FBF: Impossible to Persuade

[HankD]

Dear Headcoveredlady,

The Corinthian Church was carnal, full of discord and contention concerning doctrine and the practice of external things.

Peter points to something of greater value than the outward.

Not that the outward things don't count at all, if I know to do good and don't do it, then to me it is sin.

But for other brethren it may not (or may never be) the right time (whether to wear or not to wear, to drink wine or not, to eat meat or not, etc) to do the external.

On the other hand the doing (or not doing) of the external does not gaurantee that the internal has been realized.

Clear as mud?


HankD

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
1. But, where we disagree is when you claim that the root word of hair is a neat hairdo.

2. Your interpretation is faulty because it makes no sense.

3. Why would Paul tell women that if she has a neat hairdo this is her acceptable symbol of authority on her head?

4. And you are saying that the symbol that the angels recognize is the neat hairdo, am I right?

5. And this symbol of a neat hairdo shows the angels that this woman is in her proper place is that right?

1. It is not just "my claim". I provided all relevant material.

2. There is no sarcasm here: is it possible that it does not make sense to you?

3. I have never argued that "neat hairdo" should replace "long hair" as the translation. I have said that the meaning behind " long hair" is "neat hair". In other words, the long hair must be neat. Now, the issue of how long is long has come up. One undeniable fact is that the woman must have longer hair than the man.

4. When a woman appears to have proper attire, well taken care of hair, and a gentle spirit, she is demonstrating that she is in submission to her husband.

Btw, "angels" could be interpreted as angelic beings or messengers. The latter is most likely true in light of verse 16 (but that is yet another thread).

5. I think I might have been unclear about something. The neat hair is not the symbol of submission.

 

[Charlotte Marcel]

If a woman's hair is meant as a covering, wouldn't it also need to be long enough to cover her? or does this just mean to cover her head?

I thought the word Kome meant adoring of the hair, such as with pearls and jewels? Is this not what is meant, or am I remembering it incorrectly?

God Bless You,
Charlotte

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Daniel,
Ok, now I see. The neat hairdo is not the symbol but you feel that it is part of the meaning of long hair. I agree that long hair should be kept neat as part of being modest.

HankD,
Oh, I see what you are saying.

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Originally posted by Charlotte Marcel:
If a woman's hair is meant as a covering, wouldn't it also need to be long enough to cover her? or does this just mean to cover her head?

God Bless You,
Charlotte

A woman's hair is the covering in the natural realm. Yes, it is her glory and should be kept long. The headcovering in the spiritual is something that goes on top of the natural covering as a symbol for the angels of creation order.

 

[Charlotte Marcel]

Head Covered Lady, I would like to ask one question, of which you may not have an answer. But I honestly would like to hear what you think.

If this is so, why isn't this being more commonly practiced in churches today? In the Catholic church woman used to wear some type of head covering, but they have long since stopped this practice. I know that certain Amish religions still practice this, and of course Muslims have the burka. (please forgive me if I'm generalizing)

Why, if this is so important, does this go unpracticed in most Baptist churches in American let alone any other Christian religion?

HCL, this isn't a critisism. It's only a question that I am wondering about and would relish your views on.

God Bless You,
Charlotte

P.S. my hair is very long, always has been. Not that I condemn anyone for choosing to have their hair any other way. This is just my personal preference.

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Dear Charlotte,
You asked me what I thought. So, I will answer. I think the answer is very simple- Rebellion.

I have studied this issue and found that the godly men of the past did indeed teach that woman are to wear them. Calvin, Watchman Nee, and many others. I have the list with their quotes if you want me to post the link.

Also, I have found that women used to wear them up until the late 1800's. Right around the time the women's so called liberation movement began. Historically women have always worn them to church. It seems that it had turned into a fashion statement, many wore them not even knowing why.

Then finally they said, "Off with that thing." Then they cut their hair, then the dresses got shorter and shorter, pants came on. And women became more daring and self-willed. And now just about anything goes.

I have spoken to men who wished that they could teach this in their churches but they knew that the women would not submit to it. I have read in a book called, "Demons in the Church, " the author says the same thing. Which can be found at www.fish-house.com

He asks, "Why isn't this taught in the churches?" Then he answers himself, "Because the women won't do it."


With all of that said, I think that any Christian woman should study this issue herself and come to the Lord in prayer and ask Him for His will concerning the matter.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Headcoveredlady: "With all of that said, I think that
any Christian woman should study this issue herself
and come to the Lord in prayer and ask Him for
His will concerning the matter."

Amen, Sister Headcoveredlady -- Preach it!

 

[Thankful]

And if I back down and say well it is ok for you not to do it and maybe it is good for me, than I am, in my opinion not being true to the Lord and His Word. I understand that we are not all cookies cut from the same mold, but when something is clearly given like, this I believe it is to be followed regardless of what the world or even other church members think about us.

You are not responsible for what is good for me.
You have stated your beliefs based on the word of God and you are following your beliefs therefore you have fulfilled your responsibility.

No one is asking you to back down, but at least realize that what I believe maybe right and correct in God's sight for me. I am giving you the same respect. I am not condemning you or any one for following their beliefs. Please give me the same courtesy.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
I think the answer is very simple- Rebellion.

He asks, "Why isn't this taught in the churches?" Then he answers himself, "Because the women won't do it."

I think this is awful, I've never met a Pastor that only preached the parts of God's Word that he thought would go over easy with his congregation. What is that about? If a pastor is worth his salt, he won't let trends and comfort factor dictate how he will preach God's word. I think the thing is, is that the scripture that support this are few and not very clear. Maybe that's why this isn't a big issue. I mean the Lord has a way of teaching the really important lessons by considerable repeatition.

I personally had never heard of this until you.(being honest, not critical) I understand your vehemence, but in my case it isn't rebellion. My church doesn't teach this, most churches do not. Now whether they don't because of rebeliion or because it isn't one of the more important parts of God's word, I'm not sure. I can't answer for my Pastor.

So, I can understand this question being asked, it's one that I have thought of asking myself. If one person thinks this is so important, why isn't it more commonly observed?

Now, you know I am your friend. I think I've proven that over time. I know that you have researched this thouroughly. And I completly respect you for your findings. But, I do sort of think that if this issue was as important as you say it is, more people would be doing it and it wouldn't be something that would be so hard fought for by you to even discuss with other believers. Doesn't this give you pause?

Believe me, I understand that a person's religious convictions have to be adhered to whether it is going against the grain or not. I'm just wondering why it is?

In Christ's love,
Laurenda

 

[Sherrie]

Why couldn't it mean clean hair.

Why couldn't it mean be clean when you go to the Lord in prayer.


Priest were prepared for by a cleansing before interring the temple.

When the priest in the OT were ambushed and there hair was cut...they were told to go to a place and wait until it grew out.

Why couldn't it mean when going to the temple to worship...comb your messy hair. Be presentable.

God gave specific rules for being clean in the OT. Why not comb your messy hair in the NT? Why not "here are some more Hygiene rules".

Sherrie

 

[Ed Edwards]

Laurenda: "Believe me, I understand that a person's
religious convictions have to be adhered to whether
it is going against the grain or not. I'm just
wondering why it is?"

Thank you Sister Laurenda for asking.
I've got a few insights to share.

1 Peter 4:12-15 (nKJV):

Beloved, do not think it strange concerning
the fiery trial which is to try you,
as though some strange thing happened to you;
13 but rejoice to the extent that you partake
of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory
is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy.
14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ,
blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory
and of God rests upon you.
On their part He is blasphemed,
but on your part He is glorified.
15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer,
a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody
in other people's matters.
16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian,
let him not be ashamed, but let him
glorify God in this matter.

Some people seem to have a desire to suffer
for the Lord. This is hard to do in America.
Because of our form of Constitutional governments,
and because of the heartfelt Christian desire
to educate publicly as many as can be educated,
we have very little,if any, actual persecution
of folks for the sect that they adhere to.
But some still want to suffer for the Lord,
and are frustrated therein.

However, some have found if they can be abrasive
and obnoxious, they can get a stir from others.
So they do so. They haven't read well all of
this passage. I bolded the Bible verse that some
are want to skip. I sure don't think this is
a through and complete list of crimes and malfeasances
for which one might suffer. But this passage
clearly specifies that one deserves to suffer,
if they commit a felony, misdemeanor, or
malfeasance. So all the minor church errors
(gossip, back biting, lying, tale telling,
busybodying, arugmentative actions, back talking,
disrespect of elders, etc.) are those for which
a person should suffer in proportion to the
error done. And we as like-Jesus-persons should
expect to suffer, should we do these things.

But woe be unto the one who draws such suffering
upon themselves, for they are due it. Suffering
for the Lord is something else entirely.

I.e. we must go with Jesus,
if Jesus is going on the grain, we should go
on the grain. If Jesus is going against the
grain, we should go against the grain, with
Jesus.

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Dear Laurenda,
As I have already stated the Word itself taught me that it is important. The Word of God in itself explained itself to me.

But, history also helped me see that it was not until the late 1800's until this practice was dropped. And yes I do believe that it was dropped mainly because the church followed the world.

I do not think all of these men were wrong:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/hc.htm

Do you think that all of these men were wrong?


In my opinion this practice has been dropped because we are in the end days and that is why we do not see it practiced like it was. In the end days there will be a great apostasy. It seems to me that many are calling what is good evil and what is evil good.

But, I have met over the past few years many, many women online who are hearing the Holy Spirit on this and are obeying.

And the Lord has recently convicted ladies I know here in person, ALL BAPTIST, PRAISE TO JESUS.

Most times they are like me, the only one in their church. I am not saying that this in itself makes it right. But, I am saying that there are others out there who read this passage and realize that it is for today and it is not just the hair, even though most around them misunderstand them and even malign them.

Edifier,
Are you saying that I am a busybody? If you are I apologize that you have been offended. But, I do believe that this is a universal principle for born again Christian women and I am sad that it is not taught in the churches and is not practiced. But, I assure you I am not directing this at your wife. I am speaking generally. She actually strikes me as someone who is a submissive woman.

I was asked by Charlotte what I thought so I answered. The post was not directed at you or your wife.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Hi HCL,

Thank you for the link, it was very long, but I read it. (whew)

It does go into great lengths to describe what these men believe the word to mean, but I thought that the word was Kome, or adorned hair, not the one provided meaning cloth veil. This may be where my theology differs from your own. I'm not sure why a person has to understand a foreign language to understand the Bible. I thought that the KJV was adequate for understanding God's word.

Nevertheless, I still don't understand why Pastors of today haven't ascribed to this theology by writing about it or passed it on to their congregations. (the only name I recognized from the list was Augustine and J. Vernon McGee)

Thank Your for your answer, I know we have discussed this before, and probably will again. I thank you for your patience with me. As you know, I only ask becasue I want to understand.

Laurenda

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Wisdom Seeker,
I agree with you that one does not have to know the Greek language to be able to understand Scripture, because God gave us one in our own language and He gave us His Spirit to teach us.

The Lord led me to this article about the neccessity of the headship veiling for women. And why it is not taught in todays churches.

Here is the first paragraph:

"Is it important whether or not a Christian woman wears a head covering in church services? If one were to judge by the common practice in the church world, the conclusion would be that it is not. But does common practice usually follow the mind and teaching of God? It is a strange anomaly that, in evangelical circles, while the Word of God is appealed to as the one authoritative source of instruction in doctrine, when it comes to matters concerning the local church and its order, there seems to be little recourse to the Scriptures for guidance. Too often it is a modern emulation of the days of the judges, when "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25)."


I think this sums it up exactly that many will say that they go to the Word first but in reality we myself included look to others to see what they are doing first.

In my understanding the Word says to wear the veil, so I do. There are only a few ladies I know in person who do veil, but that does not mean I look to them. I look to the Word and it tells me what to do, in English.

Here is the rest of the article:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/hgmheadcovering.htm

[ May 03, 2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]

 

[Abiyah]

We had an open question and answer period at
my class after the first service at synagogue, so
I had opportunity to bring up 1 Cor 11:15 to one of
my pastors. This was a really bad day to do it,
because one of the women who wears a head
covering was in the class today (she usually is
not) but I did it out of desparation.

I did not tell him why I asked; I just asked him to
analyze the verse from Greek, ignoring all English.
He said what I did, HCL -- that long hair was
given women for a covering instead of a veil. He
also gave me a lot of insight into the chapter as
well as a lot of history.

I asked him why women wear a head covering
when called to Torah, and he said it was tradition,
nothing more.

HCL, now that I have read the Scriptures, I would
not wear a head covering, other than when called
to Torah; however, if I did, I would be going
against my husband! Is not the head covering you
put forth to teach women to submit to their own
husbands? I have a real hard time with submission
to anyone, admittedly, but I submit to the best of my
ability to my husband. 8o)

When I am called to Torah in July, I will be wearing
a certain black lace head covering, though. 8o)

[ May 05, 2003, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

HCL: As I stated in an earlier post...I do not condemn you and say you are in rebellion for WEARING a veil. Why can't you have the same attitude and respect towards we women who do not interpret that scripture as you do, and therefore, do NOT wear a veil?

My Pastor, not by any stretch of the imagination, could be called worldly, or in rebellion, or uneducated in God's Word. He believes this verse refers to long hair. It is the woman's glory. Why would God want the woman's glory to be covered?

Also, in the area of modesty. I was always taught that women who dress in such a manner as to call attention to themselves are not modest.

Does being the only one in a church who wears a veil call attention to yourself? I'm sure it does because it does in my church. Just something to think about...

Blessings,
Sue

 

[Abiyah]

I just saw your anwer to me at the bottom of page
four. In no way, HCL, was I saying that all of those
things were applicable to you! I was merely saying
that those things influence us all! I am sorry that I
came across to you that way; it was not my
intention.

I know that many Christians live their lives by the
idea that if a precept of the "Old Testament" is
repeated in the "New Testament, then they will
do it. I am of the opposite opinion: if a precept
appears to be in the Aapostolic Writings it must
be proven by the Law and the Prophets. By this,
while I do not profess to know everything in the
Law and the Prophets, I cannot think of any place
where head coverings were commanded.

One problem I have, however, with this 1
Corinthians 11 teaching is that our God would not
give a command then withdraw it. I know that
many Christians disagree with that idea, but I
believe that He says what He means and that He
does not change. If, then, I hold to that premise,
and if I hold that the Word is consistant -- does
not contradict itself -- then I must believe that
this chapter is talking about hair as a covering,
not something else as a covering.

When the Bible says that a man is not to have
a covering when he prays, if it means that he is
not to pray while wearing a hat (or kepa or
yarmulka) or a tallit, then Paul was mistaken to
give this rule, when one thinks about it. It was
our God Himself who told the priests what to
wear, and this included a head covering. Why
would He later change His mind, especially in
view of Rev 1:6.

If you are interested, I can tell you what my
pastor said regarding this verse -- something I
think most of us have heard, but I had forgotten
about. (Also, I have a tendency to dismiss all
that I learned at the church I used to attend,
where I had heard this first, because they were
wrong about so many things.)

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Abiyah,

Rev 1:6 gives reference to priests but not the headcovering. Isaiah 47:2-3 calls an unveiled woman naked. And Numbers 30 teaches us that a woman who may be an adulteress is asked to remove uncover her hair. Even Rebekah when she saw Isaac put a veil on right away when she saw him coming as I believe a symbol of submission.

The shorn woman would be seen as immoral and the sheared one as rebellious. Do you have Edersheims books about Jewish religious customs? This is where that information can be found. And those books were written in the late 1800's!

Did you know that the angels also cover their glory when in the presence of God?

Sue,
I am sorry that you feel I have called your pastor and you rebellious. I was asked why I believe this is no longer practiced in the majority of churches and I answered why I believe it is no longer practiced.

Let me explain this another way. Let's say you believe that it is right to attend church with other believers. I think you do believe that. You believe that God's Word says, "Do not forsake the gathering of believers." So, is it good only for you or is it also for me to not forsake the gathering of believers?

That is the way I feel about the headcovering. If God says in His Word that the woman ought to cover her head because of the angels, then that means all Christian women, not just me.

[ May 05, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]

 

[Sherrie]

Does being the only one in a church who wears a veil call attention to yourself? I'm sure it does because it does in my church. Just something to think about...

Very good question Sue! I thought the same. No one in my church does this. Or any baptist church I have attended.

But there is a women in our town who does. I know her well.

Sherrie