1 Cor 11:4-10. Headcovering for women!

"As usual, you came abusing scripture, taking it out of context. And now adding to it."

I guess I must have misunderstood, donnA. Where I come from, this is called a personal attack.

 

HCL has obviously added to scripture(someone else noticed it too), that is plain. But do you think it is ok, and we are not to do anything about it? When someone just right in front of us misrepresents scripture are we to allow it and keep quiet just because others will not like us for calling them on it?

 

I have not attacked anyone, and do not appreciate being falsely accused. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that's a horrible feeling.

 

The same God led Abraham to the promised land, only to lead Isreal to Eygpt because of famine, then 400 years later back to the promised land. God's ways are not our ways. But everything is for His good and purpose.

I thank the Lord that God has brought HCL back here. Maybe the Lord knew that someone could benefit from HCL's wisdom in this area.

 

I think John Calvin's comments are the most straightforward on the subject:

 

Calvin correctly postulates the basic meaning of the text, but does not address the cultural wearing of a headcovering. He is espousing the true meaning of the Greek word used for authority. The headcovering remains a cultural event, and is not applicable to-day, as it does not represent anything other than one's head might get wet on a rainy day.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim you raise a very good point. It seems to me that the Bible in itself is a cultural book. The Jews covered their head, how is it then that this passage is to the Corinithian church?

Also, if we take one verse to only apply to that culture, then we could do so for the rest of the book or other books. If we could do that then what part of the Bible is really meant for us? Just curious?

 

Thanks Aaron, that makes a lot of sense. I was meditating on the passage again last night and looked in the margin of my Bible for cross references for verse 10. I noticed there were several references that I had not seen before in the margin:

Here they are:

Genesis 24:65, "For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a veil, and covered herself."


It also says right there in the margin: "That is a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband."

And Ecc. 5:6, "Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before an angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at the voice, and destroy the work of thine hands."

 

Thank you, Walls. It was not only the Jews that covered their heads in Corinth. For this information we must read secular history about cultures of the period and the area. Just as traditions differ in Muslim countries, some wearing certain garb and others, still devout, do not. Culture moves around and along.

First consideration in understanding God' word is knowing what is being said to the immediate audience; noting the differences between the biblical audience and us; noting the theological principle espoused; and finally, applying that principle where we live to-day.

If we ignore any of these things, then we fail to grasp the relevance of God's word. The text at hand centres around the Greek word for authority and not around the cultural practice of Corinth.

My wife does not show her respect for me or for God by what she wears on her head. That just doesn't have relevance in this day and age and is rather archaic, or out of place. In fact, it might display disrespect.

The women of the Corinthian church were being inconsistent, and this is where Paul's comparison with the prostitute comes into play...otherwise, why even mention the prostitutes, whose heads were either shaved or had hair bobbed? It serves no purpose. Separate from these women, says Paul, and be consistent. The veil or covering is worn at church, at home and in the streets. Hence, the Christian of to-day should be consistent in everything.

It goes far beyond what one wears or does not wear. Demanding a headcovering is to set back the clock and stepping back into law, which Christ fulfilled. He made us free from the law, though not free from obeying the moral laws of the gospel.

We ought not to make a spectacle of ourselves. We already stand out by our Christian conversion and godly living. We are not to bring ridicule to the gospel. It does open a door to a false sense of piety and expressions of superiority and this is the antithesis of what Christ teaches, in my opinion.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, Paul was writing after the cross and after the New Covenant had been enacted, how exactly would it be putting people back under the law to do what Paul commanded?

For the record, my wife uses a different outward covering.

 

I believe what Jim is describing is basic sound exegesis and hermeneutics - part of the essential tool-kit for understanding God's Word (not of course to neglect the Holy Spirit )

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Amen Matt,
Jim I always enjoy your posts.

 

Calvin does address the covering issue, but I was merely interested in what he said about the angels. Calvin says about covering:

To me, aside from Calvin, the Scripture indicates that there should be some kind of outward, visible token of the woman's submission.

 

Just thought of something:

What if the culture does not supply the token of submission? What are Christians to do in that sense?

 

Well,IMO.... And only MY opinionion,
My wedding rings are my "outward sign" of my submission to my my dh.

 

I have heard that also. However, the wedding ring is not a symbol of being in submission to your husband. It is a symbol of being wed to one person.

Aaron, that is the point I was making. It is a cultural-mandate. The outward covering "might" change, but it is still mandatory.

 

This culture is not applying it and we are seeing the fruit of it.

But, again where in the text can we prove that the veil itself was only for that time?

 

This culture is not applying it and we are seeing the fruit of it.

But, again where in the text can we prove that the veil itself was only for that time? </font>[/QUOTE]HCL,

Do you really think that a lack of head covering is to blame for the ills of society?