1 Corinthians 11:2-16
 

I wonder how people here understand 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 where Paul teaches that the women should cover their heads in church. Very few seem to take it to mean a literal covering over the head any more, many saying it just means that whatever your culture accepts as feminine appearance fulfills it, or a smaller group say long hair is the covering. Many ministries seem to ignore the passage altogether.

I did a pretty thorough study of it myself last year, consulting all sorts of sources, sermons and articles, and my own conclusion is that it means women should be covering our heads in church.

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

I think this verse ends all debate:

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

Why are people looking for something beyond that? This passage says long hair is a woman's covering - it doesn't say she needs anything else.

The Bible explains itself:

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

Why add a covering when the Bible already says that a woman's long hair is a glory to her and given her for a covering?

Oh many reasons why it isn't hair. First, if Paul had meant hair, he wouldn't have spent 15 verses to say it, and say it in such a roundabout way.

In context verse 15 is clearly meant to be an example from nature for why women should cover their heads.

Another reason is that women already wore their hair long so that wouldn't have been a problem in the church Paul would have needed to address. When he says "Does not even nature teach you" that long hair is a glory to a woman, obviously this implies that they already knew that and he is simply referring to this accepted fact as part of his argument why they should cover their hair.

Also, the hair IS described as a woman's glory, and in verses 7 to 10 Paul is giving the reason for women's covering the head as her being the glory of man while the man is the glory of Christ and is to leave his head uncovered. Human glory is not to be displayed because only Christ's glory is to be displayed.

Also, the Greek words translated "covering" happen to be different words with slightly different meanings. The one for hair as the covering is "parabolaion" which has a connotation of adornment, while the one Paul is exhorting women to wear is "katakalupto" which has the connotation of concealing. Paul is asking women to conceal their glory in worship.

Another reason from history is that the early church understood Paul to be requiring women to cover their heads. Tertullian writes about it, mostly complaining that most of the churches allowed what he considered to be too flimsy a covering, but making the point that in the Corinthian church of his day, to which Paul had written the exhortation, all the women covered their heads completely, his point being that they of all the churches should have understood what Paul meant best.

There are also drawings of praying Christian women in the catacombs of Rome in the 2nd and 3rd centuries showing them with their wraps pulled up over their heads.

It's also interesting, I think, that many of the churches that claim it means long hair nevertheless do not require women to have long hair.

Another reason that I think matters is that the NIV had a footnote to the passage giving an alternate reading that defined the hair as the covering Paul meant. I'd have to look that up to get it right. A later edition of the NIV retracted it, the editor saying he himself believed the covering was hair but that the passage itself couldn't be accurately translated to mean that.

Thought I'd add some references I used in my study last year in support of the head covering as something to be worn over the head and hair:

1. Mary Kassian, in her chapter on “Headship and Head Coverings,” in her book Women, Creation and the Fall, which is online at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, gently recommends, based on her understanding of the passage, that a head covering should be worn by women in church: http://www.cbmw.org/resources/books/...ation_fall.pdf Scroll down to Chapter 9, on page 92. [It's noteworthy that in coming to this conclusion she is in disagreement with the CBMW. They endorse the position that the head covering was simply a cultural form of feminine presentation in Paul's day for which we may substitute our own culture's symbols of femininity, argued on their site by Thomas Schreiner as a chapter in a major book of theirs -- I'd have to look the title up.]

2. This is “The Bible Researcher” Marlowe’s very thorough exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html

3. Another very thorough online discussion is by Bruce Terry: http://www.ovc.edu/terry/articles/headcovr.htm

4. Brian Schwertley has a lengthy sermon series on head coverings which can be heard at Sermon Audio.com. Very good discussion. This is a transcript of that sermon series: http://entrewave.com/view/reformedon...20Worship2.htm

5. Watchman Nee makes the simple point that “we should not frustrate God’s government by God’s grace” though his argument doesn’t remain quite that simple throughout. Scroll down to #84.
http://www.ministrybooks.org/watchman-nee-books.cfm

6. The first chapter of an online book on the subject by Tom Shank is at http://www.charityministries.org/book-veiled1.a5w I particularly appreciate his remark on the headcovering as a call to die to self, which is after all THE work of Christian life for all of us -- in Amy Carmichael’s words, “A chance to die.” (And this reminds me of the period in Amy Carmichael’s life when she was helping the poor women known as the “shawlies.” They couldn’t afford hats so pulled their shawls up over their heads while in church, showing that covering the head in church was expected.)

7. Historically Paul was understood by all the churches to require a cloth headcovering, which is demonstrated by the fact that women in the Christianized West covered their heads not only in church but at all times up until very recently, which made it specifically the custom of Christendom. David Bercot has a page of pictures of this specifically Christian custom. He has also made a CD on the subject. http://www.scrollpublishing.com/stor...g-history.html

As anyone who reads through the above references will find out, there are many confusing points of disagreement on subordinate elements of the argument that remain unresolved even among people who agree on the main points. There is nevertheless basic agreement on these main points, and once it is clear WHAT Paul is telling us to do, his subordinate points aren’t as much of a problem.

======

I also tracked down the NIV footnote I referred to in my post above. There are footnotes in both the NIV and the Living Bible that give an alternative translation identifying the covering as hair. The note in the NIV reads:

The note in the Living Bible has:

Spiros Zodhiates’ Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament has entries which make the same equation between the covering and the hair:

This equivalence between the covering and hair is merely asserted without evidence or explanation, as if it were an authoritative translation, although other sources give no hint of such an equivalence.

Eventually the NIV retracted it. In an article about a new (2002) translation of the NIV http://www.tniv.info/pdf/Blomberg.pdf, Craig L. Blomberg mentions (p. 16) that the footnote in the earlier edition is not in the new edition:

Zodhiates’ reference book and the Bible footnotes mentioned must have influenced countless Christians to believe that the headcovering is a woman’s hair.

The above is just part of what I wrote up of my conclusions from my study last year. There's lots more.

The Mary Kassian link above is truncated, and goes first to a list of publications, so you have to do a couple more clicks to get to the online book. I guess this system doesn't want to leave it whole.

The part that's left out is . . . onlinebooks/women_creation_fall.pdf

Why all this concern about a fleshly (carnal) observance? We are supposed to concern ourselves with spiritual matters we should be observing the "weightier matters" [Matthew 23:23] not some physical "requirement" that is open to debate.

Why dote ". . . . about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, . . ." 1Timothy 6:4-5

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."

I wonder Connie - Have you come here to learn or to "instruct" (teach)?

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

What do you suppose is more important for a woman - observing 1 Timothy 2:11-14 or 1 Corinthians 11:2-16? 1 Timothy2:11-14 is real clear (no ifs, ands, or buts). 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is open for debate (multiple understandings). I have never read Zodhiates in 50 years of being a Christian, I do however, believe that the "covering" is long hair - and my wife of 47 years has kept her hair hair waist length or longer all during our marriage (unlike most American Christian women).

However, I don't judge Christian women who "choose" to have short hair, neither do I condemn them - that's a matter of individual conscience between them and God. I would have something to say if they were in open sin - which is another matter altogether. [Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.]

I am no one's "master"; I have no "dominion" over another Christian's faith (2Corinthians 1:24); as a man and an elder I am called to pray, study, preach, teach, warn, admonish, reprove, and rebuke and that's the limit of my authority. But I do wonder why - why this emphasis on observances?

It's scripture, George. Your words above are judging what scripture says. Why all this concern about a fleshly observance, you ask? It's PAUL's "fleshly observance" if so, George. It is what PAUL, that is, GOD'S WORD, says. What he says is clearly about a PHYSICAL REQUIREMENT. Should I just decide that I can ignore the teachings not to dress elaborately (braid and decorate the hair etc), or dress modestly, that that's just too physical a thing to occupy myself with? Should it then not bother you if a man shows up in church with long hair or a hat on? Isn't that just a carnal preoccupation with physical stuff?

This isn't church, where a woman is required to be silent and listen. Paul didn't say I had to have nothing to say ever anywhere. There is no pastor over the proceedings here. This is a forum. I'm not setting myself up as an authority, I simply did a study last year about a part of scripture I had come to feel strongly about that it seems is neglected and misunderstood. Just as I believe you are misunderstanding it. If you won't consider it based on the facts I've assembled, maybe some of the male teachers at the links would be more persuasive. They're all men except Mary Kassian.

I'm only a woman but nobody else is saying this so I'm running it by people here and there to see if anyone will consider it. I've come to believe that there are many things that are contributing to the powerlessness of the churches these days, and they include the rejection of the headcovering which was practiced pretty universally in the churches until about the 60s. Yes, it sounds carnal, but it's there in the Word of God and after spending much time on it I don't see any other way to rightly understand it. (Even if you think it's preaching long hair, that's a carnal concern too by the way.) The use of the false Bible versions is another reason for the powerlessness. Pursuing that subject is what got me here.

That's OK, if I'm considered out of order here for having a strong opinion I can back up with evidence, I will desist.

Connie
 

Hi Connie,
Do you have long hair?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Connie do you understand english? maybe you don't and that is why you have to go to other languages.
In the next verse (16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. I rest my case. Connie, if you want to cover your head go for it. My Lord has blessed me with a beautiful head of hair (it is a lot thinner now but at 64 I can still sit on it. It is also salt and pepper colored. My Lord gave me a good covering, why should I cover it. I believe exactly what the bible says...her hair is given her for a covering. If you want to hide your glory, you may. We have no dominion over you.

I carefully prayed over all that, Renee, very carefully, and I wrote my answers to all of it based on my prayer and study. I only copied a small part of it here. You can be sure that I thoroughly considered your point of view, but obviously there is no point in getting too deep into this at this point.

My study involved listening to MANY sermons of godly men -- there are many on the subject at Sermon Audio.com. I also read many sermons and articles, a major one recommended by my pastor -- who doesn't agree with me OR you about the meaning of the passage. I no longer attend that church. The point is that I did not come to my conclusion based on some desire of my own; in fact I hate the idea of wearing something on my head and it's put me into quite a quandary. All that concerns me is being obedient to God.

I have medium length brown hair with some gray in it and I'm three years older than you and I did that study in a sincere desire to understand what God meant by it.

I simply believe your interpretation is a misreading of it. The majority of those I studied who do not agree with me nevertheless agree that Paul is not commanding long hair; he is saying that long hair is the natural covering given to a woman, which he presents as an argument for covering the head, one of his five or six arguments for covering the head in that passage (that's an awful lot of time and energy to put in on a subject if all he meant to say was women should wear their hair long.)

And covering the head is how it was understood throughout the Christian world until the last century, when it was thrown out mostly under the influence of feminism and the modern Bible versions. Perhaps that was not the influence on you but it has certainly been the influence on many.

I have not insulted anyone, but you insult me.

Sorry, I'm only two years older than you. I must be feeling old today.

Connie,

Your reply to my comments are instructive on why a woman should not be trying to instruct (teaching) men.

"It's scripture George". What kind of a lame answer is that? It doesn't say anything and it doesn't shed any light on the subject at hand. Again you say: "Your words above are judging what scripture says". I wasn't doing anything of the sort! You had 2 men that answered your question from the "scriptures" and you instantly went into a "pet" doctrine or belief of yours without even considering that either one of these men might have spent as much time studying the matter as you have (or maybe more).

I was trying to put the matter in perspective i.e. the importance of spiritual matters over against physical observances. [Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.]

I was trying to understand WHY you would ask this question, when you were all prepared to "instruct" us with your extensive studies. I simply pointed out what the scriptures say, nay command, about a woman teaching a man.

Let me be clear - if a woman comes to our church neither I nor my fellow elder-pastor have anything to say to her, as long as she conducts herself as befitting a Christian woman and dresses modestly. The same goes for any man that may come to our services. We don't get in their face about long hair, or beards, or manner of dress as long as they too conduct themselves as is befitting a Christian man and dresses modestly. (in Hawaii we don't have a "strict" dress code - people are not "required to "dress-up" to come to church).

As to your reply: "This isn't church, where a woman is required to be silent and listen." I don't see anywhere in 1 or 2 Timothy, or Titus for that matter, where these instructions and commandments about women - which were given to the men that were Paul's helpers, were limited to a Christian's conduct in church only - where is that? On the other hand, when Paul is instructing the church at Corinth, he clearly is talking about a woman's conduct in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Have you always "observed" this commandment from the Apostle Paul? Do most women in the Western world observe this commandment when in church? - I trow not! Am I going to go on a witch hunt and either condemn them or even try to convince them that they are sinning because they are not following the clear commandment of the Apostle Paul?

For you to "feel strongly" about this matter is one thing - but we Christians are not to go on our "feelings", we are to: 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. "Feelings" have nothing to do with the Truth!

In your posts you site: Tertullian; Mary Kassian; Marlowe; Brian Schwertley; Watchman Nee; Tom Shank; Amy Carmichael; and David Bercot as "authorities" (You even appeal to the "Greek"). In addition you make the assumption (based on the "authorities"?) that: "Historically Paul was understood by all the churches to require a cloth headcovering, which is demonstrated by the fact that women in the Christianized West covered their heads not only in church but at all times up until very recently, which made it specifically the custom of Christendom." When you talk abot "Christendom" or the "Christianized West" - are you referring to the Roman Catholic church? (We should be paying attention to the Catholic Church's practices and or observances? Are you serious?)

Thomas Schreiner and Spiros Zodhiates mean nothing to me. I don't follow men (or women for that matter). I look to God's words in the "scriptures of truth" for all matters of doctrine and faith. And the scriptures simply say: 1Corinthians 11:14 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. What part of this verse don't you understand? Her hair is her covering! You and all of your "authorities" can believe or "feel" whatever you want - but please don't give me: "I've come to believe that there are many things that are contributing to the powerlessness of the churches these days, and they include the rejection of the headcovering which was practiced pretty universally in the churches until about the 60s."

I got saved in 1958 and attended Plymouth Brethren, brethren, Independent Bible, Pentecostal, and Baptist churches in the time frame that you mention. None of the women in those churches wore "coverings" over their heads, with the exception of the Plymouth Brethren & brethren churches. (Some of us are old enough {ancient?} to know what took place in the distant past). Of course the Roman Catholic church has practised this for centuries.

Finally I would like to make a comparison between that which is essential (the spiritual) and that which is not essential (physical). There are 950 occurences of the word heart or hearts in 880 verses in our Bible. All of those verses refer to a heart (spiritual - not physical) with the exception of only 12-13 verses which refer to the physical heart; the heart of Egypt; the heart of the sea; the heart of the Earth, etc. WHY? Why are you hung-up on a head covering (approximately 16 verses), when there are many more spiritual matters in the scriptures that you should have a concern about?

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Ecclesiastes 9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

All of mankind (Men & Women) has a heart problem (even Christians - even me!)

Proverbs 5:12 And say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof;
Proverbs 8:5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
Proverbs 14:33 Wisdom resteth in the heart of him that hath understanding: but that which is in the midst of fools is made known.
Proverbs 18:15 The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.
Proverbs 23:12 Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.

Please notice: The Lord is talking about the heart of man (and women) not the mind!
Modern day Christianity is full of Sophists (Humanists - Psychiatry & Psychology) - people who have "knowledge"; who are always seeking solutions and answers with the mind only; but who have neglected the matters of the heart.

Real Bible knowledge, discernment, understanding, and wisdom comes from God - not man. We are to: "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11 NOTICE: David didn't say he hid God's word in his mind!

Proverbs 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Well, that just doesn't make any sense to me. Verse 15 says her hair is given her for a covering. All the history and sermons about women covering their heads with something besides their hair really isn't relevant to me, since the Bible says so clearly what a woman's covering is.

I'm not saying women can't cover their head if they want to. Honestly I don't really care what women other than my wife do.

Verse 13 says "judge in yourselves" and verse 14 says "nature itself teach you." I think it's a mistake to make legalistic rules out of such things, especially rules that add to what the Bible already laid out, as in verse 15.

Connie
 

Got your message. Aren't you glad the Lord will straighten us out when we get there? He will show us what the truth is and guess what, we aren't (neither of us) even going to say I told you so. I have set my heart in believing what God says and to the best of my ability to do it. My authority is God and He speaks to me through His word. I have not gone outside of the Bible, except for my husband, (which is biblical) for spiritual understanding. The matter is settled in my heart, my hair is my covering. I commend you on your hair length. Most women our age have hair above their ears.

I'm sorry people, I tend to get very intensely involved in issues like this that I think are important, but if nobody else is interested or willing to consider my point of view it's best to drop it.

To me to present a thought-out argument isn't "instructing," it's presenting it for others to think through. You'll either agree with it or not, but it would take time and thought to get into the issue. I didn't just toss off my study overnight. It took work.

Most of your post is preaching to the choir, George, that is, I agree with you, about Catholicism and your other generalizations, but I believe it's best not to discuss any of this any further.

I didn't mean to present my links as "authorities" by the way. I never heard of most of them before. I simply found their sermons or discussions and followed their line of argument myself and ended up thinking they were getting at the true meaning of the passage. It's not an easy passage to understand in our day unfortunately, it does take some time to get into it.

Let's be in the peace of Christ and consider this subject ended.

You're very right, Renee. The Lord reads the heart and whichever of us is right or wrong He knows we both are doing it to please Him.

Sister Connie,

I'm all for that, and I try to remember the "ministry" that God has given me.
2 Corinthians 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

But sometimes in my zeal for "sound doctrine" I may lose track of the "ministry" and forget to edify - if at all possible.
Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
1 Thessalonians 5:11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

George

Thank you, brother George, and I'll add that because I do get so caught up in things like this I really don't know what I'm supposed to do with them as a woman. Maybe I think too much. I guess I need to just leave it alone and let the Lord do anything if anything is to be done at all. I don't like the feeling of trying to persuade men about it, I just get into thinking, "Well but if I AM right about this, people have to know about it so I have to convince them by making the best possible case." But it's the Lord who has to lead, and I'm not letting Him lead when I do this.

I think I'm going to take a break from the internet and just pray for a while.

God bless.

Hi Connie,
The biggist lesson I get from 1Cor: 1-16 is that The Head of the man is Christ, The head of the woman is the man. When women reject this basic Bible principle it causes a lot of pain and discord in marriage, in the family, in the Church. I am thankful and blessed that My Lord has given me a faithful and spirit filled husband that I can look to for guidance.

"All His Works are done in truth"

This is the goal we have set for our lives, we want only to set forth The truth that God has for His people. Discernment and wisdom comes from God, not just age. When a matter is not clear to me, I find it best to read the verses in question over and over a lot of times. I have found that if the Lord wants you to know He will reveal it to you.

To me the head covering is a past subject but I just had to (like a woman) put my two cents in.

In Sisterly love,
Renee

you

Thanks for your two cents, Renee, and you know us women, now I have to answer with my two cents worth but I'll try to keep it from becoming more than that.

You and George are indeed blessed to have a marriage based in the word of God. Since I live alone, as I understand it, male headship means submitting to male leaders in appropriate positions over me in the church, and I suppose that also means accepting their judgment that the head covering is not for today when I'm in that kind of church (although my pastor told me I had to obey my conscience about this so I have to wear something on my head now).

I did read the passage over and over and as I read it Paul is not talking about marriage here or any kind of male-female relationship, but about how we are to appear in congregational worship. It's about how God wants His creation principle of male headship expressed in worship in the church assembly, in the sight of the witnessing angels, and that is by the man's keeping his head literally uncovered to honor Christ, and the woman literally covering hers, including covering her hair, to cover the glory of man and honor God's creation order. That also is apparently how the early church understood it.

(To George: In coming to this conclusion myself I'm in disagreement with a lot of well known evangelical preachers today, and liked the arguments of unknown writers and speakers more, so it's certainly not that I've been influenced by authorities. None of the well-known pastors and teachers believe Paul meant hair, however, or any of the older commentators like Matthew Henry or Jamieson Faussett and Brown or Calvin either.)

Your question was answered in the third reply connie. A simple verse in the Bible - A woman's hair is given as a covering.

Unless there are certain circumstances, such as cancer treatment, or another illness, women should really have no excuse to have a haircut like a man, or no hair at all. If you do, wear a covering at church until it grows long again, and don't cut it short like a man.

It's really quite simple. I realise the whole chapter is not about hair, but about the order of authority, but verse 15 cannot really be construed any other way.

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).

Paul may say some difficult things but he never says things in a purposely obscure way. If he meant hair he would not have gone on and on about a vague "covering." When he finally gets to hair it is merely to use the normal habit of women in wearing their hair long as an example for why they should cover it. Yes I understand there's something awkward about the way he uses it as an example but it's just absurd to think he wasted all those words just getting to the point of telling us to wear our hair long.

But the main reason he couldn't have meant hair is that WOMEN ALWAYS WORE THEIR HAIR LONG IN THOSE DAYS AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY until very recently. It was always a badge of shame or mourning for a woman to cut her hair. Clearly, Paul takes it for granted that women wear their hair long, and again, historically women always DID wear their hair long until the 20th century, so 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. The best you can make of it is that since he says that "by nature" women's hair is long, then we should be wearing it long, but that is not the covering he is commanding.

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.

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? Aren't we called to present ourselves "modestly" as opposed to showing off one's feminine assets and attractiveness? (I asked some people at another board once how they read this passage and it brought up stories about how their mothers and grandmothers had long hair but kept it pinned up or covered and never let it down for anyone to see it but their husbands in private!)

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.

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:

Paul is saying here that because the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is man, therefore in praying or prophesying the man must not have his head covered because that would dishonor Christ, and the woman must not have hers uncovered as that dishonors man and her position in God's order.

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.

People stumble over this all the time, but it seems clear to me that Paul is saying that if she will not cover her head she might as well be bald because her hair does NOT suffice as a covering. He is also implying that they will recognize that it is a shame for a woman to have her hair shorn, which makes it HIGHLY improbable that any women in the congregation cut their hair!

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.

Paul is adding reason to reason why women should cover our heads and men not cover theirs. The man is specifically the image and glory of God, but the woman the glory of man. So he is saying that the image of God should be on display, uncovered, but the glory of man should be covered in worship.

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.

This is another reason, a further explanation of God's order. Woman came from man, therefore man has the primary position as the image of God. Women are also the image of God but since they were taken out of man they primarily are the man's glory and Paul wants this recognized in the worship service.

10*For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

This is another reason. "Power on the head" is usually interpreted as the wearing of a covering as a symbol of being under the authority of a husband or male leadership.

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.

Here Paul seems to be concerned to nip any abusive male domination over women in the bud by reminding us of this basic equality of the sexes.

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.

Here he's appealing to their own sense of what is right and proper, maybe meaning their Spirit-taught sense. In any case he expects them to recognize that women by nature DO have long hair, so he can't possibly be commanding it.

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

Apparently some were objecting to having women cover their heads. Sounds a lot like today.

Then it must be surprising to you to hear that UNTIL THE LAST CENTURY OR SO the passage was understood by everyone to refer to an additional covering over the head and hair, which by the 20th century had degenerated to the habit of wearing a fashionable hat to church though everyone had forgotten why (and the emphasis on fashion probably defeated the purpose of the covering anyway) and that NOBODY read the passage as meaning long hair until that same time period.

You use broad generalities that history does not support - everyone, nobody. There may have been a lot of people that had your position, maybe not - but certainly not everybody - or all the commentaries would be saying what you say, and they don't.

OK, you're right, it's always better to moderate one's language about such things, but of everything I personally checked, all the commentaries I could find online at various Bible websites, also using search engines, also my own few commentaries, not one of them before the 20th century interpreted Paul as saying long hair was the covering. Not Calvin, not Matthew Henry, Not Jamieson Faussett and Brown.

I also researched whatever I could find online of customs throughout history and found others discussing it who showed picture after picture of women with their heads covered. I did my own independent investigation too and found women in Greece and Rome in the centuries about the time of Paul NOT covering their heads, but after the church was established you find women in Europe covering their heads. I can't remember an exception but that doesn't mean there weren't some. ALL OF THEM HAVE LONG HAIR, IN ALL THE PICTURES. The only one that didn't was the Greek character Electra, who cut her hair in mourning for her father. Otherwise there are no women with short hair. Greek women are usually shown with it piled up on their heads and held with a band.

Most current commentaries don't interpret the covering as hair either. I read or listened to all the high profile evangelicals on this I could find, John MacArthur and Alistair Begg and Chuck Smith and Ray Stedman and many lesser known names and the only one I found who said it was long hair was David Cloud. I appreciate David Cloud on most of his Biblical preaching but I disagree with him completely on this.

A footnote in the NIV and entries in the popular Zodhiates' word dictionary claim that it is hair, but both are highly suspect sources of anything whatever. Otherwise there is David Cloud and with all due respect, and I DO respect him greatly, he got this one wrong.

I don't agree with the big name evangelicals either except in their judgment that long hair isn't what Paul meant as the covering. These and most other commentaries I found, including Matthew Henry, understand Paul to have been asking for a covering over the head and hair but they see that requirement as a cultural expression of femininity or female submissiveness in Paul's day, for which today they say we can substitute whatever is the equivalent in our own culture. In effect this cultural interpretation has nullified the scripture altogether so that now it is mostly ignored, because there is no clear cultural substitute today. Women dress mostly according to female fashion and consider that as sufficient.

Does it make sense that Paul would argue as strenuously as he does in that passage from universals, from God's creation order, from nature, not knowing he's only talking about a mere custom? He was a cosmopolitan man; his travels took him to many cultures, and Corinth was in fact a large cosmopolitan city in which many different cultures were in evidence with their various customs and styles, Jews, Greeks, Romans, even Germans and possibly Arabs, and no doubt in the church as well. No, that is not a mistake Paul would have made. I also can't see Paul caring one fig for any cultural custom anyway; all Paul cares about is what honors Christ and cultures are not a reliable standard for that. .

Also, why would Paul spend so much time focusing on the HEAD, the man's head, the woman's head, if the appropriate symbol of male headship could be reduced to any old kind of feminine attire?

P.S. You are right that I'm writing in broad generalities, and on some specific points you may find me in error. But I believe the generalities hold up overall. I did a lot of studying to understand this passage and this was my overall conclusion. I personally found NO one interpreting the covering as hair until recently.

How am I not rightly dividing? There is no division here? Paul is speaking to the church, and I am living in the church age. It's not like he is speaking to Old Testament Israelites and their law based salvation. What he is saying applies to the Church age today, and it's very simple. Hair is a covering for a woman. Anything else is adding to scripture, and destroying the simplicity of scripture.

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.

Connie, may I ask, do you have short hair, and if so, why?

Let me add, however, that I also wasn't particularly focused on the long hair interpretation although I covered it in my study, because most commentators I first encountered, including my own pastor and his recommended sources, do not agree with that interpretation. The interpretation I most often encountered was the cultural interpretation so I spent most of my effort trying to find out how extensive that one is and where it got started. Even Matthew Henry seemed to think it's all about culture, and that really surprised me.

I answered that question back in the thread.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I see that you pick and choose your authority.

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.

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? :confused: