Head covering

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

One thought is that women should have their head covered to demonstrate that they are under the authority of the male leadership of the church:

https://enduringword.com/bible-comme...orinthians-11/

d. Who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered: For a woman to do this said by her actions “I am not under authority here.” And because God has established that the head of woman is man (1 Corinthians 11:3), it dishonors the men (her head) for a woman to say this by refusing to wear a head covering.

i. Under these words of Paul, women are free to pray or prophesy, but only when as they demonstrate that they are under the authority of the male leadership of the church.

e. That is one and the same as if her head was shaved: If a woman refuses to demonstrate being under authority, she may as well be shaved of her hair (let her also be shorn). In some ancient cultures, the shaving of a woman’s head was the punishment given to an adulteress.

i. Having a woman’s head shorn or shaved meant different things in different cultures. In Jewish law, it was the mark of adultery (Numbers 5:11-31). In the Greek world, it could be the mark of a prostitute or lesbian.

Wives submit yourselves to your own husband .

That pretty much puts this puppy to bed.

The elders are to be the husband of one wife 1 Timothy 3:2. Not any wife of any other man Ephesians 5:21. Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband 1 Corinthians 7:2. This isn't rocket science. This portion of scripture come chapters ahead of Paul's discussion on headship and headcoverings. Ministerial elders are no where mentioned in the chapter. Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Why? Simply to avoid fornication. The more we look into this the simpler it becomes. Males preach to males, the younger women, have elder women to ask questions and see their example. But, the marriage bed shall not be defiled Hebrews 13:4.

[good samaritan]

[Nicodemus1968]

If there is a thread that goes into detail please lead me to it. Was skimming over this and there was just a lot of banter or shot from the hip style comments. Nothing too much in-depth.

However, I preach and I’ve heard others preach about the covering being the hair. I also believe the issue in the below chapter isn’t just about the physical hair yet about headship.


1Co 11:2....Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
1Co 11:3....But 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.
1Co 11:4....Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Co 11:5....But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Co 11:6....For 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.

I believe verse 3 states plainly that the issue here is headship, and not a covering (veil). However, if the issue is about covering the hair, instead of the hair as the covering. How does a man pray with an uncovered head?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

If there is a thread that goes into detail please lead me to it. Was skimming over this and there was just a lot of banter or shot from the hip style comments. Nothing too much in-depth.

However, I preach and I’ve heard others preach about the covering being the hair. I also believe the issue in the below chapter isn’t just about the physical hair yet about headship.


1Co 11:2....Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
1Co 11:3....But 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.
1Co 11:4....Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Co 11:5....But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Co 11:6....For 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.

I believe verse 3 states plainly that the issue here is headship, and not a covering (veil). However, if the issue is about covering the hair, instead of the hair as the covering. How does a man pray with an uncovered head?

The issue is the proper Divinely established line of authority - God, Christ, man, woman, in that order - as demonstrated by the covered or uncovered head during "praying or prophesying".

The context is worship, private and especially corporate.

Reasons why Paul is teaching men to not cover their heads and women to cover their heads, as opposed to some 20th century doctrine about him teaching women to not trim their hair ever and men to keep their hair off the collar:

1. "...praying or prophesying..." The subject matter of discourse is restricted to praying or prophesying, instead of "at all times whatsoever." This is more suited to a commandment to be obeyed AT SPECIFIED TIMES, which fits the idea of wearing a headcovering or not as opposed to one's hair length.

2. Hair is first mentioned in verse 5 where it says a woman praying or prophesying uncovered is EQUIVALENT to her being shaven (bald headed by means of a razor). This unequivocally proves all by itself that hair is not the covering being commanded. It is AS IF she were shaved.

3. The apostle says IF she isn't going to be covered, THEN let her ALSO be shorn. If means one thing, then means another. They cannot be the same thing. The hair doctrine has Paul teaching "if a woman cuts her hair then let her also cut her hair" which is absurd.

4. ALSO means "in addition to." If she be uncovered, then IN ADDITION TO her being uncovered she should have her hair shorn off. Thus being uncovered and being shorn are two different things in themselves.

5. Paul says since it is a disgrace and an embarrassment to a woman to be shorn (like a sheep) or shaved, then she needs to be covered. Not she needs to be unshorn, but covered. Being shorn is the prescribed penalty for being uncovered. Therefore being uncovered happens FIRST, and is the CAUSE, and being shorn happens NEXT, is the RESULT, and is something to be done AFTER a woman refuses to be uncovered.

6. Paul gives several THEOLOGICAL reasons to support his doctrine. Then in verse 13 he tells the church to reason this out for themselves from a NATURAL EXAMPLE which has to do with hair length. Hair is introduced here as a NATURAL EXAMPLE of the propriety of his THEOLOGICAL INSTRUCTION. Hair length is an EXAMPLE or ILLUSTRATION of the apostolic command, and not the command itself.

7. The length of a person's hair is a LESSON FROM NATURE that CORRELATES WITH or PARALLELS the apostolic command. Things that are parallel or which correlate are by necessity not identical. For example, if running a race CORRELATES to living the Christian life with a view to success, then it DOES NOT MEAN one can live the Christian life by just winning a marathon event. Rather it means the two are analogous, similar to each other, not that one REPLACES the other.

8. "For her hair is given her for a covering".

First, the word covering here is DIFFERENT that what has been used previously. Here the word is peribolaion and means a mantle, shawl, or a "wrap around". Women with long hair who put it in a bun on top of the head do NOT display the mantle-like character of a peribolaion. They would need to let the hair hang down and drape across and around the shoulders and upper torso in order to be the "covering" described in verse 15.

Second, the terms used previously for covered are variations of the Greek word used in the old testament to refer to actual headcoverings.

Third, the lesson from nature is that it is unseemly for a man to have hair like a woman whereas it is appropriate and a matter of adornment for a woman to have such hair. The LESSON BY ANALOGY is taken from the NATURAL and used as a PROOF of SOMETHING ELSE (the thing being commanded by the apostle).

9. All Christians everywhere at all times have understood the apostle to be teaching that men are to remove any covering from their head during worship, and that women are to WEAR A HEADCOVERING during worship. ONLY in the 20th century did WESTERN women begin to NOT WEAR A HEADCOVERING during worship, and ONLY in 20th century America did SOME sectors of Christendom begin teaching that the hair itself is the covering commanded by the apostle.

10. If hair is the commanded covering then there are several problems and absurdities:

A woman who cuts her hair is equivalent to a woman whose hair is cut.
A woman who cuts her hair is to ALSO cut her hair.
A woman who cuts her hair AT ALL BY ANY AMOUNT is considered uncovered, but a man who cuts his hair by the same amount may or may not be considered covered.
A man with 3 feet of hair but who regularly trims it by 1/4 inch is considered covered, but a woman who does the same thing is considered uncovered: an arbitrary double standard not defined or specified in either Scripture, reason, or history.

On the other hand, if the command has to do with actual head coverings, ALL difficulties disappear immediately, except one: PRIDE. Western women don't want to wear a headcovering because of their pride.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The issue is the proper Divinely established line of authority - God, Christ, man, woman, in that order - as demonstrated by the covered or uncovered head during "praying or prophesying".

The context is worship, private and especially corporate.

Reasons why Paul is teaching men to not cover their heads and women to cover their heads, as opposed to some 20th century doctrine about him teaching women to not trim their hair ever and men to keep their hair off the collar:

1. "...praying or prophesying..." The subject matter of discourse is restricted to praying or prophesying, instead of "at all times whatsoever." This is more suited to a commandment to be obeyed AT SPECIFIED TIMES, which fits the idea of wearing a headcovering or not as opposed to one's hair length.

2. Hair is first mentioned in verse 5 where it says a woman praying or prophesying uncovered is EQUIVALENT to her being shaven (bald headed by means of a razor). This unequivocally proves all by itself that hair is not the covering being commanded. It is AS IF she were shaved.

3. The apostle says IF she isn't going to be covered, THEN let her ALSO be shorn. If means one thing, then means another. They cannot be the same thing. The hair doctrine has Paul teaching "if a woman cuts her hair then let her also cut her hair" which is absurd.

4. ALSO means "in addition to." If she be uncovered, then IN ADDITION TO her being uncovered she should have her hair shorn off. Thus being uncovered and being shorn are two different things in themselves.

5. Paul says since it is a disgrace and an embarrassment to a woman to be shorn (like a sheep) or shaved, then she needs to be covered. Not she needs to be unshorn, but covered. Being shorn is the prescribed penalty for being uncovered. Therefore being uncovered happens FIRST, and is the CAUSE, and being shorn happens NEXT, is the RESULT, and is something to be done AFTER a woman refuses to be uncovered.

6. Paul gives several THEOLOGICAL reasons to support his doctrine. Then in verse 13 he tells the church to reason this out for themselves from a NATURAL EXAMPLE which has to do with hair length. Hair is introduced here as a NATURAL EXAMPLE of the propriety of his THEOLOGICAL INSTRUCTION. Hair length is an EXAMPLE or ILLUSTRATION of the apostolic command, and not the command itself.

7. The length of a person's hair is a LESSON FROM NATURE that CORRELATES WITH or PARALLELS the apostolic command. Things that are parallel or which correlate are by necessity not identical. For example, if running a race CORRELATES to living the Christian life with a view to success, then it DOES NOT MEAN one can live the Christian life by just winning a marathon event. Rather it means the two are analogous, similar to each other, not that one REPLACES the other.

8. "For her hair is given her for a covering".

First, the word covering here is DIFFERENT that what has been used previously. Here the word is peribolaion and means a mantle, shawl, or a "wrap around". Women with long hair who put it in a bun on top of the head do NOT display the mantle-like character of a peribolaion. They would need to let the hair hang down and drape across and around the shoulders and upper torso in order to be the "covering" described in verse 15.

Second, the terms used previously for covered are variations of the Greek word used in the old testament to refer to actual headcoverings.

Third, the lesson from nature is that it is unseemly for a man to have hair like a woman whereas it is appropriate and a matter of adornment for a woman to have such hair. The LESSON BY ANALOGY is taken from the NATURAL and used as a PROOF of SOMETHING ELSE (the thing being commanded by the apostle).

9. All Christians everywhere at all times have understood the apostle to be teaching that men are to remove any covering from their head during worship, and that women are to WEAR A HEADCOVERING during worship. ONLY in the 20th century did WESTERN women begin to NOT WEAR A HEADCOVERING during worship, and ONLY in 20th century America did SOME sectors of Christendom begin teaching that the hair itself is the covering commanded by the apostle.

10. If hair is the commanded covering then there are several problems and absurdities:

A woman who cuts her hair is equivalent to a woman whose hair is cut.
A woman who cuts her hair is to ALSO cut her hair.
A woman who cuts her hair AT ALL BY ANY AMOUNT is considered uncovered, but a man who cuts his hair by the same amount may or may not be considered covered.
A man with 3 feet of hair but who regularly trims it by 1/4 inch is considered covered, but a woman who does the same thing is considered uncovered: an arbitrary double standard not defined or specified in either Scripture, reason, or history.

On the other hand, if the command has to do with actual head coverings, ALL difficulties disappear immediately, except one: PRIDE. Western women don't want to wear a headcovering because of their pride.

Is it a shame if a man has long hair? What is long?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

Is it a shame if a man has long hair? What is long?

1 Corinthians 11:14 KJV
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by james34

Is it a shame if a man has long hair? What is long?

Look up the Greek word for "long" and see what it means:

To grow the hair long, that is, to have tresses of hair descending from the head.

What is a tress of hair?

Whatever having tresses of hair is for a man, to have such is a shame to him, if he prays or prophesizes.

[coksiw]

On an interesting note, David K Bernard says that Chrysostom understood that the covering was the long hair:

Quote from Practical Holiness:

John Chrysostom interpreted Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 11 to refer to long hair. In a sermon on that chapter, Chrysostom wrote that Paul “both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. . . . He signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered. . . . But with regard to the man . . . the wearing long hair he discourages at all times.”13 In the same sermon, Chrysostom compared this teaching with Deuteronomy 22:5, noting that both passages teach a distinction between male and female in appearance.

However, that's not exactly what Chrysostom is saying:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ch...nthians/11.htm

Having finished therefore all the discourses concerning all these things, he next proceeds also to another accusation. And what was this? Their women used both to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare, (for then women also used to prophesy but the men went so far as to wear long hair as having spent their time in philosophy [133] , and covered their heads when praying and prophesying, each of which was a Grecian custom.

For hitherto his discourse was only concerning their not wearing long hair and not covering their heads

signifying that even though he pray with the head bare, yet if he have long hair, he is like to one covered.

For he said not merely covered, but "covered over [137] ," meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side.

Key paragraphs:

Having taken then what was confessedly shameful, and having said, "but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven," he states in what follows his own conclusion, saying, "let her be covered." And he said not, "let her have long hair," but, "let her be covered," ordaining both these to be one, and establishing them both ways, from what was customary and from their contraries: in that he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. "For it is one and the same thing," saith he, "as if she were shaven." But if any say, "And how is it one, if this woman have the covering of nature, but the other who is shaven have not even this?" we answer, that as far as her will goes, she threw that off likewise by having the head bare. And if it be not bare of tresses, that is nature's doing, not her own. So that as she who is shaven hath her head bare, so this woman in like manner. For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering, that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself.

"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

But I fear lest having assumed the dress, yet in their deeds some of our women should be found immodest and in other ways uncovered.

For what I can understand, Chrysostom is not saying that "the covering and the long hair is the same thing, therefore, Paul is not really commanding to have a covering". But instead, what he is trying to say is that the covering is the acknowledgement of the woman of her long hair giving by nature, and submission to God.

David K. Bernard didn't read Chrysostom's writing that much or he was just quoting someone else misleading analysis.

I don't know where the "Paul is saying the covering is the long hair, not an additional thing" belief is coming from.

BTW, I do not teach that a woman should wear a veil, but I think that whole thing is hermeneutics gymnastics for the sake of proving a doctrine.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by coksiw

On an interesting note, David K Bernard says that Chrysostom understood that the covering was the long hair:

Quote from Practical Holiness:


However, that's not exactly what Chrysostom is saying:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ch...nthians/11.htm


Thanks for sharing this.






Key paragraphs:







For what I can understand, Chrysostom is not saying that "the covering and the long hair is the same thing, therefore, Paul is not really commanding to have a covering". But instead, what he is trying to say is that the covering is the acknowledgement of the woman of her long hair giving by nature, and submission to God.

David K. Bernard didn't read Chrysostom's writing that much or he was just quoting someone else misleading analysis.

I don't know where the "Paul is saying the covering is the long hair, not an additional thing" belief is coming from.

BTW, I do not teach that a woman should wear a veil, but I think that whole thing is hermeneutics gymnastics for the sake of proving a doctrine.

Thanks for sharing this.

[Monterrey]

Uncut hair