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 
Why so much concern for the outer appearances? Over and over again we are told to be transformed inwardly. Just because someone wears their hair too short or too long does not mean they are what they appear. Learn to look beyond that and see what really matters. This is ridiculous that this is being argued. It’s typical coC looking at the superficial aspects of the physical person and their behavior, as if that’s all God cares about. Do you have any guarantee that the one who looks “proper” and acts “proper” has a transformed mind and is a New Creation? Absolutely not! As mature Christians we are supposed to get beyond this. Jesus said, Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, what matters is a New Creation. Long hair nor short hair means anything. Head-coverings nor uncovered heads means anything. What matters IS A NEW CREATION!
Hello Phil,
You seem to be saying that we should not avoid every appearance of evil (1 Thess. 5.22). You appear to imply that the appearance of honor and respect should be overlooked along with the appearance of lewdness and sexual infidelity. I hear you saying that Christians cannot tell a tree by its fruits (Matt. 7.15-20).
Farewell.
I’m saying that we cannot win the battle against sin through the process of resistance. Yes, we may win here and there, but unless we win all battles then we have failed, which we will.
No one should submit to sin, but resistance to sin actually empowers it in ways that are subtle. Paul addressed this very thing in Romans 7. he said, “that which I want to do I don’t. That which I don’t want to do, this I do.” Does this not give you insight into the nature of the flesh and how we cannot win the battle at the level of the flesh that want’s to overcome itself using the same self that created the sin?
BTW, there are many who have good “looking” fruit but are anything but that. I’ll start with the Pharisees. Don’t allow that biblical principle to skew your thinking that good looking fruit is always what it appears. We’ve all seen good appearing people who have done things we could never have imagined they would do. A coC brother was the best acting Christian I could ever imagine, and later I found out he was secretly cheating on his wife. He was an Elder!
Totally away from the point about God and appearances. So one man lets you down and this proves what? Stick to the topic of the hair and head covering. Someone’s secret bad life does not disprove that God doesn’t concern Himself with what is on our heads or not on our heads in worship. Why just argue that we close the church doors? We can’t control individuals hearts and secrets, but we can believe and obey God in all things for ourselves. As I said, let’s get back on the main topic. Phil, resf what I wrote earlier and also what brother Scott wrote to you.
But the new creation conforms to the will of Christ (Rom. 12:1,2). Circumcision and the head covering are two different matters. The binding of circumcision by some Jewish believers on Gentile believers was done in concert with the keeping of the old law, which has been abolished (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:12-14). Jesus wants us to know that neither circumcision nor being uncircumsized does not profit us, but a faith which works by love (Gal. 5:6). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17).
In 1st Corinthians 11:2-16, the word of God talks about men’s and women’s appearances before God when praying or prophesying. Since it is from the word of God, these instructions about a man not covering his head, but a woman covering her head when praying or prophesying is a matter of faith. I might not like it, and I might not understand every single point, but the main point is clear. God is concerned with our appearances before Him, whether we are or not. When Nadab and Abihu were burning incense before God, they failed one day to concern themselves with where to get their fire; so, they offered a fire from another source besides the altar fire. They died before God for disobeying Him (Lev. 10:1,2). In most people’s eyes, it would matter little whether the fire came from a match, a lighter, a campfire, but to God, it mattered enough for Him to make a statement that serves as our example of how He feels about obeying His statues! (1 Cor. 10:6,11). I would never worship God with a veil on my head or hat as a man because of what God tells me in 1st Corinthians 11:4,7. A woman, likewise, should read and take seriously what God says about a woman covering her head in worship, and why she is to do this (See 1st Cor. 11:3,5-10).
We in the churches of Christ are concerned with walking by faith, which is by the word of God. Jesus tells us that doing his will is not an option (Matt. 7:21). We should not do one thing to the exclusion of the other. I don’t have the right to pick and choose what I will believe. May be reverence and obey all of what God has instructed (Luke 6:46). Remember, His thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are His way our ways (Isaiah 55:8,9).
The conclusion of the to cover or not to cover section ends like this: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” (I Corinthians 11:16 NKJV). It definitely appears MANY people have become very “contentious” regarding this “custom. When in truth, “we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” It once again is proof, man looks for rules; God looks for relationship.
Check the New American Standard version or the Revised Standard version and get the true meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:16. Paul does not teach that he and the other churches don’t have a custom like men not covering their heads and women covering their heads in worship. That wouldn’t even make good sense in the context because Paul wrote for the very reason to convince men not to cover their heads when praying or prophesying and for women to cover when praying or prophesying (v.3-6). Paul even gives eternal reasons, reasons cemented into creation for men to not cover but women to cover their heads in worship. He even says, “because of the angels” (v. 10). Paul uses a comparison from nature to show the need for women to cover their heads in worship. I used to believe Paul was turning on a dime in verse 16, but I never really compared versions nor thought it out logically. Paul is saying “we” and the churches of God have no such custom as the contentious man. After everything Paul has already said, he says, if anyone still wants to be contentious, we don’t have a custom such as his. How do I know? Because Paul is ordering the women at Corinth to wear the covering in worship, and Paul taught the same ways and things, doctrines in every church (1 Cor. 4:16,17; 7:17; 14:33,34; 16:1; and certainly 11:16. Paul wants the church at Corinth to practice like the other churches. Check out the New American Standard Version: “…we have no other practice, neither the churches of God.” Now that makes sense in the context. May we all continue to learn and change our minds as we learn better. I did last year. I believe women should cover their heads when approaching God in worship and men should uncover their heads, just like Paul teaches.
“We have now such custom” is the answer to the rhethorixcal question in verse 13: “Is it proper for women to pray uncovered.” Ergo: In all churches of God women pray with their heads covered. We have no other custom, and furthermore it is an apostolic tradition (V2) and even a command to be applied in the assembly (V 17).
Verse 16 is a forceful conclusion, in plain language: “Now stop it and do it as all others do it as well!”
Very accurate answer! I believe the whole issue here is a matter of “cognitive dissonance.” People are not comfortable with that which is contrary to what they are accustomed to growing up. It took me 30 years to see this passage for what it is. I always just repeated the same old excuses I had heard all my life; namely, the custom of that day excuse and sometimes I’d say it was only the hair. But now I see that people who excuse it don’t believe any of it. If those who believe it is the hair really believe that; then, they, if women will grow out their hair and men will cut their hair. I do believe men should wear short hair and women long hair (than a man’s) and that men should not cover their heads in worship, but that women should cover their heads in worship to show the headship order in worship. Thanks again for a great answer Abasnar. Thanks Scott for allowing an open discussion. God bless everyone who earnestly studies to discover God’s will.
If any are contentious, then we have no such custom.
Scott,
What custom are you referring to? I thought you believed this was all hair and no veil. I still don’t believe Paul spent all thid space pushing the covering only to take it all back in verse 16. Was Paul confused? I don’t think so. He ends up with the same idea he started with. He was for it.
Like 1 Cor 10, we learn to behave appropriately in our culture. Give custom to whom custom is due.
Steve, that reply mixes two contexts. Kind of a shallow reply. Answer my question in prior post.
Matt, What question?
1Co 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,
Please not that there are three groups mentioned. The Jews, the Gentiles AND the church of God. Clearly 1 Cor 11:16 speaks about a custom /practice in the church of God, whose “culture” so to say is “angelic” or “heavenly”.
I notice, Scott that you use “custom” in two different ways:
a) For once you say, custom is referring to being contentious.
b) Then you refer to local customs, when pointing to 1Co 10
Which of the two is correct? None of them.
You fail to see that Paul is answering the question in 1Co 11:13 – the churches of God don’t have the custom of women praying uncovered! And therrfore we must not give any offense to the church of God!
I remember an inquiry by a Nigerian brother who wrote to an American coC regarding the head covering, saying: “Our women cover their heads in the assembly, yours don’t. Are American women any different than ours?”
If you make it a matter of local custom, then you teach the church to follow the secular society around us, which indeed too many believe they should do. But our society is secular, and driven by a feminist agenda – therefore our women indeed are different: Misled into rebellion against God. And the churches of Christ follow this rebellion, some apostate groups even allowing women to preach and denying all differences and God’s order.
Christian women are not commanded to wear cloth coverings every hour of every day. They are commanded to present themselves in subordination to God’s headship.
There is no cultural custom to be kept that is contentious, but rather customs are kept to represent our faithful convictions. Therefore, we must keep cultural customs that present our beliefs.
Likewise, our subordination to government in the US includes a pledge of allegiance stated toward the US flag. Yet, if the pledge included words contentious to our unity or God’s Word, then we would do it.
Brother Scott, I agree that women are not commanded to wear a covering “every hour of everyday,” but they are to commanded to wear a covering when praying or prophesying (1 Cor. 11:5-10). Remember, the same reason given for the wearing of the covering is the same reason given for women being in subjection in 1st Timothy 2:11-14. In the denominations, there are those using the culture reasoning to get around the passage in 1st Timothy concerning women and their behavior in worship regarding teaching and having authority over men; yet, both the covering and women’s quietness, subjection to men, are for the same eternal reason: man was created first and the woman was created for the man and first to fall into sin. These are not cultural reasons, but reasons God has given that are cemented into time. Are you willing to go ahead and say that women don’t have limitations placed on them because that too was just cultural from a time that women were denied education on a large scale? Brother, I never thought of this either until a little over a year ago. What does God want? He wants a relationship. He also wants men and women to behave toward Him and one another according to their place in His headship order (1 Cor. 11:3). I see no way around it. Brother Scott, I know you believe the apostles. Give up fighting against God.
Again, you nailed it! Our problem is the fear of women. Women rule in America. They defy their place in the headship by looking and behaving in many cases like men. No offense, but I think women dressing out like men in the military and cutting off their hair is the ultimate insult to God’s creation. We now have those who want unisex restrooms to go along with the unisex army. We have unisex roles in the homes which is destroying boys and girls as they will never know who is the head of the family, grow up having problems with authority, and never know what a nurturing mother could be like. Society has left God’s plan. We have paved an easier path with modern inventions, entertainments, and an easy road out of the house for women to make themselves in dependent of the men. We are not independent of one another (1 Cor. 11:11,12). We need each other in our roles. Certainly the changes in society have flooded into the churches. The idea of being under subjection is the doctrine of Christ (1 Tim. 2:11,12). The same reasons given for the women’s subjection in 1st Timothy 2:11-14 are the same reasons she is told to cover her head in worship (1 Cor. 11:1-10). Many women will not do this because they do not respect the man and in turn do not regard the chain of authority God has set into order from the beginning (1 Cor. 11:3). Many men fear the women and will not teach nor preach on the matter of the subjection of women and their place any longer. Another thing, women now contribute at least as much as the men into the church treasury; so, many preachers will not rock the boat. I, personally, have lost preaching positions because I preached unpopular truths. Last year I was warned not to preach on the covering again in a certain congregation, “the church” had discussed it and decided they didn’t want to hear about it! Is this where we are in the churches of Christ now? When we fear certain passages of Scriptures, certain people in the church, i.e., the women, and deny the preaching of the whole counsel of God, we have become no better off than a regular old denomination!
I appreciate the fact that Scott is willing to allow this discussion on his web page, thanks brother, but I feel like the ball is being tossed back and forth between the custom and the hair whenever it seems best fit to take one or the other position. I used to do the same thing and didn’t even give it any thought. I never allowed anyone to challenge my thinking either as I cut them off very quickly. I used to place brethren who believed in the covering in the same circle as those who teach one literal cup only in the Lord’s Supper and called them false brethren from the pulpit! Only after I was asked over and over what does the covering passage mean, and that over a course of years; that, one day I decided to do a serious study to see what this was about and why anyone would possibly believe in it. There it was in the text. I applied the same rules of interpretation to this passage, looked at other versions, comments from all sources, not just those like brother Coffman who is quoted like an apostle, and it hit me right between the eyes! I repented and prayed and taught my wife and others and, yes, made some enemies. I see now that the issue of the covering is really an issue that exposes the dangerous attitude women have taken and men are allowing, and that is that they can be everything a man is and neglect the teaching of the Bible. It is a matter time before groups of women will rise up demanding to lead songs, prayers, and preach in the churches of Christ. The covering is there to remind us of the headship, our place in creation, it reflects the glory of God, it is because of the angels, who must be watching and observing our order of things. Whatever that means, it is in the Bible, and it is there for a reason and is therefore important in the spiritual realm. The Kingdom of God is not like the world. The worldly women may defy the man and act like the man and look like the man and despise what she was created to be–a woman, but the woman of God must respect what God says about being a godly woman and showing all subjection. If I was a woman, I would be afraid to imitate the majority of the women today. God help us to see the path the Church is walking on regarding women and their roles, which are needed and important and without which we cannot be acceptable to God. Men be men; women be women and don’t be ashamed of it. Forget the culture outside.
But no one prays literally all the time. For example, I can’t pray and work math or read or talk or write this post. Pray without ceasing must therefore be a figure of speech, hyperbole. Prayer should never cease being a part of our daily lives for sure. Anyway, the covering is needed for women when pray or prophesying (1 Cor. 11:5-10). Even natures teaches us that the woman should have a covering of long hair which shows her need “to cover” her head (action required) when praying or prophesying and by extension doing any kind of worship. We would not argue that the church at Troas “only” came together to break bread or hear preaching (Acts 20:7).
I do not really disagree with your statement. Yet, I do not see the need for a garment covering for any woman having long hair.
As for praying without ceasing, hyperbole is an excellent answer, but in the Greek, 1 Thessalonians 5:17 does not have 3 words, but 2 words meaning “Pray constantly.” Even if we take this as without end, you are right that this is an hyperbole for a life filled with prayer. Does this not mean that we would pray at the grocer, while driving, at the park, at work, and so forth. That would certainly be constant prayer.
I was involved in a collision one time while praying. I should have been focused on the road–true story. The idea of the head covering in the assembly only or out of the assembly also when praying, makes me think of another matter: some believe that a piano or other mechanical instrument of music is only forbidden in the public worship, but can be used in private family worship or individual periods of worship. How readest thou?
what would you consider long hair? Some peoples hair wont grow. Not everyone can have “long” hair.
Hi Shyla,
I think you are addressing me. The Greek word in the text means hair that is hanging down from the head much a like a shawl used for covering would. Any hair meeting that description would be the “long hair” described in the Scriptures.
If a woman were to keep this custom of subordination by covering the head and if she does not have enough hanging hair, then she could reasonably cover her head with a shawl. Again, the covering in 1 Corinthians 11 is “long hair” – hair hanging from the head.
New article of interest about member of popular singing group Jars of Clay. Michael Baggett Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:22:08 +0000 To: mikebaggett@hotmail.com
Brother Scott, do you think Paul meant that we literally go around praying a prayer either in our heads or out loud all the time? Think about this. I understood you to communicate this to Stephanie a few post up.
Prayer in mind
Hello Scott, Here’s a fresh article of mine I’d like to share with you. Reproduce it if you want to. Have blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow, Michael Baggett Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:56:11 +0000 To: mikebaggett@hotmail.com
Just saw your message. Will do.
Hi Michael,
Would you please send me an article as to what you think the bible says about HOW OFTEN to cover? I don’t like debates to ever get ugly but as of right now I am leaning toward the headcovering stance. To be honest though (I am sincerely not being facicious) it seems like wearing one (hat, veil, whatever the Lord leads) most of the time would make sense since we are to “pray without ceasing”. I pray silently in my head all the time. This is why I am confused as to why Paul limits it to “two activities” if praying occurs for many over 80 percent of the day (those silent quick conversations we have with God.
Are there any scriptural or historical references that can help me understand the context of this?
My email is plost572[at]gmail.com. Thanks.
Scott, if you can’t handle a serious debate, you may delete me anytime. After a number of years now that we are debating this, I feel like either I speak Chinese (so you cannot understand me) or you are illiterate in English. It has been a frustrating experience, especially your comments today. I have hardly ever felt that furious in a debate; and I serioulsy fear for your soul. You deny every and each argument and evidence I bring forth, and you throw in assumptions without any source or link to check them! This is a very bad style, and I am near to say I am done with you, because this leads nowhere. Stick with your 20th century traditions and be accountable to the Lord.
Logic goes out the window when it comes to subjects like the hesd covering. Many people hold to muliple excuses at once to deny it. Hair, custom, lady prophets only? Imaginary covering, etc. Many members of the Lord’s Church treat the head covering like the denominations do the subject of baptism–all over the road.
Scott, allow me to be blunt: Discuss this language issues with John Chrysostom or any other capacity and Native Speaker of the Early Church. I cannot accept you as an authority on the Greek language and therefore the interpretion of this verse. You are simply utterly wrong on this.
A few weeks ago I preached on Leviticus, mainly chapter 10, but gave an overlook on the whole book, summing it up in two verses:
Lev 8:5 “This is the thing that the LORD has commanded to be done.”
Lev 10:3 “This is what the LORD has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.'”
The death of Nadab and Abihu demonstrates to us how important these two statements are. And these principles apply in the church of Christ as well. Even though we are not under the Mosaic Law, God gave clear instructions to the church also, and He still wants to be sanctified by us. I gave a number of examples, for instance when the scriptures say: I want men to lift up holy hands when they pray, we should do this without questioning or rationalizing. After all, the following paragraph we hold fast to as binding: women being not allowed to teach in the assembly. If the latter is still valid and we regard the first as “optional”, we sin by applying an abhorrable double standard. I also mentioned the headcovering as a symbol meant to sanctify the Lord and a command to be obeyed. I said, we surely won’t sin if we practice it literally, but we most likely sin, if we dismiss it.
After the service a young sister from Albania approached me and thanked me. She was visisting just this Sunday. She is part of the Lord’s church in Romania, but the sisters there don’t cover. All the other churches in Romania do (so, American missionaries are even unwilling to accept local customs, while claiming Paul was simply accepting a local custom – do you get the irony?). Anyway, this sister feels that 1Co 11 ist to be applied literally by covering her head with a veil – she does that at home, but – until then – did not dare to do this in church out of fear she might be judged by the others. This same morning she met with an African sister from our congregation ansd saw her praying with a veil at home – she also does not do it in church for similar reasons. This sister received my sermon as an answer from God.
I see two or three violations in this:
a) Those who claim it was a mere Corinthian custom, when being missionaries in Eastern Europe or Africa often ignore and despise these “local customs” and introduce a new tradition. This is completely inconsistent.
b) Those “stronger” sisters who claim “freedom” from this command trample on the consciences of those who don’t have this “freedom” by intimidating them (knowingly or unknowingly). So instead of using the veil (doing this is NOT and NEVER a sin) in order to encourage their “weaker” sisters in their “overscrupulous” obedience for Christ’s sake they MAKE them sin by discouraging their obedience. This is against Rom 14 we so often quote when defending our own freedom …
c) Taking all evidence into consideration – not only contemporary commentaries – we must admit that the practice of the vast majorities of Christians through all ages is unanimous. And so by not veiling our women, we step out of line, breaking the consensus of all churches of God (1Co 11:16).
This is serious.
You apply Romans 14 inconsistently. The stronger would consider herself subordinate wearing a veil or having her hair as her glory. If this were opinion and inference as Romans 14 addresses, both should respect each other’s conviction.
Throughout history, most Christian women understood that the covering is hair hanging from her head glorifying God everywhere: in the home, praying with women, teaching women, and also in the Assembly. If this is the custom, I do not see why any missionary would not respect and keep that custom.
Who else do you follow besides Christ and His Apostles? You said that you follow church writers from 3rd century as well as the 2nd. These are not Spirit-guided writers, and they are at the most commentaries. You keep an Assembly in parts where you have a “Love Feast” with women prophesying and in the second part you have symposium where women cannot prophesy. Let us keep the Assembly as in scripture.
“Throughout history, most Christian women understood that the covering is hair hanging from her head” Prove it or be called a liar! This is SOOO wrong, I can’t believe an educated and responsable teachger of the Word would dare to make such a claim! How stubborn and hardened are you??
My essay has a new intro since I posted its link last August:
“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 (ψποταγης — hypotagēs 1 Timothy 2:11) than of authority (εχουσιας — exousias).”
Thus stated the late great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson in the classic tome Word Pictures in the New Testament (first published as 6 volumes in 1930-33) in reference to 1 Corinthians 11:10. The Greek word he referred to, exousia, means “a sign of the husband’s authority over his wife […] the sign of regal authority, a crown” : http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/exousia.html
The Greek word that many believe Paul intended, hupotage, means “the act of subjecting, obedience, subjection” : http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hupotage.html
Obviously we have a problem. Why would anyone accept treating exousia as its opposite? Primarily because the word is located in a passage that we have traditionally had an opposite understanding of than Paul. We misunderstood who Paul meant by the term translated head. We interpreted it as the wrong head by assuming Paul was referring to the woman and not her man in 1 Cor 11:10. And what of the veil? The veil is a whole cloth fabrication not described in the passage at all. As I will show below, something is described materially in two related passages, but it’s clearly prohibited for the woman to wear. (Hint: search for gold and see what the Apostles teach that it represents when worn around a head in both 1 Tim 2 and 1 Pet 3)
Besides 1 Timothy 2:11, Paul uses hupotage in 3:4: “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive”. So if we want to treat exousia as hupotage and insist on veils, then let’s show some consistency and place veils on the heads of submissive children, be they daughters or sons.
Did church fathers treat exousia as its opposite? Not exactly; they had a similar but different problem: some manuscripts of the ancient Coptic and Latin versions have headcovering in verse 10 instead of authority. The verse was then quoted as “ought to have a covering on her head” by patristic writers including Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine. Once the word was devoid of explicit authority, it could be understood as any common inexpensive material, and that congruous to the head without authority: the woman.
[Skipping down to an important point…]
★ The view which assumes “her head” in verse 13 refers but to a wife’s own head should not expect Paul to point us to the head of a man, much less point out from nature that man can’t get a glorious covering by letting his own head hair grow long. And those who think that only the wife is the visible glory of a husband can’t explain why Paul would want a man’s wife’s glorious head hair to be hidden. If she’s his glory, and she is, let all her hair covering shine! It’s glorious, obviously, but not a symbol of authority, especially since hair originated from a man—Adam.
Good comment and things worth considering.
A friend said my essay was too long, so here’s my much shorter succinct reply:
Points to unlock Paul’s passage on head coverings (1 Cor 11):
• The “head” in verse 10 is to be understood per verse 3: the husband.
• The “authority” in verse 10 should be worn by the authority (not by the one under him).
• That authority consists of the material that Paul did not want wives to wear for the same reason: gold and pearls (1 Tim 2:9; cf. 1 Pet 3:3).
• When a wife covers her husband with such authority, both will have been given much glory and the husband will show forth his proper authority to “the angels.”
In support of point 1 is Paul’s consistency by referring to the same spouse in the question of verse 13 and its answer: “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…”
Verse 6: If indeed a wife will not cover [her husband], [let her] also be shorn. If [it’s] moreover shameful to a wife to be shorn or to be shaven, [let her] cover [her husband].
She was gifted with a womanly covering, and she’s to respond by gifting her man with an authority covering. If she won’t cover her husband with a covering, then she’s to consider the removal of her own covering: her hair per verse 15. Verse 16 means the churches have no such practice to shorn contentious wives.
I’m still not sure about verse 4. But I don’t see how any interpretive option could make verse 10 mean the wife should cover her own head with authority.
Every man who prays or prophesies with…
1 …his own head covered dishonors his own head.
2 …his own head covered dishonors Christ.
3 …his own head covered dishonors his own head and Christ.
4 …Christ’s head covered dishonors his own head.
5 …Christ’s head covered dishonors Christ.
6 …Christ’s head covered dishonors his own head and Christ.
Since Christ is in Heaven, probably crowned (along with his golden sash), surrounded by men with crowns (the angels not so much anymore), I’m guessing option 2. The dishonoring is probably due to man crowning self, and/or because Paul wrote before Jesus was crowned around 70 AD: “And I looked, and behold, a white horse! And its rider had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering, and to conquer.”
Verse 5 seems to introduce the contrasting exception for men that are husbands and a few reasons for the wife to crown him (though he can’t ascend to crown Jesus) such as verse 9 stating the wife should do something for him.
For those who think the only tangible covering(s) in this passage is only for wives or that it could be either her long hair or a cloth on her hair: Wouldn’t that rather treat verse 6 and 15 like the following confusing mess that both requires long hair and the hiding of hair? And if not hiding hair with a cloth, then making sure the hair isn’t going to become long anytime soon by cutting it much shorter?
6: If indeed a wife will not cover [her own head of hair], [let her] also be shorn. If [it’s] moreover shameful to a wife to be shorn or to be shaven, [let her] cover [her own head of hair].
…
15: if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, for her hair is given to her for a covering.
Such a reading doesn’t make sense regardless of the various hair lengths to consider in verse 6.
I’m just not grasping any of Paul’s reasons to support a so-called cloth-of-authority covering to be placed on a God-gifted long hair glory covering. It seems a whole cloth fabrication (which in practice almost never hides the fact of long hair anyway).
I see no reason why Paul would establish the previously completely unhistorical metonymic practice of signifying who possesses headship authority by having him wear nothing on his head while having someone else, perhaps located elsewhere, wear something special on her head. Especially when Paul writes to Timothy that submissive wives shouldn’t put something on their hair and tells us exactly what that material is. Material that together on a head is known both before and after the time of Jesus as a crown. An item that the angels wore until men took up crowns to rule under Jesus.
Agreed. Thank you.