Sometimes "simplicity" is just an excuse for believing whatever you want to believe rather than taking the time to understand what Paul meant.

Well that explains it. You found no one INTERPRETING the covering as hair, because nobody needs to INTERPRET it. It's written in english, plain for all to see. Anything else is of private interpretation.

You don't even know that YOU're interpreting do you?

[Luke]

I see your problem. You are reading too much junk from new evangelicals.

John Macarthur is a heretic.
Chuck Smith is a heretic.

Macarthur is responsible for Lordship Salvation's popularity today, and Chuck Smith is a tongues speaking madman who helped to introduce rock music to christianity through a homosexual preacher in the late 70's (Lonnie Frisbee).

Intellectuals. That is all they are.

[Luke]

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Why do you see the need to define the word hair? Why don't you just rewrite the Bible?

Why don't you read what I actually wrote before commenting, you rude young man? I didn't confine myself to the few remarks you are quoting out of context.

I guess you think you know better than Matthew Henry too, right? Oh, he was a heretic too I guess.

You and all the know-nothings like you are the ones rewriting the Bible.

Studying to show oneself approved is NOT what you are doing with your dismissive comments.

Sorry, now I've lost my temper. I'm leaving to cool off. No point in letting a superficial fool get me out of sorts.

[Luke]

I don't know why you are angry. I only said that the Bible was clear about it.

I should apologise for my needless comment regarding rewriting the Bible though. Sorry.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Connie

I guess you think you know better than Matthew Henry too, right? Oh, he was a heretic too I guess.

Not answering for Luke, but: I read Matthew Henry on occasion, and think he was a great commentator. But it really does take a very intelligent person to miss the plain and obvious sentence: "for her hair is given her for a covering." It really doesn't matter to me if Gill, Henry, Poole, Darby, Scofield, Ruckman, or anyone else, says what this "means." It's plain and obvious to me that a woman already has a covering with her hair.

[Renee]

Connie,
Are we contending for the faith or are we being contentious?

I see that you pick and choose your authority.

[George]

I thought we settled this issue? I was under the impression that the subject was dropped - by you ("Let's be in the peace of Christ and consider this subject ended." - your words, from a former post, not mine) Or am I missing something? Christian Liberty dictates that since you hold this conviction so strongly you had better obey it and practice the observance. And since we do not hold the same conviction as you, that we are going to continue on with our Christian lives. (You living by your convictions and us living by our convictions - and neither one of us trying to continually "lecture" the other on who is "wrong" and who is "right". I guess I was wrong!)

My problem with you is that you either can't or won't let go of this matter. I'm not going to judge you if you choose to "observe" certain meats, drinks, holy days, and "covering" your head with whatever you choose. (More power to you and may God bless). On the other hand you shouldn't be judging us if we choose not to observe your "choice" of observations. And further you definitely shouldn't be calling us "know-nothings", just because we do not hold the same conviction that you do. [Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:] Why do you continue to try to "lecture" us about something we have settled in our hearts and minds? {And no woman is going to persuade us differently} You are assuming that we haven't researched this matter as well as you have, and you have no way of knowing how much study we have spent on this issue.

Our appeal is to Scripture, and the "plain sense" of the words of God. Whereas your appeal is to men; tradition; and your "private interpretation" of history. After all of my warnings about appealing to "authorities" other than the Bible, you come back with a list of men: Calvin; Matthew Henry; Jamieson, Fausette, and Brown (all "Calvinists"); and then John MacArthur; Alistair Begg; Chuck Smith; Ray Stedman; and many lesser known names (all "Evangelicals"? - whatever that means); "my own few commentaries"; "all the commentaries"; etc.; etc.

Do we now decide doctrine by "counting" how many "great" Christian men supported a particular doctrine and how many "important" Christian men didn't? (or perhaps we should "weigh" the witnesses instead?)

You isolate David Cloud as if he were the only "famous" Christian teacher who teaches to the contrary. Is it at all possible that you haven't done a thorough job of checking other sources? But I am not going to fall into the trap of weighing the sources that I know against the sources that you have read. Lets just say you haven't checked all of the sources that I have read.

You say that "Those who conclude Paul means hair is the covering are not rightly dividing the word of truth, and the "vast majority" of commentators recognize that much even if they disagree that we are to cover our heads today as Paul intended in his day (and that's a whole other mistake)." Again, do the vast majority of the commentators (who just happen to be almost all Calvinists, since they spent most of their time "writing books" - instead of witnessing, preaching, teaching and out on the mission field) - Do these men, many of whom believed in: "baptismal regeneration"; baby "sprinkling"; the church replacing Israel; the church as being "the kingdom"; a church hierarchy that was totally unscriptural; the separation between the "clergy" and the "laity"; and on and on. Are we going to let the Majority of these A-millennial baby sprinklers decide doctrine for us? I trow not!

Your generalized comments about: "the normal habit of women"; "WOMEN ALWAYS WORE THEIR HAIR LONG IN THOSE DAYS"; "Clearly, Paul takes it for granted that women wear their hair long"; "It was always a badge of shame or mourning for a woman to cut her hair"; "there's no way he was correcting a problem in the congregation of women cutting their hair when no woman in her right mind would have cut her hair in those days."; "The way Paul phrases it, clearly he expects people to recognize [in both verses 6 and 14] that a woman's hair by nature is worn long and that to cut it would be a disgrace, so obviously he had no reason to tell women to do what they were already doing."; "Doesn't even common sense tell you that long beautiful hair on a woman is SEXY? Wow, Hollywood sure knows that if Christians don't! Does Paul EVER recommend that Christian women present themselves in a sexy way?"; "The sad thing is that there are all these churches where women are doing exactly the opposite of what Paul is requiring of us, displaying their glory which is the glory of man when Paul is telling them to cover it so that Christ's glory will be seen in the assembly."; "UNTIL THE LAST CENTURY OR SO the passage was understood by everyone to refer to an additional covering over the head and hair"; "Does it make sense"; All of the underlines are just GENERALIZATIONS, SUPPOSITION, AND ASSUMPTIONS on your part. Sophistry didn't die in the first and second centuries - it's alive and well in the church today.

Your comment: "I really find this way of misreading that scripture a terrific puzzle. It seems such a simple little thing but the devil sure has been working overtime over the last century leading people to misread it and disobey it." is not only uncalled for, but is judging those of us who do not hold your conviction on this issue of being led by the devil! Thanks - but no thanks!

I find it strange, that we are willing to let you believe and hold this conviction (without judging you or condemning you), but you accuse us of being "led" by the devil and of being "know nothings". I repeat what I said in an earlier post to you: "Your reply to my comments are instructive on why a woman should not be trying to instruct (teaching) men." I stand by my statement even more strongly than before because you have had the opportunity to receive instruction by many men on this Forum and you not only have rejected all our our counsel, but have demonstrated contempt for all of those who disagree with you.

What is your problem? Why are you "contentious" in this matter? Read the verses:

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 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.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Do you think that a woman's "covering" is the most important issue in these passages? Have you no discernment?

What about - following Paul? verse 1
What about - keeping the ordinances delivered by Paul to the church? verse 2
What about - the head of every man is Christ? verse 3
What about - the head of the woman is the man? verse 3
What about _ the head of Christ is God? verse 3
What about - the fact that the man being the image & glory of God? verse 7
What about - the woman being the glory of the man? verse 7
What about - Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. verse 8
What about - Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. verse 11
What about - For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. verse 12
What about - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? verse 14
What about - But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. verse 15

What about: 1Corinthians 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. {That goes for women too}

By my count there are 12 out of 16 verses where the Lord is talking about a whole lot of things (Some - far more important than the "observance" of a woman "covering" her hair). Why are you hung up on this ONE thing?

Don't call us names; don't denigrate us; and don't disrespect our convictions - just because you "think" that you have learned some exclusive revelation from God that none of us have had the good fortune to learn.

Get over it - There are people on this Forum that I agree with almost totally. There are some people that I may agree with about 80% of the time. And there are people that I may disagree with most of the time. I try not to personalize my convictions and force them on other people. I try not to "lecture" people or demonstrate my "learning". (Sometimes I am not as successful at it than at other times - like now!)

I have nothing to "prove" personally. I try to edify the brethren and I am often edified by them. If they choose not to believe what I believe, that's just fine with me, since I have never claimed an exclusive monopoly in understanding the "whole" counsel of God.

[George]

Just an added note to Connie:

I find it quite instructive that although you joined this Forum one day after me - You have twice (double) as many posts as I have since we both joined up (and I have been fairly active). In addition, although I have been here about the same time as you, I have yet to start a thread - just an observation (something for you to consider).

I asked the question in my first post and I will ask it again: Have you come here to just "instruct" us? Or have you come here to participate in a give and take Forum where we are looking not only to instruct others, but to receive instruction also? hhmmm?