Trend Toward Head Coverings for Women, 1 Cor 11.5

[DHK]

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

The nature is not the nature of animals, but the nature of man. As has been referred to it is the nature of man every where, no matter where you go in this world, the nature of man in every culture is to have short hair. Caesar, in that very generation had short hair in spite of his ignorance of Scripture. So did all his soldieers. The Christians (whether Jew or Gentile) could look upon them and see that that was naturally true. They could see that it was true from other nations as well. There were over 13 ethnic groups present on the Day of Pentecost itself. This verse is demonstrable in our society today.
I met a Hindu immigrant recently. She stood about five feet and six inches. Her hair touched the floor. Long hair is a glory unto a woman. Her husband, naturally had short hair. They did not learn this from either the Bible or the Vedas (their holy Scriptures). They knew it because it was nature (God's ingrained nature of man) that told them this.
A man that has long hair, has long hair for a reason.
Either he is rebellious, or
He may have taken a religious vow such as a Nazarite or a baptized Sikh.
It is possible it may be for some other religious reason.
Absalom had long hair because he was rebellious against David his father, and with his long hair stole the hearts of the people. It added to his so-called "beauty."
Nature itself teaches you that long hair on a man is a shame to him. Long hair is natural to a woman not a man.

Secondly there are two different Greek words used for coveriing in 1Cor.11. Don't be confused by them and interchange them, thus coming to wrong conclusions.

1 Corinthians 11:4-5 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
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.
--These Greek words translated "covered" and "uncovered" come from the Greek word "katakaluptos."
This word typically means a veil, or some type of head-covering. It is translated by the WEB thusly:

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved.
--It is not her hair that is a covering in this context. It is a definite head-covering. The word is completely different than the word used in verse 15:

1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.
This word is:
peribolaion
It is not katakaluptos, the word used previously which means a head-covering.
Paul uses deliberately a different word to distinguish between the head-covering of verse 4,5 and that which is mentioned here. The hair is an honor, a glory to a woman. It is her glory, her beauty in contrast to a man's short hair. It is natural for a man to have short hair, and it is natural for a woman to have long hair which is part of her honoor or beauty. It indeed is another covering, but not the same kind of covering mentioned at the beginning of the chapter.
DHK

 

[John of Japan]

A thought-provoking post, DHK. Thank you. :thumbsup:

 

[ccrobinson]

J.D. asked:

3. How do church ladies today symbolize submission to their husbands?

Are they required to do this? I may have missed this Biblical command.

 

[Jim1999]

I counted the head coverings in church on Sunday; not one.

Also, I should like to reject the notion that all men had short hair down through history. Samson had long hair. It was his strength. Then, some mummies, males, had long hair in the pyramids.

The British courts introduced the wig, long hair, to cover their bald heads or short hair, and as a sign of authority.

Short hair in history had more to do with the lack of barbering science than want. In the middle ages, men's hair was longish, full and coming to above the shoulders and complete with bangs.

I am not so sure that that brushcuts for men was the order of the day, nor did all women have long hair.

It is the same as women not wearing trousers before they went to the factories to work. Seems to me that women in the middle east wore "trousers" whilst men were wearing gowns.

Culture...culture..culture. It does change over the years.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[J.D.]

Marcia, I hope I'm addressing the OP here.

All of this about culture changing is true, but the overriding question is whether the biblical passage is valid and has veracity. I say it is, and if it is, then how do we apply it in a spirit of obedience to God's word.

I'm not a professional theologian, but I don't see how you can defend the use of a method of interpretation which weighs the validity of a passage of scripture by the shear number of correlating verses. There are things in scripture which are clearly cultural issues - matters of conscience - and the words used show this to be true. Reference things that people eat, esteeming of days, etc. But Paul does not put this wearing of the veil in that kind of light. He uses fairly strong words. "She dishonoreth her head". Not a matter of conscience.

Maybe the specific issue of head covering is not elsewhere to be found in scripture, but the overarching issue is repeatedly found - the issue of womanly submission. I realize this issue grinds against people today - we have an inordinate obssession with the notion of equality - but the issue is unavoidable as we read our bibles.

So where does the bible say that women have to have a "symbol of authority" on their heads? See 1 Cor 11 - you know, that passage we've been talking about. Is the word that Paul used, "ought", a suggestion or an imperative?

I'm not the least bit interested in putting anyone under any "law". However, there's not denying the truth that a woman who desires to show a submissive attitue would gladly don the veil, just as those that gladly received His word are baptized.

And of course, who doesn't know that the mere outward expression of submission doesn't garauntee an actual inward submission? Well, yes, there are some folks that don't know that. But let's pray that they'll grow in the Lord.

 

[Jim1999]

Why don't women just get a cap printed and settle things once and for all?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[rsr]

Of course it is not universal. Neither is heterosexuality. People often do things against nature. (Not that I am comparing long hair on men to homosexuality in gravity.) The exception proves the rule.

You were the one who brought up the Hellenistic and Roman styles as normative. One could as easily argue that the Roman style of close-cropped hair is the exception, not the norm.

Hey, I never said it was ungodly, and I never said God commanded to prohibit it. Please pay more attention to my wording. I say exactly what the Bible does, that it is a shame. (Does your Bible say something else?) "Shame" and "sin" are not the same thing.

I fail to see how something that is shameful in this context is not sinful, but I may be reading more into the text than is there.

As for circular reasoning, what is circular about taking the Bible at it's word, interpreting it literally, and then trying to figure out the statement? You are the one who wrote earlier, "I have long wondered why Paul said "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him ..." because that does not seem to be true." Personally, I take the Bible as true first, and THEN try to figure it out.

That's where the trouble comes. What is Paul talking about? From the text, I don't know. Some coverings are not really coverings but themselves need to be covered. And this is obvious because nature teaches it. He must be talking about something other than what the words indicate.

You missed my point entirely. My point was that his long hair was so unusual in that culture that the Bible specifically pointed it out. (What, you don't think growing your hair for a whole year will get it long??)

Once again, this was such a rare thing in that culture that the Bible specifically points it out. It says to me that the norm was short hair on men. This was my answer to you saying the Bible seemed to be wrong, not me saying long hair on men is a sin--it isn't, it's a shame.

I certainly know my hair wouldn't grow 6 pounds a year. That would be unusual and would be a result not of the length but of the thickness of the hair, which was considered a sign of virility and hence a blessing in the Old Testament. (Remember what happened to those who called Elisha "Baldy.")

Hey, if you are convinced that Paul missed the boat, I'm sure I can't prove to you he was right no matter what I write.

I am not interested is whether he was right or wrong, but in why he would make such statements. Many biblical writers considered the kidneys the seat of emotions, but I don't think I'm required to believe that.

 

[bound]

How much of this desire to express 'outward' spirituality (head coving and modest clothing) is motivated by devout Muslims coming across as 'more' religious than modern-day Christian?

I'm curious.

 

[John of Japan]

I am not interested is whether he was right or wrong, but in why he would make such statements. Many biblical writers considered the kidneys the seat of emotions, but I don't think I'm required to believe that.

I hardly think this is a parallel issue. The innards being the seat of the emotions is an idiom of the Biblical languages, not a teaching of Scripture.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, I hope I'm addressing the OP here.

All of this about culture changing is true, but the overriding question is whether the biblical passage is valid and has veracity. I say it is, and if it is, then how do we apply it in a spirit of obedience to God's word.

I'm not a professional theologian, but I don't see how you can defend the use of a method of interpretation which weighs the validity of a passage of scripture by the shear number of correlating verses. There are things in scripture which are clearly cultural issues - matters of conscience - and the words used show this to be true. Reference things that people eat, esteeming of days, etc. But Paul does not put this wearing of the veil in that kind of light. He uses fairly strong words. "She dishonoreth her head". Not a matter of conscience.

Maybe the specific issue of head covering is not elsewhere to be found in scripture, but the overarching issue is repeatedly found - the issue of womanly submission. I realize this issue grinds against people today - we have an inordinate obssession with the notion of equality - but the issue is unavoidable as we read our bibles.

.....I'm not the least bit interested in putting anyone under any "law". However, there's not denying the truth that a woman who desires to show a submissive attitue would gladly don the veil, just as those that gladly received His word are baptized.

I appreciate your thoughts, J.D. and I think you and DHK make some good points.

One of the issues of this passage that I brought up in the OP, which no one has addressed, is that the word translated as "woman" should actually be "wife." So the headcovering was for the wives to show their submission to their husbands in the church. I think I read that married women had their heads covered in that culture.

The ESV uses "wife."

but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.

Maybe I should start a thread on this issue in the Bible versions forum?

 

[DHK]

I appreciate your thoughts, J.D. and I think you and DHK make some good points.

One of the issues of this passage that I brought up in the OP, which no one has addressed, is that the word translated as "woman" should actually be "wife." So the headcovering was for the wives to show their submission to their husbands in the church. I think I read that married women had their heads covered in that culture.

The Greek word gunay is used 221 times in the NT.
129 times it is translated "woman."
92 times it is translated "wife."
There is no compelling evidence in this passage that it must be translated "wife."
Even the daughters must be under the headship of their fathers. Every woman must wear a head covering as the passage indicates. It is a command. The penalty for not wearing a head-covering is severe. "Let her also be shorn (shaven). I would rather see a woman with long hair wearing a head-covering than a bald-headed woman. It is shame for a man to have long hair. It is a greater shame for a woman to be bald. Wearing a head covering is important in the local church.

Here is some helpful exposition that some time ago I gained from another poster. It helps to look at the whole passage to see why a woman must wear a head covering. Look at the entire passage:

1. Because of the headship of man (vs 3-6)

1 Corinthians 11:3-5 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, dishonoureth his head.
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.

1. Because of God's order in creation (vs 8.9)

1 Corinthians 11:8-9 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1. Because of the angels (v 10)

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

1. Because of a sense of propriety (v 13)

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

1. Because of the natural order of things (the distinction between male & female and the woman's natural covering; vs 14,15)

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1. Because of the practice of all the churches (v 16)

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

The meaning here is that it was the custom of all the churches of God. It was not the custom of all the churches of God to become contentious. If you are going to be contentious go somewhere else, because we here are determined to keep these commands which God has given us for the reason given above. This is the meaning that Paul had in this verse.

This is not cultural. Taking your shoes off before entering the place of worship (which many cultures still do) may be cultural. There may be no direct command in Scripture to do so. They take the example in Scripture after Abraham was warned of God: Take off thy shoes for the ground upon which thou standest is holy ground. They too believe that they stand on holy ground when they enter the church. It is a custom. It is cultural. But there is no direct command, only an example given in the Old Testament. Head-coverings doesn't fit that. It is a timeless command given in the NT, not to be avoided.
DHK

 

[Jim1999]

There is no question that wearing a veil is cultural. All one needs to do is read some secular history.

It is strange that all of a sudden some so-called Baptists come up with cultic notions, when down through the ages the mainline Baptist held firm to sound doctrine. 500 odd Baptist Churches across Canada do not teach the law of head coverings, and one stranger comes into our midst with a foreign doctrine and expects us to join their cult? Canadian women love the freedom they fought so hard to gain, just to be called a "person". And now some puny little man wants to enslave women again with a false teaching. It will never happen. We will stick to the truth, and study the whole of the word, "and the truth shall set you free".

Cheers,

Jim

 

[donnA]

:applause: YEAH!! Jim :applause: :applause:

 

[John of Japan]

There is no question that wearing a veil is cultural. All one needs to do is read some secular history.

It is strange that all of a sudden some so-called Baptists come up with cultic notions, when down through the ages the mainline Baptist held firm to sound doctrine. 500 odd Baptist Churches across Canada do not teach the law of head coverings, and one stranger comes into our midst with a foreign doctrine and expects us to join their cult? Canadian women love the freedom they fought so hard to gain, just to be called a "person". And now some puny little man wants to enslave women again with a false teaching. It will never happen. We will stick to the truth, and study the whole of the word, "and the truth shall set you free".

Cheers,

Jim

Actually, N. American women are far, far more free than women in most of the rest of the world, especially Africa and Asia, whether they are required to wear head coverings or not. That is a small, small part of the whole picture.

Here in Japan, it hasn't been that long since women were required to walk 5-6 paces behind the men. The only reason Japanese women are as free as they are is the MacArthur constitution, and MacArthur was a Christian who instituted some Christian-type reforms. Before him, Japanese women were virtual slaves, considered undeserving of a good education and many other rights. Even today--well, I'd better not even start in.

Actually, I don't even have to talk about Asia. By now most Americans know how miserably women are treated in any Muslim country.

Christ liberates women in every culture where He has an influence. If a certain church has a rule that women should wear hats in the service, that is a tiny cross to bear compared to what a woman in a Muslim country or most Asian or African country endures.

 

[bound]

The Greek word gunay is used 221 times in the NT.
129 times it is translated "woman."
92 times it is translated "wife."
There is no compelling evidence in this passage that it must be translated "wife."
Even the daughters must be under the headship of their fathers. Every woman must wear a head covering as the passage indicates. It is a command. The penalty for not wearing a head-covering is severe. "Let her also be shorn (shaven). I would rather see a woman with long hair wearing a head-covering than a bald-headed woman. It is shame for a man to have long hair. It is a greater shame for a woman to be bald. Wearing a head covering is important in the local church.

Here is some helpful exposition that some time ago I gained from another poster. It helps to look at the whole passage to see why a woman must wear a head covering. Look at the entire passage:

1. Because of the headship of man (vs 3-6)

1 Corinthians 11:3-5 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, dishonoureth his head.
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.

1. Because of God's order in creation (vs 8.9)

1 Corinthians 11:8-9 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1. Because of the angels (v 10)

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

1. Because of a sense of propriety (v 13)

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

1. Because of the natural order of things (the distinction between male & female and the woman's natural covering; vs 14,15)

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1. Because of the practice of all the churches (v 16)

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

The meaning here is that it was the custom of all the churches of God. It was not the custom of all the churches of God to become contentious. If you are going to be contentious go somewhere else, because we here are determined to keep these commands which God has given us for the reason given above. This is the meaning that Paul had in this verse.

This is not cultural. Taking your shoes off before entering the place of worship (which many cultures still do) may be cultural. There may be no direct command in Scripture to do so. They take the example in Scripture after Abraham was warned of God: Take off thy shoes for the ground upon which thou standest is holy ground. They too believe that they stand on holy ground when they enter the church. It is a custom. It is cultural. But there is no direct command, only an example given in the Old Testament. Head-coverings doesn't fit that. It is a timeless command given in the NT, not to be avoided.
DHK

It has always been my understanding that all are 'one' in Christ.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. - Hebrews 1:26-28

It has always been my understanding that this passage is the mark of equality between the sexes 'in Christ'. How can one interpret Scripture to contradict Scripture to assert inequality between 'man and woman' in Christ?

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[J.D.]

It has always been my understanding that all are 'one' in Christ.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. - Hebrews 1:26-28

It has always been my understanding that this passage is the mark of equality between the sexes 'in Christ'. How can one interpret Scripture to contradict Scripture to assert inequality between 'man and woman' in Christ?

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

Peace and God Bless.

In regards to salvation, every person is equal before God. The Jews assumed an advantage, as did men. Under grace, neither news nor men have an advantage. "Ye are all one" is not the same as "ye are all equal".

The bible teaches male headship in the home, and male leadership in the church. Indisputable.

However, the fact that most males have been dumbed down to the point that they can't "head" anything, well that's a different subject!

 

[bound]

In regards to salvation, every person is equal before God. The Jews assumed an advantage, as did men. Under grace, neither news nor men have an advantage. "Ye are all one" is not the same as "ye are all equal".

The bible teaches male headship in the home, and male leadership in the church. Indisputable.

However, the fact that most males have been dumbed down to the point that they can't "head" anything, well that's a different subject!

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:" would appear to eradicate distinctions 'in Christ'.

There is an old saying: As above, so below. I believe as it is to be in heaven we should attempt to be on earth. Knowing that 'in Christ' we are seen as equals without distinction and knowing that we are not given to marriage in heaven and are unisex as are the Angels as our Saviour taught I see no reason to think that there should exist inequality here and now. It has always been my understanding that the Church is to be as much as our sanctification allows us to be heaven on earth I see no rationale to view the New Testament through the Patriarchal goggles of the Old Testament. This has historically lead to the oppression of women by men and has lead ultimately to the division of the sexes which undermines the family and the equality found 'in Christ'.

I welcome your views as I am always open to entertain alternative views but I believe this patriarchal oppression 'in Christ' has largely been a grave disservice to women and the Church at large.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[webdog]

"and the truth shall set you free".

Hearty...AMEN!

 

[rsr]

Just a reminder that this is a Baptist-only forum.

rsr

 

[Marcia]

DHK, thanks for the post and information.

I agree that men have headship in the church, and that a virgin is under the authority of her father and a wife is under the authority of her husband.

What about a widowed woman or in my case, a divorced woman? Am I then under the authority of the pastor? Yet as a single mother, I was the head of the household. So does this effect anything regarding headcoverings? Does a divorced single mother, let's say, wear a headcovering to show her submission to......the pastor... Christ??