Please Argue with me about Head Coverings
- Thread starter DuckieLady
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,741
- 5,593
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Okay...now I see what you are getting at.
Just as the man portrays Christ in his roll as husband, and priests are men to portray God as male, etc., head coverings are or I should say were, to portray a godly women under the will of her Father in heaven and/or her husband whom is Christ. It is a practice that was for a time, just as the law was for a time...not to be looked at as what is or was necessary in practice, but rather in principle.
It is this practice-verses-principle that gives you your answer: If it was to be a practice forever, would not a man whom is among those called to be the bride of Christ also need to wear a head covering? And the answer is, No, because the Bridegroom has come into his bride, to those whom have made themselves ready. The time of practicing is long since past.
@FluffyYellowDuck Well, my wife did The Chop years and years ago, but hers is still relatively longer than mine, I reckon.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Alright. Now for starters, you do realize that this applied to married women, yes? Not unmarried women.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Ah. Is that because verse 3 talks about the man being the head of the woman, and a single woman has no "head"?
This part I can explain, it is an example to us given by nature, but also the words in Greek are different.
In this one it is a literal covering, peribolaiou, while in the others katakalupto it is a removable whole covering.
I hope I got that right but there's a lot out there to read about it and I'm not good at using a tablet yet lol
I am sorry your wife went through that..
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Correct.
This is one of those passages where the typical translations unfortunately do a nice job of clouding over the meaning of what is actually being talked about. It is not about women but wives, as the context makes clear. The Greek words for "men" and "women" can just as easily be translated "husbands" and "wives," and the only way to know which should be used is by closely analyzing the context. Here it is very clearly talking about married couples, as the following highlights will show you (note: I will save off correcting the translation of the passage for a later post).
1 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 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. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among 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 anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
I understand that some of the Hutterites think women can't go shopping without a 'head', i.e., a man going with them.....this is rather stretching what Paul actually says....
PS: I'm not sure nose studs are even necessarily about getting married, either; the Ezekiel 16 passage seems to be more about imputed righteousness, as a background.
(They obviously don't need to but, if Christian women - single or married - do want a nose stud clicked in, then it would seem Romans 14 Christian liberty comes into play...)
1 Cor 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.
A Woman not cover WHAT....her head. WHEN...she prays or prophesieth
1 Cor 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.
If a woman is cleaning her home, cooking, shopping, walking down the street, sleeping and has her head NOT COVERED...is she dishonoring her head?
As regards prophesying (I don't think this is relevant after Acts...), there is also the background of the ephod worn by prophets in the OT...
There is no need to argue. God said it. That settles it. Christian women are to cover their heads and their hair during worship. That is why God gave sixteen verses of Scripture.
Remember in song of Solomon the woman who wasn't married:
Song of Solomon 5:7
The night watchmen found me as they made their rounds. They beat and bruised me and stripped off my veil, those watchmen on the walls.
she was not married, because dude ghosted her, and there are other passages that I can't remember that show the removal of the veil as being connected to shame.
Including verse 5 & 14 in 1 cor 11
I have more let me find it
Do you mean a hat has to cover all the hair completely or be supposedly unScriptural?
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Thank you. I couldn't figure out what Post #8 had to do with it, LoL.
The trouble here is applying this passage is to do so where it doesn't belong. Paul was specifically talking here in Romans about eating meats as opposed to vegetables only, and also about observing fasting days, where he taught that personal conscience was involved. When it came to the issue of head coverings, however, Paul did not leave things up to conscience. As he stated in closing, "We have no other such custom in the churches of God.
The issue now, however, is what to do now that this custom is NOT a part of our culture in the 21st century.
I think it would be hard to argue that the supposedly "proper" thing for Christian men to do now is to go round and manhandling women who don't conform to what's "correct", in the manner of those watchmen.....
