Head Coverings?

[Zguy28]

I'm teaching on 1 Cor 11:2-16 this week in adult Sunday School and was wondering what TWebbers thoughts were about head coverings in worship. I've been reading a lot about it in various commentaries and articles and one of the best I think so far is this article by Daniel Wallace:

http://bible.org/article/what-head-c...apply-us-today

John MacArthur seems to take a similar view, that what is in view here is not a universal command to specifically wear head coverings, but a universal command to openly demonstrate the importance and divine ordination of gender roles and how they compliment each other. In the early church of Paul's day, it was by head coverings, today it may be by another symbol such as in the article above where it talks about "modest dress."

Thoughts? Exegesis?

1 Cor 11:2-16 ESV

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

[Catholicity]

Personally I wear a lace veil to Mass, for two reasons, the First and utmost it out of respect for the tabernacle for Which Jesus Christ is Truly present Body Blood Soul and Divinity. Second is following after the Perfect Model of Modesty and Purity, Our Blessed Mother Mary, who was Obedient To God for all of her life. To me it represents purity in all things and as a member of the Church which is the Bride of Christ, and Respect For Jesus.

[lee_merrill]

I had a long discussion on this once, and went in believing it was cultural, and came out believing it is recommended in all cultures.

Some thoughts from that discussion:

1 Cor. 11:10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

Now if Paul had written "have eggs for breakfast because of the devil," I would be careful to stock up on eggs, and eat them dutifully every morning. Even if I didn't understand this very well. "Because of the angels" implies to me that this is more than just a dress code, though I don't understand the connection.

Yet certainly 1 Cor. 11 is a difficult passage, with possible cultural references. But we shouldn't give up on that account!

1 Cor. 11:15 For long hair is given to her as a covering.

However you interpret this verse, it at least says that long hair for women is from God, and thus this aspect of the discussion is not just a cultural application.

1 Cor. 11:6 ... if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Now if long hair is given to a woman by God, then I think, yes, it is a disgrace for her hair to be cut off, regardless of the culture. Thus I think "she should cover her head" applies, regardless of culture.

But if we take the interpretation which says verse 15 means "long hair is in place of a covering," this makes verse 5 meaningless.

So I agree with Daniel Wallace on most of his points. However, I wonder how modest dress (already prescribed by Paul--1 Tim 2:9 NIV) could be a special sign. And what to recommend for the men, who are to pray with their heads uncovered? I agree that a head covering would be somewhat humiliating for many women, although I note that ladies in black American churches (at least the older ladies) wear a hat to church without fail, and it's an honor there.

But notice that praying without a head covering would likely be humiliating for the men, if the yarmulke or the prayer shawl is to be traced back to Paul's day. Should men then discount Paul's statements?

But I really cannot think of a way for a man to express having his head uncovered in some other way than well, having his head uncovered. You know, not wearing gloves won't do it.

Blessings,
Lee

[HolinessEric]

I got into a discussion with this with several individuals belonging to Holiness churches, Pentecostal Churches, Mennonite, etc.

The text in question:

1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
1Co 11:3 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.
1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Co 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

It seems to me the first 6 verses are talking about authority of man over woman in certain aspects. It isn't talking about hair per se but as we get further below it starts to show he is talking about hair as a covering.

Verse 15 is what seems to indicate that a woman's covering while under the authority of a man is the long hair. Paul goes further on saying 1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I think this is what people are most confused about. Is it saying that there isn't really a custom in the churches of God to teach this so we shouldn't observe it now or is it saying that there is no custom of being contentious? I think Paul means that there isn't room to dispute about this in the churches of God because it fits better in the flow of scripture.

So if it is teaching that the ladies should have long hair what do we do? Well, we are to grow progressively sanctified aren't we? So, we should follow what scripture says... Get a hair covering.

[Zguy28]

It seems to me the first 6 verses are talking about authority of man over woman in certain aspects. It isn't talking about hair per se but as we get further below it starts to show he is talking about hair as a covering.

Verse 15 is what seems to indicate that a woman's covering while under the authority of a man is the long hair. Paul goes further on saying 1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I think this is what people are most confused about. Is it saying that there isn't really a custom in the churches of God to teach this so we shouldn't observe it now or is it saying that there is no custom of being contentious? I think Paul means that there isn't room to dispute about this in the churches of God because it fits better in the flow of scripture.

So if it is teaching that the ladies should have long hair what do we do? Well, we are to grow progressively sanctified aren't we? So, we should follow what scripture says... Get a hair covering.

Paul does not say long hair is to be the head covering. Paul is dealing with the larger issue of gender roles in the church. Evidently there were larger problems of that ilk in Corinth.

As far as contentiousness goes, he says that in the First Century church, that's the custom they had (head coverings) and that's it. Paul is saying that women should have a symbol of authority upon her that visibly honors her husband and God during public worship.

It can't just be dismissed as a cultural thing that's not applicable, because that has implications when it comes to inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures. However, inspiration is not threatened by the fact that we can apply the spirit of the Scripture while not following the letter of it (which in this case is cultural context). In fact, if you were to demand women wear head coverings today in most churches, it would go against the spirit of what Paul wrote and quite possibly humiliate women.

[HolinessEric]

I wouldn't demand any woman wear head coverings. I would agree that we shouldn't do that but the culture isn't completely be-gone with head coverings, either. There are many around the world that still practice it as handed down via the scriptures including my church which the "practice" includes several hundred years. There are other interpretations of that which would consider it not being cultural practice only.

[lee_merrill]

In fact, if you were to demand women wear head coverings today in most churches, it would go against the spirit of what Paul wrote and quite possibly humiliate women.

And demanding that men in Messianic synagogues not wear head coverings would quite possibly be humiliating for them. However, the question must be not what might or might not be difficult to do, but what is the point of this Scripture. Taking up a cross each day involves humiliation, and we are not to forsake it, or seek an alternative, because of that.

For the reasons posted above, it does seem that Paul is talking about a covering other than hair, or long hair, and the reasons given are theological (because of the angels, the woman is the glory of man, a sign of authority) as well as cultural (we have no other such custom). So to say this is only cultural, let's be careful and not take an easy exit.

Rees Howells took the command to pray without ceasing so literally that he wouldn't wear a hat, in the day and age when Men Wore Hats Outdoors. So this was quite a test, but he did it, since also the Christian commitment was for men to remove their hat when praying, along the very lines of this passage.

I think Paul meant public prayer though, otherwise he would indeed seem to be commanding head coverings at all times for one group, and none at any time for another.

Blessings,
Lee

[hedrick]

Gordon Fee says that the Greek would normally mean that the woman should have authority over her own head. ("a symbol of" is not actually in the Greek, but is an inference that may not be right, one of the few cases where the KJV may be better.) He suggests that "because of the angels" refers to 6:3, where it is said that we will judge angels. The implication would be that if we're going to judge angels, we should certainly be able to control what goes on our head. You'd need to look at his commentary to see how he squares this with the overall context, but I have to say that this makes a lot more sense than the other readings I've seen.

[lee_merrill]

Gordon Fee says that the Greek would normally mean that the woman should have authority over her own head. ("a symbol of" is not actually in the Greek, but is an inference that may not be right, one of the few cases where the KJV may be better.)

Fee has some good comments on this, though I'm not sure what authority over your head might mean! Especially when what is in view is not authority, but (for men and women both in this passage) submission.

He suggests that "because of the angels" refers to 6:3, where it is said that we will judge angels.

And the NLT translation has "because angels are watching". This is probably the most unclear part of the passage, but he is in any case not urging a cultural reason.

The implication would be that if we're going to judge angels, we should certainly be able to control what goes on our head.

I'm not seeing a connection here, though--maybe you could elaborate? Authority for judgment in Christ's description in John, it seems is not one of control, but of giving up control:

"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son." (John 5:22 NIV)

"By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." (John 5:30 NIV)

Blessings,
Lee

[Zguy28]

Fee has some good comments on this, though I'm not sure what authority over your head might mean! Especially when what is in view is not authority, but (for men and women both in this passage) submission.

Perhaps it means something along the lines of: "since a woman ultimately has authority over how she acts, she, as a Christian, should exercise that authority honorably in submission to her husband, honoring him and God in worship."

And the NLT translation has "because angels are watching". This is probably the most unclear part of the passage, but he is in any case not urging a cultural reason.

"Angels" I believe can also just mean "messengers" as in Pastors from the church or other churches. Perhaps Paul had sent messengers from another church who were observing the behavior of the Corinthian church since they had so many issues?

[HolinessEric]

When it comes to long hair, I asked a Christian lady that was near 100 years old about it. She said that even Catholics just a couple decades ago had their ladies wear head coverings in public prayer.. that the Baptists even told their ladies that the hair was a public hair covering... Methodist/Wesleyan circles practiced it... so I know that the "culture" for head coverings went all the way to the 21st century.

My belief is that the head covering referred to must mean the long hair. This would be the natural understanding what I gather. Paul laid down the doctrine, via the inspiration of God. The Bible says the hair is like a mantle, or veil. This is the natural head covering for the women.

The thing people have the worst problem with, I think, is the word talking about contentiousness. I've heard people say that we don't need to follow that because it is just Paul's opinion and that it isn't applicable. If we were to take that face value it would mean that the whole section of scripture is not to be followed.

In essence it is like saying... "Well guys, this is God's inspired word on the subject but it is just an opinion, you guys go ahead and disregard it if you want to." This isn't the right interpretation of scripture.

It has to do with the spirit of contention itself. Paul is saying that if someone in the church is contentious about these matters, we have no such custom of contention. The church is not an institution in which each member can decide for himself what he will and will not obey in the New Testament Scriptures. In this same passage, in verse 2, Paul commended the Corinthian church for keeping the ordinances he had delivered to them. It makes no sense for him to say now that they are at liberty to disagree with the things he is teaching. In 1 Corinthians 14:37 he tells them that the things he was writing to them are the commandments of the Lord. The things Paul wrote in His epistles are for every church of every century.

[Zguy28]

In essence it is like saying... "Well guys, this is God's inspired word on the subject but it is just an opinion, you guys go ahead and disregard it if you want to." This isn't the right interpretation of scripture.

It has to do with the spirit of contention itself. Paul is saying that if someone in the church is contentious about these matters, we have no such custom of contention. The church is not an institution in which each member can decide for himself what he will and will not obey in the New Testament Scriptures. In this same passage, in verse 2, Paul commended the Corinthian church for keeping the ordinances he had delivered to them. It makes no sense for him to say now that they are at liberty to disagree with the things he is teaching. In 1 Corinthians 14:37 he tells them that the things he was writing to them are the commandments of the Lord. The things Paul wrote in His epistles are for every church of every century.

You'll get no disagreement from me on this part.

Here's what I found from John MacArthur:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-3-10.htm

John MacArthur

In regards to 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, about a woman having her head covered; what Paul is referring to there was, in the Corinthian time there were distinctive ways in which a woman demonstrated her submissiveness. A woman demonstrated her submissiveness with her hair--the covering of her hair--women had long hair. He says, "Doesn't even nature tell you itself, that, if a woman have long hair, it is a glory unto her." But in those days a woman wore a covering, and the covering was the symbol of their submissiveness. And the women in the Corinthian thing were going through a sort of an "ERA Equal Rights" movement, and they were throwing off their covering and shearing off their hair.

Carcopino (sp.) in his book on daily life in Rome said, "They were running around bare-breasted with spears--sticking pigs, and climbing poles." Women's Lib isn't anything new--they were doing it then too--trying to be macho, wanting to get equality with men. So, Paul was saying to them, "Look, you want to be sure that in your society, if a covering is a symbol of submissiveness--you keep your covering on, because you want to demonstrate your womanliness and your submissiveness by God's design." And then he just supports that by saying, "Can't you see that God has designed a woman's hair to be unique to a woman?" And of course the argument scientifically is that a woman's hair grows faster than a man's hair does--demonstrating that God's intention for a woman is uniquely her hair. I think that says to us today that a woman (some of you are going--"Oh boy, I hope my hair is long enough!"), I am not saying that, what I am saying is that a woman's should be distinctly feminine, and a woman's demeanor distinctly feminine, and whatever it is in our culture that demonstrates femininity and a woman's unique God intended role is how a woman ought to look.

© source where applicable

&

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-P-6.htm

John MacArthur

Paul wants the Corinthians to learn that Christ is the head of the church and the man is the head of the woman, so there’s a chain of command there. Now this should be demonstrated in the church, that man is head over woman. Everyman praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head. Because covering is a sign of what? Of what? humility, meekness. You know, you go into the East today and woman have a bunch of stuff over their face and veils and they run around, like in Arab countries, and they got veils and things down their head and down the back. So in this culture it was so, that a woman had a demonstrable sign of submission. Now if a man stood up with a veil on, I mean, you know, he would be denying his God ordained role as a head.

© source where applicable

Also, Adam Clarke seemed to support similar views:

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1715-1832)

Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the apostle seems to have more especially in view. As a woman who dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals; so in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be considered in the same light.

© source where applicable

[themuzicman]

I wrote a paper on this, and I think there is an element of cultural and an element of timeless truth in here, and we have to separate the two. The timeless truth is the headship issue, where the man is head of the woman, and Christ the head of the man.

The cultural aspect is the actual wearing of head covering to show respect for her husband.

So, I think what we can apply, here, is that women should observe the cultural aspects of showing respect for her husband as the head in whatever way that culture would expect her to do so. Thus, for US culture, speaking well of him, dressing modestly, and participating in her marriage in a way that shows that respect.

No need for literal head coverings today, but still a need for a show of respect, just in a culturally relevant way.

Michael

[lee_merrill]

Adam Clarke

As a woman who dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals; so in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be considered in the same light.

© source where applicable

Well, this certainly is true, but is this all Paul is saying? I believe there is more here in this passage.

The cultural aspect is the actual wearing of head covering to show respect for her husband.

Well, again we have theological reasons for wearing a head covering, and not just for having long hair, and not just for showing respect. So this is not something we can necessarily skip over--in communion, for instance, we are to eat bread and take a cup, this is Jewish culture, so can we substitute, \ for instance, a regular meal?

Well, see 1 Cor. 11:20-25, Paul discusses such, and indeed, the Corinthian's error was in lovelessness, but also the instruction is bread and a cup, Paul mentions this too, and apparently as prescriptive...

Blessings,
Lee

[themuzicman]

Um... The discussion on coverings is quite distinct from the discussion on the Lord's Supper. You do realize that chapters and verses aren't in the original text, right?