Do you think Christian women still need to wear head coverings now? The Bible specifically mentions that women should wear them (1 Cor. 11: 3-16). I always reasoned that since I have long hair, it is "like" my head is covered, and I don't need to worry. But what about women with short hair or men with long hair? Is that wrong? Your thoughts and opinions?
Here is an article about the argument:
http://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html
In Paul's day, the oral law said that Eve brought about the downfall of humanity, single-handedly. Adam was seen either as seduced by his wife into darkness, after she succumbed, or he was seen as eating the fruit as an act of loving sacrifice so Eve wouldn't be alone outside of Eden.
These traditions don't match the Torah's account, however, which has Adam present with Eve while both were tempted by the serpent. Also, Romans tells us that death entered the world through Adam's sin, not Eve's.
Nevertheless, the oral law found fault with Eve and said that all women should wear a head covering as a sign of shame for Eve's treachery. The rabbis of Paul's day also taught that a woman's hair was a sexual part of her body. Exposing her hair was like exposing her genitalia, in their minds.
So, women, particularly Jewish women had to cover their heads when in public, as a sign of shame, and as an expression of modesty. Not doing so was in fact grounds for divorce.
Contrary to this, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:7, that a woman is not the "shame" of man, rather she is his "glory." Given the social norms of Paul's day this was a very radical statement. So, women were not supposed to wear the veil of shame any longer. They may choose to, however, in mixed gatherings if their non-Christian, Jewish husbands were present.
Cheryl Schatz provides good information on this topic, here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/12/shaming-the-head-2/
What Cheryl doesn't mention, as far as I can see, is that 1 Corinthians is a response to a letter Paul received from people in the church regarding ongoing arguments related to various traditions. One person seeking clarification from Paul was a woman in the church named Chloe. Paul mentions her by name in his letter, and says that people from her household brought a number of contentious issues to his attention.
The oldest copies of Paul's letter are Greek uncials. What this means is that all of the words are written in capital letters, there are absolutely no punctuation marks, nor are there even spaces between the words.
To understand the letter correctly, therefore, one needed to be well acquainted with its context. Chloe and others in Corinth would have known this, we do not. We do not have any copies of the letter Paul was answering.
In 1 Corinthians, it is clear that Paul is responding to a letter he received. There is evidence that he quotes this letter at times, and then responds to it. Some of his passages read like a contradictory dialogue for this reason.
Consider this passage from 1 Corinthians 11 as an example:
"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; <SUP class=crossreference value='(M)'></SUP><SUP class=versenum>9 </SUP>neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. <SUP class=crossreference value='(N)'></SUP><SUP class=versenum>10 </SUP>It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own<SUP class=footnote value='[b]'>[b]</SUP> head, because of the angels."
<SUP class=versenum>
Many scholars consider this to be a quote from the letter Paul received. They consider the following passage to be his response:</SUP>
<SUP class=versenum>11 "</SUP>
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. <SUP class=versenum>12 </SUP>For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."
One passage seems to agree with (or be quoting from) the oral traditions of Paul's day. The next seems to challenge or correct this. I also think this is what we see in the discussion on head coverings.
P.S. Here is a photograph of one of the oldest Greek manuscripts containing Paul's writing:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=p46+m...&w=566&h=800&ei=1NIQUPLcMe_I0AHyo4HIBg&zoom=1
You'll see what I mean with regard to punctuation and spacing. Some people think that their particular English translation of the Bible is crystal clear regarding its teaching on women. They've suggested to me that looking into the context of a letter is irrelevant. Well, since we are in fact dealing with a letter (one side of a conversation), since we don't have the letter Paul was responding to, and since Paul's letter has no punctuation, I believe attempting to understand the context is pivotal.
You may notice also that Paul is not in the habit of supporting those who attempt to impose Jewish traditions, or even the Torah, on Christians. For Paul to be supporting head coverings would be very inconsistent with his other letters explaining that Christians are no longer under the law.
Hope that sheds some light on a complex issue
