"Head Covering" or Long Hair?

[oldhermit]

Part three

5. The myth that, “The teaching of the head covering was written only to the Church at Corinth.”

Since 1Corinthians presents revealed principles that are to be observed and obeyed by all Christians everywhere, we are not given the prerogative to ignore or dismiss ANY of these principles as something that is non-applicable to us today. As Paul declares in verse 16, these principles are to be observed in all the Churches. So, a Church in another part of the world who practiced distinctly different customs than those practiced at Corinth was still obliged to obey this same revealed principle that Paul binds upon the Church at Corinth. There was no distinction.
6. The myth that, “Paul is the one who gave this command, not God.”
This is the battle cry of the liberal mind who seeks to marginalize biblical principles with which they do not agree. Paul himself offers no such disclaimer. To quite the contrary, he affirms in 14:37, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the thingsthat I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” What things? According to Peter, this refers to whatever Paul wrote. “...Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, asalsoinallhisletters, (What Peter is saying here is that whatever Paul wrote, he was given to write.) speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” One of the ways in which Paul's scriptures are distorted is by rendering them contingent upon and limited in time, history, and culture, and those who do so are relegated by Peter to the ranks of the untaught and the unstable. The end result of such treatment of scripture is their own destruction. We had better be very careful about how we treat any segment of scripture because it is all from the same source – the Holy Spirit.
7. The myth that, “The hair is the head covering – as in the New International Version footnote.”

“This (The NIV commentary on this text) is an example of twisting Scripture to make the Bible say what one wants it to say. The Greek cannot be translated as it is in the NIV footnote. Words were added to and subtracted from the Greek to get this interpretation.”

In conclusion then, the fact that Paul says in verse 10, “For this reason,” means that the answer for why Paul issues this command is provided in the text by Paul himself and is not to be found in an appeal to first century Corinthian culture.

When we examine Roman cultural practices of the first century what we find is that:

a. There is no case to be made for a connection between the shaved head and prostitution.
b. That men traditionally covered their heads in non-Christian worship AND...
c. That women not covering their heads was not looked upon as an outrage nor was it associated with prostitution. In order to appeal to the cultural argument for a reason for the head-covering one must completely ignore both historical facts and Paul’s own inspired explanation of “For this reason.”

C. The linguistic argument
Does the head covering refer to the hair or to some type of veil or scarf that was to be worn and then removed?

There are two words in the Greek that are commonly used for veil, καλύπτω and its equivalent κάλυμμα (2 Corinthians 3:13-16). Καλύπτω is the word that is used here in verses 5 and 6 in both verb and in adjective forms. The word refers to a veil or a head dress as in a bride's veil or something that is worn as a covering. The word is of course not used exclusively in the biological sense. It can also be use in a metaphorical sense such as a veil of darkness or even to describe a plague over the land. At any rate, it refers to something that serves as a covering.

1. Verse 4 – “Any man praying or prophesying having[anything] on his head....” The Greek text reads literally, κατὰ κεφαλῆς – “having zdown against his head....” Whatever the man of verse 4 is commanded NOT to have down against his head is the same thing the woman of verse six is commanded to have downagainst her head. Thus, it is something external and foreign to the head.
2. Verse 5 – “But every woman who has her head uncovered...” κατακαλύπτῳ – to uncover, to unveil. Literally, “Havingnotdownagainstherhead.” The prefix ἀ is added to κατακαλύπτῳ make it a negative.
3. Verse 6 – “For 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.”καλύπτεται – to cover, veil, or to hide. In other words, if you do not want your hair cut off, then cover it up when you pray.

“Although καλύπτῳ by itself can mean "cover" in a more broad set of connotations, κατακαλύπτῳ is clearly more narrow..., “to veil” referring to something that is placed
“down upon the head.” (Unknown author from Biblical Hermeneutics beta website)
4. In verse 15, we find an entirely different word used to refer to the woman's hair as a covering that is not even etymologically akin to either καλύπτω or to κάλυμμα, although in some respects the meaning is similar. The word here is περιβολαίου meaning a wrapper, mantle, veil, cloak, a covering, or something that is thrown about her. Paul then, is using two entirely different words to refer to two entirely different things which represent two entirely separate symbols – one for submission and the other for glory, honor, splendor. Her hair is given to her as a περιβολαίου that is to the covered with a καλύπτω.
5. The verb tenses of the two symbols.

a. “For 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,” verse 6. “Let her cover her head” is represented in the Greek by only one word – κατακαλυπτέσθω which is present, imperative, middle.

* The imperative mode “imposes a demand upon the will to do what is commanded.”
* The middle voice means that the subject of the verb (the woman), participates in the action. The middle voice...

> Refers the action back to the one who is performing the action – the woman.
> The action in some way reflects back upon the subject of the verb – the woman
> It can have the force of emphasizing the part taken by the subject of the verb – the woman.
> It can represent the subject as voluntarily yielding to the action of the verb.
In other words, this is something she is commanded to DO! This is an action which she takes upon herself. She covers her own head.

b. “For her hair is given to her for a covering,” verse 15

* “Is given to her” is represented in the Greek by δέδοται αὐτῇ. Δέδοται is perfect, indicative, passive.

> The perfect tense expresses a past completed action with presently continuing results.
> The indicative mode is a declaration of fact. It indicates what is true about the subject. In this case, it expresses the purpose and function of the hair to the woman.
> The passive voice means that the subject is the recipient of the action but is not the cause of the action. This is something that is given to her by another.

* Αὐτῇ is dative case and compliments the passive voice of δέδοται. The dative is used to designate the person more remotely concerned. It is the case of personal interest, pointing out the person to or for whom something is done. The conclusion then must be that the two verbs represent two different actions (one is taken and the other is received), from two different sources (one from the woman and the other from God), and having two different results (one for submission and the other for glory).

 

[oldhermit]

Part four

E. The big question then is twofold.

1. Question one:
Is Paul's instruction here a time limited tradition or is it a doctrinal command? Let us examine Paul's use of παρέδωκα and παραδόσεις.

a. Παρέδωκα – hand over, pledge, hand down, deliver, commit, commend. Paul says in verse one, “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”

The author of the essay on the website, bible.org comments that the use of παρέδωκα is used very frequently for the passing of truth from one generation to the next. He points out that Paul uses this verb some 19 times and always within a context that carries the force of a commitment, every time. See the following examples.

* Romans 6:17, “But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered [παρεδόθητε] to you.” KJV
* Galatians 2:20 and Ephesians 5:2, 25, “...the Son of God, who loved me and gave up [παραδόντος] Himself for me,”
* 1Corinthians 11:23, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered [παρέδωκα] to you.”
* 1Corinthians 15:3, “For I delivered [παρέδωκα] to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”

These examples represent παρέδωκα as the handing down of some commandment or instruction that is binding on all the Church and that must be accepted as revealed truth to which Paul and the Lord holds the reader accountable.

b. παραδόσεις – instruction, tradition
“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as (This says there was to be no deviation what-so-ever from that which…) I delivered to you.”

Paul uses some form of παραδόσις at least five different times in his writings and every time he uses this word, it is always in connection with things that are binding.

* Colossians 2:8, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition [παράδοσιν] of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than [traditions] according to schist.”

Therefore, Paul regards whatever Christ delivered as ‘tradition.’ This in no way minimizes the force of what Christ delivered nor does it in any way suggest that these 'traditions' are subject to compromise, manipulation, or human approval.
* 2Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions [παραδόσεις] which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” Whatever he spoke carried the same authority and weight as that which he had written.* 2Thesselonians 3:6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition [παράδοσιν] which you received from us.”

The singular form of 'tradition' here represents the full body of truth that was delivered by the apostles. The one then who removes himself from the traditions received from the apostles is one who leads an unruly life.

Paul's consistent use of this noun in each one of these examples represents doctrines that he had given the Church to be observed and obeyed as revealed truths to which they were to hold and stand fast.

 

[oldhermit]

Part five

2. Question two:
Should the wearing of the veil by the women be honored in the Lord's Church today?
The strength of Paul's command for the women to cover their heads and the prohibition of the men not to cover their heads is not based on culture but on an established creation principal that reflects the relationship of the woman to the man which we see in verses 7-10. The argument that this practice has no pragmatic application today is based solely on the weakness of the modern English translations. The assumption is that since παραδόσεις is translated as 'tradition,' this suggests a practice that was limited by time, history, and culture but, as we have seen, this is not how Paul ever used this word at any time in any of his writings. Παραδόσεις does not mean ‘tradition’ in the same sense that we typically use this word today. Paul's instruction on this issue was one of doctrinal command, not some quaint, cultural custom that one could simply set aside, or dismiss as one may wish, nor could it be rendered subordinate to changes in culture.
What is the nature of this delivered command?

a. It was specific. Men were NOT to pray with their heads covered. Women were NOT to pray with their heads uncovered.
b. It was of divine origin, not human origin and as such,
c. It mirrored the relationship between man and Christ. Christ is the head of the man.
d. It mirrored the order and function of the creation both of the man and the woman. “For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore, (διὰ τοῦτο – Because of this, [so here Paul gives the revealed reason why]) the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.” The woman was created for the man, not the man for the woman. Thus, Paul removes this completely out of the cultural context. The context is the woman's created relationship to man as designed by God and her relationship to God through Christ, and it is the veil which reflects this relationship, not her hair.
e. It was a command that levied pragmatic consequences for the woman who violated it. This suggests that the woman has total control over whether or not she chooses to obey this command. “If a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off.” The word “also” here is a mighty big word. The force of the word καὶ draws a contrast between two separate things. It distinguishes between the 'covering' and the 'hair,' and the cutting off of the one is the consequence of failing to observe the other. If the hair of verse 15 and the covering of verses 5 and 6 are the same thing then Paul's argument in verses 5 and 6 represent an absurdity, “if a woman will not cut off her hair, then let her also cut off her hair.” This would make absolutely no sense.

The wearing of the veil was to symbolize how God viewed the woman as she prayed and prophesied. It was also a symbol of how the woman is to view herself as she approaches the Almighty.

3. Even if some evidence from antiquity existed that linked the shaved head or even the uncovered head to temple prostitution, this would have absolutely no impact on this text because Paul appeals to four different evidences to establish the validity of this command and not one of these appeals is linked to culture. Paul appeals to...

a. The order of creation
b. The natural order of male and female appearance
c. Apostolic authority/teaching
d. The universal practice of all the churches
All of these transcend any appeals one may wish to make to time, history, or culture. This means that the command for a head covering cannot be explained by appealing to the local customs at Corinth. For the Jew, Paul is instructing the men NOT to wear their head covering. For the Gentile, he is instructing the women TO wear a head covering. In both instances, this was contrary to the respective cultures of each, not a submission to culture. So, this is NOT an embrace of cultural practices. Rather, Paul imposed a practice that was counter-cultural. This practice then is uniquely Christian.


[h=2]What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today?[/h] Covering = Hair Argument
One of the most popular views today is that the head covering was actually the woman’s hair. This view is more difficult to assess. The exegesis of the text that adopts this view keys in on verse 15:


ἡ κόμη α᾿ντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται--‘her hair is given [to her] in the place of a veil’


Often the assumption is that vv 2-14 describe a woman veiling and unveiling herself. If so, then the point of v 15 is that her hair is that veil. Often Numbers 5:18 is brought into the picture. Hurley argues:


The suspected adulteress of Numbers 5:18 was accused of repudiating her relation to her husband by giving herself to another. As a sign of this, her hair, which was done up on her head, was let loose. The Hebrew word which is used to describe both the letting loose of the hair and being unveiled (פרע) is translated in the Greek Old Testament by akatakalyptos, the word which Paul uses for ‘uncovered.’ Could it be that Paul was not asking the Corinthian women to put on veils, but was asking them to continue wearing their hair in the distinctive fashion of women?


The statement from Hurley seems to imply that the LXX of Num 5:18 has ἀκατάκαλυπτος. If so, then Paul could possibly have been thinking of that text in 1 Cor 11. However, that term is not used in the Numbers text! Not much of a case can be made here based on the LXX’s use of this adjective. It only occurs in this one verse and that only in a textual variant Lev 13:45 in codex Ac; B has ἀκάλυπτος and A* has ἀκατάλυπτος). Further, BAGD (Bauer, Danker, Greek Dictionary) gives for the meaning of this word in 1 Cor 11 as uncovered, without even entertaining the possibility that it may mean to ‘let loose.’ This definition is based on the available Hellenistic and classical evidence. Thus, Hurley’s argument lacks sufficient basis.


From what I have been able to determine, פרע can mean either to uncover or to let down and the rendering seems to be pretty much divided among translators. While Hurley attempts to make the argument that the use of ἀκατακαλύπτῳ in the LXX version of Numbers 5:18 implies that this somehow broadens the meaning of ἀκατακαλύπτῳ, I think it is more likely that the LXX translator chose ἀκατακαλύπτῳ to reflect his understanding of the Hebrew text. It seems more likely that he selected ἀκατακαλύπτῳ which has a narrow definition of uncover or unveil to show that he understood the use of פרע to mean to uncover as opposed to let down.


III. Recap – Here is what we have seen.
A. The only argument offered in denial of an external head-covering is an appeal to the first century culture. As we have seen, this argument has absolutely no basis in history.
B. The argument for an external covering is supported by overwhelming internal support from the language of the text. If one appeals to history one can only do so in the complete absence of historical evidence. If one appeals to the cultural argument one will have do completely ignore the abundance of evidence from the language of the text to the contrary.

 

[oldhermit]

Part six

IV. Generalized Principles from this Chapter.

Why is the submission of the woman such a big deal? Why does Paul spend so much time stressing this particular issue in so many different places? Contrary to popular belief, these two texts are not the only ones where Paul addresses the submission of women in the Church. If this is such a small matter as some argue, why is so much time dedicated to it?

What we learn about the woman's place in this hierarchy of authority is that she is the ultimate symbol of the Church and its relationship to God. I think most women either overlook this or just simply do not appreciate the significance of the symbolism of the woman in the Church. They do not seem to appreciate the fact that this is a most honored position. The woman's position in relation to man is designed to reflect the relationship of the Church to Christ.

The woman is the feminine in her relationship to man and in just the same way, the Church is always represented as feminine in its relationship to Christ. She is the bride just as the Church is the bride. Just as the Church must always assume the position of submission to its head – Christ, so also must the woman always assume the position of subordination to her head – the man; and this is the only position she is permitted to occupy. Man represents God and woman represents the Church. Scripture reveals a number of ways in which this symbolism is reflected such as the covering of the head while praying or prophesying, being silent in the assembly, not assuming authority over the man, not presuming to teach or preach in the assembly, and being excluded from serving as elders. When the woman fails to honor any of this, she violates the symbol.

A. Ephesians 5:22-32 speaks volumes about the symbolism of the woman.
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (This emphasizes the degree to which she is to be in submission.) For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, (This establishes the symbolism.) He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”(And this is an unqualified statement that offers NO exceptions.)

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' (She is one with man just as the Church is one with Christ.) This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.”

Because the woman occupies such an honored position in her symbolism she is to be the recipient of tenderness, love, nurturing, supreme sacrifice (the husband must be willing to die for her). Her husband is to cherish her and regard her as holy, spotless, and blameless. When the man fails to do this, he dishonors the symbolism. This his how Christ honors the Church so, this is how the husband is to honor the wife.

 

[oldhermit]

Part severn

B. Timothy 2:9-15

1. “Likewise, women are to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.(A woman's beauty is not reflected in outward adornment but in her conduct, her behavior.) A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.”

Why is the woman to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness,” because of the symbolism, this is how the Church is to receive her instruction from the Lord – quietly, with entire submissiveness. The woman as the symbol of the Church must reflect this same attitude.
2. “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (How does she reflect the symbolism in this? Would the Church presume to instruct the Lord? Would the Church presume to exorcise authority over the Lord?) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” Restraint is to be self-imposed just as the Church is to exercise self-restraint in all things.

C. Titus 1:1-5
“Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.” Her behavior must reflect that of the Church of which she stands as a symbol.
D. Corinthians 11:3-12
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But 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. For 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. For 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. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.”
E. 1Corinthians 14:24-36,“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?”
1. This is a reciprocal relationship. This defines a relationship in which duties and obligations are owed by one individual to another and vice versa. A reciprocal contract is one in which both parties enter into a mutual agreement. Paul presents the hierarchy of authority in this way...


God
|
Christ
|
Man
|
Woman

The hierarchy of authority flows in only one direction with authority flowing from God down to man, (authority never flows from the bottom up,) and obligation being given upward from man to God. Our obligation to God in this relationship represents a reciprocal of status in which God stipulates the meaning of terms and assigns his own meaning to revealed symbols. This reciprocal is never reversed. Man is never allowed to occupy the status of the woman and the woman is never allowed to occupy the status of the man. This was reflected in the issue of the head covering and the wearing of long hair. It is also reflected in the teaching and remaining silent. Our current society has absolutely destroyed the meaning of the woman as a symbol. Popular rationalism and human experience insists that the assigned symbolism of the woman in the Church is out of date, sexist, archaic, chauvinistic and evil. This prohibition is deemed unnecessarily burdensome upon women. It is regarded as unreasonable and irrational. Submission to this divine prohibition involves an act of faith. Violation of it then is necessarily an act of faithlessness. Society has so deteriorated that it no longer recognizes the honored position of the woman. In fact, society has become so depraved that it doesn't even know which bathroom to use any more. Yet, they regard themselves as the enlightened ones.

By refusing to acknowledge the revealed status by refusing to be in submission, (which Paul says is exemplified here in her remaining silent in the assembly) violates this status. The woman is seen here as the terminus symbol. In this hierarchy of authority, she is the final link of symbolism which in reality represents the whole. When she refuses to render submission, she steps out of this reciprocal and out of revealed symbolism.
2. This status is stipulated by God who is the ultimate governing authority. God has designated the symbolism in this way...
Male/husband = “image and glory of God.”
Woman/wife = “glory of man.”
The argument from the Law show the timeless of this revealed principle. They are to “subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” Revealed principles never change and they are never overturned.
Paul uses the appointed stewardship of the gospel to reinforce the symbolism. “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?” If God had entrusted woman with the gospel, of if she alone had received, then would have changed all the rules. But, he did not. God did not entrust the word of God to woman, but to man. This has absolutely nothing to do with superior intelligence, abilities, talents, or skills. This is in keeping with the divinely established symbolism of both the man and the woman. For the woman to assume the role of the teacher or the preacher, she is refusing to acknowledge her assigned place in the revelation continuum. For the man surrender his place in this revelation continuum to the woman destroys the symbolism of the hierarchy of authority.
F. Resistance
DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE REVEALED MEANING OF SYMBOLS, not by personal preference nor by social norms. Revelation must be allowed to burden our behavior and this is not related to society or culture nor is it controlled by time.

The source of contention in verses 37-38 is not revelation. It is human reason that attempts to assign its own meaning to revealed symbols. “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is to be ignored.”

 

[Ihsomiet]

Mark Minnick on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Sermon Series)

This guy does a brilliant job explaining it Sola scriptura. Best place to start is with this guy first and foremost.

 

[Angela53510]

We do not earn or keep our salvation with head coverings! Anyone who think wearing a head cover in church, or having a certain length of hair is pleasing to God, has not read the whole Bible. And anyone who thinks they are sinning, (or women are sinning!) because they are not wearing a head covering in church, has missed the essence of this passage.

As JohnnyB said above, this is the only time head coverings are mentioned in the Bible. It is always a bad idea (to say nothing of bad hermeneutics) to make a doctrine out of one passage, esp. a confusing one, which adds "Because of the angels!" (Verse 11:10) I've read several commentaries on this, and no one really gets why Paul put this in. In fact, over 80 publications deal with this whole passage, and most of them come down soundly that these recommendations are cultural. If they were not cultural, then it should be found in other places in the Bible. But they are not! That is sound hermeneutics!

First, Corinth was not truly a Greek city. It looked to Roman cultural and social norms in the mid first century. Corinth had a huge preponderance of Latin inscriptions, over Greek in Paul's day. The social norms which the Corinthian culture aspired to, where those of Rome, rather than Greece.

Such historians as Horace (d 8 BC) tell us, on one side, that certain male attire or hair-styles were effeminate and overtly sexual, and appropriate head coverings for Roman women served as a protection of their dignity and status as women "not to be propositioned." Respectable Roman women did nothing to draw attention to themselves, a veil or hood constituted a warning: it signified that the wearer was a respectable woman and that no man dare approach her without risking penalties. In fact, a woman who went out unveiled forfeited the protection of Roman law against possible attackers who were entitled to plead extenuating circumstances! Shades of modern Saudi Arabia!

Several commentators say that the point behind Paul's instruction is "to signify that regardless of their status, under laws, they were untouchable for Christian men." (Roussell and Martin)

Public worship was neither the occasion for women to become "objects" of attraction to be "sized up" by men, nor an occasion for women to offer cryptic suggestions to men." Rousselle says the veil, for Romans "is a badge of honour, of sexual reserve and of mastery of the self." This theme of self discipline fits in well with what Paul writes in other places, making it a much more hermetically sound principle than this one reference to hair and/or hair coverings. Self discipline is a universal principle for all time.

Anthony C. Thiselton, in The First Epistle to the Corinthians, in The New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC) writes nearly 80 pages on 1 Cor. 11:2-16. He covers every aspect and nuance, including a huge Bibliography. It is an expensive book, but definitely a worth while, read, even if you do not understand Greek. He also digs into the issue of whether Paul is actually referring to head coverings or hair, and some rather dishonest translating in several places.

Suffice it to say, the specific issues addressed in this passage, are cultural. No one thinks in our society that women who do not wear veils or head coverings are sexually provocative. No one in our society is going to be attacked on the street, because she is not wearing a hat. In fact, we have a lot worse to worry about in our society, with short skirts, and revealing tops and bellies being accepted as normal.

So what is the universal principle to be taken away here? Women are not to dress in a sexually provocative manner. That women need to be respectful of what they are showing when they go out. That is not to say women are to blame for rapists and attackers. But, as Christian women we should seek to not offer our bodies as a temptation. Of course, that really differs even within Canada. When I lived in Edmonton, everyone wore long sleeves and covered their legs at least to the knees. But, it was cold, never got hot in summer, so that standard of dress worked. I arrived in southern BC, and everyone was wearing shorts and tank tops to church. I was shocked! I continued to wear my Edmonton clothes for a while. Then the temperatures went up and up and up. Ok, I still didn't uncover my shoulders, I guess I am a prude. But longer shorts, or light, longer dresses became a part of my wardrobe. Hard to believe the difference between two provinces, but climate made a big difference.

My point - be aware that this wearing of head coverings/long hair is a cultural thing, or it would be mentioned in many places. But do dress modestly. The fact is, no one in western culture thinks a women is immodest or provocative for not wearing a hat or veil. But there are parts of the body it is best to cover up, and to think about the meaning of modesty in the 21st century, and how we can best fulfill that universal principle, without becoming part of the culture, nor without offending people and making it seem like we are trying to recapture the RCC or the 1950's culture. (I do remember wearing a hat to church when I was 6, and having to wear a head covering while visiting my cousin's RCC church. Even the RCC has dropped that requirement to being saved!)

I can go deeper into the Greek, if anyone wants. I hope this is enough! Just post here or send me a pm if you want me to dig into the exegetics of the passage in Greek.

 

[Angela53510]

PS. I could not disagree more, Old Hermit! You are reflecting your church views, and not what the passage is actually saying.

Hermeneutics demands that "the plain meaning of the Text" first requires we reflect on WHO the passage was written to, WHEN the passage was written, WHERE the passage was written to, and WHY the passage was written.

This is part of a book which is dedicated to correcting error and problems in the Corinthian Church. It was written to a first century audience, in a Greek city with Roman social mores, and it was written to correct problems and errors. Part of that correction was to try and bring more Biblical values and insights to the Corinthian church. A part of that was instructing that congregation to shine by following the local culture standards. So the gospel could be preached!

The plain meaning of the text, is not that it was written to us, the Ephesians, the Galatians or the Thessalonians, among other cities. Paul was addressing a problem which was defaming the name of Christ. Respectable Romans (always remember Paul was a Roman citizen, and certainly understood the culture!) were probably not impressed with what was going on in the Corinthian church. And that hinders the spread of the gospel. So he told them to behave according to the customs of the day, where wearing veils or long hair were concerned.

There is no universal principle that can be applied to today, requiring women to wear hats, long hair or veils. I leave that nonsense to the cults! The universal principle is to respect your culture and be modest. It is really a joke to think that a veil can be a universal principle. The world has no idea what you mean if you are wearing a veil. A bit weird, maybe? In fact, I think it would be a detriment to the gospel, smacking too much of Muslim head coverings. All you have in church is a bunch of hijabs being worn. Where in the Bible does it say that God requires head coverings to be worn? (The Qur'an is very clear about that!)

There isn't a place in the Bible! But showing modesty and respect is always appropriate. That is the universal principle. You can post 20 long posts, and it still won't make you right. I'm not up to a long exegetical post right now. It is spring! I need to get into the garden. But, I will revisit this again. OH, you are preaching CoC doctrine, not the bible, despite your using verses which do not apply in any way, shape or form to the discussion on head coverings!

Such bondage and legalism!

 

[oldhermit]

PS. I could not disagree more, Old Hermit! You are reflecting your church views, and not what the passage is actually saying.

Hermeneutics demands that "the plain meaning of the Text" first requires we reflect on WHO the passage was written to, WHEN the passage was written, WHERE the passage was written to, and WHY the passage was written.

This is part of a book which is dedicated to correcting error and problems in the Corinthian Church. It was written to a first century audience, in a Greek city with Roman social mores, and it was written to correct problems and errors. Part of that correction was to try and bring more Biblical values and insights to the Corinthian church. A part of that was instructing that congregation to shine by following the local culture standards. So the gospel could be preached!

The plain meaning of the text, is not that it was written to us, the Ephesians, the Galatians or the Thessalonians, among other cities. Paul was addressing a problem which was defaming the name of Christ. Respectable Romans (always remember Paul was a Roman citizen, and certainly understood the culture!) were probably not impressed with what was going on in the Corinthian church. And that hinders the spread of the gospel. So he told them to behave according to the customs of the day, where wearing veils or long hair were concerned.

There is no universal principle that can be applied to today, requiring women to wear hats, long hair or veils. I leave that nonsense to the cults! The universal principle is to respect your culture and be modest. It is really a joke to think that a veil can be a universal principle. The world has no idea what you mean if you are wearing a veil. A bit weird, maybe? In fact, I think it would be a detriment to the gospel, smacking too much of Muslim head coverings. All you have in church is a bunch of hijabs being worn. Where in the Bible does it say that God requires head coverings to be worn? (The Qur'an is very clear about that!)

There isn't a place in the Bible! But showing modesty and respect is always appropriate. That is the universal principle. You can post 20 long posts, and it still won't make you right. I'm not up to a long exegetical post right now. It is spring! I need to get into the garden. But, I will revisit this again. OH, you are preaching CoC doctrine, not the bible, despite your using verses which do not apply in any way, shape or form to the discussion on head coverings!

Such bondage and legalism!

This is not what they believe where I attend.

 

[PrynceNY]

Christian women are not forced to wear them. There is no condemnation for those who choose not to.

 

[oldhermit]

This is not what they believe where I attend.

As a matter of fact, I have never in all of my travels encountered a CoC that either believes or practices this, although I have encounter the occasional individual from a number of different groups who believe this to be true. I do not care what the CoC believes. The has no bearing on what I believe or teach.

 

[DustyRhodes]

Please can anyone explain "head covering" in 1 Corinthians 11. Should women be covering their heads with scarves or referring to long hair? Are christian women required to keep her hair long as a covering?

let's put it this way..if you don't wear a hat and have short hair...those are not grounds for dismal from God's kingdom..God loves you, long hair, short hair or no hair...all you need to do is love Him and your neighbor as yourself

 

[garee]

Please can anyone explain "head covering" in 1 Corinthians 11. Should women be covering their heads with scarves or referring to long hair? Are christian women required to keep her hair long as a covering?

I would offer it is a two part ceremonial law in respect to the new government (Jew and Gentile) that came about because of the time reformation ( the veil was rent) the other part of that ceremonial law, the breaking of bread anticipates our wedding supper of the lamb which will be seen when we receive our new promised incorutible bodies. Both symbols are needed to help the believer to understand spiritual meanings of that parable. Christ hides the spiritual meaning (the gospel) from the lost but gives us as a Kingdom of Priests the honor to search out the parable. I beleive it can be veiwed in the parable below.

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

I think that oridance as a cerimoinal law of God is a picture or vision for us of the un-seen glory of God who has no form giving us a demonstration using that ceremonial law that is used when more than one private family assembles themselves together, as a way of establishing; the only glory to be revealed when families gather together is the unseen of God. We walk by faith and not by that seen, it is our living hope.

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.

There I believe it is informing as one body as His bride we cannot see our living head the Holy Spirit, called Christ who lives in us (Christ in us). We walk after that not seen.(us in Christ.)

Man as that seen represents Christ not seen. The visible head of a woman is represented as a man, and the head of Christ, the Holy Sprit of God

1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.


If he covers that which represents the unseen glory of God it gives dishonor to Christ our invisible head


1Co 11:5 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.

There I believe we can see that the woman is not left alone without a visual representation of the glory of God to use to show her desire to please God. She must cover that glory because the only glory to be seen is the glory of faith. And the same applies to man.

1Co 11:6 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.

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.

Woman is not the image of man .

The same ceremonial law applies to both the woman and the man it affects both.. The man is commanded not to cover his head, just as in the same way the woman is to cover the hair on her head.

I think the Nazrene vow was a foreshadow of this new government being established .