.

You have a King James Version of the Bible. I am sure you are content with that. It reads clearly for you a womans hair is given her for a covering. Are you disobedient to God if you understand that to negate the rest of the passage or even if you understand that to DEFINE the rest of the passage? NO of course not, it is a token, and I am sure that God is capable of understanding as are his angels that you are honouring the spirit of the law of God if not grasping the difference between Kalupto and Paribolion.
However really Old Friend, to come on so demeaning and insulting to the heart felt convictions of many honourable Sons of God labelling them heretics on this matter is really a hard pill to swallow dont you think?

Heretics work really hard to convince themselves, and others naturally, but hardest to convince themselves first..it’s all downhill from there.

..howbeit the Greek is clear...her hair is given "instead of" a diaper.

Nice whirlwind of opinions and comedic commentaries though. Dime a dozen on any subject. If I had all night I too could fill 10 pages with "expert" opinions to counter. Especially in regards to your desperate plee to John 1:16, of which there are various opinions to the usage of the prepositions ANTI there.

Maybe you might consider studying harder next time.

What a hoot to watch you scramble with keyboard gymnastics to make 1 cor 11 say something it clearly doesn't, all the while acting rather foolishly. I think your reference to Monty Python both revealing and fitting for such a flying circus as yours.

I think you appear to be emotionally unstable. Are you taking any prescription medications?

Nevertheless, I have watched the Lord Jesus Christ move mightily at the behest of countless truly Apostolic women, countless times, none of which have fallen victim to the diaper donning campaign that those of your like wage with the tenacity of state hospital workers.

You see, not only does your doctrine not fly on paper, but it doesn't function either. Your veil, just like another one we read of, is immaterial....pun intended.

Oh, and I’d be very cautious of your critique of the Holy Ghost and what He chooses to do with His true daughters. He is not the author of confusion, he leaves that to the heretics.

Furthermore you are plagued with assumptions, and devoid of fact and true understanding. I also noticed you twisted scripture to try and gain a noun where it is not there. Sad...very sad.

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and call it novice, as the tones of your posts clearly resound, but I'm quite certain that it was intentional because diaper donners are constantly claiming nouns in that passage where they are not.

Perhaps you're simply a victim unto regurgitation, many of this fodder are.