BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Articles

The Head Covering -nee

sermonindex Mar 29, 2007


[b]The Head Covering[/b]
[i]by Watchman Nee[/i]

When the Lord Jesus was on earth, on the one hand He came to be Savior of the world, to deliver men from sin. This is according to the system of grace. On the other hand, God sent Him to the world that through the work of the cross He might establish His own authority and set up His kingdom so that the heavens might rule on the earth. This Is the system of government. Its work will continue until the power of the devil is destroyed and the kingdom and the new heaven and the new earth are brought in.

Many hold to a fundamental error: they foolishly maintain that grace can set government aside. The truth is that what God does in grace never alters God’s government.... Grace only complements government.... Grace is for the purpose of redeeming and restoring those who are insubordinate and rebellious so that they may be subject to God’s governmental system.... Grace can never nullify government; rather, grace enables people to obey government. May I say with all Seriousness that grace gives us strength to be subject to government.

Head Covering and God’s Government

The matter of head covering belongs to God’s government. For those who do not know God’s government, it is impossible to exhort them to have their heads covered. They will not be able to understand how much is involved in this matter. But those who have seen God’s government in God’s revealed Word are able to appreciate the tremendous connection between head covering and government.

The meaning of head covering is: I submit myself to God’s government: I accept God’s appointed position: I dare not nullify His government by the grace I have received; I do not even dare to think about it; on the contrary, I accept God’s government. As Christ accepts God as His head, so should every man accept Christ as his head. Likewise, woman should representatively accept man as her head. In covering the head, the woman signifies that she is not head, that she is as if she has no head—for it is covered.

God calls upon the sisters to show this arrangement. It is through the sisters that God’s governmental system is to be displayed. It is the sisters who are responsible to have the sign of obedience on their heads. God specifically requires women to have their head covered when praying or prophesying. Why? Because they ought to know God’s government when they come before Him. In going before God to pray for people or in going before people to prophesy for God, whether In praying or in prophesying, whether in that which goes to God or in that which comes from God, in whatever is related to God, head covering is demanded. The purpose Is to manifest the government of God.

Today woman has a sign of authority on her head because of the angels, that is, as a testimony to the angels. Only the sisters in the church can testify to this, for the women of the world know nothing of it. Today when the sisters have the sign of authority on their heads, they bear the testimony that, “I have covered my head so that I do not have my own head, for I do not seek to be head. My ‘head is veiled, and I have accepted man as head, and to accept man as head means that I have accepted Christ as head and God as head. But some of you angels have rebelled against God.” This is what it meant “because of the angels.”

I have on my head a sign of authority. I am a woman with my head covered. This is a most excellent testimony to the angels, to the fallen and to the unfallen ones. No wonder Satan persistently opposes the matter of the head covering. It really puts him to shame. We are doing what he has failed to do. What God did not receive from the angels, He now has from the church.

When many of the sisters in the church take the place given to women and learn to cover their heads, they send out an unspoken word of testimony to the angels in the air, to the effect that God has obtained in the church what He desires. Because of this, woman must have on her head a sign of authority, a testimony to the angels.

Let us remember that although in practice it is only the woman who has her head covered, yet, in reality, Christ has His head covered before God and every man has his head covered before Christ. Why is it that God only requires woman to have the practice of having her head covered? This indeed is marvelous, for it involves a very deep principle.

When a sister covers her head, she is standing before God on the basis of Christ’s position before God and man’s position before Christ. God wants the woman to cover her head in order to manifest His government on earth. This privilege falls only to the woman. She does not cover her head merely for her own self; she does it representatively. It is because she represents man before Christ and Christ before God. So when a woman covers her head before God, it is just the same as if Christ covered His head before God.... Man and woman should have no head since Christ is the head. If one’s head is not covered, there will be two heads. Between God and Christ, one head must be covered; so too must it be between man and woman and so between Christ and every man. If one head is not covered, the result will be that there are two heads, and God’s government does not allow two heads. If God is head, then Christ is not; if Christ is head, then man is not; if man is head, then woman is not.

Regarding the Contentious

So, for man to be uncovered and woman covered is a charge that only Christian apostles have given. It is a practice the churches of God alone hold, for it is different from both the Jewish and the Gentile custom. It is something few observe and understand, and it is from God.

All the apostles believed that woman should have her head covered. If anyone today professes to be an apostle and yet does not believe in the head covering of woman, he cannot be counted as one of the apostles. He must be taken as an outsider. There is no such practice among the apostles of not believing this. If any church does not believe, Paul’s answer is, “We have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” None of the local churches which the apostles had visited had any such custom as arguing about woman’s head covering. So the answer to any who argue is that there is no such practice as arguing about It. Paul is willing to reason in a few earlier verses, but after that he reasons no more. If any seems to be contentious, Paul says no apostle will approve of that one’s opinion. If anyone wants to argue, no church will agree with his view. You are outside the fellowship of the churches as well as of the apostles.

Therefore, let our sisters cover their heads in the church when praying or prophesying. Why? To manifest that in the church God has obtained that which He has failed to get in the world, in the universe, and among the angels.


E
enid Mar 29, 2007

Good article.

Should get intresting feedback, since views vary somewhat concerning this matter.

God bless.

sermonindex Mar 29, 2007

Most professed Christians dont agree with this outward appearance of holiness, but most do not practice inward holiness either. (Without which no man shall see the Lord).

Taking part in the beautiful priviledge of wearing a head covering has been a blessing to my wife.

In Christ - Jim

V
vico Mar 29, 2007

hmmm...
something i find interesting is that when the head covering is discussed, not many scriptures are cited!!?? Why is that?

Another thing, I've read through the Bible quite a few times, but never have i ever seen anything about about women wearing a piece of cloth on their heads. Can someone please help me with this. Is this an extra-biblical doctrine?

M
myfirstLove Mar 29, 2007

O.k. I just read 1 cor. 11 in search of understanding and just prayed to God lastnight about headcoverings.

My husband and I are clueless about this. we heard both sides. The part that really confused us was the part Nee spoke of towards the end

There is no such practice among the apostles of not believing this. If any church does not believe, Paul’s answer is, “We have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” None of the local churches which the apostles had visited had any such custom as arguing about woman’s head covering. So the answer to any who argue is that there is no such practice as arguing about It. Paul is willing to reason in a few earlier verses, but after that he reasons no more. If any seems to be contentious, Paul says no apostle will approve of that one’s opinion. If anyone wants to argue, no church will agree with his view. You are outside the fellowship of the churches as well as of the apostles.

When I prayed lastnight, I receive a dream. I woke up this morning and in my dream, I saw some ladies with head coverings and some not. Then I saw myself confused not knowing wich is true. Then I saw Greg in my dream!

I woke up seriously believing Greg is going to put an article about headcoverings and this will be a sign to end the confusion.

When I went to the forum and saw a title about headcoverings, a smile was on my face and I was saying to myself, I bet this is from Greg!

So what do you guys think it means ;-)

God is good and so very faithful!

sermonindex Mar 29, 2007

hmmm...
something i find interesting is that when the head covering is discussed, not many scriptures are cited!!?? Why is that?

Because this instruction is only given in one place that I know of. 1 Corinthians 11

v16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

B
beenblake Mar 29, 2007

What constitutes a head covering? Is it simply a piece of cloth? Is it the woman's hair? Or is it a husband? What does God mean by head covering?

1 Corinthians 11:15 (KJ)
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

If her hair is given for a covering, would not an additional piece of cloth be offensive to the Lord?

In addition, if a woman has a piece of cloth or long hair covering her head, does that mean she has her head covered?

The head covering is a symbol of her spiritual authority. It means she is both under authority and with authority. Her authority is established by the fact that she is under authority. The same is true for Christ. He has authority because He is under the Father's authority.

It is for her glory that her head is covered as it means she has spiritual authority as given by God. A woman whose head is covered has authority to prophecy, teach, and preach.

Obviously, the physical covering does nothing in this except publically display the spiritual truth. The same is true of circumcision and water immersion. When the flesh is circumcised, it does not mean the man has been circumcised in the heart. The man may have his flesh circumcised and be far from God. Likewise, if a woman is lacking the physical covering, it does not mean she is lacking the spiritual covering.

A woman's head is shown to be covered when she submits. What is essential is that she submits unto her husband, and if she is not married, that she submits unto her brothers.

1 Peter 3:3-5 (KJ)
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

We see here that Peter says, "let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair." A woman should not be concerned about the outward appearance. The true indication of head covering comes by "being in subjection unto their own husbands."

Of course, when this happens Christ is glorified. Women have indeed been blessed, as Watchman Nee has said, in displaying the submissiveness of Christ unto the Father through submission unto her husband. This is to be Christ directed and lead.

Husbands should not force authority on their wives, or demand it, but in love allow their wives to be used by Christ. Submission is a willing act, and if it is not allowed to be willing, then it is false. A husband who demands submission is hindering his wife and the Word of the Lord. When a husband loves his wife in the same way Christ loves the Church, her desire will be to submit. Therefore, husbands should first love their wives with sacrificial loves so that wifes will submit and Christ will be glorified.

In Christ,

Blake

V
vico Mar 29, 2007

v16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Brother Jim, contention is the last thing i wanted. i just wanted to know, thats all. :-)

Blake, my thoughts precisely!

Blessings upon you brothers!

~vico

M
myfirstLove Mar 29, 2007

I don't understand why paul ends it with long hair being her covering, but the verses before that seems to refer more than hair, but a material covering because Paul speaks of the men being uncovered. He couldn't have meant being bald, but some sort of material covering just like the woman. Does that make sense?

Well, if long hair is her real covering so all the woman with short hair is in rebellion or those who can't grow their hair out, what do they do? Or is it that those who have long hair do not need a material covering?

please know I am not wanting to argue, but understand the verses.

sermonindex Mar 30, 2007

It seems the scriptures say that women should wear head coverings in the church - especially when prophesying or praying.

I think the confusions comes because the first part of the passage seems to say one thing and the last part of the passage seems to say just the opposite.

First part:

4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

9for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

These verses say that the covering is NOT her hair. Notice verse 4 and 5:


5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

Paul says that if a women prays without a covering let her shave her head. So obviously she has hair already. Therefore the covering is external.

Here's where I think it is confusing for some. Here it can seem like Paul is saying a womans hair is her covering but that's not what it is saying.

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,

15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul is making a comparison to show what should be obvious to his hearers. It seems as if Paul is saying "this should be obvious to you just like men having short hair and women having long hair should be obvious as what is right". Paul is using something his hearers would agree was obvious to say the same thing about women covering their heads.

Paul then concludes this passage by saying :

"16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." NASB

Paul is saying..."you can disagree but this is the practice of the Churches of God".


I think this passage as a whole is even more confusing in the KJV. In the kjv verse 16 says: 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

That really doesn't make much sense. It would seem odd that Paul would lay out a whole teaching on why women should have their hair covered then say "oh, by the way..we don't do that".

That would be like laying out a whole teaching on Jesus being the only way to heaven and then at the end say "by the way..you can actually get to heaven by many way". It wouldn't make sense.

P
PaulWest Mar 30, 2007

That really doesn't make much sense. It would seem odd that Paul would lay out a whole teaching on why women should have their hair covered then say "oh, by the way..we don't do that".

Is this really what Paul was saying...as directed by the Holy Ghost? My brother, is our God the author of confusion?

Consider this bit of commentary on verse 16 by M. Henry:

"Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside."

Brother Paul

sermonindex Mar 30, 2007

Is this really what Paul was saying...as directed by the Holy Ghost? My brother, is God the author of confusion?

No..I believe it's translated correctly in the NASB not the KJV. God is not the author of confusion. Paul's conclusion in the KJV is a contradiction to what he says just prior to his conclusion.

P
PaulWest Mar 30, 2007

Paul's conclusion in the KJV is a contradiction to what he says just prior to his conclusion.

I see, brother. It would be wiser for you to say that Paul's statement in the KJV is a contradiction [i]according to your understanding[/i]. Mathew Henry didn't see it as a contradiction - nor do I.

sermonindex Mar 30, 2007

this comment by Matthew Henry is nowhere in the text:

but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers,

sermonindex Mar 30, 2007

Mathew Henry didn't see it as a contradiction - nor do I.

Matthew Henry doesn't comment on verse 16.

P
PaulWest Mar 30, 2007

this comment by Matthew Henry is nowhere in the text:

You would perhaps see it differently if you knew more about ancient eastern cultures and customs.

sermonindex Mar 30, 2007

Brother Jim, contention is the last thing i wanted. i just wanted to know, thats all.

Brother, that wasnt aimed at you specifically.

Spiritual blessings in Christ - Jim

sermonindex Mar 30, 2007

Paul,

In the KJV Paul goes into this long explanation of why women should wear head coverings and then sums it up by saying:

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

It makes no sense to explain something women should do and then say "we don't do it".

P
PaulWest Mar 30, 2007

Matthew Henry doesn't comment on verse 16.

Which commentary version are you looking to? The abridged or unabridged? It's in the unabridged.

V
vico Mar 30, 2007

What constitutes a head covering? Is it simply a piece of cloth? Is it the woman's hair? Or is it a husband? What does God mean by head covering?

1 Corinthians 11:15 (KJ)
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

If her hair is given for a covering, would not an additional piece of cloth be offensive to the Lord?

In addition, if a woman has a piece of cloth or long hair covering her head, does that mean she has her head covered?

The head covering is a symbol of her spiritual authority. It means she is both under authority and with authority. Her authority is established by the fact that she is under authority. The same is true for Christ. He has authority because He is under the Father's authority.

It is for her glory that her head is covered as it means she has spiritual authority as given by God. A woman whose head is covered has authority to prophecy, teach, and preach.

Obviously, the physical covering does nothing in this except publically display the spiritual truth. The same is true of circumcision and water immersion. When the flesh is circumcised, it does not mean the man has been circumcised in the heart. The man may have his flesh circumcised and be far from God. Likewise, if a woman is lacking the physical covering, it does not mean she is lacking the spiritual covering.

A woman's head is shown to be covered when she submits. What is essential is that she submits unto her husband, and if she is not married, that she submits unto her brothers.

1 Peter 3:3-5 (KJ)
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

We see here that Peter says, "let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair." A woman should not be concerned about the outward appearance. The true indication of head covering comes by "being in subjection unto their own husbands."

Of course, when this happens Christ is glorified. Women have indeed been blessed, as Watchman Nee has said, in displaying the submissiveness of Christ unto the Father through submission unto her husband. This is to be Christ directed and lead.

Husbands should not force authority on their wives, or demand it, but in love allow their wives to be used by Christ. Submission is a willing act, and if it is not allowed to be willing, then it is false. A husband who demands submission is hindering his wife and the Word of the Lord. When a husband loves his wife in the same way Christ loves the Church, her desire will be to submit. Therefore, husbands should first love their wives with sacrificial loves so that wifes will submit and Christ will be glorified.

In Christ,

Blake

I still say amen to this!

Look at these verses:

1Co 11:3 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.

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

1Co 11:7 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.

Blessings to all!


This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 30 posts