Should women wear headcoverings in church?

[n2thelight]

What I have not seen asked is the why,will open up a can of worms if I commented on the answer,so I will just let the scripture speak for itself....

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

Why because of the angels....And just to say,the covering has nothing to do with hair or a hat

 

[Asyncritus]

So, what is the Spirit telling us about the head coverings? That if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut, that she should wear one. You seem to be ignoring the word "if" in that text, as if it is unimportant to the what the Spirit is teaching us here. Why was it a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut in that culture?

Here's the passage:

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 think that is perfectly clear. NOT wearing the headcovering is dishonouring her head. Who is her head? The man. Who is his head? Jesus. Who is Jesus' head? God.

So as simple a thing as this appears to be, he is saying that NOT wearing a head covering ultimately is to be regarded as dishonouring whole chain, ending with God. That's serious, in my view.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:

OK he says. If you don't want to wear a headcovering, shave your head.

but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

The IF there, assumes that it IS a shame for a woman to have her head shaved.

It certainly is a shame and a disgrace and worse, for a man to have his head shaved in the OT, and the priests are expressly prohibited from doing so:

Lev 21.5 They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
6 They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.

Just look at the seriousness with which God views male priests shaving their heads! It is viewed as profaning the name of God.

So we aren't discussing a mere fashion statement here. This is something far more serious.

It was an idolatrous practice that is being denounced : and you may recall that Esau was a profane person (Heb 12). He was an idolater and is 'hated' by God, as Malachi says.

Here's Jeremiah:

29 ¶ Cut off thine hair, O Jerusalem, [remember, Jerusalem is the daughter of Zion] and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on high places; for the LORD hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his wrath.
30 For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it.
31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

They are being commanded to cut off their hair because of their idolatry.

It follows, therefore, that for a woman to be shaved is a very serious thing, which thing ought not to be done.

Here's Isaiah describing what would happen to the wicked women:

3.24 Instead of perfume there will be rottenness;
and instead of a belt, a rope;
and instead of well-set hair, baldness;
and instead of a rich robe, a skirt of sackcloth;
and branding instead of beauty. ESV and others.

So shaving the head is bad news, and a disgrace.

Deut 21.11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house,

Here, it is involved in the ritual of changing from being a slave to being a wife.

Again not something recommended.

The sense of what Paul is saying, is quite simple and clear from all this.

Wear it!


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.

Priests of many of the major churches wear these.

Do you think Paul would have approved the practice?

Jesus certainly wouldn't: because in Rev 1.14: His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

If His hair was visible, then it had no covering: therefore Jesus did not wear a headcovering of any description.

So what are these 'priests' doing then?

​

 

[handy]

Perhaps it will help if you consider "AS IF" in verse 5 along with only the word "IF" in verse 6. It did me.

Here's the passage:

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 think that is perfectly clear. NOT wearing the headcovering is dishonouring her head. Who is her head? The man. Who is his head? Jesus. Who is Jesus' head? God.

So as simple a thing as this appears to be, he is saying that NOT wearing a head covering ultimately is to be regarded as dishonouring whole chain, ending with God. That's serious, in my view.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:

OK he says. If you don't want to wear a headcovering, shave your head.

but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

The IF there, assumes that it IS a shame for a woman to have her head shaved.

It's always a bit dangerous to assume things about Scripture. Certainly we cannot base doctrine, especially doctrine that binds others into things they have no conviction about upon assumptions. I disagree that the "if" assumes that it is a shame for all women, in all cultures for all time to have her head shaved...Remember, Paul is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You would have to believe that the Holy Spirit would be totally unaware that in many cultures throughout the world back then, not to mention our modern times, that there is no shame whatsoever for a woman to have her hair shorn. The gist of the passage is certainly about a woman showing proper respect to her husband, her head. In that society, for a woman to be shorn or shaven, brought great disrespect to her husband as well as for herself.

The greater context of this passage is that women are to show their husbands the proper respect and recognize that "chain" does indeed lead to God...in this we are in agreement. But, I do disagree about the "assumption" that all women everywhere are shamed by having short hair.

What I have not seen asked is the why,will open up a can of worms if I commented on the answer,so I will just let the scripture speak for itself....

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

Why because of the angels....And just to say,the covering has nothing to do with hair or a hat

Now this was a section of Scripture that my mom and I truly delved into, because it really is a mysterious statement. One thing that we learned was that many scholars believe that this is in reference to fallen angels, angels that did not respect God and submit to Him and women who show proper respect and submission to their husbands stand as a rebuke and an example to them. Others believe that this is in reference, not to fallen angels but to those angels who still serve God. Through our studies on this issue, mom and I determined that it really didn't matter if Paul was speaking specifically about fallen angels or not, (but we determined he probably wasn't speaking of fallen angels.) All angels, fallen or not, were created to be God's servants and messengers...His "helpmeets" (although He doesn't need help, He obviously desired to create angels as helpers to Him). As we women are our huband's helpmeets, the man being created in God's image, how we women submit ourselves to our husband is an example to the angels, and how the angels submit to God is an example to us.

But, again, this is far more than just a hat or veil...the key is the submission and respect shown...in whatever way it is shown. In our day and age, wearing a head covering isn't all that normal...but that doesn't let us women "off the hook" for being respectful and submissive.

 

[Asyncritus]

Just to set the record straight:

The word for 'shaven' does not mean 'cut short'. It means removing the hair altogether. 'Shaven' is an excellent translation.

Here are the 2 other places where the word is used in the NT:

Ac 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer <2751>, so opened he not his mouth:

A sheep's fleece is not cut short: it's removed altogether.

Ac 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn <2751> his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

This reads like the Nazirite vow, where the head of the candidate had to be shaved too.

1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her <2751> also be shorn <2751>: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn <2751> or shaven, let her be covered.

There is no doubt as to what he means.

 

[handy]

According to Strong's, the definition of keiro 2751 is

1) to sheer: a sheep
2) to get or let be shorn
3) of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head


You may be thinking of xyrao 3587 which means shaved or sheared completely off.


Backing up to verses 4 and 5 we see the word dishonor, kataischyno, Strong's 2617, which is defined:

1) to dishonour, disgrace
2) to put to shame, make ashamed
a) to be ashamed, blush with shame
b) one is said to be put to shame who suffers a repulse, or whom some hope has deceived


Where in our society is there any "putting to shame" or making one be ashamed by the shaving or cutting of hair? Many women cut their hair quite short and a number of celebrity women have had their heads shaved for fashion or for roles they are playing. However, there is certainly no dragging adulterous women off to have their heads shaved as a public shaming or the only women who walk around without head coverings being prostitutes in our society.



There is just no getting around the fact that the issue of the cut hair being a disgrace was a cultural thing. The greater issue that women are to be submissive to their husbands is the spiritual truth that transcends time and culture.

 

[Asyncritus]

By that....we also have to follow that women are not allowed to speak in church among other things.

The correct way to say this is that they are not to deliver sermons and lead services.

No. The Bible was written from a cultural perspective. We are to follow the law of the land as it says.

What nonsense.

There are MANY parts of the bible that were written specifically from a cultural view.

Since you seem to ignore culture influences in the Bible...how often do you wash a house guests feet?

Like what?

 

[Asyncritus]

According to Strong's, the definition of keiro 2751 is

1) to sheer: a sheep
2) to get or let be shorn
3) of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head

I think you're splitting hairs.

When a sheep is shorn, how much fleece is left? None, really.

So as a sheep before her shearers is dumb is saying just that. Same Gk word in 1 Cor 11.

You may be thinking of xyrao 3587 which means shaved or sheared completely off.

Backing up to verses 4 and 5 we see the word dishonor, kataischyno, Strong's 2617, which is defined:

1) to dishonour, disgrace
2) to put to shame, make ashamed
a) to be ashamed, blush with shame
b) one is said to be put to shame who suffers a repulse, or whom some hope has deceived

Just as I said, but in this case there is a strong undertone of idolatry as in the OT references I quoted.

Where in our society is there any "putting to shame" or making one be ashamed by the shaving or cutting of hair? Many women cut their hair quite short and a number of celebrity women have had their heads shaved for fashion or for roles they are playing. However, there is certainly no dragging adulterous women off to have their heads shaved as a public shaming or the only women who walk around without head coverings being prostitutes in our society.

Handy, it doesn't matter in the slightest if these things are done in society or not.

The church is it's own little world within the world as a whole.

It's rules are not society's rules, neither are society's rules the church's rules.

And we have before us what is a distinct, clear rule OF THE CHURCH, which is not capable of being misconstrued.

I don't know how to say it any clearer than that.

Maybe this verse is relevant:

Ac 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

 

[handy]

The correct way to say this is that they are not to deliver sermons and lead services.

Now, I find this interesting Asyncritus. Paul did not say that women are not to deliver sermons and lead services, what he said was, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says."

Why the insistence that women are to wear head coverings...but yet allow for a more liberal interpretation on the command for women to keep silent, softening it to just not preaching or leading services?

 

[theLords]

Handy, it doesn't matter in the slightest if these things are done in society or not.

The church is it's own little world within the world as a whole.

It's rules are not society's rules, neither are society's rules the church's rules.

And we have before us what is a distinct, clear rule OF THE CHURCH, which is not capable of being misconstrued.

I don't know how to say it any clearer than that.

Maybe this verse is relevant:

Ac 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

So, Handy, when was the last time you disobeyed God and refused to submit to your husband's authority? Our culture is so adamant about female freedom, surely you've heard of feminism, when was the last time you got to led the household? Was it before or after you openly stated your decision to submit to your husband as per God's ruling on the matter? ;)

 

[Asyncritus]

Now, I find this interesting Asyncritus. Paul did not say that women are not to deliver sermons and lead services, what he said was, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says."

Why the insistence that women are to wear head coverings...but yet allow for a more liberal interpretation on the command for women to keep silent, softening it to just not preaching or leading services?

I didn't really think it was a liberal point of vew, as all the women priests and supporters of whatever principle they think I am infringing here are shortly going to jump on me and say.

TO SPEAK means, in my view, to give the addresses/ sermons, and lead the services. It may mean other things but I don't know what.

 

[handy]

Handy, it doesn't matter in the slightest if these things are done in society or not.

The church is it's own little world within the world as a whole.

It's rules are not society's rules, neither are society's rules the church's rules.

OK then...where in the church are women being shaved or shorn as a shame for disgracing her husband?

It isn't a practice of the church at all and would be counter to the church's teachings on forgiveness and mercy.

TO SPEAK means, in my view, to give the addresses/ sermons, and lead the services. It may mean other things but I don't know what.

I'm truly not sure how you are getting that out of "silence" and "not permitted to speak." The word Paul used for "speak" is laleo meaning, again according to Strong's:
1) to utter a voice or emit a sound
2) to speak
a) to use the tongue or the faculty of speech
b) to utter articulate sounds
3) to talk
4) to utter, tell
5) to use words in order to declare one's mind and disclose one's thoughts
a) to speak



Of less importance....

When a sheep is shorn, how much fleece is left? None, really.

Not true at all...as a matter of fact a sheep can be shorn and still have adequate fleece to keep warm. I learned this when I moved to Idaho and saw a field of freshly shorned sheep in early spring when the temps were still dipping below freezing and there were plenty of snowy days. I was ready to call the ASPCA, but my brother-in-law who also kept sheep explained to me that the shearers can determine how much fleece to take, but usually try not to take down to the skin, as it can be too cold in early Spring or lead to sunburn and infections if later. Really isn't germane to the discussion at hand, but just a factoid.

 

[handy]

So, Handy, when was the last time you disobeyed God and refused to submit to your husband's authority? Our culture is so adamant about female freedom, surely you've heard of feminism, when was the last time you got to led the household? Was it before or after you openly stated your decision to submit to your husband as per God's ruling on the matter? ;)

Umm...well...Steve and I might have differing opinions about that.

Seriously though, I find that this is an area in which, not surprising, people swing from one extreme to the other...either the woman is to be like the Muslim women and live as if it were 2000 years ago, never speaking and never going without her head covered...or swing to the opposite end and say "Submit? Me, un-un, no way, ain't gonna happen.

 

[theLords]

Umm...well...Steve and I might have differing opinions about that.

Seriously though, I find that this is an area in which, not surprising, people swing from one extreme to the other...either the woman is to be like the Muslim women and live as if it were 2000 years ago, never speaking and never going without her head covered...or swing to the opposite end and say "Submit? Me, un-un, no way, ain't gonna happen.

Oh, that's too bad, because I've kind of been looking for an excuse to shave my head.

 

[Asyncritus]

You are very wrong. Paul took the time to instruct the church in the matter of meats that local pagan temples sold after they had been sacrificed to the false gods worshiped in those temples. We do have to care what the world does and whether we will participate in those things, and how, out of consideration for both the health of the body and our witness to the world.

I don't really know what you're saying here.

You've got this backwards. This is not about how the church is going to handle the ordinances of God in a fitting and proper way. This is about how the church is going to handle the prevailing traditions of the world in a way that is fitting and proper.

The answer to this point is very simple, JB. Here it is:

Ro 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

In other words, hang what the world thinks. It's the will of God that matters.

If you think the church never has to consider the cultural values of the world it dwells in you may want to consider how the church has had to deal with things like contemporary music, and tattoos in recent years. These are not Biblical issues, yet we have no choice but to consider how we are going to handle them in light of what are Biblical truths and absolutes.

I don't deny that there have been serious problems.

But the church's answer has got to be: What is the will of God in this matter? Does scripture condemn or support such things? Whatever it does, that's the right way to go.

Me: "That is a first century cultural belief, not a spiritual absolute."

Paul is not teaching and defending a law of head dresses. He is passing rabbinical judgment on a non-law issue using known and established spiritual truth to make that decision.

Rabbinical judgment? Paul was not a rabbi: he was an apostle of the Lord Christ.

I hope you've had a good look at those passages I quoted as to just how seriously God looks on this particular matter.

He was condemning idolatrous practices with regard to beard cutting and head shaving:

Le 21:5 They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.

De 14:1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

Notice in the Deut. 14 quote, the insistence on the fact that they are not to do this because they are the children of the LORD their God.

It is NOT a simple fashion statement that we are discussing here, and you need to recognise that fact.

Now in Paul's day, there was just as much idolatry as in Moses' day, and God hated it as much in Paul's day as He did in Moses' day.

Idolatry is in the frame here, and make no mistake about it.

Why do I say so? Because of the immediate context of those words in ch 11:

1 Cor 10.19 What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils [= idols], and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with devils [=idols].

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils [=idols]: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils [=idols].

It's all of a piece, and we need to be careful with it.

He did mean exactly what he said. But what he said only applies where head dressings are even worn that the matter of what they signify even has to be addressed.

See above regarding the significance of this matter.

It depends on what a man with his head covered means to the people seeking to answer that question. If it represents (since there is no law about it) something sinful and forbidden by God then the church ought not to allow it. As far as I know a man with his head covered means nothing in our modern culture that we would have to make a judgment that men ought not to do that.

We are not concerned with what society does and says.

The church is under different governance, and belongs to the kingdom of God, not the kingdoms of men.

I'd have to check, but I think they are mimicking the OT priests' garb.

Check and be certain that they are not. They are perpetrating a travesty of the truth.

Well, for starters I'm not a priest. And I just don't wear anything on my head. Not because Paul said not to, but culturally, like most men, I just don't. And even if I did, in our culture it would not be to represent some aspect of spiritual truth, for or against. So we have no need for an official judgment regarding that.

We do, because the Jews, the moslems, the anglicans and I don't know (or care) who else, wear skull caps and these appalling fancy head dresses. Look up wikipedia and see for yourself.

Then answer the question: Would Paul approve of this nonsense?

They should have only 1 wife,

Why? Because you say so?

not just because Jesus and Paul said so, but because there is an already binding spiritual truth that is indeed violated in having multiple wives in any culture no matter what that culture thinks about it--that principle being the Biblical truth of 'one man, one wife'. It's impossible to have more than one wife and think it does not violate the truth that God established in the beginning of 'one man, one wife'.

Tell Abraham, David and Solomon that.

What you don't understand is that head coverings is not an expression of submission established by God.

Who is it established by then? And what is it doing in scripture?

That expression of submission is a cultural tradition of man.

Didn't God say that Eve's desire would be to her husband, and that he would rule over her?

And since that is what some cultures (not God) have decided head coverings mean Paul says the church should respect the practice for the sake of that which really is truth--the godly submission of the woman.

Where does he say that?

 

[handy]

I know that Jethro will answer, but I've some thoughts on this as well....

Idolatry is in the frame here, and make no mistake about it.

Why do I say so? Because of the immediate context of those words in ch 11:

1 Cor 10.19 What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils [= idols], and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with devils [=idols].

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils [=idols]: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils [=idols].

It's all of a piece, and we need to be careful with it.

I believe that this indeed is why Paul is cautioning the Corinthian women to cover their heads, because they were in a culture steeped in idol worship and to go about with their heads uncovered would associate them with idolatrous practices.

It's important though to consider everything that Paul wrote to the Corinthians regarding idols.

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

We know there are no other gods...that the idols people worship are nothing more nor less than demonic lies. However, in that culture, people believed that they truly were other gods and any Christian partaking in the meats sacrificed to them were putting their witness for Christ on the line.

In our culture, there aren't all that many who worship stone idols. That's not to say that the demons still don't lead others into worshiping idols, but the idols of our time tend to be self, human philosophies or movements such as feminism. There aren't many who sacrifice animals to false god's and women who go about with short or even shorn hair aren't immediately recognized as temple prostitutes or disgraceful women.

Probably one of the most influential "false gods" (read demonic lies) that abound today is Islam. For our world today, the head covering is actually more apt to associate a woman with that particular idol worship as most women in the world who wear head coverings are Muslim women. Given the horrible oppression that Muslim women face (and in our modern world, the head covering is a symbol of that oppression) a Christian woman's bare head is far more a testimony of the freedom, mercy and grace of Jesus Christ.

On the opposite end of the idols of today is feminism...and feminists more than anyone are going to view head coverings as a symbol of the suppression and oppression of women. Being a Christian woman living and working in this world and one who once had a Mennonite woman as a close friend, I can testify what a stumbling block head coverings are to feminists. Since the Gospel is a Gospel of freedom, it hinders our witness to feminists if we wear them.

God calls the Christian woman to be submissive to her husband, something that has been twisted into oppression by the followers of "Allah" and something that is an offense to feminists. We Christians are called upon to give a proper witness to what God desires for men and women...the following of equal but differing roles between husbands and wives, with no oppression but mutual respect. Back in the day that Paul was addressing this subject, the head covering helped portray the truths of women's freedom within her godly role. Today, in America, it is an stumbling block.

 

[Webb]

Asyncritus:

My pc has been in repair for several days. I fully intended to get involved again in this thread but your work here has been excellent and in my understanding of the scriptures very accurate. I see no need to add to it. The same applies to the thread: "do I have to be baptized?"

 

[reba]

Mar 6:9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

This verse plainly says to wear sandals. Who here wears boots, shoes, socks?


Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

 

[Brokenhearted]

The bible says Women should wear a yamulke to signify their girliness, but I think the practical purpose is to hide their luscious, sexy hair from lusting eyes. Even a woman's hair can be so sensuous and erotic to vigorous, hearty men.

 

[felix]

Sometimes.. it's easier to ask differently to understand better.

• Should men strictly not wear any headcoverings in church?
• Will any men in this forum wear a head covering while praying?

I would think twice because I pray to God.

 

[Webb]

I would NOT wear a head covering in church. I would NOT wear a head covering when praying.