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 
Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted these verses( 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 ) wrong but I got the impression that there was a custom of Jewish woman using a seperate covering ( something over their hair ) already before the verses were written, otherwise why were those verses written then? ( unless the church in Corinth didn’t believe in the head covering ) If there was, I ask myself why, and I study the head covering topic often.
For the same reason for cloth coverings, the hair of some may have been disrespectful according to custom. The passage is promoting the respect of cultural appearances, but do not be contentious over such customs.
Well, Abasnar & Alexander are one and the same. My full name is Alexander Basnar, and I live in Vienna/Austria. My native tongue is German. I am writing a book on this issue – so far about 200 pages, but only half finsihed. I have been studying this chapter 11 for over 17 years now, and all the excuses that have been brought uo to ignore its teaching during the last 50 years. Imagine this: For about one generation a new hermeneutics prevailed agains 1900 common practice among all churches of Christ and all denominations. I don’t believ these innovators are right, I simply can’t. That’s why I engaged in this debate, and I am pleased to know that not all churches of Christ gave way to the spirit of theis world in this issue.
Unfortunately – for you (and for me, because in German this book won’t sell very well ;-) ) – it is written in my native tongue … But if you want to get more information, and discuss this privately, be free to contact me at alex(dot)basnar(at)telering(dot)at
Alexander (spelled correctly without my awful typoes …)
I have problem with Abasnar & Alenxander. If both of you have a better understanding on any issue, have you put it in writing for people to read as Scott did? If Scott had not written anything, you would not have had any course to write but to argue and counter. pls, don’t die with all the knowledge, put them in writngs. Thank you.
It’s not a conjecture, it is or has been the unanimous understanding of all Christians from the earliest testimonies follwong the NT (2nd century) to the mid 20ieth century, still followe and practiced by many denominations and even many congregations withinthe churches of Christ world wide.
We speak of a change that happened about 1 or two generations ago, Scott. You are so sharp and clear concerning the aberrations that led to the progressive churches of Christ in the early 1960ie (and i do agree with you on this) – but you fail to see that the abandonment of the head covering is just one of these things that crept into the churches from the same sources (the same kind of “enlightened” theology).
In fact, it is clear from the flow ofthe verses 13-16 that “custom” refers to women praying uncovered (Verse 16 answers Verse 13) – we may not be contentious about that, we need to obey. And if you believe that long hair is the covering, then I still miss a convincing explaination how long hair can be worn only temporarily, that is for prayer or prophecy. Because that’s when a covering is required for women.
But let’s examine this one sentence again: For her hair is given to her for a covering. (ESV) KJV reads the ame – NIV has For long hair is given her as a covering. Your understanding seems to follow the NIV, maybe even in the sense of “instead of a covering”. The key word is the preposition “anti”.
Strong’s definition reads:
ἀντί anti an-tee’
A primary particle; opposite, that is, instead or because of (rarely in addition to): – for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
Paul is using an analogy from nature in verse 15. This means he is not talking about prayer and prophecy in this analogy, but about the nature of men and women, speaking about the gender distinction of long and short hair. This – of course- is not limited to prayer, but a general statement.
What do you think the best translation for “anti” would be in this context following Strong’s list? I’d say: The long hair corresponds with the veil. The hair is the counterpart in the analogy Paul draws from nature, it does not replace nor contradict what he said before about a covering during prayer and prophecy.
Anti can mean substitution, but it is never translated in this sense in the KJV (I can’t make an efficient word search in the ESV), but always “for”, “because of” of “therefore” – always describing a contrast or something corresponding. The Antichrist is also not replacing Christ, but stands in contrast or opposition to Christ.
Now – and that is the point! – why is the hair “for” the covering? Because long hair is the glory of the woman. May the glory of man be seen in the presence of God? No, the glory of man is the woman, and she shall be covered. May the glory of the woman be seen in the presence of the Glory of God? No, her hair is for the covering.
The main teaching is this: Only God’s Glory and Authority shall be seen in the assembly, in prayer and prophecy. All human glory and authority shall be covered. What happens to the man who is the head of the women? The man is covered symbolically when the woman covers her head (= the man).
Once you got the point the whole passage becomes crystal clear and very Christ centered. The verse 15 underlines this teaching because the hair is given her FOR a covering (or: in order to be covered, because all human glory must be covered in the presence of God).
Alexander
Would the word anti possibly make reference to the long hair as uncut hair?
Not a Greek scholar just a thinker.Would appreciate any in put.
You are referring to 1 Corinthians 11:15, which says, “But if a woman should have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her instead of a covering.” The bold phrase “instead of” is the one Greek word anti., which from my word-studies means in like form “in place of” and “for (exchange)”. That word anti is certainly essential to this study. This verse shows long hair either is her covering of hair or is instead of a material covering/mantle. Either way, anti must refer to a covering of hair or material that touches the shoulders as a hood.
Does the reference to long hair mean uncut hair? With 253 uses of anti throughout the Greek OT and NT, there is not one reference to anti meaning uncut hair and uncut long hair. I think from the context of 1 Corinthians that someone may have taken the words for shaven and shorn in verses 5 and 6 and presumed that hair should not be cut. This may be what they taught based on an assumption. Yet, all that is clearly written is that the covering of hair is long in contrast to being short like a man’s and those women who would have short hair would just as much be shaved or sheared by having such hair like a man, which was contrary to this custom of honor and respect.
As opinion and custom, I would that women have long hair unlike that of a man’s hair, but I will make no contentions or disputes over such as 1 Corinthians 11:16 teaches.
Thanks for the question and God bless.
I could not find the following words in this text:
“customary”, “freedom”, “conscience”, “culture”, “prostitutes”, …
But I found clear references to
“creation”, “headship”, “angels”, “nature”
As well as the phrase:
“traditions” that are to be kept
Chapter 11 starts with “traditions” in plural and contains two of them: The head covering and the Lord’s Supper. If you cross out the head covering then what would be the second tradtion Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping them? But if we can agree that the head covering is one of the traditions Paul teaches here, then it goes alongside with the lord Supper. It even precedes it. So at least it is as binding as the Lords Supper.
And there were no contentions about this for 1900 years, because all churches agreed that this Apostolic tradition (as all other Apostolic traditions – 2Th 2:15) must be kept. Contentions arose when some liberal influences (methods of historical critical exegesis) crept into the churches of Christ in the 1960ies. Now there are two kinds of churches: Those who keep it and those who don’t and the church of Christ, once again, is not unified in practice and conviction.
“We have no such custom” is the answer to the question in verse 13: “Is it appropriate that a woman prays uncovered?”. “We have no such custom, neither have the churches of God.” This statement should silence all contentions just as 1Co 14:36 (“Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?”) means: Do what all churches of Christ do. In this area most churches of Christ therefore are not in line with the churches of Christ anymore. So it’s high time to repent from the errors of the 1960ies and become faithful keepers of all Apostolic traditions again.
Alexander
BTW: I firmly believe in a-cappella worship – yet there there is a more decisive command for the head covering than for a-cappella worship. And while a-cappella worship was practiced in the whole Chrsitendom until the middle ages, the head covering was practiced in the whole Christendom until the middle of the last century. And I am sure you are aware as to how and why the role of women in society changed, and how so many churches followed the world like the rats followed the flute. Look at all the congregations and denominations with female preachers and elders, and then point out one church to me that has retained the head covering where this happened! This symbol serves as a reminder for keeping the order of creation.
Yet, there are customs so that “we have no such custom”. Regarding the covering of hair, Christ’s Spirit says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 10:16). There is no room for contention here. Forgive the reference to “customary” in light of the reference to customs, which form “culture”. Forgive that anyone had noted that we are neither bound by culture nor customs and therefore we are “free” hence “freedom” and no reason to feel guilt hence the “conscience”.
This is speculation to say this had to do with the Lord’s Supper. Or should we back up even further conjectures on matters of the conscience and idolatry in chapter 10? Or move forward into spiritual gifts? Only conjecture and overreaching would apply this to the Assembly and the worship thereof.
It is also conjecture to make these head-coverings to be more than hair.
the BIble really dosent say a specific lenght and insinuates hair doesnt have to be shaved or cropped to be short
Between hair that touches the shoulders being a mantle covering and that hair that does not, then yes, this is short. Yet this is customary and not binding teaching from Christ hence there are no contentions either way (1 Cor. 10:16).
Know this is an old blogline, but sadly have to agree with the inconsistencies over the years. A lot of ministers I have sat in on use the same “ancient”references Abasnar spoke of. I’ve used them at times myself. Some I have read , others I’ve learned form others. Abasnar is right in the folly of many in regards to the claim of being the restored NT church(Joseph Smith said the same thing and unless the Word is a lie it never died it just operated under our non-prescribed name). We demand “our” interpretation of 1 Cor. 11(but are divided on that. Be it a common meal or what we know as the Lord’s supper( the text points more toward something other than a “common meal”), the reproach and condemnation is the lack of unity and love by the haves against the have nots.), Acts 20:7(ditto), Acts 2:38(Gentiles were not the target audience. What sin did the Jews have to repent of?),1 Cor 13(Did the Nicene council give us perfection?). But it’s tough to find elders who will follow James 5. I have friends and family who hold that the hymn “Just a little talk with Jesus” is unscriptural and use the rationale we talk to God thru Christ. But in Acts we find both Stephen and Paul addressing the ascended Christ directly. I put the question to my brother and he ask his preacher. He was told it was a one time thing for that period. How much precedent or occurrences are needed to validate? It sounds petty, but it ranks up there with the old Earth-new earth debate, the name above the door, etc. It detracts from the Blood and leaves folks in fear(it is The Spirit that sanctifies, not doctrine). The written word is not the Paraclete. It points to Him. The new church had the comfort of the OT scriptures in that they pointed to Christ. Have had little Greek and no Hebrew. But know the fear and hell on earth of living in the inconsistencies. Seen the meanness it produces. Religion is not Christianity. The works of man do not produce the fruit of the Spirit, but it can grieve and quench Him . Walking in the flesh is more than just “loose morals”. False application of the Word is either fleshly or demonic. They will know you are my followers by the love you have for one another. It’s easy to live in denial and claim the churches of Christ, Inc. are in decline because others refuse the truth. But many are truly seeking. They know inconsistency when they see and sense it. If they try to learn and teach the Word and are met with dogma which is easily rebuffed with the Word they will wipe the dust from their feet and keep their pearls to themselves. God knows those who are His. We need to let it stay at that. I see and sense a lot of old apologetics in these lines. James is a very good book when it comes to teaching and judging. The sad part is that just as in other denominations the zealous mean well. But many in all denominations overstep and pronounce a form of judgment reserved for God alone. It’s not wrong to admit we’re wrong when we strive for unity and “prove all things” for “He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. But to stand on doctrine that can be debunked and continue to present such especially in a public forum would have not been tolerated 2,000 years ago and I don’t see Christ opinion changing.
Thanks for the post. All I could find on head coverings online was how we should use them…. It seems that there is a semi-cult of head-covering-users. I’ve done some translating before, and I know sloppy – or just difficult – translating when I see it, but for some reason, no one wanted to go back to the Greek on this one. Thanks.
Unfortunately, I can’t get to James Burton Coffman’s site. Do you know if it’s still available? Maybe the address is wrong?
Thanks,
Melissa
Yeah, I did mess up the link. Thanks. Glad to help.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/
Hi,
i am so blessed with your explanations, keep it on and my the Lord be with you.
Your co-worker
Lusajo
Just one after the other: Jude 12
=======================
Where in Jude 12 did you see agapeitos? I could not find it (neither in the Textus Receptus, nor the Byzantine, nor in Westcott and Hort).
Jud 1:12 Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες, συνευωχούμενοι ἀφόβως, ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες, νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι, δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ, ἄκαρπα, δὶς ἀποθανόντα, ἐκριζωθέντα,
It’s ἀγάπαις, not “agapeitos”.
I examined your “interpretation” of “agapais” (dat.pl.) as “loved ones”. There is not ONE verse in the NT that contains agape in this sense.
But we do have the word “Beloved” in Jud 3 (even the same letter): Agapetoi – this comes from the word agapetos (beloved).
But in Jude 12 we have the simple plural of agape = “Love” NOT “loved ones”. So we speak of two differernt words, Scott. Even in English Love and Loved One aren’t exchangeable, they are distinct.
So why – do you think – have almost all translations chosen “love feast”? Because they were blinded by church-traditions? Because the have this dynamic approach in translating the sacred texts (even the KJV??)?
Or because they realized that agape has also been used in these days as a terminus technicus for the love feasts? The earliest reference to this comes from the letters of Ignatius (105 AD)!
=================================
1 Cor 11 corrects abuse of the meal, but does not forbid eating
================================
What the Corinthians did, was actually what they have learned when the church was founded by Paul. ASnd you really have to grasp the whole scene, in order to understand it, Scott:
1) The assembly was in the evening of the first day of the week. Why? Because it was a work day.
2) Obviously the curch came together to eat a meal. Why? Well, because it was the normal time to eat (after a hard day’s work).
3) Some arrived earlier, some later. Why? Because some had to workl longer, namley the poorer ones (and slaves).
4) Those who arrived earlier, started eating ahead of the others. When the came, most of the good food was already gone, and some have had a little too much of the wine (fermented wine).
OK – Now connect these few facts with the admonition at the end:
1) When you come together, wait for one another. Does that say, that they should not eat a fiull meal togethjer anymore? By no means; they should, butr they should wait until all have arrived.
2) But if anyone is (too) hungry (to wait), than HE shall eat at home. See, this is a limted restriction. Limited to those, who can’t wait for the others.
The whole thing is so obvious as soon as you picture it. No, Paul did niot forbid to have a common meal. He did not separate the breaking of the Bread and the Cup of wine from the meal. This would have been totally unnatural!
Honestly: The way we celebrate the Lord’s Supper has nothing to do with the term Supper anymore – Lord’s Supper is BTW only used in this passage when Paul dealt with a real meal. Deipnon, as I mentioned earlier, indeed means a real supper, not jsu a bite of bread and a sip of wine. So it is absolutely fitting that Paul used this term in a context of a real meal.
And that’s why I pointed to the fact, that the Lord took bread as they were eating (at their eating, if you please), the bread that was on the table and was part of the meal they had together.
And that’s why I pointed to the fact, that the Breaking of Bred is mentioned together with having a meal in Acts 2:46 and (quite likely) in Acts 20:11.
And that’s why I pointed to the love feast of the Early Church as a “witness” to these observations and came back to Jude 12, where Jude is obviously speaking of a love least.
See, that’s all very simple. Just count together 1 + 1 and you’ll arrive at a pattern for our assemblies that is revolutionary diferrent from what we understand under a “church service”.
=================================
One last comment:
I don’t want to make this too long. I have the impression, that we won’t agree very soon, and I think it is not wise to lead a public debate when it becomes too repetitive. Is it all right with you, when we close our discussion?
Alexander
Sure, you have these last words for my consideration. God bless.