BIBLE DEMANDS HIJAB FOR WOMEN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ pls contribute to khilafat-tv.blogspot.com in paypal id is khilafat.tv@aol.com join khilafat-tv.googlegroup for support join khilafat-tv program channel join membership for facebook and plus.google.com
Bible: Demands Women be veiled
Is Covering the Hair a Religious Commandment for Christian Women? There
can be only one answer to this: yes, it is! Simply open the Bible, go
to 1st Corinthians, chapter 11 verses 3-10.
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. Every man praying
or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every
woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head,
for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not
covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have
her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man
indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of
God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman,
but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of
authority over her head, because of the angels.
The word “Cover”
The Greek words used in 1 Corinthians 11:3-7 make it clear that the veil is what is intended and nothing else…
1 Corinthians 11:3-7 - 3Now I want you to realize that the head of
every man is Christ and the head of the woman is man, and the head of
Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered
dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her
head uncovered–it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If 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. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the
image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
I have spoken to Christians and they come and tell me the word “cover”
doesn’t mean cover with cloth (veil). According to these self made
scholars it means Hair, so in other words God in the bible wants woman
to cover their head with HAIR.
What I will present right now is
commentary on the Bible. They are all Christian Scholars. Let’s see
what they have to say about 1st of Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 3-7.
1. The Veiling of Women in Public Worship.
“The Gospel does not overthrow the natural ordinance, which is really
of Divine appointment, that woman is subject to man. To disavow this
subjection before the congregation must cause grave scandal; and such
shamelessness is condemned by nature, by authority, and by general
custom.
Now, as to another question, I do commend
you for remembering me, as you assure me you do, in all things, and for
loyally holding to the traditions just as I transmitted them to you. But
I should like you to grasp, what has not previously been mentioned,
that of every man, whether married or unmarried, Christ is the head,
while a woman’s head is her husband, and Christ’s head is God. Every
man, whether married or unmarried, who has any covering on his head when
he publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby
dishonours his head: whereas every woman, whether married or unmarried,
who has her head uncovered when she publicly prays to God or expounds
the will of God, thereby dishonours her head; for she «s then not one
whit the better than the wanton whose head is shaven. A woman who
persists in being unveiled like a man should go the whole length of
cutting her hair short like a man. But seeing that it is a mark of
infamy for a woman to have her hair cut off or shorn let her wear a
veil. A man has no right to cover his head; he is by constitution the
image of God and reflects God’s glory: whereas the woman reflects man’s
glory. Man was created first; he does not owe his origin to woman, but
woman owes hers to him.” ( Source: Rev. ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, and Rev.
ALFRED PLUMMER, A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST
EPISTLE OF ST PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS Page 226 and 227)
2. James Moffatt says the following on the verse in Corinthians:
It was argued, should devout women be obliged to wear a covering veil
on the head when men did not? Did not men and women worship bare- headed
in Greek rites? As the Christian meetings were held in a large room of
some private house, it was felt that, while women’s heads might be
covered out of doors, there was no reason why the veil should be
retained within the Household of the Lord. Like a Roman matron, the
Christian woman would pull the corner of her robe over her head as she
walked from her house to the meeting, but surely indoors she was in a
family circle, where the head was not covered. Paul vigorously objects.
The common opinion is that he resented such an innovation as an
undesirable departure from social etiquette, since only women of loose
character appeared in public bare- headed… The conservative Valerius
Maximus (vi. 3. 10) had just noted, indeed, that one of the first causes
of divorce was a married woman daring to appear out of doors with
nothing on her head. His curiously warm objection to it is primarily
based on a belief that the Creation order controlled life in the Church,
and on a rabbinic interpretation of that order. A covering on the head
is a mark of social deference and inferiority, in short; God made woman
subject to man, and therefore for her to worship bareheaded in man’s
presence would be as unnatural as for him to worship in her presence
with his head covered. It would be unnatural, especially as it would
violate the original plan for the sexes before God (3-12, 13-15)…, Paul
begins by using it figuratively to describe the broad design of God.
God, Christ, Christians ‘ —he had already said (iii. 22, 23) ; but now
it is ‘ God, Christ, man, woman.’ Man as the lord of 4 creation would be
violating the law of his position under God, as God’s direct likeness
and representative, if he suggested, 7 even in dress, any inferiority.
At worship, as elsewhere, his headship must be preserved.… The religious
novelist who wrote the Acts of Thomas (liii.) was true to life when he
described shameless women as ‘ immodest creatures who walked about bare-
headed.’ What we call ‘ barefaced ‘ was in those days ‘ bare- headed.’
The modern reader finds it difficult to understand why Paul grew so
shocked and indignant over the question whether or not a woman should
have something on her head when she joined actively in public worship;
but for the apostle a woman praying or preaching bareheaded was
contravening the divine order which made man supreme over her and
therefore entitled alone to appear bareheaded. As Calvin and Bengel saw,
‘ is ‘ means represents (as in xi. 25). A male being exhibits on 7
earth the divine authority and dominion, as he was directly created by
God ; he has supremacy over the female who in turn represents the
supremacy of man—not his likeness, for she is his counterpart in the
order of creation, made from him and 8 for him. The veil that covers her
head is a sign or symbol of this subordinate position, to be worn out
of reverential respect 10 for (in view of) the angels who uphold the
divine order.…Since a covering for the head signified subjection, it was
only appropriate therefore for women. Rabbis artificially found a text
for this in Num. v. 18. Paul is content to assume it as binding for
married women…before God must be displayed by the female, and displayed
particularly in wearing some sort of covering for the head. The English
version—’ a woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels ‘
—might suggest, as it did suggest to Tertullian first, that she
required to be protected against the lustful looks of evil angels, as
though at worship a woman whose beauty was unveiled was specially
exposed to malign supernatural influences.… Indeed at a very early
period the term was changed to ‘ veil.’ What Paul intends to say is not
that she exercised power, but that power was exercised over her ‘
Covering ‘ is for him not so much a mark of her honour and dignity as a
respectable woman in society, although he brings that in ; it is
pre-eminently a mark of her subordination as a daughter of Eve. Before
man, the lord of creation, woman must have her head covered at worship,
since that is the proper way for her to recognize the divine order at
Creation. (JAMES MOFFATT THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS
Page 149 to 153)
3. Charles Hodge says:
Such being the order divinely established (viz, that mentioned in v.3,)
both men and woman should act in accordance with it; the man, by having
the head uncovered, the woman by being veiled… This public function,
the apostle says should not be exercised by a man with his head covered.
Among the Greeks, the priests officiated bareheaded; the Romans with
the head veiled; the Jews (at least soon after the apostolic age) also
wore the Tallis or covering for the head in their public services. It is
not to be inferred from what is here said, that the Christian prophets
(or inspired men) had introduced this custom in the Church. The thing to
be corrected was, woman appearing in public assemblies unveiled. The
Apostle paul says, the veil is inconsistent with the position of man,
but is required by that of the woman. The woman who goes unveiled is
said to dishonour her own head, I.E as what follows shows, herself, and
her husband… So the apostle says, for a man to appear with the
conventional sign of subjection on his head, disgraced himself. If the
man be intended to represent the dominion of God, he must act
accordingly, and not appear in the dress of woman. The veils worn by
Grecian women were of different kinds. One,, and perhaps the most
common, was the peplum, or mantle, which in public was thrown over the
head, and enveloped the whole person. The other was more in the fashion
of the common eastern veil which covered the face, with of the eyes. In
one form or other, the custom was universal for all respectable woman to
appear veiled in public. The Apostle therefore says, that a woman who
speaks in public with her uncovered; dishonours her head. Here is used,
her own head; not her husband, but herself. This is plain, not only
from the force of the words, but from the clause, for that is even all
in one as if she were shaven. This is the reason why she disgraces
herself. She puts herself in the same class with women whose her has
been been cut off. Cutting of the hair, which is the principal natural
ornament of woman, was either a sign of grief, deut. 21,12 or a
disgraceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is; she
is one and the same thing with the one who is shaven. She assumes the
characteristic mark of a disreputable woman.
(Source: An exposition of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. By Charles Hodge Page 207 to 209)
John Calvin said:
Every woman praying or prophesying Here we have the second proposition —
that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or
prophesy; otherwise they dishonour their head For as the man honours his
head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection.
Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off
subjection involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to
be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head
uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in
the Church.(1 Timothy 2:12.) It would not, therefore, be allowable for
them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it
follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering.
It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does
not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with
their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission
to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of
that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply
there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit
sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their
modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled,
but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men,
such as are sometimes convened in private houses. For it is all one as
if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it
is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he,
abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and
monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a
covering Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a
natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as
requires another thing to be made use of for covering it And hence a
conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women
who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the
purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good
reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the
opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness,
rather than for what is an incentive to lust. The man ought not to cover
his head, because he is the image of God. The same question may now be
proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both
sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less
than men to be formed a new according to that image. The image, however,
of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and
hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with
conscience. The simple solution is this — that he does not treat here of
innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women,
but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to
have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the
glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.
Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose —
that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man. For the man is
not from the woman. He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence,
which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the
woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in
rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the
man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is
to its cause. For this cause ought the woman to have power From that
authority he draws an argument in favor of outward decorum. “She is
subject,” says he, “let her then wear a token of subjection.” In the
term power, there is an instance of metonymy, for he means a token by
which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it
is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, or any other kind of
covering… When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to
usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness
manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying,
as if he had said, “If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but
all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage. (John Calvin
Commentary on Corinthians – Volume 1. Page 298 to 300)
Conclusion: The women are commanded to be veiled as the Paul has stated
in Corinthians. There are no more excuses for you to ignore this
evidence. Hope everyone enjoyed reading this.
By Muhammed Abdul-Karim
Share this:
Twitter1
Facebook35
Like this:
May 1, 20136 Replies
« Previous
Next »
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Comment
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Miss. Pepper on May 15, 2013 at 9:54 am
We must correct in love for the truth to set all Gods children free and
create harmony and unity in HIM, therefore, – the truth is that the the
word is spiritual not religious and the author here has interpreted
literally, whilst in growth, believing wth well meaning they are called
to teach. A given ministry teacher in the Lord’s will, will neither
promote or encourage the term religion as religion is man-made, designed
to control the masses and God is not legalistic, with new mercies each
morning and an unbreakable love. The head covering mentioned – in
spiritual understanding is HAIR, NOT a veil as interpreted in flesh.
Reply
Miss. Pepper on May 15, 2013 at 9:58 am
Addition : GREEK is not Torah! We need back into HEBREW mentality. I
recommend study under Apostle Renaldo Wade of Talk, Teach and Testify
ministries on blog talk radio.
Reply
discoverthetruth2013 on May 15, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Hi Miss pepper
Thank you for your comment. I think you skipped over the Scholar views
on what the verse actually is about. They have all agreed that it means
to cover the woemn with a CLOTH I.E a VEIL.
Second point, if it
was the case that Paul all along intended by saying cover her head with
HAIR then why does he say the follow?:
every woman praying or
prophesying with her head UNCOVERED disgraces her head, for it is the
same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not COVERED, LET HER BE
SHAVEN. But if it is a DISGRACE for a woman to have her hair cut off or
her head shaved, LET HER COVER HER HEAD.
Reply
Miss Pepper on May 15, 2013 at 11:04 pm
Indeed I skipped scholarly ‘views’ as that’s what they are; views of
humans promoted by humans. If that sounds hard hearted in type, then I
apologize for any misinterpretation of how I express, but only GOD can
‘give’ of the 5 ministry callings and scholar is not one of those. God
is no respector of persons and personally I follow His Word alone and
not humans views. However, as a born again sinner, saved by grace, I
agree that I know nothing in my own interpretation and fully understand
that God will reveal this to me for my own walk in His time and ways if
it is or becomes relevant to me in Him. Love and blessings.
Reply
discoverthetruth2013 on May 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Hi again Miss Pepper
I have provided the evidence, if you want to follow it or not is not my
issue. I just made the article to make clear that women have to be
veiled, not according to me but your own scholars.
Peace
Reply
Fitzgerald Mistral on May 16, 2013 at 4:22 am
I’ve noticed a recent trend to consider almost every law in the Bible
as metaphorical or figurative and not literal. This is 1) a modern trend
and explanation of Biblical commandments 2) effectively annuls the
Bible as a source of law and social and personal conduct.
Reply
Is Covering the Hair a Religious Commandment for Christian Women? There can be only one answer to this: yes, it is! Simply open the Bible, go to 1st Corinthians, chapter 11 verses 3-10.
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. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head, because of the angels.
The word “Cover”
The Greek words used in 1 Corinthians 11:3-7 make it clear that the veil is what is intended and nothing else…
1 Corinthians 11:3-7 - 3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered–it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If 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. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
I have spoken to Christians and they come and tell me the word “cover” doesn’t mean cover with cloth (veil). According to these self made scholars it means Hair, so in other words God in the bible wants woman to cover their head with HAIR.
What I will present right now is commentary on the Bible. They are all Christian Scholars. Let’s see what they have to say about 1st of Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 3-7.
1. The Veiling of Women in Public Worship.
“The Gospel does not overthrow the natural ordinance, which is really of Divine appointment, that woman is subject to man. To disavow this subjection before the congregation must cause grave scandal; and such shamelessness is condemned by nature, by authority, and by general custom.
Now, as to another question, I do commend you for remembering me, as you assure me you do, in all things, and for loyally holding to the traditions just as I transmitted them to you. But I should like you to grasp, what has not previously been mentioned, that of every man, whether married or unmarried, Christ is the head, while a woman’s head is her husband, and Christ’s head is God. Every man, whether married or unmarried, who has any covering on his head when he publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours his head: whereas every woman, whether married or unmarried, who has her head uncovered when she publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours her head; for she «s then not one whit the better than the wanton whose head is shaven. A woman who persists in being unveiled like a man should go the whole length of cutting her hair short like a man. But seeing that it is a mark of infamy for a woman to have her hair cut off or shorn let her wear a veil. A man has no right to cover his head; he is by constitution the image of God and reflects God’s glory: whereas the woman reflects man’s glory. Man was created first; he does not owe his origin to woman, but woman owes hers to him.” ( Source: Rev. ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, and Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS Page 226 and 227)
2. James Moffatt says the following on the verse in Corinthians:
It was argued, should devout women be obliged to wear a covering veil on the head when men did not? Did not men and women worship bare- headed in Greek rites? As the Christian meetings were held in a large room of some private house, it was felt that, while women’s heads might be covered out of doors, there was no reason why the veil should be retained within the Household of the Lord. Like a Roman matron, the Christian woman would pull the corner of her robe over her head as she walked from her house to the meeting, but surely indoors she was in a family circle, where the head was not covered. Paul vigorously objects. The common opinion is that he resented such an innovation as an undesirable departure from social etiquette, since only women of loose character appeared in public bare- headed… The conservative Valerius Maximus (vi. 3. 10) had just noted, indeed, that one of the first causes of divorce was a married woman daring to appear out of doors with nothing on her head. His curiously warm objection to it is primarily based on a belief that the Creation order controlled life in the Church, and on a rabbinic interpretation of that order. A covering on the head is a mark of social deference and inferiority, in short; God made woman subject to man, and therefore for her to worship bareheaded in man’s presence would be as unnatural as for him to worship in her presence with his head covered. It would be unnatural, especially as it would violate the original plan for the sexes before God (3-12, 13-15)…, Paul begins by using it figuratively to describe the broad design of God. God, Christ, Christians ‘ —he had already said (iii. 22, 23) ; but now it is ‘ God, Christ, man, woman.’ Man as the lord of 4 creation would be violating the law of his position under God, as God’s direct likeness and representative, if he suggested, 7 even in dress, any inferiority. At worship, as elsewhere, his headship must be preserved.… The religious novelist who wrote the Acts of Thomas (liii.) was true to life when he described shameless women as ‘ immodest creatures who walked about bare- headed.’ What we call ‘ barefaced ‘ was in those days ‘ bare- headed.’ The modern reader finds it difficult to understand why Paul grew so shocked and indignant over the question whether or not a woman should have something on her head when she joined actively in public worship; but for the apostle a woman praying or preaching bareheaded was contravening the divine order which made man supreme over her and therefore entitled alone to appear bareheaded. As Calvin and Bengel saw, ‘ is ‘ means represents (as in xi. 25). A male being exhibits on 7 earth the divine authority and dominion, as he was directly created by God ; he has supremacy over the female who in turn represents the supremacy of man—not his likeness, for she is his counterpart in the order of creation, made from him and 8 for him. The veil that covers her head is a sign or symbol of this subordinate position, to be worn out of reverential respect 10 for (in view of) the angels who uphold the divine order.…Since a covering for the head signified subjection, it was only appropriate therefore for women. Rabbis artificially found a text for this in Num. v. 18. Paul is content to assume it as binding for married women…before God must be displayed by the female, and displayed particularly in wearing some sort of covering for the head. The English version—’ a woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels ‘ —might suggest, as it did suggest to Tertullian first, that she required to be protected against the lustful looks of evil angels, as though at worship a woman whose beauty was unveiled was specially exposed to malign supernatural influences.… Indeed at a very early period the term was changed to ‘ veil.’ What Paul intends to say is not that she exercised power, but that power was exercised over her ‘ Covering ‘ is for him not so much a mark of her honour and dignity as a respectable woman in society, although he brings that in ; it is pre-eminently a mark of her subordination as a daughter of Eve. Before man, the lord of creation, woman must have her head covered at worship, since that is the proper way for her to recognize the divine order at Creation. (JAMES MOFFATT THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS Page 149 to 153)
3. Charles Hodge says:
Such being the order divinely established (viz, that mentioned in v.3,) both men and woman should act in accordance with it; the man, by having the head uncovered, the woman by being veiled… This public function, the apostle says should not be exercised by a man with his head covered. Among the Greeks, the priests officiated bareheaded; the Romans with the head veiled; the Jews (at least soon after the apostolic age) also wore the Tallis or covering for the head in their public services. It is not to be inferred from what is here said, that the Christian prophets (or inspired men) had introduced this custom in the Church. The thing to be corrected was, woman appearing in public assemblies unveiled. The Apostle paul says, the veil is inconsistent with the position of man, but is required by that of the woman. The woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonour her own head, I.E as what follows shows, herself, and her husband… So the apostle says, for a man to appear with the conventional sign of subjection on his head, disgraced himself. If the man be intended to represent the dominion of God, he must act accordingly, and not appear in the dress of woman. The veils worn by Grecian women were of different kinds. One,, and perhaps the most common, was the peplum, or mantle, which in public was thrown over the head, and enveloped the whole person. The other was more in the fashion of the common eastern veil which covered the face, with of the eyes. In one form or other, the custom was universal for all respectable woman to appear veiled in public. The Apostle therefore says, that a woman who speaks in public with her uncovered; dishonours her head. Here is used, her own head; not her husband, but herself. This is plain, not only from the force of the words, but from the clause, for that is even all in one as if she were shaven. This is the reason why she disgraces herself. She puts herself in the same class with women whose her has been been cut off. Cutting of the hair, which is the principal natural ornament of woman, was either a sign of grief, deut. 21,12 or a disgraceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is; she is one and the same thing with the one who is shaven. She assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman.
(Source: An exposition of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. By Charles Hodge Page 207 to 209)
John Calvin said:
Every woman praying or prophesying Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonour their head For as the man honours his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church.(1 Timothy 2:12.) It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses. For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust. The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image of God. The same question may now be proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed a new according to that image. The image, however, of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with conscience. The simple solution is this — that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority. Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose — that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man. For the man is not from the woman. He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence, which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause. For this cause ought the woman to have power From that authority he draws an argument in favor of outward decorum. “She is subject,” says he, “let her then wear a token of subjection.” In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy, for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, or any other kind of covering… When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, “If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage. (John Calvin Commentary on Corinthians – Volume 1. Page 298 to 300)
Conclusion: The women are commanded to be veiled as the Paul has stated in Corinthians. There are no more excuses for you to ignore this evidence. Hope everyone enjoyed reading this.
By Muhammed Abdul-Karim
Share this:
Twitter1
Facebook35
Like this:
May 1, 20136 Replies
« Previous
Next »
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Comment
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Miss. Pepper on May 15, 2013 at 9:54 am
We must correct in love for the truth to set all Gods children free and create harmony and unity in HIM, therefore, – the truth is that the the word is spiritual not religious and the author here has interpreted literally, whilst in growth, believing wth well meaning they are called to teach. A given ministry teacher in the Lord’s will, will neither promote or encourage the term religion as religion is man-made, designed to control the masses and God is not legalistic, with new mercies each morning and an unbreakable love. The head covering mentioned – in spiritual understanding is HAIR, NOT a veil as interpreted in flesh.
Reply
Miss. Pepper on May 15, 2013 at 9:58 am
Addition : GREEK is not Torah! We need back into HEBREW mentality. I recommend study under Apostle Renaldo Wade of Talk, Teach and Testify ministries on blog talk radio.
Reply
discoverthetruth2013 on May 15, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Hi Miss pepper
Thank you for your comment. I think you skipped over the Scholar views on what the verse actually is about. They have all agreed that it means to cover the woemn with a CLOTH I.E a VEIL.
Second point, if it was the case that Paul all along intended by saying cover her head with HAIR then why does he say the follow?:
every woman praying or prophesying with her head UNCOVERED disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not COVERED, LET HER BE SHAVEN. But if it is a DISGRACE for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, LET HER COVER HER HEAD.
Reply
Miss Pepper on May 15, 2013 at 11:04 pm
Indeed I skipped scholarly ‘views’ as that’s what they are; views of humans promoted by humans. If that sounds hard hearted in type, then I apologize for any misinterpretation of how I express, but only GOD can ‘give’ of the 5 ministry callings and scholar is not one of those. God is no respector of persons and personally I follow His Word alone and not humans views. However, as a born again sinner, saved by grace, I agree that I know nothing in my own interpretation and fully understand that God will reveal this to me for my own walk in His time and ways if it is or becomes relevant to me in Him. Love and blessings.
Reply
discoverthetruth2013 on May 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Hi again Miss Pepper
I have provided the evidence, if you want to follow it or not is not my issue. I just made the article to make clear that women have to be veiled, not according to me but your own scholars.
Peace
Reply
Fitzgerald Mistral on May 16, 2013 at 4:22 am
I’ve noticed a recent trend to consider almost every law in the Bible as metaphorical or figurative and not literal. This is 1) a modern trend and explanation of Biblical commandments 2) effectively annuls the Bible as a source of law and social and personal conduct.
Reply
Unlike · · · Share · 33 minutes ago via mobile
- You like this.
- 51 of 54
Larry Lombardi Customs of the times... such as long hair for men. Our present day customs would say Jesus had womanly hair length and wore dresses. So- we intelligently adjust for the culture. Our culture does not share the notion that a woman praying dishonors her husband
Janet DeMent Sferrella The pagan idol worshipers shaved their heads. The hair of a woman is her covering for her head. They were to grow their hair back out for the covering.
- Larry Lombardi Abu, silly person. If you ask "Where you get that from--" when many people are posting, you have to put the NAME down of the person you are asking.
- Mary Charity And even imitate Mary whom they also hate for She bore Jesus with the Grace of the Father and Holy Spirit
- Janet DeMent Sferrella God didn't make women beautiful so that muslim men could cover them up due to their own lustful hearts.
- Mary Charity Kim Jane researched saying in their surah the Muslim men are supposed to lower their gaze when girls are around because the Muslim men know how to be holy
- Janet DeMent Sferrella There are many women who do wear a head covering into worship, and this is voluntary and perfectly fine. They are quite beautiful actually. But they are not forced to and the Bible does NOT command it.
Eivojnob Hogad in islam, they will cover their womens because they can not control their lustful feeling. the bible said women must dress in a modest apparel and let them have long hair for it is their glory so the hair covering is the hair because if they shave their hair they overthrown the power of their husband since husband are the head of the family.- Farrah AS III We are not to wear Hijab like it or not
Women cover their heads during prayer out of respect for God for a woman's hair is her glory. Period. - Abu Mariam i want to proof that you all do not lissen to God and also not lisse. to jesus and you all do not follow eny ting .
- Eivojnob Hogad Abu Mariam read again please in islam, they will cover their womens because they can not control their lustful feeling. the bible said women must dress in a modest apparel and let them have long hair for it is their glory so the hair covering is the hair because if they shave their hair they overthrown the power of their husband since husband are the head of the family.
- Farrah AS III In Islam women need a Hijab to protect themselves from Lust of their men . Our Christian men who follow Christ truly do not Lust women
- Farrah AS III Abu Mariam show me a verse saying we should wear Hijab all our lives not when we pray only ?
- Farrah AS III Abu Mariam , answer stop behaving like a child I assume you're a dad so you're old enough to act as a big guy.
- Eivojnob Hogad Abu Mariam , if you are lustfull and can not control your feeling even if not your wife then you are evil doing the will of satan. if you are a real believer then you must be holy because God is holy
- Janet DeMent Sferrella Why don't Muslim men have to wear bags over their heads? Don't you care if the women sin with lust?
- Farrah AS III It is not the woman's fault if a man lusts . The flaw is in the man's heart not the woman's appearance. To wear Hijab as a protection from rape is one of the sickest arguments I have ever encountered.
- Farrah AS III Your soul can only be fixed by Yeshua. That is why True Christian men do not Lust and we do not need Hijab. Be normal Abu Mariam .
- Janet DeMent Sferrella A heart cannot be purified by saying prayers and outward religious piety. One must have a heart purified by God. Only Jesus can do that, Abu Mariam.
- Eivojnob Hogad no one can control satan through his people because if satan want to rape you then he can do but to have the powerful name Jesus you can drive those evil and satan may even tremble
Phill Martin The bible says a man should not "round the corners of his face" (shave) how many men are "clean shaven"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ pls contribute to khilafat-tv.blogspot.com in paypal id is khilafat.tv@aol.com join khilafat-tv.googlegroup for support join khilafat-tv program channel join membership for facebook and plus.google.com
Comments