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 
Okay I like to give my hair a layer type trim because I don’t like it in my eyes and it gets itchy and falls out in my food more easily when it gets longer. I never cut it shaving type short(yikes) but I trim it. And I don’t like to wear my hair up either because causes center of attention and causes pain. Please tell me whether this is too short. I’m the girl with the guitar: http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1927_507776616146_3496_n.jpg?dl=1
Here’s a funny one: http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1927_507776616146_3496_n.jpg?dl=1
Brother, I find your writings very encouraging, especially in that many times they are met with strong disagreements. There is an article I have read (found here: http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2003/2003-10-01.htm) that reads scripture as saying the head covering was not being spoken of as a custom, and must be worn despite hair length. It is a lengthy read but I would love to read your comments on this. I am not a woman, nor am I married, but I still find that if these verses are indeed stating that a woman must indefinitely have her head covered by an artificial covering no matter her hair length, then what is often taught is simply not correct. The difficulty I’ve found lies in that Paul states that a woman’s hair is given to her as a covering, so then it is thought that no artificial covering is needed, but you’ll find in the linked article that that point is addressed. However, I know many, many brethren that interpret these passages as simply being a custom of the time or that a woman’s hair is sufficient covering. I’ve been under the thought for a great deal of time that if we simply submit to God’s commands, abiding by what we find in God’s word, that to be safe it would be better for women to wear an artificial covering as it is such a small thing to do that seems to represent so much. Thank you for your time Brother.
With Godly love,
Bryant
Bryant,
Thank you for your very kind and challenging comment. I have read this article before and the others beside it. I do not find the thought for women’s hair being a covering proving that they need another covering to be rational, reasonable, or persuasive. I really don’t understand such a presumptuous assertion. I wish that he would reconsider. I hope that we find each other discussion about this. The covering is never specified in the Greek until verses 14-15 where it is hair. In fact, the word “covering” is not in the noun form until verses 14-15. Yet, a garment covering is implied by the lack of hair needing a covering. If this were applied today, I find that women with short hair would wear a covering and women with long hair have the covering of their hair. Yet, I refer to verse 16 that custom is not for contention, but a custom of respect then as our clothing should show respect today.
Concerning 1 Corinthians 11:16, the writer of your cited article is proof-texting via the mistranslation of the RSV. The RSV gives the impression that “we recognize no other practice”, which does change the meaning of the passage from other translations. The word “recognize” is not in the Greek, but a simpler and more common word, echo, meaning “we have no such custom, nor the churches of God” (my word-for-word literal transliteration). It is a very simple translation. Another key word here is “other” in the RSV is reference to the custom implying that “we recognize no other practice”. “Other” is inserted here for those wanting this custom to be the standard rather than translating the Greek behind this, toioutos, as “such” or “like”. The etymology shows that this word refers to something similar as “such” or “like” (Thayer’s Lexicon, etc.), and not to another or “other”. A quick word-study also refutes this claim with 61 occurrences of this word in 59 verses of the New Testament. If you took all these verses and plugged in “other” rather than “such”, “like”, or “similar”, then whole texts would be changed and the meaning irrational translating Mark 7:8 as “and many other other things you do”. See for yourself via the word-study noting just some of verses in bold makes this clear (Mat. 9:8; 18:5; 19:14; Mark 4:33; 6:2; 7:8,13; 9:37; 10:14; 13:19; Luke 9:9; 13:2; 18:16; John 4:23; 8:5; 9:16; Acts 16:24; 19:25; 21:25; 22:22; 26:29; Rom. 1:32; 2:2,3; 16:18; 1Co. 5:1,5,11; 7:15,28; 11:16; 15:48; 16:16,18; 2Co. 2:6,7; 3:4,12; 10:11; 11:13; 12:2,3,5; Gal. 5:21,23; 6:1; Eph. 5:27; Php. 2:29; 2Th. 3:12; 1Ti. 6:5; Tit. 3:11; Phm. 1:9; Heb. 7:26; 8:1; 11:14; 12:3; 13:16; Jas. 4:16; 3Jn. 1:8).
We should do what is safe by not doing what is doubtful (Rom. 14:23). Yet, doubt is overcome by study. If we are doubtful not knowing the scriptures and thus refraining from everything in life without scriptural reference, then we would be in trouble if we did not remedy this with study. Therefore, let us study the scriptures and no so that we do not limit our works to God. I encourage you to weigh the translation more between the KJV, NKJV, ESV, & NAS with the ASV 1901.
May God bless you in your study,
Scott Shifferd Jr.
P.S. – I will consider editing the article above to note your points, so thank you again.
Thank you for your reply brother, such a response is what I hope to receive from a brother in Christ truly studying God’s word. Your words on this subject have helped greatly, usually this subject is never talked about, and if it is, I feel not given a proper justice given its controversy. I am not well versed in Greek, but I know brethren who are who hold differing views on head covering which makes it difficult to simply read this passage and come away confident in what is truly the truth based on what Paul writes, but your writings have helped clarify much. It’s an inexpressible blessing and joy to find blogs like yours by like-minded brethren running the race of faith. God is good, and I hope you do not cease to teach God’s goodness through His word despite the controversy that may bring. “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and teaching.” 2 Timothy 4:2. May God grant us hearts to perfectly uphold His commands and teaching, to abide fully in His full truth and to rely fully on the strength He provides through prayer and diligence in pursuing His will.
Thank you, Bryant, for the encouragement. Ministers need a lot of it. I am more than happy to help. God bless you.
If you go by verses 14 and 15 to define the covering, you should also point out that here Paul changes to a completely different word (peribolaion) instead of the words deriving from kalymma used in the verses before. So obviously he is talking about two different things, you cannot mix them together, without having first understood the point, Paul was trying to make. This is the last argument in a series of arguments, now appealing to common sense and observation: He uses nature as an illustration forthe covering issue. See, even nature provided women with a natural covering and glory. But this does not say, that this covring is sufficient, because he uses a different word (kalymma) to cover that which is for (not instead of) a covering, which is the counterpart to the covering – the natural aequivalent to the veil women shall wear during prayer and while prophesying.
Second (repetitive, I know, but for the sake of those who joined later): The command is for the two specific actions of praying and prophesying. How can a woman have short hair while not engaged in these actions and suddenly have long hair when doing these? This is nonsensical! Also, how can hair be cut off if it is already short? Or may men have long hair except when they pray and prophesy? Tell me, how that should work!
You cannot use an argument Paul used for the sake of illustration, in giving an analogy to bature, to ovethrow all the reasons he’d given before he threw in this last piece of evidence! That’s putting verses in conflict against each other!
We have no such custom is the answer to the rhethorical question in verse 13: Is it acceptable that women pray uncovered? – Answer: We have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Proof: All churches of Chrsit throughout the whole empire from the beginning taught the women to cover theier hair, even in those instances were this was not customray by the surrounding culture. And men prayed with uncovered heads. This is clear from all testiomonies from the first few centuries, and there is not a single voice that indicates otherwise, Scott! If you deny this, the burden of evidence is on your side.
But you know quite well, that the veil was abandoned only a generation ago, and fancy new interpretations, contending with the apostle, got a foothold among most churches of Christ. I cannot change this, but I am all but conent with the situation, that#s why I engage in this discussion. Your exegesis is an attempt to confirm a conetious status quo, which is sad, because otherwise you are a sound and commendable teacher.
Why do you shy back from the obvious undrstanding, shared by all Christians for 1900 years? I still don’t get it, Scott. Be watchful, Scott, before you answer: The longer you contradict the Word, the harder it will become for you to openly recant; yet it is good to have experiences like that once in a while.
In Christ
Alexander
Alexander,
It is good to hear that you are well. Your points are not landing. First, what Greek word is “kalymma”? I do not find anything like this in the Greek text. What text are you using and is there are variant that I am not aware of? In addition, the article above notes the lack of the word “covering” until verses 14-15, which you are doing now. By which, I make the case for covering including hair, but you see the difference in some way makes a point of another covering that is unacceptable. I do not see you proving your position either way on this point.
Second, I do not read of any preachers in the 19th c. making the case for garment coverings to be God’s command, and as noted before in Coffman’s commentary, there are no early church writers from the 1st or 2nd c. encouraging only garments coverings as a command of God.
Third, you took my quote of 1 Cor. 11:16 out of context when I only quoted the last half of the verse. “And if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). This verse is an answer to the question in verse 13 concerning one’s own judgment of whether praying with a head uncovered is appropriate, and this is not opposing other customs of men against God’s custom of garment coverings for women, which I think is your position. Why does Paul oppose “such customs” rather than “other customs” if this statement is against changing the customs of God? Also, consider 1 Cor. 9:19-23 from my position. Paul is commanding that they keep the customs of respecting authority in verses 4-6. He makes observations and not commands except within his observations of honor and dishonoring in verses 4-6 where they dishonor their own heads and not God.
Lastly, I am not meeting the status quo. I have no reservations of changing course in the face of rejection and possible persecution. Yet, in careful study, I have reached these conclusions upon the plainness of the text.
God bless your studies, Scott Shifferd Jr.
Kalymma – I supoose you’d spell it kalumma, is the noun with which the verbs in 1Co 11:5.6.7+13 are connected: a blanket, a veil, a scarve
I also noted that my dictionary spells it with two µ and in my Strong’s there is just one. But aside of that, you can make your own word study on this …
Yes, I see the verb katakaluptos. I do not think that takes away from your point. I just needed some clarity.
Now I’m coming back with a little more detail. You make a methodical mistake, Scott. You start at the end of the text, reading it backwards. You draw a conclusion from one verse from an analogy Paul used as an illustration, and you read this conclusion back into all the main arguments above. this brings a wrong result, since you really misread the intention and meaning of verses 14 and 15.
The whole flow of thought deals with headship and glory; Paul first argues that he handed down this teaching to them (he did not take it from the surrounding culture) and that they shall continue practicing it. Then he goes on to explain, starting with headship, pointing the the order even existing within the Trinity. In order words, having a head and be subject to some else’s authority is part of the nature within God Himself, and – consequently – is reflected in creation.
Paul then goes to an application while praying and prophesying – or more general: He speaks about the assembly (which becomes clear from verse 17 that confirms verses 2-16 as a command [“in commanding this I do not praise you”] and connects it to the second tradition he handed down to the church [the Lord’s Supper] – note the plural of tradition in verse 2, which gives in fact equal weight to both!).
The order between God-Christ-Man and Woman shall be shown in a symbol that involves our physical heads. How they are covered or uncovered is a statement on headship: The Man’s uncovered head represents the “uncovered authority” of Christ. A woman covering her head, covers the man and is at the same time a confession that – yes – leadership is male. But that the man is symbolically covered in prayer and prophecy is significant, because it stresses, that human authority must be silent in the presence of Christ. It is a powerful reminder to any preacher when he sees the women with covered heads and the man bareheaded: “Don’t speak in your own authority, brother!”
The second argument deals with golry, and it follows the same direction: Man, as the image and glory of God must be uncovered, woman as the glory of man must be covered. And in doing this, she also covers her own glory, which is her long hair. The point that is made is obvious: All human glory must be veiled in the assembly, only God’s glory may remain uncovered.
It is all about the glory of God and the authority of Christ. And as to underline that it has nothing to do with culture whatsoever, Paul adds, that this symbol is important for the angels. He does not explain how or why, he just hints to this unseen reality. This reminds us we should not only ponder what seems important and relevat to us only, but get a feel for heavenly realities.
Now, in equating the “peribolaion” with which nature “naturally” provides women with the kalymma (or kaluma, whichever spelling you prefer) the words katakalupto and akatakalupto speak of, you destroy the whole argument of above. Because then the consequence is: Woman’s glory may be uncovered, thus man’s glory remains uncovered – both human glories are equally “present” in the presence of God’s Glory: This is putting man on the same level as God! Do you get the point?
The reason Paul uses nature as an analogy is that Greeks were used to pray uncovered (or better: they were pretty much indifferent, other that Jews and Romans)! They somehow needed to be convinced that a veil is not something strange at all! Look at nature, he says: Nature does the same: It makes a clear and visible distinction between the head of a woman and the head of a man. And we view this as glorious, when a woman has long hair and appears truly female; and vice versa we reagrd as shameful when a man looks like a woman. The long hair veils her like a “peribolaion”-veil. But – mark this – this her glory must be covered with a “kaluma”- covering tin the assembly. Because this is not the time to “show off” men’s or women’s glories but to focus on God’s glory alone. This reminds us also that both Paul and Peter fordbid women to draw unnecessary attention to themselves through elaborate hairstyles, which somehow most women do up to this day. If we allow women to be uncovered, we also have these more or less “braggy” hairstyles in front of our eyes, don’t we?
Reading the text from top to bottom makes perfect sense; but as soon as we turn the arguments upside down – and even misunderstand the point in Paul’s last analogy! – we misread and misapply the whole text. This is what happens in your approach, Scott.
God bless you
Alexander
I agree that Paul handed this down to them. Yet, not as a command of God to observe a command, but a command to observe the custom of authority (or respect in my words). This is the cultural observance of culture. For instance, in the States, men serve the Lord’s Supper as leaders respecting authority, and if women did this, then women taking authority would be a concern. This is a cultural observance of respect for authority. Personally, it does not matter, but I respect it. I also understand that in other places like in Africa, men serving women is seen as women ruling over the men. Yet, the Greek for the leadership of men is proisteimi referring to men standing before.
I do disagree about this being the Assembly, but rather simply public worship. As you pointed out that you thought I worked backwards, you are interpreting backwards from verse 17, which I have no problem with supplementing passages. This passage does not have absolute inclusion into the Assembly. The Assembly is only first addressed in verse 17.
I think we agree much. This is a command of God, and there is a garment covering, but I see this as a command to observe cultural respect and the covering can include hair if it is hanging from the head.
Be well in the Lord. Thank you for your patience with me.
Church history. WE don’t have very many 1st cenbtury texts utside the NT, and it is true: neither in the Dodache, nor in the letters of barnabvas and Clenmet or ignatius do we find ANY references to 1Co 11:2-16. so what? It was not a dispuited matter, so they did not have to deal iwth it one way or the other. but in the 2nd century we do have mentions of women wearing the veil in the assembly. Clenmet of Alexandria wrote wbput it, and Irenaeus once quoted 1Co11:10 by paraphrasing “power on her head” with “veil on her head” which is a proof that this was the normal understanding an practice. Beginning of the 3rd century we have a lengthy essay from Tertullian dealing with the question whether virgins also bneed to veil or married women only (virgins also, he concluded) which is significant: It was not all all dispuited whether the veil meant “a piece of cloth” or long hair. In his tract “the soldiers crown” Tertullian again deals with the veil in the same manner. This was crystal clear to them! Hippolytus in the city of Rome also confirmed the same practice.
Among the churches of Christ in the 19th century I only found one letter of David Lipscomb addressing the question whether women should be veiled even if they only pray silently. Other than this question, there was no difference of opinion concerning the meaning.
Let’s turn it aoround: Show me respected leaders and theachers of the whole CHristian world betwwn the 1st and 19th century who said women don’t need to cover or who heltd to the opinion that the long hair was their veil. I know of none.
Well, if these leaders considered 1 Cor. 11:2-16 as instruction concerning social customs, then I would not expect to find much. I have read a lot from the 19th c. but I have not read of head-coverings yet. Yet, I have read some surprising things, but all confirming present belief and practices.
As with these early sources, I agree that it was early practice, but there does not appear to be any prove of considering this practice a command of God.
I quit did not get any yes or no from this conversation.Paul in simple English wrote that- woman should cover for what so ever reason and men not to.could you pls kindly justify in your opinion why you think otherwise considering the last verse of that chapter.thank you and love you all with love of Christ
Hi Adewale,
My reply is as stated above, “A woman’s hair ‘is given to her for a covering’ (1 Cor. 11:15), and when her hair is so short being cropped or shaved, a garment would be necessary according to this social custom. Either way, the Apostle Paul revealed the tradition from God about how to handle such social customs.”
The reason this passage is confusing is because men think that they are the image and glory of God. However, God’s Word is clear that Jesus Christ is the image and glory of God. Paul is using Jesus Christ as a correlation as to why women should NOT be veiled. If you would like to see more on this, you can visit my website at http://www.womanthegloryofman.com (click on Scripture Studies to get to the 1 Corinthians 11: 3-16 passage).
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:7).
Women are the glory of men (1 Cor. 11:7). Yet, both men and women were made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). Jesus Christ is the express image of God (Heb. 1:3).
Looking at your site, I don’t find the scriptures that are specifically about women hard to understand at all. You are clearly prejudice toward men and harbor sinful rebellious of pride. The Scriptures are clear in Greek. While men and women are one and equal in value, women are not to rule over men, to teach Christian men, or to speak in the Assembly with good reason from God. Yet, women can teach unbelieving men as Priscilla and Aquila, and women did prophesy (Acts 2, 21:8, 1 Cor. 11). Yet, to whom?
Listen. Man did not make God in his image, but rather God made man in His image. Therefore, the qualities of masculinity came from God and do not originate in the creation of man. Yet, God made woman in image of God from man, and even more so in the glory of man in which is her distinct femininity. Woman has another portion than man in her glory, her appearance. Fair to men? God is just. Consider again, that Jesus came in the form of man and not a woman. His teaching and healing disciples, His Apostles, the twelve, were all men. Are we all, male and female, one in Christ (Gal. 3:27) and made in the image of the same God (Gen. 1:26-27)? Yes, and God made us different having different roles as nature demonstrates when we see only women bearing, birthing, and nursing, and men mostly are seen by strength in athletics and the military (i.e. draft). The Scriptures show that church elders (pastors) and deacons are qualified being only married men (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1). Does not the Spirit of Christ teach a woman to subordinate to her husband and yet does not teach men to subordinate their wives to themselves? The woman chooses to subordinate herself in faith knowing that she can accomplish more through humility as all Christians are to do (cf. 1 Pet. 3).
If what you are saying is true about the scriptures being mistranslated. then why have you not presented an interlinear of 1 Cor. 14:34-37, 1 Tim. 2:11-12, Eph. 5:21ff, etc.? The original texts are clear and God’s will is just. You need to separate injustices toward women from men from the God-given roles for women. Let’s stop putting down Christian women, because they do not have your same dislike the words of Christ’s Spirit. Let the pride of Bacchus and Semiramis (Diana) die in Ephesus and Corinth.
May God bless you in your studies.
One of the churches biggest issues today is feminism influencing the local churches. Paul the inspired Apostle used the order of the creation of man and woman as a reason for the woman to be subject to the man in 1st Timothy 2:9-11, this reason is eternal and therefore cannot be changed with the passage of time. I believe this is true also of 1st Cor. 11:3-16. Good answer.
Thank you for this discussion. I hope I may add just a thought from a lay-person. It seems to me that taken in the context of all NT teaching about marriage, authority, submission etc what we have here is Paul talking about authority. The covering being the symbol of submission. Remember that Paul tells us of circumcision that it is not the physical but that of the heart that matters. So the real issue is one of a submissive spirit on the part of women. However, this being the case, we then come to the same issue applied to men. If it is a shame for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, ie without being submitted in her heart, then the contrast shows us that it is a shame when a man prays etc with his head covered, ie submitted to an authority other than Christ. This analogy I think is clear. We are a Kingdom of priests with ONE high priest, Jesus. When we submit to an authority in the place of Christ, we dishonor Him by giving someone else what honor is His due. This is idolatry.
In Eph 5: 22-33, Paul reveals the mystery that a marriage is meant to demonstrate to all the world the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church. Women are to teach, by demonstration, submission, as the church is to submit in all things to her head, Christ. Men are to teach, by demonstration, self-sacrificing love, even to dying to self, as Christ died for His church. As a symbol of Christ Himself, a man must show that Christ is above all things, subject only to Father. We must show that Christ is supreme in all things, above every earthly ruler and authority.
I hope this is helpful.
Joe
Thank you. That is very helpful and an excellent point. This is certainly about a symbol of submission. I find that keeping the principles of authority and submission are absolutely right. When it is the heart and spirit that matter (Rom. 2:25-29), what is the heart and spirit of one who will not obey all Jesus’ commands (Matt. 28:19-20)? Or what is the heart of one who will lay aside a teaching of Christ? We must recognize the God-given tradition of the Lord’s Supper and baptism by command if we are able, band yet not be contention concerning a custom of men that may symbolize our convictions.
It may be a good idea to pray and ask God to reveal to you what it means through the Holy Spirit.
Scott:
I really did not intend to make presumptions about what you believed or taught, as I read what you wrote maybe I misunderstood the direction you were going. After you pointed to your three part study much of the direction you were going became more visible. Part of the problem I was having was that if 1 Cor 11:2-16 was not part of an assembly then these instructions would have had to be applied to life in general, in other words there would have been no time in life that the man’s head could be covered if our daily lives were dedicated to serving/worshiping, if in the course of living we had an opportunity to teach/prophesy to another individual we would have to be sure that our head was uncovered during that conversation. Likewise, the women could never be uncovered where ever she happened to be if she felt the need to pray or found an opportunity to teach/prophesy to anyone, male or female. This is why I saw these instructions in a special setting a special place.
I read through your three part lessons, as I did I saw men gather up words that are spelled the same in an attempt to define their complete meaning individually. Separated them from their context, attempting to define how we should understand that particular word, then when placed back into the context that it was used, only to find out that the meaning of the context was not changed, in some cases the meaning that they had applied to it was not compatible with the text. In my opinion this is the problem most of the time with what we call, word studies. In fact the majority of the times I have found men attempting that type of actions with words, has been to distort the common, easily understood context. Which is basically what an individual with average understanding of the language that he was reading in understood from the context. Maybe, I should ask you after your study in which you created these lessons, was your understanding of the subject, or context of your thoughts modified? I can explain to you that during the reading many times I had the concept that the authors were truly confusing the subject matter, yet when all was completed looked to me that their conclusions remained the same as mine had been from the beginning. So, shouldn’t I believe that the easily understood is almost always correct? One other thought, what would be the possibility of us attempting to teach someone new to the scriptures all of this word study with the goal of convincing them to follow the Savior? .
Larry,
I understand where you are coming from. I am such as concerned about perceptions of worship and assembly. I was not offended. I too would have made such a presumption.
I do find that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is a gathering, an assembly, but it does not appear to be the Assembly as found in 1 Cor. 14. I certainly willing to reconsider.
Concerning teaching word-studies and worship, I would teach the worship of Hebrews 13:15-16 to a new Christian, and I would teach the Assembly to be separate. Yet, many new believers are taught a simplified word-study of baptism when we evangelize. We take the word transliteration “baptism” and we show different scriptures using the word throughout the New Testament to show salvation and immersion of believers. That is a word-study.
It’s not a societaly custom, because it is rooted in a redeemed creation order (verse 3) – Please note that Christ entered the order of creation here. Such a foundation was not there before His ascension to the Right Hand of God (Acts 2:36). 1Co 11:3 is the foundation of the whole discourse – if it were a societal custom, then please show me where in the ancient world it was customary that men prayed uncovered but women covered! As for both Jews and Romans (and Corinth was a predominantly Roman city) both men and women prayed covered. As forthe Greeks: It generally did not matter to them at all. You should also differntiate between tha various cults around. In the Isis-Cult (also strong in Corinth) mlae and female jpriests were shaven, for instance. All of these scholarly commentaroes that point to a “societal custom” are based on assumptions they cannot prve – the religious culture in Corinth was much too diverse to claim a common “societal rule (culture)”. Paul did never use society or cuiltuire as a foundation for hs teaching on the role of men and women in church – you know that many “progressives” try to make that point in order to allow women to preach and lead in church. You use the same reasoning here! And once this reasoning was adopted, once the head-covering was removed, female pastors followed suit (a generation or two later). This is true for (almost) all denominations! Equally true for (almost) all denominatios: Those who hold fast to the covering have no such issues. Judge the tree by its fruit, Scott.
The apostolic teaching however was unique, based in a redeemed creation-order which came into effect when Christ entered and redeemed us. Thus it is ONLY applicable within the people of God.
And then – here we agree – it applies to all our assemblies. I appreciate it very much when women even cover their heads at the family table while their husbands gives thanks for the food.
As for the liguistic reasons. There is more to the story: First, in verse 15 Paul introduces a new word “peribolaion”, in the other verses he uses forms of “kalymma” (the same roozt word by the way which describes how the angels cover their faces and feet with their wings. Those who argue for loing hair being the covering have to answer two important questions: How come that NO ONE during the firts 1900 years of Christendom came to this conclusion (not even those who spoke Koine Greek as their native language – that is the whole Eastern Church up until the middle ages)? Second: How can hair be long during toimes of prayer and prophecy and short otherwise – note that these instructions are limited to certain activities? Third: The preoposition “anti” has a wide range if meanings – “instead of” is a rather rare way to translate it. For further details you may want to read: http://www.ephrataministries.org/remnant-2010-09-given-her-for-a-covering.a5w
Scott, your view and other views that excuse/exempt women today from covering their heads, are all but convincing – both historically and logically they fail (in my 20 years studying this subject I have read a lot of differing theories as to why 1Co 11 is obsolete today). It’s a pity, because otherwise you are a clear and true to the Bible teacher – why do you shift gears in this chapter? I do agree (for instance) with you view on a-capella worship – yet here we argue from silence and church history. Concerning the headcovering I argue from scripture and church history, which is even more solid proof. And here you disagree? Why?
Alexander
Alexander,
You know I agree with that Christ’s headship to man and man to woman in 11:3 or you should. This is a tradition of God and not a social tradition. I agree with Christ’s order here. I was not saying that Paul taught social custom as commanded by God, but Paul taught to not present yourself my immoral or pagan symbols of society. Words of a language are cultural, and we should words that best represent the truth. In the midst of addressing whether to eat meat from the market that could have been offered to idols, Paul gave instructions and taught to keep the traditions from God including not asking for conscience’s sake and give thanks. I really don’t know what the progressives teach, but our most conservative brethren understand this alike here.
Most of us are not convinced that the head-coverings is not the social custom of 1 Cor. 11:16. I read your words to reconsider, but I am not persuaded yet. I find that 11:16 is referring to social custom (cf. John 18:39). The etymology of the word means “common manner” or “common practice”, which is different from paradosis meaning that which is passed down whether from God or man.
As for church history, you have yet to refer to anyone in less then 2 generations from the Apostles, who hold your position. My case for history is made above by Coffman, but not in detail. I’ll look more into a clear presentation of that for you.
Also, I’m not against the covering as presented of some women in the catacombs, but they also had short hair and would also have been abiding by culture. The Gentile cults do not appear to have women wearing a covering, but they did perceive women with short hair to be prostitutes and therefore their head was to be covered whether by hair or veil so not to appear as such. Again, Paul was instructing regarding a cultural practice and social perception. Christian women should not look like prostitutes and they certainly should not be taking headship over men as these pagan women did lead pagan worship.
Where does Paul talk about “perception” or about “prostitutes” in this text? These rationalizations are quite common, but so far I have not found compelling evidence for such an assumption. And were the Roman siters in the Catacobm not also Gentile? I don’t get your point here, neither can I say from these frescoes what their hair looked like beneath the scarf – long or short?
I really am looking forward to evdience, Scott. So far all I found out is that the “prostitute-theory” is a myth.
Maybe the follwing links would help:
Images of Head Covering during worship
Myths about the headcovering
Alexander
Abasar, I’m with you all the way on this one. I recently studied Coffman’s remarks on the covering and he tries to argue against all artifical covering by disproving it is not the veil! He then in verse 15 asserts what he accused others of doing when he says, “for her hair is given her instead of a VEIL”! He confuses the issue so much inbetween verses 4 and 15, few people catch this. He does not prove the artifical covering is not what Paul is talkng about and he does not respect the reasons, as you pointed out, that are based in the order of creation for the woman to be covered in worship. The truth is brethren don’t like this doctrine just like the denominations don’t like baptism for remission of sins or the idea of not using an instrument in woship! If we will restore true New Testament Christianity; then, we must be consistent in our approach to understanding Scripture. God said it and I’m going to believe it! Of course verse 16 applies to all the churches and that is a pattern throughout Corinthians (4:17; 7:17;14:33,34; 16:1). Are we to pick and choose what we want to keep and discard what we do not like? Of course, pour church members who rely on preachers to tell them what to believe will swallow all of this hook, line and sinker. Coffman is wrong in his commentary. Wrong.
Thank you, brother.
The Biblical Definition of Worship – Part 1