Both progressive and traditional types of Christians blatantly disobey the Bible... and this example about men and women proves it.

Start here to find an answer:

1 Corinthians 11:

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

What is missing is actually in the realm of the plainly obvious - which is indicated to us in this verse.

It seems like you’re saying that the opinions of others determine whether a person’s choice of hair length is sinful. I suspect that’s not what you mean.

Christ unites and saves, Paul divides. In every thread i see, when Paul is mentioned, division is certain to follow. Now why is that? Blessing

Why do you think this is so?

If we cannot see or understand what 'nature' is trying to teach us, then we know for sure that Satan has made great advances in deception, deflection, etc. - blinding us to the truth that God would have us to know and understand.

If we can no longer comprehend why men and women should be different in appearance according to the unique distinction that God set forth at Creation --- we are in a bad shape for sure!

There are almost ZERO other NT passages dealing with this to corroborate any position, and the OT passages have to do with men NOT cutting their hair.

This is what I know for certain Gary. Neither you, nor I, nor ANYBODY else, has everything exactly right.

I am new here. Please help me unpack this, and tell me why do you think most ignore this part of the Bible? First, here is some art I made. It's based upon my wife, wearing a head covering as she prays and prophesies.


It looks like we all cherry-pick the Bible. Even those of us that consider ourselves to be hardcore Bible believing Christians of the traditionalist type. We like to point out how progressive Christians deconstruct, deform, or dismiss certain scriptures. It is strange that most of us western Christians do the same thing with the first part of 1 Corinthians 11.


The Corinth Church was out of line because they were not following the traditions that Paul previously taught them. He sent a letter reminding them that men should not cover their heads and women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy. He also had instructions about the Lord's Supper. This is not about fashion nor food... but liturgy and proper worship.

In verse 16, it is written that the churches of God do not have a custom of a woman praying with her head u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d. So for centuries after Paul's letter women covered their heads in church... all the way until the sexual revolution and the feminist movement starting in the 1960's. Now, only certain denominations follow the instructions. Most Western churches ignore these holy scriptures. The people I talk to about this mostly have never heard of it. Or, they pretend that the scriptures mean other things, like it is about women having long hair, or that the letter was ONLY for the Corinthians, or it was a cultural thing of that time, or some other untrue thing. They skip that part of the scripture and only give attention to the part about the Lord's Supper.

Here is a pretty good article that explains the background and history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering

You might think that it is not a big deal if a guy wears a ball cap in church or if a woman does not cover her head. But head covering is not something Paul briefly touched on casually with a single sentence, like the "holy kiss" or "drink a little wine to help your stomach". See how Paul elaborated on the theology of it. The fact that Paul wrote that all the churches practiced this means that it is not merely an instruction unique to the area of Corinth. ADDITIONALLY, and more importantly, the fact that he connected this practice with creation, the natural order, and the Angels makes it a universality. After all, Angels are every time and place. THIS IS NO SMALL THING. A man not covering his head and a woman covering her head, this is an act of worship that shows that we are submitted to God.

It seems that we have now set aside holy scripture, mainly for feminist pride. And this distortion or deconstruction of holy scripture for an agenda has made the way for gay pride to do the same thing. Do we accept the writings of Paul, or just the parts we like? So, was the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul? If we listen to Paul when it comes to the gifts of the spirit, the Lord's Supper, and on and on, why not about head coverings?

And the next thing you know, many Christians will cherry-pick the words of Christ, and ignore His definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6). Wait, that is already happening....

If we cannot see or understand what 'nature' is trying to teach us, then we know for sure that Satan has made great advances in deception, deflection, etc. - blinding us to the truth that God would have us to know and understand.

If we can no longer comprehend why men and women should be different in appearance according to the unique distinction that God set forth at Creation --- we are in a bad shape for sure!

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Read the way it is written it answers your question.

It was a Jewish custom he was referring to to make a point about something. He made sure to clarify that this was not a custom that NT churches had to do. Nor any other Jewish customs like circumcision or other customs that had a spiritual meaning behind them.

He could teach about the spiritual meaning behind circumcision and then say, But we do not have this custom for the churches of God and that is not my point.

Luke 12:51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Read the way it is written it answers your question.

The covering of hair or not covering of hair is precisely in line with Paul's other comments about dressing modestly.

IOW do not stand out by what you wear. Don't make YOURSELF be the focus...instead let GOD and his message be the focus and not what you are wearing or not wearing. Especially during prayer or prophesying.

Paul was forever repeating himself. How everyone comes up with a completely new theology about what everyone should do as some sort of new legalism is beyond me.

Just because Pau did not say "we have no such custom of uncovered heads" does not mean that it was not implied. A custom is a practice, and Paul was speaking about a Christian practice which was being ignored by some in the church at Corinth. Since he mentioned "the churches of God" it should be clear that all the New Testament churches had the custom or practice of women with heads covered and men with heads uncovered (unlike the Jewish custom of men covering their heads). If Paul meant to teach that the long hair of women was all that was required, he would not have used the word "custom".

No, you get it backwards. There is no custom of a woman praying or prophesying with her head u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d. From verse 13, Paul writes : " Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d ? ". To which Paul writes in verse 16 , that the churches of God have no such custom... that is, no custom of a woman being u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d when she prays or prophecies. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

After he talks about a man NOT covering his head and a woman covering her head, and the reasons why, and how nature itself demonstrates this, Paul then writes about the proper way to do the Lord's Supper, and how we should not receive it in an unworthy manner, due to unrepentant sin. These things that he teaches us do not relate to fashion, hair, or food and drink, or obsolete Jewish customs from the OT. It is about proper worship for the New Testament church and the meaning behind it. It is about liturgy.

Your misunderstanding is common. It is a common mistake for those that have a preconceived notion about what it means, due to their lack of understanding and practice. It is the fault of the pastors and elders more than the laity. Feminism and the sexual revolution of the West have done a good job covering this about head coverings. But once you see it, you cannot unsee it. And you also see that most of us in the West are not obeying this instruction for proper worship. In our pride, we have ignored it, and in doing so we set an unholy example for progressive minded Christians to also ignore the holy scriptures that they wish to ignore, like husband headship, marriage between a man and woman, adultery, the sin of sodomy, to name a few.

View attachment 240876

At this point I do not see that as the normal way to read that in English. I also believe that scholars like Gordon Fee who are expert in the manuscripts and the Greek are more credible concerning how to read that statement and he also agrees with how I understood it when I read it. I don't think your theory is valid, either in Greek or in English.

After all that Paul has taught about not putting Jewish customs on gentiles to think he would shift completely and demand women adopt a questionable custom that no one can even define exactly what it looks like, is obvious that one has made a mistake in interpreting authorial intent.

You can't even know how to enforce that custom. Your best guess is a guess. And you are going to suggest that God is going to judge women who don't do it right along with sodomites?

This passage is too subject to mistakes in personal interpretations to warrant your condemnation on those who disagree with you.
You should take a step back, and spend time reading from expert scholars about all the many things that have been written about this text and fear God and shrink back in horror at the possibility that you made some mistakes in interpretation and were condemning everyone else.

Just because someone writes something in a commentary does not mean it is the truth. If that was the case, all commentaries from "so called experts" would all say the same thing, but they do not.

From Matthew Henry's commentary on the Whole Bible:

VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, 1Co_11:16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.

Welcome!