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 
Hi guys,
I really want to obey, I just panic at the idea of wearing one everywhere I go. I realize that may sound absurd to some of you because it says “when praying or prophesying” but I am not trying to be a smart aleck, but I pray every few minutes all day. Surely I am not supposed to remove my covering a hundred times a day. Forgive me if I sound facicious but I am being serious here.
I see clearly both points and how they can work. I also see the point of plugging in the hair verses covering word in the entire passage to see if it flows. I see the covering verses no covering issue (being a physical garment) working well with absner’s view (forgive the misspelling). I also see the LONG and short hair view working. I think where some might be tripped up is the hair verses no hair view. That view (hair verses no hair) winds up sounding illogical (how can you shave someone who already has no hair if hair is the covering). I see what you are saying.
However, do any of you see how the long and short hair view could fit? If a women has short hair (not shorn hair which is like a half inch from her head, and not bald hair which is hairless) just short. She might as well be shorn (which is different from short, this is PRACTICALLY hairless) or shaven (bald).
A man uncovered could be defined as SHORT hair and not NO hair, could it not?
I am wondering if the LONG hair SHORT hair view can work. The only way it could is if LONG meant covered and SHORT meant uncovered.
I want to be careful the the answers don’t digress.
Once again, please be patient with me and I really do respect both of your guy’s positions. I see how both can be very plausible.
I know the Lord will show me, even if I may not like what I hear, but I guess I have to overturn all the rocks first.
But if it is in place of a veil, don’t you have to admit that Paul was talking about a veil in verses 4-10? Also, if it replaces a veil or mantle, doesn’t it do so in everyday applications when you are just living live and not praying or worshiping in public?
I agree with what you are proposing. I was told though that covering in the beginning of the passage was not the same ‘covering’ as verse 15. I also thought a removable garmet was what Paul had in mind since it was limited to two activities. However, since we are to pray without ceasing it makes me believe it would be for all the time.
This is quite an involved topic lol. It’s like the pretrib post trib merry go round.
In all seriousness though, I want to be obedient. It just seems like everyone is on a different page.
If you are satisfied with disobeying God, that’s your business. Sorry, I don’t mean to sound rude. Of course, Paul didn’t mean that we go away praying a prayer all the time. We should always be a people of prayer and never cease that practice as part of our lives. Sometimes people lose faith and stop praying. I believe the Lord was concerned that people would lose faith and stop praying by the time he returns. Luke 17:1ff. Going by memory. Busy at the time.
where did I give you the impression I want to disobey God? I see both arguments holding some validity (both for and against).
I thought we were having a pleasant discussion about this. Please don’t attack me. I don’t know what this passage means yet.
If I believe without a shadow of a doubt I am supposed to cover and I dont’ then I am disobeying. I dont’ know if long hair is it or not.
Stephanie,
Look at some of the word-study scriptures. In 4 verses, the phrases “eye for eye”, “tooth for tooth”, and “evil for evil” show that this was once the practice to exchange something for the same thing. Now, when you read 1 Corinthians 11:15, think that the passage is saying as translated “her hair is given to her for a covering”. Therefore, I am convinced that the hair and the covering are the same. Yet, if you still do have doubt, then go the safe route for your conscience’s sake and be covered (Rom. 14:23).
God bless.
Hi,
Thank you. I’ts important to follow the conviction of the Holy Spirit and if I am wrong, He will show me in his timing. It’s better to error on the side of safety.
I will still need to keep this in prayer and see what the Lord wants me to do personally.
Blessings everyone
You are right that this praying is for all times. With hair being the glory of women, the Christian woman should let her hair hang down in subordinating to God’s headship and rather glorifying God, Christ, and man. Otherwise, the woman would put their hair up braided and adorned with jewelry as seen in other scriptures. Remember that the Christian women in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 were instructed to be modest not adorning their hair with braided hair and with gold and pearls. This was for women to learn in subordination like the others, who listen to the one speaking the oracles of God. Also, 1 Peter 3:1-6 applied this to a wife’s subordination to her husband, so she was not to be insubordinate by arranging her hair and be adorned in gold. See, this was their custom and culture that powerful women of authority would dress as though higher than others even in pagan worship. They would arrange and adorn their hair up rather than hanging showing the glory of God, Christ, and man.
I hope i didn’t come across as yelling. Blessings. And yes, i am only interested in what verse 15 says. I feel that verse 15 is the key to understanding the rest of the preceeding passage. If it is simply an illustration in nature as proof for a garmet i can accept that as long as someone tells me that the original translation doesn’t say long hair is given to her INSTEAD of a VEIL. If that is not what it says, then the other arguments will make sense to me.
Blessings and i am glad this discussion can be mature.
Here is a complete word-study of the Greek “anti”:
Anti is used 22 times in 22 verses.
Anti means “instead” and “in place of” (“for”) in Matt. 2:22, 5:38 (2x), 17:27, 20:28, Mark 10:45, Luke 11:11, John 1:16, Rom. 12:17, 1 Cor. 11:15; 1 Thes. 5:15, Heb. 12:16, 1 Pet. 3:9 (2x)
Anti means “therefore” or “because” in Luke 1:20, 12:3, 19:44, Acts 12:23, Eph. 5:31, 2 Thes. 2:10, Heb. 12:2, Jas. 4:15
This word study is incomplete and – in part – even wrong. Especially since you seem to equate “in place of it” with “for” – this is not even the same in English. (Given, you mentioned all 22 places anti appears).
Thayer gives the following meanings of anti:
1) over against, opposite to, before
2) for, instead of, in place of (something)
2a) instead of
2b) for
2c) for that, because
2d) wherefore, for this cause
Strong defines it this way:
A primary particle; opposite, that is, instead or because of (rarely in addition to): – for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
Greek prepositions are quite a task to render correctly, since the context plays a large role in this. A list of occurences and meanings may help – but this list needs to be complete and not reduced to two basic concepts from which to choose. Let me quote to you from an article where the qauthor deals with the anti in 1Co 11:15 and quotes some scholars:
“On this point Dr. Thomas Schreiner (Professor of New Testament Interpretation, SBTS) notes,
“The preposition anti in 11:15 need not refer to substitution. It can also indicate equivalence. The latter makes better sense in the context”.*
A.T. Robertson (Former Professor of New Testament Interpretation, SBTS) further points out,
“It is not in the place of a veil, but answering to [anti], in the sense of [anti] in John 1:16, as a permanent endowment [dedotai], perfect passive indicative.*
The example that A.T. mentions is John 1:16 which says “For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.” (NASB). The section he’s referencing is at the end where it says, “charis anti charis” (translated: “grace upon grace” NASB or “grace for grace” KJV). This example shows that “anti” doesn’t only mean substitution as we haven’t received “grace instead of grace”.”
Noting that Paul uses nature as an illustration, “equivalence” makes perfect sense. It the same in all analogies. Equating the hair with the veil literally would be the same as to say that the church consists only of virgins, when reading the parablöe of the 10 virgins. But virginity serves as an illustration which sheds light on the church – it is not to be understood literally. The same with the hair in 1Co 11:15 – it is an analaogy; you don’t take analogies literally.
Abasnar,
You are misusing Thayer’s if you consider these different definitions rather than separate translation. The meaning of the word does not change. The word-study is complete for the New Testament. You are overlooking Lenski cited in the article above.
The author of that article is various has already made up his mind to use 1 passage, and not consider them all. Even translating anti as “for” for equivalence like John 1:16 would means that the hair is the equivalent to the covering. This proves again the truth that the covering is hair. Then he says grace is an analogy, but grace is not an analogy in John 1:16.
Scott, I can’t see how I have misused Thayer simply by quoting him without drawing conclusions from his quote. The article I quoted simply shows that many a scholar disagrees with this “narrowed-doen” understanding of anti you affirm.
No one claimed that grace was an analogy. The last paragraph simply stated that Paul’s reasoning from nature serves as an analogy, and as is the case in all analogies you cannot take everything too literally.
The main argument against your undestanding of anti: Native speakers of KJoine NEVER understood thios verse the way you do. What hinders you to accept this and draw the only conclusion possible?
Getting into the proper use of anti, Greek words, and lexicons is another discussion.
The point is that whether anti is translated in verse 15 as “for”, “in place of”, or “instead” does not matter or change meaning whether anti is considered equivalence to hair or hair is a substitution. I have never seen such word wrangling with simple language, and to be kind I will say no more.
The covering by equivalence or substitution is hair.
Hi Mike,
I want to be careful to interpret correctly and not through my emotions or knee jerk reactions. But, since the bible says to pray without ceasing, that means I would have to wear a covering EVERYWHERE =(. Sorry, but I am not strong enough to do that right now.
Is that an excuse to disobey God cuz I’m uncomfortable? Of course not and I know that. I want to obey. I used to cover, but I hated how I felt sometimes (just being honest). I also used to not wear makeup, wear muted colors, and wear loose clothes, and do a bunch of other stuff. I was in so much bondage it wasn’t even funny, so i emotionally want to panic a little when i hear i have to cover my head.
I am open though to being wrong. I see how both sides of the argument can work.
Ok.
Just a side remark. The original post started in 2008, and we have well over 300 comments by now. The matter seems far from being decided, and the arguments tend to be repeated again and a again. Once I had you “on the verge of retraction”, but you seem to hold fast to the tradition handed down to you by … Coffman and others.
In the meantime we work hard on restoring what was handed down to the church by Paul in our congregation, cautiously, trying to avoid a split, but persistently. A few sisters started veiling, and it is more and more possible to preach on this text, to say what it says and to encourage the application without being stoned. It is a strange thing: 1Co 11 seems to be the only passage in scripture where we have to reach consensus whether we preach it or not. Anyway, God is at work among us, and the resistance against this text got weaker.
Amen brother! I changed my mind last year but was told not to preach on it “we don’t want to hear it.”
We need no consensus here. Whether the garment or hair, this is a matter of custom, modesty, respect, and subordination to God’s headship.
First Corinthians 11:15 stands as the defining point against all your inclination of the covering being hair. You have yet to refute this.
No, you have to prove that hair is the covering discussed in verses 4-10. There is no question about verse 15.
I don’t have to refute scripture, but your interpretation is wrong, Scott. None of the Greek Speaking Early church understood this verse as you do. THIS should bother YOU. Or do you really think your Greek is better than theirs?
You only one ambiguous early writer, who speaking women prophesying in an assembly. If we even presume that Irenaeus referred to the Assembly, 1 Cor. 14:34-35 was opposing women prophesying in the Assembly. Your only point is consider they were in an assembly, but no one is denying that women prophesied to other women.
You fail to see and understand because you deny the significance of the Early Christian assembly with Agape/Lord’s Supper followed by instruction. Chapter 11 is in the context of this first part – do you really expect women to be silent during a meal, where spiritual conversation filled the air? – Chapter 14 refers to the second part after the meal. Please read Clement of Alexandria’s or Tertullian’s detailed description of the Agape, envision the scene! The Agape was a part of the regular assembly, not an appendix or something that follows the assembly. Also as long as you have not experienced how house churches function you probably will not get “the feel” of 1 Corinthians. Inevitably you will read contemporary worship modes back into the scriptures – and thus misread them.
Irenaeus is not an ambigious writer. There are numerous frescoes of women praying with their head veiled, sometimes in fellowship with men – again some prayers at least were spoken in unison. If you take a look at the historic churches – RCC, Orthodox – you will notice that in the liturgical settings women are never absolutely silent. And the embellished liturgies we have today have their root in the Early Christian practice of speaking prayers in unison. reciting Psalms together. Have you ever wondered when and where it started that women were deprived of their right to pray aloud? In the 1500s in the Zwinglian Reformation – before that, in the liturgy, all were participating (which diminished in the Latin Mass in Germany, of course). The churches of Christ, having departed from the Presbyterian church, still follow the pattern of a Presbyterian Service (plus the Lord’s Supper) – so, no wonder, they are Zwinglian or Reformed in nature. And this shapes our view on scripture.
It seems to me that you fail to see that by denying the value and importance of church history on the matter, you are by no means closer to “Sola Scriptura”, because you build your conviction on the Bible, a fragmentary understanding of Greek (being not a Native Speaker) and 20th century opinion. I decided to trust those more, who followed and conversed with the Apostles, the church of Christ of the 1st and 2nd century who were not only men of the Bible, but opposed change as vehemently as a one-cup-church of Christ, but knowing far better than us what the original practice was. They all disagree with your position, Scott. Take some time, please, to imagine yourself being in a discussion with these men of old. Would they have to learn from you or rather vice versa?
Now, you are speaking wronging against me and twisting my words like you do the Scriptures. The Scriptures say that women are to silent in regards to speaking – not the Assembly. We keep the agape in the Lord’s Supper without even the Scriptures teaching such. Agape is implied in the Lord’s Supper. Christians cannot follow Tertullian or Clement of Alexandria even as good commentaries. We follow Christ and his Apostles. As you say, “you are by no means closer to ‘Sola Scriptura’, because you build your conviction on the Bible”.
There are images of women the catacombs in assembly together with their heads uncovered. All woman can pray within their hearts in the churches of Christ as the rest of the congregation does when lead in prayer. This has never changed.
Why are you being contentious? Your comments are a distortion and will be limited here if not excluded if you continue.
Good point, Abasnar. My apologies to Stephanie. I understand now you are sincere and not just playing games with the Bible. Had we had this discussion 100 years ago, this hair argument would be the last notion. Almost all kinds of churches had the practice of women wearing head covering or hats up until the 1960’s. The women’s movement and the E.R.A ways of thinking changed the thinking of even many in the Lord’s Church. I only changed my mind in late 2012 having believe it was the hair or a custom or prophets only, just whatever excuse I could pull out at the moment. It really didn’t matter to me. Upon a closer study of the original language, comparing translations and looking at Paul’s reasons for the head covering in worship, I was convicted of not taking this passage seriously in the past and repented. My wife wears a covering now since we studied, as does her 26 year old daughter, her mother-n-law, who stubbornly did not for 30 years, and I have influenced others. I have never seen an issue where logic went so completely out the window as with this subject. Men and women were present in worship and women were to wear the head covering to show that man is the head of woman (1st Cor. 11:3-10). The entire passage must be linked to verse 3. Of course, men get no respect today, but it must be remembered this is God’s ordinance, not man’s (1 Cor. 11:2). Wayne Jackson of Stockton, CA. states that this all took place in the assembly. He agrees with Guy N. Woods. He also believes the prayers were silent while men lead the prayers. For those who think the covering was the hair throughout the passage and also believe it was a custom, does this mean that men can wear long hair today and women can shave their heads or wear it like a man and be pleasing to God? If no, then what custom are you talking about here? This subject moves around like a cursor on the computer board! Again, Stephanie, I’m sorry about saying you wanted to be disobedient; that was a remark made when I was tired and I wasn’t certain you were sincere or just trying to use over the top type arguing to stir us up. I was wrong. I do want to help. I will agree with the unsigned comment above that if you are unsure, do it for conscience sake. I do not see how the lack of the head covering could be a dishonor then but not now? I do not see where that ever changed. Would a man pray to God with a hat or veil on his head today at the risk of dishonoring his head? Will any on this board? Who is the head of man? See verse 3. Again, I think we sometimes forget all of this links to verse 3. Why should the man not cover his head in prayer? Because man was created first above all the animals in the image of God, God’s prized creation, and is therefore the glory of God (v. 7). The woman is created for the man and is the glory of the man. For this cause the woman should should have a sign of, a symbol, power on her head because of the angels (v. 10). Have these reasons gone away. The same reason the woman is to be in subjection and not teach over nor usurp authority over the man is that the woman was created after the man (1 Tim. 2:11-15). If this reason is no longer good enough for the covering, then , it must not be good enough for her subjection to man in worship. They stand or fall together. Back to the hair: if a preacher really thinks this is all about hair, then, get busy preaching that women grow out their hair and that men cut that hippy hair off in the churches! Which should be taught anyway.
Hi Mike,
I accept your apology. It is okay. I admire you for standing for what you believe is right and if you got a check that your wife should cover, then good for her. Good for her for following her conviction instead of letting the fear of man be her guide.
My personal struggle ( although maybe not a biblical excuse) is that I feel that if the passage is talking about a physical garment, then I would need to wear one most all the time. I come to that conclusion because I pray literally every few minutes to the Lord in my head. I can see how impractical removing a covering would be or putting one on dozens of times a day.
To be honest, I see three interpretations to this scripture.
One: Hair verses no hair if hair is the covering. I have a problem with this interpretation for the same reasons you do. If it’s hair, then an uncovered man would be bald, and there would be no reason for an uncovered (hairless) women to be shaven or shorn, so that being the covering makes no sense.
Interpretation two: Covering is a garmet. I will be honest, as much as I emotionally don’t like this, this interpretation makes the most sense to me, especially when you look at the catacombs and it seems to be clear that this is the correct one. Since you are only to cover when praying or prophesying, a removable garment makes the most sense. BUT….If you pray without ceasing, it would seem like you would wear it all the time. I am not being faciious, but I really do pray “almost all the time”
Interpretation three: Short hair verses long hair. Believe it or not, this sounds like a plausible theory. Here, covered verses uncovered would mean covered=long hair, uncovered = short hair. If this were the case, then the reading to me makes sense. A man uncovered would be short hair. A women uncovered would be short hair. Here is where we get tripped up. If a women has short hair, how can she be shorn if she is already shorn (since shorn isn’t shaved but very closely cropped). However, if this is referring to her hair not being “long enough” and shortish (a few inches from the head) then Paul could be saying, her hair is so short, why not just shear or shave it.
If the long hair/short hair view works, then verse 15 can be used to support interpretation three. It can also be used to support interpretation one if you look at it as illustrative
So I guess where I stand is this. Can short hair mean uncovered? Can long hair mean covered?
I hope my thoughts are more organized.
I appreciate your thoughts. Long hair certainly can mean covered when it comes to everyday covering distinguishing the woman from the man; however, the covering that is to be used of prayer in worship is a garment on the head or veil. I appreciate that you pray a lot. I pray a lot too. The covering on the woman is in the presence of men in worship as they stand before God. Man is the glory of God as the first in his creation; woman is the glory of the man who was created for the man. The same reason the man is not to cover is the very reason the woman should cover–in her respect to man (See 1st Cor. 11:3-10). It all boils down to what bring honor to one’s head (vs. 3) and ultimately to what brings glory to God. If men are not present, there is no need to cover your head with an additional covering as he cannot be dishonored if he is not present. I hope this makes sense to you. Pray about it and keep studying.
Hm. I disagree with one point: It was for the assembly. The reason this is questioned is an overly strict understanding of “The women are to be silent in the assembly”. Originally this was not understood the way many conservatives today understand it.
a) Part of worship consisted of prayers spoken together, which has its roots in Jewish worship, and is the origin of what we call a “liturgical service” – evidence for this can be traced back to the 1st century.
b) Prayer is never mentioned in 1Co 14:26-38 and prayer is typically never joined with the verb “laleo” (to speak) – so it is hard to make the case that women may not pray in the assembly.
c) None of us objects to women singing or saying Amen after someone else’s prayer
d) Irenaeus (around 180 AD) testfies to women praying and prophesying in the assembly
e) The mode of the assembly in the 1st and 2nd century was quite different from what we experience as “church” today. This adds greatly to the confusion …
But even more compelling is the context of chapter 11, where Paul starts out commending the church for holding fast to the traditions (plural!) handed down to them, and Paul discusses two of them in great detail in this chapter: The headcovering and the Lord’s Supper. Not only that it is highly improbable that he takle about two very different settings here, both traditions are linked in verse 17, which reads (KJV): “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 reads: Τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων – “Now in commanding this”. The tense is crucial, because it refers to the whoile teaching he jsut delivered, and “This” is not pointing forward to a new and different topic, but to the matter at hand just now. This verse links the first part of the chapter, which he started with a praise, with the second part oif tghe chapter where he takes back this praise – Why? Because their assemblies are for the worse rather than for the better. And this is sufficient to say that the headcovering applies to the assembly.
The verb παραγγέλλω always means “to command”. Headcovering is an Apostolic command. If we object to this, and refuse it – if we teach otherwise – we sin.
Prayer is mentioned as speaking before the congregation (1 Cor. 14:15-40). The Greek sigao is absolute – see lexicons. Whereas, 1 Tim. 2 is referring to a quietness as compared to a peaceful life earlier in 1 Tim. 2.
I just read Irenaeus, and saw nothing that I recall about women speaking before all in the Assembly. Yes, our assemblies are different in order, but in being scriptural. That is for the churches of Christ in the southern US.
“This” in 1 Cor. 11:17 must first be applied to the very verse in which it is written. Even linking the chapter at verse 17, they are clearly bringing the lack of insubordination from their gatherings into the Assembly of the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34-35). This does not apply to whether their heads were covered or not by veils in the Assembly, but there were factions from this spirit of insubordination to headship. The women were to care for how they covered and adorned their hair at home, in public, gatherings of Christian women, and the Assembly (1 Tim. 2:9-15, 1 Pet. 3:1-6). Their lack of modesty showed rebellion. The link is from other occasions of prayer and prophesying and bringing that factious spirit into the Assembly.
Let me start with Irenaeus. The quote is found in his 3rd book against the hersies, ch 11:9: “For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he [Paul] speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church.” (written between 182 and 188 AD)
Isn’t this remarkable? IN THE CHURCH! Irenaeus (for the sake of the other readers) grew up in Asia minor, and learned the faith from Polycarp who was a companion if the Apostle John. Irenaeus was widely recognized among the Early Church.
We normally have a pew and pulpit church in mind, where prayer is being led from the front where the microphone stands and several 100 Christians listen silently. This is not at all what a 1st century church looked like, Scott. Therefore “Speaking in front of the assembly” is something you automatically read into the text. A prayer meeting, where all participate and take turns, is totally different in nature. We don’t “lead in prayer”, we pray, and others may confirm, answering Amen. If someone prays rubbish, I would not say Amen – so the prayer is not authoritative, nor is my Amen a dead ritual but follows discernment.
Paul mentions this in the context of praising God in tongues. This is the only occasion, prayer is mentioned in ch 14. But my point was, that prayer is never described with the word “laleo”, by which the silence is defined as absolute in this sense. As I said, joining in the singing of hyms is never debated, is it? Neither is prayer fordbidden.
There is a second thing one has to know in order to understand the context, which also is hidden from our eyes because of man made traditions that replaced the original: There were two parts of the assembly: The Agape, wherein embedded the Lord’s Supper was celebrated, and a time of teaching that followed the agape. This matched closely the pattern deipnon-symposion of the Ancient world. Chapter 11 described the deipnon kyriou, chapter 14 the symposion that followed the meal and may last well into the night (see also the description in Acts 20:7-11).
The first part, the agape, was a time of spiritual conversation around the table, framed by prayer and praise for the body and the blood of Christ. The mood was joy, the goal was mutual edification – Tertullian gives a vivid description of this in his apology. The second part however focusses on instruction, and this is dealt with from ch 14:26-40. Therefore the rule that at least two or three prophets should speak, who were the church leadership before elders were appointed. It is in this context that women were not to participate. But – interestingly – prayer is not mentioned there. If this was opened and closed with a formal prayer, I’m sure it would have been spoken by a man. If it was concluded by a prayer-fellowship or a prayer spoken in unison, then the women surely participated – veiled.
These two meetings did not necessarily follow each other immediately. Sometimes, they met before sunrise and again later after the sun set. It is not an inflexible pattern, but suitable in all cultures where people come together to eat. What we do, however, is so far removed from the beginnings, that we have a hard time understanding these chapters in 1 Corinthians.
Vers 17 is linked to verse two by taking back the praise. Then the tense of the verb is important. Present Tense, Actice, Participle means what he is just doing, not what we will do next. So all the way through chapter 11 Paul was commanding the headcovering. Verse 17 is typically overlooked, because many translations insert a headline, and therefore mistranslate houtos. Houtos means “this” and not “the following”.
I see that is the translation that you have of Irenaeus. Forgive me, but I would want to see what Irenaeus as translated in Latin, and in Greek although I know of no such manuscripts. I can’t find access to that in Latin right now.
Concerning the Assembly, I do not find that the Lord’s Supper was in their love feast rather I can easily accept the Supper may have been the love feast. I do not find two parts of a meeting. From 1 Corinthians, the Assembly must have started with the Lord’s Supper in chapter 11, and then consisted praying, singing, and teaching as in chapter 14. We know they met in the Assembly in meeting places separate from their homes (Acts 20:8, 1 Cor. 11:22, Jas. 2:2). They have cups, bread, a table (1 Cor. 10:16, 21), scripture (Col. 4:16, 1 Thess. 5:27), and seating (Jas. 2:3). Their seating most likely matched the setting of speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16).
Consider 1 Tim. 2:11-13 and 1 Cor. 14:34-37, women do not speak in the Assembly, teach or rule over Christian men. First Corinthians 14:15-17 is clear that speaking before all in the Assembly included praying before the congregation or “leading prayer”. This also shows that 1 Corinthians 11 is showing other settings beside the Assembly where women prayed and prophesied with women and children (Titus 2:2-3).
If you presume against scripture that the covering that hangs from the head is not hair, then you would certainly want to justify that the covering was not for all praying and prophesying, but for a special occasion. As scripture tells us, women were to let their hair hang from head showing the glory of God, because otherwise, they adorned their hair up with gold, pearls, and arranging the hair up with braids. This was consider immodest and insubordination to men including their husbands (1 Tim. 2:9-15, 1 Pet. 3:1-6).
Because you presume a garment covering, your interpretation must demand a specific meeting, which you force upon the text to be the Assembly. With “toutos” meaning this and referring to the previous instruction not specifically about the Assembly, what were the Corinthians bring into the Assembly that made the Assembly worse rather than better? They brought in factions from insubordination to the headship of God and Christ. If you understood that this was countering the immodesty and insubordination of the times, then you would see that women need to covered by hanging hair, which is the glory of God as is taught in other passages (1 Cor. 11:15).
Keep your heart honest and seriously reconsider your conclusions. “The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17).
Is your approach honest and serious, Scott? You are simply defensive. You question everything I present to you, based on vague assumptions. Show forth the evidence!
1) Greek Speaking Christians who understood the veil being long hair
2) Women not even being allowed to pray aloud in the assembly in the Early church
I showed examples to the contrary, Scott. Now it is your turn to bring something older than 20th century opinions.
You stand against the church leaders of all denominations during 1900 years, Scott. My own mother wnet to church with a headcovering when I was young. I KNOW when obedience ceased and gave way to feminism.
Where is the post before the 10:50 am and the one after that? I though I made some good points?
I meant verse 13 not 14 in the first sentence of my reply. Sorry.
I just had a couple of more questions. You had mentioned that to uncover in the old testament meant to shave one’s hair. If that is true, then why would we not get an interpretation a man praying with an uncovered head would mean bald and not short hair?
I have the same question for a woman. If uncovered means shaved, then why is her being uncovered not being referred to as shaved? That would make the reading sound something like this, if a women prays with a shaved head (uncovered) let her be shorn or shaven.
can you please clarify and point to some scriptures showing uncovered can mean cut short and not only shaved?
Im really not trying to argue, but to be confident in my interpretation. Thanks.
Good question – I thought about that too in studying this.
Remember this about long hair or hanging hair (1 Cor. 11:15). The shaving is an uncovering of hair as cutting long hair would be uncovering of hair. A man may uncover his hair by cutting long hair to short or cropping short hair. In the context of 1 Cor. 11, the covering in verses 4-6 are referring to a covering that hangs from the head. The man is not have that covering and the woman is to have that covering.
Hi Stephanie
This discussion has grown over the years and some things need to be repeated over and over. I once or even twice stated that the long hair argument is solidly debunked when thinking it through from the men’s side. If long hair is the veil, then a man covering his head must mean he has long hair. This is often claimed when people read verse four and see no “artificial covering” there, simply the words “Having down from his head”. But as soon as we try to find other places where this appears, the picture becoumes tremendously clear. Plutarch uses the same phrase when describing a man pulling his toga over his head, Haman in Est 6:12 covered his head in grief, the LXX uses the same Greek words as in 1Co 11:4. So Paul is referring to men, covering their heads with a cloth (shawl, veil), as was thr rule in Roman Pagan cults, and (but this is debated – yet, they found a prayer shawl at Masada) even in Jewish religion.
Another hint to the debate. The story of Isaac and Rebecca is widely recognized as a type forthe relationship bewteen Christ and the church. As soon as Rebecca came in sight of her husband to be, she covered her head.
Both Haman and Rebecca make it clear that they did not suddenly grow long hair for this occasion. Now, the ordinance in 1Co 11 is meant for a specific occasion: When Christians assemble to pray and to prophesy – which is clear from, the context streching from ch.10 to 14. Yoou don’t grow long hair for a specific occasion and trim it, when the meeting is over.
I guess you already checked ou this article: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/is-a-womans-long-hair-her-covering
“Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,” (1 Cor. 11:4).
“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,” (1 Cor. 11:14).
One is a dishonor to Christ, his head (v. 3; the other is a shame or dishonor to himself. One is a cloth head covering in worship; the other is long hair. Paul is putting hair up against the cloth head covering to teach a lesson that “even nature does teach us.” If hair is the only covering, then, the man must shave off his hair to pray or worship to God. Skipping from verse 4 down to verse 14 leaves a lot out of the context and discussion. It’s not that simple to do away with the cloth covering.
It seems to me you just dismiss the evidence, Scott. By Jolly, I know these two verses as well as you do! But did you ever see the difference between the two? And what hinders you to acknowldge that the phrase “Having down the head” (kata kephales) always refers to a cloth veil when used elswhere? The difference: Short hair for men is male and following nature, applies to all situations everywhere. The cloth veil is circumstancial, applies to prayer and prophesying (or more general: the the assembly) and only to Christians who truly have Christ as their head! It’s a Gospel-truth.
The illustration from nature is what it is: An illustration, an analogy to support the flow of thought. You cannot take the illustration and use it to counter the whole argument Paul presented above!
Last not least: If this your view were correct, then show me ONE AUTHORITY WITHIN THE GREEK SPEAKING CHURCH OF OLD who believed that. There is none (I went through virtually all commentaries on 1Co 11 from the first 500 years). Those, who truly understood and spoke Greek, and who grew up in churches founded by the Apostles knew how to understand and apply this text. I don’t accept an “I go by the Bible alone” here, because these men of old also went “by the Bible alone” in this area – and they are in a far better position to explain it to us than all of us are. It seems to me, you might have the “courage” even to dispute this with Irenaeus, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, Hyppolitus and Augustin and all the others. I really would pay a ticket to be admitted to the audience in such a debate, Scott, seeing some 21st century scholar explaining scripture to 2nd century Christians …
Amen!
You have shown one translation of what Irenaeus said, but have yet to show quotes from Hyppolitus. These other men are not completely Christ and his Apostles’ words alone.
Good remarks. If Paul had said, “But every woman “sitting” when praying or prophesying dishonors her head,” I don’t think we’d miss understand that. Of course, you would have those who would debate whether see was sitting in the floor or on a bench! There is so much prejudice against the head covering itself; that, cognitive dissonance factors move people to invent all of these argument against it. People move around in the manner they are against it as well. If they are “persecuted” by a good answer to the hair argument, they “flee” to the custom argument or lady prophets only argument. It is interesting that those who say it was the hair only, will move quickly to the custom argument when encountered with a good answer to the hair argument, because now, what are they confessing? By believing in the custom argument, aren’t they confessing that the head covering was in fact a cloth head covering?
No, and no prejudice.
In the opening remarks posted May 14, 2008 you state, “Still, some may ask about verse 5-6,…Let us not assume either way, but rather that a covering could be either a garment or long hair. A literal translation is, ‘But every woman…[I]f it is a shame to a woman to be cropped or shaven, let her be covered.’ clearly refers to a covering for short hair and a covering of hair as seen in I Cor. 11:15.”
Please study the definition for the word “the” and the word “a”.
Verse 15 states:”…for her hair is given her for a covering.”
“The” would denote something already known from the context. Verse 6 is not talking about “… a covering of hair as seen in I Cor. 11:15.” Verse 15 states, “a covering.”-A covering is not something already mentioned in the context. In verse 15- A covering is a type of covering but not the covering that is, something already mentioned.
You are right that 1 Cor. 11:15 refers to “a covering”. In Greek, this could be translated “the covering” as “God” is the God in John 1:1. “God” does not need an article to refer to the God in the passage and throughout the remote context.
More so, the only use of the noun “covering” is in verse 15, and the others are verbs and would not have an article unless being participles. Also, the other Greek verbs for being covered refer to having a covering that hangs down.
The coverings are clearly the same, which is hair (1 Cor. 11:15).