Headcoverings for Women

[jbh28]

Custom??

1 Corinthians 11:2-5 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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.

So, exactly when in history was this ordinance, so clearly stated in the Bible, rescinded?

The ordinance wasn't the head coverings, it was submission.
The head coverings were how they did it then. It was Pauls application of the biblical truth. Pauls point was "head of every woman is man" and "head of man is Christ" ... That was Pauls point. The headcovers were the custom of the day. Women covered their heads as a sign of submission. Today that isn't the case. Remember, when you read Scripture, you find the original intent of the author, the biblical truth and the application of that truth. Application will change over time, the biblical truth and original intent will not change.

 

[Jerome]

Custom??

1 Corinthians 11:2-5

Geneva Bible (late 1500s) notes at this passage that:

This tradition was observed according to the time and place

 

[Jerome]

Early English Baptists Vol. I, p. 78

"In January 27," says Strype, "a number of persons, a sort of Anabaptists, about sixty, met in a house on a Sunday, in the parish of Booking, in Essex, where arose among them a great dispute, 'Whether it were necessary to stand or kneel, bare-headed or covered, at prayers? And they concluded that the ceremony not to be material, but that the heart before God was required, and nothing else.' Such other like warm disputes there were about Scripture."

 

[DHK]

The ordinance wasn't the head coverings, it was submission.
The head coverings were how they did it then. It was Pauls application of the biblical truth. Pauls point was "head of every woman is man" and "head of man is Christ" ... That was Pauls point. The headcovers were the custom of the day. Women covered their heads as a sign of submission. Today that isn't the case. Remember, when you read Scripture, you find the original intent of the author, the biblical truth and the application of that truth. Application will change over time, the biblical truth and original intent will not change.

There are some things that don't change no matter how much we want to rationalize. Women have worn head coverings right up to the middle of the 20th century and a bit beyond that. Sometime around the time of the beginning of the Feminist movement women stopped wearing hats. That coincides with the very symbolism the head covering represents--headship of the man. That is what today's woman doesn't want (in general).

But this passage is far more dogmatic than to dismiss so lightly. It expressly says: If the woman does not wear a head-covering let her be shaved or be bald. You have that choice. Be bald or wear a head covering. It is very clear. That is no custom, but a command and a symbol of headship.

Furthermore (I gave this a lot earlier in this thread), the passage gives six distinct reasons why a woman should wear a head covering in the service of a church. Not just one (head ship), but SIX! There are six reasons for a woman to wear a head covering in this passage. It is not just tradition as tradition is defined today, or custom as you would define it.

 

[jbh28]

There are some things that don't change no matter how much we want to rationalize. Women have worn head coverings right up to the middle of the 20th century and a bit beyond that. Sometime around the time of the beginning of the Feminist movement women stopped wearing hats. That coincides with the very symbolism the head covering represents--headship of the man. That is what today's woman doesn't want (in general).

But this passage is far more dogmatic than to dismiss so lightly. It expressly says: If the woman does not wear a head-covering let her be shaved or be bald. You have that choice. Be bald or wear a head covering. It is very clear. That is no custom, but a command and a symbol of headship.

It does as that was the custom of the day.

Furthermore (I gave this a lot earlier in this thread), the passage gives six distinct reasons why a woman should wear a head covering in the service of a church. Not just one (head ship), but SIX! There are six reasons for a woman to wear a head covering in this passage. It is not just tradition as tradition is defined today, or custom as you would define it.

It was about headship. The passage is about headship. Do you greet people with a kiss or do you shake their hand? Romans 16:16 say very specifically to greet one another with a holy kiss. Do you do this, or do you recognize that it was the custom of the day(still is in some parts of the world) and look for the biblical truth.

What you are doing is taking Pauls application(cover the head) and making it the biblical truth. Also, Paul was not referring to hats but more likely a veil. So if we are going to take this literally, women should wear a veil.

Your 6 reasons were about the headship. Again, you are changing the application into the biblical truth.

if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled

As with the other parts, this was Pauls application because in the day and time Paul wrote this, a women would have her head covered in a veil, not a hat.

Because of God's order in creation

Which is why the headship cannot be said to be cultural as the head covering can be. Paul transcends culture with this.

Because of the angels (v 10)

again, about headship. Pauls application

Because of a sense of propriety

just a repeat of application. Same thing as your number 1

Because of the natural order of things (the distinction between male & female and the woman's natural covering;

the biblical truth. head covering(a veil, not a hat) was Paul's application.

Because of the practice of all the churches

Again, Paul's point is about headship. Everything is about headship in this passage.

If one is going to advocate that the head covering was literal, he must say that women should wear a veil. If you say that women wear hats today, you then are using culture as I'm saying and recognizing that it was Paul's application.

 

[Oldtimer]

Personally, I'm glad the custom of women wearing hats to church has faded away.

* Women's hats had/have become a form of vanity. All of the focus on hats at the recent royal wedding in England is a good example. Instead of hats being a modest symbol of submission, today, they are frequently a vain adornment. I saw this in the church of my youth. Women competing with each other to have the "best" hat each Sunday. The biddies at church scorned (for lack of a better term) any woman who wore a simple scarf on her head.

* Women would spend big dollars on hats to adorn themselves while dropping pennies into the collection plate. Something's wrong with that picture.

BTW -- back in the day -- gloves, pocketbooks, and shoes had to match the hat which also had to match the dress. Remember well when women had to dress like the Queen of England (in style) to attend worship services. -- Dollars and pennies.

* Where head coverings are still required for worship services, if I understand correctly, women can pin a coffee filter type thing over their hair. IMHO, that's submitting to the "rules" of the church. Doesn't mean they are submitting to God's truth in their hearts or their daily lives.

We will know them by their fruits. Somehow I don't think that means we'll know them by their Kentucky Derby, Easter Parade, British wedding, or Sunday's finest hat.

 

[DHK]

the biblical truth. head covering(a veil, not a hat) was Paul's application.

Then Biblical truth has no meaning. It is senseless. Paul wrote in vain. I've never seen someone so able to rationalize Scripture away. All of this Scripture is not about headship. It is about wearing a head covering. Only the first few are about headship. That is only one of the six reasons given.

 

[Alcott]

DHK, someone asked you about greeting people "with a holy kiss." How about an answer-- do you do it? And also, address the reference to "pray or prophesy." It is not said that women must wear headcoverings to come to meetings at all.

Women's hats, kisses, and no horsing around... well the Kentucky Derby is 2 out of 3. Maybe that's closer to an ideal than a modern church service for some.

 

[jbh28]

Then Biblical truth has no meaning. It is senseless. Paul wrote in vain.

Look DHK. Do not misconstrue what I say. How dare you do that! I even said in my post about biblical truth. I talked about the big importance of understanding biblical truth. I said biblical truth never changes. Don't turn this into something personal. Learn something from someone. I've given you very good things about this passage, but you won't read what I write. I'm not saying you have to agree, but don't make a person attack on me.

I've never seen someone so able to rationalize Scripture away. All of this Scripture is not about headship. It is about wearing a head covering. Only the first few are about headship. That is only one of the six reasons given.

Obviously you are refusing to read what I wrote and have resorted to personal attacks. You better greet everyone with a kiss and your wife better wear a veil if you are going to be consistent. The passage is about headship not head coverings. I laid that out very clearly. But since you want to promote Paul's application to biblical truth, you have resorted to personal attacks on me. Again, the entire passage is about headship. Head coverings and hair length are both applications of headship. I even looked at your 5(you repeated one) and all are about headship. Paul doesn't start out speaking of headship and then start giving people fashion tips.

Unless you can resort to an adult type of conversation, I'm not going to continue with you. You go way over the line when you accuse me of throwing out biblical truth.

 

[jbh28]

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Here we see Paul's point. Headship. Paul says that there is an order. It's God, Christ, man, woman(wife).

Paul then continues this out. He's not changing subjects here.


Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
Again, still about headship. "woman is the glory of man" man "is the image and glory of God." Same subject as above. Paul's overarching theme here is that there is a difference between men and women. Men didn't cover their heads. women did. If a woman would have here head uncovered in the Corinthian church, it would be a disgrace. Why, because that's what the man is supposed to do. He's supposed to pray with his head uncovered. It was a sign of submission at the Corinthian church.

For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Now, if someone were to say that headship is cultural, Paul transcends culture here by going back to adam and eve. Headship isn't cultural.


That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.Paul applies it again to hair. If I understand correctly, in just about every culture woman's hair is longer than man's hair. That doesn't mean that men have always had short tapered hair cuts, but that the typical woman hair would be longer. When we see these together, we see differences between the women and men. Women should look like women. Men should look like men. Why? Because of headship. Paul hasn't left his original point. (Paul doesn't talk like our threads sometimes turn out by changing the subject on page one.)

bolded is from
(1 Corinthians 11:2-16 ESV)

here's a note from the ESV study Bible. I believe someone else mentioned the wedding ring.

vss 5-6 note
A married woman who uncovered her head in public would have brought shame to her husband. The action may have connoted sexual availability or may simply have been a sign of being unmarried. In cultures where women’s head coverings are not a sign of being married, wives do not need to cover their heads in worship, but they could obey this command by wearing some other physical symbol of being married (such as a wedding ring). While a shaven head or short hair was considered shameful for a woman in first-century Corinth, long hair was considered to be a woman’s “glory.”

It's very important when we read Scripture that we keep it in its grammatical, canonical and historical contexts.

 

[DHK]

Look DHK. Do not misconstrue what I say. How dare you do that! I even said in my post about biblical truth. Don't turn this into something person. Learn something from someone.

You are refusing to learn. You are being obstinate instead of objective. I gave six reasons why a woman should wear a head covering. Only one of them is Headship. You allegorized the rest into headship. You simply rationalized them all away. They had nothing to do with headship. That is not rightly dividing the word of truth. Instead of glibly saying "this is also headship." Deal with the text.

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
--You can concede you may not understand the meaning of the verse, but it has nothing to do with headship. Angels desire to look into the redemption of mankind. A woman ought to wear a head covering "because of the angels." What has that to do with headship? Nothing! Custom? Nothing!

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
"Comely" means proper, that which is right. Your contention might be that all the nations in the east are wrong in their sense of propriety, but only we "civilized" western nations are right when it comes to a sense of what it is right and proper. Here you are wrong. More than 80% of the Christian world would disagree with you. You are forcing your customs into the Bible. It is pure eisigesis. You think you are right therefore you are. Nations all over the world still wear head coverings. So did Christians in North America up to about 40 years ago. So what happened? A sudden departure from the Word of God, not custom.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
--This verse should be self-explanatory. But it has nothing to do with headship.

I hope that these are enough. I could explain much more in this passage, suffice it to say that the entire passage is not all about headship, as you propose.

Obviously you are refusing to read what I wrote and have resorted to personal attacks. You better greet everyone with a kiss and your wife better wear a veil if you are going to be consistent.

Paul did not call greeting one another with a kiss an ordinance, or as Darby put it, "a directive to be kept." Paul did not 16 verses expounding on the importance of greeting one another with a holy kiss. You fail to see the importance of this. This is a command. The other was an observance at the close of a letter.

The passage is about headship not head coverings. I laid that out very clearly.

No you did not. One point was about headship. You simply denied the other five points. You should be ashamed of your treatment with the Word of God.

But since you want to promote Paul's application to biblical truth, you have resorted to personal attacks on me. Again, the entire passage is about headship.

So you say. This is your unsubstantiated opinion.

Head coverings and hair length are both applications of headship.

The Greek word for covering when used for hair is different than the Greek word that is used for covering at the beginning of the chapter referring to a head covering. It is translated veil in the ASV.

I even looked at your 5(you repeated one) and all are about headship. Paul doesn't start out speaking of headship and then start giving people fashion tips.

Nowhere does he talk about fashion.

Unless you can resort to an adult type of conversation, I'm not going to continue with you. You go way over the line when you accuse me of throwing out biblical truth.

--If you rationalize Scripture to say that it simply speaks of one thing when it speaks of six separate points then what have you done? You have failed to address the Scripture properly. You failed to give the meaning of the verse. You simply resort to "This too is about headship." You could write that under every verse of the Bible. It shows a lack of Bible study. You are not thinking through the Scriptures.

 

[jbh28]

You are refusing to learn. You are being obstinate instead of objective. I gave six reasons why a woman should wear a head covering.

no, you gave 5. you repeated one. You refuse to listen and not turn to me refusing to learn. I will give you a brief response to the parts that you address my post.

Paul did not call greeting one another with a kiss an ordinance, or as Darby put it, "a directive to be kept." Paul did not 16 verses expounding on the importance of greeting one another with a holy kiss. You fail to see the importance of this. This is a command. The other was an observance at the close of a letter.

My point was the Paul gave a command to greet with a holy kiss. We greet with a handshake. Same biblical principle, just different application.

No you did not. One point was about headship. You simply denied the other five points. You should be ashamed of your treatment with the Word of God.

more attacks and falsehoods about my post. (on it was the other 4. you repeated one)

Nowhere does he talk about fashion.

um. headcoverings..... oh, and I know he isn't giving a fashion statement. It was Paul application.

If you rationalize Scripture to say that it simply speaks of one thing when it speaks of six separate points then what have you done? You have failed to address the Scripture properly. You failed to give the meaning of the verse. You simply resort to "This too is about headship." You could write that under every verse of the Bible. It shows a lack of Bible study. You are not thinking through the Scriptures.

Again, you refuse to deal with what I said, and have just resorted to personal attacks.

I'm done with you till you stop your cocky attitude. Stop your personal attacks. Your posts are against me now instead of what I'm saying. If you want to continue the conversation, you can read my post 90.

 

[DHK]

no, you gave 5. you repeated one. You refuse to listen and not turn to me refusing to learn. I will give you a brief response to the parts that you address my post.

My point was the Paul gave a command to greet with a holy kiss. We greet with a handshake. Same biblical principle, just different application.

more attacks and falsehoods about my post. (on it was the other 4. you repeated one)

um. headcoverings..... oh, and I know he isn't giving a fashion statement. It was Paul application.

Again, you refuse to deal with what I said, and have just resorted to personal attacks.

I'm done with you till you stop your cocky attitude. Stop your personal attacks. Your posts are against me now instead of what I'm saying. If you want to continue the conversation, you can read my post 90.

Asking you to deal with Scripture is not a personal attack.
I haven't attacked your person. I have attacked your supposed method of Bible study. You need to learn how to address the Scriptures. That is not a personal attack; it is a valid observation. You cannot give the same lame answer to every verse of Scripture (sixteen in all), and come to the conclusion that all of them are speaking of headship, when in fact only the first few are speaking of headship. The rest are speaking of other topics related to the covering of the head. The covering of the head is the topic, not headship.

 

[jbh28]

Asking you to deal with Scripture is not a personal attack.
I haven't attacked your person. I have attacked your supposed method of Bible study. You need to learn how to address the Scriptures. That is not a personal attack; it is a valid observation. You cannot give the same lame answer to every verse of Scripture (sixteen in all), and come to the conclusion that all of them are speaking of headship, when in fact only the first few are speaking of headship. The rest are speaking of other topics related to the covering of the head. The covering of the head is the topic, not headship.

They are all speaking of headship. If you would read post 90 you would see that. You did have personal attacks. But we can drop that. Just be careful how you post.

"You are refusing to learn. You are being obstinate instead of objective."
"Then Biblical truth has no meaning. It is senseless. Paul wrote in vain." - you seem to be implying that I'm advocating that.

Thats 2 examples. But let just drop that and look at the subject at hand. Read my post 90. I showed where he was continuing to talk of headship. That was the point of the . It was to show headship.

 

[DHK]

They are all speaking of headship. If you would read post 90 you would see that. You did have personal attacks.

Paul applies it again to hair. If I understand correctly, in just about every culture woman's hair is longer than man's hair. That doesn't mean that men have always had short tapered hair cuts, but that the typical woman hair would be longer. When we see these together, we see differences between the women and men. Women should look like women. Men should look like men. Why? Because of headship. Paul hasn't left his original point.

You have lumped most of the verses together into this one neat little package. You have failed to address Scripture. This doesn't answer the points given at all. Your post was poorly given and did not answer the reasons why a woman should wear a head covering. Like I said, you cannot give the same reason over and over again. Paul gives more than one reason.
Paul departs from the subject of headship at verse 7. Now you still have 8 more verses to contend with. They aren't about headship, but they are about a head covering.

 

[jbh28]

You have lumped most of the verses together into this one neat little package.

what, like context?

You have failed to address Scripture.

personal attack and untruthful statement. I address the Scripture.

This doesn't answer the points given at all. Your post was poorly given and did not answer the reasons why a woman should wear a head covering.

um, I did in post 90.

Like I said, you cannot give the same reason over and over again. Paul gives more than one reason.

it was one reason. you are making the application into other reasons. you have it backwards.

Paul departs from the subject of headship at verse 7. Now you still have 8 more verses to contend with. They aren't about headship, but they are about a head covering.

sorry, but you are just simply wrong. You can't just repeat yourself. you haven't refuted what I said. You obviously haven't read post 90.

 

[DHK]

sorry, but you are just simply wrong. You can't just repeat yourself. you haven't refuted what I said. You obviously haven't read post 90.

See how much you parrot yourself. You don't even recognize your own post. I just quoted a major portion of your post 90 in my post above, and you are still ranting at the same time that I don't read it. It was that paragraph which supposedly addressed eight verses in just a couple of sentences!

 

[jbh28]

See how much you parrot yourself. You don't even recognize your own post. I just quoted a major portion of your post 90 in my post above, and you are still ranting at the same time that I don't read it. It was that paragraph which supposedly addressed eight verses in just a couple of sentences!

You didn't' address it. You keep saying things I've already addressed. You obviously just want to make this personal. good bye. Re-read post 90. The passage is about headship. You keep making Paul change the subject from headship to a fashion statement about what women should wear. Women cover their heads as a sign of headship. Whether you believe it should be done today or not is irrelevant to why the women should cover their head. i laid this out in post 90. Just saying I'm wrong won't cut it. Look at a commentary of someone you trust. I could understand you advocating that head coverings should still be done today, but not how you could deny that the reason was because of headship.

 

[DHK]

You didn't' address it. You keep saying things I've already addressed. You obviously just want to make this personal. good bye. Re-read post 90. The passage is about headship. You keep making Paul change the subject from headship to a fashion statement about what women should wear. Women cover their heads as a sign of headship. Whether you believe it should be done today or not is irrelevant to why the women should cover their head. i laid this out in post 90. Just saying I'm wrong won't cut it. Look at a commentary of someone you trust. I could understand you advocating that head coverings should still be done today, but not how you could deny that the reason was because of headship.

I certainly don't deny it. Paul spends seven verses on it. It perhaps is the most important reason why a woman should wear a head covering. Thus the question remains: Even after seven verses, why do women not wear head coverings today, when Paul commanded it in 1Cor.11:1-7 as a sign of headship. All too often we see the women "wearing the pants in the family," for want of a better expression.

Paul was very forceful in this passage. If a woman was not willing to wear a head covering than she should be shaven. This was not a light thing. It was a command. And it was a command that came with a consequence for those that disobeyed.

In the same way, it was a shame for a man to have his head covered. When I was young I was taught to take my hat off, not only in church, but in all public buildings. It was just the proper thing to do.

I mentioned propriety for verse 13. Here is what the WEB says:
1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled?
--What is Paul saying? It is inappropriate for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, and today 80% of the world's Christians still do pray with their heads covered. As a missionary that travels to other nations, I see Christians in other nations in the East and mid-East, nations that are densely populated that would never even think of entering a church with their head uncovered. It would be very inappropriate for them to do so.

This has nothing to do with headship. This has to do with those things which are proper and right to do.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doesn't even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
--The order of nature. Nature does not teach about headship. But it often teaches about hair. In most cultures you go to, the male will have short hair and the female long hair. That is natural. That is the way it is throughout the world. Nature teaches us this.

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--This is Paul's strongest argument. (I have not gone through all the arguments). If any man seem to be contentious (about the teaching concerning wearing a head covering) we have no such custom (being contentious). Neither do the churches of God have any custom or practice of being contentious. IOW, if you are going to be contentious about this issue of wearing a head covering don't come here until your heart is right with God.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
--Paul was very hard on them that were contentious. He pleaded for unity in the local church. Those that caused contention and division were to be avoided. The churches of God do not have this custom of being contentious. They were to agree with the doctrine of wearing a head covering. All the churches were united on this.

 

[gb93433]

There are some things that don't change no matter how much we want to rationalize. Women have worn head coverings right up to the middle of the 20th century and a bit beyond that.

Yes and women also wore dresses that did not reveal their ankles.It was common around the time of Jesus that men did not wear pants. Do you wear pants? Why or why not? It was not too long ago that women in America did not wear certain under garments because the prostitutes did. Why do they now wear some of the same things as a prostitute once did?

But this passage is far more dogmatic than to dismiss so lightly. It expressly says: If the woman does not wear a head-covering let her be shaved or be bald. You have that choice. Be bald or wear a head covering. It is very clear. That is no custom, but a command and a symbol of headship.

That must be interpreted in light of its historical context. Men and women did not speak English. Does that mean you should not? Men and women did not wear pants. Should you imitate that? Is your God so limited in the spirit of things and bigger picture that He does not work through culture? My God does not wear pants and dresses. My God works through cultural norms so that we as believers do not promote other things that may get in the way of the most important.

Paul said, "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." I cannot imagine Paul blasting a culture in an effort to reach people.

If one were to read the commentary on 1 Cor. by Ben Witherington III he shows a picture of a women wearing a head covering who is praying.

If I were asked to teach scripture in a Jewish synagogue I would not violate some of their norms such as the piece they wear on their head.