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 
Say, Scott, if that’s “Basic Greek”, how come that hardly any Bible translates it that way?
NIV – Love feast
KJV – Love feast
ASV – Love feast
Good News – Fellowship Meals
Contemp. Engl. Vers. – Meals you eat together
Webster – Feasts of charity
English Standard Version – Love feast
and last not least “Simple English Bible” (printed by the churches of Christ): Love feast.
These are all English translations I have at hand (not bad for Austrian ;-) )
So have all these translators problems with “basic Greek”?
Another thing: Agape (in plural) = Loved ones?
Agape appears 118 times in the NT, NOT ONCE in the sense of loved ones. To be translated that way it must be passive form, but it is dativ plural.
Please, read carefully the accounts of the Lord’s Supper
in Matthew: Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is My body.
in Mark: Mar 14:22 And as they ate, Jesus took a loaf and blessed and broke it, and He gave to them and said, Take, eat; this is My body.
In Luke, it is interesting, that two cups are mentioned. One apparently at the beginning of the meal, the other one after they have finished the meal: Luk 22:20 In the same way He took the cup, after having dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you.
So in sum, it is eviedent, that the Lord took the bread, that was part of the Passover Meal and gave it a new meaning while the were eating the meal. That’s why we insist on unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper.
Alexander
Alexander
Look again that agapeitos is used in the plural. Yes, these translators have a problem with interpreting into the texts. That is exactly the problem with dynamic (“thought” rather than “word”) translations in premise and these every word translations do likewise to help the flow. All these translators translated mostly baptisma as “baptism” (and maybe twice as “dip”) rather than “immersion”, which is not necessarily wrong, but it does make baptism subjective to unscriptural beliefs. These translations are filled with ambiguity and errors in translating “assembling” rather than “the meeting” or “the assembly” in Hebrews 10:25. How hard is it to translate a noun as a noun rather than a participle? It is just one thing after another. They don’t translate consistently. I’m not saying that I could do a perfect job. I know I struggle with translating the more complex participles into English. Are the German translations perfect?
Mark 14:22 and Matt. 26:26 do not have the word “as” in them as during the eating but without reading into the text it should be translated as “at their eating”, which is clearly much more general. Certainly, they had been partaking of the Passover and not any agape feast. This is not a common meal, and not a common “fellowship” meal. Clearly, Christ’s Spirit said in 1 Cor. 11:21-22, “For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.” And in verses 33-34 the Spirit of Christ said, “Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.” It can’t be any clearer that the Lord’s Supper was set apart from any commmon eating to satisfy hunger.
Luke is understood as supplementing Matthew and Mark and not contradicting them. The first cup is thought to be of the Passover Both Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor. 11:25 says after the supper (of the bread) that Christ took the cup. Add to this, that Jesus told the disciples to divide the cup among them in Luke 22:17.
Alexander, the heart of all our discussion here is the understanding that the Scriptures present our sole guide which is the Word of God delivered from the Spirit of Christ. If you find authority for your beliefs in the early writings and use these to interpret the Word of God, then we are just banging our heads together. I’d rather Christ interpret His own words and I believe that you are still striving mostly to this, but I hope that we can do this alone.
It really doesn’t matter if Jude 12 is referring to love feasts for which the Apostles and prophets spoke and commanded nothing of. It is like oil for prayer. There is no special oil mentioned for healing.
The word used in Jude 12 is simply “AGAPE”. Now, if if you have a better interpretation for understanding the verse, that’s fine.
Jud 1:12 These are sunken rocks in your AGAPES, feasting together with you; feeding themselves without fear;
Now, what does AGAPE mean in this context? Can we simply translate it with LOVE? Let’s try:
Jud 1:12 These are sunken rocks in your LOVES (plural), feasting together with you; feeding themselves without fear;
Does that make sense to you? To most translators neither. That’s why they checked on the historic background and understood it as the love feast the early Christians frequently mentioned and described.
And in the beginning, the Breaking of the bread was part of this agape, which can be traced back even to the NT, which I tried to demonstrate in the verses above.
So, as a summary for all our discussions: We have to look at church history in order to understand the situation into which the NT-statements were written. If don’t do that we will stick to our anachronistic view that the NT church did the basics just the way we do them now. Which is not the case. Paul and Peter wiould be terribly confused when they’d visit an assembly if a church of Christ today.
Actually, this might even be fine, if we did not boast to be a completely restored NT-church. If restoration is our motto, then we don’t really live up to that motto. THere is more to it, that our forefathers and we discovered so far.
And even worse: Concerning the headcovering we even gave up what was practiced among us according to the NT! That’s wht disturbs me most – and then we apply doulbe standards, when coming to patterns in the NT we don’t do and don’t even intend to follow. That’s dishonest.
BTW did you dig through all the links I sent you?
Alexander
This is basic Greek. Jude 12a, “These are searocks among your loved ones, being entertained among you,”. Yes, translators certainly err by relying on patristic writings in shady history.
As seen in the Scriptures above, there is no agape meal among the Lord’s Supper. When Christ instituted the supper, they had completed eating the whole Passover lamb and bitter herbs, and whatever sides of bread, oil, and grapejuice. This was not some agape meal. This is the PAssover and then Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper. There is no other meal here. First Corinthians 10:16 shows that the breaking of the bread is the Lord’s Supper. You must admit this since it is blatantly apparent.
There are no double standards here. There are denominational words being used in the Church that are allowing false teaching to come in. You’d be better to concern yourself with using scriptural words for scriptural things.
Yes, I’ve been through your links.
“No there is no agape meal. That is all made up. It is not in the Scriptures. It was just a meal together of some of the early “church” for which did not come from the New Testament.”
Please read Acts 2:46 slowly with me:
“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (V47) praising God”
What did the church do?
– Met in the temple
– Broke bread in the houses
– and ate their meal
– praise God
So in the houses, they continued their daily worship that started in the Temple (most likely at the 9th hour – mid afternoon – see Acts 3:1) with praise, a meal and the breaking of bread. The breaking of bread being one of the four essentials mentioned a few verses earlier (Acts 2:42)
Acts 20:7+11
“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. … When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.”
What did the church do?
– Broke Bread
– had a Bible-Study
– ate
That it is said that Paul broke the bread does not mean that he did it only for himself, but that he presided the Lord’s Supper; just as the Lord broke the bread. Now, the “eating” can refer to the broken bread or to a common meal – both is possible.
1Cor 11
I won’t quote the whole passage, but the problem was, that they came together to eat, and some started earlier and got a little drunk, while others – the poorer ones – came later and nothing was left for them.
Paul then rebukes them and says, this is not the Lord’s Supper anymore. Now the term “Supper” is interesting, because it is only used here. The Greekl “Deipnon” means the main meal of the day (late afternoon/Evening). Now this exlplains a few details:
The 1st day is a work day, so they had to meet after the work was done at sundown. this also explains while the service at Troas lasted until past midnight – it did not start at 10:00 a.m. as we are used to. The ones who were poorer or dependent on hard work and the slaved had to work till sundown, whil free and rich people could meet a little earlier.
That’s precisely what Paul notices: The richer ones put to sham the lower ones. they did this by starting the meal before them, and some even got drunk. BTW this shows they used REAL wine.
Now Paul goes on to refocus on Christ. The Lord’s Supper is to commemorate Christ, He must be in the center of attention.
From that he says: If anyone is so hungry (that he can’t wait), he shall eat at home. Buthis final statement is: We should wait for one another before we start eating.
To me this is clear: It was a full meal as a church, and in the course of this meal the bread was broken and the cup was shared. The whole meal is called “Lord’s Supper” because it was a real supper.
This is in line with the following observations:
Jesus took the bread WHILE they were eating – and the Cup he blessed, after they had eaten. The first breaking of bread was instituted in the course of a full meal (the Passover meal).
Acts 2:46 – as shown above – mentions the breaking of bread and a meal as part of the worship in the houses.
Acts 20:11 can be understood that the church also had a meal – which makes sense, considering they met after work at sundown.
2Peter 2:13 speaks of false teachers who are spots at the “feast” of the church. This refers to the meal, the “banquet” of the Lord’s Supper in the sense of a full meal-
Jude in verse 12 refers to the same people: “These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear” The feast of charity / the love feast / Agape seems to have been a decent meal.
Now, if these observations are not convioning for you, that’s fine … Shall we call the witnesses again?
The common meal of the church and the love feast were separated already in the 2nd century; but it is generally recognized among church historians, that the original practice was as I have described it following the scriptures.
As soon as you resore the orginal meetings in houses, you will realize, that eating together will be as natural as singing together. But our church culture (which has no Biblical authority – beware of double standards, Scott) makes us blind to simple NT church life, which is very very different from what we think is normal. I know both, and I have experienced the difference.
Alexander
The phrase “love feast” is not in the Greek text nor implied in Jude 12. That fact alone sets to rest this mysterious “love feast”. These Christians did eat together and they also did partake of the Lord’s Supper in the Assembly.
“We have examples of the laying on hands by elders and Timothy, a minister. There are no commands about this. There is only teaching regarding the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. Why is the early church your authority rather than the Scriptures? Are the Scriptures not complete? I could understand listening to Clement of Rome, Ignatius or Polycarp some for commentary. Yet, these are still men. Clement of Rome’s epistle that was written around the time of the Apostles and would be the purest commentary.”
Let me combine two topics in a short answer_
The laying on of hands is an example.
Breaking bread on the 1st day ofthe week is also an example.
For neither there is an express command.
But we are to follow express commands and approved precedents/examples/patterns.
So they are both on the same level. I ask for consistency, Scott. We cannot apply doublke standards to the scripture.
I use – as I said in the other posts – these men of old as witnesses. I have a very simple method: When I see them agree on the understanding of scripture, I tend to follow them; especially if they are really united on this, and if their writings show a significant number of testimonies from different regions of the empire.
When we differ from them in any aspect of church life, I go back in history and ask: When, where and why did the church change the original practice and understanding of the faith.
Some examples:
A-cappella worship
=============
The New Testement does not specifically command to use instruments in worship. That’s a fact, but churches draw very different conclusions from that. Even among churches of Christ a constant debate is going on between progressives and conservatives about this. It can be compared to our debate on the headcovering.
Now, the early church is very clear about that. All who spoke about it were against the use of instruments in worship (also against the clapping of hands). There is a significant number of testimonies and they all agree. These are my witnesses for the truth.
But when did the church start using musical instruments? The first organ was installed in the 7th century, but they did not become normal until the 13th century. And this is true only for the Roman Catholic church and (in consequence) for most Western churches. The Eastern Orthodox churches (at least most of them) stayed a-cappella.
So for me the case is absolutely clear: What is ambiguous in the scripture is made crystal clear by the witnesses who saw first hand how these texts were applied in the churches founded by the Apostles.
One Cup
======
There is also a debate among churches of Christ whether we should use one cup or multiple cups. The one cuppers point to the singular of cup, and that they all drank out of this cup which they took out the hand of the Lord – which makes it quite clear that only one cup was used. The others use this strange word “metonymy” and say, well the cup stands for the covenant. It is actually not about the cup but about the covenant in His blood. Because of “metonymy” the text actually does not say whether only one or more cuos were used by the Lord and His disciples.
I call my witnesses, and they all agree that only one cup was used. Again, all who write about it, stress that it is only one cup.
Now when did this change? In the 1880s when they discovered the germs. Really, not earlier. Until then ALL churches of ALL denominations used only ONE Cuo in the Lord’s Supper. So again, this was a novelty, that was introduced by innovators and they split the church by this. And since then they try to read their modern practice back into the New Testament, which leads to an absolutely a-historic theology.
Headcovering
==========
This might be repetetive. Anyway, we don’t agree, and I call my witneses:
They all confirm my understanding of the text: It is a piece of garment that women should put on their heads while prayer and prophesy.
When did it change? It was done essentially the same way through 1900 years in ALL denominations, until it gradually disappeared in the 20th century following women’s lib and secularisation. In the Roman Catholic church the headcovering was a church-law until 1983! In the churches of Christ the headcovering was abandoned in the 1960s. So again a novelty introduced by innovators. And since then a new way of explaining the text was adopted, that maybe developed a few decades earlier in some liberal seminaries (I don’t know where, to be honest).
And you know, what really, really disturbs me the most? Not that we make mistakes in our applications or that we err. But that the church always justifies her departure from the Word of God by reinterpreting the Word of God. In other words: If we don’t do what the scriptures say, we make the scriptures say that we don’t have to do what they say.
That’s twisting God’s Word! I – as one that will be held accountable by the Lord – made one committment: I will NOT do that, I will FIGHT against that. I will fight for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.
I hope you share this same vision, even if we (yet) disagree
Alexander
Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian affirm false teachings in an apostate sect. See Ferguson’s “Early Christians Speak”. I agree that these are good for commentary on culture and they have some interesting thoughts, but these are certainly not conclusive. I really only trust the 1st century and early 2nd century writers.
You know that not all examples are binding. Examples only have authority in defining a command. There is not direct commands water in baptism in Jesus’ name, but the Scriptures reveal that baptism in Jesus’ name is water baptism.
Regarding the Lord’s Supper, Jesus told His disciples to divide the cup (Luke 22:17).
I’d like to see some sources on who practiced the garment head-coverings before the 1800s. I’ll look into the Restoration Movement sources.
“Clement does not a show a garment. You are right that Tertullian does. I read these from before, but I don’t remember this one. Yet, again these are not authoritative. First Corinthians is clearly talking about hair and if it isn’t, it doesn’t matter. This is not our custom of honor and respect.”
Please, Scott, read the whole chapter of Clement’s exhortations: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.xi.html
He is definitely speaking of a coveruing not of hair.
And so did all early church writers who spoke on that subject.
Why shall be not be authortative?
I we – two 21st century Christians – cannot agree on the meaning and application of a 1st text, whom can we call as witnesses?
I call upon these brothers as withesses to the true and historic undestanding and application of this passage. Show me you witnesses whether they are as reliable and competent Show me whether the undarstanding you hold to has as long a history as mine.
I say, it is a novelty, unheard of for 1800 years; brought up by innovators who wanted to change to role of women in the church against the apostolic teachings. OK: Who has been the first one who ever thought, that the hair is the covering?
“b. In Acts 8, the Apostles laid on hands to give the Spirit and gifts. This is clear in Acts 19 and 2 Tim. 1:6. The church leaders should lay hands on those who need to have hands laid on them (1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 5:22).”
Good. I have never seen this so far (esp. not inthe course of baptism) … I am also a bit disturbed by the words “those who need”- Either it is a pattern to follow, then it would apply to all, or it isn’t.
Of course not all descriptions of baptisms in Acts mention the laying on of hands, but some do. Not all the descriptions of Christian assemblies mention the Lord’s Supper either, but of course we imply by one or two significant passages that this Supper needs to be observed (at least) every Lord’s day. It is a pattern to follow.
So I think, laying on of hands after baptism, combined with prayer for the Spirit and His gifts, is a pattern to follow. And there is lots of evidence that the early church understood it exactly this way.
Now for the last thing:
“c. …. Before 1 Corinthians 11:16 are not about the Assembly nor the Lord’s Supper.”
I don’t think so. For the following reasons:
a) V 2 speaks of traditions in plural
That’s his introduction to the chapter. He is praising them for holding fast to the traditions, and he speaks about TWO traditions: Headcovering and the Lord’s Supper.
b) V 17 literally reads: “This commanding I praise you not … (Touto de paraggello …)
This is the verse that leads from the first tradition to the second. The words “I praise you not” recall the words “I praise you” in V 2. The word “Touto” (this – often wrongly translated as “the following”) points backwards to what he has been teaching the verses before. There is differernt word for pointing to the following: Tode.
So verse 17 says: “Now, after having commanded the headcovering (note, it is a command!) as the first tradion, I must correct some serious faults concerning the second tradition, the Lord’s Supper.”
So these two traditions Paul deals with in one single discourse; which leads to the conclusion, that the context of both traditions is also the same.
c) 1Cor 11:2-16 speaks of men and women propheysing in the presence of the angels. This, and the direct connection with the Lords Supper makes it clear, that the context here is also the assembly.
[d) And when we think of an assembly, please don’t imagine a church-building, a pulpit and pews, but a living room, a table, couches and food. ]
At least for me – after 17 years of studying this chapter – the evindence is overwhelming. What we have to keep in mind is the warning of our Lord that our worship may be in vain if we treat as commands the traditions of men. We are quicvk to quote this warning to those in the denominations, but it does apply to us as well.
Alexander
We have examples of the laying on hands by elders and Timothy, a minister. There are no commands about this. There is only teaching regarding the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. Why is the early church your authority rather than the Scriptures? Are the Scriptures not complete? I could understand listening to Clement of Rome, Ignatius or Polycarp some for commentary. Yet, these are still men. Clement of Rome’s epistle that was written around the time of the Apostles and would be the purest commentary.
https://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/breaking-bread/
Again, there is a clear difference between meetings and the Assembly. Over 20 times, the Scriptures refer to the meeting of the Lord’s Supper as the Assembly.
First Corinthians 11:2’s reference to traditions is referring to traditions and not traditions in the Assembly. We can see how these may effect the Assembly hence 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Regarding tradition Christian meeting places, you are right. IN MY OPINION, I don’t care for pews, steeples, and “pulpits”. You are right these customary fixtures serve little purpose, but to make converts from denominations more comfortable. Give us a place to sit, a table, a cup, the Scriptures, and lets stir one another to love and good works. I like the pictures of the Rihab church, which show seating around their meeting place, a cave, with seating carved into the walls and a carved area in the floor for the table.
I am a teacher (together with two other brothers in our church), and it is this burden why I think about these issues – not permanently, but every once in a while. If there is a need to restore a teaching and practice, I will stand up to teach that in all love, wisdom and patience (and we rediscovered a few thing during the last year).
Now for the first claim:
“None of the early church quotes confirm that the covering was garment”
It seems to me, you never read them. Actually the opposite is fact, and I’ll quote them to you:
“And a Christian Woman will never fail, if she puts before her eyes modesty and her veil. Nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word (=the Logos, Christ), since it isbecoming for her to pray veiled.” (Clement of Alexandria, “Thr Instructor” Bk 3,XI)
Comment: In egypt they also veiled their face, which was their local application of modesty and the prayer veil. But it is clear, what he is talking about: A garment. In the same context he says: This must not be observed, when she is at home. His main concern that the style of dress does protect her from being gazed at. And in this he adds, that she also shall pray veiled according to the Word.
“For some, with their turbans and woollen bands do not veil their heads but buind them up. They are protected, indeed, in front. Howeer, they are bare where the head properly lies. Others are to a certain extend covered over the region of the brain with linen doilies of small dimensions … which do n ot quite reach the ears. … Let them know that the whole head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundariers reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound.” (Tretullian, “On The Veiling of Virgins” – read the whole tract)
Now, Tertullian is obviously speaking of a garment, isn’t he?
These two examples prove your statement to be wrong. In fact, there is not one writer from the early church who holds to your view. And there is not one until the 1800s who thought that way.
So, can you admit, that this statement is wrong: “None of the early church quotes confirm that the covering was garment”? If so, will this affect the way you read this text?
Second: Lord’s Supper
Acts 2:46 follows 2:42, so it is at least thinkable that these two verses speak of the same thing. And many scholars view Acts 2:46 as speaking of the Lord’s Supper.
You seem to make it turn on the “definite article” or the translation: “breaking bread” and “breaking of bread” – or a singular. Now here are the facts:
Acts 2:42 klasei tou artou – def.art. gen.sing.
Acts 2:46 klontes … arton – acc.sing.
Acts 20:7 klasei arton – acc.sing.
Acts 20:11 klasas ton arton – def. art. acc. sing.
If you go into detail, you cannot make assumptions on “singular” or “definite articles”, because the Greek is clear, that slightly different wordings forthe same thing are OK (as in our language and communication.)
So actually, you seem to be wrong, don’t you: “Clearly, there must be a difference between breaking bread and “the breaking of bread”.?
BTW the meeting place for the Early church was the house, and the Agape was a meal shared together and part of this meal was the Breaking of the Bread. Most church historians see that.
I have to stop here, but I’ll continue later
God bless you
Alexander
Clement does not a show a garment. You are right that Tertullian does. I read these from before, but I don’t remember this one. Yet, again these are not authoritative. First Corinthians is clearly talking about hair and if it isn’t, it doesn’t matter. This is not our custom of honor and respect.
You really missed the point on the bread. I wasn’t talking about the bread being singular. Acts 20 does not interpret Acts 2 either. I was referring to Paul breaking bread as a common meal being different from the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:11). Paul’s breaking is singular meaning that he did for himself.
No there is no agape meal. That is all made up. It is not in the Scriptures. It was just a meal together of some of the early “church” for which did not come from the New Testament.
Sure they met in houses, but there is no definitive Scripture that says they met for assembly in a house. They met everywhere else, but it really doesn’t matter where we meet for the Assembly as the numerous examples show.
You are going to some strange sources. Go back to the Bible. Forget these other teachings that are outside of the Bible.
What do you mean with “Apostles in Christ’s Church?”
As for the anointing: I’m glad to hear that – our church has never done this …
None of the early church quotes confirm that the covering was garment contrary to what the Scriptures say that the covering is hair.
Most of this is elementary in reading.
1. Long hair can be cut short. Short hair can be cropped. Cropped hair can be shaved.
The only covering mentioned in the verse is hair. A garment veil is not mentioned. Please, read the section a few times through without reading a veil into the text.
a. Acts 2o shows the church gathering to break bread on the first day after not assembling for 6 days (v6-7). Verse 11 shows Paul breaking his own bread (singular). Clearly, there must be a difference between breaking bread and “the breaking of bread”. First Corinthians shows that the Lord’s Supper is for the Assembly rather than any meeting (11:20, 33). With the whole picture in mind, then you can see that “the breaking of bread” is different from daily “breaking bread” in houses.
b. In Acts 8, the Apostles laid on hands to give the Spirit and gifts. This is clear in Acts 19 and 2 Tim. 1:6. The church leaders should lay hands on those who need to have hands laid on them (1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 5:22).
c. Why are you confused about the role of women? They shouldn’t have authority or teach over a man (1 Tim. 2). They should teach others (Titus 2) and evangelize (Acts 18). God saw it as a good thing for the Philip’s daughter to be able to prophesy and other women too. They should teach. Before 1 Corinthians 11:16 are not about the Assembly nor the Lord’s Supper.
*Are you a teacher and do not know these things? Our instructions should come the Word and not any sect of men.
Let me just answer this, Scott:
“The writings and pictures are not authoritative sources. The “coverings” mentioned in the sources are clearly customary. The picture of Greek pagan women worshiping shows her with cropped hair.
The Scriptures makes clear that these coverings are hair and that having hair upon the shoulders of women was customary and not to be kept in contentions.”
First:
Last sentence: The scriptures make it clear that … I disagree! You cannot understand veres 5 and 6 if long hair is the covering: If a woman has not long hair (no covering) then lett her cut off her hair. That makes no sense, does it?
You also cannot have long hair while praying or prophesying and then have short hair: Notice: This rule is ONLY for praying and prophesying and because of the ANGELs present in our assemblies.
Second:
Since you disagree with my correction of your view, I bring supportive historic evidence. We KNOW how this was understood and practiced in the Early church and throughout church history.
Third:
And we know, when the churches of CHrist stopped being obedient to 1Cor 11 and started adopting fancy new theories abopu this. Please note, that the idea HAIR is the COVERING is not older than 200 years. All Bible-believing commentators throughout the centuries understood it to a covering of cloth.
You may ignore that, Scott. Go ahead. You can say to yourself: My church is a fully restored NT church, so everything what and hoe we do (it) is absolutely Biblical. We are the faithful ones. This means – if that’s what you believe (at least some churches of Christ think about themselves that way), you have to interpret every scripture in a way that confirms your application or non application:
a) We break the Bread every first day, because Scripture says so: Acts 20:7 – why not daily (Acts 2:46-47)? You do it once a week, and so you don’t give the other verse equal weight. (Many churches are very dogmatic in this First Day of the Week Lord’s Supper)
b) We stress baptism through immersion because that’s the true meaning of this word – but we don’t lay on hands afterwards and pray for the Spirit (as shown in Acts 19). So again, we try to confirm our practice from the Bible, but when the Bible shows thaere is more to it than we practice, we eloquently explain that away …
c) We insist that the women must be siltent and give this verse such an absolute meaning, that we cannot possibly harmonize it with 1 Cor 11. So although this text is clearly speking of the assemblies we try by every connuing way of interpretation to relocate it into private meetings.
I could go on and on, Scott.
What disturbs me, as I read quite a few Blogs on follow the reasoningfs of progressives and c onservatives, is the folwong:
The progressives don’t really show much interest in going back to the origins, they stress untity and loosen what is bound by scripture.
But the conservatives show no interest to go back to the origins either: They defend their status quo handed down from their fathers who most likely did not have perfect knowledge.
I’d compare c onservatives to First Graders who have learned reading and writing. But then they say: “That’s sufficient”, leave school and call themselves teachers. But, I look at our movement who calls itself “Restoration Movement” and see little or no interest to really restore what hasn’t been restored yet. On the contrary: We give up, what has been faithfully praciticed in our movement for 150 years. The headcovering disappeared only a generation age, Scott. And the reason? The church followed the world – explain that to our Lord, brother!
Don’t be contentious:
Disobedience is the source of all contentions, as it was in Corinth. The Corinthians were out of line with the Apostolic teachings, they were contending against what has been taught and practiced in all churches by the authority of God’s appointed ones.
As long as this passage is in our Bibles, there will always be readers who will ask you: Why don’t we do that? And since your reasoning is completely a-historic and goes against the inner logic of the text, you won’t be able to convince everyone. So because of the disobedience of modern day church to a Biblical text and pattern we have a division in practice and contentions.
I am convinced that this is not OK before Christ.
In Christ
Alexander