Originally posted by Bro Tony:
I would be in agreement with DHK about the origin of the type of headcoverings in Paul's day.
I would not be in agreement concerning the cultural distinction made at this point. It seems you have made a decision as to where you will determine what is and what is not cultural. It seems to me that is what others also are doing. You have agreed the issue in this passage is headship. My wife does not wear a headcovering and there is no issue of headship in our relationship. The headcovering was a symbol of headship in that cultural setting when Paul wrote his epistle. Today it no longer is a symbol in our culture. Now if a wife came to church in our day in entising clothing, that would be a shame to her and her husband's headship.
It seems everybody in this passage makes a decision where they will draw the line as to where the cultural influence fits in. We just draw that line at different places.
Bro Tony
The headcovering is a symbol of headship. Correct. Therefore wear it. That is a command. How can you escape it. Paul deals with this command thoroughly throughout the first half of this chapter giving no indication that it is ever a choice that one has not to wear it. If a woman is going to obey the Bible she must wear a headcovering for the various reasons given in this chapter:
1 Corinthians 11:3-16 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.
--This is the principle of headship. Christ is the head of the man. The man is the head of the woman.
This sets the foundation for what is to follow and the reason why a woman ought to wear a headcovering.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
--This gives the context right away that it is not speaking of the hair being a covering. Paul is not referring to men either keeping their hair on or taking their hair off--ludicrous.
Secondly, what would kind of covering would a man be wearing? This speaks to culture. In the eastern cultures they would be wearing a type of turban, something like the Sikhs, though not so elaborate. If a headcovering always meant the same thing--a veil covering the whole head for example (or a lacy shawl) could you imagine a man wearing this type of headcovering?
No, men take off your baseball caps, your cowboy hats, etc., not your lacy frilly scarves and hats. Let's use common sense here.
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.
--Again we are back to the principle of headship and the consequences thereof. If the woman refuses to have her head covered she ought to be shaven bald. That is the severity of disobeying this command. It is not to be taken lightly. Not wearing a head covering dishonors her head--that is it is dishonoring to both her husband, and thus in turn dishonoring to Christ. She dishonors her head. Her head is her husband. God made it that way, even as the head of the man is Christ. If she refuses to obey she should be shaven bald. She is a disgrace to the Christian faith, and the order that God has set in the home and in the church.
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.
--For further emphasis, Paul repeats himself. If the woman refuses to be covered let her be shorn. This is in the form of a command, for all those looking for one. Since it is a shame for a woman to be shaven, then the obvious solution to the problem is to wear a head covering. I don't know how much Paul could be any more emphatic. Ladies, if your going to be obedient to the Bible, you will wear a headcovering. It is as simple as that.
7 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.
--Man was made in the image of God, therefore he ought not to cover His head. God covers Him. God is his protection. Woman was made of man. The protection of woman falls under man. The headcovering is symbolic that she is submissive to man, as was directed by God in the curse in Genesis 3. This is God's directive will right from the beginning of Genesis.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
--Further explanation on the same theme. God created man. Then from the man he created the woman. The man has authority over the woman. The man is the head of the household. It doesn't have anything to do with dominance; we are equal in God's sight. God has given us different roles in life. The role that he has given man is to be the head of the household. The sin of Adam is attributed to Adam because he openly rebelled against God, whereas Eve was deceived. Even back in the garden Adam had authority over Eve.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
--This is an allusion to what happened in the garden, and is carried on to modern times. The woman was created for man; not vice-versa. The headcovering symbolizes this.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
--For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. These things the angels desire to look into--as they desire to look into the entire matter of salvation which they also do not understand. This is all a part of holiness--obeying God's command even when we don't understand the reason for why the command is given. Here God gives another reason for wearing a headcovering. The angels are watching. If that were the only reason; it is reason enough. The angels are watching, and therefore wear a headcovering.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
--In a marriage relationship both husband and wife are one. No man is an island. We both have to give 100%, not 50/50.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
--Speaking of God's order in creation. He created man first, but man cannot live without woman. Yet in God's great design of all things we give glory to God for all things are of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
--Here is the climax. Paul has set forth all the evidence that you need. Now you be the judge. Is it proper that a woman pray to God (in the church especially) with her head uncovered? By this time the question ought to be treated as rhetorical. The answer is now obvious and clearly apparent.
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
--An illustration taken from nature--it is a shame for a man to have long hair.
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
--It is also a shame for a woman to have short hair, or to be shaven. Her hair is a covering (different Greek word used here than previously used for covering). The other words used for coverings in the ASV are translated "veil," whereas this word "covering" is not. A woman's long hair is indeed a glory to her as opposed to short hair on a woman. Nature itself teaches us that principle. This verse in no way negates the necessity of wearing an actual head-covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
The custom referred to here is one of being contentious. Many of you are being contentious about the subject of head-coverings. Paul says we don't have a custom of being contentious. Don't contend with God about wearing a headcovering; just do it.
DHK
