Should Christian women wear head scarves?

Spiritlight

✰•.¸¸★•*´¨`*•.¸.✰
Apr 1, 2011
2,116
429
manitoba
✟23,118.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Many people have explained this idea too me. The problem is, if 1 Corinthians 11 was cultural and only applied to ancient times, one can also argue that the rest of the Bible was cultural and only applied to ancient times.

True but I think it doesn't hurt to view the letter to the Corinthian church as a letter to those people to gain an understanding of how to apply the principals to us now today like dressing modestly.
 
Upvote 0

BlackSepulcher

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2013
454
18
✟685.00
Faith
Catholic
It seems to have been a requirement by Paul on all the churches. So why is this practice dying out in the Western churches today.

What are the arguments for and against this. I am trying to make up my mind on the issue.

Nuns wear head scarves. It's a church tradition of 'living a more perfect life'. You'll see Muslim and orthodox Jewish woman wearing them as well.

The difference is that in Christianity, there is more humanity and grace, and so such things aren't a 'requirement', though they are valuable in expressing modesty and humbleness.
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No for Paul speaking of head covering is the only passage they talks on head covering but actualy itsn't not talking of head covering for that pratice was not know in Corinthians. You see in Iseral it was not a sin fo men to have long hair fo the was a custom but Paul had to cut his hair for it was a culturally sin because men had short hair in Corinthians. Women wore they up and in a bound in fact Paul would have used a word for head covering but his doesn't Kataplous and akataplous which mean cover and uncover but akataplous is used in O.T as meaning Loosen Hair.
Whole Bible Head Covering

Not only that but men and women wore head covering in O.T
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seems to have been a requirement by Paul on all the churches. So why is this practice dying out in the Western churches today.

What are the arguments for and against this. I am trying to make up my mind on the issue.

Hi mindlgiht,

The head covering is a requirement from the Scriptures. The fact that many disregard it today does not diminish that fact. It can be seen in church history that the head covering was worn by women through the ages. It is only recently that women have decided to reject it. Paul told the Corinthians to have their women where the head covering and if they didn't they were to shave their heads. Many will claim that this was a cultural thing but that is not the case. When Paul argues for the head covering he does not appeal to culture but rather to God's created order. The woman wearing the head covering is showing her submission to God and the order in which he has created things.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Once one Anti mean equal to. Not only that but Corinthians did wear head covering because it was not custom. Paul tell men not to have their hair to hang down yet in Irsal men had long hair. Samuel and john the baptist had long hair. They lived under the nazartive vow which men and women grew their hair and cut it off as a sacrifice to god. So Paul was speaking of Corinthians custom for Israel had no problem with kmeh having long hair but Corinthians did long hair was a sign of feminine. SO this prove this is a custom. Like a said verbs not nouns are used in the began. to the cation to cover and the action to uncover. Not only the be uncovered is used in O.T to mean Loosen hair. If Paul was speaking of hair covering he would have used another word but he doesn't


In a concordance, you will find that katakalupto (Strong’s number 2619) is a verb. This word points more to an ‘action of covering’ than a covering itself (akatakalupto (177) is just the negative of katakalupto and is listed as an adjective). The other word, transliterated peribolahyon (Strong’s 4018) is a noun. You can see how it might get a little tricky when trying to understand what is being said here. The English word ‘cover’ can be used as both an action word (to cover) and a noun (the cover)
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
akatakaluptos from verse 5 (rendered ‘uncovered’ in English) to the same word in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh or OT) which is used in Leviticus 13:45. The Hebrew word for ‘loosened hair,’ a sign that a leper was unclean, is translated as akatakaluptos.
45“As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall be uncovered, and he shall cover his mustache and cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ (Leviticus 13:45 NASB95, underline added)
Since the word akatakaluptos in this verse means ‘hair down,’ then in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 it probably means the same thing. Its opposite, katakalupto, most probably means ‘hair up’ or ‘bound hair.’ To help confirm this, in Numbers 5:18 there is a related word (of the kalupto variety - apokalupei) in reference to a woman having to ‘loosen her hair’ (let it down) before drinking of the water of bitterness. This indicates a cultural norm of having it up. Tim also points out that there is a specific word for ‘bareheaded’ in Greek (perhaps he’s thinking of a word like gumnokapalos), and that in his opinion it is likely that Paul would have used this word if he was talking about the difference between a cloth covering and hair. There are also other specific words for cloth coverings such as skepasma (4629) meaning ‘raiment’ and translated in 1 Timothy 6:8 as ‘covering,’ and epikaluma (1942) meaning ‘a covering or veil’ used in 1 Peter 2:16. If Paul had wanted to be specific about a cloth for a covering, a number of good words were available.
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Also you guys need to understand the cultural aspect of the passage for men in Israel did not find long hair on a man a sin but culturally Corinthian did .

The use of the concordance is not guaranteed to give a person the real meaning of a word or verse. At times it only complicates the understanding, depending on how it’s used. One short article I read, by a person named Bo Williams titled ‘Definitions-Peribolaion,’ is based on the assumption that the meaning of peribolahyon is uncertain, due to only being used once in 1 Corinthians 11 and once in Hebrews 1:12. Because of this unsupported assumption, the author translates the word back into the Hebrew leboosh (Strong’s number 3830) because Hebrews 1:12 is part of a quote from Psalm 102:25-27 (which is where leboosh is translated in the Septuagint by peripolahyon). Then, the author translates from the Hebrew leboosh back into Greek and comes up with a different word meaning ‘vesture’ or ‘undergarment’ (himatismos) based on John 19:23. This supposedly clears up the confusion!

I don’t know about you, but it certainly doesn’t clear it up for me. Most translators will tell you that trying to translate back and forth in a limited fashion like this only complicates the translating, and does not generally help. If Williams had only looked for related or root words some confusion might have been avoided. For instance, peribolahyon is Strong’s number 4018, while Strong’s number 4016 (two places before 4018 in the concordance) is periballo meaning ‘clothed’ or ‘arrayed’ (used 24 times) and is probably the root word for peribolahyon. People like Williams should also see that the Greek of verse 15 has “her hair is given to her anti peribolahyon.” ‘Anti’ is the same as the word used for ‘anti-Christ’ meaning ‘instead-of Christ.’ So a woman’s hair is clearly given “instead of a wrap or veil.”
If one just reads the plain text, the meaning is clear. It is only when reading a cloth into the text that all the complications and confusion starts. The above author here demonstrates a common principle in teaching – if the word you are looking at doesn’t mean what you want it to mean, use grammatical gymnastics to find another one. But even though specialized translating is a common technique, that doesn’t mean it is a correct one.
Many authors just seem to be thoroughly confused and get lost in chasing their own logical fallacies. For instance, Renée Ellison writes on page four of her article (mentioned above) that “It is equally clear that the Apostle Paul is describing an actual veil for the woman’s covering, rather than her hair. The two Greek words used for hair and covering are not interchangeable, for katakalupto means to cover wholly, indicating some cloth hanging down that covers. Peribolaion comes from peri – perimeter – indicating the natural hair around the head.” (This includes a footnote referring to the article by Mr. Shank mentioned above.) As we can see, Ms. Ellison reads into katakalupto a cloth, which in no way constitutes a part of the description in Strong’s Concordance, nor can her supposed definition be supported from any other portion of the Word. As for her take on peribolaion, what is really clear is that she desperately wants to see a cloth, because even if peri means ‘perimeter,’ what is more probably referred to is a cloth (there’s that pesky noun again) thrown ‘around the perimeter’ of a person. Nowhere in Scripture is peribolaion taken to mean hair.
It seems that the best understanding, according to the Scriptural evidence and according to the context of Chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians, of katakalupto, is that it refers to hair bound up on the head. So akatakalupto means ‘hair down.’ If this is correct, then verses four through seven are better understood if we use the word the way it seems to be intended. Below is an alternate rendering of the verses using this understanding.
 
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

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Clearly if head covering was important Jesus would have said something and god would have said somethig. Not only that but this is the only passage to go into detail. Also the to word in the begin aren't even nouns but one is a verb and the other is an abj. There are specifics words to speak of head covering but not there.

http://studyholiness.com/doc/Culture_blog.pdf
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This is the only Passage to speak of it so if the passage are silent there were no commands on head covering also look. There should be many passages are head covering as a command. Not only that but Corinthians did not have a custom to have head covering. If Paul told men not to have long hair but in Israel long hair was fine as to do with customs and culture. Look at the link
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Excuse it's not a command its only spoking in one passage als stand hair is a Women covering anti is the equal of something . Is translation as instead of but in the Greek it mean equl

Paul's statement that the woman who does not cover her head is to shave her head is a command. The reason it is only mentioned once in Scripture is because it was not a problem in other churches. In the other churches the women did cover there heads. It seems that Corinth was the place were they decided to challenge this teaching.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul's statement that the woman who does not cover her head is to shave her head is a command. The reason it is only mentioned once in Scripture is because it was not a problem in other churches. In the other churches the women did cover there heads. It seems that Corinth was the place were they decided to challenge this teaching.

So did men already keep their hair short in Jerusalem because nothing about that is mentioned there?

And if this is a command that must be followed in all times and places, then are you as willing to follow all of the scriptural commands to New Testament churches to minute detail?
 
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

BlackSepulcher

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2013
454
18
✟685.00
Faith
Catholic
To understand Paul's teachings, you have to understand the times he taught them.

It was commonplace for a woman who were not humble to be treated as a harlot. Likewise, men who had long hair were often treated as feminine or perhaps even homosexual.

You're looking at an entirely different world when treading upon these thing in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To understand Paul's teachings, you have to understand the times he taught them.

It was commonplace for a woman who were not humble to be treated as a harlot. Likewise, men who had long hair were often treated as feminine or perhaps even homosexual.

You're looking at an entirely different world when treading upon these thing in the Bible.

The first principle of exegesis is to determine what the writer originally meant. What was his purpose, what behavior was he intending to exhort? If he starts out saying, "Women should be modest," and then gives some examples of modesty, then we really ought to start with "Women should be modest" and translate that to "modesty" in our own environments.

For instance, in India a very modest woman might leave her midriff bare but will always cover her calves; in the US...it's exactly the opposite. A Christian in either place must dress modestly at least to the local standards.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
To understand Paul's teachings, you have to understand the times he taught them.

Quite so.

It was commonplace for a woman who were not humble to be treated as a harlot. Likewise, men who had long hair were often treated as feminine or perhaps even homosexual.
Actually, it was the opposite.
 
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

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So did men already keep their hair short in Jerusalem because nothing about that is mentioned there?

Paul speaks of the natural way things were, that the women had long hair and the men short.

And if this is a command that must be followed in all times and places, then are you as willing to follow all of the scriptural commands to New Testament churches to minute detail?

Minute detail? Are there some commands that we can disregard if we don't like them? I have noticed in the modern church at least in the west that people think they can worship as they please. Paul appealed to God's created order, that order has not changed so why would the head covering?

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:1 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.
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.
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.
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. (1Co 11:1-10 KJV)

This passage isn't popular with women's libbers but it is what God said. If the man prays with his head covered he dishonors Christ, if the woman prays with her head uncovered, she dishonors her head (husband, father). It seems this would also be dishonoring God since He is the one who established this order. Paul clearly appeals to the created order on this issue.
 
Upvote 0