Well, Diligent, I checked your references to Barnes and Clarke and it appears that you misread them. They are saying what all the commentators of that period said, just as I had found.

Albert Barnes is very clear that a veil, a cloth covering, is what Paul is requiring: http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/vi...co&chapter=011

it seems probable that some of the women who, on pretence of being inspired, had prayed or prophesied in the Corinthian church, had cast off their veils after the manner Of the heathen priestesses.

(From what I read, the heathen priestesses most of the time did wear veils in their service to their gods, though not in everyday public life as the Jewish women did, so he has a different history than I found, but in any case he is quite clear that the passage is talking about an additional cloth covering and not hair.)

it was regarded everywhere as dishonourable and improper for a woman to lay aside the appropriate symbol of her sex, and the emblem of subordination, and to be uncovered in the presence of the man, (1 Corinthians 11:3-6;) that if a woman was not veiled, if she laid aside the appropriate emblem of her sex and of her subordinate condition, she might as well part with her hair, which all knew would be dishonourable and improper . . .

and that nature on this subject was a good instructor, and showed that it was uncomely for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, that her hair had been given her for an ornament and for beauty, and that, as it would be as improper for her to remove her veil as to cut off her hair, nature itself required that this symbol of her subordination should not be laid aside in public . . .

And Adam Clarke also makes it very clear that the covering is a cloth covering, not the hair: http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1cor11.htm

Having his head covered] With his cap or turban on, dishonoureth his head; because the head being covered was a sign of subjection; and while he was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be considered as a representative of Christ, and on this account his being veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason. "He should veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold him." See much in Lightfoot on this point. . . .

The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils.

(He’s wrong about the customs of the time from what I have read. The Greek and Roman women did NOT always wear a veil or covering when they went out; only the Jewish women did. In any case it's clear he's talking about a cloth covering and not hair.

However, he is one who believes that the Jewish custom of men’s covering their heads was the practice in Paul’s time.)

He spends quite a bit of time on the hair problem but although he says it is in a sense a veil for women, as the scripture itself also says, he nowhere suggests that it IS the same as the veil or covering Paul is requiring of women, but from the above equation of that covering with a "cap or turban" in the case of a man, there is no doubt he recognizes that just as Paul is telling men not to wear anything on their heads, he is asking for a cloth covering for women.

Verse 14. Doth not-nature-teach you, that, if a man have long hair] Nature certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for women to have long hair; and it is not so with men. The hair of the male rarely grows like that of a female, unless art is used, and even then it bears but a scanty proportion to the former. Hence it is truly womanish to have long hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it. In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great variety of places, karhkomowntev acaioi, the long-haired Greeks, or Achaeans. Soldiers, in different countries, have been distinguished for their long hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or blame, or whether Homer uses it always as a term of respect, when he applies it to the Greeks, I shall not wait here to inquire. Long hair was certainly not in repute among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was as a token of humiliation; and it is possible that St. Paul had this in view. There were consequently two reasons why the apostle should condemn this practice:-1. Because it was a sign of humiliation; 2. Because it was womanish. After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to dressed, frizzled and curled hair, which shallow and effeminate men might have affected in that time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.

Verse 15. But if a woman have long hair] The Author of their being has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases serve as a veil.

It is a certain fact that a man's long hair renders him contemptible, and a woman's long hair renders her more amiable. Nature and the apostle speak the same language; we may account for it as we please.

Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious] ei de tiv dokei filoneikov einai? If any person sets himself up as a wrangler-puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have already seen that the verb dokein, which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.

Not to change the subject, just a look at the other extreme: I shave my head. Why, you ask? Because I have just enough "mange" to make combing my hair a hassle.

[Renee]

Hey Connie,

I'm like you, I can't keep my "mouth" shut. Here is a thought for you and it is as plain as night is to day unless you want to interpert it and not just take it like it is.

Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Connie, above is our ministery.

I know nothing about you, except that you live alone. I could assume many things from that statement you made. I could jump to many conclusions, but that would be interpreting falsely, insinuating at things, and putting words in your mouth.

You do not have a head (husband) above you so now you are answerable to God.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

You would do well to lean on the Holy Spirit to understand God's Words and not continually look to man. When the preachers or teachers speak it is not they who should convince you, but the Words that they use that come out Of God's mouth.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

I really don't care what you do about your covering, that again is between you and The Lord. I just point out a more nobel ministery for us older women. I said older, not old.

I pray you do not take this with bitterness but with an open heart, for I send it your way with a prayer that you will receive it as unto theLord.

1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Renee, I have to say I don't think you are being honest with yourself about why you posted that supposedly helpful advice to me on this thread. It's good Biblical advice, of course, but somehow in this context it's hard to believe it was meant in a good spirit. It's completely off topic, it's highly personal, which is usually considered out of bounds in a general discussion forum, and it implies that I'm doing something wrong but without stating it directly. It seems to me that my only real offense is that I disagree with you and others about the woman's head covering, but you don't want to debate it, as you've already said that nothing I could possibly say on this subject is going to change your mind, so shouldn’t you just ignore the thread?

As for the personal part of your post, maybe my prayer request on the appropriate thread for that purpose will answer some of your questions. Feel free to ask whatever more you would like to know.

[JaeByrd]

Originally Posted by Connie

Renee, I have to say I don't think you are being honest with yourself about why you posted that supposedly helpful advice to me on this thread. It's good Biblical advice, of course, but somehow in this context it's hard to believe it was meant in a good spirit. It's completely off topic, it's highly personal, which is usually considered out of bounds in a general discussion forum, and it implies that I'm doing something wrong but without stating it directly.

Take it how you will. All she was doing is reminding you what the aged women should be focusing on: Teaching the younger women. Teaching the next generation to be good wives and mothers.

Matters of the heart and of actions... not customs.

Now that you've posted your prayer request I can see why you would personally take offense at those particular verses. Which were meant as a reminder to teach women and stop trying to persuade the men. Not a personal attack.

It seems to me that my only real offense is that I disagree with you and others about the woman's head covering, but you don't want to debate it

,

Why would she continue to debate? Why do you want her to debate? The men have already answered you. As have we. Hence the reminder of what the older women should be doing instead of trying to convince the men of their customs and beliefs.

as you've already said that nothing I could possibly say on this subject is going to change your mind,

So you ARE trying to change our minds...

so shouldn’t you just ignore the thread?

Shouldn't YOU? You started the thread asking for people's "Thoughts". Which were given.

In post #15 "but if nobody else is interested or willing to consider my point of view it's best to drop it." and the subject was dropped.

Luke posted his "thoughts" which you replied to and got the whole ball rolling again. At which point about post #35 you got upset and called him a "rude young man" and a "superficial fool." (Which I do believe was the first actual blatantly personal attack in this this thread)

Post #46 Shows your reason for starting this and coming back to it again and again:

But it keeps nagging at me that if we're supposed to be covering our heads and the majority of churches are no longer doing that, it's not an issue to just let drop or confine to a small group who share the same conviction. So at a forum I'm likely to bring it up again as I did here.

"When there is as much opposition to it as there is here, however, I am content to let it drop, "

Really? I've yet to see that beyond what you implied in post #15

but when people respond with a kneejerk pat answer my Irish temper comes up.

You do realize you're going to have to keep responding as long as you're here as more and more people will sign up and post their "kneejerk" pat answers as they go through the forum.

The funny thing here of all the husbands of wives, wives of husbands, mothers and daughters, you with no husband are the only one that is holding to this. You are the one that keeps coming back to convince us we're wrong.

Since there are very few women in the whole forum and 2 or 3 of us already made it clear that we will follow our husbands and THEY have made it clear where they stand. Why do you persist? It is not our custom, yet you keep trying to convince us of the rightness of it. We quite frankly don't care if you cover up or not that is up to you. Or if you cover a tiny crown patch or every last strand.

You cling to your commentators and histories and men that you place above you in the place of a husband or father in instructing you... yet who chooses that? You do. You were in a church that didn't do head coverings. You started wearing a covering (outside of that church's custom and the men you placed above you) and tried to convince them of it. You left that church. (For other reasons)

I can see how someone would be confused when your commentators can't make up their mind what it means. BTW my husband did not misread them he was referring to:

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
1Co 11:15
Verse 15. It is a glory to her. It is an ornament and adorning. The same instinctive promptings of nature which make it proper for a man to wear short hair, make it proper that the woman should suffer hers to grow long.
For a covering. Margin, Veil. It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil. It answered the purposes of a veil when it was suffered to grow long, and to spread over the shoulders and over parts of the face, before the arts of dress were invented or needed.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
1Co 11:15
But if a woman have long hair - The Author of their being has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases serve as a veil.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
1Co 11:15

But if a woman have long hair,… And wears it, without cutting it, as men do:

it is a glory to her; it is comely and beautiful; it is agreeable to her sex, she looks like herself; it becomes and adorns her:

for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other: we read indeed of the daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion, that she was obliged to make use of her hair for a covering in such a sense

I'm off to enjoy dinner with my husband and son.

What can I say? You are determined to find fault with me personally, in fact you seem to be bending over backwards to find every fault in me you can, and I'm not going to deny I have plenty, including reacting to new posts after calling the thread closed. Yes, a fault of mine no doubt, but that seems to be all you or others on this thread are interested in, my faults, except also to cherrypick the parts of scripture and commentaries that you like best. I haven't ignored the passages about the hair, but you all keep quoting the stuff about long hair and ignoring the stuff about covering the head. Oh and how you love to brag about your good fortunes at my expense. Long hair you can sit on, brag brag brag, all pride. Your great good fortune in having a husband and a family. Good for you. Where's the Christian humility in anything you say?

I like debate, and if others continue to debate with me on the topic, no doubt I will do so as well, although I must admit I find the company here less and less attractive, less and less Christian. It is just hypocritical pretense to post "helpful" scripture to me when it's obvious it is nothing but a way to covertly criticize. You need to examine your own hearts. There is at least one other woman here who has been "lecturing" men and in fact in a very impolite way, but I haven't seen anyone criticize her for it until a couple of new members did, I wonder why not.

Interesting that you all have so much in common with the "accuser of the brethren." You delight in finding fault, and delight a bit more than is seemly in your good fortunes and personal righteousness.

This idea that I give commentaries any special position is just sheer inability to read what I've written. Good grief.

Is this site "fundamental Baptist" in general? If so I think I've learned which denomination to avoid.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Connie

Is this site "fundamental Baptist" in general? If so I think I've learned which denomination to avoid.

Connie,

The site is not "affiliated" with any denomination. Clearly we have a lot of different types of people here, including Pentecostals, which couldn't be considered fundamental Baptists.

I've tried to read several of your posts without comment in order to make sure I understand what you are writing and avoid any knee-jerk reactions. It appears to me that you are quick to be personally offended. I can understand how that happens -- because none of us are in person, and words on a page lack the physical context of speech, it is only normal for us to "read in" intents and emotions of a writer. But I don't think you've been personally attacked, at least not to the extent you have assumed.

For a second, consider that you are telling us that there is a rule that us/our wives are not obeying. Every onus is upon you to make your case, not the other way around. We are all quite satisfied that a woman's hair is her covering, and that additional covering is not necessary. If you think we are being disobedient, it is up to you to prove it.

You have clearly demonstrated a reliance upon commentators for your information and have been open about doing so. I tried to show you that you are mistaken about your belief that commentary before the 20th century was unanimous in opinion, but the reality is that it doesn't matter. We're not "cherry picking" from commentators, because we don't regard them as the authority in the first place! I mistakenly engaged with you on the terms of authority that you laid down. I should simply have not bothered with that.

Do not take it personally that we believe your admonitions for additional coverings to be legalistic and extrabiblical.

You don't have to "drop it" but you should try to do better not reading into people's posts things they have not said.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Connie

Interesting that you all have so much in common with the "accuser of the brethren." You delight in finding fault, and delight a bit more than is seemly in your good fortunes and personal righteousness.

BTW, this is a pretty serious claim. You have essentially accused all of us of being disobedient, and then when we take issue with your claims, turn around and call us accusers!

[George]

Originally Posted by Connie

Interesting that you all have so much in common with the "accuser of the brethren." You delight in finding fault, and delight a bit more than is seemly in your good [U]fortunes and personal righteousness.

This idea that I give commentaries any special position is just sheer inability to read what I've written. Good grief.

Is this site "fundamental Baptist" in general? If so I think I've learned which denomination to avoid.

Interesting that you all have so much in common with the "accuser of the brethren." You delight in finding fault, and delight a bit more than is seemly in your good fortunes and personal righteousness.

Is it "reasonable" to accuse us as being in league with Satan? (This is at least the second time you have made this accusation).

We don't delight "in finding fault", we just get tired of an argument presented over and over again - "delight" has nothing to do with it. And we don't gloat over our "good fortune" and your "poor fortune".

Are you jealous of our "good fortune"? I don't know how many children you have but - have you ever lost one? My wife and I lost our eldest son 4 years ago - the Lord took him home at the age of 42 (if you haven't gone through that, you have no reason to judge us on our "good fortunes"!)

You are a Humanist - plain & simple (you may not know it, and you may not believe it, but you manifest every tendency that Humanists have. You operate in the realm of the mind (the intellect) and that is why I stopped dealing with you because, although you have "knowledge", you lack spiritual discernment; understanding; and wisdom.

Is this site "fundamental Baptist" in general? If so I think I've learned which denomination to avoid.

For the record: This site is not a Baptist Site (although there are a lot of Baptists represented). My wife and I are in an Independent Bible church, patterned after the New Testament churches - and very close to the modern day "brethren" churches (minus the "hair covering requirement, I might add). Actually you should feel right at home in a "brethren" (Plymouth Brethren, Grace Brethren, etc.) church, because they have a "requirement" that women "must" use a head covering.

You have a "problem" that many modern day Christian women (not all) have in the U.S.A. and elsewhere in the Western World. You have NO authority, but your own opinions (Humanism again), and you are unwilling to be in subjection to the Holy Scriptures.

I do not delight in telling you this. I take no special pleasure in doing this, however, you are extremely argumentative and when people dispute your beliefs or refuse to believe what you believe you take it personal and lash out and make these unwarranted and unfounded accusations against the brethren here on this site.

Stay or leave, but if you stay - don't accuse us of being lead by the devil, as you did in a past post, or that we all have "something in common" with him. We haven't once made such a strong accusation against you.

George