# Headcoverings Revisited



## py3ak (Mar 9, 2005)

On some other threads I have argued for a very specific view of headcoverings. While I admit that as far as the language of 1 Corinthians 11 goes my view still seems to me to be the most convincing, I am struck by the fact that as far as I can find out, for most of church history it seems to have been very much the practice for women to cover their heads while attending public worship. This leads me to consider that it is probably best to bypass my particular understanding in this area. I'm not trying to re-raise a controversial topic "“I am just withdrawing any support I may have given in times past to a variation from the commonly received (in former times and in other cultures, anyway) practice of women covering their heads when attending the stated worship of the church.

Having made my retraction, I slip back into the shadows....


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 9, 2005)

Would you like historical writings on the issue? It was a recent study in the Tea Room and the other ladies might be willing to share their thoughts as well.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 9, 2005)

I am headcovering as of the last three Sundays. I am having to look high and low for hats.  I was convinced upon a closer reading of the text with exegetical teachers like Dr Michael Barrett and Brian Schwertley. They both took about 3 hours a piece and were very thorough. 

What particular "variation" of the teaching were you retracting?

[Edited on 3-10-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 10, 2005)

Doesnt this also deal directly with the angels?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

Yes, the angels watch us, they know the positional order of we have.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

ask and ye shall receive....


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

Okay, where to begin. We basically were "œintroduced" to the concept of the covering through friends of ours. We knew a couple of ppl who covered. So we decided to study it. We came to the conclusion that it was what the Lord would have us to do"¦indeed that it was commanded that we do it.
So many ppl want to make excuses for it,

Let´s start with I Corinthians 11. Paul starts out"¦

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

He is stating here that he is giving ordinances.

1 Corinthians 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.

Showing order of headship authority. Man´s position, woman´s position, Christ´s position, God´s position.

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

As we know this is different from the tradition of Jewish men covering their heads. The first is his physical head that sits upon his shoulders. The second is his authority over him. Also to this day (Christian) men uncover their heads when in a church, at a funeral, and when praying. To do otherwise would be dishonoring to Christ.

1 Corinthians 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.

We know that a woman´s hair is her glory"¦therefore we know that it would be shameful for her to shave it. The two "œhead"s mentions here are two separate types of heads"¦two different meanings. The first is her physical head that sits upon her shoulders. The second is her authority over her. Just as her husband would be shamed if she were to shave her hair off.

1 Corinthians 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.

This is carrying on the example of the physical to understanding the need for the symbolic. Covered here is katakalypto meaning to cover (the head), to cover wholly, to hide.

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

Again showing positional roles.

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Here we will refer to differences between man in the presence of God and the angels in the presence of God.
Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Ezekiel 1:11 Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.

Notice that even the angels covered themselves in the presence of God"¦only man does not. The angels observe us.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Showing a spiritual equality even though not positional equal.

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Here again the natural is being used as an example for the need of the symbolic.

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

Here it is letting us know that they are not being legalistic. That this is not cultural (custom). Personally I think this also shows that this is to be a matter of the heart. It is a command, but if you are contentious about it then there is no point.

And then Paul goes on to the other ordinance mentioned in this passage-Communion.

1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Funny, isn´t it"¦that ppl see one ordinance as cultural, but the other as a command never to be broken?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

RC Sproul states in his commentary in the Reformation Bible (a version of the New Geneva):
"œ(v4) what little evidence that exists seems to indicate that, with few exceptions, men in the first century left their heads uncovered while worshipping. The Jewish custom of men covering their heads at prayer probably does not go back to the New Testament period. (v5) given the contrast with the precious verse,this comment suggests that women in the first century normally worshiped with a head covering. Some scholars think that Paul refers to a particular hair style (Num 5:18, loosening a woman´s hair is part of the test for an unfaithful wife"¦see note on v15). (v6) shaving a woman´s head is compared to having the hair cut short, presumably like a man´s. It appears then that Paul is opposing a practice that tended to obliterate the distinction between the sexes. Possibly the controversy reflects the idea of some Corinthians that they had achieved perfection and were no longer subject to the normal rules (hmmm"¦sounds similar to the excuses heard today). (v14) Interpreters differ about the meaning of this term (nature). Some believe it refers to the created order. Others argue the apostle is here appealing to the common practices of his day. (I agree that it is referring to the created order as that is more consistent throughout the passage and the rest of scripture) (v15) Paul may mean that since the woman´s long hair serves as a covering, it is equally appropriate for her to wear a veil. Some argue that the hair is "œin place of" a covering. This would support the view that Paul refers not to veils but a particular hair style. (Again I believe the former not the latter"¦it is equally appropriate to wear a veil).

It is interesting to note RC Sproul´s wife wears a covering during services.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings
"1 Cor. 11:
3. But I would have you know. It is an old proverb: "œEvil manners beget good laws." As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.
He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man. We shall afterwards see, how he comes to infer from this, that women ought to have their heads covered. Let us, for the present, take notice of those four gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
There is somewhat more of difficulty in what follows. Here the man is placed in an intermediate position between Christ and the woman, so that Christ is not the head of the woman. Yet the same Apostle teaches us elsewhere, (Galatians 3:28,) that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he does away with? I answer, that the solution of this depends on the connection in which the passages occur. When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ´s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind "” on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum "” which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists. Should any one ask, what connection marriage has with Christ, I answer, that Paul speaks here of that sacred union of pious persons, of which Christ is the officiating priest, and He in whose name it is consecrated.
4. Every man praying. Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman. He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house "” for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example, If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not. know how to maintain his proper station, and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station "” if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is all emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.
. . . .
[6.]
For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. 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, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea "” that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust.
7. The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image. The same question may now be proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed anew, according to that image. The image, however, of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with conscience. The simple solution is this "” that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.
The woman is the glory of the man. There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife "” that she is a crown to her husband, (Proverbs 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose "” that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.
. . . .
14.
Doth not even nature itself. He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom "” even among the Greeks "” he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

This is an excellent verse by verse!!!

http://www.kingshouse.org/headcovering.htm

Please read ALL of it...it has history and testamonies in it as well as disputing some arguments.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

John Calvin (1509-1564)

The great theologian of the Reformation preached three sermons from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 from which the following excerpts are taken.

"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)


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

J. Vernon McGee (1904-1990)

"Apparently some of the women in the church at Corinth were saying, 'All things are lawful for me, therefore, I won't cover my head.' Paul says this should not be done because the veil is a mark of subjection." 


This one also has some great historical accounts and quotes.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/hc.htm 


This is a good article...and the person is pretty blunt...

http://www.montanasat.net/rickv/Headcovering_Veiling.html


These are lists of links to articles and books:

http://www.wendysmodestdress.com/id27.htm

http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/hc.htm

http://expage.com/headcovering

http://www.expage.com/headcoveringhistory

http://www.elseroad.com/topics/house_church/ntrf/newsletters/head_coverings_for_women.htm

http://hannahscoverings.tripod.com/email-list.html


This one has links to tons of articles including Reformed!

http://www.headcoverings.com/Resourcespg4.htm


These are links to only a few headcovering resources. The first one is one of my favorites!

http://www.tznius.com/cgi-bin/tying.pl

http://www.headcoverings.com/CoveringsOrder.htm

http://www.prayercoverings.com/links.shtml

http://www.wendysmodestdress.com/index.htm


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

"BIBLE TEACHING ON THE PRAYER VEILING FOR CHRISTIAN WOMEN"
BY GEORGE R. BRUNK
The writer of this tract holds that I Corinthians 11:1-15 teaches the wearing of a prayer veil by Christian women for prayer and prophesying. He has studied the passage carefully in the I language and has come to the conclusions herein set forth. The reader is urged to approach this subject without bias. There must be an unprejudiced desire to grasp the 'message of scripture. A few of the so-called "plain churches" teach and practice the ordinance of the Prayer Veil. The time was, however, when larger denominations also did the same but since have drifted from it. We shall deal with the subject in question and answer form.


QUESTION 1:
Upon what ground do you say that Paul teaches the wearing of a prayer veil by christian women?


ANSWER:
Because I Corinthians 11:5 says, "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. For if a 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."


QUESTION 2:
But what is meant by this which covers the head and what do the terms "uncovered" and "covered" mean?


ANSWER:
The Revised Version renders these words "unveiled" and 11 veiled" respectively. Translations in modern speech render them also the same. The reader may consult such translations as Weymouth or Williams. It should be clear from this that Paul is teaching wearing a veil, not to do so dishonours her head.


QUESTION 3:
But does not Paul settle this in quite another way when he says in verse 15 "for her hair is given her for a covering 11 . Is not therefore the hair the same thing Paul writes about in verses 5 and 6?


ANSWER:
Paul does say "her hair is given her for a covering" but he uses this as an illustration from nature of what he is teaching as an ordinance. The answer is no. Paul does not teach that the hair is that with which woman covers her head. This "covering" in verse 15 is not the same as the "covered" and "uncovered" in verses 5 and 6.


QUESTION 4:
Will you please explain reasons for your answer?


ANSWER:
There are two reasons for the answer above.
FIRST. This matter is cleared very unmistakably in the original Greek. The Greek word translated "covering" in verse 15 is an entirely different word than the Greek word translated "covered" and "uncovered" in verses 5 and 6. The word in verse 15 is peribolaiou while the word in verses 5 and 6, is katakaliptetai meaning "veil". The other word used in verse 15 occurs only one other time in the New Testament, Hebrews 1:12, where it is translated "vesture". These statements can be confirmed by any Greek scholar or by any one able to use the Greek language. Our conclusion, therefore, is that verse 15 refers to a natural hair covering not "veil" as some margins give it, and that verses 5 and 6 teach a veil, not natural, to be worn for prayer and prophesying.


The second reason for the above answer is that if one assumes the hair to meet the requirements of verses 5 and 6 he finds himself in hopeless confusion. Let the reader open the Bible and substitute the word "hair" or its equivalent in verses 5 and 6 where the words "covered" or "uncovered" occur. This makes the apostle say that if a woman prays or prophesies with her hair off (uncovered), she should cut off her hair! This is without sense, of course. It does make sense to say that she may as well cut off her natural hair covering if she is without the prayer veil.


QUESTION 5:
Do you think this has anything to do with the bobbing of women's hair today?


ANSWER:
Yes, I certainly do. Failure to recognize and keep this ordinance has led to the shameful practice of the cutting of women's hair. Weymouth says, "If a woman will not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair: but since It Is a dishonour to a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her wear a veil."


QUESTION 6:
Seeing that the natural hair does not meet the teaching of this passage, what about a hat or a bonnet? Would either one suffice?


ANSWER:
No. This veil has a symbolic significance. It is a "sign". The hat or bonnet is worn for protection, not for prayer and prophesying.


QUESTION 7:
Assuming that your position is correct viz. that Paul does teach the wearing of a prayer veil, is it really necessary for one to keep it today?


ANSWER:
These things are the commandments of the Lord. See I Corinthians 14:37 where Paul says his writings are the commandments of the Lord.' The keeping of the ordinance is not the "custom" spoken of in verse 16 but it is an outward sign or symbol with a spiritual meaning. Women who wish to comply with the teaching of I Corinthians 11:1-16 will not cut their hair and will wear a prayer veil for praying and prophesying, indicating
that they take their place in the Divine order headship.


REV. GEORGE R. BRUNK


I felt this question and answer was good enough to post. It is from a tract that is posted on wendy's website. It is on the veil and caps page toward the bottom followed by links and more articles....


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

And last, but certainly not least: 

Thought I would pull some of the threads from the PB on this topic. The first one is actually HOW I found the PB in the first place...

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2510

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1371#pid101702

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1659#pid70040


I apologise for the plethora of info...I just dragged the thread from the Tea Room out in the open (leaving out the conversations...as those are for the ladies to state, not me to state for them...this is why I started it in the TR, so the ladies would feel comfortable discussing it in whichever why they would AS ladies).


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 10, 2005)

Colleen,

Thats an awesome response to Jenson! Thank you very much, I will make full use of these things too.

I am interested to know whether the covering of the head would extend to private devotion times and prayer? I know people who will whip a hat on as the pastor enters the pulpit, whip it off again as he exits, and never the twain will meet again until the next Lord's day!

Jonathan

[Edited on 3-10-2005 by JonathanHunt]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

That (only for Sunday morning) is where we were at immediately before the headcovering nearly became extinct. Praise God, that didn't fully happen.

I'll get to hats in a minute....

The text states specifically prayer...not just assembly. So, yes, personal prayers and devotions are included. In fact, I carry one with me if it isn't already on my head...I used to wear all the time and I am getting back to it, but don't hold legalistically to EVERY WAKING MOMENT--though the thought there is 1) we should always maintain a prayerful attitude (but that then defeats men wearing hats for protective reasons) and if you are a mennonite there is a superstition that you are physically protected from ill by wearing your covering (obviously we don't go with superstitions). My reason for wearing it out and about is in case I need it, I don't have to fumble with it...and dh requested such.

As far as hats go...it's not that they aren't a covering or aren't acceptable (I like hats myself) but they usually aren't seen as a covering and can be obstructive at times. It was also intended for protection/outerwear, and women used to wear coverings beneath them or put one on when the hat came off. When we went to just hats, it became a "going out" type of thing and Sunday mornings only. Till we were one step away from putting the covering aside altogether. (I do wear hats for picnics and such)

As far as other coverings go...I do vary mine, intentionally. I don't believe in a "prescribed" covering (like each group of mennonites and amish have). I believe that is all open to what is available in regards to material...the principle is the head must be covered. I have charity looking ones, old fashioned ones, lace ones, long scarf like ones that can be tied different ways, snoods, and veils with brims. If you follow some of the sites I listed you will see what is available...I sew most of mine. My reason, however, for variety is that since so few in our area cover but are curious about it and I don't want to create any excuses in their minds about wearing it, should they come to that conclusion (Her covering looks like a nun, I would look ugly in that, I stick out). Some of mine stick out...but most all are considered very pretty. I want the other person to see me as a person also, someone who enjoys her obeying God, not in bondage to obeying God. (I hope that last part made sense  )


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> but never imposed it on anyone.



I do want to say...I have only once in my life forced it upon another and I have never done so since.

I truely do not even mention my covering (though it is obvious to most). If ppl are interested or curious, they will ask. If it comes up in study, I will mention my stand on it. My personal testamony on it comes out inadequate every time. Instead, scriptural, historical, and exegetical references do it so much better...I offer that or a brief explanation and then let them study it for themselves along with their husbands. I want them to SEE it for themselves...I want the UNDERSTANDING to be in their hearts...not just stick something on their head and say "there you go, now your humble and holy". My headcovering is NOT essential to salvation. It IS between God, my husband, and myself. It is simply an act of obedience and (if you will) a reminder to my husband and myself (of his duties to me and my submission to him).


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet (Mar 10, 2005)

*Awesome job, Colleen!*

Wow, Colleen, thank you for all those link and all the research you have provided on this topic.

I agree with you on almost all of what you said.

I do, however, believe that the context of I Cor 11 is the public assembly. Matthew Henry says:



> Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
> 
> Here begin particulars respecting the public assemblies, 1 Corinthians 14. In the abundance of spiritual gifts bestowed on the Corinthians, some abuses had crept in; but as Christ did the will, and sought the honour of God, so the Christian should avow his subjection to Christ, doing his will and seeking his glory. We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have "power," that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.



I believe that the whole of I Cor. 11 is clearly in the context of public worship. Including later in the chp where the Lord's supper is discussed.

So, my conviction is to cover during public worship on the Sabbath (and I would cover in public worship any other day of the week too). But, I don't believe head coverings are required for family or secret worship or for individual prayer throughout the day.

I certainly don't see any "harm" in covering at other times of prayer, worship, etc. I just don't believe that it is required by scripture.

Just my


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

Interesting...I've never heard that conclusion before. However, think of it this way...would your husband remove a hat (if he were to wear one of course) if he were asked to pray at a meal/a funeral/or a bible study?

Just a thought to ponder...


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet (Mar 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Interesting...I've never heard that conclusion before. However, think of it this way...would your husband remove a hat (if he were to wear one of course) if he were asked to pray at a meal/a funeral/or a bible study?
> 
> Just a thought to ponder...



That's a good point to ponder, and yes, my dh would remove his hat. You've got me there. 

I've often heard from my friends that believe in the perpetual use of headcoverings that since we're to "pray without ceasing" that woman should always be covered. But, then that would also mean that men should never wear a hat in any circumstance. Obviously this is where my thoughts about the difference between corportate and private worship have come in.

I've actually only known (in women that cover) those that cover perpetually and those that only cover for corportate worship. Your stand is an interesting and unique one. The practice of men to remove their hats for prayer outside of public worship, and therefore women should be covered even outside of public worship is a new thought to me. I don't know whether this is something that men do because it is required by scripture or more of a cultural thing. I'll have to talk to Andrew tonight when he gets home to see how I feel about it. hehe.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

...yes...those do seem to be the extremes.

Look to the women in historical context as well...they covered always for prayer. Many times they covered when going out in public (to the market, etc...sometimes for protection and I believe also it was simpler to just keep the covering on as a part of their attire). Many women did cover with something at home but not neccessarily 24/7 etc...it wasn't something that they panicked over should they be seen without one. That's kind of where I am with the issue.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by HuguenotHelpMeet_
> 
> I believe that the whole of I Cor. 11 is clearly in the context of public worship. Including later in the chp where the Lord's supper is discussed.
> 
> ...



Forgive me if this has been covered (no pun intended).

If 1 Cor. 11 is in the context of public worship and is normative for today, isn't it saying that a woman need only have her head covered when she prays or prophesies in public worship?

"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved." (1 Cor 11:5)

It doesn't appear to me that the head covering issue is independent of praying/prophesying for either men or women. Neither does it appear to be independent of aural expression (these are not silent prayers in view, but public audible ones, just like the prophesying). (Besides, if these are silent prayers then should not a woman have her head covered at all times? "Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" (v. 13) )

With all due respect to Calvin and Sproul, I'm just wondering how we have made the leap to every women regardless of her role in public worship is to have her head covered.

[Edited on 3-11-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2005)

Does not the ENTIRE congregation pray in assembly?

Prophesying here, I believe, also translates as give witness/testamony-as applies to scripture. So during the reading or sharing of the word...

(just opening for discussion  )


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Does not the ENTIRE congregation pray in assembly?



Audibly, no, not all the time. But even is we are speaking of communal prayer, I don't think that's what is in view in 1 Cor. 11. 

Calvin says, "I take here to mean -- declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14.) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people -- which is the part of the public teacher, for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public."




> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> Prophesying here, I believe, also translates as give witness/testamony-as applies to scripture. So during the reading or sharing of the word...
> 
> (just opening for discussion  )



Well, I would need to see the exegesis that gets from "propheteuo" to testifying, etc. Also, is a woman permitted to "propheteuo" in the public assembly?

Again, Calvin says, "It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church.(1 Timothy 2:12.) It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty -- not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses."

What Calvin appears to be saying is that a woman who publicly prays or prophesies must have her head covered, however, it is not proper for her to do that in the public assembly anyway (see chapter 14). He then argues for head covering for modesty sake, with is not the issue in 1 Cor. 11. He seems to undermine his argument further by extending the requirement to gatherings "either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses." However, it should be noted that where Paul does speak of women dressing modestly, he does not mention head coverings (1 Tim. 2:9,10).

Thus it seems to me the argument for head coverings goes out the window if you argue for modesty sake, or if it is merely related to something women ought not be doing in the public assembly anyway.

Now for the toss up questions on chapter 11: should a church hire a minister whose wife has a short hair cut? Should women in the church be required to have hair of a certain length? What about men?

[Edited on 3-11-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Where does it state that the prayer has to be audible?



> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> >
> > Prophesying here, I believe, also translates as give witness/testamony-as applies to scripture. So during the reading or sharing of the word...
> >
> ...



I will look for you...I do know several men that have done this for themselves and all (separately) came to the same conclusion.



> Again, Calvin says, "It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church.(1 Timothy 2:12.) It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty -- not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses."
> 
> What Calvin appears to be saying is that a woman who publicly prays or prophesies must have her head covered, however, it is not proper for her to do that in the public assembly anyway (see chapter 14). He then argues for head covering for modesty sake, with is not the issue in 1 Cor. 11. He seems to undermine his argument further by extending the requirement to gatherings "either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses." However, it should be noted that where Paul does speak of women dressing modestly, he does not mention head coverings (1 Tim. 2:9,10).
> 
> Thus it seems to me the argument for head coverings goes out the window if you argue for modesty sake, or if it is merely related to something women ought not be doing in the public assembly anyway.



Okay...then let's look directly to scripture itself. If it states that a woman is to prophesy with her head covered...then yes, she may. If a women is to be silent and still prophesy with her head covered and one were to look at prophesy as testamony...then is not the covering itself that testamony? (again, just a thought)



> Now for the toss up questions on chapter 11: should a church hire a minister whose wife has a short hair cut? Should women in the church be required to have hair of a certain length? What about men?
> 
> [Edited on 3-11-2005 by tcalbrecht]



It states that short hair is a shame...it does not state that it is not permitted, for who knows for what reason her hair is shortened. Either way, it should be covered.
Same with a man...it states that for a man to have long hair is a shame...it does not state that it is not permitted, for who knows for what reason his hair is long. Either way, he should not cover it when praying.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

I will be posting (as promised to the ladies earlier) TableTalks writings on the issue (I have their permission...I informed them of the online study when requesting the a copy of articles).

tcalbrecht: to get directly to the topic at hand skip to the second one as I will be posting them in order. There are six of them, so please be patient as I type them up.

[Edited on 3-11-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

Monday, June 17
1 Corinthians 11:2-3

CHAIN OF COMMAND

The Corinthians had fallen into error concerning the issue of divinely appointed authority. Paul, then, spends the following chapter rebuilding the foundation of instruction on the issue of the authority, of the authority of Christ over man and of man over woman.
He begins by saying,"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." Paul, wanted the Corinthians, and Christians in every age, to "know" this truth, to sink it into their minds and hearts, to understand it and live by it. The established order presented here is of upmost importance if chaos and confusion are to be averted. When the order of authority and subordination in God's design is disrupted, all else is wrought with confusion, and thus God is not honored.
Paul's use of "head" can have two meanings: origin or authority. It can be used in both ways here, but the primary use, given the context, is that of authority. The chain of command is like this: God is in authority over the God-man, Jesus Christ, Christ is in authority over man, and man is in authority over woman. Christ as our Redeemer is the head of the hurch. He establishes the rules, and the church is responsible to obey and be submissive to its head. Likewise, men ingeneral are directly answerable to Christ as their authority, they have no other over them in a direct way, i.e., neither angels nor women are in authority over the man. Just as Christ is head over man, man is head over woman. As Paul teaches in 1 Timothy 2:12-13, a woman is not to have authority over a man because man was created first and then the woman.
To continur the parallel, Paul teaches that the head of Christ is God. In the work of redemption, the God-man came into the world to do the work of the Father. In His work, Christ is subordinate to the Father. While by nature He is equal with the Father, being of one nature, in His role as Redeemer, He is suborinate. This proves that while the woman is subordinate to man in her role, she is equal with him in nature, sharing the same value, worth, and dignity as a human being mad e in God's image (1 Peter 3:1-7)

CORAM DEO

In our politically correct era, perhaps no area of Paul's teaching raises opposition more than his teaching on the roles of men and women. What about you? Do you chafe under this teaching? Do you too quickly dismiss it as not applicable? Ask God to help you submit to His order, not men's preferences.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

Tuesday, June 18
1 Corinthians 11:4-5

VIELED IN THE ASSEMBLY

Because of the divinely established order that men are subordinate to Christ and women subordinate to men, everyone should act in accordance with that order: the man by having his head uncovered in public assembly, and the woman by being covered or veiled. The setting of this command is clearly in reference to the public assembly, or public worship, of God's people. "As the apostle refers to their appearance in public assemblies, he says , 'Every man praying or prophesying,' i.e., officiating in public worship," Hodge wrote. "In the scriptural sense of the word (prophesying), a prophet is one who speaks for another, as Aaron is called the prophet or spokesman of Moses....To prophesy, in Scripture, is accordingly, to speak under divine inspiration; not merely to predict future events, but to deliver, as the organ of the Holy Ghost, the messages of God to men, whether in the form of doctrine, exhortation, consolation, or prediction. This public function, the apostle says, should not be excercised by a man with his head covered."
The problem in Corinth, however, was not that men were prophesying in the public assemblies with their heads covered, but that women were appearing in public assemblies with their heads uncovered. One's dress reflects the principles that one lices by, and that even our exterior must conform to the order that God has established, especially in matters pertaining to public worship. The apostle makes the point that the veil, as a symbol of authority, is inconsistent with the position of the m and, but it is required for women, who are subordinate to men. If they appear in public assemblies with their heads uncovered, then they are acting in such a way that challenges the authority of men because they have removed the symbol that they are under masculine authority.
It is obvious from this comparison between men having their heads uncovered and women having their heads covered, that the covereing is no thair. For if the covering in this context were hair, verse 6 would make no sense in the context of this passage. More on this subject, however, will be dealt with in following studies. For now, the point is that our actions must conform to the principles that God has established.

COREM DEO

While signs and symbols are not the most improtant aspects of obedience, the state of the heart being the root of the matter, why is it still imprtant not to ignore the outward aspects of biblical principles? Do you disregard the exterior aspects of religion, saying the heart is all that matters? Is fo, confess your pride before God today.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

Wednesday, June 19
1 Corinthians 6-7

HAIR OR VEIL?

In verse 14, Paul refers to a type of "covering" given in nature: long hair for the woman. Whenever we have a lesson both from the Scriptures and from nature, we are doubly bound to obey. We also must recognize that it is a rule rooted in nature, not custom. Regarding the covering of the woman, we have the example set befroe us that she is to be covered in the public assemblies just as she is covered by the hand of nature, established by God for the instruction of His divinely appointed order of authority.
Given this example from nature, Paul makes the comment in verse 6 that if a woman does not cover her head in public assembly, she should be consistent and cut off her hair. Having her hair shorn would (and should) be shameful to her because it goes against nature. If it is shameful for a woman to have her head shaved, then she must realize that it is just as shameful for her to enter public worship with her head uncovered. We must not confuse Paul's use of hair as "nature's covering" and the covering he is exhorting women to wear in public worship. They are not the same thing.
The covering in public worship is not the hair. If it were, verse 6 would make no sense. "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn." If you assume the covering is the hair in the first place, her hair would already be shorn for her not to bne covered. This, however, is not the case for Paul says that if she is not covered, let her hair be shorn.
The reason a man does not cover his head is because he is the image and glory of God, i.e., he represents the authority of God. Woman, of course, is also made in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. ut she is not given the authority that a man is given. Instead, she is the "glory of man." "That is, the woman is in this respect subordinate to the man," Hodge wrote. "She is not designed to reflect the glory of God as ruler. She is the glory of the man. She receives and reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station; becomes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honor which may belong to her husband."

COREM DEO

How do men, leaders in the church, husbands,and fathers reflect God's glory as ruler? If you are a man, how should you improve your duty as ruler in your sphere? How do women, wives, and mothers reflect the glory of men in their lives? If you are a woman, how can you better reflect the glory of men in your life?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

Thursday, June 20
1 Corinthians 11:8-9

FOUNDATIONS FROM CREATION

Paul proves his assertion that man is the glory of God and woman the glory of man with two facts from creation. First, man did not originate from woman, but woman from man. Second, man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. "In this way does the New Testament constantly authenticate, not merely the moral and religious truths of the Old Testament, but its historical facts; and makes those facts the grounds or proofs of great moral principles," Hodge wrote.
Throughout 1 Corinthians 11, Paul refers to creation to prove his point concerning the genereal principle of the subordination of women and the symbol of authority that should be placed upon her. Nowehere does he give cultural reasons for his teaching, i.e., abusive practices of a pagan society that placed prostitutes with shorn heads in the temples. Paul points us back to God's established order in nature. Whenever a teaching Scripture refers to "creation ordinances," that teaching is binding for all cultures in all ages. The forms may change, but hte substance concerning symbols and principles remains the same. This is true in the case of head coverings, just as it is true in the case of marriage and deviant behavior such as homosexuality. Marriage is grounded in nature, established at creation to be entered into by one man and one woman. This is why polygamy in any culture is contrary to God's design. Likewise, homosexuality is contrary to God's created order. Paul recognizes this when he teaches in Romans 1 that those who engage in such a behavior know "by nature" that it is wrong. God created them male and female. He created the woman out of the man to be a helper to him. He did not give Adam more than one wife. Thus, the authority of man, marriage, and the sanctity of the male/female relationship are rooted in the very nature of God's creation.
Because God so entwined the man and the woman from the very beginning, man is not independant of the woman, nor is the woman independent of the man. They need one another and depend on one another in the Lord, meaning both are ultimately dependent on the Lord and under His authority.

COREM DEO

Read the account of Adam and Eve's creation in Genesis 2. Why did God create Eve? When God brought the animals to Adam, the man was given authority to name the creatures. In ancient times, the right to name something gave on authority over that which was named. Who named Eve? How does this prove the authority of man?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I will be posting (as promised to the ladies earlier) TableTalks writings on the issue (I have their permission...I informed them of the online study when requesting the a copy of articles).
> 
> tcalbrecht: to get directly to the topic at hand skip to the second one as I will be posting them in order.



Thanks for the input.

Let me say I'm still having difficulty with the apparent assumption by the author that Paul is referring to any participation in the public worship. Note how in the second article he casually addresses the verses which speak of "praying and prophesying." He quotes Hodges, which is a good quote as far as it goes, but then goes on to ignore the specifics. Hodge concludes, "This public function, the apostle says, should not be excercised by a man with his head covered." But does this mean that a woman is permitted to perform it as long as her head is covered? Hodge, like Calvin, says "no".

Hodge goes on to say:



> "Praying and prophesying were the two principal exercises in the public worship of the early Christians. The latter term, as above stated, included all forms of address dictated by the Holy Spirit. It was Paul´s manner to attend to one thing at a time. *He is here speaking of the propriety of women speaking in public unveiled*, and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public in itself. When that subject comes up, he expresses his judgment in the clearest terms, 14:34."



What I would like to see is someone who addresses the issue of why Paul uses the specific reference to "praying and prophesying" in chapter 11, when he could have used a phrase like "in the assembly" as he does in chapter 14.

I think something is being seriously missed by draping the entire discussion as mere appearance in the public assembly.

A women who is silent in the churches as commanded by Paul is chapter 14 is, by her silence, expressing her subjection to her authority, her husband.



> "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."



Perhaps it is that at that time when women were given to prophetic movements of the Spirit, that a head covering would have been necessary to show their subjection in spite of them speaking in the congregation.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

Friday, June 21
1 Corinthians 11:10-12

A SIGN OF AUTHORITY

Concerning verse 10, "There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators than this," Hodge wrote. "The meaning which it naturally suggests to the most superficial reader, is regarded by the most laborious critics as the only true one. By the power, the apostle means the sign or symbol or authority....The apostle had asserted and proved that the woman is subordinate to man,and he had assumed as granted that the veil was the conventional symbol of the man's authority. The inference is that the woman ought to wear the ordinary symbol of the power of her husband. As it was proper in itself, and demanded by the common sense of propriety, that the woman should be veiled, it was specially proper in the worshipping assemblies, for there they were in the presence not merely of men but of angels. It was, therefore, not only out of deference to public sentiment, but fro reverence to those higher intelligences that the woman should conform to all the rules of decorum."
While Hodge says that women should conform to the "rule of decorum," it must be maintained that these rules, regarding the worship of God, are established by God Himself not by whims of culture. It is proper for a woman to have a ymbol of authority upon her head; what that symbol consists of does not matter, but the necessity of the symbol remains fixed even as the authority of man remains fixed. The woman's covering is called "power," but it is a symbol of another's authority, not her own, just as the references to glory in verses 7 and 15 speak of the subjection to another's authority.
The word for "covering," which is used here, appears eight times in the Old Testament, and most of these refer to clothing. (Ex 22:27; Job 24:7; 26:6; 31:19; and Isa. 50:3). The root word that means to hide or conceal is often used in reference to clothing (Gen. 9:23; 24:65; 38:14-15; Ex. 26:13; Deut. 22:12; Eze. 16:8). The word is also used of the angels covering themselves in the presence of God (Isa. 6:2 and Eze. 1:11, 23). As in all things regarding worship, we must strive to be conformed to God's regulations in all things, no matter how seemingly insignificant.

COREM DEO

The most common interpretation of this passage is that head coverings were a cultural phenonmenon and no longer binding on us today. How is this interpretation not supported by Paul's own arguments concerning the woman's duty to have a sign and symbol of authority upon her head when she comes to public worship?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> "The problem in Corinth, however, was not that men were prophesying in the public assemblies with their heads covered, but that women were appearing in public assemblies with their heads uncovered."



Is that really a valid assessment of what Paul is addressing? 

After all, Paul starts off by addressing the man, not the woman. So it's speculative to suggest that men praying with covered heads was not a problem. With all that was going on in Corinth it seems unfair to turn this into a "woman's issue".

And why the subtle shift fom men "prophesying in the public assemblies" to women "appearing in public assemblies", when the parallel in the passage in undeniable?

Just more questions.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

Is is not probable that the women were teaching women? (note the assumption  )

Truely, anything is an assumption. The principle remains that her head should be covered in assembly. Three reasons...prayer, prophesying, and the angels. Even if we struggle with the meaning of one that leaves the other two. If you struggle with two that still leaves one. I still haven't heard any manner of excusing the third reason or the creation ordinance.

One more to go!!! (My fingers are wearing out...can they have a "sore throat"?)


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 11, 2005)

One more question: Is there any reference in the OT to women being veiled when coming into the assembly?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Actually, I appreciate your questions. You seem to be a reasonable and patient man (even when you've  because of me in other threads  )

It would make sense that he would approach the men (the authority) first. He was also possibly instructing the men ABOUT their wives...or the entire congregation (I have been in a congregation that though it was for the whole everything was always directed to the men).
As far as it only being a female thing...mayhaps/mayhaps not. If the men didn't cover then he would be using that as an example to the men to build up to the difference there should be amoung the women. If they did, as many Jewish were converts, then he would be instructing them at the same time of why they should not. 
I do not see this as a "woman's only" passage. It gets directed that way today because men still remove their hats. Women on the otherhand today, have abandoned their role. As Doug Phillips states "Does man ever take on the curse of the woman? Does the woman ever take on the curse of the man? Our daughters are being doubly cursed in todays society"


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> One more question: Is there any reference in the OT to women being veiled when coming into the assembly?



There is in coming to the temple and before the priests.

Let me type up this last one, take my kiddos out to lunch, then I will make it my afternoon assignment....


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

Monday, June 24
1 Corinthians 11:13-16

THE WOMAN'S GLORY

To sum up his teaching on head coverings in public worship and the divinely appointed order of authority established at creation, Paul exhorts Christians to judge the matter for themselves. Should we not do what even nature teaches is appropriate? Here again we meet the crux of Paul's argument against a woman praying and prophesying with her head uncovered: the dictates of nature stand inoppostion to such behavior. The laws of nature that transcend culture have established a veil for the woman, a veil that is in itself beautiful and specially designed for her--a mark of her femininity and her subordination. In this, her hair is a glory to her, an ornament of great worth. If nature gives such a covering to a woman, should she not put on a covering when wntering the public worship? Is the covering Paul calls women to adorn themselves with any less appropriate, any less glorious in its symbolism than her long hair, her "natural covering"? This is Paul's argument for men and women to maintain propriety in public worship and to honor God in recognizing the distinctions He has woven into the fabric of His creation by making them male and female.
Paul concludes by urging the Corinthians to disregard those who would stir up dissention by refusing to comply with the apostle's authoritative instruction. Some have misinterpreted this passage by saying that Paul suddenly throws everything he has been passionately teaching onout the window with his staement that neither the apostles not he churches of God practice the custom of head coverings. This, of course, makes no sense in the grand scheme of the text. For on thing, it is commonly known that the women in most of the churches at that time wore veils, a practice that continued in one form or another until modern times. Secondly, the word for custom here can mean "practice," or "habit," or "being accustomed to," all of which can apply to being contentious, not to wearing head coverings. As Calcin says, "it is not the custom [or habit] of the church to enter into strifes and contentions." Because such contentious behavior over matters of propriety in worship is not hte practice of God's people, then we must not give heed to those who refuse to submit to the apostle's teaching.

COREM DEO

Contention can be a common thing in churches, but, according to Paul this should not be our practice. Why, then, is it so common? Are you guilty of being contentious about issues in the church? If so, pray that God will give you a humble disposition and live for others. If not, pray that those who stir up trouble in the church will be humbled.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 11, 2005)

Okay, my hands are literally shaking now....


----------



## Augusta (Mar 11, 2005)

Colleen honey you are just like me when I am passionate about something. No more shaking. About the we have no such custom verse. Well it should be translated "we have no other practice" which is how the NASB translates it. 

From Bible Gateway NASB

1 Corinthians 11:16

16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, (Q)we have no other practice, nor have (R)the churches of God. 

The NASB is a literal translation and has become my favorite version. I have found lots of things that are wrong in even the NKJV.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 11, 2005)

No dont say anything about NKJV its perfect


----------



## Augusta (Mar 11, 2005)

I liked classic KJV and NKJV forever Blade. It is only recently where I see to totally different things being said. And its not only those two that mistranslate that very verse. I just looked and the NIV gets it right also.

Bible Gateway NIV 1 Cor. 11:16

16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no *other* practice"“nor do the churches of God.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 12, 2005)

I recently read on another site that one of the NASB translators or promoters recently recanted.

Dunno...I've read alot of neg about NASB as well...I won't argue versions though 

I do find it makes more sense dealing with contention than just that there is no other similar practices...he does go on to give another ordinance. I'll have to look it over.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 12, 2005)

Take a look at the NIV too it is translated the same "we have no other practice" meaning "be as contentious as you want but we have no other practice than that we have stated nor do the churches of God." I know versions can be tricky and everyone has their favorites. I just like that it (NASB) is a literal translation and not joe schmo's way of saying what they think its saying. We cannot as we all know trust our own feelings and leanings on things. A lot of us were arminians once so that ought to cure us of going with what we think is our gut but really is our own wicked self-deception. I want greek word for greek word as much as possible I don't care if its flowery anymore, this coming from a former KJV only type person.






[Edited on 3-12-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 12, 2005)

NASB aint bad


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 12, 2005)

I'm still wiling to look into...no tomatoes,please!...just stating MHO....


----------



## Mayflower (Mar 13, 2005)

Does anyone knows some good books which supports headcovering ?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



Still waiting.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 13, 2005)

Tom, if I may, in the OT women were not allowed in the temple at all or only in the outer courts. They were allowed to come to the assemblies that God called for on the mountains or where ever it was that he picked when Moses would read the laws etc to all the people young and old. I don't think they were allowed in synagogues either. It is only after the new covenant that we are allowed in solemn assemblies covered but not to speak except when called for in the liturgy and in singing praise. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here.

[Edited on 3-13-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 13, 2005)

to the temple and in the temple are two different things.

My apologies, Tom, I had we got home late Friday evening and truely I forgot.

I can recall where when testing a wife's faithfulness...they (the husband and the priest) took off her covering or had her take off her covering in order to (I think pour something on her head?). This is the specific one I was thinking off.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> to the temple and in the temple are two different things.
> 
> My apologies, Tom, I had we got home late Friday evening and truely I forgot.
> ...



Thanks to Coleen and Traci for their comments, but I think I'm still looking for specific verses.

It seems to me that if women are to be veiled at all times in the assembly of the people, then perhaps there would be some explicit OT precedence.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 14, 2005)

Can I ask why there needs to be an OT precedence?

The example I used above IS in the OT...Numbers 5:18.

The following is from a Q&A I found...it is the A of course...in regards to Numbers 5:18...

The only example that I can find specifically mentioning uncovering of a woman's head is what is recorded in Numbers 5:18 and dealing with the law of jealousy. Is this a clue with which we can gain insight on the matter we are considering? The scripture says "And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and UNCOVER THE WOMAN'S HEAD, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:" The Hebrew word used for "uncover" is PARA and according to Young's Analytical Concordance means to free, keep or make bare - it is used only 3 times, the other two instances are Lev.10:6 and 21:10 both used in connection with the Aaronic priesthood. I believe it is certain that both instances in Leviticus are using the word PARA or "uncover" with reference to the headgear worn by the Aaronic priesthood. This strongly suggests that in the only other use of PARA in Num.5:18 that when it says "uncover(PARA) the woman's head" it is referring to headgear of some kind. So what, you may ask? Well, consider that this is a LAW applying to ALL women throughout ALL generations up to the end of the Mosaic dispensation, some 1,500 years! Potentially, EVERY woman could be brought "unto the priest" Num.5:15 at anytime her husband had doubts as to her faithfulness. Why would Yahweh set in place a law lasting 15 centuries in which any woman brought before the priest under the law of jealousy, whereby the priest would "uncover the woman's head", UNLESS there was SOMETHING to "uncover"? Is this evidence that it was the norm for Israelite women to wear a headcovering? If so, it would surely be dishonouring her head (husband) to have her head uncovered even if she was later found to be innocent.The law of jealousy leaves absolutely no doubt that every woman's head was 'covered', if not, how could the priest "uncover the woman's head" whenever and wherever the law of jealousy should be applied? Yahweh would not give a law with no exceptions mentioned, demanding uncovering "the woman's head" if "the woman's head" was not already 'covered' in some way. Should the above reasoning prove to be the case it may at least shed some light on Paul's words to the women members of the ecclesia wearing a headcovering.This may well support your reasoning in Question #2 that the headcovering was for all occasions not just ecclesial gatherings.

Another note:
To expose a woman's hair was considered a humiliation


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Can I ask why there needs to be an OT precedence?
> 
> The example I used above IS in the OT...Numbers 5:18.



One would think that if women in the public assembly were required to have their heads covered at all times this would be tied to some aspect of the moral law. I think this is what I'm looking for, some connection between the first tablet of the law and woman's head coverings.

I think we would agree that God is very jealous of His worship, and in the OT set down very specific laws related to how worship should be conducted under that covenant. I can find nothing which seems to require a woman to have her head covered when coming into the assembly.

I'm not sure how Number 5:18 helps your position, since it would appear that if a head covering is in view that the assumption is the woman would have her head covered at all times, not just in the public assembly. Your commentator points this out when he says, "The law of jealousy leaves absolutely no doubt that every woman's head was 'covered', if not, how could the priest "uncover the woman's head" whenever and wherever the law of jealousy should be applied?". I won't argue now whether this is a correct assessment, but if one claims that it is it would seem one would be obligated even today to wear a head covering at all times!

BTW, the NASB translation of Num. 5:18 is "The priest shall then have the woman stand before the LORD and let {the hair of} the woman's head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse." Given the nature of the Hebrew word used and the situation in view, I'm not sure how much moral doctrine we can build from this case.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 14, 2005)

Tom, the reason there are no verses in the OT about it is because women held no part at ALL in the worship that was laid out in the OT. Not even any ole guy could be involved, it was the levites appointed by God and that was it. This is why Paul painstakingly sets this down in 1 Cor 11:1-16. The woman should be covered in worship because she is the glory of man, made for him, so her glory should be covered. The man is God's glory so in worship he, being God's glory, should be uncovered so that God's glory can be shown. It is not proper however for any other glory to be shown which is why the woman's head should be covered because as it states in the text even creation tells us that her hair is her glory, but her glory is man's glory so it should be covered so as to glorify no one but God in worship. It gives other reasons as well that have to do with the chain of command so to speak. That part of it is stated quite clearly. In all honesty I don't think is could get any clearer and was quite clear to all up until about the 1960's with the sexual revolution and women's so called "liberation". Since then we have this mess in modern America and Europe with gender roles that has left many victims in its wake including tiny unborn babies. Preacher allowed this to just go away knowing what it was saying. Pastors and biblical teachers had better start getting some courage and preaching this text as it is clearly written so that they don't have the women in their congregation sitting in shame every Sunday. That is what Paul says so clearly. It is a SHAME for a woman to be uncovered in worship. He uses strong language here because it is against nature itself, an order set down since creation. She might as well go all the way and shame herself by shaving her head. If you want OT verses look at Deut 21:12 about what you did to a captive slave woman if you wanted to keep her, you shaved her head. Captives heads were shaved, all of them men, women and children. This branded them as captive slaves. Adultress women were shaved. Men in grief and shame in the OT shaved their heads: Isaiah 15:2, Jeremiah 16:6, 47:5, 48:37, Ezek 7:18, 27:31, Amos 8:10, Micah 1:16. In The Works of Gaius Petronius in the story Sayricon of Patronius is a part where to disquise themselves to men allowed themselves to be shaved eyebrows and all so as to appear as slaves. It was a shame in all western and eastern cultures to be shaved. This shows the gravity of the shame of a woman in worship uncovered. It was also the practice in all eastern and western churches for women to cover in worship because of this verse up until less than 50 years ago. That in itself ought to be a big red flag. This is no laughing matter in my opinion and I as a woman who loves the Lord with all my heart am frankly ticked off that I was not taught this clearly and have been sitting in shame all these years in church. I actually read this verse about 12 or so years ago and was convicted about it and asked someone I trusted in my church about it and had it explained away in the usual manner. Thankfully because I am in subjection to my husband and my pastor in matters of scripture etc. it is on their heads if I was not doing it and not mine. I am to blame too because I knew what I was reading at the time but the poor translation of that last sentence "we have no such custom" in two of the main tranlations KJV and NKJV has lead many to just say "oh its not that important if we are contentious about it". HELLO!! Paul just got through 14 verses about how it is against not only God's ordained order of headship but, against His ordained creation and a shame if men cover and women don't and then at the end you think he just blows that off!! Even my husband after hearing this was literally ticked off as well. It is just really sad that preachers today don't have the guts to look out over all the uncovered short haired women in their church and exegete this passage. If you are gonna say that it is saying that long hair is her covering then you better get up there and say Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit commands that you have a long hair covering so you better start growing that hair and keeping it down over your head during church. They don't even do that. They I suppose allow their parish to be contentious then. He says if you are contentious we have no OTHER practice nor do the churches of God, which makes much more sense and is the literal translation after all of the strong language he just used to explain something as important as headship and what is and is not shameful in worship. 

The following from BibleGateway.com NASB:

1 (A)Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 

2 Now (B)I praise you because you (C)remember me in everything and (D)hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the (E)head of every man, and (F)the man is the head of a woman, and God is the (G)head of Christ. 

4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or (H)prophesying disgraces his head. 

5 But every (I)woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is (J)shaved. 

6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 

7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the (K)image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 

8 For (L)man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 

9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but (M)woman for the man's sake. 

10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 

11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 

12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and (N)all things originate (O)from God. 

13 (P)Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 

14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 

15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 

16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, (Q)we have no other practice, nor have (R)the churches of God.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Tom, the reason there are no verses in the OT about it is because women held no part at ALL in the worship that was laid out in the OT.



Then how would you explain what was going on in Nehemiah 8?



> And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in front of the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. Then Ezra the priest brought the law before *the assembly of men, women and all who {could} listen with understanding*, on the first day of the seventh month. He read from it before the square which was in front of the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, those who could understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law. Ezra the scribe stood at a wooden podium which they had made for the purpose. And beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah on his right hand; and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah {and} Meshullam on his left hand. Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. *Then Ezra blessed the LORD the great God. And all the people answered, " Amen, Amen!" while lifting up their hands; then they bowed low and worshiped the LORD with {their} faces to the ground*. Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, explained the law to the people while the people {remained} in their place. They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.



And in Ezra 10:



> Now while Ezra was praying and making confession, weeping and prostrating himself before the house of God, a very large assembly, men, women and children, gathered to him from Israel; for the people wept bitterly.



Are you contending this is not public worship by the assembly of all the people?

BTW, it's easier to read posts with paragraph breaks.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 14, 2005)

Sorry, I will work on the paragraph thing. 

See.

First of all meeting in the city square and happening to lift up praise after hearing the law of God read to them does not a worship service make. True temple worship in the OT was done very precisely and in the very presence of God. Only the High priest was allowed once a year into the Holy of Holies with a rope tied to his ankle in case things didn't go well. Only certain levite priest were allowed in the inner court and so on.

Fast forward to now where the whole of the temple sacrifice etc has been fulfulled in Christ and the veil into the Holy of Holies has been ripped in two and we now by the grace of God are allowed into His presence. Now we are the temple, and in Christ he is no respecter of persons (male/female) when it comes to grace BUT the creational order is still in place as Paul teaches us in 1 Cor 11. 

You also cannot pit and OT historical book passage against a didactic epistle with an explicit imperative command in it.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> First of all meeting in the city square and happening to lift up praise after hearing the law of God read to them does not a worship service make.



Even thought it says they were worshipping. That's a curious comment. Most commentators seem to agree it was a public worship assembly. In 1887, D. Douglas Bannerman (son of James Bannerman) maintained it was the beginning of the synagogue system.



> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> True temple worship in the OT was done very precisely and in the very presence of God.



But nowhere in the Bible does it say that true public worship under the Old Covenant was limited to the temple. In fact one need only look up "worship" or "worshiped" to see where and how it was done outside the temple.

I think we are still left with some unresolved issues.

1) 1 Cor. 11 says that women must have their heads covered when publicly "praying and prophesying". There is a distinct parallel between men and women praying and prophesying. It does not say that woman must appear in public worship with their heads covered.

2) There is no specific requirements in the OT for woman having their heads covered in public worship. This is somewhat unexplainable given that God did give other rules for clothing and appearance.




> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> You also cannot pit and OT historical book passage against a didactic epistle with an explicit imperative command in it.



I'm not trying to pit anything against anything. I'm trying to understand Paul's words by applying the "analogy of faith". While some folks seem to think that it's cut and dried, most scholars admit that it is a difficult passage. I'm just trying to understand, and one way to understand is to bring all of Scripture to bear on the passage. That's why I asked about other biblical passages dealing with head coverings.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 15, 2005)

I think you mean most MODERN DAY Scholars...many of whom they or their wives personally don't care to wear a covering as they are uncomfortable with if and afraid of the fallout from others (ie possible "legalistic" comments).

That is why I have quote both old as well as new...those who aren't holding a personal prejudice, but willing to read the text as it is.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I think you mean most MODERN DAY Scholars...many of whom they or their wives personally don't care to wear a covering as they are uncomfortable with if and afraid of the fallout from others (ie possible "legalistic" comments).
> 
> That is why I have quote both old as well as new...those who aren't holding a personal prejudice, but willing to read the text as it is.



I wouldn't judge another person's heart in this regard. There are enough legitimate questions on the subject and extent of 1 Cor. 11 to make the head covering issue less than black & white.

Just wondering, are there any reformed denominations that require head covering for women in the public assemblies? If so, do they also require a woman's hair to be of a certain length?


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> I am to blame too because I knew what I was reading at the time but the poor translation of that last sentence "we have no such custom" in two of the main tranlations KJV and NKJV has lead many to just say "oh its not that important if we are contentious about it". HELLO!! Paul just got through 14 verses about how it is against not only God's ordained order of headship but, against His ordained creation and a shame if men cover and women don't and then at the end you think he just blows that off!! Even my husband after hearing this was literally ticked off as well. It is just really sad that preachers today don't have the guts to look out over all the uncovered short haired women in their church and exegete this passage. If you are gonna say that it is saying that long hair is her covering then you better get up there and say Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit commands that you have a long hair covering so you better start growing that hair and keeping it down over your head during church. They don't even do that. They I suppose allow their parish to be contentious then. He says if you are contentious we have no OTHER practice nor do the churches of God, which makes much more sense and is the literal translation after all of the strong language he just used to explain something as important as headship and what is and is not shameful in worship.



If, however, it is translated "no such practice," could Paul be saying "We have no such practice [of being contentious]"? It certainly _would_ be counterintuitive not only to say, "If you are inclined to be contentious, it doesn't matter" but to go so far as to say, "But if you have a problem with it, it doesn't even exist... just pretend we don't do it at all!" No matter which translation you are using, this doesn't seem to be a reasonable interpretation.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> I wouldn't judge another person's heart in this regard. There are enough legitimate questions on the subject and extent of 1 Cor. 11 to make the head covering issue less than black & white.



I have the same questions you do. I do not think the covering is a merely cultural command, nor do I think that hair suffices as the covering. My question, like yours, is whether the reference to "praying and prophesying" should be interpreted "in the public assembly." (That said, as the covering is a sign of submission, it certainly could only be praiseworthy to wear it in public worship or even all the time. And the coverings in LadyFlynt's links are beautiful. )

I find it hard to get around the idea, however, that if a woman is doing something that would seem to be a display of authority (such as teaching other women), she should wear a covering as a sign of submission, in order to demonstrate that she is still _under_ authority.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 15, 2005)

Evie...it would make perfect sense to so a sign of being under authority while teaching other women...for what are we supposed to be teaching them? Titus 2:3-5 "The aged women likewise, THAT THEY BE IN BEHAVIOR THAT BECOMETH HOLINESS, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, OBEDIENR TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS, THAT THE WORD OF GOD BE NOT BLASPHEMED." We would be teaching them submission to God's order of things and the all, including the blessings, that come with it.

It IS of dispute amoung ppl as to whether it is to be for assembly only or for all activities. I do not take a definate stand on this. I can only quote both sides of the issue...those that say "well it says in the assembly" and those that say "when praying or prophesying which is inclusive of the assembly (or especially) and since we should always have a *prayful attitude* then we should always wear it". (Please note that I was quoting other's stands on the issue)

My personal belief from what I have read and logic brings conclusion to is that we should wear it when praying or prophesying and especially in the assembly...however, I don't go so far as to say that it has to be worn at all times (I think this would be overstretching) other than mayhaps for practicality's sake (ie I always carry one with me, many times I just wear it regardless so I don't have to fiddle with it should I have need of it). Also, it could be considered (not relied upon as) a testamony (prophesy/witness) in and of itself. Granted, I don't wear it just so "the world can see the *I am a Christian" (therefore I am not relying or taking pride in it...in fact it's quite humbling). But, can I say that it hasn't ever had an impact on ppl around me? No, because I have seen it's impact in many ways over the years. Some don't even notice it (sometimes depending on which one I am wearing) others pick up on it right off regardless of the type of covering. But this would lead into my own circumstantial testamony...so would only have an experiential meaning to this conversation, not a textual one.

(Evie, thanks, I enjoy looking at what others have to offer as well  )


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2005)

Ok here is the low down on prophesy as it is used in this passage from what I have gleaned in my study of this issue. There is more than one way that this word is used. It is used in several OT scriptures to mean praise and worship or speaking the Word of the Lord. When we quote scripture we are prophesying. When we sing an inspired psalm we are prophesying. Here are a few example OT verses: 1 Chron 25:1-3, 1 Samuel 19:20-24, and Ezekiel 37 the whole speak the Word of the Lord to the bones which is a foreshadowing of how the Gospel spoken to hearing ears will raise us from the dead or quicken us to life and is the "power of God unto salvation" Rom. 1:16. 

So when it is speaking about corporate worship in 1 Cor. 11 which almost nobody disgrees that that it what is being discussed, we can reasonably assume that when they use the word prophesy here that it is talking about worship and psalm singing and scripture quoting etc. Not necessarily new revelatory prophecy. Especially now since most of us as reformed christians believe that has now ceased. It has to be discussing either singing, preaching the gospel, or praying etc. Especially since we find out later in Corinthians that women are not to speak in the assemblies. Would Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit contradict himself? 

We also know that there were most likely inspired psalms of David sung and possibly some new inspired songs in the age of the apostles possibly being sung. So it is no stretch at all if they are singing spiritually inspired songs of David that you could say they were all prophesying.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



I apologise, I wasn't trying to judge their hearts. Unfortunately, that is the state of the church in many areas...not just the headcovering issue.

Another unfortunate, is that the churches (even the ones holding to the covering) refuse to take an open stand on it. However, the armenianist churches are not afraid of openingly insisting upon it.

I can say that the Sprouls and, I believe, even Piper holds to it.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2005)

I do not believe we are commanded anywhere to always where a head covering. I do find myself putting both hands on my head to cover it when I pray. It is laid out as a sign of subjection to God's natural order and to cover any other glory other than the Lord's in and assembly of the "visible Church". This lines up with being in His presence when two or more are gathered. And it would be in His presence that this order and the covering of "glory" should be required. So personal praying probably is not being thought of here. I just find myself doing it (covering my head with my hands) because I feel that I am going before the Lord in prayer thus I want to cover my "glory." So I see what you mean about it being kind of unclear about our personal praying or singing of spiritual song around the house etc.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 15, 2005)

I do the same thing on the rare occasion that I can't find one fast enough. A towel, my hands, ANYTHING. I feel naked without it while praying. There have been a couple of times where I thought that I had put my covering in my purse and on the way to church while fixing my hair I find it's not there. I will NOT enter the sanctuary without it. I sat in the foyer on those two occasions.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2005)

I dug out this hat pattern and I am going to try to make a couple of hats to match some things that I don't have a good hat for. I have been sewing alot of dresses since there are none anywhere except thrift stores anymore.




I might as well make a matching hat while I am at it right?:bigsmile:

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Evie...it would make perfect sense to so a sign of being under authority while teaching other women...for what are we supposed to be teaching them? Titus 2:3-5 "The aged women likewise, THAT THEY BE IN BEHAVIOR THAT BECOMETH HOLINESS, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, OBEDIENR TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS, THAT THE WORD OF GOD BE NOT BLASPHEMED." We would be teaching them submission to God's order of things and the all, including the blessings, that come with it.





I definitely agree on this. I am only unsure about the context of 1 Cor 11... Thank you for faithfully providing information, Colleen!

I do think one thing is certain: While headcoverings may or may not be mandated for all women in the assembly, it is no sin to wear one, and the act of submission that it signifies is certainly commendable in all contexts.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 15, 2005)

Hi Evie, sorry for missing your post here. It has been seen that way before, saying we have no practice of being contentious. This to me just does not seem to flow with the whole theme of this entire chapter much less the portion specifically on head covering. Also when it is translated "no such" it is translated "no such custom" not "no such practice" in the main versions. I think ESV is the only one that says "no such practice". Being contentious is not a custom or a practice so it kind of sounds silly. Where as an act of covering or not covering is a custom type thing or a "practice". I have to hurry off. Let me know what you think. 



> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Hi Evie, sorry for missing your post here. It has been seen that way before, saying we have no practice of being contentious. This to me just does not seem to flow with the whole theme of this entire chapter much less the portion specifically on head covering. Also when it is translated "no such" it is translated "no such custom" not "no such practice" in the main versions. I think ESV is the only one that says "no such practice". Being contentious is not a custom or a practice so it kind of sounds silly. Where as an act of covering or not covering is a custom type thing or a "practice". I have to hurry off. Let me know what you think.



Oh, I prefer the "no other practice" translation, as well, since that makes much more sense... but I just think no matter which translation, you can't interpret it to dismiss the entire previous passage. I do think contentiousness could be a practice, of sorts... But it is a little weird in that translation.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 16, 2005)

Evie, I have to ask if you are named for the christian singer from years back named Evie? I loved her songs when I was about 8 yrs old and me and my sisters still know the words to nearly all of her songs. Is your last name scandinavian? Here is a website about her.

Evie

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Evie, I have to ask if you are named for the christian singer from years back named Evie? I loved her songs when I was about 8 yrs old and me and my sisters still know the words to nearly all of her songs. Is your last name scandinavian? Here is a website about her.
> 
> Evie
> ...



Yes, I am! My grandmother's name was Evelyn, and my parents, who were fans of the singer Evie, named me Evelyn but picked Evie as a nickname. My last name is German.

My mom told me, "She has such a sweet voice, and it seemed like a sweet name for a little girl." I can't believe you asked!!!

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 30, 2005)

Reformed Books on Headcovering (will add to this list as they are found, so they will not show as new posts):

The Headcovering in Worship by David J. Lipsy
http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=2716


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 30, 2005)

ooooh, thanks. I'll check out the link!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> ooooh, thanks. I'll check out the link!





[Edited on 9-30-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 30, 2005)

I can't take credit...Mayflower found it.


----------

