Covering a woman's head

[ilovejesusandbeads]

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul tells us that a woman should not pray and prophesy without her head covered, then he says if she isn't gonna cover her head she should shave her head. Later in the chapter he says our hair was given us as a covering. This is very confusing to me. What is he saying? If you wear a head covering, how did you come to make that choice?

 

[Receiver]

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul tells us that a woman should not pray and prophesy without her head covered, then he says if she isn't gonna cover her head she should shave her head. Later in the chapter he says our hair was given us as a covering. This is very confusing to me. What is he saying? If you wear a head covering, how did you come to make that choice?

Hi,

2 key verses are:
10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

10 shows that it is referring to authority, the previous verses back this up.
16 says that there is no particular custom of physical head covering or hair length, he is using these physical things as an analogy of spiritual truth.

Another example is:
"You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn. Does God take care for oxen? Or does he say it for our sakes?" (1 Cor. 9:9-10)

So, in the church I'm with, we don't have female pastors or oversight, men do the public preaching and laying on of hands in the meeting. All members are very happy with this, it has worked well for decades.

 

[Radagast]

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul tells us that a woman should not pray and prophesy without her head covered, then he says if she isn't gonna cover her head she should shave her head. Later in the chapter he says our hair was given us as a covering. This is very confusing to me. What is he saying? If you wear a head covering, how did you come to make that choice?

Many people have struggled with that very difficult passage. Verse 5 makes clear that this is saying something about public prayer and prophecy by women, and verses 3 and 8 strongly suggest that this is saying something about the husband-and-wife dynamic in relation to this. The issue is resolved, as far as Paul is concerned, by some kind of head covering.

I have seen these explanations:

#1. A wife ought to have a symbol of her husband's authority on her head, covering her hair, when she prays in public -- this explains the context, but inserting "the words symbol of" is a little weak

#2. A wife ought to exercise self-control over her head, covering her hair, so as not to embarrass herself and shame her husband and shock the angels -- this explains the context, but exousia as "self-control" is a little weak

#3. A wife ought to have a symbol of her authority to pray on her head, covering her hair -- this doesn't explain why "the head of a wife is her husband" and all the stuff about men is mentioned; also inserting "symbol of" is a little weak

#4. A wife ought to be have her husband's actual authority over her -- this doesn't explain the context of women praying, or all the stuff about hair

#5. A wife ought to have a covering on her head, so as not to be seduced by demons -- this doesn't explain the context of women praying, or why "the head of a wife is her husband" is mentioned

#6. A wife ought to have complete freedom as to what she wears on her own head (she need not cover her hair at all) -- this totally contradicts what Paul is saying

#7. A wife ought to have authority over her husband -- this contradicts Paul's other letters

Of those, explanations #1 and #2 seem the most convincing to me. The general application seems to me one of married women respecting their husbands in the context of public worship. In the modern world, this need not involve head coverings -- it may instead involve behaviour, clothing, where people sit in church, and things of that nature.

 

[AGTG]

Jesus, and Paul, used natural metaphors for spiritual truths.

That's what he's doing here, primarily. However, it is a deep and complex doctrine I am not ready to discern, but I've been praying to the Lord about it for a couple years and He is showing me little by little.

 

[Radagast]

I don't think Paul is speaking metaphorically in 1 Corinthians 11. There is nothing in the text to suggest that he is.

Rather, there seems to have been an issue in the Corinthian church involving (probably married) women engaged in public worship, and head coverings were in some way a solution to that problem.

16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. [/COLOR]

16 says that there is no particular custom of physical head covering or hair length, he is using these physical things as an analogy of spiritual truth.

I think that's misinterpreting verse 16. I think it's saying that the Christian churches of the time had no practice of women praying with their heads uncovered:

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not 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. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. (v 13-16, ESV)

 

[ilovejesusandbeads]

Thanks, y'all.

 

[Receiver]

I think that's misinterpreting verse 16. I think it's saying that the Christian churches of the time had no practice of women praying with their heads uncovered:

how does v10 fit your view?

What "head covering" do women in your church have?

 

[Radagast]

how does v10 fit your view?

What "head covering" do women in your church have?

In the Greek, verse 10 reads: διὰ τοῦτο (for this reason) ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ (the wife/woman ought) ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν (to have authority/power/a symbol of authority/a symbol of power) ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς (on her head) διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους (because of the angels/messengers).

ESV: That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

NASB: Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

HCSB: This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

NKJV: For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

NLT: For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.

That's not the easiest verse in the Bible, but when I was young, women routinely wore hats in church, as a head covering.

However, since the general principle seems to be one of married women respecting their husbands in the context of public worship, in today's world this need no longer involve head coverings -- it may instead involve behaviour, clothing, where people sit in church, and things of that nature. Any of those may incorporate "a symbol of authority."

 

[1watchman]

We surely ought to bow to the Word of God and not be trying to reason and analyzing it according to our ideas (which some new Bible Versions do). The woman in the Church is an individual saint of God, but in the collective testimony she needs to be in subjection as a type of the Church in subjection to Christ, while the man is in subjection by doing the priestly work (as in type in the temple of old) ---note all of 1 Tim. 2:8-15. We need to follow Scripture as in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere, without our ideas.

 

[Radagast]

We surely ought to bow to the Word of God and not be trying to reason and analyzing it according to our ideas (which some new Bible Versions do). The woman in the Church is an individual saint of God, but in the collective testimony she needs to be in subjection as a type of the Church in subjection to Christ, while the man is in subjection by doing the priestly work (as in type in the temple of old) ---note all of 1 Tim. 2:8-15. We need to follow Scripture as in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere, without our ideas.

We need to do our best to understand the text. Why is your interpretation better than anybody else's? And if your interpretation of the Greek is different from that of all the conservative evangelical Bible translations, it probably needs rethinking.

There is certainly nothing in the text to suggest that women should be subject to anybody except their husbands and their pastors.

Furthermore, there are (by implication) two kinds of priestly work here: that carried out by ordained pastors, and that carried out by all believers (both men and women). This text specifically encourages women to carry out the priestly work of public prayer, as well as carrying out prophetic work.

 

[parsley]

there seems to have been an issue in the Corinthian church

In Corinth, women with shaved heads were Aphrodite temple prostitutes.

Sacred prostitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Corinthians 11:13
Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?


This verse implies it is not a matter of sin, but one's own discretion on the issue. And as you say, 11:16 refers to it as a practice or custom.

 

[Radagast]

In Corinth, women with shaved heads were Aphrodite temple prostitutes.

Sacred prostitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That wasn't the issue in the church, although it may explain the words "it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head."

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

This verse implies it is not a matter of sin, but one's own discretion on the issue. And as you say, 11:16 refers to it as a practice or custom.

No, the verse doesn't imply that; it's a rhetorical question. Paul is suggesting that the answer is obvious. It's the same in chapter 10:14-15: "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say." Fleeing from idolatory is not up to "one's own discretion on the issue."

And you are either utterly misquoting me on 10:16, or confusing me with somebody else. Verse 16 does not "refer to it as a practice or custom." Rather, it's saying that the Christian churches of the time had no practice of women praying with their heads uncovered.

 

[parsley]

Whether rhetorical or not, Paul was not dictating a law that determined what is sinful to God or approved. The Law defined sin, prophecies expressed God's intents for us, and Jesus' words clarified those laws and intents.

Paul wrote a letter of advice to one church, in a town where pagan temple prostitution was a custom, where society might misinterpret Christians' intents as similar to their own customs.

The other verses I quoted were within the same passage.

And you are either utterly misquoting me on 10:16

I am not here to debate you or quote you; I am addressing the OP, and quoting verses directly, using Studylight.org.

More on historic traditions:

"In ancient Biblical times there is no indication that women covered their hair except with head-gears for ornament. The Shulammite's long flowing locks are an object of admiration in the Song of Songs (iv. 1; vi. 5; vii. 5; compare Ezek. xvi. 7); and much art is bestowed in coquetry upon the braiding (see Isa. iii. 24; II Sam. xiv. 26; Judges xiii.). ...Num. v. 18; compare Lev. xxi. 10; A. V. "uncover"); and shaving off the hair was an insult inflicted only on captive women (Jer. vii. 29; I Cor. xi. 15). In Mishnaic times, however, it was regarded as an inviolable Jewish custom...

"While it was customary among the Greeks to offer sacrifices with uncovered head—"capite aperto"—a form adopted by Paul for the Christians in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (xi. 2 et seq.), the Roman priests sacrificed with covered head—"capite velato" (Marquardt and Mommsen, l.c. vi. 183). Among Mohammedans it is indispensable that the head be covered during prayer."

BAREHEADEDNESS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The Christians were primarily Jews at the time, and Jewish married women covered their heads in the marketplace, but unmarried were not expected to.

And the tallit covered heads during prayer.

I have Jewish friends who say it is always required for men to cover their heads in the sanctuary, but women do not (reformed, Conservative branches). Modern practices do not define God's intent, but their policies had foundations in laws and traditions.

Orthodox, Hasidic have very little skin exposed -- shoulders and knees covered, and sometimes elbows.

"The proper attitude, therefore, of one called upon to pronounce the name of God in prayer, the "Sheliaḥ Ẓibbur," is to be wrapped in the mantle or ṭallit (R. H. 17b; Ber. 51a; Yer. Ber. vii. 11d; compare the dictionaries, s.v.

). Accordingly, a man with uncovered head is, like one in rags and half-covered, forbidden to recite the Shema'"

It appears that between the delivery of the Mosaic Law and Paul's writing, married women covered their heads in the marketplace, unmarried did not need to, and men always covered their heads in the sanctuary.

BAREHEADEDNESS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

But we know that many Jewish laws grew more complicated after the delivery of the Mosaic Law... and were not necessarily God's expectations for people.

I attended Jewish funerals where there were some shockingly revealing outfits among attendees; it was hard to know how many of them were Jewish, but there were no women covering their heads in the service, only skullcaps on men (baskets of them for visitors).

Modestly, humility before God, preventing distraction

I normally don't get into conversations on the legalities, because in our modern culture the head covering on women implies a very different thing, and I don't see it as humility or glorifying God in Christian circles.

Also I am cautious that our society is picking up many new ideas that are not coming from our hearts and convictions, but influence from external groups hoping to change us.

In a forum labeled New Christians, I do not believe it beneficial to lead people into taking on customs that are not necessarily proven accurate in scriptures; it is important for each person to go through that research and decision-making for themselves, and not suddenly start wearing head coverings to become good Christians. That is not what the faith is about, at all.

Veils are becoming a fad in our culture, and imply devotion to a way of life. Covering the head is not a sign of being connected to God or being a better Christian.

 

[Radagast]

The Christians were primarily Jews at the time, and Jewish married women covered their heads in the marketplace, but unmarried were not expected to.

This is a difficult passage, but one of the best explanations is that married Christian women in Corinth were praying bareheaded as if they were unmarried (in line with what you say about Jewish women, which I believe is correct).

I think Paul is saying that this acting as if unmarried damaged the husband-wife relationship; the women back then needed to cover their heads to publicly acknowledge their husbands.

Today, publicly acknowledging husbands may involve behaviour, clothing, where people sit in church, and things of that nature.

 

[parsley]

I think Paul is saying that this acting as if unmarried

I would guess that pertained to society as a whole. If everyone walked through the streets covered, then a little skin would be a sign of being available.