Bible Study Should a Christian Woman Wear a Headcovering?

[Merry Menagerie]

I'm covered, first by Christ and then by my husband.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I'm comfortable with women asking if they should cover their heads. I'm uncomfortable with men insisting they should.

That being said, the scripture points to a custom that is still widely practiced among Orthodox Christians outside of America: Women cover their heads in prayer (the entire Liturgy is prayer, so women cover their head before they come into the assembly).

In America, few Orthodox women do cover heir heads. My wife and daughters do not, though they have discussed doing so. We have some women in our parish that do.

I admire the practice, I think it's scripturally-based and reverent.

 

[cly]

I've been going to church since I was born, and I don't remember ever seeing very many women cover their heads while there. As a matter of fact, I've never heard a lesson or sermon taught on the matter. Maybe it's a Baptist thing to not practice it, I don't know.

I read the link to the Bible passage where it talks about it, and the passage clearly states that a woman should cover her head. However if you read down to verse 13 through 16 it says:

"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the church of God."

It sounds to me like, Paul is telling the church that it is their decision whether or not women cover their heads while praying. I think he is suggesting that they do cover their heads because in that time period and in that culture it was a custom that if not adhered to, it would disrupt services. I have an insert in my Bible that agrees with that assessment.

In my experience, God hears and answers my prayers whether or not my head is covered. I've been taught that I can pray anytime, anywhere, and about anything. It would be rather cumbersome to carry around a scarf so that in those moments of inspiration where I feel led to pray, I could pray.

At any rate, is this not very similar to the Jewish traditions of sacrificing? It sounds an awful lot like the nit-picky laws that Jesus fulfilled by dying on the cross and rising again. I just don't think that God is very worried over whether or not we have our heads covered during prayer. I can't imagine God sitting on His throne in Heaven saying, "Well, Crystal doesn't have a scarf over her hair so I can't listen or respond to her prayer." That doesn't make much sense to me. We don't pray with our hair, or even our heads really, we pray with our hearts and souls, and it is those parts of us that God is interested in when we pray.

Okay, I'm going to shift gears here. When God created Adam and Eve were they both not completely naked? They stood in the presence of God daily and talked. Nowhere in Genesis do I see where it says that Eve went and found a leaf or something to put on her hair before speaking with God. If she didn't cover her head while speaking to God face-to-face, why should we now when we pray?

I have nothing against those who do cover their heads. That is their choice. I'm just saying that I don't think God requires head coverings for women during prayer.

 

[Vic C.]

Lessons for the Christian woman:
1. We should be aware of the CUSTOMS of our day and not do anything that would hinder our influence as an ambassador of Christ today.

I agree. I think that is just as important as understanding the culture to which Paul was writing.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

I am not
Under law
But under Grace.

It is grace that resued me
It is grace that keeps me free

I have sought
I have found
A hiding place

I am not
Under law
But under Grace.

Doop bee doooooooooooooooooooo :P

 

[TheScarletPimpernel]

I recommend a book; What Paul really said about women by John Temple Bristow. It's a bit ponderous but all the same, packed with insight plus a bit of history lessons too!

 

[Michael A Disciple]

Hi Eve,

Yes the Spirit baptized woman should cover.

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

What Paul is speaking about in this chapter are ordinances of the Church. New Testament Order.

3 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.

Paul shows the chain of command. God is first,then Christ, then the man, then the woman.

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.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

If a man prays or prophesies with his head covered he dishonours his head which is Jesus.

If a woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered she
dishonours her head which is her husband. I will show 2 coverings are mentioned by Paul, artificial such as a veil and natural which is hair. The artificial covering is the main point of Pauls teaching.

Paul is indicating the person man or woman has a choice. His command is relevant when one is PRAYING OR PROPHESYING. If he was speaking of just the hair of a person there would be no choice to make. We cannot take hair off and put it back on.

That a veil was recognized as a covering for women can be seen in the story of Issac and Rebecca.

63 And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming.
64 And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.
65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.
Gen. 24:63-65


This shows that a covering was a sign the woman accepted the man was the head. Notice Paul only requires veiling when praying or prophesying, not at all times. It also shows the veil as the primary "covering".

According to verse 15 the womans hair is a covering provided by NATURE. The long hair of a woman in the natural is a reflection of what Paul is commanding as an ordinance in the church.

Although Rebecca probably had long hair she still took a veil AND COVERED HERSELF.

Verse 6 indicates 2 coverings. Paul says if she will not be covered(as with a veil) let her ALSO BE SHORN. If she refuses to wear the covering it is the SAME AS IF SHE CAST OFF the natural covering.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Paul now refers to the natural order of things. Man is in Gods image. He is not to be covered. We can find evidence of this even in modern America. Even when the national anthem is played ball players remove their hats. Where did they get this?
It had to have come from somewhere. It would be safe to say that up until 150 years ago MOST IF NOT ALL woman wore head coverings while in church. In many nations around the world this is still common practice.

Paul doesn't use the custom of the time to reinforce his point but rather the creation. The man was created first. The woman was created for the man. That was the way God ordained it to be.

Neither does he refer to custom in verse 10 but rather to the
Watching Angels. She ought to have POWER on her head because of the angels. Power is the same as authority. If she wears the veil as a sign she is under the headship of the man she then has authority to pray and prophesy publicly. When a woman takes her place under the headship of her husband or the elders of the church she becomes a co-laborer with them and has the right to pray or prophesy in the meetings or in public in general.

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

In todays world it would be fine. But not in the New Testament Church.

Doth not EVEN NATURE ITSELF TEACH YOU that if a man has 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. Verse 15

It is a glory for women to have long hair. I wont get in the debate about how long is long. I know some womens hair doesnt get real long. I also see nothing in this chapter forbidding a woman to cut her hair. But Paul did say it was a shame in verse 6 for a woman to be shaved or shorn. That should be sufficient.

Notice Paul now is refering to nature to back up his position on why a woman should be covered. Even NATURE teaches this by providing its own covering for the woman. On the other hand there is something un natural about a man having overly long hair. And yes as a "hippie freak" my hair was OVERLY LONG. I believe God through nature has shown us there should be some difference between the looks of a man and a woman. The last few generations have vindicated this.
Since these barriers given by nature were violated we have people growing up saying they dont know what they are.

But if any man seem to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God. verse 16

So after all that is Paul now saying none of this teaching he gave matters? Absolutley not!

He is QUIETING those who would be contentious over this New Testament ordinance. The churches had no such custom as to disregard the teaching of head covering.

Jesus is calling us back to his original instructions concerning church order. Pray about it. Then set your heart to obey him.
If you love him you will do his will. I understand this isnt taught in most places. That doesn't mean it is not true.
There ARE ASSEMBLIES that teach and practice this truth.
Let us return to the Apostles doctrine and fellowship. love, mike

 

[dcookcan]

Thanks for that detailed expository Mike. I completely agree with your assessment. However, even though the church was not to have a custom of being contentious, that is exactly what has happened with the head covering issue.

My wife choses to wear a head covering; she actually asked for my permission to wear it. Why would I take away her power to chose?

 

[TheScarletPimpernel]

These are all great thoughts and it's fun to think about this and stretch the question a little. Paul who apparently commanded women to wear head coverings during prayer also says to

1Th 5:17 pray without ceasing,

Thus women, according to this logic, must both pray without ceasing and walk around with thier heads permanently covered.

In actual fact I have learned from others that he wrote to women to have long hair in this particular church because it was the custom of the local prostitutes to cut thier hair short. Thus it was a "social disgrace" for a woman to have short hair in that particular part of the world. The Gospel set them free from rules and regulations but at the same time Christians were meant to be different from the world about and "have no fellowship" with the unfruitful works of darkness. So she needs must not have had short hair or otherwise be mistaken for a prostitute and thereby put her husband or the church to shame.

The whole passage in general is an attempt by Paul to unite the differing customs of the Jews and the Greeks into one church; that they give no offence to one another. Obviously this was a serious issue of unity in the Corinthian church. Thus women were not to dress with thier hair down in public but as was the custom of both Jew and Greeks they wore it in braids; it was socially very shocking for a woman to let her hair down in public.

The Jewish matrons would wear coverings over thier hair in public thus when women came into the church with thier hair hanging loose, it was as though her hair were cut short in the style of the prostitutes. They were not supposed to braid gold items into thier hair as the courtesans did (Source: what Paul really said about women by John Temple Bristow) the general idea as with foods to abstain from customs which would otherwise identify you with certain classes of citizen. And the same general idea applies to men. It says, "nature" but that can also mean, "long established custom". Thus long established custom in the Greek world maybe showed it was a shame for a man to have long hair. This whole thing is an attempt to interpret the Gospel in the social context of the day. Men and women were one in Christ and yet still had to be both in the world and yet set apart from it. To give no offence which would dishonor the church.

 

[TheScarletPimpernel]

And it's pretty safe to say the culture we live in today is a lot less demanding as to what people wear or adorn themselves with but I also think it's pretty safe to say that Paul's appeal was to common sense and modesty to both men and women although we naturally think this applies more to women, all the same it is not in any way shape or form an attempt to undermine the new equality women had with men in CHRIST, as many traditions and beliefs, which according to the above source actually have thier roots in Aristotlian and Gnostic doctrines which have wound thier way inexorably into the pulpit, making void the word of God by thier traditions which they have handed down;(Mk7:14.) and Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.(Mk 7:7).

Mar 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

Do it a lot the church does!

 

[lovely]

I remember my grandmother, when I was a very little girl, wearing a scarf on her head always. She thought it a lack of modesty to go out without her head covered. She also never wore pants for similar reasons, lack of modesty and femininity. It is interesting that certain things were just common in our culture at one time, but have changed with the moral decline.

The Lord bless you all.

 

[TheScarletPimpernel]

Well the problem has really become that the interpretation of the scripture that is common, such as the wearing of headcoverings and the rest of it has actually overrun and defined our culture thus we are unwittingly or were unwittingly carrying on the traditions of another culture, not the practices of the Church. Common sense, modesty and decency are the simple instructions to abide by for the church even if the culture around has declined; but there is no moral command to wear a head covering for the sake of social correctness; this was both a Jewish and Greek custom, which is the point that JTB is really trying to drive home.

Thus we have no real distinct culture of our own, really in our own society except the restrictive traditions that have been handed down from one generation to another, a kind of smorgasbord of yesterday's church, yesterday's society and culture of long since absent civilisations. We have no unique identity of our own any more. And it's all the worse with mass produced cheap clothing so that people generally fit into a bland homogenised fashion dictated by the Calvin Kliens of the world. People have simply rebelled against what they percieve as restrictions to thier freedom and you could easily argue that this is the institutional churches' fault! Severe religious judgement and alleged morality which in actual fact bears little resemblence to the Gospel of "perfect liberty" which is to fulfil the righteousness of the law by walking as Christ walked. It's not a matter of outward appearance but "inward circumcision". Thus we are called not to judge others for thier ways but to prove our own selves whether we are walking in the faith. What others do in the church or in the world is thier problem! You worry about you!

 

[tzalam2]

without reading ANY of these replies, after my study of the Scriptures, a woman should have either long hair as a covering, or she should enter into worship with a veil or a scarf over her head.
The Jews still do this, even in their reformed synagogue services, and I see no problem with a woman wearing a small veil, or letting her hair grow long enough to cover her shoulders, and she wears long hair as a covering.
Not so long ago, women used to wear hats and veils to church every Sunday.
I thought it was pretty, and it added to the femininity of the woman.

Women with extremely short hair do nothing to add to their appearance, if they have the mannish hair cuts which I see every once in a while on some women. It detracts from her as a woman, to have a man's haircut.
I'm not sure if this is true historically, but, I heard the prostitutes in the
time of Paul's life were KNOWN by their short hair.
Short hair on a woman equalled prostitution, which was, and still IS, a SIN.

 

[Vic C.]

... I'm not sure if this is true historically, but, I heard the prostitutes in the
time of Paul's life were KNOWN by their short hair.
Short hair on a woman equalled prostitution, which was, and still IS, a SIN.

It pays to read the thread. 8-) tzalam, read Amity's post on page two. :wink:

 

[guibox]

IMO, anyone wearing a head covering in church is a sign of disrespect. When we walk into people's houses, we usually take of our cap. It used to be that removing your hat when you met someone (especially a lady) represented respect. Why then are men required to take off their hats because it is today's society's mandate of respect to do so, and yet women are allowed to wear one in church simply because of an outdated Jewish cultural practice? I guess Jewish custom out ranks respect and we have a double standard.

Either live in the now or in the past. Don't try and mix both of them

 

[tzalam2]

1

That is not our CUSTOM today, thus it is not wrong for us to come to worship without a head covering of some sort.


even though I can find no scripture that requires a head covering.

However, I do admire her conviction to practice what she believes.

That would be in violation of scripture (1 John 4:19-21; 1 Cor. 8:9-13; Rom. 13:10; Rom. 15:1,2).

the thing that strikes me as strange in your post, is that constant emphasis on TODAY'S customs....
the customs of today......are to mock anyone who tries to lead a holy life...a life separated from the world, flesh, and devil.
You are leading people astray, by implying that certain parts of the New Testament can be ignored.
Whether you know it or not, you're encouraging people to NOT take the Holy Bible literally, and to pick and choose what they decide is ok to follow along with.
That's the problem with the average Christian today, they will follow Jesus as long as it doesn't make them too uncomfortable.

 

[asb4God]

1 Corinthians 11:2

For the brave I offer this paper I have written on this passage in question: 1 Corinthians 11:2ff.

Enjoy!
Scott 8-)

Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, has been addressing many issues which have either been brought to his attention via those from Chloe’s household, (1:11; 5:1) or through a letter which they brought to him (7:1). Many of these issues have centered on the relationship of the Corinthian believers to each other and the divisions between them. Up to this point in the letter Paul has had to challenge his hearers to obey some very heavy exhortations and teachings. At times he has thrown the full weight of his apostleship behind his exhortations and one sees that this fellowship was in great need of correction for some very serious sins. When we reach our passage, (11:2-16) we find a Paul who has found some point at which he can provide invaluable teaching, but which does not appear to be a correction in the same stern sense as much else in the letter. Instead, Paul seeks to teach the Corinthians to follow a certain practice, which for them has most likely been only a minor problem.

Paul begins this passage with words of praise: (2) I commend you because you have remembered me in everything and just as I delivered them to you, you are holding fast the traditions. Paul’s praise for the Corinthians’ “holding fast†to the “traditions†(paradoveiV) he had preached to them is in stark contrast to both the preceding chapter and the immediately ensuing passage (vv. 17-34). Although the language of the passage does not state that he is addressing a problem in the Corinthian church, which he has been made aware of, (cf. 7:1,25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1) he is clearly giving directions for a manner of public worship that the church is probably not presently engaged in. However, it still must be noted that the fact that Paul brings this issue up at all is some indication that this has become an issue for the church. The tenor of his opening remarks also alerts us to the fact that he doesn’t consider this issue to be one which is on a par with those he has addressed which are inflicting great wounds on the unity of the body. Except for his warning against being “argumentative,†(filovneikoV v. 16) he does not appear to foresee great difficulty on the part of the Corinthians to accept this teaching.

But, why does Paul praise them for “holding fast†to “traditions� Elsewhere he has spoken of “traditions†in the same positive way as here, (cf. Gal 1:14; II Thess. 2:15; 3:6) but also once in a negative sense (Col 2:8). Perhaps it is because the issue following is not of the greatest concern to Paul, as is the issue of the “Lord’s supper†in vv. 17-34, in which he begins by stating that he has “no praise†for them. It would appear then that Paul has sought to contrast one area of ministry in which he simply wants them to follow an established practice (cf. v. 16) with another in which he is quite dissatisfied with their behavior. His use of paradovseiV (traditions), then, can be seen in the positive light; that he believes his following directives to be a “tradition†passed on to them when he was first with them and which is followed in the other “churches of God†(v. 16).

(3) Now I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of woman, and Christ is the head of God. It is significant that Paul begins his argument with this statement. However he means for his readers to understand “head†(kefalhv), it is clear that Paul’s grammar is calling for this to be the foundation for the proceeding rationale; that women should cover their heads in worship and men should not. We must first consider how Paul might have meant his readers to understand this word – kefalhv. While the true meaning Paul meant to convey by his use of this word must remain just out of our reach, we must attempt, at any rate, to come to some conclusion about it’s use in ancient literature and ultimately what Paul’s hearers understood. Only then can we get a sense of why he would begin by using this “headship†formula as he has done elsewhere (cf. Ephesians 5:23).

The B.A.G.D. gives the range of meanings for kefalhv as: a) physical head of man or beast, b) uppermost part or extremity or c) figuratively to denote superior rank. The L.S.J. adds a couple different options, including a) source, b) sum, c) crown or d) completion. The most common translation for this word is simply the literal rendering, “head.†The translation of this word, therefore, in its allegorical sense, is what is really at issue here. For the most part, scholarship is equally divided between the concepts of “source†or “origin†and “authority†or “rulership,†and so whatever our conclusions we must remember to be charitable towards all with whom we might disagree.

Of the 324 uses of the word kefalhv in ancient literature, which I have personally read, dating from the writings of Homer in the 8th Century B.C. to Pausanius in the 2nd Century A.D., there are very few examples which suggests that “head†means anything similar to superior rank. One sense in which we find an idea of rulership is within the head/body metaphor, though this is a difficult meaning to pin down in that there are two different ideas being conveyed. One example is from Josephus: “of which the royal city Jerusalem was the supreme, and presided over all the neighboring country, as the head does over the body.â€Â[1] This does indeed give the sense of authority, though as we look more closely at the ancient head/body metaphor, we will find disagreement as to the actual meaning. In fact, we will see that even within examples using this metaphor there can be found equally sound meanings on both sides of the debate.

Other examples extant, not of the head/body variety, include such uses as the following: “to command the rear, he himself ran to the head of the company,â€Â[2] “…received the tribute of the country, and of every head among them,â€Â[3] and “pay half a shekel to God for every head.â€Â[4] While these sources are not much help to us except to provide clear evidence that “head†most often referred to the physical head or figuratively as enumerating individuals, Philo provides many other helpful examples. As a contemporary of Jesus, Philo affords us one of the closest glimpses into the meaning of kefalhv at the time of the writing of the New Testament.

For evidence which suggests a meaning of “source†or “origin†we can look at On Rewards and Punishments, where Philo writes that “For as in an animal the head is the first and best part and the tail the last…the virtuous one, whether single man or people, will be the head of the human race and all the others like the limbs of a body which draw their life from the forces in the head and at the top.â€Â[5] While the sense here appears to agree with our position of “source,†Wayne Grudem has stated that “There is a sense here of the members of the ‘body’ being encouraged and directed by the virtuous leaders who are the ‘head,’ but there is no sense in which the ordinary people derive their being or existence from the leaders who are the ‘head;’ thus, ‘source’ would be an inappropriate sense of kefalhv here as well.â€Â[6] What Grudem has done is opt for a different translation of the latter part of this verse. His reads: “are animated by the powers in the head and at the top.†This is part of the difficulty in interpreting exactly what is meant. In charity, we will recognize that it could mean either, but for our purposes we are well justified to see the sense of “origin,†especially within the context of the passage.

Another example in Philo is in The Preliminary Studies where he writes, “And of all the members of the clan here described Esau is the progenitor, the head as it were of the whole creature…â€Â[7] This verse is a nice example of the use of “head†to describe one thing as the “source from which something develops;†the actual definition. Two other verses might clarify these as well. In Moses II Philo writes, “Since the mind is head and ruler of the sense-faculty in us,..â€Â[8] and finally, in On Dreams we read “‘Head’ we interpret allegorically to mean the ruling part of the soul, the mind on which all things lie…â€Â[9] In both of these verses we must understand just how the head “rules†the soul. Is the head the authority from which the soul derives its activity or is it the place from which the soul derives its being? How one answers this unanswerable question will both determine one’s view of “headship†and will itself be determined by that view.

Philo does however provide some evidence for a possible reading of “superior rank,†“rulership,†or “authority;†although we are still at somewhat of a loss to completely understand this allegorical usage. In The Special Laws we read, “Just as nature conferred the sovereignty of the body on the head…conducted it thither to take command and established it on high with the whole framework from neck to foot set below…â€Â[10] We also see in another verse in On Rewards and Punishments its use in an allegorical sense: “So then one such man in a city, if such be found, will be superior to the city…as the head above the body, to be conspicuous on every side, not for its own glory but rather for the benefit of the beholders.â€Â[11] This verse is of particular interest for the sense we get of “headship†as it relates to one being both the “glory†of another and a beneficent partner. In v. 7 we are dealing with one being the glory of another, and if our understanding of v. 3 is correct, that the man is the “source†for the woman, this beneficence is a better reading than any idea of “superiority†or “authority†and agrees with our argument here.

When we consider the New Testament writers’ use of kefalhv we must look to the Septuagint (LXX) for its contemporary meaning. Here we see its full range of meaning displayed. In its use as the physical head of man or beast, see for instance: “The beast had four wings of a bird on its back and four heads;†(Daniel 7:6). Another common use was as the top of something, which, in this case, gives us cause to think we might understand more fully the use of this word in terms of “superior rankâ€Â: “The LORD will make you the head, and not the tail; you shall be only at the top, and not at the bottom†(Deuteronomy 28:13).

An important use for this study is that of a pre-eminence of position or responsibility of one person before a group of people or of a principal city of a region. Consider Numbers 31:26: "You and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the ancestral houses of the congregation make an inventory of the booty captured, both human and animal,†and “For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin†(Isaiah 7:8,9). But, we must also take special note of 1 Chronicles 23:24 where the head of the family is a;rconteV, or ruler: “These were the sons of Levi by their ancestral houses, the ‘heads of families’ (ajrconteV tw¾n patriw¾n) as they were enrolled according to the number of the names…†The translators of the Septuagint felt compelled here to make clear the sense of rulership, and in so doing used ajrconteV instead of kefalhv. This is just such the case in the Old Testament of the LXX when the translators avoided kefalhv for the most part when rendering “authority.â€Â

We must also weigh carefully how this word was used by Paul as well as the other New Testament authors. Paul uses kefalhv twenty-four times throughout his letters, accounting for ten different passages. Eight uses in Paul indicate nothing more than the physical head of mankind.[12] In all other uses except one (I Corinthians 12:21) Paul is referring to Christ as the “head†and in two places (Ephesians 5:23 and in our passage in I Corinthians 11:3) the man is said to also be “head†of the wife.[13] In virtually all of Paul’s references to “head,†then, there is a metaphorical use and it is therefore necessary to attempt to understand just what he means.

As “head†Christ is said by Paul to be that from which “the whole body, nourished…grows with a growth that is from God†(Col. 2;19) and that “he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead†(Col. 1:18). In this reading, Christ as the “head†is seen as the one from whom life comes – as if a source thereof. In two places, however, Paul’s suggestion is one of authority. Paul states that, “He (God) is the head of every power and authority†(Colossians 2:19) and that “He (God) has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church.†(Eph. 1:22) It is vital here to note that Paul was very careful to qualify just what sort of subjection his later reference to “head†entailed. The fact that He writes “kai. pa,nta u`pe,taxen u`po. tou.j po,daj auvtou/†(and he has put (subjected) all things under his feet) suggests that it was not enough for Paul to let kefalhv stand alone.

In the many occurrences of the Gospels and Acts, only a few have a meaning other than that of the physical head. In Acts 27:15 we see that Paul’s ship was “caught by the storm and could not head into the wind†and we read of “heads†of grain in the Gospels. Outside of the Gospels, we see many uses in Revelation, but these all refer to the physical head of a human or beast. We also see in Peter its use to describe a “capstone†(1 Peter 2:7). While it may never be possible this side of heaven to come to a complete conclusion regarding the exact meaning of kefalhv, it seems clear that only Paul uses the term metaphorically, and that usage is still subject to some valid debate.

Wayne Grudem has also shown other ancient witnesses, which suggest allegorical uses of “head†to mean “authority,†although some of these suffer contexts which render them questionable for our use. A few such examples he has found include Theodotian, a translator of the LXX: Judges 10:18, “He will be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead;â€Â[14] Libanius’ Oration 20.3.15: People who derided government authorities are said to have “heaped on their own heads insults,†and Greek Anthology 8.19 (Epigram of Gregory of Nazianus, fourth century A.D.): Gregory is called the “head of a wife and three children.â€Â[15] While the contexts of the first two illustrate governmental authority and, therefore, are difficult to compare to our non-governmental passage, the final example is far too late to be of much help and may in fact show a dependence upon the writer’s interpretation of the New Testament texts in light of the culture of that writer’s day.

While it is clear that both “authority†and “source†are well attested in ancient Greek, our immediate context must help determine the best choice for kefalhv. The only sense of authority in this passage is that which comes in v. 10 where the woman is said to have a “authority†on her head. This authority appears to relate to her own authority to prophesy and not another’s over her. It would seem more likely, then, that what Paul has in mind is an argument, by use of the “headship†of women and men alike, that both are equally “derived†from each other (v. 11,12) and therefore must operate in a manner fitting with the unity of the body, which has been a running theme throughout the Epistle to this point, and will be a major point in the following chapter.

Paul then seems to use kefalhv in both its metaphorical and literal sense. He states that (4) Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered (having down the head) is disgracing his head. (5) And every woman praying or prophesying with uncovered head is disgracing her head – for the one is the same as having her head shaved. (6) For if a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to have her head shaved, she should cover her head. Here Paul is most likely playing with the allegorical and literal sense of “head,†noting that if a man prays or prophesies with his physical head covered, he dishonors his “head,†that is Christ. The same structure is seen in the woman who dishonors her “head,†or husband, by praying or prophesying with her physical head uncovered. But, the question is asked, how does one honor or dishonor another by covering or leaving uncovered one’s head? This will be answered in conjunction with the following verse (7), but for now it should be noted that the man’s uncovering, “having down the head,†has given interpreters some trouble.

Some would translate the phrase as referring to long hair. Murphy-O’Connor has shown that long hair in first century Roman culture on a man was “usually in conjunction with homosexuality, where longer hair was artistically decorated to resemble a woman’s.â€Â[16] This is troubling, though, in as much as Paul could have easily used koma¾/ (“long hairâ€Â), which he does in vv. 14,15. Another possibility is that of a man praying or prophesying with something hanging down on the head, that is some sort of head covering. The difficulty here lies in the fact that Paul does not use peribolaivou, as he does in v. 15 to refer to a “covering.†Fee notes that such use of kata kefaleV does have other attestation: Plutarch, for example, describing a man “having the himation down the head,†meaning that he “covered his head with part of his toga so as to be unrecognized by the people,†as a sign of shame.[17] Finally, however, Fee notes that it is mere speculation to ascertain the exact meaning of the text, especially in light of the fact that men rarely covered their heads in ancient Roman, Greek or Jewish culture.[18] However we understand it, then, it appears most likely that by wearing a head covering the man is disgracing Christ by doing something which is not customary for a man to do, a reading which suggests that men and women are being called to reflect the fact that they are of unique genders.

Likewise, the practice of a woman praying or prophesying with an uncovered head is said to be just as shameful as the man’s. Whatever the reason for this, whether cultural (vv. 14,15) or because of angels (v. 10) or because of the effect this will have upon the “glory†of another, it is clear that the injunction for and against head coverings is inextricably tied to the male/female relationship and that with their relationship to God.
Although the marriage relationship is in view in verse 3, we should not immediately view the men and women in Paul’s exhortation to be married men and women. His language in verses 4 and 5 (pa¾V ajnh;r, “every man†v. 4 and pa¾sa dev gunh., “every woman†v. 5) and verse 8, “man did not come from woman†should not lead us to the conclusion that these are married individuals. His exhortation seems to point toward maleness and femaleness in general and therefore such distinction should be maintained in the worship experience.

The issue of head coverings does cause us some difficulty. Craig Keener begins by noting that some scholars have considered this passage to be an “interpolation,†though the grounds for such a position are “impossibly weak.â€Â[19] Indeed, one notices in the apparatus of the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition, absolutely no textual evidence to suggest that this passage was a post-Pauline insertion. Therefore, we have no good reason to view this difficult passage as anything other than Pauline. It is clear, at least, that Paul does indeed want the Corinthian women to cover their heads when praying and prophesying. We must determine why.

If we consider the context of this passage as part of the larger Epistle, we see Paul consistently calling for submission of some to a certain practice whose end result is unity. Paul even claims to submit himself to a certain lifestyle, which he otherwise had a “right†(evxousi,an) to engage in, namely “food and drink,†“taking a believing wife along,†and “right of support,†for the furtherance of the Gospel. Paul states that the Corinthian women should wear the head coverings as “authorityâ€Â[20] (evxousi,an) on her own head. Of course, one outstanding question is just whose authority is on her head; her own or her husbands. It seems most likely, in this context, that the woman is to show that she does indeed have the authority to “pray or prophesy†and the head covering shows this to the body. So then she is submitting to the head covering, not because of the authority of her husband, but because of what is right culturally. This will be covered more fully under
v. 10.

There is certainly much to be said about the custom of women in ancient Rome wearing head coverings. One theory is that prostitutes did not cover their heads – flowing hair being a seductive trait – and so Paul is requiring the Corinthian women to do so. Keener notes, however, that such evidence for this is “slender.â€Â[21] Closer to the worship context of our passage, however, is the practice of pagan prophetesses, who were said to have “uncovered and disheveled heads,â€Â[22] but Keener makes the point that if Paul were to compare the two groups of women, head coverings would not have been the most important comparison.

Keener also notes the possibility that some “well-to-do women†were no longer covering their heads because it was not befitting women of their status, but the objects of lust they were becoming in the service was cause for serious disorder in the fellowship.[23] In the same way that Paul submitted himself for the sake of the body, he is now asking the women to maintain the cultural practice of head covering for a similar reason. The same would be true of a modern day church, which met on the beach in Hawaii or California. If some of the women found nothing wrong with wearing bikinis to the beach on Saturday and chose to also do so on Sunday, this might cause serious problems in the service. Their being asked to cover up a bit would be in line with what Paul is asking these women to do. If, however, the problem in Corinth was a status issue – quite possible given the makeup of Corinth and the social dimensions which caused some to desire to elevate themselves[24] – Paul is still seeking order and unity in the church service. It is known that in the early church believers of all economic status had to meet in the same homes, typically that of a wealthier member, and this may account for the status division.[25] It is noteworthy that Paul’s enjoinder to wear head coverings is only given in the context of worship and not in daily life, as in common gatherings in such homes.

As for whether or not women would have been expected to wear a head covering in worship, Ben Witherington notes ancient Roman artworks which show a procession of individuals offering sacrifice in which the woman at the head of the procession is the only one with her head covered.[26] He also notes that during the “prophetic reading of the entrails†head coverings would be worn.[27] For our context this is an important observation, even if it does not completely conform to the Christian worship in Corinth. However, noting the fact that men are not to cover their heads in worship forces us to look beyond this contemporary cultural practice, as the men bringing the sacrifice also covered their heads. Paul is certainly not arguing that the cultural manner of offering sacrifice should be imitated by the Corinthian church, so we must look to the way in which he continues his argument to reflect the new worship experience in Christ. After all, Witherington remarks further that “Paul was about the business of reforming his coverts’ social assumptions and conventions in the context of the Christian community.â€Â[28]

Paul now gives his first rationale for why the woman is to cover her head but the man is not: (7) A man should not cover his head, for he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. This is not an easy rationale to understand. Paul has certainly in mind the Genesis account of the creation, a point which he will develop more fully in the next two verses. However, the Genesis account clearly proclaims both man and woman to be made in the “image and likeness†of God. The fact that Paul should note the creation order may be important for our understanding. While man was made from the dust of the ground, woman was made from man. In the “headship†sense of “source†or “origin,†(v. 3) which we have chosen to accept for this passage, it makes sense that Paul would continue this line of thought: as man was made first he bears the most direct image, perhaps, while woman bears the image of God through her relationship with man, having come from him. In fact, he continues it in the next two verses as well.

But, how woman might be man’s glory and at the same time not be stated to be the “image and glory†of God leaves us puzzled. By Paul’s previous phrasing, that man disgraces his head (Christ) while woman disgraces her head (man) by certain actions (not wearing head coverings), it appears that for Paul the special relationship by which Christ is the man’s origin and man is the woman’s origin (v. 8), is endangered by any act which might conceal the gender-specific differences between the man and the woman, primarily in this context by hairstyle or head covering. So, Paul is not saying that woman is not made in the “image and likeness†of God, but rather she has been made as a man’s glory.

F.F. Bruce notes that the way in which Paul viewed the “image and glory†of God in man was by reading Genesis 1:26 in the light of 2:18, that “it was first in the form of the male that mankind was created to bear the image of God.â€Â[29] Furthermore, he states that by “male and female he created them†is taken to mean “first male and later female.â€Â[30] If Paul does, in fact, have this in view, our understanding of how the woman is the glory of man is clearer: while man is the glory of God more directly, woman is the God by being the glory of man. This would seem to be in agreement with the argument he advances in the next verse, beginning with the coordinating conjunction gar. (8) For man is not from woman, but woman from man; (9) and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.

These two verses serve to qualify the preceding verse. There is something, in Paul’s thought, which shows the importance of the creation account to help us understand how woman is man’s glory, but not the other way round. Fee makes the point that the woman “exists to his honor as the one who having come from man is the one companion suitable to him, so that he might be complete and that together they might form humanity.â€Â[31] It is exactly this complementary nature of man and woman which accounts for the need to maintain distinguishing gender features. In the context of worship the man must not appear as a woman, with a head covering, and the woman must not appear “unwomanly,†without one. The cultural distinctives, which Paul enjoins both man and woman to maintain, are those which demonstrate the truth of creation and its continuous relevance for worship. Disgrace is the result of the failure of either to demonstrate the differences God has created; the man disgraces Christ and the woman disgraces man, as per the creation order.

It is then (10) For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have authority over her head. Before we try to understand what angels have to do with this, it is important to determine how Paul intended to use the term authority and how this might relate to the preceding argument. The translation “have authority over her head†is much preferred to that of the NIV (“sign of authorityâ€Â) and the NAS (“symbol of authorityâ€Â) for two reasons. First, these translations argue for an interpretation of head coverings as a “sign of authority†against the most literal reading of the text and anything within the text which might suggest such a reading. Rather, the head coverings should be considered a “sign†of the complementariness of humanity. Second, these translations appear to be derived from the idea that the head covering is a “sign†of the man’s authority over the woman, a translation determined by a variant understanding of “head†in v. 3. Since nowhere in the text do we get the sense that head coverings are to be understood in any light other than that which helps draw the gender distinctives, we must allow the authority to refer only to that which the woman has.

Fee’s solution is also troublesome and not wholly acceptable. It is his position that the woman’s authority is that which allows her “freedom or right to choose.â€Â[32] This, even as he points out, does not adequately address the fact that she does not, in fact, have the right to choose; Paul has already determined that she will wear a head covering. What, then, may this “authority†refer to? Witherington offers the possible interpretation that “since woman is the glory of man and her hair is her own glory, she must cover her head so that only God’s glory is reflected in Christian worship.â€Â[33]

So what do angels have to do with a woman having “authority over her head?†There has been much debate as to not only who these “angels†(ajggevlouV) were, but how they should influence whether or not a woman wore a head covering. Two problematic interpretations include the idea out of Genesis 6 that there are lustful angels, “sons of God,†who will be tempted by the sensuality of the women’s uncovered heads in worship. The other offers a different translation of ajggevlouV to refer to “messengers†from other churches (v. 16) who were visiting the church at Corinth and would have been offended by the women’s practice of worshipping without head coverings.[34]

The problem with both interpretations follow the same line of reasoning. In the latter instance, Paul nowhere else uses the term “angels†to refer to messengers in this sense. We would therefore be reading into the text something which Paul likely did not mean. The former instance fails to recognize that the interpretation of “sons of God†meaning fallen angels is troublesome on its own merits. Even if they were fallen angels (lustful), what would the rationale be for wearing the head coverings? Would hiding her hair from the lustful angel be enough to subdue him?

Fee observes that this argument is dependent upon a translation not of “covering†but rather “veiling,†for which there is scant evidence of such a practice in ancient literature.[35] A third interpretation might get us closer to the answer. Elsewhere in the Bible we find instances of the angelic presence in worship, or at least their active observance of us (cf. Psalm 138:1; Hebrews 12:22; 1 Cor. 4:9). If in fact Paul views the angels as observing the worshippers, it would seem that his argument calling for orderliness in this sense – men and women observing specific gender roles in worship – is made even stronger. The angels who are observing the worshipping church are representative of the host of heaven, including God Himself, who are present in the worship setting and therefore must be honored.

The fact that this verse begins with “for this reason†alerts us to the fact that the authority is necessitated both by that which follows and that which is preceded. Verses 8 and 9 stress that woman is from man while verses 11 and 12 stress that now, “in the Lord,†man is from woman. (11) Nevertheless, neither is woman apart from man, nor is man apart from woman, and (12) For just as woman is from man, in the same way man comes from woman. But all things are from God.

Whatever importance previously derived form the fact that one comes from the other, this is cancelled out by the fact that neither man nor woman is “apart†or independent of the other. Therefore, it seems right that the context of the passage, praying and prophesying, allows us to see that the woman’s “right†or “authority†to pray or prophesy is by the authority which comes from God, not that which is derived from the man. The way in which she behaves while praying and prophesying (vv. 5,6) is tied to, as is the man’s, her femaleness as his is to his maleness, but her authority to do so comes from God himself (v. 12). Any reading which seeks to subject the woman to the man in worship, i.e. in praying and prophesying, must take into consideration the radical leveling Paul is calling for. The man and the woman are equal partners in worship. The only distinction which must be observed is that which honors God in His creative act: the maleness and femaleness which He has created.

(13) Judge these things among yourselves: Is it fitting or proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered? (14) Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace to him, (15) but if a woman wears long hair, it is her glory? Because long hair is given to her for a covering. Here we are brought back by Paul to his fundamental argument begun in verse 3 that “nature†has something to say about the uniqueness of male and female. Whether or not we agree that long hair is as “natural†for a woman as short hair is for a man, it is obvious that for most cultures (our own notwithstanding) long hair on a man has been seen as feminine while short hair on a woman as masculine. Paul’s argument continues, however, by saying that such long hair is not only the woman’s “glory,†but it has been “given†to her as a covering. Leon Morris notes that “nature is giving a hint at the need for a woman to have her head covered on appropriate occasions.â€Â[36] Keener is perhaps a bit more helpful than Morris when he states that Paul’s appeal to nature was a “standard Greco-Roman argument†by many of his day.[37] Perhaps we can see here, then, something more than a pronouncement for all time that long hair is the requirement for women and short hair for men. In the context of worship men and women should maintain their gender distinctions before God.

Finally, Paul closes his argument by reminding the Corinthians that he is requiring of them the same as he requires of the other “churches of God.†(16) If anyone is disposed to be argumentative, we have no other practice-- nor do the churches of God. He no doubt expects some to be “argumentative†about this and so he demonstrates that this is not a new teaching. As a precursor to chapter 12, Paul here calls upon the Corinthian church to accept its place in the larger Body of Christ. This has been a serious issue for the Corinthians and Paul reminds them of this.

What Paul has so successfully done, then, is to remind the Corinthian church, and therefore us as well, that when coming together for worship, women have the same authority as men, to pray and prophesy. They – and we – must not restrict women from being fully engaged in the life of the worshipping church. To do so ignores the fact that woman is from God (v. 12) and has been given authority to worship (vv. 5, 10). It is also vital that we accept our differences, which are most clearly seen in our gender. That we complement one another in the image of God (v. 7) is reason enough to honor Him by maintaining our gender distinctives, especially in our worship before Him. Our complementariness also shows us the equality of man and woman before God. Any actions which seek to subject woman to man in our congregations, which are not otherwise specifically commanded by Scripture must be dealt with in light of passages like these, which call for unity in the body as best displayed in the male/female dichotomy.

Written by Scott
The Greek obviously did not format and I'm not going to waste the time to transliterate it asld most likely be foreign to the reader anyway. If I didn't translate it within the text and it is not legible, you're just out of luck. Ask if you want clarification.

Footnotes
[1] The Perseus Digital Library (Medford, Mass: Tufts University, 2000 – [cited 21 March 2001]) available from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ - Josephus: War of the Jews 3,54.
[2] Perseus: Pausanius’ Description of Greece 4,21,12.
[3] Perseus: Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 7,109.
[4] Perseus: Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 7,318.
[5] The Loeb Classical Library: Philo, Vol. VIII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 389.
[6] Wayne Grudem, “Does Kefalhv (“Headâ€Â) Mean “Source†Or “Authority Over†In Greek Literature?: A Survey Of 2,336 Examples,†Trinity Journal 6:1 (Spring 1985): 55.
[7] Loeb Classical Library, Vol. IV, p. 489.
[8] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 489.
[9] Ibid., Vol. V, p. 537.
[10] Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 591.
[11] The Loeb Classical Library: Philo, Vol. VIII, p. 381.
[12] See Romans 12:20; I Corinthians 11:4, 5, 7, 10.
[13] For Christ as “head†see I Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:10, 19.
[14] A variant reading in the Vaticanus text uses ajrconta, “ruler.â€Â
[15] Grudem, 56.
[16] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: New International Commentary on the New Testament 1st Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 506.
[17] Fee, 507.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1992), 20.
[20] Some interpreters prefer “sign of authority,†but usually do so in order to show this as symbolic of the male’s authority.
[21] Keener, 24.
[22] Keener, 25.
[23] Keener, 30.
[24] Fee notes that the re-founding of Corinth by freedmen from Rome, those whose status was just above slave, would have led to an “aristocracy of money†and its attendant status seeking. p. 2.
[25] Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 30,31.
[26] Witherington, p. 233.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid., 235.
[29] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 123 fn 30.
[30] Bruce, 123.
[31] Fee, 517.
[32] Fee, 520.
[33] Witherington, 237.
[34] Manfred T. Brauch, et al. Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 605.
[35] Fee, 521.
[36] Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: Tyndale New Testament Commentary. (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 154.
[37] Keener, 42.[/quote]

 

[von]

tzalam2- I tned to agree with you. Paul did say that it is not a custom of the church, I know women who where the covering and women who don't either way, whatever their conviction is is fine with me. At the same time, speaking of women with haircuts like mens, the men are not to have oing hair either. Although some men have beautiful hair it does nothing for me in a Christian sense to see a man with hair hanging down his back. Just a personal thing I guess.

 

[von]

tzalam2- I tend to agree with you. Paul did say that it is not a custom of the church, I know women who where the covering and women who don't either way, whatever their conviction is is fine with me. At the same time, speaking of women with haircuts like mens, the men are not to have oing hair either. Although some men have beautiful hair it does nothing for me in a Christian sense to see a man with hair hanging down his back. Just a personal thing I guess.

 

[confident_in_Christ]

Isaiah 40:8 == The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.

Hebrews 13:8 == Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

The Word of the Lord does not change. It's not a cultural thing, and it's not just for the Corinthian church, and it's not a sign of sexism. It should be pointed out though, that Paul uses two different Greek words for the word "covering." The tense in which the first is used also makes a difference. It goes to show that women have one natural covering, and should have an additional covering as well. As far as when to wear it, I wear mine all the time (except when sleeping or showering) because Paul did indeed say to "pray continually."

It certainly does not feel as though I'm a second-class citizen to men just by wearing a covering. It makes me feel satisfied that I know that what I am doing is of the Lord. There's nothing wrong with that.