"Head Covering" or Long Hair?
- Thread starter Taro
- Start date
-
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.
It was just a local cultural issue with the Corinthians as Paul said that they have no such customs in any other of the churches.
1 Corinthians 11:14-16 (NASB)
[SUP]14 [/SUP] Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
[SUP]15 [/SUP] but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
[SUP]16 [/SUP] But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
1 Corinthians 11:14-16 (NASB)
[SUP]14 [/SUP] Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
[SUP]15 [/SUP] but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
[SUP]16 [/SUP] But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
Corinth had lots of Temple prostitutes and they would shave their heads so people would know who they were. If you watch of old WWII film, when the Americans freed the French, they rounded up all the women that were having sex with the Germans so they could have things and shaved all of their heads. Since Corinth is the only letter that mentions anything about head coverings, I wouldn't make a doctrine of it. Although I do have family that came our of a oneness movement that uses head coverings and they still do. I remember growing up when we were part of the RCC and they used to use fails for their heads.
I know of a pastor that is part of the Calvary Chapel movement that requires women to wear vials on their heads. If you read it in chapter 11, you can get the idea that it could be talking about the women's head is her husband and that he should be covered, but it also says that Christ is the Head of a man. So is it talking about being covered by an authority or actually wearing a head cover. The cultural background of Corinth could be talking about wearing head covers and if it is again it's a cultural thing in Corinth. If it's referring to a women should have her head covered by being married, it's still the only book that talks about it.
Here's something of interest, the Jewish men cover their heads when in the Synagogues and on the streets, they also use prayer shawl when praying and they wear then on their heads. Is that symbolic of Christ covering a man's head? One thing is for sure, the Church in corinth had lots of problems. From divisions of who they were following, to prayer, spiritual gifts in the Church assembly, Paul said they were very immature, they had a brother that was married to his step mother or his dad's ex-wife, Paul had them excommunicate him, then had to tell them to bring him back because he made it right. Out of all the Churches they were the ones that needed the most instruction. So maybe other assemblies used head coverings for the women, but Paul had to instruct Corinth because of their immaturity. It's hard to tell with them, it's never been something that I thought was a problem so I've never really study it.
After all that I when to read it and verse 16, says it all, "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." If you want to wear a head covering go ahead, but if someones going to argue with you about it, there's no such practice in the churches of God.
I know of a pastor that is part of the Calvary Chapel movement that requires women to wear vials on their heads. If you read it in chapter 11, you can get the idea that it could be talking about the women's head is her husband and that he should be covered, but it also says that Christ is the Head of a man. So is it talking about being covered by an authority or actually wearing a head cover. The cultural background of Corinth could be talking about wearing head covers and if it is again it's a cultural thing in Corinth. If it's referring to a women should have her head covered by being married, it's still the only book that talks about it.
Here's something of interest, the Jewish men cover their heads when in the Synagogues and on the streets, they also use prayer shawl when praying and they wear then on their heads. Is that symbolic of Christ covering a man's head? One thing is for sure, the Church in corinth had lots of problems. From divisions of who they were following, to prayer, spiritual gifts in the Church assembly, Paul said they were very immature, they had a brother that was married to his step mother or his dad's ex-wife, Paul had them excommunicate him, then had to tell them to bring him back because he made it right. Out of all the Churches they were the ones that needed the most instruction. So maybe other assemblies used head coverings for the women, but Paul had to instruct Corinth because of their immaturity. It's hard to tell with them, it's never been something that I thought was a problem so I've never really study it.
After all that I when to read it and verse 16, says it all, "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." If you want to wear a head covering go ahead, but if someones going to argue with you about it, there's no such practice in the churches of God.
That there is no other practice than to cover their heads in other churches.
I agree with this assessment of those scriptures.
Quote:
Despite Paul’s warning to the contrary, many people have become contentious about this issue of whether men and women should pray with their heads covered and what is the proper length of hair for each gender. This was not the point that Paul was making (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).
Paul simply drew on a custom of the day to illustrate that he (Paul) was not anybody’s spiritual head. They (men and women) were under submission to Christ, and women also should submit to their husbands. That was it. That was his point. He was not trying to establish a dress code for all ages.
People who have tried to use these scriptures to freeze the length of men’s hairstyles to those of the 1950s are misapplying these verses. They never specified how short that short was. According to writings of the first century, the typical Jewish man’s hair length was to his shoulders. This would be unacceptable to those who use these scriptures to be contentious.
Likewise, religious groups who use these scriptures to get women to wear doilies or other coverings have missed the point. No one is better off if they do these things, and no one is worse off if they don’t. This was a custom of Paul’s day that he used for illustration, not a commandment from the Lord.
Believers are free to observe their own customs in these matters as long as they do not preach these customs to others as law.
Believers who understand the true meaning of Paul’s teaching here should not criticize other believers who have missed the point and are hung up on the illustration. These are not pivotal doctrinal points.
Andrew Wommack's Living Commentary.
Quote:
Despite Paul’s warning to the contrary, many people have become contentious about this issue of whether men and women should pray with their heads covered and what is the proper length of hair for each gender. This was not the point that Paul was making (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).
Paul simply drew on a custom of the day to illustrate that he (Paul) was not anybody’s spiritual head. They (men and women) were under submission to Christ, and women also should submit to their husbands. That was it. That was his point. He was not trying to establish a dress code for all ages.
People who have tried to use these scriptures to freeze the length of men’s hairstyles to those of the 1950s are misapplying these verses. They never specified how short that short was. According to writings of the first century, the typical Jewish man’s hair length was to his shoulders. This would be unacceptable to those who use these scriptures to be contentious.
Likewise, religious groups who use these scriptures to get women to wear doilies or other coverings have missed the point. No one is better off if they do these things, and no one is worse off if they don’t. This was a custom of Paul’s day that he used for illustration, not a commandment from the Lord.
Believers are free to observe their own customs in these matters as long as they do not preach these customs to others as law.
Believers who understand the true meaning of Paul’s teaching here should not criticize other believers who have missed the point and are hung up on the illustration. These are not pivotal doctrinal points.
Andrew Wommack's Living Commentary.
Very well.
1 Corinthians Chapter Eleven
By oldhermit
I. Assigned Order of Men and Women in the Church, 1-17
A. Observance of revealed tradition, 1-2
“Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. (καθὼς – This may mean simply 'sense I imitate Christ,' or it may also suggest a level of degree – 'to the same degree that I imitate Christ.') Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”
1. Paul offers himself as an example of following Christ. “Imitate my behavior as I imitate the behavior of Christ.”
2. Delivered traditions
It is important I think, to understand that Corinth's conduct in public worship was something Paul had apparently discussed while he was with them thus, he had already established these things as traditional conduct for the Church. This structure was to regulate their assemblies, and not just theirs, but ours as well. It would seem that for the most part they had honored the observance of these things and Paul commends them for it.
B. The symbol of the divine order, 3-16
I want to make this very clearly understood. If you are a feminist, you are probably not going to like what I am about to say. So, if this is offensive to you or if this makes you angry, there is the door.
Paul is showing us a revealed structure that is not a product of either Paul, the Church, the culture, or of time, and as such, it is not permitted to be influenced or governed by the Church, culture, or time. If the structure of the Church is God's design, then only the Lord has the right to assign meaning to this structure and no one, including the Church, has the right nor the authority to change, to overturn, or to even question the organization of that structure. Since the Church is an extension of Christ, it must then resemble that eternal pattern of triadic unity. The structure of men and women in the Church is to mirror the relationship that exists between Jesus and the Father as well as the relationship between the Jesus and the Church. What does this structure reflect – submission, subordination, and designed function for both the man and the woman.
1. Here is the foundational principle for everything that follows.
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, (This is non-exclusionary) and the man is the head of woman,” (This too is non-exclusionary) This suggests two things,
a. The degree to which man is to be above the woman – to the same degree that Christ is above ever man.
b. The degree to which woman is to be in subjection to the man – as much as man is in subjection to Christ. “And God is the head of Christ.” These roles are fixed and non-negotiable. Man cannot presume to set himself above Christ and the woman must not presume to set herself above the man, just as Christ does not presume to set himself above the Father.
2. Here is the divinely appointed symbol of that revealed structure.
a. For the man
“Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.” Obviously, this is not talking about his hair. He is not suggesting that the man's head should be shaved. Later, Paul will give instructions concerning the man's hair. This stands as a prohibition for the man NOT to cover his head while he is preying or prophesying.
b. For the woman
“But every woman (Again, non-exclusionary within the Church) who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, (καταισχύνε – to put to shame, to disgrace.) for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. (Actually, the word ἐξυρημένῃ is perfect participle, middle/passive - one who has had her hair shaved by another. I.e, The woman who has had her head shaved has had her glory removed which she has received from the Lord. She has therefore been shamed.
3. “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; (Let her be put to shame in this way.) but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” Thus, her covering here cannot refer to her hair. The hair must also be covered lest it be cut off to her shame. The cutting off of her hair is a punishment for not having her head covered while praying or prophesying.
4. “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (Thus, the man is to the woman what God is to the man. Just as man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man.) For man does not originate from woman, (Just as God does not originate from man.) but woman from man;” Thus, both the man and the woman are to be in submission within their appointed roles to the one from whom they both originate – man to God, woman to man.
5. “For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore, the woman ought have a symbol of authority on her head, (The word 'ought' here does not mean that she should, or that it would be better if she did, or that this is in any way subject to he her discretion. The word is ὀφείλει, and this in no way suggests that the woman has any option in the matter. Ὀφείλει means she is obligated or indebted to have a symbol of authority on her head) because of the angels. (I really have no earthly idea what Paul is implying mere by his mention of the angels.)
6. “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man,nor is man independent of woman. (The man and the woman are not designed to function independently but in unity according to their designed function within the Church.) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” Thus, this practice in the Church is to reflect also the order of creation.
7. “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (This is a reductio ad absurdum or what we regard as a rhetorical question to which the obvious answer is NO!) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? This should be a self-evident truth. Unlike the man, her glory must be covered, but only within the prescribed conditions – praying and prophesying. So here, man is given two prohibitions.
a. He is not permitted to cover his head while praying or prophesying. This is what the woman does.
b. He is also not permitted to wear the glory of the woman – long hair. How is 'long' defined in the context – if he has hair like a woman. For the woman, her hair is her glory and while praying or prophesying her glory must be covered, but for the man, it is shameful for him to wear the glory of the woman.
8. “For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, (φιλόνεικος – one who stirs up strife) we (presumably the apostles) have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (In other words, if you want to stir up strife about this, there is nothing more to be said. This is the end of the matter. There are no other instructions offered to regulate this practice. This practice is determinate because it is from the Lord, and it is corporate – it is for ALL the Churches of God, therefore, it is non-cultural and is not bound by time. It is also non-negotiable – it is not to be substituted for another practice.
1 Corinthians Chapter Eleven
By oldhermit
I. Assigned Order of Men and Women in the Church, 1-17
A. Observance of revealed tradition, 1-2
“Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. (καθὼς – This may mean simply 'sense I imitate Christ,' or it may also suggest a level of degree – 'to the same degree that I imitate Christ.') Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”
1. Paul offers himself as an example of following Christ. “Imitate my behavior as I imitate the behavior of Christ.”
2. Delivered traditions
It is important I think, to understand that Corinth's conduct in public worship was something Paul had apparently discussed while he was with them thus, he had already established these things as traditional conduct for the Church. This structure was to regulate their assemblies, and not just theirs, but ours as well. It would seem that for the most part they had honored the observance of these things and Paul commends them for it.
B. The symbol of the divine order, 3-16
I want to make this very clearly understood. If you are a feminist, you are probably not going to like what I am about to say. So, if this is offensive to you or if this makes you angry, there is the door.
Paul is showing us a revealed structure that is not a product of either Paul, the Church, the culture, or of time, and as such, it is not permitted to be influenced or governed by the Church, culture, or time. If the structure of the Church is God's design, then only the Lord has the right to assign meaning to this structure and no one, including the Church, has the right nor the authority to change, to overturn, or to even question the organization of that structure. Since the Church is an extension of Christ, it must then resemble that eternal pattern of triadic unity. The structure of men and women in the Church is to mirror the relationship that exists between Jesus and the Father as well as the relationship between the Jesus and the Church. What does this structure reflect – submission, subordination, and designed function for both the man and the woman.
1. Here is the foundational principle for everything that follows.
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, (This is non-exclusionary) and the man is the head of woman,” (This too is non-exclusionary) This suggests two things,
a. The degree to which man is to be above the woman – to the same degree that Christ is above ever man.
b. The degree to which woman is to be in subjection to the man – as much as man is in subjection to Christ. “And God is the head of Christ.” These roles are fixed and non-negotiable. Man cannot presume to set himself above Christ and the woman must not presume to set herself above the man, just as Christ does not presume to set himself above the Father.
2. Here is the divinely appointed symbol of that revealed structure.
a. For the man
“Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.” Obviously, this is not talking about his hair. He is not suggesting that the man's head should be shaved. Later, Paul will give instructions concerning the man's hair. This stands as a prohibition for the man NOT to cover his head while he is preying or prophesying.
b. For the woman
“But every woman (Again, non-exclusionary within the Church) who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, (καταισχύνε – to put to shame, to disgrace.) for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. (Actually, the word ἐξυρημένῃ is perfect participle, middle/passive - one who has had her hair shaved by another. I.e, The woman who has had her head shaved has had her glory removed which she has received from the Lord. She has therefore been shamed.
3. “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; (Let her be put to shame in this way.) but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” Thus, her covering here cannot refer to her hair. The hair must also be covered lest it be cut off to her shame. The cutting off of her hair is a punishment for not having her head covered while praying or prophesying.
4. “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (Thus, the man is to the woman what God is to the man. Just as man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man.) For man does not originate from woman, (Just as God does not originate from man.) but woman from man;” Thus, both the man and the woman are to be in submission within their appointed roles to the one from whom they both originate – man to God, woman to man.
5. “For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore, the woman ought have a symbol of authority on her head, (The word 'ought' here does not mean that she should, or that it would be better if she did, or that this is in any way subject to he her discretion. The word is ὀφείλει, and this in no way suggests that the woman has any option in the matter. Ὀφείλει means she is obligated or indebted to have a symbol of authority on her head) because of the angels. (I really have no earthly idea what Paul is implying mere by his mention of the angels.)
6. “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man,nor is man independent of woman. (The man and the woman are not designed to function independently but in unity according to their designed function within the Church.) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” Thus, this practice in the Church is to reflect also the order of creation.
7. “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (This is a reductio ad absurdum or what we regard as a rhetorical question to which the obvious answer is NO!) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? This should be a self-evident truth. Unlike the man, her glory must be covered, but only within the prescribed conditions – praying and prophesying. So here, man is given two prohibitions.
a. He is not permitted to cover his head while praying or prophesying. This is what the woman does.
b. He is also not permitted to wear the glory of the woman – long hair. How is 'long' defined in the context – if he has hair like a woman. For the woman, her hair is her glory and while praying or prophesying her glory must be covered, but for the man, it is shameful for him to wear the glory of the woman.
8. “For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, (φιλόνεικος – one who stirs up strife) we (presumably the apostles) have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (In other words, if you want to stir up strife about this, there is nothing more to be said. This is the end of the matter. There are no other instructions offered to regulate this practice. This practice is determinate because it is from the Lord, and it is corporate – it is for ALL the Churches of God, therefore, it is non-cultural and is not bound by time. It is also non-negotiable – it is not to be substituted for another practice.
Part two
II. Arguments For and Against a Head Covering
The interpretation of verses four through sixteen, have received a rather wide range of interpretations because of different ideas about first century customs of the Greeks and the Jews. The big question is, what is the head covering and is this text applicable to men and women in the Church today?
A. Different approaches to this text.
The following four opinions were taken from the website, bible.org, https://bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16.
1. “This text has no application to us today. Paul is speaking about a ‘tradition’ that he has handed down. Hence, since this is not the tradition of the modern church, we hardly need to consider this text.”
2. “The head covering is the hair. Hence, the applicability today is that women should wear (relatively) long hair.”
3. “The head covering is a real head covering and the text is applicable today, in the same way as it was in Paul’s day. Within this view are two basic sub-views:”
a. “The head covering is to be worn by all women in the church service.”
b. “The head covering is to be worn by women in the church service only when praying or prophesying publicly.”
4. “The head covering [was] a meaningful symbol in the ancient world that needs some sort of corresponding symbol today, but not necessarily a head covering.
Now, lest anyone should misunderstand the implication of this last argument, allow me to elaborate. What this view is suggesting, is that time and culture are free to change biblical symbols and that man has the freedom to reassign revealed meaning to counterfeit symbols.
This removes authority from the language of the text and places it within the human prerogative. Therefore, human will and changes in cultural and custom become the standards for truth rather than the language of the text. This neutralizes the force of scripture and this is wholly unacceptable.
The cultural argument is employed in an attempt to overturn the plain language of the text. There reason for this is simple.
a. What this text seems to imply does not fit within the current comfort zone of the “modern” Church.
b. We do not want the text to say what it says.
c. What this text says offends modern feminist ideologies.
d. We simply do not want to do this so we are going to limit its scope by relegating it to a bygone era of a localized congregation of the Church and decree that it is now non valet. (No longer valid)
B. Let us examine the cultural argument as a whole.
Since the cultural argument is a popular one that is made solely on the strength of first century Corinthian culture and attempts to shape 1Corinthians 11 into some type of palatable context with our present culture, I think it is important to spend a little time examining the facts about the cultural customs of first century Corinth and just see if any of the more popular arguments have any merit.
Since I am not an authority on the history of this period nor do I have any particular background in the various cultures of first century Corinth, I am bound to rely on the scholarship of others in this area.
Some of the cultural arguments are arguments that I have used myself in the past. It has previously been my position that the covering of which Paul speaks in verses five and six was the woman's hair because of his statement in verse 15 and that it was in some way connected to the shaved heads of women prostitutes in Corinth. When I began this study of chapter eleven in earnest, I began to challenge myself about how I would defend my position if I was called upon to prove my appeal to culture. These were arguments that I had often heard from others but I never really began to question the sources of these “historical evidences” until now. What I have been able to determine in my research of related ancient cultures from quite a number of sources is that the cultural arguments we typically use are based largely on a misrepresentation of Roman, Greek, and Jewish practices of the first century. I have listed here some of the most popular arguments we hear today.
1. The myth of the unshaven head and prostitution
This myth argues that Paul was instructing the women at Corinth not to shave their heads (thus uncovering their heads) like the temple prostitutes.
a. There is no evidence that I could find anywhere that connected temple prostitution with a shaved head. What I have found is that the shaving of a woman's head was typically a punishment for infidelity/adultery but, this was not always the case. The shaving of the head was also a fashionable practice among some women of the Gentile elite class.
Dr. Gill explains that: “Public marble portraits of women at Corinth, presumably members of wealthy and prestigious families are most frequently shown bare-headed. This would suggest that it was socially acceptable in a Roman colony for women to be seen bare-headed in public.”
If indeed this is true, this does not even begin to equate a woman’s shaved with prostitution of any type. This article went on to explain that this marble portrait certainly does not represent an isolated piece of evidence. There have been many such pieces of artwork discovered.
b. Actually, the argument that Paul was instructing the women at Corinth not to shave their heads is exactly the opposite of what Paul said about the shaving of the woman's head. Paul was not commanding the women NOT to shave their heads like a prostitute as this argument claims but TO shave their heads if they would not cover their heads while praying.
2. The myth of the uncovered head and prostitution
(The remaining arguments were posted by Myron Horst on the Biblical Research Reports web page, http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/headcoveringmyths.php).
[In the time of the early Church,] “only prostitutes went about with their heads uncovered and Paul did not want the Christian women associated with prostitutes.”
This argument is made largely from a misrepresentation of first century culture in Corinth. Mr. Horst comments that, “Life in the Roman Empire during this time in the first century AD, was in many ways more like society today than any other time in history. Women had a lot of 'freedoms' that they did not have before. They were allowed to educate themselves, speak in public, and initiate a divorce."
[SUP]
“[/SUP]The book of Acts mentions "chief" women in several of the cities, and women at Paul's speech on Mars Hill. Many non-Christian women during this time did not cover their heads with a veil, although there were some who wore a veil or other head covering. Elaborate hair styles also became popular during this time.”
The reality is that there was really no clear distinction between the woman who covered her head and the woman who went about with her head uncovered, not even among temple prostitutes, nor of prostitutes of either the pornai (The street prostitute or slave prostitute) nor the Hetairai (high class escort). The shave head among different prostitute classes would have been a rare exception rather than the rule.
In a paper titled LET HER BE SHORN written by Curtis E. Montier on 1Corinthians 11, Mr. Montier gives a good explanation of the cultural practices of Corinth of the period.
In his paper, Mr. Montier observes that it is thought by some scholars that short hair or even the absence of a head-covering may have been marks of a prostitute but that there seems to be little or no evidence that would support this. He believes that evidence from the art and literature of the period seem to challenge this notion. Art from this period depicting prostitution offers examples of prostitutes with both covered and uncovered heads but none that depict the prostitute with a shaved head. Neither the wearing of a head-covering nor the absence of a head-covering distinguished a woman as a prostitute. Even among prostitutes, the wearing of a head covering generally signified her status as a “respectable” woman.
3. The myth that, “The head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 was based on cultural practices.”
“As you can see from the description of women in the Roman Empire in the first century, the head covering teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 was not based on the Corinthian culture. Nor was it based on the Jewish culture, where both men and women covered their heads.”
4. The myth that, “The Corinthians wore the veil because it was the "oriental" (Middle East) custom.” The problem with this claim is that Corinthian customs were distinctly Roman, not middle eastern.
“Part of this myth has been already addressed, but it has been perpetuated in commentaries because of an ignorance of geography. Corinth is located in Greece, which is part of Europe, not the middle east! In addition, the Church at Corinth consisted of both Jew and Gentile Christians with a predominately Gentile majority, Acts 18:6 and 1 Corinthians 12:2, “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.” This could not then have been addressing a cultural issue that was common to both because the Jew and the Gentile had different customs regarding women’s appearance in public.
II. Arguments For and Against a Head Covering
The interpretation of verses four through sixteen, have received a rather wide range of interpretations because of different ideas about first century customs of the Greeks and the Jews. The big question is, what is the head covering and is this text applicable to men and women in the Church today?
A. Different approaches to this text.
The following four opinions were taken from the website, bible.org, https://bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16.
1. “This text has no application to us today. Paul is speaking about a ‘tradition’ that he has handed down. Hence, since this is not the tradition of the modern church, we hardly need to consider this text.”
2. “The head covering is the hair. Hence, the applicability today is that women should wear (relatively) long hair.”
3. “The head covering is a real head covering and the text is applicable today, in the same way as it was in Paul’s day. Within this view are two basic sub-views:”
a. “The head covering is to be worn by all women in the church service.”
b. “The head covering is to be worn by women in the church service only when praying or prophesying publicly.”
4. “The head covering [was] a meaningful symbol in the ancient world that needs some sort of corresponding symbol today, but not necessarily a head covering.
Now, lest anyone should misunderstand the implication of this last argument, allow me to elaborate. What this view is suggesting, is that time and culture are free to change biblical symbols and that man has the freedom to reassign revealed meaning to counterfeit symbols.
This removes authority from the language of the text and places it within the human prerogative. Therefore, human will and changes in cultural and custom become the standards for truth rather than the language of the text. This neutralizes the force of scripture and this is wholly unacceptable.
The cultural argument is employed in an attempt to overturn the plain language of the text. There reason for this is simple.
a. What this text seems to imply does not fit within the current comfort zone of the “modern” Church.
b. We do not want the text to say what it says.
c. What this text says offends modern feminist ideologies.
d. We simply do not want to do this so we are going to limit its scope by relegating it to a bygone era of a localized congregation of the Church and decree that it is now non valet. (No longer valid)
B. Let us examine the cultural argument as a whole.
Since the cultural argument is a popular one that is made solely on the strength of first century Corinthian culture and attempts to shape 1Corinthians 11 into some type of palatable context with our present culture, I think it is important to spend a little time examining the facts about the cultural customs of first century Corinth and just see if any of the more popular arguments have any merit.
Since I am not an authority on the history of this period nor do I have any particular background in the various cultures of first century Corinth, I am bound to rely on the scholarship of others in this area.
Some of the cultural arguments are arguments that I have used myself in the past. It has previously been my position that the covering of which Paul speaks in verses five and six was the woman's hair because of his statement in verse 15 and that it was in some way connected to the shaved heads of women prostitutes in Corinth. When I began this study of chapter eleven in earnest, I began to challenge myself about how I would defend my position if I was called upon to prove my appeal to culture. These were arguments that I had often heard from others but I never really began to question the sources of these “historical evidences” until now. What I have been able to determine in my research of related ancient cultures from quite a number of sources is that the cultural arguments we typically use are based largely on a misrepresentation of Roman, Greek, and Jewish practices of the first century. I have listed here some of the most popular arguments we hear today.
1. The myth of the unshaven head and prostitution
This myth argues that Paul was instructing the women at Corinth not to shave their heads (thus uncovering their heads) like the temple prostitutes.
a. There is no evidence that I could find anywhere that connected temple prostitution with a shaved head. What I have found is that the shaving of a woman's head was typically a punishment for infidelity/adultery but, this was not always the case. The shaving of the head was also a fashionable practice among some women of the Gentile elite class.
Dr. Gill explains that: “Public marble portraits of women at Corinth, presumably members of wealthy and prestigious families are most frequently shown bare-headed. This would suggest that it was socially acceptable in a Roman colony for women to be seen bare-headed in public.”
If indeed this is true, this does not even begin to equate a woman’s shaved with prostitution of any type. This article went on to explain that this marble portrait certainly does not represent an isolated piece of evidence. There have been many such pieces of artwork discovered.
b. Actually, the argument that Paul was instructing the women at Corinth not to shave their heads is exactly the opposite of what Paul said about the shaving of the woman's head. Paul was not commanding the women NOT to shave their heads like a prostitute as this argument claims but TO shave their heads if they would not cover their heads while praying.
2. The myth of the uncovered head and prostitution
(The remaining arguments were posted by Myron Horst on the Biblical Research Reports web page, http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/headcoveringmyths.php).
[In the time of the early Church,] “only prostitutes went about with their heads uncovered and Paul did not want the Christian women associated with prostitutes.”
This argument is made largely from a misrepresentation of first century culture in Corinth. Mr. Horst comments that, “Life in the Roman Empire during this time in the first century AD, was in many ways more like society today than any other time in history. Women had a lot of 'freedoms' that they did not have before. They were allowed to educate themselves, speak in public, and initiate a divorce."
[SUP]
“[/SUP]The book of Acts mentions "chief" women in several of the cities, and women at Paul's speech on Mars Hill. Many non-Christian women during this time did not cover their heads with a veil, although there were some who wore a veil or other head covering. Elaborate hair styles also became popular during this time.”
The reality is that there was really no clear distinction between the woman who covered her head and the woman who went about with her head uncovered, not even among temple prostitutes, nor of prostitutes of either the pornai (The street prostitute or slave prostitute) nor the Hetairai (high class escort). The shave head among different prostitute classes would have been a rare exception rather than the rule.
In a paper titled LET HER BE SHORN written by Curtis E. Montier on 1Corinthians 11, Mr. Montier gives a good explanation of the cultural practices of Corinth of the period.
In his paper, Mr. Montier observes that it is thought by some scholars that short hair or even the absence of a head-covering may have been marks of a prostitute but that there seems to be little or no evidence that would support this. He believes that evidence from the art and literature of the period seem to challenge this notion. Art from this period depicting prostitution offers examples of prostitutes with both covered and uncovered heads but none that depict the prostitute with a shaved head. Neither the wearing of a head-covering nor the absence of a head-covering distinguished a woman as a prostitute. Even among prostitutes, the wearing of a head covering generally signified her status as a “respectable” woman.
3. The myth that, “The head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 was based on cultural practices.”
“As you can see from the description of women in the Roman Empire in the first century, the head covering teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 was not based on the Corinthian culture. Nor was it based on the Jewish culture, where both men and women covered their heads.”
4. The myth that, “The Corinthians wore the veil because it was the "oriental" (Middle East) custom.” The problem with this claim is that Corinthian customs were distinctly Roman, not middle eastern.
“Part of this myth has been already addressed, but it has been perpetuated in commentaries because of an ignorance of geography. Corinth is located in Greece, which is part of Europe, not the middle east! In addition, the Church at Corinth consisted of both Jew and Gentile Christians with a predominately Gentile majority, Acts 18:6 and 1 Corinthians 12:2, “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.” This could not then have been addressing a cultural issue that was common to both because the Jew and the Gentile had different customs regarding women’s appearance in public.
