Interesting UPCI Photo From India

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

MTD, It would seem to me, that if a simple cloth covering was what the apostle Paul was speaking about in I Cor. 11, then it's ok for a woman to cut her hair as short as she wants. Do your wife and daughter wear a "veil" and cut their hair?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Long hair pleases God. No scripture says a woman cant trim her hair. Its a great burdensome deception to teach trimming of hair is a sin.

Paul was talking about two different things within the same topic.

Veils and Hair.

Women then, culturally, wore veils

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Paul was talking about two different things within the same topic.

Veils and Hair.

Women then, culturally, wore veils

Christian women wore them not because of the culture but because of the angels.

Paul never says a word about the Corinthians "culture".

Why should a woman cover?

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 1 Cor 11:10

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Christian women wore them not because of the culture but because of the angels.

Paul never says a word about the Corinthians "culture".

Why should a woman cover?

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 1 Cor 11:10

No Paul didn't tell them to wear a veil. He told them to have a covering on their head

You don't have to see the word "culture"...just go study History. It's called Hermeneutics

the word for Veil is not the same word as covering

One word refers to the actual veil worn by women already in that age.

The rest of the chapter the word used simply means "to cover" without specifying with what..

So Paul said

1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Because of the two themes here some argue the woman SHOULD have something on her head but that it's not necessarily a veil OR hair. Its just that she is to have something

3 sn Paul does not use a word specifying what type of "covering" is meant (veil, hat, etc.). The Greek word he uses here (ἐξουσία exousia; translated symbol of authority) could be (1) a figure of speech that may substitute the result (the right to participate in worship) for the appropriate appearance that makes it possible (the covered head). Or (2) it refers to the outward symbol (having the head covered) as representing the inward attitude the woman is to possess (deference to male leadership in the church).

NET bible

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No Paul didn't tell them to wear a veil. He told them to have a covering on their head

You don't have to see the word "culture"...just go study History. It's called Hermeneutics

the word for Veil is not the same word as covering

One word refers to the actual veil worn by women already in that age.

The rest of the chapter the word used simply means "to cover" without specifying with what..

So Paul said

1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Because of the two themes here some argue the woman SHOULD have something on her head but that it's not necessarily a veil OR hair. Its just that she is to have something

3 sn Paul does not use a word specifying what type of "covering" is meant (veil, hat, etc.). The Greek word he uses here (ἐξουσία exousia; translated symbol of authority) could be (1) a figure of speech that may substitute the result (the right to participate in worship) for the appropriate appearance that makes it possible (the covered head). Or (2) it refers to the outward symbol (having the head covered) as representing the inward attitude the woman is to possess (deference to male leadership in the church).

NET bible

Well, that is interestingly important to consider when discussing this topic.

[Michael The Disciple]

Let me try to make a long story short. "Praying or prophesying" refers to body ministry when the Church gathers. If a woman wants to participate she is to cover her head whether it be a veil type or scarf type.

Then she has the authority to speak in Church. To pray or prophesy.

Again its in the context of "pray or prophesy". Participation in body ministry.

A woman who does not cover must be silent in the meeting.

Angels are attending the meetings to observe our obedience.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, that is interestingly important to consider when discussing this topic.

Daniel Wallace argues too that he believes it requires something on her head. He said it could be "hair" but does not believe it is hair. Nor does he believe it's necessarily a veil.

But grammatically speaking Paul is saying there is to be something on her head

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Daniel Wallace argues too that he believes it requires something on her head. He said it could be "hair" but does not believe it is hair. Nor does he believe it's necessarily a veil.

But grammatically speaking Paul is saying there is to be something on her head

How could he say that he doesn't believe that it is hair when I Cor 11:15 states that a woman's long hair is given to her for a covering, even stating that it is a glory/dignity to her?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

How could he say that he doesn't believe that it is hair when I Cor 11:15 states that a woman's long hair is given to her for a covering, even stating that it is a glory/dignity to her?

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

[Aquila]

Here are my thoughts. Hope it helps somewhat... share with me what you think.

I’ll break down the entire passage and I think you’ll know where I’m coming from after we take a closer look at it. Here’s the passage breakdown…. I Corinthians 11:1-16….

1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Paul commends them for obeying the teachings he had previously delivered to them.

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.

Paul now wants to draw something to their attention. Paul breaks down headship. The head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman (wife) is the man (husband), and the head of Christ is God. Obviously there was an issue regarding this order told to Paul be Chloe, so Paul’s words imply that the women were not in subjection to their husbands. But what was the issue itself? The next few verses go into it…

4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Here Paul states that every man who prays or prophesies with his head “covered” (Gk. kata, meaning, “something long hanging down over”) dishonors his “head” (i.e. Christ, for the head of every man is Christ). Many think this means long hair. Linguistically it could but it’s a stretch. One also has to ask, how would long hair shame Christ? Nazarites in their vow let their hair grow long, so obviously this doesn’t dishonor God. What could it be? Well, if we take it as meaning a veil we find that it would dishonor Christ. You see the male temple prostitutes would often dress like their goddesses and like women as part of their lascivious rituals. So if a man were to pray wearing a veil (a woman’s garment) in church gatherings he would be imitating the pagans. No doubt many of the men of the church used to worship in the pagan temples. Maybe some were coming with veils not fully understanding the Christian methods of worship. Maybe Paul was just laying the ground work for the next few points by addressing men first. But either way, if we understand that Paul was talking about a veil, it begins to make sense.

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.

Here Paul turns to the women. He states that if a woman prays or prophesies with her head “uncovered” (Gk. akatakaluptos, meaning “unveiled”) she dishonors her head (i.e. her husband, for the head of every wife is the husband). Paul then says that if a woman prays with her head unveiled, it is AS IF she were shaven. So here we see Paul drawing a comparison between to conditions: being unveiled and being shaven. The two are obviously not the same thing, though in Paul’s mind being unveiled is just as bad as being shaven. Why would it be dishonoring for a woman to be shaven? As part of the Nazarite vow women shaved their heads when the vow was finished in honor of God, so a woman being shaven obviously doesn’t directly dishonor God or a woman’s husband. However, we have to know something about ancient Grecia and Asia Minor. When a woman was caught in adultery in these pagan nations they’d publicly shame her by shaving or sheering her head. When Paul sad that if a woman prayed unveiled it was as if she were shaven, it would make a Corinthian Christian gasp; because essentially Paul was saying if you pray unveiled you look like an adulteress.

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.

Here Paul is angry because he uses some of the most powerful language in this passage. Paul zeros in on women saying that if a woman will not be covered (implying immodesty and lack of submission), she is to have her hair shorn like an adulteress. Obviously this would horrify our first century Corinthian readers. Paul then explains that if they know how shameful it is to be shorn or shaven as an adulteress, they should simply submit and put their veils back on. This verse is actually strong evidence that Paul isn’t addressing hair. Because Paul implies that a woman can choose to put her covering back on. No so with hair, because hair must be given time to grow.

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.

Paul now explains some deeper things. Paul states that man in principle shouldn’t be covered because he is the glory of God. He is made in God’s image and is to worship and give honor to God. However, the woman is the glory of the man. A man’s wife brings him honor and glory when she’s in submission and living modestly (in this instance veiled).

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.

This is because the woman was made from man, not man from woman. In addition the man wasn’t created for the woman, but the woman was created for the man.

10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

The meaning of this verse is widely disputed. I believe Paul is saying that the Corinthian women should signify their submission to their husbands by wearing their veils, giving their husbands authority over their heads. This is important because we all know what happened when the angels refused to be submitted, they were cast out. It could also mean that there is a special ministry of angels that a woman can experience when she’s submitted to her husband and living modestly. I understand that there are multiple interpretations of this verse, but this is my take on it.

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.

Here Paul demonstrates that though there is headship and authority a woman isn’t to be denigrated or disrespected, there should be mutual respect. This is because there would be no men without women or women without men, after all every woman born was born from the seed of a man and every man born was born of a woman. Everything about this is of God’s design.

13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Here Paul asks them a personal question. He asks them to look and determine for themselves if it’s proper for a woman to pray without a veil. And then Paul turns toward a supporting argument as part of his polemic….

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.

Here Paul draws an example from nature to support his admonishment to women that they should wear their veil in public worship. Paul demonstrates that even nature mirrors this standard of decency because even nature demonstrates that if a man has long hair it’s a shame for him; but if a woman has long hair it is her beauty and glory, this because nature has given her long hair for a covering. Now this word “covering” is interesting. It is “peribolaion” meaning a “covering (veil) wrapped around”. So in the Greek it would read more accurately, “for her hair is given her for a wrap around veil (or 'wrapping')." Here, hair was given to her for the veil. Her hair was given as a glory to be covered in modesty.

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Here Paul is saying that if any believer be contentious, rebellious, and disregarding of headship and modesty in worship, we have no such custom.

Well…I hope that helps explain my angle. I've been in much prayer and study on this passage and this is my take on it. As you can see, I don’t see anything in this passage specifically about cut or "uncut" hair on a woman other than a reference to the specific practice of sheering the head of adulteresses as public humiliation. We don’t do that today, so it isn’t a shameful thing that would destroy our witness as being shorn or unveiled would for a Corinthian believer in the first century. According to my understanding the passage is primarily about submission and modesty.

There isn't a single thing in the passage requiring women to wear uncut hair. That's just a Pentecostal tradition of man.

God bless.

[Aquila]

We also have nearly 2,000 years of commentary and cultural application on this topic. And still some continue to adhere to some obscure 20th century interpretation that isn't based on any serious study of the Greek or enduring cultural application.

The fact is... learn several key things in I Corinthians 11:

- A man is not to pray or prophesy with anything "hanging down over" or covering his head.

- Any woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled or uncovered dishonors her husband because it is immodest and is the same as if she were sheered or shaven bald like an unfaithful woman.

- Wearing the veil is an outward sign of a woman’s submission to her husband

- This properly places the woman under her husbands authority (whose head is Christ).

- The submission of a woman to her husband doesn’t mean that he is superior to her, but rather both need each other.

- Just as the woman is man's glory, a woman’s hair is her glory. Therefore both the woman and her hair should be covered in modesty.

- As a fitting example, even nature testifies that a woman should be veiled.

- A woman’s hair is meant to be wrapped and covered.

- This was a custom observed and obeyed by the entire Church of God for centuries.

Much commentary has been written about this down through the centuries. We only see a major departure from wearing head coverings among Bible believing Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries. Around this time we also see the false doctrine of uncut hair being the veil and notions of it having special virtues ("holy magic hair"). However, if one researches the subject commentary abounds.

Here's some commentary to consider:

Hermas (AD 150)
"A virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber...her head was covered by a hood."

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men."

"And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].

Tertullian (AD 198)
"Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men Will you be more modest in public than in Church Be veiled virgin."

"How severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who during the psalmsand at every mention of Godremain uncovered."

John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)
"Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare." Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: "' And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

"It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience." (Chrysostom, Homily XXVI. On The Veiling Of Women.)

Apostolic Constitutions (AD 390)
"When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons."

Jerome (345-429 a.d.)
".... not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command" [1 Corinthians 11:5]."

Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.'"Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head. "We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme....that is, in the image of God, ...especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: '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.'" Augustine - (Cited in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, ed. vol. 3, 523):

AD 800
"It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that headcoverings were worn by all women. It seems that a close fitting cap was worn by most women (perhaps similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin), which sometimes left the hair at the forehead and temples visible." (Angelcynn, Clothing and Appearance of the Early Christian Anglo-Saxons (c. 600-800 A.D.)

John Calvin (1509-1564)
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

Henry Alford (1810-1871)
"[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies."

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

Paul wasn’t talking about hair. He was talking about the use of the veil, a first century standard of modesty. Most scholars see this teaching as an issue of “modesty” that Paul was dealing with in relation to first century culture that isn’t applicable today in our culture. Today, the issue might be clothing that is too tight or revealing. It's the same thing. If a woman wears clothing that is too tight or revealing, she dishonors her "head" (her husband) just like those who were refusing to wear a veil in the first century church of Corinth. This is an ancient modesty standard.

That's my understanding.

God bless,