Headcover

This has got to be among the most abused and most misunderstood verses in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 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.

Without seeing the previous verses, this verse is taken completely out of context. The previous verses are: 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." The order is God is above Christ; Christ is above the man, and the man above the woman. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head (Christ).

The previous verses make it clear that the "head covering" is a symbol for headship. A man who prays without authority dishonors Christ. A women who does the same without her spouse's blessing dishonors her spouse. The examples become more clear when you take into consideration the customs of headwear at that time. It doesn't say men and women can't pray pr prophesy, nor does it require or discourage men and women in their head attire. Since head attire customs today are not what they were then, the context of this verse is often difficult to discern. One thing, however, is clear. This verse is NOT intented to require women fromtheir keeping heads covered. </font>[/QUOTE]Dead on. This is the point that I have been trying to make for ages. Many forget the spirtual application, and when you make a physical one, there can be a serious bondage to wearing a headcovering and coming to rely on it for an expression of submissiveness instead of the submissiveness coming from inside.

Thanks,

Jason </font>[/QUOTE]This is called allegorization. The head-covering is only a symbol for headship. Those were the exact words. If you go on that premise, you can do what ever you want to the Bible. What do you do with the Lord's Table? Is there any purpose in eating the bread and drinking the wine/juice? Not according to your theology! They are only symbols, not to be obeyed, just to be taken as a symbol. We should just look upon them and meditate instead. No need to actually partake of the elements. They are just symbols after all. No need to obey the Lord. Whenever something is symbolic we just ignore the command. Right? Baptism is symbolic too. That means we don't have to get baptized. Ignore that command too? Where do you guys stop? Ignore all the commands that contain symbolism? That is a pretty lame excuse for ignoring one of the very plain commands of Scripture.
DHK

 

It is not allegorized at all. The headship is spiritual, not physical. Just because it is spiritual does not mean that it is any less real or not to be obeyed. It IS to be obeyed and to the letter.

Jason

 

Here is your original post:

In the next post (the one I responded to) it was clearly said that the headcovering was a symbol of headship. Thus, you say that it is a symbol. And you discourage the wearing of a headcovering since it is only a symbol of the headship itself. You say that there could be bondage in wearing a headcovering. You have this all so backwards.

As I mentined there is symbolism in taking the elements of the Lord's Table. Are we to be discouraged to partake of the actual elements of the Lord's Table for fear that they might bring us into bondage??
A command is a command. It is there to be kept, and not to be swept under the rug "for culture sake."
DHK

 

I'm not sure I completely understand your contention with my post. When the Bible says that a woman is not to pray uncovered, it truly means that in a very real way and is a direct command of scripture. However, it is not talking about a physical covering but a spiritual one. I am not claiming that a physical covering is symbolic and therefore optional, I am claiming that a physical covering is not referred to in this passage at all (except for the hair being used as an example of nature's covering for the woman). When looked at in light of other scripture, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a spiritual covering that is referred to. After all, if it was a physical covering men should never wear hats at any time, anywhere because we are supposed to always be in an attitude of prayer and if we were wearing a hat we would be in direct violation of I Cor 11. This is one reason that the hair cannot be the covering either, otherwise we would be in direct violation of scripture as men if we didn't have our heads shaved.

In re-reading his post, I made a mistake of agreeing completely with Johnv. I should have read it more closely as the physical headcovering is clearly NOT a symbol and is not optional, but is simply not addressed in I Cor 11. My fault for not reading his post as closely as I should have.

Jason

 

John,

If the Lord has led you and your wife to do this, then follow his lead and you will be blessed.

However, be respectful to those that do not interpret 1 Cor. 11 literally, but symbolically.

Blessings,
Jeff

 

The Greek word "uncovered" in verse 5 is "akatakalupto".
The Gereek word for "covering" in verse 15 is "peribolaiou," a completely different word.

Two different words are used for two different purposes. Akatakalupto refers to a headcovering; peribolaiou does not. If a woman does not wear a head covering she should be ashamed of herself, and should be shaven. The ASV translates the word correctly as veiled.
Verse 15 is an obvious contrast to verse 14, where the men ought to have short hair compared to the women who ought to have long hair. It is a shame for a man to have short hair (vs.14); whereas it is a glory for a woman to have long hair (vs.15). This verse is unrelated to the issue of headship in the first eight verses, where the woman is commanded to have a veil or head covering. Two different Greek words; two different meanings.
DHK

 

DHK,

I respectfully disagree with your exegesis but have this to say about headcoverings:

If your wife (or you for that matter) wears a headcovering, it should be as unto the Lord. If your wife does not wear a headcovering, it should be with a clear conscience and as unto the Lord.

Jason

 

No, it's called, in this case, taking it in the context intended. Taking it to mean a literal mandatory headcovering by all women is adding to scripture.

TO reiterate: if someone decided to wear a head covering as a result of this verse, they are welcome to, and I support their decision to so. May God bless them. However, to require the same of all women is not biblical.

 

No, it's called, in this case, taking it in the context intended. Taking it to mean a literal mandatory headcovering by all women is adding to scripture.

TO reiterate: if someone decided to wear a head covering as a result of this verse, they are welcome to, and I support their decision to so. May God bless them. However, to require the same of all women is not biblical. </font>[/QUOTE]John your accusation in this case is dead wrong. Obeying a direct command of the Lord is not adding to Scripture; but rather a refusal to obey it, is denying the reality of the command, and the fact that it even exists. It is like saying to God: "God I don't like what you say, so I am going to pretend that it says something other than what you intended it to say." That is exactly what you have done. The command is given to wear a headcovering. If you can show me where the Scripture where the wearing of the headcovering (translated veil in the ASV) is not necessary), feel free. Otherwise do not accuse falsely of adding to the Scripture. That is a serious allegation.
DHK

 

&gt;&gt;Obeying a direct command of the Lord is not adding to Scripture&lt;&lt;

Where in the text is this a "direct command from God"?

 

1 Corinthians 11:5-6 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. 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.

1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. (ASV)
DHK

 

&gt;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:5-6 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. 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.

1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. (ASV)&lt;&lt;


These are the words from Paul to the church at Corinth. But where does it state that it is a direct command from God. Any other direct command from God or Christ is prefaced/stressed as such, so where is it proven that this is a direct command from God.

 

The verse in question is NOT a command by GOd for women to wear headcoverings. However, I find it hypocritical (not by you, necessarily) that many people use that arguement in this verse, yet don't consider the same for the Ten Commandments.

On the contrary. This is a case of people misapplying the verse. Christians were indeed commanded by God to wear headcoverings, then I'd be the first to adhere to it. But they're not.

It's an accurate allegation, however. Presuming that the verses in question are a command from God for women to cover their heads is a blatant misinterpretation, resulting from not taking the verses in the context in which the author (Paul) intneded. Applying a verse out of context as a command is adding to the Bible. KJVO's do it all the time.

 

Adding to what Dina said above.... Why stop there? These verses say SO much!

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The scripture used to claim a woman must cover her head MUST be read in context and with discernment. Out of context, it can be misused.

Diane

 

QUOTE: If you can show me where the Scripture where the wearing of the headcovering (translated veil in the ASV) is not necessary), feel free

1 Corinthians 11:16
But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. ASV

1 Corinthians 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. KJV

1 Corinthians 11:
1 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. 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. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: 10 for this cause ought the woman to have [a sign of] authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. 13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

 

Verse 16 does not negate everything Paul just stated before. That would nullify all that he wrote. What Paul is saying in that verse is that we do not have a custom of being contentious. This is not a matter of which there ought to be any contention on. It is God's will, and you need to obey it. The verse strengthens what has been said before; it doesn't weaken it.
The command is still there, and it is very strong. If you are not willing to wear a veil or a head covering then shave your head. It is a shame.
DHK

 

Aside from the fact, and I do mean fact, that you're taking the passage out of context, what about NT assertion that we're not bound by the Law? Covering or not covering one's head is not a modesty issue, not a temply-of-the-holy-spirit issue, not a sabbath issue, not a rabbinnic issue, not a dietary issue, and not even a cultural issue. So if your assertion is correct, then it's a law issue, and the NT says we're not under the law.

BTW, I thought Persis Khambatta was pretty good looking in Star Trek:The Motion Picture, and her head was shaved. So according to you, she was not shamed, since her head was shaved. My ex-wife used to say, if she could look that beautiful bald, she'd shave her head, too.

 

Show me how I have taken this out of context.
Show me how this is part of the law. It is New Testament, not Old Testament. It is speaking of the principle of headship, and has directly to do with Christ. That isn't even taught in the Old Testament.
This is clearly a New Testament issue. And there is no place in Scripture where this practice was rescinded. Nor is there any place in Scripture that indicates that it is only for the Corinthian Church, or only for a particular culture. Paul spoke of the Lord's Table also. Is that only for the Corinthian Church??
DHK

 

I successfully did that in the 5th post ini this thread. It's a done deal, but you prefer to believe differently. That's certainly your right, I suppose.

Click here for link

(Edited to repair link)

[ April 21, 2004, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

I wouldn't want my wife coming to church with a head covering in the US. Now if we were in another country that would be different if that were the custom.

A friend of mine and his wife went to another country and the women there do not speak in discussions at all. It is considered impolite.

Should we lie down when we eat too? That was biblical.