You probably don't need to cover your head based on 1 Corinthians

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe as Christians we've all came across the topic of head covering especially in light of
1 Corinthians 11:13-15. However, I want to bring to light another interpretation of those verses based on scholarship. This is mainly based on a podcast episode by Dr. Michael Heiser here (Naked Bible 86: The Head Covering of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15).

If you don't have time to listen I'll summarize so that we can have a discussion. When Paul implied that it is improper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered it's because Paul had a common view at the time that the hair on a female's head was part of her genitalia. This view is based on the medical understanding of his day. It would be improper for woman to display her genitalia (this case hair) when praying to God in the same way a lot of us don't pray to God when naked.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you. I look forward to your responses :)

EDIT: I've posted two of the articles that speak to that claim (it being genitalia)

Paul’s argument from nature for the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.13-15: A ball instead of a Head Covering

This reference can be very "academic" so I'll post a summary of the main ideas in a next post.

Note: The reasoning for this view is because of the medical knowledge of the time and can be seen in various medical texts from example, Aristotle, Euripedes and
Hippocrates.
 
Last edited:

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If this understanding is correct it really illustrates the point that the Bible wasn't written to us but rather for us. Which means when Paul or any other Biblical writer wrote they were writing to an audience that would seem alien to us.

It seems obvious to me that if this was the medical consensus of the time (a female's hair being part of her genitalia) then it's very plausible that Paul also had this view in mind when he wrote to the church in Corinth.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think you took it too far going into the genitalia scope.

I am sorry, I probably made it sound like this is an idea that only I have. I'll include some external references so we can have a better discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: devin553344
Upvote 0

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If the relationship is as you suggest. Is he supporting the opposite for men? Is exposure acceptable for them?

Paul said that men shouldn't cover their heads and if a man has long hair it's a disgrace to him. See 1 Corinthians 11:14 & verse 7
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
From page 78 of Paul’s argument from nature for the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.13-15: A ball instead of a Head Covering:

Women have less body hair not only because they have less sperm but also because their colder bodies do not froth the sperm throughout their bodies but reduce sperm evaporation at the ends of their hair (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20).

According to these medical authors, men have more hair because they have more sperm and their hotter bodies froth this sperm more readily throughout their whole bodies (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20). The nature (φύσις) of men is to release or eject the sperm. During intercourse, sperm has to fill all the hollow hairs on its way from the male brain to the genital area (Aristotle, Probi. 893b. 10-17). Thus, men have hair growth on their

face, chest, and stomach. A man with hair on his back reverses the usual position of intercourse. A man with long hair retains much or all of his sperm, and his long hollow hair draws the sperm toward his head area but away from his genital area, where it should be ejected

In summary some scholars believe that Paul had this view (after all this was the medical understanding of his day). This is also why it's shameful for a man to have long hair (see 1 Corinthians 11:14) because that would indicate that he is "less of a man" (i.e retain much of his reproductive fluids).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: renniks
Upvote 0

devin553344

I believe in the Resurrection
Nov 10, 2015
3,607
2,249
Unkown
✟93,810.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
From page 78 of Paul’s argument from nature for the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.13-15: A ball instead of a Head Covering:



In summary some scholars believe that Paul had this view (after all this was the medical understanding of his day). This is also why it's shameful for a man to have long hair (see 1 Corinthians 11:14) because that would indicate that he is "less of a man" (i.e retain much of his reproductive fluids).

I don't believe Paul was going off of this belief. As Labella pointed out, men are uncovered for glory of the head. You can't make the genitalia comparison then. It would make men exposed.
 
Upvote 0

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I don't believe Paul was going off of this belief. As Labella pointed out, men are uncovered for glory of the head. You can't make the genitalia comparison then. It would make men exposed.

I am sorry, I misspoke. It should be understand it's part of a female's genitalia only.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is an transcript of the episode here: Download transcript

Question: Why prepubescent girls were not required to wear the veil whereas adult women were?

Answer:

Before puberty, a girl’s hair is not a functioning genital and does not differ from a boy’s hair. After puberty, however, this situation changes. Tertullian draws an analogy between prepubescent children and Adam and Eve, who were naked before they became aware of genital differentiation. Afterwards though, Tertullian notes, "They each marked the intelligence of their own sex by a covering" (Virg. 11 [ANF 4:34]). Noting the growth of the pubes to cover the female pudendum, Tertullian exhorts, "Let her whose lower parts are not bare have her upper like- wise covered" (Virg. 12 [ANF 4:35]). Tertullian’s analogy and exhortation presume that hair becomes a functioning part of a young woman's genitalia at puberty similar to the way testicles begin functioning at puberty as part of the male genitalia in facilitating the dissemination of sperm. Prepubescent girls, therefore, need not cover their hair, but pubescent young women should, and Tertullian recommends that the extent of the veil be "co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound" (Virg. 17 [ANF 4:37]).

The masculine functional counterpart to long feminine hair, then, is the ball. Aristotle calls the male testicles weights that keep the seminal channels taut (Gen. an. 717a.30-717b.5). Their function is to facilitate the drawing of sperm downward so it can be ejected. Without them, the seminal channels draw up inside the body, and the male becomes unable to dispense sperm into the female. The female is not given such weights but instead develops a hollow uterus and appropriate vessels to draw the sperm upward (Gen. an. 739a.37- 739b.20). Thus, testicles do not develop at puberty for females as they do for males. Long feminine hair assists the uterus in drawing sperm upward and inward.

Some other points of interest:

This ancient physiological conception of hair indicates that Paul’s argument from nature in 1 Cor 11:13-15 contrasts long hair in women with testicles in men. Paul states that appropriate to her nature, a woman is not given an external ball (περιβόλαιον, 1 Cor 11:15b) but rather hair instead. Paul states that long hollow hair on a woman's head is her glory (δόξα, 1 Cor 11:15) because it enhances her female φύσις, which is to draw in and retain sperm. Since female hair is part of the female genitalia, Paul asks the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether it is proper for a woman to display her genitalia when praying to God (1 Cor 11:13).
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Paul said that men shouldn't cover their heads and if a man has long hair it's a disgrace to him. See 1 Corinthians 11:14 & verse 7
FFOZ's Messiah Journal #100 (spring 09) has a 16 page article on why this is the wrong way to understand what Paul said. Here is an excerpt:

The answers to all of these questions relate
to how we understand Paul’s instructions
to the community in Corinth in 1 Corinthians
11:1–16. It is a difficult passage that has
caused a great deal of confusion. It raises further
questions about hair length, grooming,
gender roles, the presence of angels, and other
tangential curiosities. It has implications for
how we dress and how we relate in different
cultural contexts.
The primary difficulty with the passage
comes from a lack of contextual information.
In this paper, I hope to provide some missing
information, thereby enabling the reader to
draw conclusions for practical application.
In the process, I hope to shed some light on
Paul’s communities in general, particularly
regarding their relationship with greater first century
Judaism.

A surface reading of 1 Corinthians 11:1–16
seems to suggest that Paul was introducing
some halachic (“legal”) decisions for the Corinthians
about their apparel and grooming. For
example, he says that men should have short
hair and bare heads. Short hair because “nature
itself teach[es] you that if a man has long hair,
it is a dishonor to him” (11:14); bare heads
because “every man who has something on his
head while praying or prophesying disgraces
his head” (11:4). Furthermore, “A man ought
not to have his head covered, since he is the
image and glory of God” (11:7). Both of these
propositions are problematic from a biblical
perspective.
For example, the Nazarite vow of Numbers
6 requires a man to grow his hair. Samson,
Samuel, John the Baptist, and even Paul himself
are examples of biblical heroes who undertook
Nazarite vows.1 The testimony of Acts 21
suggests that Nazirism was popular among the
Jewish believers. How could Paul claim that
long hair is a dishonor when long hair is the
very mark of piety for those who underwent
the Nazarite vow?
Moreover, the Torah commands the priesthood
to wear headgear when they minister in
the Temple. God commanded the high priest
to wear a turban and a golden miter, and the
regular priests to wear special caps.2 Is it conceivable
that Paul, who frequently visited the
Temple to participate in prayer and the services
therein, was dismissing the priestly garments
as a disgrace to “the image and glory
of God”? The Torah itself says that the priestly
garments were given for glory and beauty:
You shall make holy garments for Aaron
your brother, for glory and for beauty … you
shall make caps for them, for glory and for
beauty. (Exodus 28:2, 40)
If we take 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 at face
value, we are forced to concede that Paul is
indeed contradicting the Torah’s own commandments
regarding priests and Nazarites.
A third objection to 1 Corinthians can be
raised—the Torah commands all Jewish men
to wear tefillin (phylacteries) on their hands
and heads: “They shall be as frontals on your
forehead” (Deuteronomy 6:8). The custom of
wearing tefillin seems to have been nearly universal
in Second-Temple Judaism.3 If 1 Corinthians
11:7 is understood as a general prohibition
on men wearing something on their head
in worship, it stands in direct contradiction to
Torah and Jewish practice regarding tefillin.
For traditional Christian interpreters, these
contradictions present no difficulty because
traditional Christianity has always taught that
Paul overturned Torah law and established
the new Christian religion. Taking it even further,
traditional interpreters often point out
that because Jewish men cover their heads in
prayer, Paul forbade the practice to differentiate
Christians from Jews. 4
A more responsible reading of Paul’s mission
and objectives, however, reveals the traditional
Christian explanation to be deficient.
Paul was neither overturning Torah law nor
establishing a new religion.5 In his own words,
Paul did “nothing against our people or the
customs of our fathers” (Acts 28:17). Paul
believed “everything that is in accordance
with the Torah” (Acts 24:14), and he agreed
“with the Torah, confessing that the Torah is
good” (Romans 7:16). Paul “lived as a Pharisee
according to the strictest sect of our religion”
(Acts 26:5), and even after becoming
a believer continued to identify himself as
“a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (Acts 23:6).
It is difficult to square Paul’s description of
himself with the notion that he wanted to
overturn Torah and Jewish custom, especially
when he begins 1 Corinthians 11 with the
words, “Be imitators of me.”
Jewish Tradition in 1 Corinthians 11
Paul was not attempting to overturn Jewish
practice in Corinth. The opposite is true. He
opens the chapter by saying, “I praise you
because you remember me in everything and
hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered
them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). The word
used here for “traditions” is the Greek paradosis
(παραδσις); it is the same word the Apostolic
Scriptures typically use for Jewish tradition.
For example:
For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not
eat unless they carefully wash their hands,
thus observing the traditions (paradosis) of
the elders. (Mark 7:3)
Paul was not attempting to
overturn Jewish practice in
Corinth. The opposite is true.

“Neglecting the commandment of God,
you hold to the tradition (paradosis) of men.”
He was also saying to them, “You are experts
at setting aside the commandment of God
in order to keep your tradition (paradosis).”
(Mark 7:8–9)
I was advancing in Judaism beyond
many of my contemporaries among my
countrymen, being more extremely zealous
for my ancestral traditions (paradosis).
(Galatians 1:14)
Paradosis literally means, “something handed
down.” It is the normal, New Testament word for
Jewish “tradition.” Most commentators refuse
the notion that Paul might have been referring
to the norms of Jewish tradition in this passage.
Instead, they suppose that Paul was referring
to a distinct Christian paradosis. Witherington
says, “It is difficult to believe that [Paul]
would impose a specifically Jewish custom on
Christians … [The Corinthian believers] were
to model new Christian customs.”6
I find it far more difficult to believe that
Paul and the Apostles were in the business of
inventing new customs and traditions simply
for the sake of making a distinction from
Judaism. That kind of thinking is anachronistic.
Paul and the early believers—even the
Corinthians—believed they were a sect within
greater Judaism.
The first assembly of believers in Corinth
was right next door to the Corinthian synagogue.
7 The first members all came from the
synagogue, including “Crispus, the leader of
the synagogue … with all his household” (Acts
18:8). Though the Corinthian community was
a mix of Jews and Gentiles, it was born of a Jewish
synagogue and existed in the context of a
Diaspora Jewish community. As Paul sought to
bring correction to the Corinthians regarding
their mode of dress and grooming, he appealed
to the authority of apostolic tradition and the
broader authority of Jewish tradition, saying,
“if one is inclined to be contentious, we have
no other practice, nor have the [assemblies] of
God” (1 Corinthians 11:16).
The term “assemblies of God” does not
refer to other congregations of believers.8
Instead it stands in antithesis to the congregations
of the believers who are represented
as the “we” of 11:16. With all due apologies
to the Assemblies of God denomination, the
term “assemblies of God” is best understood
as Jewish synagogues in general.9 I understand
the verse as follows:
We [the believers and apostolic communities]
have no other practice, nor have the
[synagogues] of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16)
Therefore Paul was not overturning
Jewish practice or tradition (paradosis) in
1 Corinthians 11. Instead, by admission of
his own argumentation, he was reinforcing
Jewish tradition and bringing it to bear on the
Corinthian community. This is consistent with
his opening words: “Be imitators of me, just as
I also am of Messiah” (1 Corinthians 11:1).
We have already seen that Paul was an
observant Jew who kept both Torah and Jewish
tradition. The same was true of the Master.
Paul imitated Yeshua, an observant Jew, and
the Corinthians were expected to imitate Paul.
That being the case, how can Paul urge the
Corinthian men to go bareheaded unless that
was the norm of Jewish tradition in the days
of the Apostles?​
 
Upvote 0

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Commentary from Dr. Heiser:

This is why Paul says of course, you should have your hair, which is part of your “genitalia”, covered. You would cover your hair in church or when praying to God. How lude could you possibly be thinking? It’s very natural for Paul to be telling the Corinthians look, if you can’t figure this out, if you can’t judge for

yourselves whether this is proper or not, for a woman to leave her hair uncovered, to display her genitalia when praying, then you got a problem. This should be obvious. Remember back in our series in Leviticus, we hit an episode where the priests had to wear undergarments when they ascended the altar because you could see under the robe? You didn’t display genitalia when you were doing priestly tings. For the New Testament, every believer is a priest. In Paul’s thinking, we’re all engaged in God’s service and when were’ praying to God, of course we would seek to be modest.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Commentary from Dr. Heiser:

This is why Paul says of course, you should have your hair, which is part of your “genitalia”, covered. You would cover your hair in church or when praying to God.
Hair is "genitalia?" That is beyond ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi Dave, of course we would say it's ridiculous to us today. That's because we know better but 2000-years ago this was medical "science". ;)
No it was NOT.

Neither in Jewish culture OR Greko-Roman culture.
 
Upvote 0

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No it was NOT.

Neither in Jewish culture OR Greko-Roman culture.

Are you sure about that? There are passages from people in Greco-Roman culture that ascribed to that idea.

For example, Hippocrates "the father of medicine" or one of this disciples

"According to Hippocrates, hair was a product of the congealing of sexual fluids such as sperm. Hair was primarily hollow and absorbed sperm. Men's warm bodies allowed for hair to grow prolifically all over their bodies while women's cold temperatures limited growth to the head."

Why Women's Hair Is Sexy, According to Hippocrates


However for those that want a more academic resource see

Male and female bodies according to Ancient Greek physicians
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bèlla

❤️
Supporter
Jan 16, 2019
20,479
17,636
USA
✟933,097.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
I spoke about my experience wearing a head covering for a time. Although the practice is common for Orthodox married women. Some single Jewish women do so as well.

The Holy Spirit’s direction was not in relation to genitalia, headship, or modesty. He was allowing me to experience life from a different perspective. I needed to know that to minister effectively to women.

Personally speaking, I felt the absence of hair diminished my beauty. I was attractive but lacking in a way I couldn’t deny. I prefer my hair.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Christ is Lord

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
578
410
Top Secret
✟27,506.00
Country
Virgin Islands, British
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I would like to quote some more sources from Greek writes (very prominent ones at that e.g.
Aristotle and Euripedes). However, some the these texts are behind academic paywalls and I can't post them freely.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0