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 
Isa. 46:2; Isa. 48:11
God’s glory is to be uncovered-man
I want my glory to not interfere with God’s glory i.e., long hair.
I want the man’s glory to not interfere with God’s glory i.e., the woman.
I believe if the woman is not covered with something other than long hair that it is like saying, “look at me, I’m pretty good.”
The woman is to cover her glory and the man’s glory i.e., come into his presence with all our glory covered.
We are a testimony to the angels.
I Cor. 4:9, I Cor. 6:3, I Tim. 3:16, I Tim. 5:21, Luke 12:8, Rev. 3:5
The woman is created of man and for man.
The angels are created by God and for God-angels need to serve God. Angels need to submit to God’s authority.
When woman covers her head (other than long hair), she is acknowledging there is an authority. She testifies to the angels that they need to submit to the authority of God.
A woman’s long hair is like a mantle that is, her hair is given her for a decoration.
God does not like it when we try to take glory from him. He is to be glorified.
Amen!
My unique take in summary: The “authority” in v.10 is a crown (ideally gold with pearls which are the two things specifically prohibited to women by Paul in 1 Tim 2 in his similar context of clothing pertaining to submission and authority). And she places it on “her head” which based on Paul’s headship sense in v.3, is her husband: https://www.facebook.com/notes/charles-franklin-bernard/head-covering-coronation-a-symbol-of-authority-a-wife-lays-on-her-husband/10150603632407506 (No account required to view.)
Verse 16
We have no such custom as the participation by praying or prophesying of uncovered women in public worship. The no such custom is the custom discussed in the text with disapproval. We have no such custom as the one who wants to be contentious is trying to introduce and neither have the churches of God.
Katakalupto-put on
I do not put on (katakalupto) long hair. It is on (peribolain).
Kindly, Mary
Mary, you are exactly right. It would look stupid and as if Paul could not make up his mind to say, well if anyone is contentious, we don’t practice it either, neither do the churches of God. What would it look stupid and indecisive? Because he has just spend 15 verses trying to convince the Corinthian men to worship with uncovered heads and the women to cover their heads while worshiping. If one teaches that Paul is merely telling Corinth (only) to kept a local custom, then they have found a case for denominationalism, which is contrary to everything Paul teaches the Corinthians throughout the letter (See 1st Cor. 1:10; 4:16,17; 7:17; 14:33; 16:1, and then the reader should examine 1st Corinthians 11:16 once again. Thanks Mary!
You are welcome, Michael. My pleasure. Thank you! Respectfully, Mary
I guess my understanding is “stupid”. You could try to explain how you are interpreting “if shameful” and “custom”.
Maybe stupid is not the best choice of words. My apologies. The use of shameful is just one of Paul’s comparisons to get across a point. What is generally thought about hair, women speaking out in the churches, homosexual practices, may change within the confides of a society, but that does not do away with the general truth. Paul told every man not to cover his head while practicing acts of worship (the idea) or he would dishonor his head–Christ (1st Cor. 11:3-4). But every woman was told that in worship (the idea), if she does so with an uncovered head she dishonors her head–man (1st Cor. 11:3,5). Verse three is the premise of the whole conversation. Man is not to cover his head because he is the glory of God’s creation (v.7). The woman is the glory of man created for him to suit his needs, needs no animal could ever meet; for this reason (and because of the angels, a woman should have a sign or symbol of authority on her head (vv.7-10). These theological reasons never change.
As to the custom in verse 16, I believe for 30 years that Paul was saying he and the churches of God had no such custom as the covering. How silly of me? Just last year I started a serious study of the covering. The fact is, as we have seen above, Paul is definitely authorizing that men pray uncovered and woman pray covered. We might pick apart some of his arguments today (If it be shameful) but the idea he is supporting cannot be denied. Paul is supporting the head for women, true or false? (vv.3-15). If a anyone is contentious about this; then it stands to reason they would be against Paul’s teaching, right? If they are against Pau’s teachings; then, there custom or practice they are setting forth is not the same as Paul’s, right? The contentious man is lining up against what Paul has taught. So Paul say, “we “(that’s Paul for sure and likely the apostles or brethren at Ephesus from where he writes), have no such custom. What custom? Well not the covering because Paul has shown clearly he is for it; so, it leaves no such custom or practice set forth by the contentious person. The contentious person is wrong, but Paul is right. Paul answering anyone would be contentious, “…we have no such custom, nether the churches of God.” –God bless. I appreciate you allowing a public discussion on your web site.
Verse 3 is where the correction began with the word “But”
Woman is the completer of man. It was not good for man to be alone.
After rereading the Greek text again, the only thing that stands out in contract is “through the angels” and not “of the angels”.
Also, my conclusion is “If a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” The imperative is conditional, so that the command to be covered is dependent on if her head is a shame by being shorn or shaved.
I still find that the garment covering is for the short hair, and the long hair is the natural covering and glory to the woman.
I find that if any one seems to be contentious concerning what is shameful in judging if it is proper a woman to pray with her head uncovered (11:6, 13), then we have no such custom.
I disagree, but I respect your understanding because you are studying. God bless.
Verse 16
The Greek word for contentious is “philoneikos” meaning loving strife.
The Greek word for custom is “sunetheia” meaning a common usage or an association of moral habit.
The Greek word for such is “toioutos” meaning such as this.
The word “such” is a term of comparison designating something that has just been mentioned.
The word “this” refers to one of two things that are compared or contrasted that is, the thing that is nearer. Verse 15 is the nearest verse previously mentioned not verses 4-13.
Paul is not saying, “forget what I said in verses 4-13. I just had nothing else to do but rattle that is, confuse you.”
Verse 10
The Greek word for ought is “opheilo” meaning to be obliged, indebted. Indebted is to owe gratitude.
The Greek word for power is “exousia” meaning authority. “Ex” denotes origin. Woman is of the man.
The Greek word for because is “dia” meaning on account of, for sake of, on behalf of, in the interest of. Interest is welfare, benefit, concern.
Respectfully, Mary
Good comments. People fail to see that the contentious man who loves strife is the one against Paul and what Paul has just taught. Paul wants everyone to know that if anyone is still contentious (after all the theological reasons he has given for the covering) then, “we” (Paul and the other apostles) have no such custom (or practice such as the contentious man) set forth) neither do the churches of God. The covering is backed by apostolic authority and the example of all the local churches of the New Testament.
Thank you, Michael. Kindly, Mary
No one doubts or is ignorant of any of this except for misinterpretation of Greek for contentious. I have read the original text a number of times.
Me, too. But you are so focussed on this one verse that you overlook the whole train of thoughts that precedes it.
I did not mean to say anyone here was stupid for misunderstanding, but that it made Paul sound stupid. I have been preaching 30 years mainly on a part time basis and never really studied the covering until late last year. I was shocked at what I found from my serious studies. People allow prejudice and hatred for the idea of the covering to get in the way of seeing what Paul is teaching. The slack attitude of the people I was around infected me, and I just brushed off the covering as anything from a custom, the hair, or even misunderstood Paul to be caving in to some contentious person believing he was taking everything he had said about the covering earlier in the text and took it back like, “it doesn’t matter anyway.” Would Paul waste his time giving all of these sound and solid reasons like linking it back to creation, glory to God, because of the angels, then take it all back? The contentious man is the opponent of the covering. Paul is clearly for it and so are the churches of God. What we must do today is decide which side we are lining up on and will support by our belief and practice.
I focus on the train of thought, and I have no reservations for changing my understanding.
Still think it is bologna.
Scott Shifferd Jr., I want to say, thank you for speaking about your views on 1 Cor.11. I believe you are wrong, very wrong! But I respect you for putting what you believe in writing for all to examine. I believe this is the only way we will get the church back on track. We need to continue speaking how we feel. Let the reader determine who is speaking were the Bible speaks.
I can respect that. Let us discuss. I’ve studied this over and over again trying to prove the case for maintaining head-coverings as a command rather than a custom. That is one way that I always search for truth, but I can’t defend head-coverings as a command. I do my best to prove one side and then refute it going back and forth defending both and refuting both. In the end, I find that this custom is not a command. I am willing to reconsider. I test the spirits and diligently examine the witnesses as the Bible teaches (Prov. 18:17). My conclusion is that if head-coverings is a contentious point then we have no such custom.
One tiny problem Jewish Law were head coverings. In the Talmund it is clear head covering was Jewish Rule not only that but akata is used in loosen hair. Women only wore head coverings if they were married.
Be it as it may. Paul did not refer to Jewish custom, did he?
Paul handed down a universal rule to every woman (verse 5) based on natural order not culture. Non-Christian culture clashed with Christian tradition. If cultural, why mention angels?
If a woman prays or prophesies and IF her long hair is her covering, then whose glory do we see? Hers and man’s–Long hair is a glory to her and she is the glory of man (verses 15 and 7). Who are we glorying? The woman? I Cor. 10:31b “…whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”
The Bible says: “…every woman…” (verse 5)
Verses 5 and 13–akatakaluptos-unveiled, uncovered
kalupto-to cover up, to hide
Akin to kalupto is krupto-to conceal: hide (self), keep secret
Peribolaion (noun) verse 15 is not synonymous with katakalupto (verb) verse 6.
Excellent abasnar–hope you don’t mind me saying so.
My Lord’s servant, Mary
Are you saying that you see no application for Christians to show cultural respect for authority toward God and the angels in this Scripture? Because, this is how we understand this passage and 1 Corinthians 11:16 is quite clear.
God bless. :-)
I certainly respect God’s order and God’s authority. It seems to me that there are those who I have had personal contact with that want to apply these scriptures only to the Corinthian church or only to the people that lived in the time frame these scriptures were written. I am simply saying that the Bible states “…because of the angels…” Thus, I believe these scriptures are just as applicable to us today as when they were written.
Kindly, Mary
What is it to show “cultural respect” for authority towards God? I see no such concept in Scripture at all. I see that God quite clearly regulates how He wants to be approached and honored throughout the OT and also the NT. When He instituted the Lord’s Supper He did not limit the command to those in a Jewish Culture, and we are not free to depart from this, are we. So even though bread and wine are taken from a “Jewish Custom” we are bound to keep it. When Christ instituted baptism, this also had its roots in a Jewish practice, but nonetheless it must be observed among alle nations and for all times in this present age.If we argue that headcovering is cultural, why not argue the same way for baptism and the Lord’s Supper?
To be clear: Christ never said: “Do this in order to blend in with the surrounding culture.” But we have to understand that there are Gentiles with their customs and life-styles and Jews with theirs and the Christian church (1Co 10:32). We should not give offense to any ofthese three groups. The headcovering does not belong to Gentile or Jewish custom (although they also wore them, but for very different reasons), but to the churches of God.
There is no mention of culture n this text, but of headship based on the relationships within the Trinity and the creation even before the fall (Paul refers to Gen 2). It becomes a symbol of headship and glory which seems to be quite relevant for the angels, and of course it should be relevant for us as well. Once a person grasped it, he begins to cherish it. As long as a person wants to blend in with the surrounduing culture he will take offense …. and will be offensive to the churches of God (1Co 10:32). In a way this once again split the churches, since a group of Christians discontinued an Apostolic teaching.
Say, Scott, have you noticed for how long we have already discussed the topic? I think this alone is a sign that something is wrong, because I expect scripture to be rather clear and self-explanatory. When I just go by what is written, I cannot end with custom or “cultural respect”, and in fact for 1900 years there was no disagreement on this text except maybe some minor details, but the aopplication was universal. It is a sure sign of a departure from scripture, when:
a) something Biblical is obviously discontinued and
b) There are a number of competing commentaries and theories to justify the discontinuation theologically (I know about seven different quite common ways to “explain” 1Co 11 in order to justify the present discontinuation)
This does not further our trust in the scriptures, because how then can such an “ambiguous” book be understand correctly? Why should we today understand the text better than those in the past centuries? And why – if this be true – can’t our scholars not agree, while the former generations did agree from the beginning until about 1950? I hold to the understanding of these men and women of old.
You speak against points not made and use the same assertions. Why does it matter if was a Jewish custom or Gentile custom? Head-covering was a custom, and this is rejected if contentious.
I am thankful for the angels! Their wonderful presence to minister to me over the years makes me weep. God is so wonderful! As the song says, without him (God-Jesus Christ, my Lord) I would be nothing and without him I’d surely fail-without him I would be drifting like a ship without a sail….
You are welcome abasnar!
Edify one another-In everything .give thanks-this is the will of God concerning you. —some of my favorite thoughts in the Bible…..God has done so much for me. I will praise him forever.
Respectfully, Mary
The headcovering is a command, not a customm Scott: 1Co 11:17 “in commanding this – verses 2-16 – I praise you not …”
Did not Paul just give the command in 1 Corinthians 11:16?
Note, that “I praise you not” (V17) links back to “I praise you” (V2). He now somewhat takes back the praise from verse two. The tense of the verb is also important, present participle, showing that is right in the middle of commanding,
There are several cklear commands in this text::
(a) Apostolic trations are by their very nature commannds and to be held fast (V2 – see also 2Th 2:15)
(b) Paul wants them to understand this issue (V 3)
(c) Men are not to cover (V7)
(d) Women are to cover their heads (a command by threat of punishmenet even – V6+10)
(e) We must not be contentuous about it – don’t argue against the covering, but comply to do it as it is/was done in all churches of Christ (V16)
1Co 11:17 Now in giving these instructions (or copmmand – Gr parangello) I do not praise you, because you are not coming together for the better, but for the worse
I find no command in verses 6-10, and we have “no such custom”.
Thanks for the encouragement, Mary :-)
Verse 15b “…for hair is given her for a covering” As stated earlier, it does not say “the” covering. “The” would denote something already mentioned in the text that is, something already known from the context. It is a definite article that is, the word “the”. The text says a covering not the covering something already mentioned.
Verse 14 “…if a man have long hair…” The word for hair is komao which means grow long hair. Katakalupto means to cover wholly (fully)-hide in verse 6 and verse 7. Paul could have easily said let her grow long hair (komao), if that is what he meant. In contrast the word peribolaoin is used in verse 15b which means to throw around like mantle. I believe Paul made the distinction in verse 15 for a reason. Peribolaoin is a noun not an action verb-it does not require effort/action that is, my hair grows naturally. Whereas, katakalupto does require action-it is an action verb…it requires effort/action. Angels put forth effort/action to cover their heads with their wings when they worship our Lord. Men put forth effort/action to cut their hair-keeping it short. I believe the hair is a covering-a type of covering but more is required for praying or prophesying in worship….cover wholly-hide (katakalupto)-it takes effort/action. Cover (verb-action) the head not just long hair and/or not just cover the head if one has short hair that is, whether long hair or short hair, cover the head when praying or prophesying in worship…”because of the angels.”
Also, both Jewish-christians and just Christians were clash with this since in Greek and Roman women only wore they hair up but in special occasions they did wear head coverings. If you look at the hair you see most women are unveil but they have their hair up not down and in the Talmud loose hair was grounds for divorce.
Tim Hegg helps us define the semantic range of the Greek words in his article ‘Should I Remove My Kippah?’ On pages eight through twelve he relates the Scriptures he’s found comparing akatakaluptos from verse 5 (rendered ‘uncovered’ in English) to the same word in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh or OT) which is used in Leviticus 13:45. The Hebrew word for ‘loosened hair,’ a sign that a leper was unclean, is translated as akatakaluptos.
45“As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall be uncovered, and he shall cover his mustache and cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ (Leviticus 13:45 NASB95, underline added)
Excellent point. Thank you for the primary source.
For me it is always interesting, how many sources from here and there are being quoted as authoritative, but when I point to the Early Church and their practice, that is, the teaching and practice of these generations that received it from elders that were appointed by the apostles or that prevailed in churches, founded and trained by the apostles, this counts nothing. We have a testimony from Corinth around 200 AD in a writing of Tertullian. we see no ambiguity in the understanding of this passage in these early centuries. There was no argument at all on whether Paul meant long hair, loose hair or a cloth covering. It was clear to ALL of them (NO exception) that a cloth covering was meant, and that was practiced by all churches. Even up to the last century.
So, pray tell, why are these leaders in Christ’s church irrelevant for this subject (we use them to defend our a-cappella-singing, don’t we)? Because we shall only go by the Bible? Come on, we don’t go by the Bible either, when we quote ANY historical reference! But when we don’t take into consideration the testimony of those whom we should greet as respect as brothers and elders, what does this tell us about our spiritiual relationship to them? Are we in any way in a better poistion to understand scripture than they were? We are in bitter need of scholarly advice when we want to understand the precise meaning of a Greek word, not one of us in this debate is fluent enough in Greek, to lead a conversation in this ancient language! But men like Irenaeus, Clement, Hippolytus, Tertullian and many others indeed were. They spoke Koine at the local bakery, when hugging their wives or scolding their kids – day in and day out. We have to study books and various viewpoints from a divided scholarship on ancient culture and custom. The Early Church lived in it, and they really knew how long or uncut or shorn hair was received by the public opinion! We guess, and o boy what a guessing game this really is! Why on earth are we neglecting their testimony?
When I compare our modern commentaries on this subject, what I observe is:
3 commentaries – 4 opinions! But the ECF were unanimous in the application, with only minor issues (Who are the angels, Pauls talks about in verse 10? Does it apply to virgings as well? What style of covering is appropriate?). These small variations prove that they did not just copy from one another, but that the same practice prevailed everywhere going back to the one binding source of apostolic teaching. Do you notice the difference? In any court case the Early Church Fathers would win the trial. There is no doubt about it whatsoever.
I read each and every text on 1Co 11 from the first 400 years available to me and a number of significant theologians from the following centuries up to present times. I know with absolute certainty, that these modern commentators that teach otherwise base their views on speculation and ignorance of church history, worse: On wishful thinking in an attempt to justify disobedience. That’s not really a commendable approach.
What are the statements of the early church writers? Preferably, refer to Clement, Hippolytus, and Irenaeus. These would be powerful sources when you provide them.
Yet, Scripture has the last word.
These are all from men who would agree: “Scripture has the last word”, and that’s how they read them:
Irenäus renders 1Co 11:10: “The woman shall have a veil on her head because of the angels.” – significant, because in his paraphrase he exchanges power/authority with what was actually done, the veil. (in AdvHaer I,8,2)
Clement of Alexandria says: “For this is the wish of the Word (Logs) since it is beconming for her to pray veiled.” (a cloth veil, from the context) Paid III,11.79,4
Clement again: “Because ofthe angels: By the angels he means righteous and virtuous men. Let her be veiled then, so that she may not lead them to stumble into fornication.” (Hypoposes III – a lost work) – we may argue about his interpretaztion of angels, but for him the veil trula meant a cloth-veil.
Hippolytus: “Young women, virgins, when reaching adulthood, shall cover their head with veils or mantles, but not a thin cloth. (Canons 17)
Tertulllian wrote a whole tract “on the veiling of virgins” – the argumentz was not whether or not a real cloth veil was menat, but whether it applied to the unmarried women as well.
All the texts are available online anyway, you can make your own investigation.
Good, thank you. I am eager to read these in Greek.
In verse 15 covering is a noun, peribolaion, it is a type of covering. It does not say “the” covering but a covering. Whereas in verse 5 uncovered is akatakalup and verse 6 is the verb, katakalupto. Katakalupto is an action verb.
Thank you. That is right. The covering includes the hair, or if the hair is short, then the covering would be cloth.
The point with the “action verb” is well made. Long hair is nature’s equivalent (a better renedering of “anti” than “instead of”) für the covering. You have it or you don’t have it. It takes no effort or action to specifically cover during prayer and prophecy when you already (!) have long hair, does it.
We must also notice that Paul uses nature as an illustration toward the end of his discourse. The whole issue rests on what has been said above. We must not take an illutration or analogy to overturn the whole point he made above. No one would think of long hair as THE covering when he reads from veres 2 to 13.
If a woman has short hair, Paul would not have said: “cut it off” (even shorter), but “let it grow!”, which he did not say, therefore the covering Paul talks about in this passage is NOT the long hair.
If it were so, we had a strange conclusion:
Man must not cover, because he is the image and Glory of God – God’s glory unveiled.
Women must be covered, they the men’s glory – Men’s glory covered.
Long hair is the glory of women, if this is also the covering, then the glory of the women rfemeins uncovered! Women’s Glory stand on the same level as God’s glory, then, equally uncovered. And this makes no sense at all.
If you cover the woman#s glory with a cloth coveruing, then both men’s and women’s glories are covered, and only God’s glory remeins uncovered. This is fitting.
?
It might be that in all the words and details the big picture gets lost. What is 1Co 11 all about? There are two kewywords: Head and glory. One line of thought goes down the line of headship: With our heads we make a statement/confession about Christ’s headship in worship. the uncovered head of the man, with which Paul starts, symbolises the headship of Christ, The covered head of the woman is – in effect – her head, the man as well as her own head. The woman’s very important task is, to show that in the presence of CHrist there is no other headship that counts.
The second line of thoughts develops over the term glory: Man is the glory pof God and therefore must not be covered, woman is the glory of man and must be covered, and her long hair is her glory that also must be covered. So the glory of God alone is uncovered, all human glory is covered.
In doing this, we also respect creation orer and the heavenly realm. A book on this chapter has the title “Glories seen and unseen”, which is to the point.
Anyway: Once you got the big picture, there is no question, that
a) it is a very relevant text
b) it is not to be understood as mere cultural issue at all
c) that the glory of women, long hair – though an equivalent to the veil by nature – must be covered at all.
d) This text actually is not talking to women only, but men and women together make the point; Paul even starts off with the instruction to men.
There is so much prejudice against this text, that the fewest contemporary commentaries see the beauty in it, because their main focus seems to be to declare as
a) irrelevant for today
b) as a mere cultural issue
c) or they get stuck with the illustrative analogy from nature and never get to to the core message
d) Thus they most often speak only of the female side of the text, neglecting men’s part in it.
Is by this your “?” clarified?