Why no head coverings?

[Iconoclast]

Prostitutes today have all kinds of hair.

Hello SW......DHK.....

A few years ago Sam Waldron did a message on the head covering.He used the words found in the passage,and he pulled from the Ot...i believe from the book of numbers and Leviticus, but i cannot remember the specific references at this time concerning hair.

SW asked about the "history" of the Corinthian women. Historically the reference I gave came from this message where pastor waldron quoted from historians about the hair styles of the Corinthians...{ the female prostitutes}

DHK....I know the text does not address it, historians do.

In the worship of Dionysus, the female celebrants known as maenads not only came with uncovered heads but also let down their hair and danced in the public processions. Many ancient paintings show women presenting offerings at altars—probably as priestesses—without headcoverings (figure 12). The amount and the variety of this pictorial evidence makes it virtually certain that, in cultic contexts at least, Greek women did not always cover their heads in public.

The text is you work through all of it..addresses the two concepts I offered.

Yes the issue is headship....on account of the angelic viewers.

10 because of this the woman ought to have [a token of] authority upon the head, because of the messengers;

rring to verse 5, Coffman also writes,

‘With her head unveiled…
The word here rendered ‘unveiled’ is [Greek: akatakaluptos]. ‘There is no intrinsic meaning in this word which suggests either the covering material or the object covered; it is simply a general word.’ (See under 1 Corinthians 11:15.) Only in 1 Cor. 11:15 does Paul mention any kind of garment ([Greek: peribolaion]) and even there he stated that the woman’s hair took the place of it.’ [Katakaluptos] means covered completely. [Akatakaluptos] means not completely covered. Thus again, the passage falls short of mentioning any kind of garment. To suppose that Paul here meant ‘mantle’ or ‘veil’ or any such thing is to import into this text what is not in it. We have seen that he was speaking of ‘hair’ in 1 Cor. 11:4; and that is exactly what he is speaking of here. ‘Not completely covered’ would then refer to the disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian women in cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes; which, if they did it, was exactly the same kind of disgrace as if they had shaved their heads. It is crystal clear that Paul is not speaking of any kind of garment; because he said in 1 Cor. 11:15, below, ‘For her hair is given her instead of a covering.’”

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Everyone here seems to have missed the final verse of this section verse 16.

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

I Corinth. 11:16

 

[DHK]

Hello SW......DHK.....

A few years ago Sam Waldron did a message on the head covering.He used the words found in the passage,and he pulled from the Ot...i believe from the book of numbers and Leviticus, but i cannot remember the specific references at this time concerning hair.

SW asked about the "history" of the Corinthian women. Historically the reference I gave came from this message where pastor waldron quoted from historians about the hair styles of the Corinthians...{ the female prostitutes}

DHK....I know the text does not address it, historians do.

Expound the Word brother; not history.
Which one is our authority?

There are a series of arguments in the first 16 verses of 1Cor.11, that establish why a woman should wear a head covering:

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


--Paul is very dogmatic here; so dogmatic that he insists that if a woman does not wear a head covering that she should be shaven. It is important. The corollary is important as well—that a man remain with his head uncovered. This indicates that a woman shows that she takes her place in submission to the man, a principle taught from Genesis 3 onward. We find it also in Eph.5. Throughout the Scripture we find the principle of headship; that the man is the head of the house. In the church service there is an outward sign—the head covering. It is a shame if a woman does not cover her head.

2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]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.
--One may look at this as a sub-point under headship. But it is another reason nevertheless. The Lord explained in Genesis 3 that the man is created first, and then the woman. The head covering also indicates this order in creation. It is a second reason--the order in creation.

3.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]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.
--Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown quote Bengel:

BENGEL explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Isa 6:2). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mt 18:10,31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them."

--The angels look down from heaven and inquire into the redemption of man, not fully understanding redemption for they have never been redeemed. The women ought to be covered because of the angels. You may not understand it, but you should accept it by faith.

4.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]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?
--The word “comely” is otherwise translated “appropriate” or “proper” in other translations. It is just the proper thing to do. Most women in most nations would never think of entering into their church without a head covering, even today.

5.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]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? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
--This is what nature teaches us. No matter where you go a man’s hair is shorter than women’s hair. Her natural covering is her hair. It is a lesson from nature.

6.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]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.
--Paul’s argument here is not to be contentious about this teaching. We do not have a custom about being contentious. We separate from those that are divisive and contentious. We don’t want you around. For this is the teaching of God, and the teaching of all the churches. This is his conclusion and strongest argument. He is saying don’t argue about it; accept it.

 

[robt.k.fall]

In dealing with the Russian Evanglelical Christian-Baptists on this set of verses, I've always taken the position that Paul in verse 16 is saying don't fight over the issue. i can see and understand the pro-head cover side, but I and my church take the "it's up to the individual" position. Living in my locale, I look at headcovers as looking too RCC.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Expound the Word brother; not history.
Which one is our authority?

I agree....SW asked specifically about some of the history.

There are a series of arguments in the first 16 verses of 1Cor.11, that establish why a woman should wear a head covering:

There is to be a head covering...agreed.What is the head covering is at issue.

it was not....a doily......it was Long hair....or an external covering that wrapped around all the hair.....

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

agreed

--Paul is very dogmatic here; so dogmatic that he insists that if a woman does not wear

DHK...you for the second time have inserted the word---wear...
the text speaks of having the head covered, or uncovered..it does not say-wear...

now if an external covering is in view....yes it would be worn...if it is LONG Hair it would be the covering.

a head covering that she should be shaven. It is important.

The corollary is important as well—that a man remain with his head uncovered. This indicates that a woman shows that she takes her place in submission to the man, a principle taught from Genesis 3 onward. We find it also in Eph.5. Throughout the Scripture we find the principle of headship; that the man is the head of the house.
[/QUOTE]

I agree here.

In the church service

he is getting to the church service...but he is speaking of prayer at this point...so if you hold to external covering it would be anytime during the day that a woman would pray. He gets to the church service down in 16,17,18

here is an outward sign—the head covering. It is a shame if a woman does not cover her head.

A careful reading does not say.....if a woman cover her head
it says if her head be covered, or uncovered do you see the difference?
2.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]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.
--One may look at this as a sub-point under headship. But it is another reason nevertheless. The Lord explained in Genesis 3 that the man is created first, and then the woman. The head covering also indicates this order in creation. It is a second reason--the order in creation.

3.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]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.

I already agree on this as posted earlier.

--Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown quote Bengel:

--The angels look down from heaven and inquire into the redemption of man, not fully understanding redemption for they have never been redeemed. The women ought to be covered because of the angels. You may not understand it, but you should accept it by faith.

I do understand it, as I posted earlier in the thread.

4.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]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?
--The word “comely” is otherwise translated “appropriate” or “proper” in other translations. It is just the proper thing to do. Most women in most nations would never think of entering into their church without a head covering, even today.

There is a head covering for a woman whenever she prays.Certainly in church should be prayer.

5.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]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? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
--This is what nature teaches us. No matter where you go a man’s hair is shorter than women’s hair. Her natural covering is her hair. It is a lesson from nature.

The passage says more than that as I posted earlier from YLT.

14 doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

15 and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;
You are not addressing this part of verse 15......LONG hair is mentioned in 14 men should not have it....in 15 woman should have it.

This is where the battle is . Long hair for a woman....if her hair is short, she should put on an external covering.

In the same way...a man wearing a hat or external covering should remove it.A man should not have long hair.

 

[Iconoclast]

In dealing with the Russian Evanglelical Christian-Baptists on this set of verses, I've always taken the position that Paul in verse 16 is saying don't fight over the issue. i can see and understand the pro-head cover side, but I and my church take the "it's up to the individual" position. Living in my locale, I look at headcovers as looking too RCC.

RTKF,
There is to be a head covering....that is not optional.The question is what is the head covering, and when is it to be employed.

 

[12strings]

12strings...no there are no such verses. No verse prior to verse 15 suggests that her hair is insufficient....Her hair is given to her as a covering: Verse 5 creates a standard...it is juxtapostional. We juxtapose the ideas of a woman with her head shaven...and a man with short or a shaven head with that of a woman with short hair. A woman with "short" hair might as well be "shorn" or "shaven"...
Women don't have to "WEAR" a "covering"...God gave them a "covering"...their hair. It's all right there. I don't tend to think that it's even particularly debatable really. I suppose I am open to correction, but, I truly think that given the obvious comparisons and juxtapositions and comparisons in their contexts...this really isn't a difficult concept....

...1Cr 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.
I spent a while jesting about things...but, I truly take my postion on the "head-covering" idea seriously...(the rest is sheer personal pablum.) Although...I think it is worth meditating on, it's somewhat ancillarry.

1. Just so I understand your position...you would say paul was NEVER speaking of a non-hair head covering, such that his readers would know this, and so they did not wear a head covering, but understood the ENTIRE passage as a long, verbose way to get to v. 13-15?

2. It seems that v. 5-6 when read plainly are contrasting short hair with "no covering" such that they are two DIFFERENT things. Ie, "If she won't cover her head, shave her hair...but since we don't want to shave her hair, cover her head."

It seems that you have to read v.13-15 back into v. 5-6 to come up with: "If she is going to have short hair, let her shave it all off, but since we don't want to shave it all off, make her keep her long hair." Not saying those verses aren't important to the passage, but simply asking, "would the original hearers have been thinking "hair" while the first 12 verses were read to them aloud?

I simply don't see how one could read chapter 11 and think Paul is talking about hair the whole time without already knowing about v.13-15...It seems like the original hearers would be thinking about a physical head covering, then, according to your view, v.13-15 get read, and they're like "OOOHHH. he was talking about hair!!!"

 

[HeirofSalvation]

1. Just so I understand your position...you would say paul was NEVER speaking of a non-hair head covering, such that his readers would know this, and so they did not wear a head covering, but understood the ENTIRE passage as a long, verbose way to get to v. 13-15?

2. It seems that v. 5-6 when read plainly are contrasting short hair with "no covering" such that they are two DIFFERENT things. Ie, "If she won't cover her head, shave her hair...but since we don't want to shave her hair, cover her head."

It seems that you have to read v.13-15 back into v. 5-6 to come up with: "If she is going to have short hair, let her shave it all off, but since we don't want to shave it all off, make her keep her long hair." Not saying those verses aren't important to the passage, but simply asking, "would the original hearers have been thinking "hair" while the first 12 verses were read to them aloud?

I simply don't see how one could read chapter 11 and think Paul is talking about hair the whole time without already knowing about v.13-15...It seems like the original hearers would be thinking about a physical head covering, then, according to your view, v.13-15 get read, and they're like "OOOHHH. he was talking about hair!!!"

:laugh: That was a humorous way to say all that. I don't think you have to go down to verses 13-15 and read "BACK" to the earlier verses. "Hair" is essentially already mentioned in vs. 5 and 6. with the idea that whoever is "uncovered" should be "shorn".
And as you said, they don't want to be "shorn" so they should be instead "covered".
I am NOT saying that they were in no way thinking of an external physical covering. I think they were, only....they are not necessary if she have long hair. Her hair is given to her as a covering. It's an "either/or".

 

[12strings]

now if an external covering is in view....yes it would be worn...if it is LONG Hair it would be the covering.

This is where the battle is . Long hair for a woman....if her hair is short, she should put on an external covering.

(Heirofsalvation) I am NOT saying that they were in no way thinking of an external physical covering. I think they were, only....they are not necessary if she have long hair. Her hair is given to her as a covering. It's an "either/or".

You both say it is EITHER long hair or another covering.

So to clarify...For then, and for today:
-If a woman does not have long hair, For some medical reason, or because of personal choice...She should wear a head covering when attending church services?
-If a woman cuts her hair short, and prays privately at home, is she sinning?
-If a woman cuts her hair short, but puts on a hat when she prays in private, or goes to public worship, is this wrong?
-How do you define "Short" so as to know when a woman is sinning with her hair, or when she needs to put on a hat.

(ICON)it was not....a doily......it was Long hair....or an external covering that wrapped around all the hair.....

You may perhaps be historically correct...but there is no scriptural definition of what kind of head-covering is described...so we cannot press that issue on a woman, even if she does have a short haircut, right?

 

[robt.k.fall]

Me and mine take the long hair position. But, we take verse 16 as governing the verses above and don't make a test of fellowship over the matter. Many EC-B on the other hand question the salvation of otherwise obediant Americans over the matter.

RKF,
There is to be a head covering....that is not optional.The question is what is the head covering, and when is it to be employed.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You both say it is EITHER long hair or another covering.

Presumably...the hair is preferable. I suppose I would argue that Paul would have preferred hair.

So to clarify...For then, and for today:
-If a woman does not have long hair, For some medical reason, or because of personal choice...She should wear a head covering when attending church services?

Yes

If a woman cuts her hair short, and prays privately at home, is she sinning?

Not sinning, dishonoring her "head". The head of every woman is the man. She dishonors him. The easy answer is to simply avoid the short hair.

If a woman cuts her hair short, but puts on a hat when she prays in private, or goes to public worship, is this wrong?

No. But I would encourage women not to take the unnecessary option of using a physical and external "covering", but rather, if practical simply have long hair.

How do you define "Short" so as to know when a woman is sinning with her hair, or when she needs to put on a hat.

She isn't sinning, she's dishonoring her head, just as a man dishonors his (Christ) and shames himself with long hair.

Obviously, there are no hard and fast rules about precisely how many inches delineate between "long" and "short". I think it valuable to focus on a comparison. If your wife, say, has hair four times as long as yours (to throw out a number) you are probably both perfectly in the clear....If MY hair went down to my shoulders, and my wife's went down 1/2 inch below her shoulders, I would imagine that mine needs a barber, and hers needs a few months of growth.
Inasmuch as the terms "long" and "short" are indeed relative...one can only judge via comparisons. Due to the possible confusion on these matters, I think this is why the Apostle was wise enough to include verse 16:

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

This is why we need IMO to turn neither to the right hand nor to the left....IMO, the Pentecostals sometimes are perhaps too rigid, whilst similarly......I have never told a woman who trims her hair to her neck that it was "nice" or "cute" or anything else....I tell them quite frankly, that it's too short.

You may perhaps be historically correct...but there is no scriptural definition of what kind of head-covering is described...so we cannot press that issue on a woman, even if she does have a short haircut, right?

The Church shouldn't...not really. The Church should teach and encourage women to take to heart the passage and act accordingly.....The only one who could "press" the issue would be a woman's "head".

 

[Iconoclast]

You both say it is EITHER long hair or another covering.

So to clarify...For then, and for today:
-If a woman does not have long hair, For some medical reason, or because of personal choice...She should wear a head covering when attending church services?
-If a woman cuts her hair short, and prays privately at home, is she sinning?
-If a woman cuts her hair short, but puts on a hat when she prays in private, or goes to public worship, is this wrong?
-How do you define "Short" so as to know when a woman is sinning with her hair, or when she needs to put on a hat.



You may perhaps be historically correct...but there is no scriptural definition of what kind of head-covering is described...so we cannot press that issue on a woman, even if she does have a short haircut, right?

Hello 12 string

Yes...you have summed it up.We must seek to please God. The principle once discovered must be obeyed.

I remove my hat to pray. Long hair is not my challenge:laugh: I am follically challenged:laugh:

My wife had chemo years ago....we had to discuss head coverings[external
] at that time.

I think the heart motive is also a question....do we want to please God.

In the alcohol thread...we are able to drink alcohol.I do not mostly because of 1 cor 6:12....

when I used alcohol..it was definately to get a buzz on....to be under its power....I would get 4-5 ounces of Bourbon going to get that glow going on.

I cannot do so now with a clear conscience.I was never a social drinker sipping on a wine, or nursing a brandy.At the same time I cannot bind someones conscience ,that is the Spirit's work.

Some pastors go to the greek words and perhaps see more than I do in reference to the words used for an external covering.I have seen support for both....and not yet able to rule out one or the other.:wavey:

ps... the context is praying.......so....I do not see where this is only at church....but whenever prayer is offered.

pps.
another thing I find troubling about my own view is that many puritans seemed to have long hair,which I think this passage speaks against???

 

[Jerome]

The Geneva Bible decrees in the margin at v. 4 (idea that it's a dishonor for a praying or prophesying man to have something on his head): "this tradition was observed according to the time and place".

 

[Iconoclast]

The Geneva Bible decrees in the margin at v. 4 (idea that it's a dishonor for a praying or prophesying man to have something on his head): "this tradition was observed according to the time and place".

I am not sure I am following this....were they saying it was just cultural?

or do they take a scriptural stance on this?

 

[12strings]

Not sinning, dishonoring her "head". The head of every woman is the man. She dishonors him. The easy answer is to simply avoid the short hair.

She isn't sinning, she's dishonoring her head, just as a man dishonors his (Christ) and shames himself with long hair.

So you're saying that this whole passage is not even warning about any sin, but only dishonoring one's "head" which you say is not a sin. Are you saying it is not a sin for a wife to dishonor her husband? Would you say this is no different than a wife wearing some odd-looking (yet modest) clothing, such that people smirk at the husband and quietly ask him "what was she thinking?" (a fashion mistake, but not a sin?)

 

[12strings]

Also curious for HOS & ICON:

The following is real experience from my current life:

My wife's sister has an auto-immune disorder that causes all her hair to fall out. It started after she gave birth to her daughter, so she has been completely bald for 7 years. Let me give you a few real-life scenarios and see what you would say about them.

1. She wears a hat or wig to any public place...usually hats unless it's a formal occasion, they are more comfortable. She wore hats even when I (at first just a friend, then fiance to her sister, and now brother-in law) would visit their home. After a time of getting to know me, perhaps around the time I married her sister, she now does not see a need to put on any hat when I come over to visit...so I see her just bald on occasion now. Is this wrong?

2. Sometimes she might pray with her kids before putting them to bed, and I'm there watching, and she's bald...is this wrong? Should she put on a hat just for the prayer?

Is she dishonoring her husband in some "non-sinful" way by allowing me to see her bald, or to see her pray with a bald head?

 

[DHK]

I agree....SW asked specifically about some of the history.

If you want to look at some interesting history, look at your own--American, Canadian, and British--the so-called "civilized" nations of the world. I can remember back to the 60's when almost every woman wore head coverings (hats) to church--both Catholics and Protestants. They did in the decades and the times preceding that as well. What happened? Unisex, Feminist Movement, Woman's Lib, etc. Now times are so wicked that in the downtown area of our city we have a "coed" bathroom where men and women use the same facility--same large room. It is an equal rights issue--something that would have been unheard of some years ago.

Now go to other nations of the world: the eastern nations, all the countries surrounding India, and those surrounding Israel. That is a vast area and a large number of countries. They all wear head coverings to their church services, and I am not talking about Muslims. The people of the time of Christ did as well. It has been that way from the time of Christ onward. It is only "us" so-called "civilized" people that have rebelled against God in this matter.
It probably started when women entered into the work force leaving their children and homes, during the Second World War, and got a taste of starting a career for themselves. That is my guess.

There is to be a head covering...agreed.What is the head covering is at issue.

it was not....a doily......it was Long hair....or an external covering that wrapped around all the hair.....

The head covering is translated "covering" or "veil" in every translation, and never, never hair. If it meant hair, Paul would have said hair, but he didn't.
When Paul says "long hair" it is in contrast to "long hair" on a man. It is a shame for a man to have long hair (vs. 14). But long hair is a woman's glory. There is a contrast there, and that is the only place where long hair is used. It is used in contrast to the shame that long hair is for a man to have. Thus you take "long hair" out of its context.

DHK...you for the second time have inserted the word---wear...
the text speaks of having the head covered, or uncovered..it does not say-wear...

The last time I checked I never saw a law in the Bible that the Holy Spirit was required to consult with Icon as to what vocabulary he must use. The Holy Spirit of God is not required to use "wear" to satisfy you. Who says that you get to write the rules for how Paul expresses himself? Does he need to say "wear" just for you? There are other ways of expressing the same idea with using that exact word.

now if an external covering is in view....yes it would be worn...if it is LONG Hair it would be the covering.

It is not long hair. The context doesn't allow it. I have already shown you that.

A few years ago I held a funeral for a very godly woman who eventually died of cancer in her late 60's. She refused all chemotherapy, and for that reason never lost any of her hair. She got cancer when she was in her fifties. What was unique about this lady was that she had never cut her hair in her entire life. Also unique to this woman, was that her hair just barely reached her shoulders, if at all. By today's standard it would be considered short. By your standard she would have been cursed of God for not having long hair, had you not known her history. Obviously "long hair" was not the requirement. A veil, or head covering was.

The corollary is important as well—that a man remain with his head uncovered.

So every man should be bald! :laugh::laugh:
That would be the obvious contrast to "long." I doubt that you would preach that men should be bald in contrast to covered = "long hair" therefore "uncovered" means the other extreme.

This indicates that a woman shows that she takes her place in submission to the man, a principle taught from Genesis 3 onward. We find it also in Eph.5. Throughout the Scripture we find the principle of headship; that the man is the head of the house.

Yes, the head covering shows this perfectly. All women cannot have long hair. But it is a beautiful thing when she can. It is a glory to her. Remember that when women age, often their hair thins out, and not all women can keep it long. The Lord would not burden women with things they are not physically able to do.
The corollary is the same.
"1 Corinthians 11:7 For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God's image and glory; but woman is man's glory.
--Or one may interpret this verse this way:
"ought not to have his "hair" covered."
If it is long hair in a woman, then it must refer to hair in a man. You don't fit the bill Icon. You don't have hair. If you translate hair for woman, then you must translate hair for the man. See your inconsistencies.
Or if you translate long hair perhaps it is baldness for men, and every other man is out. Either way "hair" for women doesn't fit the context, because a man must uncover his head in some manner. How does the man uncover his head? He takes his hat off!

he is getting to the church service...but he is speaking of prayer at this point...so if you hold to external covering it would be anytime during the day that a woman would pray. He gets to the church service down in 16,17,18

And your argument is?
BTW, you know I am a missionary, and in other countries I travel to women always carry a type of a scarf with them (usually draped around the neck). When in prayer (whether outside or inside the church), they cover their heads.

A careful reading does not say.....if a woman cover her head
it says if her head be covered, or uncovered do you see the difference?
2.[FONT=&quot]

No, I don't see the difference. I see you nit-picking at the vocabulary that the Holy Spirit of God chose to use, a vocabulary originally written in Greek, and then translated into English. It seems that you haven't even consulted other translations which may have more accurately translated this passage.

There is a head covering for a woman whenever she prays.Certainly in church should be prayer.

If there is a head covering that she should wear, then she should wear it.

The passage says more than that as I posted earlier from YLT.

14 doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

15 and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;
You are not addressing this part of verse 15......LONG hair is mentioned in 14 men should not have it....in 15 woman should have it.

This is where the battle is . Long hair for a woman....if her hair is short, she should put on an external covering.

In the same way...a man wearing a hat or external covering should remove it.A man should not have long hair.

You are simply ignoring context. This is one of six reasons why a woman should have a head covering. Why? Because nature teaches it. It is the natural thing to do. In nature we see that men naturally have short hair and women naturally have long hair. That is the context of these verses. That doesn't make them applicable to the entire 16 verses. It is only applicable here to these two verses. For example what does this comparison between the hair of men and women have to do with angels? Absolutely nothing!!
But women need to wear a head covering, a veil or hat of some kind because of the angels in heaven. That is a command of Scripture. Her hair won't do. The angels see hair on every woman on earth. They see long hair on more unsaved women than on saved women by the sheer volume of the unsaved in comparison to the saved. Your interpretation does not make sense.

 

[Jerome]

Puritan Divine John Randall elaborates on the Reformed understanding of this scripture:

Twenty Nine Lectures of the Church Very Necessary for the Consolation and Support of Gods Church, Eighteenth Lecture, p. 301

"First then, decency is required in Church-gouernment; this is required in ciuill and naturall duties; and therefore in Christian and religious duties it is required much more. Now this is not in all places alike: for we must vnderstand, that that which is decent in one place, may bee vncomely in another: that is to be reputed decent in any place, which the customes and fashions of the place, not repugnant to the Rules of Nature, Ciuilitie and Gods Word haue made decent; as for example, prophesying with the hat on, in the Church of Corinth vndecent, 1 Cor. 11.4. but in the reformed Churches in France, made decent by Custome, they being in Gods stead to speake vnto the people, they thinke they may bee couered: Therefore still such customes are to bee considered, and accordingly decency to be esteemed."

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Also curious for HOS & ICON:
The following is real experience from my current life:
My wife's sister has an auto-immune disorder that causes all her hair to fall out. It started after she gave birth to her daughter, so she has been completely bald for 7 years. Let me give you a few real-life scenarios and see what you would say about them.
1. She wears a hat or wig to any public place...usually hats unless it's a formal occasion, they are more comfortable. She wore hats even when I (at first just a friend, then fiance to her sister, and now brother-in law) would visit their home. After a time of getting to know me, perhaps around the time I married her sister, she now does not see a need to put on any hat when I come over to visit...so I see her just bald on occasion now. Is this wrong?

I'd go into more detail if you want, but, how about this:
Tell her to ask HER husband :thumbsup:

But, presumably, your visiting in a non-worship/non-prayer manner...is immaterial.

2. Sometimes she might pray with her kids before putting them to bed, and I'm there watching, and she's bald...is this wrong? Should she put on a hat just for the prayer?

The way I understand the passage...it would be more honorable, if in prayer, her husband (her head) encouraged her to have a covering of some sort.

Is she dishonoring her husband in some "non-sinful" way by allowing me to see her bald,

NO

or to see her pray with a bald head?

If, say, her head couldn't care less...then it is on him whether he is honored by her prayer or not... I would advise him to carefully study the passage and perhaps come to the conclusion that he should encourage her to pray with a covering...

Whether or not YOU see it or not is immaterial. It is a woman who Prays or Prophecies who is spoken of in the passage.

 

[salzer mtn]

12strings...no there are no such verses. No verse prior to verse 15 suggests that her hair is insufficient....Her hair is given to her as a covering: Verse 5 creates a standard...it is juxtapostional. We juxtapose the ideas of a woman with her head shaven...and a man with short or a shaven head with that of a woman with short hair. A woman with "short" hair might as well be "shorn" or "shaven"...
Women don't have to "WEAR" a "covering"...God gave them a "covering"...their hair. It's all right there. I don't tend to think that it's even particularly debatable really. I suppose I am open to correction, but, I truly think that given the obvious comparisons and juxtapositions and comparisons in their contexts...this really isn't a difficult concept.

As Baptists...we tend to think that the Pentecostals are morons when we speak of the "signs" and the "gifts" and what-not...but they aren't "wrong" when they insist on short hair for men and long hair for women...on that level...they are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT...and many of us are ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Long hair was (and in many contexts still is) considered a sign of cowardice and effiminacy....NO ROMAN... (who dominated cultural understanding at that time) if he were a man....would have long hair.
I joined the Marine Corps in 1996...we were clearly instructed that the classic "high-and-tight" was a Roman legionnaire's cut, and that men..were NOT to have long hair. It follows the "complementarian" ideal:
Women are beautiful, wise, intelligent, and a veritable marvel of artistic and idealistic perfection...
You, as a man, are...well...rather utilitarian in function...and it's a durned trick by the Almighty that those beautiful creatures are actually attracted to, and need us rather uncomely beasts.....
It's how it is...stop questioning the Almighty...Your short hair is un-attractive, somewhat un-artistic, practical and....women have bad taste, and they actually find your hairy back attractive.

My beloved and beautiful bride, with her lovely locks has equally abyssmal tastes. She is fool enough to find my gorgeously hairy bod and my hairy back and my shaven head as attractive...Well, that's HER problem, not mine. I'm hideous, only she doesn't know that....Her problem, not mine.

God gave women poor taste on purpose...so they'd actually like and want our hideous persons...

We are ugly...they are beautiful. Allow them to wallow in their ignorance of aesthetic perfection.

I don't spend a lot of time questioning it in that, perhaps God might realize how un-sportingly he treated the fairer sex and if he ever gave them good taste in amorous partners...well, we'd become pretty lonely pretty quickly now wouldn't we??

My advice...just accept it, and move on :smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::laugh:

1Cr 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.
I spent a while jesting about things...but, I truly take my postion on the "head-covering" idea seriously...(the rest is sheer personal pablum.) Although...I think it is worth meditating on, it's somewhat ancillarry.

As a teenager i always wondered why beautiful girls were attracted to ugly boys, now i know.