Are Christian women neglecting the command for head-coverings in church? Some consider this section of Scripture as completely cultural and identify all parts as the custom of contention (1 Cor 11:16). However, Christians cannot avoid that the apostle Paul commanded that Christians must maintain tradition just as delivered to them (1 Cor 11:2). Many believe that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that women must wear cloth coverings hanging over their heads when practicing their faith around men. The interpretations of this passage vary among believers concerning whether the covering is spiritual, garment, or hair. This study draws observations from the Scriptures with consideration of historical background.
Covering and Glory
Long hair is the only covering that Paul specifically mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11. However, some women may not have long hair and need another covering. The text reveals, “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor 11:15). Verses 6 and 7 use the Greek word katakalupto, which literally means “to cover downward” (Gingrich and Danker’s lexicon, BDAG). A woman’s head being uncovered was the same personal shame as having her hair sheared or shaved (1 Cor 11:4–6).
Starting from verse 4, this passage is about what will personally shame the woman’s head. Verse 5 indicates that a personal shame for a woman to shear or shave her head. As other scriptures explain, the woman who elaborately arranged her hair uncovered her head and disregarded her God-given glory and God’s headship. Having long hair is a God-given glory to the woman (1 Cor 11:15). The Scriptures teach that the Christian woman should cover her head in subordination to God’s order of headship and thereby glorify God, Christ, and man (1 Cor 11:3–6). God made male and female in His image and yet He has given each a different glory. “Woman is the glory of man” because man is the “glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7).
Humility, Modesty, and Hair
The woman who washed Jesus’s feet demonstrated how a woman letting her hair down was an act of humility (Luke 7:36–50; cf. Matt 28:9). Lazarus’s sister, Mary of Bethany, demonstrated humility by wiping Jesus’s feet with her hair and anointing him with oil in preparation for his burial (John 12:1–8). In the Journal of Biblical Literature, Charles Cosgrove cited numerous ancient sources depicting how women let their hair down as an act of humility within the Greco-Roman and Jewish societies.[1]
Both Paul and Peter instructed modesty and humility among women in 1 Corinthians 11. In 1 Peter 3:1–6, Peter also applied caution to the external decorating of hair and clothing where a woman’s adornment must exist within her heart. Peter explained, “Your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God” (1 Pet 3:3–4 NASB). The braiding of hair appears to mean putting up the hair against the head rather than hanging and covering the head. This practice of braiding with gold and peals demonstrated a lack of humility and modesty.
In Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Ferguson noted,
Portrait sculpture of the Flavian period gives specificity to the type of hairstyles and jewelry forbidden in 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3. The braiding of the hair was very elaborate and ostentatious, quite unlike the simple braid of modern times. The items mentioned in the biblical texts were characteristic of the wealthy upper classes and those who imitated them.[2]
God also instructed the Christian women in 1 Timothy 2:9–10, “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided [woven] 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.” The apostle Paul described elaborately adorned hair as immodest, insubordinate, and not proper for a woman’s claim to godliness. The immodest women in the church at Corinth most probably had put their hair up and probably elaborately adorned their hair woven with gold and pearls demonstrating immodesty, wealth, and authority that was not proper in the church.[3]
Headship and Head-Covering
By not letting their hair hang down, women dishonored God’s headship by dishonoring the man who is head of woman. This headship is not dominance of one over another, but this is like God’s headship to Christ and Christ’s headship to man. Headship implied servant leadership (Mark 10:42–45). Christ led by service, and so men are to lead women by service. By elaborately braiding and adorning hair with gold and pearls, women behaved or appeared as wealthy and immodest, and thus some women exercised authority over men. Thereby, they appeared to reject the man’s God-given instruction to lead and teach because God created man first for this purpose (1 Tim 2:13–14; cf. 1 Cor 11:3, 7–9).
In the Greco-Roman world, the custom for powerful women of authority was to braid their hair with gold and pearls and dress as though higher than others. Pagan women in this time led worship to Diana and Dionysus, and thus women exercised power and influence through the cults.[4] Among the churches, some women arranged and adorned their hair with gold and pearls, and they did not let their long hair hang down to show the God-given glory of woman and the glory of man in woman (1 Cor 11:7, 15). The apostles taught that a woman’s hair was to demonstrate modesty and humility to glorify her God-given glory of man and God’s headship. However, the shame of a woman cutting her hair short was her personal shame. The Greek word for this “shame” is kataischuno appearing in verses 4 and 5, and this word specifically refers to a personal shame or humiliation among people. This word also appears in 1 Corinthians 11:22 where those who partook of the Lord’s Supper without waiting for other Christians were trying to humiliate and shame them (cf. 1 Cor 1:27).
Custom and Contention
The context of 1 Corinthians 11 is that a Christian is not to offend another’s conscience with one’s liberty (1 Cor 10:23–33). The message is a matter of modesty between men and women under the headship of God and Christ. Christian women must display Godly principles of modesty and humility even in dress. Women are not to shame their heads with claims of authority or shame of cutting her hair short. These Scriptures guide Christians to present God’s headship as God is head of Christ, Christ is head of man, and man is head of woman. Christians should remain considerate of demonstrating humility and modesty.
Because of contention, the apostle Paul affirmed that the churches of God have no such custom of women praying with their heads uncovered (1 Cor 11:13–16). Christians must avoid contention over customs. In 1 Corinthians 11:13, Paul expressed, “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (NASB). The use of the word “proper” indicates whatever is for modesty and to respect authority. That same Greek word for “proper” also appears in 1 Timothy 2 to a related matter. In 1 Timothy 2:10, Paul revealed what is proper that Christian women are to adorn themselves with good works “as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.” The translators interpret “proper” from the Greek word prepo meaning “becoming,” “appropriate,” or “fitting” (Matt 3:15; Eph 5:3; Titus 2:1; Heb 2:10; 7:26). Therefore, these Christian women were to pray with their hair hanging to cover their heads as is proper and fitting for demonstrating the headship that God established. In this setting, these Christian women were to allow their hair to hang down in humility because long hair is a God-given covering and glory. In other words, women are to maintain feminine appearance especially in how they keep their hair.
Nature reveals that men and women differ in their pattern of hair. The apostle Paul exhorted, “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor 11:13–15). The apostle Paul observed that long hair for a man and cropped hair for a woman is a “disgrace” according to nature. Nature as God’s created order affects customs and culture despite society’s resistance.
Coffman’s Commentary
Furthermore, consider the insight of James B Coffman who comments upon a woman’s hair as her covering:
Verse 4
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
Having his head covered…
Here is where the misunderstanding of this passage begins. This clause, as rendered in the popular versions, is commentary, not Bible. As Echols noted:
“Having his head covered” is a commentary, not a translation. Lenski translated the sense correctly: “having something down from his head.” What the “something” is is neither stated nor implied in 1 Corinthians 11:4.
The logical understanding of this would refer it to “long hair,” being long enough to hang down from the head, as clearly indicated by the apostles’ words a moment later: “If a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him” (1 Corinthians 11:14).
The ancients accepted Paul’s dictum on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an infraction of Paul’s words.
“The hair of the head may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes … cropping is to be adopted … let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets.”
Significantly, the words “hang far down” strongly resemble Paul’s words “having something down from his head.” The above is from Clement of Alexandria and was written in the second century.[5]
However, some may ask about verses 5–6. These verses seem to imply that not covering with a garment is like a woman’s hair being sheared or shaved. Paul is simply affirming that short hair and hair drawn up on the head is the same as a cropped or shaved head. A literal translation is:
Every woman praying or prophesying with head uncovered disgraces her head; for this is also one and the same as being shaved. For if the woman is not covered, she must also become sheared; and if this is a disgrace to the woman to become sheared or shaved, she must remain covered. (1 Cor 11:5–6)
Coffman noted,
If Paul meant “hair,” why did he use the word “covered”? The answer is that in the vocabulary of the Old Testament “to uncover the head” was to shave off the hair. When Nadab and Abihu sinned (Leviticus 10:1ff), God commanded Aaron not to “uncover his head” in mourning at their death; and this meant not to cut off his hair (the customary sign of mourning). Job shaved his head when he learned his children were dead (Job 1:20). Many examples of this usage could be cited.[6]
“If it is a shame to a woman to be cropped or shaven, let her be covered” in verse 6 clearly refers to a covering of hair as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:15, “And if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her long hair is given to her for a covering.”
Because of the Angels
What about verse 10’s reference to angels: “because of the angels”? Verse 10 is referring to authority. This scripture shows how women should have authority on their heads. The woman who prophesies also receives revelation from God through angels to prophesy and angels also deliver prayers (Heb 2:2; Rev 1:1; 8:3–4). This instruction has to do with the woman’s service in prayer and teaching before God. She is to serve with apparent respect and modesty. Therefore, “every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Cor 11:5).
By not covering her head, the Christian woman dishonors herself being that God created her as the glory of man and in the image of God. Paul revealed, “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” (1 Cor 11:3). The woman is subordinating to the man by her modesty and covering. Her hair hanging down is her glory for she is the glory of man. This is how the Christian woman honors the headship of God, Christ, and man.
[Last edited June 28, 2021]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Charles Cosgrove, “A Woman’s Unbound Hair,” JBL 124 (2005): 675–92.
- Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 97.”
- Ferguson reported, “In which cultures in the first centuries women wore veils in public, in what numbers, and with what significance are not perfectly clear now. Jewish sources rather uniformly call for women to be veiled in public, but Greek and Roman sources are mixed in their evidence. In classical Greece the veil was worn outside the house by women who had reached sexual maturity — married and young women of marriageable age, and Jewish sources may be read the same way. In depictions in a Greek wedding, the bride lifts her veil to her husband. A Roman woman on her wedding day was a given a red veil. Statuary makes clear that the Greco-Roman veil was the top of the garment pulled over the head; one should not think of the modern Arabic and Islamic veil that covers most of the face as well as the head. In Roman religion the men as well as women were veiled when offering a sacrifice. The Jewish custom for men to cover their heads when praying and studying the law is later than New Testament times” (97).
- Bruce Morton, Deceiving Winds, (Nashville: 21st Century Christian, 2009).
- James Burton Coffman, “Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11.” Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, <www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/1-corinthians-11.html> (Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, TX) 1983-1999.
- Ibid.
- Coffman perceived, “With her head unveiled…
The word here rendered ‘unveiled’ is [Greek: akatakaluptos]. ‘There is no intrinsic meaning in this word which suggests either the covering material or the object covered; it is simply a general word.’ (See under 1 Corinthians 11:15.) Only in 1 Cor. 11:15 does Paul mention any kind of garment ([Greek: peribolaion]) and even there he stated that the woman’s hair took the place of it. [Katakaluptos] means covered completely. [Akatakaluptos] means not completely covered. Thus again, the passage falls short of mentioning any kind of garment. To suppose that Paul here meant ‘mantle’ or ‘veil’ or any such thing is to import into this text what is not in it. We have seen that he was speaking of ‘hair’ in 1 Cor. 11:4; and that is exactly what he is speaking of here. ‘Not completely covered’ would then refer to the disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian women in cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes; which, if they did it, was exactly the same kind of disgrace as if they had shaved their heads. It is crystal clear that Paul is not speaking of any kind of garment; because he said in 1 Cor. 11:15, below, ‘For her hair is given her instead of a covering.'”
The Breath of God 
Yes Coffman, I mismemorized his name. Haman Covered his head. that’s the point. the reason was momentary, because eof his defeat. The words are exactly the same as in 1Co 11:4. So, unless you can argue that on his way home Haman grew his hair to the length of female hair, this phrase cannot mean havong long hair.
The same is in the refernce of Plutarch, where the pharse “kata kephales” explicitly describes a man covering his head with a Toga.
As for Aaron: He wore a headdress as a priest, didn’t he? And of course here and there there were different customs to express mourning, but the point is: The phrase “kata kephales” means having the head covered and not long hair.
So Coffman is wrong in his assumption. Historic evidence points otherwise.
How does any of this change that hair is a covering to the woman in verse 15?
You seem to not get it. Well: If the covering is long hair, then the man being covered should read “Man may not have long hair during prayer and prophecy.” Coffman understood the significance of verse 4 and tried to harmonize it with his wrong understanding of verse 15. I dare to say wrong, because the way he treats verse 4 is in conflict with the historic understanding of “kata kephales”, which was NOT understood as long hair (nowhere and never) but as the head being covered (e.g. with a toga).
Verse 4 is important for this issue. Because 1Co 11 starts with the men. In 1st century Rome – and Corinth was a predominantly Roman City (!!) – men covered their heads with a toga when offering sacrifices in their temples. This applied even to the emperor himself. So men raised in a roman culture would naturally pull over their toga when coming to the Christian assembly fror prayer or prohecy. Paul says that this is not appropriate under the New Covenant (explaining from verse 3 the theological significance of this). 1Co 11:3 shows clearly that this is a New Testament symbol and not a cultural issue or even local custom.
Women – on the other hand – must be covered. As is also known from ancient sources, and this stands in conflict with many commentaries (ho did not take heed to history but obviously copied from one another), it was no scandal in most parts of the empire for a woman to be without a veil or head covering in public. In fact women spent a lot of time grooming an braiding their hair to show off their beauty. So that’s why long hair is the glory of women, because it is a natural desire of women to make themselves look attractive.
Having said this, understand that the whole symbol is about the glory of God. Why shall man NOT be covered? Because of the Glory of God, which alone may be visible during prayer and prophecy. Mark also, that this instruction of Paul is LIMITED to these times, it is not about our public appearance on the market place, at work or in the baseball park, but limited to prayer and prophecy (verse 17 and the whole context of ch 11 indicates the assembly).
Now think with me, please: Is having long hair limited to prayer and prophecy? No. But “Let her be covered” is an action word, a verb. There is something to be done when we come together for these two activities. Second: Long hair is the glory of the woman. So shall she be allowed to show off her beauty/glory while all should be focussed on the glory of God? By no means! The whole point of the covering is to cover all human glory and to uncover he glory of God!)
There is a last reason against these sufficient objections. I studied all historic sources from the first 500 years and a number of those beyond. The first 500 years are significant for two reasons: people still knew the ancient customs and people still spoke Koine Greek as their daily language. There is NOT ONE teacher in the church of Christ from those years who understood the covering to mean “long hair”.
Now if 20th century commentators bring forth this new theory, it is so obvious that a) they ignore history and b) do it in order to justify a new tradition. And when you side with them, you side with innovators, Scott. I will not.
I went back to this statement of Buffmann, after having listened to an excellent study on 1Co 11 again:
“‘Having his head covered’ is a commentary, not a translation. Lenski translated the sense correctly: ‘having something down from his head.’ What the ‘something’ is is neither stated nor implied in 1 Cor. 11:4. The logical understanding of this would refer it to ‘long hair,’ being long enough to hang down from the head, as clearly indicated by the apostles’ words a moment later: ‘If a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him’ (1 Corinthians 11:14).”
The same phrase “kata kephales” is found in the LXX of Est 6:12 (Brenton translation)
Est 6:12 And Mardochaeus returned to the palace: but Aman went home mourning, and having his head covered (= kata kephales).
So, what do you think? That (H)Aman’s hair suddenly grew to the length of female hair? Or that he put something on/over his head?
“A similar expression occurs in Plutarch (46-120 AD), where it is specifically stated that the head is covered with part of the toga (himation).” (from: https://bible.org/book/export/html/2820)
Now, from these ancient refenreces it is clear that this phrase did not mean “long hair”. Period. Buffman is wrong on this.
Are you talking about Coffman? So, Mardochaeus had short hair and he covered or hooded his head with a cloth? That is what would be expected of those without hair to cover one’s head with a garment.
The phrase included long hair as well as a garment covering. Coffman noted,
I agree with Lenski here: “A beautiful head of hair is the natural crown which God has given to a woman.” — The Interpretation of I Corinthians, p.440
Why cover such a covering as if long hair [hair without gold, pearls, etc.; See 1 Tim. 2:9] were either shameful or authoritative?
Why not rather *add* glory that’s clearly [throughout the Bible, as opposed to the *zero* mention of womens’ veils/shawls/etc] *authoritative* to “her head”, that is her *husband*, as verse 11:3 clearly indicates? More so to the married elders lacking hair glory.
Very true.
Rev. 19:10b”…for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” John 4:39 The woman at the well-“And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.” Acts 2:17 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God. I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,…”
Acts 21:9-Philip, the evangelist 4 virgin daughters-“And the same man had four daughter virgins, which did prophesy.” I Cor. 13:34″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. It states, “your women” and also it says, “as also saith the law.” I Cor. 14:31 “For ye may all prophesy…” It states, “all”. Silence is quietness. Sapphira spoke for herself when she answered the charges of Peter in the presence of the apostles and the church.
I Cor. 11:4 does state: “Every man… and verse 5 does state: “But every woman”
There is no doubt that the women prophesied, but not by openly speaking in the Assembly.
Silence means silence in 1 Corinthians 14:34. You thinking of another Greek word in 1 Timothy 2 where people are live in peaceful quietness, but not silence, and that word us used for the women to be peaceful quietness during all teaching.
I can have respect for those who advocate that the “woman” are to “keep silence in the churches” if that word was exclusively for women. The word in I Tim. 2:11-12 where it teaches, “Let the woman learn in silence…But I suffer not a woman to teach…but to be in silence” is the Greek word, hesuchia, which Young’s defines as quietness or stillness. The same word is used in Acts 22:2. “….when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence:…” The word is also found in II Thess. 3:12. There in verse 1 Paul is addressing the brethren and in verse 12 he states, “…that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” So there are just as many scriptures where that Greek word is used and it is used for brethren as many times as it is used for women. So it appears that in the church at Corinth the brethren were working with quietness where the women seemingly were out of order by being noisy. But it is an admirable trait expected and taught by the scriptures for both men and women.
Is not the Hebrew word, sheket, (which according to Young’s means rest, quietness) equivalent to the Greek word, hesuchia? If so, the word is found in I Chrons. 22:9 speaking of Solomon who “shall be a man of rest” and who would “give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.” So once again, one sees that quietness being administered to all of Israel both male and female. A similar word, shaqat, which in Hebrew means to cause to be quiet or at rest is found in Isa. 30:15. The Holy One of Israel states, “…in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength.” So again, quietness was to be a strength of Israel not just for the strength of the women but also for the men.
The Greek word sigao found in I Cor. 14:34 pertaining to women keep silence in the churches has been translated as silent on two (2) other occasions (Acts 15:12 and I Cor. 15:28). In all three (3) accounts there were exceptions and once those exceptions were lifted the parties could speak. For example, Acts 15:12 “All the multitude kept silence” to hear Barnabas and Saul speak. Once they were through, others spoke. I Cor. 14:28 concerning a man speaking in another language. “If there is no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church…” If there is an interpreter, that exception is lifted. He may speak. I Cor. 14:34 “Let your women keep silence in the churches” the exception is to be obedient to the law. The law of the land in Greek societies prohibited women from voting and having a voice in the ecclesia. Paul had earlier addressed the importance of being all things to all men that he “might by all means save some” in I Cor. 9:19-23. That exception has been lifted in the United States where the law of our land permits women to have a voice and a vote in our society. Sigao has also been translated four (4) times as “hold their peace.” Luke 20:26 The chief priest and scribes held their peace. Acts 12:17 Peter being released from prison came to a prayer meeting and told the mixed group to “hold their peace.” Acts 15:13 Barnabas and Paul having spoken while all others held their peace. I Cor. 14:30 “If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.” Sigao has been translated one (1) time as keep close. In Luke 9:36 on the Mount of Transfiguration the men present heard the voice say, “This is my beloved Son: hear him.” And the disciples “kept it close and told no man.” The same Greek word on one occasion has been translated as “kept secret”. Romans 16:25 Speaking of the mystery Paul says, “which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest…made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:…” So both Greek words sigao and hesuchia are applicable to both men and women and are never used in an absolute sense but were limited by their usage to the context in which they were presented.
I absolutely agree with your first word-study, but second one is very flawed. Sigao means absolute silence or complete peace (if you prefer like Thayers) in all 9 occurrences in the New Testament. Even in the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is referring to public speaking. Note 1 Cor. 14:28 and 30 teach complete silence while another is speaking.
As for “The law of the land in Greek societies prohibited women from voting and having a voice in the ecclesia”, this is not completely true. Search the leaders of pagan worship for Diana and Bacchus etc. Also, none of this is mentioned here. Also, voting was left to those enlisted in the militia, guard and, or military, who represented their houses.
Verse 15: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
Paul does not say, “the” covering. “…her hair is given her for a covering.” “The” would denote something already mentioned in the text that is, something already known from the context. The text says “a” covering not “the” covering something already mentioned.
The Greek word “peribolaoin” for covering (noun) in verse 15 is not an action verb like “katakalupto”-covered in verses 4, 6, and 7.
Verse 11 says man is the *image* and glory of God, while verse 12 says woman is the glory of man.
So Paul agrees that long hair on a woman is natural (from nature) and is a covering from man (Adam, but ultimately from God via Adam), but it is man’s hair *glorified* : able to be longer and look awesome.
But man needs something that is not only glorious, but representative of God’s image, which is another way of saying God’s authority. Gold is both glorious and authoritative. The Temple items were made or covered with gold. A man with gold has authority to make things happen. A gold crown is a glorious symbol of authority.
Now if you compare the similar passages pleading for a wife’s submission to her husband’s authority (1 Peter 3 and 1 Timothy 2) you’ll see that both Apostles forbade the woman from braiding her hair specifically with gold. But of course the man is nowhere prohibited from such expensive coverings. So a Christian woman showing off her God-via-man glory is very precious in the sight of God, angels, and man. And it also differentiates her from the short-haired feminists and domineering sex goddesses.
I did not know that short haired feminists was the subject. I have long hair. Your gold argument is utter hogwash!
The Lord’s Prayer is for his kingdom and his will, especially in the church by Christians who pray it, be done on earth as it is in heaven. Revelation 4:4: Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments and golden crowns on their heads.
This is getting 180 degrees away from the head covering. If everything is symbols, what are we to believe?
?
The instructions for building the Temple in the Old Testament were a *copy* of the one already in heaven. The temple in Jerusalem (and its city) was destroyed in a great long tribulation (ending the year 70), but there’s another temple in heaven. Rev 11:19: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.” Search for “temple” in Revelation and see it mentioned even past the occurrence in Revelation 16. The temple in heaven doesn’t go away until the future fulfillment of Revelation 21 when we get a new heaven, a new earth, and a new city called the New Jerusalem. Rev 21:22: “And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.” So the elders robed in white with golden crowns on their heads is a model for worship. (No, I don’t think elders must wear such outside of the worship service, but they are free to do so.) So when we pray that his kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven, Revelation describes what John saw and was inspired to make known to us, even about such things as what they wore (which I know seems weird to many church men that only wear suits and ties, and usually dark suits at that). We are told the saints waiting for the Lord to avenge their deaths were pacified for a little while by being clothed in *white* robes (Rev 6:11). My main point is that John — and no one in the Bible anywhere — ever mentioned a veil, shawl, or whatever else women wore on their own heads. But we repeatedly are told about crowns. What’s amazing to me is that the Greek word for head is used just like the English word: it can describe one’s own cranium or noggin, or the *authoritative* “head” of that person, which is what Paul does in his first three occurrences in verse 3. He even said “I want you to understand…” In other words, listen carefully to how I’m using the word translated “head” each time here. That’s a big clue to his subsequent uses, especially in verse 10 with he’s talking about symbolizing (showing or denoting) *authority*. Think: authority + heads = authoritative heads. And ask: What do we cover authoritative heads with that’s glorious like a woman’s hair, but also symbolizes or denotes authority? Do we have any biblical examples? Yes. And how about if we take the items prohibited to women’s hair by Paul and Peter — gold and pearls — and ask if they would fit the requirements for certain male authoritative heads.
Very true and much to consider.
Wow! I’ve been following this discussion silently all day, but I’ve got to speak up. I have seen some truth on both sides of this issue today. However, we have not done away with the head covering yet. Is the head covering “included” in the assembly? Well, Paul begins his discussion by mentioning ordinances in 1st Corinthians 11:2 and ends the discussion by referring to the practice of congregations (1st Cor. 11:16). Seriously, check out the NASV or ESV for they are clearer on the meaning of 1st Corinthians 11:16). I will admit that the word prophesying creates a difficulty. I agree with you Scott that women were not allowed to prophesy in the assembly (1st Cor. 14:34ff). Inspired prophesying has expired (1st Cor. 13:8-10). Some have suggested Paul was merely mirroring the language he used about the men to make a point about what the women were to do and not so much approving of them speaking in the assembly. Paul speaks of baptizing the dead and not taking the time to deal with the false practice in 1st Corinthians 15:29 because his main point was the resurrection of the dead. The Corinthians knew the truth on that matter of baptizing for the dead, and they would know the truth about women prophesying in the assembly. Paul may have been mirroring to make a point and we make too much out of it. But also consider, Paul uses the disjoining conjunction OR when mentioning praying or prophesying. The fact is “wherever” this takes place the woman is to cover her head. Praying certainly takes place in the assembly. There are those who wear the covering for home prayers and for the assembly. There are those who wear the covering only in the assembly. I don’t claim to have all of the answers. I do, however, believe in being safe. As a man, I would never wear a covering or hat on my head while participating in prayer or worship of any sort. Neither I will not wear long hair like a woman at any time. The principle I understand is that I would be dishonoring my head, who is Christ if I cover my head in prayer or worship (1st Cor. 11:3-4). I would also shame myself if I wore long hair (1st Cor. 11:14). Would any of you men do this? Will any of you men wear a hat and pray to God? I won’t do it because I respect and fear God.
Women who wear the covering respect and fear God because He said “Let her be covered.” Paul used nature and the observation of men’s short hair and women’s long hair (that is what he observed as normal) to reinforce his command for women to wear a covering while praying or prophesying. The assembly is certainly included.
One more remark for now: the imaginary covering is just not found in 1st Corinthians 11:3-16. God is not the imaginary head of Christ, nor Christ of man; so, man is not an imaginary head of the woman. The covering is not imaginary; it is real. It is an actual symbol of being under authority (cp. v.3). The angels apparently do observe and recognize the meaning behind the symbol (1st Cor. 11:10). Angels are not like God who can read the minds. They didn’t even understand the prophecies concerning when and where Christ would be born, according to Peter. (1st Peter 1:12). They do observe according to Paul (1st Cor. 4:9). What do they observe in most assemblies today? They see women with uncovered heads, thus, dishonoring the man. This is a fact we cannot escape.
“I would also shame myself if I wore long hair (1st Cor. 11:14).”
There are eleven occurrences of “head” after Paul’s triple headship usage in verse 3. Only three are “his head” rather than “her head”, and two are in verse 4. Here are its options:
Every man who prays or prophesies with…
…his own head covered dishonors his own head.
…his own head covered dishonors Christ.
…his own head covered dishonors his own head and Christ.
…Christ’s head covered dishonors his own head.
…Christ’s head covered dishonors Christ.
…Christ’s head covered dishonors his own head and Christ.
Since Christ is in Heaven, probably crowned, surrounded by men with crowns, I’m guessing the second option. The dishonoring is probably due to crowning *self* rather than crowning another or receiving a crown from a wife.
The other “his head” is in verse 7, and it is not ambiguous; it can only refer to his *own* head (cranium or noggin).
I continue Paul’s headship usage to make sense of verses 5 through 16 and find support for the wife placing the symbol of authority on her husband’s cranium in Proverbs 4, 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Peter 3. The interpretive possibilities of verse 4 are of little affect and no negation, especially since verse 5 appears to introduce not just a contrast in the case of the woman, but a conflict that overrides or more than makes up for verse 4. In other words, once the man is married and becomes an authoritative head over a particular woman, that woman should recognize the need to cover her authoritative head with a proper (manly, authoritative) covering. And especially, I might add, in the case of a husband who’s short-hair glory has been receding.
May we all stand prepared to face Christ in the judgment about this matter. We need to keep studying to be sure. To God be the glory.
Something I have noticed in this recent line of post is the assumption that the woman under discussion is only a married woman. This text applies to both married and unmarried women. Doesn’t both married women and single pray? The female is to cover her head in worship to show respect to her head whether that is the elders, a father, a brother, a husband or the men in general in the congregational context. Consider 1st Timothy 2:12, where Paul commands that a woman is not to usurp authority over the man. Paul does not say husband nor designate any particular man, but, the man in general. My point? So it would not be strange to understand that women are to cover their heads in worship so as not to dishonor the man. We must not confuse 1st Corinthians 11:3-10 with Ephesians 5:22-33.
Translations which never contextually translate gune [woman] as “wife” or aner [man] as “husband” need to consider Ephesians 5:22 (i.e., one husband is the head of his wife, and he is not the head of other submissive women/wives). The ESV does a pretty good job with this.
Again, what about the single women? Don’t they pray? Wouldn’t they wear a covering? This is not Ephesians 5. This is the woman and the man in general in worship and concerns man being the glory of God and woman being the glory of the man. Aren’t single men the glory of God also?
True, but wives are not the only women subordinating to men.
“This is getting 180 degrees away from the head covering. If everything is symbols, what are we to believe?”
The questions remain: cover whose head, and with what do we cover? Just because a gold shield on a firemen or police hat represents authority and can therefore also be called a “symbol of authority” (as verse 10 is oft translated), doesn’t mean we can’t believe a gold head covering such as a crown does a much better job than a cloth or veil or shawl or ladies’ hat.
I think you are losing people on the “crown”. I think what you are saying is that women are not to be adorned with gold in their hair (1 Tim. 2, 1 Pet. 3), and you find this to be taking authority and rejecting the headship of the man. For if this is what you mean, then I thank you and I will consider this in further study.
“Again, what about the single women?”
They don’t need covered, and neither do single men. Look at Paul’s first three uses of head (v3). Paul’s only talking about the cases when there’s a hierarchal head to that woman (wife) that isn’t covered such to visibly affirm her submission to his authority. The single women should submit more directly to the (hopefully married) elders and overseers (who should probably have more glorious coverings than just husbands).
What do you mean by “in worship”? Do you mean in the Assembly? Since all our goods deeds are sacrifices, these would be our worship in and out of the Assembly (Heb. 13:15-16, cf. 12:28, 1 Pet. 2:5).
Otherwise, I agree with you that this is not just about the husband, but all Christian men as noted in other passages as you mentioned. For instance, a father is to keep his virgin in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38.
Look up other translations of the word for “usurp authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12. The one acting in authority was the women, who is wrong for ruling over the man.
Thanks Scott. Wow, this discussion really got going yesterday. My phone has internet and it was going off every few minutes there for awhile. Of course, I’m not going to respond to each post. All I can say for now is good comments. This is healthy discussion.
We usually stop at verse 16. But verse 17 is the link to the assembly. “1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.” The Greek is clear: “Τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων ” – “Now, in enjoining/commanding this (not: the following) …” So Paul is referreing to what he just said and leads over to the issue of division an the Lord’s Supper. From this it is undeniable that 1Co 11:2-16 is about the assembly. This has some consequences: How are we to understand 1Co 14:34 then? I see two ways and am not 100% sure which one is more to the point:
a) the silence in 1Co 14:34 needs to be understood in the light of 1Ti 2:12 (it only means teaching and usurping authority)
b) considering the way Christians assembled, the meeting had two parts: A time of fellowship, prayer and mutual edification around the Lord’s Supper (a full meal), followed by waht the Greeks would have called a “symposion”, a time of extended teaching, led by the men and elders of the church
Either way: the head covering is in the context of the assembly.
so then the principle of head coverings do not apply outside of the church setting? that would be interesting to note since “the church” is not a building, nor is a “church service” the church is a collective body of believers who form the spiritual body of Christ of which Christ is the spiritual head, and my point is outside of us coming together for corporate worship the same principles should apply regardless of setting, since the principle of head covering is symbolic in nature to signify to the world a spiritual truth to the believers and the world.
Amen. I agree. This must be applied consistently.
Scott, waht seem to overlook is the significance of Verse 17. The tense Prenstent Tense Participle speaks of what Paul is in the orcess of doing all the time: Commanding/enjoining the head Covering. And here it is clear, that – although in the beginning he praised them (verse2) – he takes back some of the praise. So verse 17 actually links back tio verse two, and verse speaks of handed down traditions in the Plural, thus becoming an introductory verse for two topics that apply to the same setting: Headcovering and the Lord’s Supper.
So, if we two cannot agree on this simple reading, how can this be solved? I constantly reminded you to take a sincere look at church history. There was a continuous practice in all churches and denominations we have records of from the 2nd century AD up to present days. It was unanimously understood that this passage applies to the assembly. 1950 years cannot be brushed aside by some new interpretation that is unprecedented. When we believe in obeying commands and approved (!) precedents, then here we have both. BTW a number of the questions discussed here are dealt with in some detail on this new website: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com – I am very encouraged by this initiative.
I cannot accept any of this. This is flawed in its foundation. First Corinthians 11:17 is including the previous section within the Assembly. First Corinthians 14:34 is a complete silence as any word-study will reveal. This silence is for “speaking” openly before all. This does not exclude singing. You are right that the peaceful quietness of 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a complete silence, but this passage is also not in the context of only the Assembly. These include all occasions of teaching together. Women are not to teach or rule over men, and therefore they cannot speak in the Assembly for all to learn and teach over men. For men were created first (1 Tim. 2:13). Remember 1 Corinthians 14:31, “For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.” Thus women were not to speak in this way (1 Cor. 14:34).
@ Clyde: Text is about the assembly, i.e. the coming together of the saints. There were no church bildings until the 3rd century, the setting was house-churches. That’s one of the things we have to keep in mind when studying the scriptures: Don’t read back 21st century church life into 1st century epistles.
It may not appear by my written word, but I write these things with great respect, kindness, and passion for you and all.
Abasnar, you would have hard time showing house-churches since these are inferred. Rather these Christians met in upper-rooms or “guest rooms” as Luke’s Gospel says in Greek. These rooms were for feasts like the Passover when Jesus met with His disciples (Luke 22), and the disciples waited there for the power of the Spirit (Acts 2). Also, do not forget that “synagogue” is Greek literally meaning place of “gathering together”, and church buildings are exactly that. James said in 2:2 that the Christians he wrote met in “synagogues” (ASV 1901 & Greek). All of them did. Also, Hebrews 10:25 uses a noun form of synagogue for “the Assembly”. The Corinthian church more likely met in a synagogue as those converted consisted of the director of the synagogue, Crispus’ family, and the Justus whose house was connected to the synagogue (Acts 18:7-8). First Corinthians 16 gives us the impression of quite a large congregation. I hope you will keep these in mind when considering the 1st century epistles. :-)
Come on, Scott! That the early church met in private houses, and the upper room was in a private house, is a generally accepted historical and biblical fact. You’d had a much harder time to argue for pews and pulpits …
But as a methodological remark: You must take into consideration the testimony of the Early Church when studying topics like these. If not, you most likely will come to wrong conclusions because then you either guess about the hows, whens and wheres or you read our 21st century practica back into the NT. Both leads to sometimes serious misunderstandings.
“What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (1 Cor. 11:22). Referring to an upper-room and guestroom as a “private house” is like calling a bed and breakfast a “private house”. The upper-room held 120 in Acts 2:12-15. Luke 22:11-12 describes a “large furnished upper-room” as a “lodging place”, which is the same Greek word for the “inn” (Luke 2:7). This is also where they had a preparation and mourning for the dead (Acts 9:36-42).
Yet, what is the church in one’s house mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:19? Did Priscilla and Aquila not house other Christians like Paul (Acts 18:2-3)? Did not the wealthy Philemon hospitably house members of the Church too including Paul (Phile. 2, 22)? What we do know about disciples meeting in houses is that they prayed together outside of the Assembly (Acts 12:12), ate together in houses (Acts 2:46), and were evangelizing and teaching house to house in contrast to teaching openly before all (Acts 20:20).
It is strange that you do not recognize these scriptures or mention their meeting in synagogues, and promote garment head-coverings for “worship”, and yet 1 Corinthians 11 is about women praying and prophesying outside of the Assembly and their covering was ideally their hair.
In all of this peculiarity, you have yet to affirm your position with scripture and, or historical sources.
So Scott, will you sing hymns using a mechanical instrument of music is your house? I think we can see a distinction in the practice of worship and the activities that go on in a home.
No. I would not sing hymns with musical instruments in the Assembly or my home. I do not understand what your point would be.
I agree Abasnar, some of the arguments have gone south and don’t seem serious. It does seem that the early church and basically all the churches, regardless of split off, practiced women covering their heads up until about 75 years ago or so. What changed? Point being that this taps back to the first century and the Christian tradition they understood got passed down like great, great, great…grandma’s recipe for biscuits. Sorry for the comparison, but it does lend commentary to their practice. It was not just a local custom, the hair, the inspired people only and it was not an imaginary crown! However, the Scriptures are our final authority.
Where is the history recording that every woman had their heads covered in the assemblies more than 75 years ago?
One hundred and fifty years ago, David Lipscomb was addressing this very subject saying, “I understand that long hair serves as a veil or token of her subjection to authority; and if she has not long hair, she must cover her head when she approaches God in worship. I understand this to refer to her approach to God in private or in public assembly when others lead in worship. Many interpret this to mean that she is to do these things when she leads in public worship, but the Scripture says nothing of this” (Q & A). In the context of understanding the covering as hair, Lipscomb concluded this statement, “We understand verse 16 to say that the churches of God have no such custom as the women appearing in worship with uncovered or shorn heads.”
Looking over the comments. This is an excellent and insightful point.
Question then, a woman that prays and prophesies without a head covering dishonors God, then may I ask if anyone here believes that a woman dishonors God when she is lying in on her sickbed suffering from cancer and has lost all of her hair and cannot put anything on her head for medical reasons, but is nonetheless praying to God, that woman dishonors God because her head is uncovered? or a sinner pray God unto salvation without a head covering dishonors God? or are we going to exclude this being necessary before salvation because some might offer the argument that the experts of the Law of Jesus’s time that suggested that God does not hear the prayers of a sinner. Further, can someone here explain to me prophecy in this context, because according to Rev. 19v10 the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, and we as believers are in Christ.
What about daily life? Is man to go without a covering all the time? Can he wear a hat to keep the sun rays off of him? Of course, he can.
What about the verse, “pray without ceasing.”? We are to always have a prayerful attitude. If a man can wear a hat outside of the worship service, then a woman can take off her covering outside of worship, also. However, just as there is proper decorum in a court room, there is proper decorum (propriety) in worship. The church is an executive body here on this earth. The saints shall judge the world. Saints, being those who have had a born again experience. We are the salt of the earth.
What do you mean by “worship service” and “outside of worship”? Do you mean the Assembly?
This passage isn’t about woman covering her head of hair, but her head hierarchically, which verse 3 indicates is clearly her husband. So it’s not about submissive head cloths or veils or hats for women, but a symbol of *authority* that a wife places on her husband. Please see the link to my essay on my previous post (above).
Since the woman is the glory of the man rather than the glory of God, the head covered is a symbol of authority to the angels of her right to communicate with God or prophesy in public worship.
The key verse is 10: That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
If you look at verse 3, Paul wants us to understand that her “head” is her husband.
If you look up the word translated “authority” in the Greek, one of the stated definitions is a crown. The only reason that a veil or shawl may also be listed is because it was added *after* a common misunderstanding of this very verse by Christians.
“Some manuscripts of the ancient Coptic and Latin versions even have “headcovering” here instead of “authority,” and the verse is quoted “ought to have a covering on her head” by several patristic writers (Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine). Likewise, nearly all modern commentators. For example, A.T. Robertson: “He means semeion exousias (symbol of authority) by exousian, but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman’s head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her. It is, as we see it, more a sign of subjection (hypotages, 1 Tim 2:10) than of authority (exousias)” —Word Pictures in the New Testament (1933), ad loc. Recently some egalitarian authors have tried to combat the “sexist” implications by arguing that ἐξουσίαν here refers to the woman’s own authority to prophesy (see W. Gerald Kendrick, “Authority, Women, and Angels: Translating 1 Corinthians 11:10,” The Bible Translator 46 [July 1995], p. 337). Taken by itself, in isolation from the context, Paul’s phrase “a woman should have authority on her head” would naturally be understood as referring to the woman’s own authority, permission, or liberty. So in a sense William Ramsay is right when he says, “[the idea] that the ‘authority’ which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject [is] a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the New Testament, where (as they seem to think) Greek words may mean anything that commentators choose.” (The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influences on his Life and Thought [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907], p. 203.)”
What are your references showing that exousia refers to a “crown”?
“What are your references showing that exousia refers to a “crown”?”
Thayer’s definition 4: “the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)”
4h: “the sign of regal authority, a crown”
Thayer must also use sources to prove his point, or I am not going to take his word for it. His lexicon is an excellent affirmation of one’s own word-study.
I was thinking that you may have verses or ancient sources supporting this. Yet, if you did have that source, it is the not the first definition and thus the context must lead us to the interpretation of “crown” rather than the general definition of “authority”. I urge you stay with the word “authority”, because I do not see the reference to a crown making your case any better. I think your point is by connecting the adorning of hair in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Pet. 3 to 1 Cor. 11’s hair for a covering. :-)
Amen!
Michael, Alexander, Scott, and all,
Yes, thank you for the opportunity to share online and secondly, yes, I also pondered over these scriptures for over 40 years. I heard a sermon as a teenager on this chapter that perplexed me on the subject. With our daughter just out of college going to Germany in a few days to share her testimony of salvation, the Lord laid it upon my heart to write down in the form of a letter to her what I Corinthians 11:2-16 means. At first my flesh was not comfortable with what I learned, but I am persuaded that a woman covering her head if she prays or prophesies and a man having his head uncovered in worship is pleasing unto the Lord. Certainly everyone is welcome to come as they are. Each person has free will. However, I do not want my will but the Lord’s will that is, I want His glory to be seen. He is my Redeemer. To Him be all glory and honor forever and ever!
Mary, I appreciate you following this post. The comments made yesterday and today should be very clear to everyone.
Michael,
It is my pleasure. I appreciate you! Yes, I agree. I wonder sometimes if we simply taught and practiced head coverings what other issues might automatically be resolved. Would girls/women reared in homes that taught head coverings run around “half way naked”, so to speak? Just a comment for thought-I’m not asking for an answer–just an interesting thought to me. I know once I visited a church where a man in shorts and flip flops came in to the door about the time I did-it seemed as if my head covered made him want to cover up—don’t know for sure, but he seemed uneasy. Anyway, every time I wear a head covering it makes me personally take inventory-it is a reverence that I cannot explain- an awe of my God. It starts my week off in a glorious/wonderful way. Everything in God’s Word is written for our own good. If only we all diligently studied and listened to His Word. Our God is so gracious!
and while we debate this insignificant passage that is mostly mis-interepeted to appease those who seek to live under bondage in the new testament, souls are out there waiting to be saved. or did we forget our mandate?
II Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
I being the weaker vessel do not want to offend the angels. I need their ministering and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have ministered to me. Whether or not one wants to do what I Cor. 11:2-16 teaches us is up to each individual. Sanctification is a continual process.
Our daughter is going to Berlin, Germany for two years to minister to prostitutes as well as others in that city. Yes, lost souls are waiting to be saved. I have not forgotten the “mandate”. We are in the process of building two bedroom apartments for any prostitute that wants refuge in the United States or whatever we can do to help those in Germany or anyone who needs help. May God save many souls while missionaries work in Berlin to help those who are “trapped” in the sex trade as well as all others that God’s people (including me) come in contact with on a daily basis.
May God bless your works of faith. Our modesty must represent our sanctification.
I am a member of the assemblies of God and we do not lend support to this teaching, however, we do not discourage any woman who chooses to follow this practice, I m a pastor and I have this issue to face in our local assembly where some members have followed this custom in their old church and are seeking to continue with us. I am teaching them the distinction between what they believe, and what we do, because I emphasize the point that if it is a personal choice to follow this teaching, please do understand that as a body, we do not support it, and at the same time we will not discourage someone from exercising their faith in what they believe. We can agree to disagree on this but if you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he came, died, and rose again from the dead for our sins, and that he will return again for the church that he purchased with his precious blood, then we understand that this is bigger than our differences on the smaller issues.
pastor Bahamas
That is the same among us.
thanks. what denomination are you may I ask Scott?
No denomination. I am just a Christian among the churches of Christ Jesus.
I Timothy 2:9 Modesty is a woman’s adornment. II Peter 1 is a great chapter with regard to sanctification (growing in holiness). Thank you! Yes, may the Lord bless the work in Germany and all around the world. We need our Lord more than ever…it is my responsibility as a born again child of God as well as other born again believers to humble ourselves, pray, and seek his face and turn from our wicked ways, then will our God hear from heaven, forgive our sins, and heal our land.
Blessings!
When people do not like a doctrine this is the stock reply. We must remember that not only did Jesus say go, teach the gospel and make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but, “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19,20). What the apostles taught was what the Holy Spirit told them to teach (John 16:13). What the apostles taught are therefore the “commandments of the Lord” (1st Corinthians 14:37). I would never say that any doctrine or teaching of the apostles (which comes from Jesus and the Holy Spirit) is insignificant. Would anyone call the Lord’s Supper an insignificant smaller teaching? Of course not! But people do not like the covering doctrine and therefore call it small and insignificant. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…” ((2 Tim. 3:16).
Amen!
Sanctification i.e., growing in holiness is well stated in II Peter 1…”giving all diligence, add to your faith, virtue (moral excellence), and to your virtue knowledge: And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience: and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: For if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:…”
Blessings!
No one said any of this teaching was insignificant. This scripture is speaking of women having their heads covered, who pray and prophesy in the presence of other Christian men. The doctrine and God’s tradition is to observe the custom of the churches regarding covering the head with hair or garment unless this custom is contentious. Keep this study in context of 1 Corinthians 11:16, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” There is no reason for doctrinal contention here.
Clyde said, “and while we debate this insignificant passage…”
Verse 16: We have no such custom as the participation by praying or prophesying of uncovered women in public worship. The no such custom is the custom discussed in the text with disapproval. We have no such custom as the one who wants to be contentious is trying to introduce and neither have the churches of God. In other words, he who contends that men pray with covered heads and women pray with uncovered heads are alone in so doing. No apostle or church of God had such teaching.
I Cor. 10:31b “…whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”
Numbers 20:10b “…must we fetch you water out of this rock?” Moses used the word “we”. All is to be to the glory of God, not to the glory of “we”, the “woman”, or the “man”. Long hair is a glory to the woman. The woman is the glory of man. Man is the image and glory of God. Only God’s glory is to be seen during worship.
Mary, you beat me to commenting, but I couldn’t have said it better. I will however comment further: Yes, Clyde did use the word insignificant. Yes, there is a custom discussed in 1st Corinthians 11:2-16, but most people have the whole thing backward. I had it backward for 30 years and finally got it! The custom Paul is correcting is not the custom of the apostles or the churches, but the custom of the “contentious one.” It must be understood that one who disagrees with Paul about men not covering their head in prayer and women covering their head in prayer is the contentious man and that he is wrong. Paul did not correct the error, make commands for the covering and give theological reasons from the creation order to bringing glory to God, only to take it all back if someone is contentious! They have already been contentious for not following the ordinance of the head covering taught by the apostles and practiced by the churches. Paul is merely finishing his arguments by letting them know that the apostles and the other churches don’t have a custom like that set forth by the contentious man. We must remember that the apostles taught the “same thing” every where in every church (1st Cor. 4:16,17). What the apostles wrote “…are the commandments of the Lord” (1st Cor. 14:37). It would benefit the reader of this series of posts on the covering to compare the way other translations translate 1st Corinthians 11:16. Check out the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, even the New International Version or English Standard Version, which are clearer than the King James Version here. They point out that the apostles and the church of God have no other practice than what Paul has set forth for the Corinthians to follow. And what is that practice? Men should not cover their heads in worship, but women should cover their heads (1st Cor. 11:3-10). People may not like the idea, but it’s what is being taught here. I used to not like it and I didn’t believe it, but I have changed my mind because I can’t see the apostle Paul backing down from a contentious man after giving so much detail about why a woman should cover her head in prayer. This is worthy to consider, dear reader. As a side note: thank you my brother for allowing this discussion on your web site. There are so many out there that are so afraid of this portion of God’s Word they don’t want it even read publically or brought up in Bible classes. I go over to a congregation in Mississippi on a rotation with out preachers where I have been told this very thing–don’t write about or bring it up. What would Paul have to say about that? Would he say, “Well, if you are contentious about it I’ll just change my mind and not bring it up.” I seriously don’t think so.
Well said, brother! It is good to see now that more joined the debate here in order to set something straight that has been neglected or misread for aout 50 years now, with results we actually would regret (looking at the larger body of Christians).
I cannot honestly see it any other way. The hair argument, custom argument and the inspired people only argument (which would be the best argument, but cannot be proven) all fall short. The safe course is to do what Paul teaches and not provide excuses that cannot be proven. Thanks for your comment, Alexander.
What is this about women covering their heads in worship? Cannot they not pray at home and before women and children without a covering?
Am I wrong but 1 Corinthians 11 is talking about women praying and prophesying? This is not in the Assembly. There is no mention of the Assembly. Women are not to speak openly in the Assembly not even to speak by praying or prophesying in the Assembly (1 Cor. 14:15, 31, 34).
Then it follows that all women should be completely covered. But Paul’s point isn’t to (attempt to) hide anyone from God’s sight, but to show submission to visible authoritative glory (which husbands don’t naturally have) especially while women with naturally glorious hair are speaking gloriously in the church. Please see my essay: https://www.facebook.com/notes/charles-franklin-bernard/head-covering-coronation-a-symbol-of-authority-a-wife-lays-on-her-husband/10150603632407506 (No account necessary to view)
Did I say something wrong? Because, the custom of verse 16 is the covering in verse 13. I do not know what you mean by “during worship”, but women are to pray or prophesy before men, but this is not in the Assembly (1 Cor. 14:34, cf. v.15, 31).
Scott,
Your reply, “…the custom of verse 16 is the covering in verse 13.”
Verse 16: “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
Such does not mean “any”. Such is a term of comparison referring to something previously discussed. The discussion is about the correction that begins in verse 3 with the word “But”.
I do not see the word “any” in verse 13. Paul says judge what is “proper” regarding women praying with their heads uncovered. Paul recognizes the covering of the hair in verses 14 and 15, and then he says if any is contentious, we have no such custom in verse 16. In these verses, there is only one custom mentioned and that is the custom of the woman covering her head while praying.
In verse 5 if “uncovered” means “not having long hair” then verses 5 and 6 do not make sense. If “uncovered” means “not having long hair,” then the first part of verse 6 would read something like this-“For if the woman does not have long hair, let her also shear it off:”
Since woman is the glory of man rather than the glory of God, the head covered is a symbol to the angels of her right to communicate with God.
This is dead on. Thank you Mary!
You are welcome, Michael. To God be the glory forever and forever!
This is addressed in the article. You are missing that woman may have short hair and not have her glory in long hair, and that by so doing, she would be just as fine to crop her hair or shave her head. This passage is encouraging her to cover her short hair, which imply a garment, but if her hair is long, then it is her covering (1 Cor. 11:15).
Also, the translation is “through the angels”, and the Greek word for “through” is dia. Please, consider this in interpreting in regards to angels and authority. :-)
I will look at the word “dia” again. Thank you!
I believe whether a woman has long hair or short hair that it needs to be covered in public worship i.e., when a church comes together in a public assembly to meet for worship.
I Cor. 11:15 states “a ” covering not “the” covering. “The” denotes something already mentioned. I would encourage you to look up the definition of “a” and the definition of “the”.
to only cover one’s head for public worship would signify that the covering is not necessary outside of this type of worship. If that is the case then the same woman that covers her head for public worship violates the same principles of coverings when she prays and prophesies outside of public worship with her hair uncovered because the scripture never spoke to anything concerning where this was to be carried out, it said “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered” Paul spoke to a problem they were having in the corporate worship setting but we only know this from historical theology studies, the 1 Corinthian scripture on this however, does not specify a church setting for this practice. Further, the principles of the kingdom of God with respect to the new testament living points to a lifestyle of worship and not just “events” such as corporate worship, the believer is called to be in a constant state of worship with no boundaries such as pulpits and local assemblies, to be “the fragrance of Christ, diffusing his fragrance in every place” In this arena, the true ministry of the believer is when they leave the four walls of corporate worship and enter the true fields of the harvest. If this head covering practice is to be followed by those who still see the necessity for such practice, then if we follow new testament principles, that woman should bear her head covering always, in and out of church.
The letter of I Corinthians is written “Unto the church of God,…” I Cor. 1:2
You are hitting on one key point and question, and that is: “What is the setting and place for these coverings?” This does not appear to be in what the Scriptures refer to as “the Assembly” (1 Cor. 11:17ff, 14, Heb. 10:25).
Just because hair is *a* covering for women doesn’t mean that the other covering that Paul is talking about is also for women…as opposed to a woman’s authoritative head: her husband.
Why do you believe a woman should be covered in the Assembly? How do you know that this is the Assembly or another meeting? In the Assembly, the women were not to speak. All the men could speak, but only two or three and one by one (1 Cor. 14:26ff).
You are right about the article. I am not doubting the use a garment coverings for short hair, and long hair being a covering. Verse 15 does say that long hair is a covering.
Correction–The woman is created from man and for man.