1 Corinthians 11 - Personal Conviction and Questions Regarding Head Covering

Delvianna said:

I want to start off by saying this is a highly debated topic (what isn't though, honestly..) but keep that in mind because even scholars can't agree. So ultimately this is going to boil down to praying to God and letting him guide you, but with that said...

I want to mention some things that maybe you didn't notice and then I'll answer your questions.

1. The word "head" (κεϕαλη)​

The foundation of the argument is laid in verse 3: "But I want you to understand that the κεϕαληˊ (head) of every man is Christ, the κεϕαληˊ of a wife is her husband, and the κεϕαληˊ of Christ is God."

• The Debate: The Greek word κεϕαληˊ (kephaleˉ) literally means "head." Scholars debate whether Paul intends the metaphorical meaning of "source" or "authority over."

The majority view by scholars is that κεϕαληˊ means "authority" or "headship" instead of him meaning the literal head and the reason for this is because Pauls use and argument of the creation narrative (man was created first and woman from man, v. 8-9). So the entire argument then becomes the idea that certain practices should symbolize a proper recognition of God's established order (creation). Essentially, if a culture creates a practice, is should be based on the established order that God set and to make sure it doesn't go against it.

2. Covering (or Uncovering)​

Paul applies this hierarchy to the public acts of praying and prophesying in church:

• For Men: A man should not cover his head because he is the "image and glory of God" (v. 7). To cover his head (Gk: κατα κεϕαλη~ς εχων, kata kephaleˉs echoˉn) would dishonor Christ, his head (authority). This probably served to distance Christian men from pagan practices in Corinth, where some priests covered their heads during worship.
• For Wives: A wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (Gk: α˙κατακαλυπτω, akatakalyptoˉ) dishonors her head (her husband).
  • Paul equates an uncovered head with having a shaved head (v. 5-6), which was the sign of a non-respected woman or an adulteress in that culture.
  • The "covering" was a symbol of authority (εξουσιˊα, exousia) (v. 10), which the wife ought to have on her head. The most common understanding is that the cloth covering symbolized that she was under the authority of her husband, thus preserving her honor and his.

3. Now Hair and Culture combined​

Paul introduces a dual aspect to the "covering," Combining a literal and metaphorical:

• Literal via Culture: The immediate context strongly implies a literal cloth covering or veil because to discard it carried the same cultural shame as having one's head shaved. In first-century Roman society, the veil was a mark of a respectable, married, and a virgin woman.
• Natural: Paul asks, "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering (Gk: περιβολαιˊον, peribolaion)"(v. 14-15).
  • The use of περιβολαιˊον for the hair's covering is a different word than the one for the veil, suggesting that the principle of gender distinction, regardless of the cultural practice.

So essentially as I stated in point one, it's the idea of doing a practice that honors the created order of authority and local cultural ideas to avoid issues within the church. We don't have that kind of cultural ideas anymore so the idea of wearing a literal covering isn't necessary and in my view, was only for Corinth at the time because of the culture. Paul was trying to establish a principle, and while that principle can be applied no matter the culture (keep any practice that honors the order of authority), we don't have to apply it word for word literally today.

So, with all that said, your questions:
1) If you feel strongly enough that you want to sit down with your pastors for a friendly debate, then go for it. Your concern should concern them too.
2) If you feel the church is not a good fit for you based off of your beliefs, then find another but I would definitely still sit down with them and have a talk.

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

Probably, but it was a cultural thing, not a mandate and I think that is the distinction. It would be equivalent to wearing a miniskirt back in the 1800's. The societal uproar that would cause....

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

Like I said, I don't agree with your summation and that its a spiritual principle at all. But if you do, then sit down with your church leaders.

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

I'm going to quote you what I said about verse 15:

The use of περιβολαιˊον for the hair's covering is a different word than the one for the veil, suggesting that the principle of gender distinction, regardless of the cultural practice.

It's not a veil, it's just showing gender distinction vs a woman having shorter hair but again culture applies to this as men were supposed to grow out their hair if you took a Nazirite vow. So essentially if you take this principle literally, that Paul taking a Nazirite vow would be seen as wrong because he grew out his hair which would have been the same and not distinct vs a woman.

Click to expand...

jas3 said:

Amen.
I don't see why that would be a problem, but both sides of the debate are pretty well hashed out in material you can find online. Just don't expect them to change their minds.
I found a church that still honors head covering in Orthodoxy. That's pretty far off from Plymouth Brethren, but you should know that there are other options outside of them.

For me, it's pretty clear that effectively all Christians up until 1960 or so weren't mistaken about what St. Paul meant, and that arguments about the passage being figurative or even based on an erroneous belief about hair being a reproductive organ are just modern post hoc rationalizations for a result of the feminist movement and a general loss of modesty in modern culture.

Click to expand...