A woman's head covering?

[hampsterisk]

1 Corinthians 11:2-16
[SUP]2 [/SUP]I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. [SUP]3 [/SUP]But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[SUP][a][/SUP] and the head of Christ is God. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. [SUP]5 [/SUP]But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. [SUP]6 [/SUP]For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

[SUP]7 [/SUP]A man ought not to cover his head,[SUP][b][/SUP] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. [SUP]8 [/SUP]For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; [SUP]9 [/SUP]neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [SUP]10 [/SUP]It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[SUP][c][/SUP] head, because of the angels. [SUP]11 [/SUP]Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. [SUP]12 [/SUP]For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [SUP]14 [/SUP]Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, [SUP]15 [/SUP]but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. [SUP]16 [/SUP]If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

This passage has always been hard for me to explain. What say ye on the meaning of it?

Part of the trickiness is that this passage contains homonyms; words that have the same spelling but different meanings. The primary example is "head".

Conservative groups such as the Amish would take this passage to mean that the hair needs to be covered in public. Others interpret it to say that the hair must only be covered when praying and prophesying. Still others interpret it that the hair does not need to be covered at all.

And then there is the technicality of how much the ladies hair should be covered, if it must be covered; Just a light wholly fabric or an all out hijab?

What do you think about "it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off" and "if a woman has long hair, it is her glory"? Should ladies not be cutting their hair?

 

[jerusalem]

it is clearly stated here that he is passing on tradition

 

[OwenHeidenreich]

he says "judge for yourselves is it right for a woman to have her head uncovered"

you're right about how it contains homonyms, and he does also say that if a woman does not cover her head she dishonors "the head" which can mean more than the physical head.

But it seems soo.... ... works.

this isn't an issue on salvation, that's all i know. haha i guess woman should just start doing what it says because i do not see a way around Gods word right now.

 

[jimmydiggs]

A lot of people hate the idea of a veil, and won't give the passage a chance to speak to anything other than their personal prejudices and have already assigned a meaning. There's no point in trying to debate it. Casting pearls n' such.

 

[jimmydiggs]

it is clearly stated here that he is passing on tradition

What leads you to believe that? He praises them for holding traditions, not stating that the veil is a tradition.

 

[zone]

A lot of people hate the idea of a veil, and won't give the passage a chance to speak to anything other than their personal prejudices and have already assigned a meaning. There's no point in trying to debate it. Casting pearls n' such.

i am finally wearing one diggsy

 

[kenisyes]

This answers to the same analysis as does the idea that a woman cannot lead or prophecy in a church. The Greek definition of woman is different than ours. In Greek, a woman is a female following the role of a sex partner to her husband. Greek does not have a concept of woman pastor, for example, because it is a contradition in terms. They call her a pastoress. She ceases to become a woman when she steps into the pulpit in Greek, unlike how we use the words in English.

Paul's entire analysis is for the Greek woman=sex partner. She will have fashioned her hair for her husband to be sexually attractive, and thus is showing the glory of God for that purpose. That's why she has to hide it when she is praying in the meeting. Praying is a role of ministry at a meeting. Covering saves her glory as a sex partner for the bedroom, where her and her husband's love gives glory to God. If the heads of female sex partners were not covered in their culture, the attractiveness would soon leave (as it has to a good extent in ours), and the women might as well not have hair at all.

This is also why the rule does not apply in our culture. We have instead a rule for modest dress in the church, which serves the same purpose: cover it up, save it for your husband in the bedroom.

 

[enoch1nine]

Paul explains what physically covering the head represents compared to our state of mind when we pray or prophesy.
That a man does not bypass Jesus to get to God, that is, he uncovers Jesus and makes him the conduit in prayer to God, and a woman does not go through her husband to get to Jesus, that is, she covers her husband.

In the last verse, he states that if anyone wants to be contentious, that is, wants to argue about whether or not people should physically cover their head...

...we have no such custom. The custom being the physical practice, because proper prayer mindset wouldn't be considered a "custom", it's communion with God. Something far greater and personal than a custom.
That means, we don't have to worry about hats.

If a woman wants to do it, I say go for it. I sometimes wear a religious headpiece, but it has nothing to do with whether or not I go through Jesus to get to the Father.

The bible translation posted in #1 takes a little liberty in changing "no such custom" into "any other custom", unfortunately.
But he's talking specifically about the hats.

 

[iamsoandso]

r.o.t.f.l.,,,,,,,,,,,i knew as soon as we finished condemning the Muslims for the burkas,,,,we would then move on to the "Catholic nuns",,,,,and point out that the only difference was a "little hole cut in the front of the veil",,,,always walk behind the padre,bishop,,deacon,pope,ect.,,,,,,,

yesterday we played sword fighting,,,then 13 colonies,,,then cowboys and Indians,,,then masters and slaves,,,then Americans and Germans and japps,,,then ect.ect.,,,,,,,,

now were narrowed down to "burkas and nuns veils",,,,,,,,,just wait till we play "beast and christian",,,,,on down the road,,,,,,

 

[Angela53510]

Good hermeneutics requires that the passage be taken in context of the culture. We must ask the question - is this a universal principle? If it is, what does it accomplish for the cause of Christ? Or, is a a local, time-dated custom which was relevant in Paul's day, in that particular city? (For example, it may not have been true in Antioch or Alexandria - or somewhere else the gospel had been preached in that era)

Married women covering their hair was the tradition of the Roman and Greek women. However, Corinth was a city filled with prostitutes and the term "to corinthianize" meant to become a prostitute. That is how wicked the city was!

Paul was obviously trying to encourage the women who probably came out of shameful circumstances to conform to the local customs so the Lord Jesus would not be disgraced.

Strange how people pull out this legalistic passage and demand women obey a tradition that no longer exists. Now, if the woman wants to keep her hair covered, that is her business. But when it becomes an "obligation" then we have passed over the line of grace and into works.

PS. There are no homonyms in the Greek. Don't read into the English something that does not exist in the language it was written in.

 

[GRA]

This answers to the same analysis as does the idea that a woman cannot lead or prophecy in a church. The Greek definition of woman is different than ours. In Greek, a woman is a female following the role of a sex partner to her husband. Greek does not have a concept of woman pastor, for example, because it is a contradition in terms. They call her a pastoress. She ceases to become a woman when she steps into the pulpit in Greek, unlike how we use the words in English.

Paul's entire analysis is for the Greek woman=sex partner. She will have fashioned her hair for her husband to be sexually attractive, and thus is showing the glory of God for that purpose. That's why she has to hide it when she is praying in the meeting. Praying is a role of ministry at a meeting. Covering saves her glory as a sex partner for the bedroom, where her and her husband's love gives glory to God. If the heads of female sex partners were not covered in their culture, the attractiveness would soon leave (as it has to a good extent in ours), and the women might as well not have hair at all.

This is also why the rule does not apply in our culture. We have instead a rule for modest dress in the church, which serves the same purpose: cover it up, save it for your husband in the bedroom.

Interesting, Ken -- however -- "I do not think that is it"...

The word 'woman' in Greek [generally] refers to a married woman - but, not necessarily with specific regard to the sexual nature of the marriage.

-

Looking carefully at the verses themselves - and Strongs definitions - I am thinking that the idea of "covering" is descriptive in the sense of "a full covering" or "a complete covering" - with specific regard to the head - not the hair. This is not at all about covering the head or the hair with something else. What it is about is - covering the head ( 'fully' or 'completely' ) with the hair.

A "covering" in this context ( 'full' or 'complete' ) is - "flowing down from" ( from Strongs G2596 ) and covering the whole [back of the] head, neck, and down...

Hence:

A man's head is not "covered" if you can see the back of his head / neck. And, this is O.K. -- but, if you cannot see the back of his head / neck - it is a dishonor to him. ( in the context of "praying or prophesying" )

A woman's head is "covered" if you cannot see the back of her head / neck. And, this is O.K. -- but, if you can see the back of her head / neck - it is a dishonor to her. ( in the context of "praying or prophesying" )

i.e. - a man's hair ought not to "flow down from" his head, "covering" his head "fully" or "completely" - while, a woman's hair should "flow down from" her head, "covering" her head "fully" or "completely"

( understand the context - based on the natural flow of the hair down the sides and back of the head )

Based on this "illustration" -- the idea conveyed in the last part of verse 5 - and carried over into verse 6 - might be read like this:

"If her hair does not 'flow down from' her head - 'covering' the back of her head / neck -- she might as well be shorn or shaven. Or - she should have long-enough hair." ( i.e. - no "in-between" - must be either "long-enough" or "really short" )

( something like that ... ? )

This is the only thing that I can see that makes "legitimate" the 'non-covered' head of the man and the 'covered' head of the woman in the context of these verses.

As a side note -- it also seems to create a distinctive separation in the "appropriate" hair-styles of men and women. ( i.e. - along the lines of "men should look like men, and women should look like women" )

"This is not at all about covering the head or the hair with something else."

It is not about "having hair on top" of the head ---- it is about "having 'full' or 'complete' coverage of the head" by / with the hair...

( Just my current thoughts on the subject... )

"Food for thought..." ?

 

[jimmydiggs]

Good hermeneutics requires that the passage be taken in context of the culture. We must ask the question - is this a universal principle? If it is, what does it accomplish for the cause of Christ? Or, is a a local, time-dated custom which was relevant in Paul's day, in that particular city? (For example, it may not have been true in Antioch or Alexandria - or somewhere else the gospel had been preached in that era)

Married women covering their hair was the tradition of the Roman and Greek women. However, Corinth was a city filled with prostitutes and the term "to corinthianize" meant to become a prostitute. That is how wicked the city was!

Paul was obviously trying to encourage the women who probably came out of shameful circumstances to conform to the local customs so the Lord Jesus would not be disgraced.

Strange how people pull out this legalistic passage and demand women obey a tradition that no longer exists. Now, if the woman wants to keep her hair covered, that is her business. But when it becomes an "obligation" then we have passed over the line of grace and into works.

PS. There are no homonyms in the Greek. Don't read into the English something that does not exist in the language it was written in.

A lot of typing with no argumentation. All you've done is stated your beliefs.

 

[hampsterisk]

"If her hair does not 'flow down from' her head - 'covering' the back of her head / neck -- she might as well be shorn or shaven. Or - she should have long-enough hair." ( i.e. - no "in-between" - must be either "long-enough" or "really short" )

"every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" which means (according to your explanation) short hair which does not cover the neck is dishonoring and is therefore not a logical option.(?)

 

[kenisyes]

Interesting, Ken -- however -- "I do not think that is it"...

The word 'woman' in Greek [generally] refers to a married woman - but, not necessarily with specific regard to the sexual nature of the marriage.

There are three considerations in support of what I am saying. 1. Women cannot prophesy in church, but there are prophetesses, and similar parallels for many other ministries. 2. In the discovery of the empty tomb, there are three women. They are called women until Jesus sends them to tell the disciples. Once entrusted with what is now the central sentence of the gospel, they are not called women again. 3. When Paul speaks of his right to have a wife, he does not call her a wife, but a "sister wife". If "woman" meant "wife", he would not have needed to specify that an apostle must be married to a Christian sister.

If your interpretation is correct, then Christian custom has been wrong for pretty much all of history, as it requires women to wear a head covering in church. When I was a child, they sold paper coverings in the sanctuary for women who did not have them.

We need to account for two things that have not been mentioned. First, is the pictures and literary evidence of what the customs entailed Headcovering Customs of the Ancient World . Second is the Jewish custom of men wearing a head covering for the top of their head only Kippah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia clearly disagreeing with Paul's statement that "none of the other churches disagree with the practice", if Jewish churches are meant. It's pretty clear Paul is talking about church behavior here, as in other Gentile churches that he himself started, and so any Scriptural explanation must be sought in Scriptures pertaining to Gentiles, as Noah or before.

I think you will agree, no one has explained the phrase "because of the angels". I will do so at this point, based on my interpretation: The Jews allege at Gen. 5:3 (his OWN image and likeness) that previous children were mediated by angels (the fallen angel Lilith is mentioned specifically). Paul was trained in this, and the desire to keep the husband/wife sexual bond uncontaminated by such angels is what he is referring to.

 

[MidniteWelder]

And because of the angels:
---Has two meanings
One is as you have mentioned Ken, the Angels as mediators and messengers often look over services of prayer and worship.
If we notice the previous verses speaking of how a man to cover his head and a woman to have hers uncovered is
---Dishonoring
The context here is what is honorable, more notably to not dishonor their obedience and submission to the one who has authority over them
The Lord, since in fact the whole reason for anything is to please the Lord.
Next down the line and in many places the word tells us that the man is placed in authority of the woman.
One of the reasons to not be in rebellion would be so Gods word is not blasphemed by ones heart motives or actions.
Titus 2:
4Then they (the older women)can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
If we look up the definition of subject to we find
Definition of SUBJECT

1
: one that is placed under authority or control.

A woman covering her head is also a show of humbleness as opposed to spite, rebellion, or contention under the purpose of her creation.
Many women in fact have told that in extreme life situations the very act of chopping their hair short was an act of defiance and a display of independence.
Independent from what though?
The very ones in authority over them, Man and God.
Some have chosen the correct path of Submission in Faith to be blessed and protected Like Sarah was to Abraham
While others a prideful path which could lead to destruction, like Lots wife for not listening.

We are told and shown from the very beginning in Genesis
That woman was placed here:
For Man
The very purpose of her creation- is to Glorify her man, not herself

If a woman was to represent herself as a man, not only as the Angels looked on, but as God himself looks on and sees everything it would be dishonorable.
This would be equivalent to one exalting themselves to higher status within the kingdom without permission of the King.
And we are told that anyone who exalts themselves will be humbled
And any who humbles themselves shall be exalted.
A woman covering her head is also a show of humbleness as opposed to spite, rebellion, or contention under the purpose of her creation.

We are told and shown from the very beginning starting with Genesis and throughout the New Test.
That Man was placed here not for the purpose of woman but for the purpose of God and to rule over all earths creation, which includes his wife.
And woman was placed here not first and foremost to make babies as some believe:
But For the Man
The very purpose of her creation- is to Glorify her man, not herself
1 Cor 11:7
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;
but woman is the glory of man.
Just as Man was created to glorify God-not himself
As well in 1 Cor 11 we read
3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Its a matter of showing who's authority one is under and a matter of submission within serving the Lord
The covering is the woman showing her obedience to the Lord that she is
-under someones authority
If we are all under Gods authority and that is a given---
Then who's Authority would she be showing the Angels as watchers that she is under?

Whom would she be disrespecting and maligning the word of God if she didn't display her quiet and submissive spirit?
Both Man and God
Its not a matter of capable, or equality or fair or whatever
Its a simple matter that God outlined an order and a Hierarchy to be subject to
Kinda like...oh I dunno...like a kingdom or something
(hint Gods runs a Kingdom and the Earth is part of it as his footstool)

In todays day and age many have lost sight of this, and within that lost sight of part of our own purposes in serving the very Lord we claim to worship and the very word we claim we would die for.
If we would die for it, then why not also Live for it under our creators guidelines.
Partially because many are simply not taught what the word says or it gets too watered down to please the masses when we need to stop thinking of ourselves and instead to submit to what pleases the Lord.

God placed an order of authority that goes on down the line to mirror that which is also represented within his kingdom
Even amongst the Angels---
If the Angels dont fight and bicker over the very purpose of their creation so that they are not in contempt of their creation
kinda like contempt of court, contempt for the judge who we will all one day face.
Well wait, there were some Angels who argued and tried to exalt themselves to be higher than what their intended purpose of creation was, but we all know what happened to them right?
So lemme correct myself...
---if the ...Angels in Heaven...arent contentious amongst themselves of the order of Hierarchy within Gods Kingdom
Then neither should we be...especially if we claim the grace which allows us to go to heaven
We should be thankful for and carry out our created purpose so as to not dishonor ourselves as a witness of our own faith nor dishonor the God we serve.

It is only when we are obedient to the master we serve,
when we are truly entrusted by our master to serve him all the more.

I realize I'm not prettying this up all fluffy bunny like to make it all easier to swallow
But that's the point, some things are just facts the way they are, and we're not suppose to kick against the Goads in order to suit ourselves.
In conclusion:
16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice
1 Cor 11

 

[headcoveringmovement]

Hey everyone, this thread popped up in our Google alerts. Nice to see everyone talking about this often neglected topic. Just wanted to extend an open invitation to check out our site The Head Covering Movement | 1 Corinthians 11 For Today as we're going over the case for head coverings right now and discussing it!

Thanks!
-Jeremy

 

[damombomb]

[SUP]13 [/SUP]Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [SUP]14 [/SUP]Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, [SUP]15 [/SUP]but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. [SUP]16 [/SUP]If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
It clearly states her covering is her hair

 

[GRA]

Based on this "illustration" -- the idea conveyed in the last part of verse 5 - and carried over into verse 6 - might be read like this:

"If her hair does not 'flow down from' her head - 'covering' the back of her head / neck -- she might as well be shorn or shaven. Or - she should have long-enough hair." ( i.e. - no "in-between" - must be either "long-enough" or "really short" )

( something like that ... ? )

"every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" which means (according to your explanation) short hair which does not cover the neck is dishonoring and is therefore not a logical option.(?)

I should have worded the part in parentheses differently. It was an attempt to clarify the last part of the statement, after the double-dash. It was not intended to indicate validity or option. The phrase "must be either" was a bad choice of words for what I was trying to convey.

"Sorry about that..."

 

[GRA]

It clearly states her covering is her hair

Thank you. I meant to include a specific mention of this from verse 15 in post #11.

 

[KJVBIBLECATOWNER]

Women are not women, anymore. They are not at all feminine, and its Gods judgement. They instead have become feminazi brainwashed Jezebels, without natural affection ( murdering their children ) and are not marriage or motherhood material at all ( 99 percent ) Feminism has brainwashed women into mindless demon possessed arrogant droids ( robots ) - I know thats a tad off topic, but 100 percent true, pray the Lord Jesus Christ will save some.