Please Argue with me about Head Coverings

FluffyYellowDuck said:

I am sorry your wife went through that..

Click to expand...

She grew spiritually through that ordeal. Tremendously. And she uses that experience to help others going through breast cancer, like our church friend is now. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose..

Lambano said:

She grew spiritually through that ordeal. Tremendously. And she uses that experience to help others going through breast cancer, like our church friend is now. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose..

Click to expand...

@Lambano

Yes and like you said about her subsequent commemorative ink, ↑

Yes, she does use her tattoos as conversation starters.. she’ll praise God .. to whoever will listen.

Click to expand...

.

I know that when I was in hospital for major surgery several years ago, I felt a closeness to the Lord which was truly memorable, with my mediation on Scripture being truly precious, by God's grace.

Such a great chapter also, Romans 8....

FluffyYellowDuck said:

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

Click to expand...

Dude ghosted her, LoL.

It wasn't just the married women within Judaism, Fluffy. But it was especially required of married women because they were already taken. It was simply a gesture of modesty, which was becoming of all godly women back then, not just the married ones:

It was customary for most women in the ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, and the Greco-Roman world to cover their hair when they went outside the home. In biblical times, women covered their heads with veils or scarves. The unveiling of a woman's hair was considered a humiliation and punishment (Isa. 3:17; cf. Num. 5:18 on the loosening of the hair of a woman suspected of adultery; III Macc. 4:6; and Sus. 32). In talmudic times, too, married women were enjoined to cover their hair in communal spaces (e.g., Ned. 30b; Num. R. 9:16). In a society so highly conscious of sexuality and its dangers, veiling was considered an absolute necessity to maintain modesty and chastity.
Covering of the Head

@FluffyYellowDuck

Thanks for the 'like'; yes, nose studs have become soooooo mainstream that so often those that opt for them just have them clicked in and then they are virtually forgotten about, often.

Re. the point someone made about the yarmulkes for Jewish men, in the OT, the situation was one of revelation not yet completely and when types and shadows had not yet been surpassed by fullness of revelation in the NT.

PS: @FluffyYellowDuck Your thread has really taken off.......

(Reminds me of my tattoo thread....)

FluffyYellowDuck said:

"
“So to did the Corinthians understand him [Paul] that unmarried girls as well as married women should be veiled. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins…"

So we know the Corinths understand Paul better than us because they kept doing as instructed even 150 yearsish later
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV : On the Veiling of Virgins.

Click to expand...

Well this is interesting, but what you always have to keep in mind with the Fathers is that their teachings started getting a little off in various areas as time progressed. I value the writings of the early Fathers, but I never take them as holy writ. Depending on the issue, they could be off. Best to stick with Paul's actual teaching, and again, as is clear from the context, he was not talking about women but wives.

Let me quote it again first:

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.

If read strictly (as referring to all women), this would mean he was saying that the "head of every woman" alive is "the man." Which man? This would mean you have a head over you right now, and would have to go searching for someone to fill the position. Some would say, "her father." What if your father is dead? The teaching makes zero logical sense unless it is specifically talking about husbands and wives.

Let me now retranslate the passage as it should actually read:

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 husband is Christ, the head of wife is the husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every husband praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every wife 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 wife is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a wife to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a husband indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but wife is the glory of the husband. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (He's talking about Adam and Eve here). 10 For this reason the wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is he husband independent of the wife, nor the wife independent of husband 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 wife 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 wife 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.

Hidden In Him said:

Well this is interesting, but what you always have to keep in mind with the Fathers is that their teachings started getting a little off in various areas as time progressed. I value the writings of the early Fathers, but I never take them as holy writ. Depending on the issue, they could be off. Best to stick with Paul's actual teaching, and again, as is clear from the context, he was not talking about women but wives.

Let me quote it again first:

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.

If read strictly (as referring to all women), this would mean he was saying that the "head of every woman" alive is "the man." Which man? This would mean you have a head over you right now, and have to go searching for someone to fill the position. Some would say, "her father." What if your father is dead? The teaching makes zero logical sense unless it is specifically about husbands and wives.

Let me now retranslate the passage as it should actually read:

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 husband is Christ, the head of wife is the husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every husband praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every wife 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 wife is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a wife to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a husband indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but wife is the glory of the husband. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (He's talking about Adam and Eve here). 10 For this reason the wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is he husband independent of the wife, nor the wife independent of husband 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 wife 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.

Click to expand...

Despite the apparently stated conclusion about married women, I don't see Paul referring to single women preaching in church, etc.

FluffyYellowDuck said:

I believe she has a head still even if she is not married, in my mind, the head being her father.

Click to expand...

...but does this envisage the single woman coming home from her father's funeral and throwing her hat into the air and preparing a sermon for church the next Sunday, with her sidecut highlights resplendent? (Sorry, I have a flair for putting things a bit starkly, I suppose...)

Y'all are making my head feel so super dishonored right now. Cut it out.

FluffyYellowDuck said:

Right, the reasoning Paul gives has nothing to do with prostitution - it has to do with the order of headship, and the last line "because of the angels" eliminates the possibility of it being for a culture or a time.

Is it coincidence that the doing away with the covering came about the same time as feminism and rebellion against Gods natural order of headship and family principles? Probably not.

Click to expand...

The Angels in reference in my opinion is pertaining to the overseers of the church.

FluffyYellowDuck said:

I believe she has a head still even if she is not married, in my mind, the head being her father.

Not saying that scripturally here just that the order is there by nature

Click to expand...

Again, what if her husband is dead? Worse yet, what if he is completely unsaved and is constantly urging his daughter to stay away from Christianity? The concept here is of spiritual headship. It becomes an utter disaster if a woman's spiritual head is a reprobate sinner, especially when he is her earthly provider and guardian.

Mayflower said:

Y'all are making my head feel so super dishonored right now. Cut it out.

Click to expand...

What, give you a haircut, you mean?

(My wife did The Chop years ago, anyway...)

I guess I would say if you spent years studying this, you are probably feeling convicted and to do what you believe is right. I'd have that same battle every year when Halloween came along until I officially gave it up.

Waiting on him said:

The Angels in reference in my opinion is pertaining to the overseers of the church.

Click to expand...

That's interesting; rather like the ref.s to angels in Revelation's letters to the seven churches in Asia?

farouk said:

What, give you a haircut, you mean?

(My wife did The Chop years ago, anyway...)

Click to expand...

It is an American saying.