Women Covering Your Heads

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
H

Harley_Angel

Guest
#1
I was reading 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 which is talking about women covering their heads during prayer and prophesy...and it really, really confused me. Headcovering isn't really something I've ever seen in any of the churches I've gone to, so I did some research and this is one of the articles I came across

http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html

I'm just curious what everyone thinks about Paul telling the Corinthians that a woman SHOULD have her head covered as a sign of man's authority over here, and in consequence, God's authority.
 

pickles

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2009
14,479
182
63
#2
As a child we were required to cover our heads in church. It was set aside over time.
Lately I have been thinking about this again as simply an act of obeadiance and respect to God Our Father.
Im not sure if it would dissapoint God if we didnt do this. But I do believe that anything we do to glorify God is allways recieved with love.
God bless, pickles
 
M

miktre

Guest
#3
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (King James Version)


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




I beleive covering is simply talking about hair.


10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
I believe here he is talking about having the power to protect from the fallen angels like the ones that sought after the daughters of men in Gen 6
 

Sharp

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
2,565
19
38
#4

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.​
Women cover their heads in my church.

But I've never understood the last line of that chapter.

Is it saying - if people find this practice objectionable, then the church need not have this custom?

Or is it saying that being contentious in respect of this issue is not tolerated, and that all churches should observe this practice?
 
S

socperkins

Guest
#5
I think a woman's long hair counts as her covering, as indicated in verse 15. I think I read somewhere that at the time Paul wrote this, short hair on women was a sign of paganism or prostitution. That might be totally false, I'm only going from what I think I may have heard once.

My mother went through a long period of time where she wore hand-stitched dresses and a head covering to show her obedience to God. The people in our church (Baptist) made fun of her behind her back and said she was "making fun of Mennonites."
 
Oct 23, 2009
366
1
0
#6
It goes back to the question of whether or not Paul was always right, doesn’t it? I am not sure Paul always WAS right. I believe in justice and I see no justice in forcing women to be subservient to men:

"But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” Luke 11:42 RSV
 
G

greatkraw

Guest
#7
It goes back to the question of whether or not Paul was always right, doesn’t it? I am not sure Paul always WAS right. I believe in justice and I see no justice in forcing women to be subservient to men:

"But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” Luke 11:42 RSV
I totally agree.

Women should CHOOSE to be subservient to men.
 
G

greatkraw

Guest
#8
I know someone who used to wear her hair long as a sign of submission to her husbaand yet I know she gave him nothing but grief and ingratitude. Talk about mixed signals!
 
Oct 17, 2009
325
1
0
#9
Paul came from a different culture. Just like it would be considered rude to come to church without a shirt on in modern times, it was considered rude for women to not cover their heads when praying in Paul's time. I think Paul was wrong to commend the Corinthian brethren to have such a double standard because it implies female inferiority, but then I'm sure there are plenty of practices in modern churches that would be considered immoral to early Christians. These things are ultimately meaningless compared to the Big Picture.

Just remember, the core of the law is: Love God and Love Your Neighbor. If you're obeying these commandments then details like head coverings are just distractions.
 

Kathleen

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2009
3,570
6
38
#10
i belive when praying a woman should always have her head covered.
when in church, we wear hats...

and when at home and bout to eat ur breakfast or whatever - just put ur hand on ur head...or a teatowel

thats wot i do ...my mum aswell and everyother born again beliving woman i know.


... :D ...
 
G

greatkraw

Guest
#11
A teatowel? I am sure you have lovely hair. That is all you need. Paul, the great misogynist says so. Jesus died for your freedom.
 

Kathleen

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2009
3,570
6
38
#12
no i belive that it is corect to cover ur hair
i mean the jewish women used to wear wigs - this angered God!

God has blessed me with lovely hair imo...

but i belive it is biblically right to cover your hair whilst praying :D

... :D ...
 
G

greatkraw

Guest
#13
no i belive that it is corect to cover ur hair
i mean the jewish women used to wear wigs - this angered God!

God has blessed me with lovely hair imo...

but i belive it is biblically right to cover your hair whilst praying :D

... :D ...
I am sure you would make any teatowel look good.

When you want to pray alone just with you and Jesus. Your hair is all you need.
 

Sharp

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
2,565
19
38
#14
no i belive that it is corect to cover ur hair
i mean the jewish women used to wear wigs - this angered God!

God has blessed me with lovely hair imo...

but i belive it is biblically right to cover your hair whilst praying :D

... :D ...

Good for you lass!
 
H

Harley_Angel

Guest
#15
Thanks for all the comments guys, this is all really interesting feedback. Did any of you read the article? I'd like to know your opinions on it. It raises some really good points and puts a lot of things into context, too.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#16
I think that our culture is agressive and warlike. (Actually I think over time almost all cultures are agressive and warlike.) I think that if we were not so, the submission would not be such an issue. As for the covering--it was the outward sign of that submission. I think in this discussion one point is being neglected, the relationship between the church and marriage. This verse emphasizes that the authority of the church does not overrule the marriage relationship. Each of the foundations of society were created with certain limitations and each, if exceeding those limitation, falls under the judgement of God.
 
Jan 9, 2010
6
0
0
#17
Hi sure , at the time when Church was really a benefit to attend---what this is ,,,is that the womans head is already covered by her hair ,, thats why if she shaves her hair , then this would be a shameful thing to do ,,,,,,,,,,,,the woman represents the body of CHrist or those who show humility to Christ , because they are sinners .... the woman is a picture of the congregation , who is to be silent , while the gospel is preached .. by the head or elder who represents Christ ......
 
May 21, 2009
3,955
25
0
#18
I'm not covering my head and Jesus loves me just fine.
 
Jan 22, 2010
1,022
1
0
#19
I find it interesting that quite a few people seem to think Paul was NOT always speaking for G-d, and in cases like this was in err.

If that's the case, can he really be called part of the inspired Word of G-d?
 
L

lil-rush

Guest
#20
I believe covering is simply talking about hair.​
That argument bugs me.

Look at verse 5: "and every woman who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, it is just as though her head were shaved."

"Just as though" is a phrase of comparison. It is not a phrase of equality. The phrase "just as though" is comparing two similar things. It is not saying they are the same.

For example, if I say "At the party it was just as though I was not there, because everyone ignored me." I am not saying I was not at the party. I am saying it felt like I was not at the party because no one would talk to me.

Likewise, Paul is not saying the women shaved their heads. He is saying that without a headcovering it is as if their head is shaved.

As such, the head covering cannot be their hair. It has to be something else. In order to make a comparison of two things, there has to be two things to be compared. So, in order to say an uncovered head is like a shaved head, he has to be saying there are two types of coverings. A shaved head can only occur if there is hair to shave off. An uncovered head can only occur if there is a covering to take off.

Furthermore, if you look at verse 6 "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off..." that statement would be redundant if Paul is talking solely of hair. He would be saying "If a woman does not have hair, she should have her hair cut off." You cannot cut off hair if you have no hair to cut off. It seems silly to say, but obviously it needs to be said if you all did not realize that.

Last, if you want to say "head-covering" is a synonym for hair, let us look at verse 7: "A man out not to cover his head..." So, if you want to say "head-covering" is hair, that verse means all men should be bald.