Head covering.

wedding-veils-2

It is very important to use culture, custom and audience relevance to understand Scriptures.

Let’s take this one.

1 Corinthians 11:6-7
6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

In the day where 1st Corinthians was written there were 2 kinds of veils where women wore.

The unmarried women who were staying with the parents wore a kind of veil to show that they were under the authority and protection of their fathers.

The married women on the other hand wore a different kind of veil. It is equivalent like that of a wedding ring. It shows that she belonged to a husband whom she was being protected loved and cherished. She was as under the authority of her husband.

Now if a woman came to church without a veil, it would indicate 2 things. She had no father nor husband to answer to. In other words she was available.

There were cases in the early church where women took off their veils. It was as if a married woman took of her ring and told everyone she was available.

This led to confusion especially in a carnal church like that in Corinth as men were sent wrong signals by such an omission. They had thought that these women were saying to the men in the church, I had no one to take care of me.

Hence men who were under the impression that these women were available for marriage and courtship until their fathers and husband stepped in.

We must understand that this injunction was made to the church of Corinth because of the carnal nature of the church. The church was famous for moral indiscretions.

It was how Paul restored sanctity to the church. He gave practical instructions to deal with issues which were facing the church.

The way to resolve this problem was hence to veil a woman’s head. It was a case of “prevention better than cure” thing.

It was never a thing to be practiced today. The principle if applied today would be this. Keep your your wedding ring on your finger.

I hope that brings more liberty to women in the body of Christ today.

Further thoughts: https://hischarisisenough.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/truth-does-not-change-its-expression-does/

Advertisements

7 Comments Add yours

  1. M. says:

    In verse 3 of the chapter you quoted, it says “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.” So the head covering is rooted in the Creation order. This has not changed.

    In verse 10 it says, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” I don’t believe the angels have changed either.

    I have always enjoyed what Andree Seu said about headcovering in an article in World Magazine:

    “I read in 1 Corinthians 11 that the woman’s head is to be covered in worship. The modern Christian consensus tells me that is a relative and obsolete command, dealing with some first-century problem in the city of Corinth. My high-school literary skills tell me otherwise: The command is rooted in creation (verses 7-9) and in nature (verse 14). And if that weren’t ironclad enough, I am to cover my head “because of the angels.”

    The angel detail is so cryptic, so off the wall, so without explanation, that it becomes the strongest argument of all. Where is the “cultural relativity” case now, where angels transcend all historical agitations?” http://www.worldmag.com/2007/06/a_symbol_of_glory

    You might also enjoy this article on hermeneutics by R. C. Sproul: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/head-covering-and-hermeneutics-an-excerpt-from-knowing-scripture-by-r-c-sproul

  2. harry lum says:

    HiThanks for the enlightenment. Harry

    Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:20:48 +0000 To: harrylum6067@hotmail.com

  3. Simon Yap says:

    http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?cat=153

    The above are links that may prove to be helpful. The point is simple. You mean to tell me that God doesn’t answer a woman’s prayer just because she doesn’t have a head covering?

    Also you need a head covering for you to know you are a woman? The issue of homosexuality has nothing to do with veiling.

    1. M. says:

      Simon, I am confused. Who said that God wouldn’t answer a woman’s prayers if her head was uncovered? Who said anyone needs a head covering to know they are a woman?

      For an interesting take on homosexuality and head covering, you might enjoy this article: http://whosoever.org/v3i2/hats.html The writers point is that if Christians can reject the head covering, how can they say homosexuality is wrong just because the Bible says it is. In part, I wear a head covering to say I believe God’s Word is true. It is eternally true.

      1. Simon Yap says:

        I was replying to you and another person. I have no objection should you wish to wish to cover your head when you pray. People will always find things to support their views. So I am with fine with that as well. Then this note and the liberty it soughts to bring is not for you.

      2. Simon Yap says:

        I think you misread my note and its intention. I did say how the principle is to be applied today. That is keep your wedding ring on.

      3. Simon Yap says:

        The principle is applicable not the custom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s