Headcovering Fabric

[Ernie]

Why not just leave it up to each woman to cover her head as she believes the Holy Spirit is leading her to do so ?

To this way of thinking and functioning I think Paul would say, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

[Neto]

Why not just leave it up to each woman to cover her head as she believes the Holy Spirit is leading her to do so ?

To this way of thinking and functioning I think Paul would say, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

That is an interesting phrase, to translate accurately. Rendered in English (considering the grammar rules of how the antecedent is identified), it sounds like Paul just un-said everything he had just painstakingly laid out. But the referent for the word 'such' is, I think (and I have commentary support, because it is required for translation work), "being contentious". That is, "We (possibly 'as the leadership') do not have the habit of being divisive about this - This practice is accepted (by all of us in leadership, and it is also accepted) every where, in ALL of the congregations."

That's why the NIV does not come anywhere close to a literal translation in this particular case:

If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.

This is, at least, my understanding of this passage. Otherwise, it's like a sermon on this topic that I heard many years ago. It was a clear and firm message, but then at the end the preacher said something like "But if you disagree, that's OK." He was a very kind man, and unfortunately his kindness resulted in his undoing a very good message in a single sentence.

[Sudsy]

Why not just leave it up to each woman to cover her head as she believes the Holy Spirit is leading her to do so ?

To this way of thinking and functioning I think Paul would say, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Here are a couple areas that some who follow the head covering for women could be challenged as being consistent or not.

Would Paul say the same thing as the scripture you shared to those who might ask if they could baptise by sprinkling or pouring ? Would he say, sorry, the custom of all the churches is to immerse. Paul wrote in Romans 6:3-7 that water baptism represents the Christian’s spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, which is remarkably and dramatically pictured in immersion. Whenever the act of water baptism is described in the New Testament the one who is baptized actually goes into the water. After Jesus was baptized, He “came up out of the water” Mark 1:10, and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, “they both went down into the water” Acts 8:38. These descriptions do not quite prove complete immersion, however, along with the fact that the word baptizo in Greek, translated “baptize” in the NT, meant to “dip” or “immerse logical thinking does not support sprinkling or pouring.

For another example - as I have often pointed out Paul also writes that men should - 1 Timothy 2:8 - 'I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.' Did Paul really mean everywhere that would include all churches ? Do all the men in all churches today, where women wear a head covering, also, when they pray, lift up their hands ?

Where is the consistency with those who head cover but don't immerse and/or don't lift up holy hands wherever they pray ?

I have fellowshipped with Christians who don't baptise in water at all (Salvation Army) and those where women do not wear a head covering at all and where men don't lift up their hands in prayer hardly ever and yet God is using them in mighty ways to further His Kingdom and yes, even through women preaching.

And I have found very keen Christians following Christ and leading the unsaved to salvation and demonstrating Jesus in many ways of love for others. It is my belief that God knows the heart of each one of us and He has His Church within most Christian churches of sorts regardless of how we claim to have the best understandings of scriptures. As we read in the Revelation, all of the churches written to, had flaws. That will always be the case until He returns and sets up His Kingdom. We may be quite surprised at how it looks compared to our local fellowships and practises.

I think tomorrow I'm going to drop in and visit our local Baptist church that follows Calvinism as I hear they are growing in numbers. Don't expect to see many head coverings but they do immersion baptism.

Have a nice day folks, it is beautiful here and I have got my hour walk and meditation in. I love Spring !

[Ernie]

Why not just leave it up to each woman to cover her head as she believes the Holy Spirit is leading her to do so ?

To this way of thinking and functioning I think Paul would say, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Here are a couple areas that some who follow the head covering for women could be challenged as being consistent or not...

Where is the consistency with those who head cover but don't immerse and/or don't lift up holy hands wherever they pray ?

Sure. I think Paul could say the same things about the things you mentioned. But just people are inconsistent does not mean they should stop doing the good things they are already doing until they are fully consistent. Nor should others use these folks' inconsistency to justify not doing something they should.

[Sudsy]

To this way of thinking and functioning I think Paul would say, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Here are a couple areas that some who follow the head covering for women could be challenged as being consistent or not...

Where is the consistency with those who head cover but don't immerse and/or don't lift up holy hands wherever they pray ?

Sure. I think Paul could say the same things about the things you mentioned. But just people are inconsistent does not mean they should stop doing the good things they are already doing until they are fully consistent. Nor should others use these folks' inconsistency to justify not doing something they should.

Yes, that is why I believe in personal convictions that are part of spiritual growth as the Holy Spirit guides each of us in His way and timing. We can use other's convictions or lack there of as excuses for our own ways but this would not be seeking to know God's will for our own lives.

In Romans 14 we see Christians with a wrong attitude that they were better Christians due to their convictions on what real freedom means. They thought they had a bettter grasp on spiritual truth and freedom than those who were living under certain restrictions. Paul basically said to mind their own lives and not be judging each other and showing contempt for those who live unto the Lord differently then they do. Paul preached that unity can be had without uniformity in all areas and especially when it shows contempt for those who have different convictions than us.

[Neto]

Why not just leave it up to each woman to cover her head as she believes the Holy Spirit is leading her to do so ?

To this way of thinking and functioning I think Paul would say, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Here are a couple areas that some who follow the head covering for women could be challenged as being consistent or not.

Would Paul say the same thing as the scripture you shared to those who might ask if they could baptise by sprinkling or pouring ? Would he say, sorry, the custom of all the churches is to immerse. Paul wrote in Romans 6:3-7 that water baptism represents the Christian’s spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, which is remarkably and dramatically pictured in immersion. Whenever the act of water baptism is described in the New Testament the one who is baptized actually goes into the water. After Jesus was baptized, He “came up out of the water” Mark 1:10, and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, “they both went down into the water” Acts 8:38. These descriptions do not quite prove complete immersion, however, along with the fact that the word baptizo in Greek, translated “baptize” in the NT, meant to “dip” or “immerse logical thinking does not support sprinkling or pouring.

For another example - as I have often pointed out Paul also writes that men should - 1 Timothy 2:8 - 'I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.' Did Paul really mean everywhere that would include all churches ? Do all the men in all churches today, where women wear a head covering, also, when they pray, lift up their hands ?

Where is the consistency with those who head cover but don't immerse and/or don't lift up holy hands wherever they pray ?

I have fellowshipped with Christians who don't baptise in water at all (Salvation Army) and those where women do not wear a head covering at all and where men don't lift up their hands in prayer hardly ever and yet God is using them in mighty ways to further His Kingdom and yes, even through women preaching.

And I have found very keen Christians following Christ and leading the unsaved to salvation and demonstrating Jesus in many ways of love for others. It is my belief that God knows the heart of each one of us and He has His Church within most Christian churches of sorts regardless of how we claim to have the best understandings of scriptures. As we read in the Revelation, all of the churches written to, had flaws. That will always be the case until He returns and sets up His Kingdom. We may be quite surprised at how it looks compared to our local fellowships and practises.

I think tomorrow I'm going to drop in and visit our local Baptist church that follows Calvinism as I hear they are growing in numbers. Don't expect to see many head coverings but they do immersion baptism.

Have a nice day folks, it is beautiful here and I have got my hour walk and meditation in. I love Spring !

I would say that accepting different modes of baptism is similar to accepting different modes of covering (veil vs cap or bonnet, scarf of even a hat; and different colors). I also do know that some here wouldn't agree with all of these as viable options.
re: baptism: It is true that the Greek word transliterated as "baptize" in English has the etymological meaning of "immerse". But that doesn't really clearly indicate that the mechanics of that word was included in the meaning attached to it by the writers of the New Testament books. I've said it before, so maybe I'm bemoaning this, but I think that the spiritual meaning is more in focus than the mechanical meaning. There are also Scripture passages which speak of sprinkling in the same kinds of contexts. And how is the death of the Christ on the cross 'immersion'? It is clearly symbolic. I could go on - How is it that the Israelites were 'baptized into Moses' when they passed through the Red Sea? (They didn't even get wet, unless there was some sprinkling water drops that came down from waves or what not on the water's surface far above them.) And the same word is used when Jesus "got in trouble" with the Pharisee who had invited him over for a meal - when he didn't (ceremonially) wash his hands. (So I translated it as 'wash', because that is included in the assumed PURPOSE of the mechanics, and also reflects the spiritual meaning. Not only that, but the Banawa word meaning "put under the water" assumes drowning as the purpose. 'To make wet' has its own unique problems as well.)
Words also change in meaning from their etymological origins.

[mike]

Here are a couple areas that some who follow the head covering for women could be challenged as being consistent or not...

Where is the consistency with those who head cover but don't immerse and/or don't lift up holy hands wherever they pray ?

Sure. I think Paul could say the same things about the things you mentioned. But just people are inconsistent does not mean they should stop doing the good things they are already doing until they are fully consistent. Nor should others use these folks' inconsistency to justify not doing something they should.

Yes, that is why I believe in personal convictions that are part of spiritual growth as the Holy Spirit guides each of us in His way and timing. We can use other's convictions or lack there of as excuses for our own ways but this would not be seeking to know God's will for our own lives.

In Romans 14 we see Christians with a wrong attitude that they were better Christians due to their convictions on what real freedom means. They thought they had a bettter grasp on spiritual truth and freedom than those who were living under certain restrictions. Paul basically said to mind their own lives and not be judging each other and showing contempt for those who live unto the Lord differently then they do. Paul preached that unity can be had without uniformity in all areas and especially when it shows contempt for those who have different convictions than us.

I don't think Paul was referring to direct teachings of Jesus and the apostles when he was giving them this kind of freedom. He was referring to such things as doubtful issues or commands that were derived from now inapplicable law of Moses. For example the laws of the New Testament about morality are most certainly not areas where we can just mind our own lives and not judge others who live differently from what the scriptures command. No, there are standards of truth that must be followed in order to be a follower of Jesus. God will judge us based on our obedience to these truths. (See Rev. 2:8.)

In Romans 14, Paul mentioned specific things that are in the category in which we should not judge one another - eating meat offered to idols, and observing special holy days. But that doesn't mean that everything is in this category.

[Sudsy]

To this way of thinking and functioning I think Paul would say, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Here are a couple areas that some who follow the head covering for women could be challenged as being consistent or not.

Would Paul say the same thing as the scripture you shared to those who might ask if they could baptise by sprinkling or pouring ? Would he say, sorry, the custom of all the churches is to immerse. Paul wrote in Romans 6:3-7 that water baptism represents the Christian’s spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, which is remarkably and dramatically pictured in immersion. Whenever the act of water baptism is described in the New Testament the one who is baptized actually goes into the water. After Jesus was baptized, He “came up out of the water” Mark 1:10, and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, “they both went down into the water” Acts 8:38. These descriptions do not quite prove complete immersion, however, along with the fact that the word baptizo in Greek, translated “baptize” in the NT, meant to “dip” or “immerse logical thinking does not support sprinkling or pouring.

For another example - as I have often pointed out Paul also writes that men should - 1 Timothy 2:8 - 'I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.' Did Paul really mean everywhere that would include all churches ? Do all the men in all churches today, where women wear a head covering, also, when they pray, lift up their hands ?

Where is the consistency with those who head cover but don't immerse and/or don't lift up holy hands wherever they pray ?

I have fellowshipped with Christians who don't baptise in water at all (Salvation Army) and those where women do not wear a head covering at all and where men don't lift up their hands in prayer hardly ever and yet God is using them in mighty ways to further His Kingdom and yes, even through women preaching.

And I have found very keen Christians following Christ and leading the unsaved to salvation and demonstrating Jesus in many ways of love for others. It is my belief that God knows the heart of each one of us and He has His Church within most Christian churches of sorts regardless of how we claim to have the best understandings of scriptures. As we read in the Revelation, all of the churches written to, had flaws. That will always be the case until He returns and sets up His Kingdom. We may be quite surprised at how it looks compared to our local fellowships and practises.

I think tomorrow I'm going to drop in and visit our local Baptist church that follows Calvinism as I hear they are growing in numbers. Don't expect to see many head coverings but they do immersion baptism.

Have a nice day folks, it is beautiful here and I have got my hour walk and meditation in. I love Spring !

I would say that accepting different modes of baptism is similar to accepting different modes of covering (veil vs cap or bonnet, scarf of even a hat; and different colors). I also do know that some here wouldn't agree with all of these as viable options.
re: baptism: It is true that the Greek word transliterated as "baptize" in English has the etymological meaning of "immerse". But that doesn't really clearly indicate that the mechanics of that word was included in the meaning attached to it by the writers of the New Testament books. I've said it before, so maybe I'm bemoaning this, but I think that the spiritual meaning is more in focus than the mechanical meaning. There are also Scripture passages which speak of sprinkling in the same kinds of contexts. And how is the death of the Christ on the cross 'immersion'? It is clearly symbolic. I could go on - How is it that the Israelites were 'baptized into Moses' when they passed through the Red Sea? (They didn't even get wet, unless there was some sprinkling water drops that came down from waves or what not on the water's surface far above them.) And the same word is used when Jesus "got in trouble" with the Pharisee who had invited him over for a meal - when he didn't (ceremonially) wash his hands. (So I translated it as 'wash', because that is included in the assumed PURPOSE of the mechanics, and also reflects the spiritual meaning. Not only that, but the Banawa word meaning "put under the water" assumes drowning as the purpose. 'To make wet' has its own unique problems as well.)
Words also change in meaning from their etymological origins.

Thanks Neto. I tend to lean toward the same thought as I underlined in your post although not all of us here would agree on the spiritual meaning.

For instance, would a wedding band have the same spiritual meaning to the wearer as a head covering even though it is made of some degree of gold ? Some would say, 'yes' and the gold being referred to as an adornment not to wear is gold to attract prideful attention. Others see all gold regardless of carat is not to be worn and is not an alternate to the head covering.

Are the Salvation Army believers who are not baptised in any mode involving water going to be saved ? I think most would not go so far as saying they won't be saved regardless of their many cymbals symbols whereas others might write them off. Some will go by a verse like Acts 2:38 where Peter tells them to be repent and be baptized for the remission of sins but then Paul says in Romans 10:9-10 that declaring with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead will save us. Nothing said here about water baptism.

And we could go on and on over who has the right interpretation of belief and practise from the scriptures and try to determine who really is a Christian in God's eyes and who is not. Or who are the most biblical, holy followers of Christ which seems to be a popular subject for certain followers. I grew up in a group that really thought they were the closest you can get to early church NT Christian belief and practise. Some of them still do. I don't think that way anymore and have enjoyed having fellowship with those having quite a variety of what I believe are 'secondary beliefs and practises' to being born again. What Paul calls 'of first importance' is what I believe makes us brothers and sisters in the Lord. The only 'true Church' is known by God alone.

Anyway, I better get off this topic and have enjoyed the 'push back' on my posts. I see the First Baptist is studying 1 Samuel and just finished chapter 29 so I better get on and ketchup catch up for tomorrow.

[Swiss Bro]

It’s not very complicated.

The headcovering is a symbol that the woman accepts the authority of her head, the husband, for the angels watching us to see.

[The woman needs to cover when she prays or prophesizes. The woman needs to be silent in church, which means that she can‘t speak with authority, e.g. teach or lead prayer. She can sing and join the congregation in common prayer or say amen with the congregation. Therefore, it is appropriate for her to cover during church service. ]

The headcovering is not a veil. The hair of the woman serves as her veil.

I deduct that the headcovering does not need to cover the entire head, but it is not wrong if it does. A transparent headcovering would be problematic if it can‘t be seen by the angels. A small „Netzli“ (net) that the Apostolic Christians use, would be sufficient imo, as it is visible.

Paul says that the headcovering the practice of all churches, and Paul addressed his letter to all churches.

[Valerie]

I am presently reading "Glories Seen & Unseen" A Study of the Head Covering " which i first read about 12 years ago & was instrumental in elaborating on the scriptures and church history for 1900 years, leaving me to start covering my head more than three decades of being a Christian and not covering my head. In the book, there are writers throughout the first 1900 years writing about the literal covering of a Christian woman's head, & some conveying also to cover when out in public-

Anyone who questions head covering at all, should probably get a copy of this book. You will no longer question that it was the practice of the entire church age for 1900 years and it seems to me it's part of the falling away that women quit covering and Men quit understanding it. After reading it, it seemed God really opened my eyes to the natural progression of women to want to rule over men to where we are today with immodesty and gender confusion.

God is not inconsistent in what He teaches, if He said women should not teach men in authority show me where He changes his mind. If we are convinced that He is using women as authoritarian teachers over men, then we are sadly misguided and deceived which we know will happen in the last days.

Because we have the 2,000-year-old Orthodox Christian church, it is clear that baptism by immersion was the practice since the apostles however the Didachi written seem to allow for sprinkling or pouring if a body of water to immerse and was not possible either by weather or availability.