Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study should women wear head covering and men wear beards ? proof?

One aspect of this debate that seems clear enough to me and probably most others here is that Paul is referencing a cultural custom (the wearing of head-coverings) to define an eternal principle (that women are to be submissive to their husbands).
Agreed.
The real meaning of modesty in the Bible is simply not calling attention to oneself by the way one dresses.
Yes. This is evident in, 1 Tim. 2:9
The thing is hats were standard wear for everybody up to a few decades ago. It wasn't until the mid-60's to early 70's that people stopped putting a hat on before going outside. We have Steve's grandfather's old fedora which he never stepped outside without wearing in our closet
I will have to disagree with this. It must depend on the culture of where one lived. I vividly remember the 50s, 60s....
growing up in, Haddam, CT.
 
I do find it amazing that this is such an issue in churches today. This is how I see it, I'm sure there are those who will disagree. As I see it this is only an issue of defiance. The government tells us that if we want to go out in public we have to wear clothes. I see no women marching against the wearing of clothes. If we want to attend Sunday service we have to wear clothes. Church leaders aren't going to let people into the sanctuary without clothing. Again, I see no women marching to the pastor's office or challenging the elders for making them wear clothes. Why is that? I believe for the most part woman want to wear clothes. They don't want to be oogled and don't want themselves exposed. Yet when a church leader says you have to wear a head covering many balk. Who are you to tell me that I have to wear a cover on my head? They don't balk when told to wear clothes (they want to) however, they do balk when told to wear a head cover (they don't want to). I see no reason in the world why a woman wouldn't wear a head cover. I wouldn't dream of going into the service with my hat on. I wear a baseball cap often. I am partially bald and find it very uncomfortable, sitting in a pew wondering if the person behind me is staring at my bald head. I would much prefer to have that hat on. However, I wouldn't even think of putting it on in the service or church for that matter. I am not quite sure in what circumstance Paul requires the men to be uncovered, whether just in prayer and prophesying or during the entire time the had come together. However, I err on the side of caution and won't wear a hat at all in the church building that way I know I've not done it incorrectly. I don't see this as an issue with men at all, they all remove their cover, yet for some reason some women balk at this idea. The only reason I can see is defiance.
 
Butch5,
You are correct in being leery of these various explanations as to why Paul wrote whatever he wrote. Since all conservative Christians believe that 1 Corinthians is the Divinely inspired Word of God, all we must do is focus on God's words to the churches God, regardless of what was happening (or not happening) outside in the Gentile world. BTW temple prostitution exists to this day in India. So what? Looks like we need a verse by verse and word by word study of the passage in question (which will probably be disregarded by the nay-sayers).

I don't think we should divorce what Paul was saying from the culture in which he was saying it though... This Christian who most certainly does believe that 1 Corinthians is Divinely inspired and applicable to today (as does most of the folks who are debating this topic do) certainly disagrees that we should ignore what's happening in the world either, because it is this very world to which we carry the gospel.

As for a verse by verse study... one verse of interest here is this one: 1 Corinthians 11:6: For if it be a shame for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, then she should have her head covered.

That's an interesting statement to throw in here. Obviously, in Corinth, it was most definitely a disgrace for women to have their hair cut. Doesn't matter why, and I'm not referring to the debate on temple prostitutes or whatever... suffice it to say it's quite clear that in Corinth is was certainly a disgrace.
Not so much here in Idaho. As a matter of fact, if one is older than 30, it's pretty much standard for women to have shorter hair. In point of fact, women who wear long hair that are my age are ... noticeable and usually judged to be ageing hippy types.
 
Butch5,
You are correct in being leery of these various explanations as to why Paul wrote whatever he wrote. Since all conservative Christians believe that 1 Corinthians is the Divinely inspired Word of God, all we must do is focus on God's words to the churches God, regardless of what was happening (or not happening) outside in the Gentile world. BTW temple prostitution exists to this day in India. So what? Looks like we need a verse by verse and word by word study of the passage in question (which will probably be disregarded by the nay-sayers).

I agree, it's just not popular in America.
 
In Scripture, context is everything. When you examine the context of this passage, you will note that these instructions were given very specifically, to a very specific group, during a very specific period in the earthly ministry of Christ. They have no bearing on the Church today, and pulling Scriptures out of context does violence to Scripture.

1. The instructions were specifically to the 12 apostles.
2. The apostles were sent only to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 10:5,6).
3. The apostles were sent to all the towns and cities of Galilee (by implication, since the Samaritans and the Gentiles were excluded at this time, and the Lord was in Galilee).
no surprise here...

And 1Cor11 is a letter to who?
 
I was trying to figure out what you were referring to.
lol, we are both lost.
If that is the case I think it takes the culture argument out of the picture as the culture in Corinth was no doubt different than that of Carthage North Africa or Gaul or Rome, etc.
The culture in North Africa was turbans, not burkas like in the middle east. Would we say that the women in North Africa were not showing submission to their husbands by not wearing a burka.
I'd much prefer the words of someone who was there or at least close in time.
Seeing Tertullian was the only one who wrote on it, besides Paul, that you or I know of, it appears that it wasn't considered to be an issue. No one appears to be telling North African women that they need to wear a burka, except Tertullian. Is he saying that they were taught to wear burkas but they were being rebellious, he doesn't appear to be saying that?
 
I don't think we should divorce what Paul was saying from the culture in which he was saying it though... This Christian who most certainly does believe that 1 Corinthians is Divinely inspired and applicable to today (as does most of the folks who are debating this topic do) certainly disagrees that we should ignore what's happening in the world either, because it is this very world to which we carry the gospel.

As for a verse by verse study... one verse of interest here is this one: 1 Corinthians 11:6: For if it be a shame for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, then she should have her head covered.

That's an interesting statement to throw in here. Obviously, in Corinth, it was most definitely a disgrace for women to have their hair cut. Doesn't matter why, and I'm not referring to the debate on temple prostitutes or whatever... suffice it to say it's quite clear that in Corinth is was certainly a disgrace.
Not so much here in Idaho. As a matter of fact, if one is older than 30, it's pretty much standard for women to have shorter hair. In point of fact, women who wear long hair that are my age are ... noticeable and usually judged to be ageing hippy types.

But, Paul makes no appeal to culture. His appeal is to the created order and he himself states why a woman should cover her head, it's because of the angels, not the culture.
 
I agree, it's just not popular in America.
It's even less popular in post-Christian European nations... pretty much wherever the society is secular rather than religious.
In cultures that are religious and those religions observe the wearing of hair coverings, not just women, but men as well.... it's not really an issue.
Basically, the Church needs to respond with the Gospel to the society in which we are place... sort of bloom where we are planted. In Paul's day, society was overwhelmingly religious... not Christian of course, but believers in the spiritual and the divine.
In the West of today... not so much. Instead of bringing to light which God is the true God among the many gods that were believed in, and bringing the message of liberty to those in bondage, our task today starts with the fact that most are writing off the spiritual from the get-go and views the Church as an oppressor, not a liberator.
 
lol, we are both lost.

Seems so.

The culture in North Africa was turbans, not burkas like in the middle east. Would we say that the women in North Africa were not showing submission to their husbands by not wearing a burka.

I'm not arguing what the head covering should be. The point is that it was worn everywhere even if it was different in different locations.

Seeing Tertullian was the only one who wrote on it, besides Paul, that you or I know of, it appears that it wasn't considered to be an issue. No one appears to be telling North African women that they need to wear a burka, except Tertullian. Is he saying that they were taught to wear burkas but they were being rebellious, he doesn't appear to be saying that?

No one writes on it because it wasn't an issue, as Paul said all the churches did it. The only reason Tertullian wrote on it was to address the question of virgins. There wasn't any question whether or not married woman should wear a head covering, Paul settled that. What they weren't sure about was those who were unmarried. They were addressing the age between being a child and a woman. Should this virgin wear a covering or not? His conclusion was to look to the Corinthian church to whom Paul sent the letter and see how they understood Paul. Then he says the Corinthians veiled their virgins.
 
But, Paul makes no appeal to culture. His appeal is to the created order and he himself states why a woman should cover her head, it's because of the angels, not the culture.
I honestly believe he does both, Butch. Paul is addressing the issue of whether the Corinth women were at liberty to not have the head uncovered during prayer and worship and his appeal is that the head covering symbolizes an important spiritual truth: That just as man is the head of his wife, Christ is the Head of His Bride, the Church. Wifely submission is key to understanding the relationship here and ... here is where the appeal is to the culture..... in 1st century Corinth, a head-covering symbolized the submission of women. It was a disgrace for a woman to be seen without one.
Again, I think of verse 6: If it be a disgrace.
In Corinth, it was... In the West of today, it is not.
 
It's even less popular in post-Christian European nations... pretty much wherever the society is secular rather than religious.
In cultures that are religious and those religions observe the wearing of hair coverings, not just women, but men as well.... it's not really an issue.
Basically, the Church needs to respond with the Gospel to the society in which we are place... sort of bloom where we are planted. In Paul's day, society was overwhelmingly religious... not Christian of course, but believers in the spiritual and the divine.
In the West of today... not so much. Instead of bringing to light which God is the true God among the many gods that were believed in, and bringing the message of liberty to those in bondage, our task today starts with the fact that most are writing off the spiritual from the get-go and views the Church as an oppressor, not a liberator.

The church being seen as an oppressor is the reason people are becoming anti Christian. A lot of it is because of the doctrines it teaches. I believe a lot of it is also because of Christian activism in government, but that is another thread. However, we can't just say for obedience because we have to reach the culture. The Jews made proselytes from the surrounding culture but the Jewish men didn't stop wearing their prayer veils just to reach the culture. I think obedience is more important, God can save anyone He wants to save with or without our help.
 
I honestly believe he does both, Butch. Paul is addressing the issue of whether the Corinth women were at liberty to not have the head uncovered during prayer and worship and his appeal is that the head covering symbolizes an important spiritual truth: That just as man is the head of his wife, Christ is the Head of His Bride, the Church. Wifely submission is key to understanding the relationship here and ... here is where the appeal is to the culture..... in 1st century Corinth, a head-covering symbolized the submission of women. It was a disgrace for a woman to be seen without one.
Again, I think of verse 6: If it be a disgrace.
In Corinth, it was... In the West of today, it is not.

Where does Paul say the covering symbolizes anything? I see He said, "because of the angels". You said, "in 1st century Corinth, a head-covering symbolized the submission of women." Can you site any primary sources?
 
Last edited:
The church being seen as an oppressor is the reason people are becoming anti Christian. A lot of it is because of the doctrines it teaches. I believe a lot of it is also because of Christian activism in government, but that is another thread. However, we can't just say for obedience because we have to reach the culture. The Jews made proselytes from the surrounding culture but the Jewish men didn't stop wearing their prayer veils just to reach the culture. I think obedience is more important, God can save anyone He wants to save with or without our help.

Well, you and I are in much agreement on this, Butch!
But, as a woman who reaches out to other women with the gospel, I can assure you that head coverings and wifely submission are huge stumbling blocks. Now, I have studied the issue of head coverings from all kinds of angles for well nigh 40 years now.... and believe them to be a non-essential. Wifely submission on the other hand, very essential. It seems pretty clear to me (and not just me of course, most of the Western church no longer uses head coverings) that the head covering was a cultural symbol of the essential principle that must not be ignored, that of wifely submission. Throw into the mix that head coverings actually can cause a woman to violate the command to be modest, it seems best, in our culture, to let them go.
 
There's a lot more here than Greek and Jewish customs. Paul goes all the way back to creation, and the relation between Adam and Eve (vv. 8-11). This passage is about Headship. Everything flows from the fact that God the Father is the Head of God the Son (even though they are co-equal) (v. 3), and thus there is a chain of authority which began with Adam.
So how would wearing a burka in the US culture, witness that we are Christian women showing the headship of our husbands?
In this country and this culture, that would say to the world that we are Muslim or Orthodox Jewish. How does that witness for Christ or show headship of the Christian husband?
I asked you to name anywhere in this country, or any other western culture, where Christian women wear burkas?
Did I miss your post?
 
Where does Paul say the covering symbolizes anything? I see He said, "because of the angels". You said, "in 1st century Corinth, a head-covering symbolized the submission of women." I Can you site any primary sources?
Do you assume that this word 'angelos' is talking about angelic messangers? If so, why?
 
Well, you and I are in much agreement on this, Butch!
But, as a woman who reaches out to other women with the gospel, I can assure you that head coverings and wifely submission are huge stumbling blocks. Now, I have studied the issue of head coverings from all kinds of angles for well nigh 40 years now.... and believe them to be a non-essential. Wifely submission on the other hand, very essential. It seems pretty clear to me (and not just me of course, most of the Western church no longer uses head coverings) that the head covering was a cultural symbol of the essential principle that must not be ignored, that of wifely submission. Throw into the mix that head coverings actually can cause a woman to violate the command to be modest, it seems best, in our culture, to let them go.

I have to disagree here. Woman have worn the covering down through time. As I said, I see no appeal to culture anywhere in Paul's instructions. I agree that wifely submission is stumbling block in the US. However, to me it's not different than the seeker churches who use AC/DC to reach people and bring them into their churches. Whatever you lead them with is what you have to keep them with. If we tell people we don't have to observe this or that we start down that slippery slope.
 
Do you assume that this word 'angelos' is talking about angelic messangers? If so, why?

Yes, I do. He doesn't specify any particular human messengers to that church. When he says, the angels, the definite article indicates specific messengers.
 
Butch, for the sake of argument, lets assume for the moment the covering is definitely biblical, no doubt at all. If that is the case would it be considered a damnable sin not to adhere to the rule?
 
I don't shave but once a week or when im in uniform. the florida correction system forces inmates to shave unless for health issues or religious reasons. frankly its a personal choice, not a command.
 
Where does Paul say the covering symbolizes anything? I see He said, "because of the angels". You said, "in 1st century Corinth, a head-covering symbolized the submission of women." Can you site any primary sources?

I think we would both agree that the best primary source to consider would be the scripture itself. :yes

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

Verse 10 is where we get to the crux of the head covering being symbolic... mainly because it is impossible for a mere head covering to in and of itself, exercise authority and power. It can't... it is just a piece of cloth. The same word could be used for a crown that symbolized the king's authority. A crown is a hunk of metal, but it was also a symbol of the authority of the king.

Unless we are to believe that there is something spiritual in the cloth itself that imparts authority over a woman, we must conclude that the covering is symbolic.
 
Back
Top