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 
I do basically agree with you, Larry. We in Vienna therefore normally don’t use “Gottesdienst” (worship) as the term for aur assemblies. In Acts 2:42 you see four activites: Teaching, Breaking of Bread, Fellowship, Prayer. Throughout acts you see assemblies that were focussed on one or more oft these activieties. Meetings for prayer, fellowship around a meal, … in Acts 20:7ff, Breaking of bread, eating and teaching (until past midnight) is listed. In 1Co 11-14 I also see these elements, making an assembly last longer than an obligatory hour and a half on Sunday mornings. When I list these elements, I am not using them in the sense the “5 acts of worship” are used. These elements should be the natural occupation of the assembled saints. I also see the bigger context of chapters 5-14. The attempt to somehow take 1Co11:2-16 out of this context, saying it does not apply to the assembly, does not work.
Paul starts out with praising the Corinthians for holding fast the traditions as he had delivered to them. Note the plural here! Then he specifically deals with two traditions: Headcovering and the Lord’s Supper. Verse 17 links these two by limiting the praise in verse 2 and stressing, that he is actually commanding these things. It took a while for me to see this, because many translations have a paragraph and a separate headline between verse 16 and 17 and wrongly translate touto as “following” instead of “this”, thus making it appear that now Paul is changing the subject. But he is still dealing with the traditions (plural) he started talking about in verse 2. So chapter 11 is one authoritative discourse about two specific teachings that both apply to our assemblies.
As for the second century church of Christ: If we dismiss them as unreliable, we should cast out all commentaries and books and stop preaching as well. But if we say, these commentaries and books and sermons are important for our spiritual growth and understanding, then the ECF are even more so, because of their closeness to the origins. No, they are not perfect and not inspired in an infallible sense, but they had no less Holy Spirit than we claim to have. And some of the authors were close compnaions of the Apostles or of disciples of them, they knew the apostolic churches first hand since they grew up in them and served as elders there (some of them chosen and appointed by the Apostles). Did you know, as you mentioned the letters in revelation, that the church of Ephesus around 110 was praised for her love by Ignatius? They obviously did take the words of Christ to heart, and I trust other churches as well. Ephesus was led by Onesimus at this time BTW. But that’ a side remark, and I agree with you that scripture must be our primary source and authority.
As I tried to demonstrate, scripture alone is sufficient to understand the headcovering – but we need to rid ourselves from our own traditions that hinder us to see clearly. Reading texts from other, preferably older and oldest traditions may help us in doing this. Once you realized that the putting away of the headcovering one or two generations ago had no precedent in the whole church history, no support in any commentary, you begin to wonder why even the churches of Christ, so famous for the resoration of the “Ancient Order of Things” adopted this dramatic modernistic change so willingly. I can only shake my head in disbelief …
Alexander
Alexander,
I am certainly not setting aside the writings of those led by elders appointed by Apostles. I think their words are excellent commentary as far as they are well translated. I’ve read Clement of Rome a number of times and I occasionally read Polycarp, Ignatius, Melito, Hippolytus, Justin, and another I forget.
The traditions delivered here is different than the custom in 1 Cor. 11:16. A tradition of God includes how we address societal customs. That is the tradition that I find in 1 Cor. 11. Second, 1 Cor. 11:16 shows that there are to be no contentions. I find that women had hanging hair as a covering and those with short hair would have worn a cloth covering for which your source agrees. I have had no problem with that, but the source is not reliable to make your case that all coverings are to be cloth veils.
When my brethren speak of the 5 acts of worship, they are thinking of the 5 acts of the Assembly noted Alexander Campbell to those reformers before like Helwys. Again, see my article on the definition of worship to see quotes about their understanding worship not being bound to the Assembly.
Scott:
I read that you do not believe that the communication in 1Cor 5-16 was speaking of worship.
You speak of it being probably special gatherings, I also think that you believe that they were possibly not mixed gatherings, male and female.
You have mentioned worship as if it is different from gatherings. I can fully understand how this has been conceived, because of our traditions of how we have understood worship from our teachers. Therefore I will challenge you and possibly Alexander to locate in scripture between Acts and Revelation which contains the history of the church and instructions pertaining to it, A command to go to worship, An example of a worship service or a place where we are worship at. I know that Alexander will go to the 2nd and 3rd century records, but I do not believe that those are the Word of God or the instructions that we are commanded to follow. If you will notice, I do not believe that the scriptures have lied to us in stating. (2 Tim 3:16 NIV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
And. (2 Pet 1:20 NIV) Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. (2 Pet 1:21 NIV) For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Peter warned us. (2 Pet 2:1 NIV) But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves.
(2 Pet 2:2 NIV) Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
(2 Pet 2:3 NIV) In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
We are warned by the Apostles themselves of false teachers that were already in the church, Satan had joined to the church to corrupt it prior to the death of the Apostles and long before the 2nd century. We have no assurance that the 2nd century or later writings about the church seen then was as the Lord had directed it to be. In fact the letters to the churches in Revelation, written approximately 90 A.D. should a great warning that the history written by some men that possibly weren’t even Christians, and for sure not inspired of God to write his messages would likely be erroneous. I have not done much studying of those records, but I can hear from those that have and many times what they have gleaned I could easily see did not match teachings in God’s word.
Now that I have identified to you where we should search of answers. I will state some of the things that I have found that influence my decision that we have been taught some error for so many hundreds of years, that we just accept it without question, and the world has actually accepted it and therefore judge Christianity by what Christianity has shown the world.
Now, for a concept that is taught by us that does not match instructions in scripture.
Go to church to worship. Nowhere in the New Testament teachings is there an instruction to go to worship. The reason it is not found, is because the NT teaches us that the church is within us. The church was never pictured in scripture as an organisation separate an over there, the church is assembled any time more than one of us are together in his name. We have taught and the world has understood that the church comes together at a specific place and time to worship. The Bible tells us that our lives are a worship to God, the scriptures state that we are not to neglect the coming together. (Heb 10:25 KJV) Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Heb 10:25 NRSV) not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
We are commanded to worship 24/7/168, we live our lives as a worship. All of the gatherings described were to edify and build us up. We individually cannot remove ourselves from worship and still be disciples of Christ. We can see the evidence of the teaching in our children, in our brothers and sisters in Christ, they only believe that they have to act like Christians on the First Day of the Week and a few on mid-week Bible study, o but it is really not worship. You see we have created, or Satan has created possibly even prior to the 2nd century a visibility of a over there, tomorrow, or a few days from now is when we worship. And that service of worship also has become a ritualistic thing it has an order that has to be performed in a correct fashion, if you deviate in the slightest detail, it will not be acceptable to God. Man has made up the rules for how he thinks those things that examples have shown in scripture that we do that please the Lord. Man has decided that each time we meet those things have to be done or we do not worship. In some cases men have exalted themselves above the average Christian to a point to make the common man, the very men that accepted Christ in the beginning, cannot worship without the exalted man conducting, or directing the service. There is not a directive in NT scripture that will support that action. How different would Christianity look to our children, our co-workers, the world if we could convince Christians that our worship to the Lord, was in fact our daily lives. We put far too much dependence on scholars for answers, I believe that the scriptures were compiled by God to be read and understood by the common men that accepted his teachings.
You make too many presumptions about my convictions.
No. I believe the Assemblies were mixed with men and women. I’m going by the scriptures. 1 Cor. 14:40 shows that women were present in the same gathering.
About worship – First, I’ve been teaching for more than 10 years that the scriptures teach that worship is not bound to the Assembly. Second, if you are saying that every good deed that we do is an offering to God, then I must agree that every good deed is an offering and is worship to God (Heb. 13:15-16). Yet to say that “all of life is worship” goes to far for me to profess such a thing. Yes, we give our life to God as a living sacrifice, but this does not make every act of life worship to include involuntary reflexes like blinking our eyes, eating, sneezing, etc. I think you would agree so far in truth maybe not in my presentation of language, rhetoric. “All of life” is used by many to include involuntary parts of life and reflexes. I’ve heard people include vacations and recreation as “worship” and even to forsake the Assembly. I think you would agree with this. You should read my article on the definition of worship. You’ll read quotes from Lipscomb to Woods to Wharton and Ferguson, who all agree with you that worship is not bound to the Assembly.
Third, the Assembly is for worship and much more to stir one another to love and good deeds (Heb. 10:24) and certainly for edification of the congregation in teaching (1 Cor. 14). We see Jesus singing praises in the midst of the Assembly (Heb. 2:12). Of course, I think we would agree with the Assembly is worship and more than just praise directed to Him, but the Assembly is also for Christians. As for “ritual”, I find acts of the Assembly whether simplified into 5 or lengthened into 10 included in the 5. I don’t think my brethren are in error about this. I agree with Alexander Campbell and Thomas Helwys that the Assembly generally includes singing, teaching, praying, the Lord’s Supper, and giving to the collection.
I don’t see 1 Cor. 11:2-16 referring to simply the Assembly, but rather generally to all gatherings. Yet the speaking of 1 Cor. 14:26ff included prophesying, and this speaking women were not to do in the Assembly (1 Cor. 14:34-35).
So what? It is a document from the 2nd or early 3rd century and therefore a vlid wiotness. Show me testimonies from this period of time or any time up until the mid 1900s from bible-beliecveing sources that teach that either women need not to cover or that their hair is their covering. There might be a few from the last century, but going thriough the centuries you will see, that this is a new interpretation. I am not centending with an Apostolic teaching.
Alexander
P.S. Read verse 17 also (in Greek or the KJV): 1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare (or command) unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
a) It is about a command, not just a “tradition of men”
b) It is about the coming together (assambly)
Abasnar,
That is the Egyptian Church’s “Apostolic Tradition”, which some presume was written by Hippolytus of Rome. I find no confirmation this being his writing, and even if it were so, then the evidence is not enough alone.
I know this will annoy you, but again, “And if anyone thinks to be a contentious person, we have no such custom nor the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). It would be different if Paul said, “And if anyone thinks to be a contentious person, we have such tradition [paradosis] and the churches of God”. Remove the “not”, the “nor”, and use another word other custom for common practice and change it to tradition as delivered by God (1 Cor. 11:2, cf. 2 Thess. 2:15).
Reading through these comments about the head coverings has been very interesting. I have been a member of the CoC for over 53 years and attended since birth and of course at the early time there was not an availability of the early documents from the 2nd and 3rd centuries to council with but, the discussion here seems to left out a very important ingredient. It has been said that the covering was only required while assembled for worship. The text states that the covering was to be used while the women were, (1Cor 11:5 KJV) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:
(1 Cor 11:5 NIV) And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head–it is just as though her head were shaved.
Now, it is very easy to understand that a woman could not prophesy without speaking so others could hear, therefore the covering was not necessary for her to be in the assembly quietly. So what about the praying was she praying audibly in the assembly? If not praying audibly or prophesying audibly, If she was to bow her head and listen to the prayer that was offered by a man, would she be praying? I am sure that those reading this can fully understand that in all of the years that I have attended CoC none of those audible actions were allowed to be performed by women. Therefore, to apply the head covering as a tradition of the Apostles would be totally out of place unless you can prove that the woman listening silently was to be covered. Or prove that just her presents in the assembly required the covering.
So should we take this one step further and affirm that if a woman came into the assembly with her head covered then, with the example in Corinth she could prophesy (teach, preach) or lead the congregation in prayer. The text is pretty clear that they were doing exactly that in Corinth.
It wasn’t until the 14 chapter that Paul wrote. (1 Cor 14:34 KJV) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
If we meet and do not allow the women to do either of those actions as the later verses command then the head covering does not apply.
Larry,
I don’t see anything that implies that they were in the Assembly. I do find that women would teaching erring men (Acts 18) and teach other women (Titus 2). If women were to teach women, that would imply a time set aside to gather and do so. Therefore, I apply 1 Cor. 11:2-16 to other such gatherings (Acts 12:12). If we to presume upon 1 Cor. 11:17 that this is the Assembly, we would also have to presume that these women were praying and prophesying aloud. [I am always willing to reconsider the scriptures.]
If we do apply this to the Assembly, then the speaking that women are not to do would not include such actions as prayer and prophesying. Now, do we consider prophesying to be direct revelation like reading scripture (being prophecy), but not prophesying with exhortation and instruction so as to teach men.
I find that men are the head of their house to serve, love, cherish, and nourish, and that man have this birth right being first created carried over into the Assembly where he is to teach and exhort.
David Lipscomb affirmed that praying silently is still praying, therefore women should be covered. That’s his opinion, but what is overlooked in general ist that certain prayers in the early church were recited in unsion. So there was no “absolute silence”. And we don’t have it either. Do our sisters join in the AMEN after the prayer? They do. Do they join in the singing? They do.
What about prophesying? The assmebly had two “parts”, so to say. The first part was the Lord’s Supper embedded in the Love Feats. This was a time of spiritual fellowship, where spiritual conversations were encouraged. The second part was focussed on teaching. You can see this in Acts 20 and also in 1Cor – Chapter 11 deals with the love feast, chapter 14 deals with the “teaching”-session, in which all brothers were encouraged to participate.
Taking our church-traditions and reading them back into the mode and manner of 1st century assemblies always results in disturbing confusion. We – in our house church – have it this way, but in a different order: First the teaching, then the Lord’s Supper and then the meal. We start at 10:30 and part ways between 2 or 3 p.m. after cake and coffee. You can bet, that the women – although silent in the first part – do speak in the second part. And often but not always it is about our life with Christ, encouraging and edifying.
Alexander
Abasnar: you said;
As you well know, the headcovering silently disappeared in the mid 20th century – it was only then that fancy new interpretations appeared in our commentaries to theologically sustain the new practice, and that those who were discontent with the change started publishing in-depth expositions on this chapter, teaching what ought to have been tought a generation or two earlier to avoid the change.
I have heard comments like this many times on many different subjects, most of them could easily be identified as not true as stated. Could you verify what sources you have relied upon for that information? While you are looking I will share another statement that has been commonly quoted but I cannot find anyone that can produce documentation. Since you uphold that the early church did not use instruments, I thought you might have access to this information or have stated it yourself. ” 200 years before Christ came to earth the worship in the Temple stopped using instruments.”
Hi. Larry! Fancy meeting you here ;-)
The Veil was part of the Roman Catholic Canonical Law until 1983, but was discontinued shortly after Vatican II – mainly in the West BTW. Southern and Eastern Europe generally still practice it. In the Orthodox churches it is still required (generally), although I suppose in the West they start losing the battle slowly. Among the Protestants it was taught by all major Commentatiors and scholars (Luther, Calvin … down the road to Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes, John Gill, Adam Clarke, …). In fact, as long as it was still practiced, I know of no bible-believing commentator who commented otherwise. It would have created a departure from the practice way earlier, or debates, strive, schisms. Lipscomb among the churches of Christ taught no differently. Today, in the West, among Protestants in general, only the Anabaptists still hold fast to the Headcovering, the Plymouth Brethren, the Free church of Scotland, some Presbyterian churches – maybe a few other minor groups, some congregations amoing the churches of Christ (HIram Hutto wrote a splendid text and also Bruce Terry – both online).
But note: The Departure started in the West or in congregations influeced by 20th century missionaries from the West! Churches of Christ in Africa or India still cover their women and sometinmes shake their heads and ask questions like a Nigerian Brother once did: “Are the American women different than ours?”
Notweworthy, the commentary of Albert Barnes: “Neither the churches of God – The churches elsewhere. It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.”
The Western churches departed from the general practice of the churches of CHrist. It is NOT a tradition of men, we are talking about, but an Apostolic tradition that has been kicked or cut out of our Bibles. As for additional reading, you may go to http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/articles.htm#HeadCovering
As for the fruit of this departure: All denominations/movements that discarded the veil a generation or two had female preachers or pastors and endless debates about it: Evangelicals, Lutherans, Baptists, liberal mennonites, Methodists, churches of CHrist (progressive), Disciples of Christ … and no church that still practices headcovering went in that direction. The veil is a reminder and safeguard for the order of creation (1Cor 11:3). Judging the fruit, the departure was evil.
Alexander
Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and others along with the imgaes in the Catacombs are primary sources, Jeff. Where are the primary sources for the other “theory” that long hair is the veil? There are none.
Alexander
?
It should have been in response to your resonse to Stu. But I think I was quite clear. You asked for primary sources, I named them. IN return I asked for primary sources for th other throries on 1Co 11.
I don’t consider Tertullian or Clement of Alexandria to be primary sources even of the Apostles. As Hippolytus, you have something to consider. I’d like to know that reference. If you could a second source like an associate of Hippolytus, then I’ll consider.
Either way, it doesn’t matter. “And if anyone thinks to be a contentious person, we have no such custom nor the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16).
We don’t have to go though all of this again. But I don’t believe Paul gave these instructions only to close with a statement like “Let’s a gree to disagree then”. There is only one correct understanding of this passage, and there I would not rely on a 20th century scholar, but rather on the elders of churches of Christ in the 2nd century who spoke Greek and had a unanimous understandng and practice of the headcovering. As you well know, the headcovering silently disappeared in the mid 20th century – it was only then that fancy new interpretations appeared in our commentaries to theologically sustain the new practice, and that those who were discontent with the change started publishing in-depth expositions on this chapter, teaching what ought to have been tought a generation or two earlier to avoid the change.
We agree that the introduction of musical instruments was in error. I confirm that giving up the headcovering after 1900 years was in error two. One is based on a different interpretation of silence, the other on a serious misreading of 16 verses of our Bible. We shall neither add (instrument) nor take away (headcovering) from God’s Word.
I don’t understand how you can interpret 1 Cor. 11:16 any other way. This is my verbal equivalent translation. What else do these words mean?
Not “agree to disagree”, but rather “have no contentions over the customs of men”.
Hippolytus wrote the Apostolic Tradition – in this he deals with the headcovering, not whether or not, but what kind of covering as appropriate and what not. But these texts – if you really want to give them a thought or two – are available ion the internet, There are also summaries and quotes in almost all books written in favor for the headcovering. In fact: When we argue for a-capella worship, we often use the same sources to back up our conviction. It would only be consistent to do the same in this area, esp. since the change in practice is so recent.
I’m reading through Hippolytus and I don’t read anything about coverings or veils except of the veil of the temple being torn.
I look at the early church writers as commentators and reliable shadows of the 1st c.
Oh, I see. You presume that the Egyptian Church’s “Apostolic Tradition” was written by Hippolytus of Rome.
I’m not sure where you are reading. I refer to this work: http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html and especially this text from it:
Ch 18:5: All the women should cover their heads with a pallium, and not simply with a piece of linen, which is not a proper veil.
Just one line – but the sigbificance is clear: It was not debated whether or not a woman must be veiled, but what is a proper veiling and what is not. They tried to be specific in the application. The same can be observed in Tertullians’s writings.
Alexander
In a problematic passage such as this, extra-biblical evidence shed some light and indicates otherwise. The earliest drawings including those from the Catacombs and writings from some of the early Church Fathers clearly indicated that the women wore coverings and were instructed to do so.
You need to confirm your position with primary sources.
“because of the angels” is referring to genesis 6:2 and 2 peter 2:4. The fallen angels will come back like it was in Noah’s time, just as Jesus Christ has said it. 1Cor 11 tells us women to have Christ over our head to keep the fallen angels away when that time comes.
I find that highly speculative even in interpreting Gen. 6:2 and 2 Pet. 2:4 to refer to angels.
Thank you very much for this article .It reminds me so much of a conversation I had with a Jehovah witness colleague on this topic.Their interpretation of vs4-6 is that it refers to a literal covering otherwise “how can you shave shaven hair”.I knew I had to be missing something somewhere until I found your website.God Richly Bless you