Headcovering

[Jerushabelle]

It has to do, (also) with the Lordship of Christ. Is he Lord of all? If so, and the head covering is one of his (N.T.) commands, then it's not just going to be a shrug of the shoulders on judgment day. If, he is not Lord of all in the Christian life, (which is obsurd to even consider,) then you're back to the Book of Judges and everyone doing that which is right in their own eyes, which ended up in chaos and bondage. . . a picture of 21st century Christendom.

What if? That's a question I'd like to post. Just what if it was EXACTLY what the Lord wanted you sisters to do, you know, putting that silly little piece of cloth on your head. What if it wasn't silly at all. Then what. Just for a moment, pretend and think about it that way. What would you do? Obey? What about your friends and family? What about society? What about people at church?

What about the Lord?

I've often asked myself this question Brother. What about the Lord? I don't see head covering as something we can choose to do or not do. I read ICor. 11:4-5 as definitively stating that a woman who does not cover her head when she prays or prophesies is disgracing her husband or father or brother and therefore, the heirarchy of God; that being God is the head of Christ who is the head of man who is the head of woman.

 

[busdriver72]

Well, with all due respect and love, 1st Cor 11:4-5 are verses connected to verses 1-3 and verses 6-16. I'm still seeing a slight tendency to lift these two verses out of the context with the other verses. Many of Paul's writings are progressive, that is they build up to something. Paul eventually builds up to the point that yes, a woman should have her head covered...but leaves what being "covered" is to the discretion of those he is addressing. Is the head being covered an external thing, such as using a cloth...or the long hair itself a covering? Paul, in v.13 says it... "Judge among yourselves." V.16 ends his discussion on the matter...it is a custom (which is literally what Paul calls it) which should not cause dissention among them...they should judge for themselves.
This is an issue for which you will have to judge for yourself.

 

[Jerushabelle]

I came to the conclusion following the reading of the entire chapter. I'm not typically wont to pick apart verses. Paul first laid out the Godly directive and then asked that we judge for ourselves the correctness of it, not the necessity of it as he had already laid that out. Being that all Scripture is God breathed, who are we to dismiss it?

 

[a pilgrim]

Brother Busdriver, (I'd call you your first name, if you'd share it.)

I have thought about the topic of, 'Is the covering a cultural thing?' I wouuld like to share a bit about that, (if I haven't already, the mind starts to get mushy at 49!)

So everyone will know which verse it is as follows:

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

Many who disagree with the covering on sisters seem to see this as the verse which UNDOES everything Paul just got done explaining. In other words, and I paraphrase:

But, if any man seem to be causing contention, i.e., division, trouble, etc., over this covering issue, don't worry about covering, it is not a custom we believe is necessary, neither do the churches of God."

This is a misinterpretation if we take the verse into context. Look at Pauls openning remarks in this chapter:

1Cor11:1Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
1Cr 11:2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
1Cr 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.
1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Cr 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.

Paul wants the readers to remember him, the giver of "ordained" things. I have thought about this from time to time and we can get hung up on our preconception of the word ordinance. Most say, the church has two, the Lord's Supper, and Baptism. But, that is not so. The ordinance, simply means, things that are ordained of God, or set in order. The headship teaching is one of the things that are ordained of God. Verse five shows what the Christian sister's part is in that ordinance.

1Cr 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.

Why would Paul make such a bold statement, and then turn around several verses later and say, "Well, we actually don't follow this custom, neither do the churches?"

This is contradictory and confusion and God is not the author of confusion. Yes, this is an ordained thing, and a custom. As I have said before, go to the Middle East, go to the Old Country, look at the chaste women...they cover, even if they are not Christian, Arabs, Eastern Europeans, etc. It is ordained in the creative order. That is why it is/was practiced by so many cultures. Paul, through Holy Writ, ordains it to the Christian sister.

Furthermore, he confirms this is not just for the Corinthians, just as the Epistle to them is for ALL believers to consider.

1Cr 1:1 ¶ Paul, called [to be] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes [our] brother,
1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Clearly, this epistle is to them at Corinth and to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, and to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ...

To deny this is to ignore plain scripture. So, is it the custom for believing sisters to cover? Yes. Was it common? Indeed. To argue otherwise would be to cause contention, because the churches have no such custom of ignoring the headship order, and the sisters just throwing the covering to the wind.

Notice these remarks from, 'Barnes Notes on the Bible,' a very conservative commentary trusted by many beleivers:

But if any man seem to be contentious - The sense of this passage is probably this: "If any man, any teacher, or others, "is disposed" to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in public, I would add that in Judea we have no such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the churches. This, therefore, would be a sufficient reason why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would offend the prejudices of many and should, therefore, be avoided."

We have no such custom - We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.

Neither the churches of God - The churches elsewhere. It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.

Furthermore, the early church fathers spoke on it quite a bit, this is another testimony to the "seperate" external covering besides the hair.

Around the year 200, at Carthage, North Africa, Tertullian wrote a tract entitled, "The Veiling of Virgins." Tertullian makes the argument that the passage applies to all females of age—not just to married women. Of course, Tertullian’s personal view is of little concern to us. But what is so valuable about this work of his is that he discusses the practices of different church in various parts of the world. Here are some key excerpts from his work:

I also admonish you second group of women, who are married, not to outgrow the discipline of the veil. Not even for a moment of an hour. Because you can't avoid wearing a veil, you should not find some other way to nullify it. That is, by going about neither covered nor bare. For some women do not veil their heads, but rather bind them up with turbans and woollen bands. It's true that they are protected in front. But where the head properly lies, they are bare.

Others cover only the area of the brain with small linen coifs that do not even quite reach the ears.... They should know that the entire head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when it is unbound. In this way, the neck too is encircled.

The pagan women of Arabia will be your judges. For they cover not only the head, but the face also. . . . But how severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who remain uncovered even during the recital of the Psalms and at any mention of the name of God? For even when they are about to spend time in prayer itself, they only place a fringe, tuft [of cloth], or any thread whatever on the crown of their heads. And they think that they are covered!

From Head Covering Article.

I know that history NEVER trumps Bible truth. The Bible is ALWAYS the final authority, and we all say, "Amen!" However, history IS a window into the early church and it's practices. They do not "make" a truth, but can be a "witness" to a truth. Head covering is one of those topics that is deeper than a casual reading.

"O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep." Psalm 92:5

"Counsel in the heart of man is likedeep water; but a man of understanding will draw it out." Prov. 20:5

There is a certain testimony associated with a sister wearing a covering. I heard a godly minister share once, "It's time for Christians to stop drawing lines between good and evil, and making gaps instead." I'm not saying a covering "instantly" makes a sister godly, or more godly that a sister that does not cover, but, there is a testimony associated with it. Hopefully, it will cause a sister to walk very circumspectly as to not tarnish the testimony of Christ or those who cover in obedience, (as they see it in scripture,) to the Lord.

Bro. Ben

 

[busdriver72]

Good article.
Hey, I'm 51. If the brain goes mushy at 49 I'm done for! :o