[Lon]

Originally Posted by Ezekel

The way I view these verses is that it was a specific cultural teaching in that particular city or area. There is no indication anywhere else in the Scriptures where head coverings are mentioned.

Verses 2-10 describe the particulars of this cultural teaching and verse 11-15 show how a Christian is to handle it. Verse 16 shows that this particular teaching is not prevalent anywhere else nor is it mandated by the church or God.

Many cultures have their own ways of showing respect or honor or even worship. There is no need to rigidly enforce ones culture on to another, so if one culture views head coverings as a means of showing honor to God then by all means let them and when in the midst of that culture do likewise so as to not cause strife.

I tend toward this view but am not overtly concerned. We don't really know a lot of information here to be able to follow this too far. I tend to answer it by citing Ephesians 5. Paul gives a heirachial model but begins it with being submissive to one another mutually. For me, take care of that and no worries. Ephesians 5:21 - most miss it.

[Angel4Truth]

Originally Posted by Lon

I tend toward this view but am not overtly concerned. We don't really know a lot of information here to be able to follow this too far. I tend to answer it by citing Ephesians 5. Paul gives a heirachial model but begins it with being submissive to one another mutually. For me, take care of that and no worries. Ephesians 5:21 - most miss it.

I agree, - this issue is a tough one because of the lack of information and the theories and thoughts on it varying so widely, because of that lack of information.

My biggest concern was that if it was something God wanted, then i would want to do it, or be sure that its a non issue, or a metaphorical one.

I doubt that it only dealt with that particular church though, because of the account of the angels thing. That phrase alone takes it into being more than just that one church.

[NewDay]

Originally Posted by Lon

I tend toward this view but am not overtly concerned. We don't really know a lot of information here to be able to follow this too far. I tend to answer it by citing Ephesians 5. Paul gives a heirachial model but begins it with being submissive to one another mutually. For me, take care of that and no worries. Ephesians 5:21 - most miss it.

Yes, through love.

...for you are not under the law, but love has fulfilled it.

[Livelystone]

Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon

There is nothing more shamefull than the woman speaking for the family and the man silent when interviewed by the press.

Even more shameful is when men speak for Christ when He has not spoken.

LA

I agree

Although God is no respecter of persons and sees us all as equal in our responsibilities to Him, I am embarrassed for the failure of many family men who when called to prove they are the covering for their famlly, fail step up to the plate and hit a homerun for Jesus Christ.

I do not care who speaks the truth as long as the truth is spoken. In short that means I'd rather hear the truth from a woman than from a man who does not know the truth.

I'm hoping it's only by coincidence but the last 2 major disputes that I've have witnessed with within a body of Christ gathering that resulted in the Lord passing judgment, both times it was only some of the woman who were able to receive the truth while others and all of the men involved had judgment passed on them.

Blessings

Doug

[Jedidiah]

1 Corinthians 11:
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.

For God is not from the angels, but the angels from God.
Nor was God created for the angels, but the angels for God.
For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

[Colossians]

AngelNot4TheTruth,

I agree, - this issue is a tough one because of the lack of information and the theories and thoughts on it varying so widely, because of that lack of information.
The issue is a tough one because you are in fact engaging in theological trolling: you have been shown that the covering is not an external fabric, but the hair. It is in fact a simple issue, oh little Miss Blonde Long-haired Angel.

And you continually play dum, drawing the Body of Christ into distraction.

The fact that you tell us there is not enough information, should put everyone on notice as to just what spirit you are from, for God is not such an idiot as to give us a large passage with directions, but with something missing so that it becomes useless.

For those who wish to not be distracted with this nonsense, refer to my thread "Understanding the covering of 1 Cor 11", in which I explain in detail that the covering Paul speaks of, is the hair.

I shall once again bump it up the list.

[Angel4Truth]

Originally Posted by Jedidiah

1 Corinthians 11:
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.

For God is not from the angels, but the angels from God.
Nor was God created for the angels, but the angels for God.
For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Thats an interesting thought thanks!

I think women were created for more than just a creation for man or he would need to sanctify us and we would not be responsible before God, but the man would be responsible for us.

God created the angels but man did not create woman - so that wouldnt follow.

Also this :

Galatians 3:28

[Jedidiah]

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

Thats an interesting thought thanks!

I think women were created for more than just a creation for man or he would need to sanctify us and we would not be responsible before God, but the man would be responsible for us.

If a woman is a wife:

"he would need to sanctify us"
Ephesians 5:25-29:
25) -- Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
26) -- that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
27) -- that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
28) -- So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
29) -- For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

"we would not be responsible before God, but the man would be responsible for us"
Ephesians 5:22-24
22) -- Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23) -- For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
24) -- Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

1 Peter 3:5-6
5) --- For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands,
6) --- as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

God created the angels but man did not create woman - so that wouldnt follow.

Yup 1Corinthians 11:12 --- "all things are from God."

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

Also this :

Galatians 3:28

1 Corinthians 11:11

Galatians 3:
26) -- For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
28) -- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 4:
4) --- But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5) --- to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6) --- And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”
7) --- Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

[Tambora]

Originally Posted by Jedidiah

If a woman is a wife:

"he would need to sanctify us"
Ephesians 5:25-29:
25) -- Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
26) -- that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
27) -- that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
28) -- So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
29) -- For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

Precept by precept, it will start to click!

Eve was deceived (to eat the fruit), but Adam willfully took the sin (ate the fruit) upon himself.
If Adam had not done so, Eve would have been kicked out of the garden to forever be separated, alone, and fallen.
But Adam partook of the sin, and therefore could be with Eve.

And only through their union was the promised seed of salvation to come.
If Adam had not partook of sin, the promised seed of salvation could have never saved Eve from her fallen state. That could only happen if Adam also partook of the fruit.

1 Timothy 2 KJV
(13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
(14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
(15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Eve was of the flesh and bone of Adam.

Genesis 2 KJV
(23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Church is of the flesh and bone of Christ.

Ephesians 5 KJV
(30) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Christ loved the church (His bride) so much that He willingly took sin upon Himself.
If He had not done so, the church would have been forever separated, alone, and fallen.



You could actually re-read Genesis and place "church" in place of Eve/woman, and place "Christ" in place of Adam/man, and see the prophetic implications there.

[Lazy afternoon]

The Kingdom of God is not the church order nor the family order.

The Kingdom of God is above them both but members who serve in it have to keep the right order in church and family.

LA

[Angel4Truth]

Originally Posted by Tambora

Precept by precept, it will start to click!

Eve was deceived (to eat the fruit), but Adam willfully took the sin (ate the fruit) upon himself.
If Adam had not done so, Eve would have been kicked out of the garden to forever be separated, alone, and fallen.
But Adam partook of the sin, and therefore could be with Eve.

And only through their union was the promised seed of salvation to come.
If Adam had not partook of sin, the promised seed of salvation could have never saved Eve from her fallen state. That could only happen if Adam also partook of the fruit.

1 Timothy 2 KJV
(13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
(14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
(15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Eve was of the flesh and bone of Adam.

Genesis 2 KJV
(23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Church is of the flesh and bone of Christ.

Ephesians 5 KJV
(30) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Christ loved the church (His bride) so much that He willingly took sin upon Himself.
If He had not done so, the church would have been forever separated, alone, and fallen.



You could actually re-read Genesis and place "church" in place of Eve/woman, and place "Christ" in place of Adam/man, and see the prophetic implications there.

Good post! Thank you

[cfisher]

Everyone here is missing the point. This is talking about hair, not about hats:

http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/032711p.mp3

And from Deborah Sawyer's Women and Religion in the First Christian Centuries:

But as she [Fiorenza] points out, Paul's focus is on the hair itself, and the point that Paul is making therefore concerns manner in which hair is arranged while people are praying and prophesying:

"It seems that during their ecstatic-pneumatic worship celebrations some of the Corinthian women prophets and liturgists unbound their hair, letting it flow freely rather than keeping it in its fashionable coiffure... Such a sight of disheveled hair would have been quite common in the ecstatic worship of the oriental deities."

... The classical scholar Balsdon comments on the complex hair styles in the Empire during the first century CE... the fashion was generally for women to wear their long hair firmly bound up in attractive coils and plaits. To undress it so that it hung loose could not have been a casual movement, but a deliberate gesture.

Paul later in this section of his letter to Corinth deals with the need for order and decency in community worship, and he makes it clear that his primary concern lies with the situation an outsider would find if they entered such a gathering for the first time... Whereas the Corinthians were content to emulate and merge in with popular oriental-style religions, Paul wanted to distinguish early Christianity from them.

She goes on to talk about Mystery Cults and the practices of letting hair down and shaving the head. Paul is not talking about hats.

the cultural context for women's head covering is long gone. Thus in my considered opinion head covering in a church in this day and age is a sure mark that such a church is legalist

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

I have an scholarly article on this very topic. I can't say I have read it but if you pm me your email address I'd be more than happy to shoot it your way. Perhaps you can educate and elucidate us on its contents.