The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum first corinthians11: 1-16

Not so long ago, while in the hospital , someone from church came to see me. Seeing for the first time how long my hair is , she told me better to have it cut, much easier. When I replayed that I had it long on Biblical grounds she said we would talk about that someday soon.<br>Am I mistaken , is there no Biblical ground for a woman to have her hair long, is there no Biblical ground either for a woman to cover her head in church. I see women cover there head only when they take the Lords Supper. Easy English please.<br>

Willemina,<br><br>I'm probably going to be in the very small minority here, but I do believe that 1Cor 11 does teach that a woman should have "long" hair AND cover her head when going to public worship. I wrestled with that passage for years and spent many hours in prayer and study of the text before arriving to my present view. Now, the issue for me, at least, having accepted that a woman should have "long hair", is what is "long"? It's easier for me to say what it isn't. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] For example, a woman who cuts her hair so that it is similar to what a man's haircut looks like someone who is in the military, i.e., a "brush cut", very short. Of course, would this apply to a woman who has shoulder-length hair, but who prefers to wear it "up" on hot days? I think that this type of thinking is evasive and narrow-minded, however. My understanding of this issue is that in one respect, Paul is wanting men and women to have a clear distinction between their respective sexes. Women should not look like men, neither in regard to the length of their hair nor in their style/mode of dress; and vice versa. Perhaps in a practical sense, I might say that if I were to be walking behind an individual on the street and I am unable to discern whether the person in front of me is male or female.... well, something is definitely wrong. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]<br><br>However, aside from using a comparative analogy, it is my view, that women's hair should be "feminine".... yes, another relative term. If it seems that I am struggling to try and define what is "long", you are correct. It's difficult, at least for me, to be definitive. Those who are opposed to this entire matter will, of course, offer all kinds of "reasons" or examples to try and skirt around what I think is taught clearly enough in that passage. It is often pointed out that many of the Puritans (as if they are THE source of infallible truth) had long (shoulder-length) hair. Well, to be honest, I think they were violating what Paul taught in 1Cor 11. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/yikes.gif" alt="yikes" title="yikes[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Thank you Pilgrim, that is the way I see it.

You know Pil when ever I brought up that topic in church I unanimously got the cold shoulder from all the women present. Some of them (the short haired ones) said that Paul's comments reflected his cultural prejudices. Others (the long haired ones) said that the covering he meant was to be the long hair. So you never could win. But I am with you let men look like men and women look like women neither should wear fashions that make it hard to distinguish between the two. One of my pet peeves in my former church was (besides the drums on the stage) the fact that one of the musicians had double ear rings in both of his ears. When I confronted him on that he said we were to obey the New Testament (We're under grace not law) not the old (I quoted an Old Testament passage from the law). And his wife insisted that he looked "cute " in them. Makes my blood boil. Which is why I must say I do appreciate where I go now as the pastor emphasizes the fact that we are not to be like the world when it comes to dress as well as actions. Well enough said thanks for the good word.

I don't want to get into any complicated debates but isn't the issue on whether you take those verses literally or stating a principle. Those who take it as principle will say that those passages speak of women submissiveness (biblical speaking), and during the 1st century long hair represented that, women being submissive. Today, long hair does not represent that. So, the principle should still be taught and applied, but that the literal aspect of keeping the hair long is no longer required.

Hi John,<br><br> Can I ask how you distinguish which parts of the Bilble you are to take literally and which parts are stating a principle?<br><br>In His Hands, <br><br>Ruth

I will have to do this quickly as I need to get ready for church and other matters, mostly on the top of my head. So bare with me if I mistate sometning. <br><br>How do I distinguish which parts to take literally and which parts are stating a principle. First, let me say that in some cases it is difficult whereas some are more easy. Maybe I should explain that stating a principle is not saying, for instance, that the verse where Paul writes that He doesn't allow for women to teach men does not give a person the privilege of 'stating a principle' that totally disagrees with a statement. However, I see in 1 Corinthians 11 where the principle for women is dressing reputably in public worship <br><br>I grabbed one of the commentaries odd my bookcase; and Hodge says this about the passage. <br><br> "Having corrected the more private abuses that prevailed among the Corinthians, Paul begins in this chapter to consider those that relate to the way they conducted public worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing in public without a veil. Dress is in a great degree conventional. A costume that is proper in one country would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted on in this paragraph is that women should conform in matters of dress to those practices that the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The veil in all eastern countries was, and to a great extent still is, a symbol of modesty and subjection. For a woman to discard the veil in Corinth, therefore, was to renounce her claim of modesty and to refuse to recognize her subordination to her husband. The apostle's whole argument in this paragraph is based on the assumption of this significance in the use of the veil." <br><br>IMO, emphasizing the literal in this case could make it easier to conform to the practice without conforming to the principle taught. The Pharisees got into all sorts of bad teaching by their demanding the outward failing to see the principle in God's Word. <br><br>

Pilgrim,<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It is often pointed out that many of the Puritans ( as if they are THE source of infallible truth) had long (shoulder length) hair.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Like the HAT!!!! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]<br>Brian.

willemina,<br><br>Calvin said:<br><br><blockquote>Every woman praying or prophesying. Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head. For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1 Timothy 2:12). <br><br>It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.<br><br>For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust. <br><br>Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: 1 Corinthians. electronic ed. Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries, 1 Co 11:5. Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998.</blockquote>

Hi John,<br><br>The problem I see with the cultural argument here is that Paul argues that even nature itself teaches that for a woman to have long hair, it is a glory to her (vs. 14 - 15). Hence, I find it hard to escape the idea that it is a glory for women to have long hair according to the way in which she was created. On the other hand, I don't believe that the covering spoken about here is required today in worship, simply because the context in which the covering was required no longer exists. When my wife begins praying and prophesying in our worship services I'll encourage her to wear a covering, but until that time I think she is okay. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>As a side note, I do have high respect for those women who in godly fear and for the sake of conscience wear a covering in worship, even if it does obscure the view at times. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>

Hi Jason,<br><br> I have a hard time accepting the idea that God the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Biblical writers, didn't think ahead to "cultural differences" and adapt His Words accordingly! I do think that the principle of women showing their submission, as Paul says her hair is her glory, and also he says that that is NOT enough of a covering for worship, is a continuing principle and therefore should be followed <br>perpetually. I don't agree that this is a "principle" that we can accept or reject as "culturally" obsolete.<br><br>In His Hands,<br><br>Ruth

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]On the other hand, I don't believe that the covering spoken about here is required today in worship, simply because the context in which the covering was required no longer exists.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I see an inconsistency here as well as a contextual faux pas. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] Let's consider what Paul says after he specifically speaks about a woman praying and prophesying (it is assumed we are in agreement of the context being considered is corporate worship).<blockquote>1 Corinthians 11:7-10 (ASV) "For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have [a sign of] authority on her head, because of the angels."</blockquote>Perhaps it would be prudent to freely admit that the phrase "because of the angels" is more than a difficult one to comprehend. Yet, I think we could also agree that there are few renderings of this phrase which would negatively impact upon one coming to a right understanding of the meat of the passage.<br><br>As I read this portion of the passage, which you also agreed that a woman should have long hair as it is part of God's original design in her creation, it is just because of this fact, that a woman is to have her head covered. The word "covering" can be translated as a "veil", however, a study of the original word will show that this is not necessarily an absolute. Further, it is doubtful that a case can be made that Paul is restricting this "covering" to a particular type, e.g., a Middle Eastern "veil". I will here agree with John_C that in this matter, a principle is being established and not necessarily the "mode" of fulfilling the principle, e.g., by a "veil". Besides, Paul is concerned with the covering of the head and not the face, which is the reason behind the practice of wearing a veil in Middle Eastern culture. Lastly, there is really no sure way of knowing what the actually "covering" which Paul refers to was.<br><br>So, back to the specific issue, the mandate for women wearing a head covering. Paul says, "for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: <span style="background-color:yellow;">for this cause</span> ought the woman to have [a sign of] authority on her head . . .". I find it inescapable to see Paul's teaching any other way than because of the creation order, women are to be subordinate to men, and to exemplify this immutable truth, women are to cover their heads with something other than their hair. The argument, which you partially endorse, that to bring in an argument of "Cultural Boundness", is impossible to prove that the covering is no longer mandated. I have often argued with some who are wanting to use an argument from "culture", that if we take culture as the standard, then women are no longer restricted to monogamous relationships nor to heterosexual relationships due to the shift of these things from the former culture which we are experiencing today. Thus, I believe, that the Holy Spirit was quite explicit in this passage to establish that the "cause" (reason) why women should cover their heads is established upon the creative order and not a cultural norm.<br><br>Lastly, Paul establishes the fact that this issue was not restricted to the church at Corinth, but was universally practiced by all the churches that were currently existent at that time:<blockquote>1 Corinthians 11:16 (ASV) "But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."</blockquote>Thus, it would appear that Corinth was the exemption to the rule, in that they were allowing women to come into the worship of God with their heads uncovered. And to this Paul caps his argument by saying that no such "custom" (practice) exists in any other church.<br><br>Perhaps I should add just a couple more comments here in the hopes of shedding a little more light, assuming that any light at all has shone through from what I have written. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]<br><br>This is particularly addressed to brother John_C who wants to have this passage teach only a principle without any specific application. The problem with that argument, IMHO, is that the "principle" established is that the Creative Order determines the practice, which is vice versa of what has been suggested. Because of the Creative Order, therefore a woman is to cover her head. Thus what we have in this passage is: Principle established: a woman was made for man > application of the principle: exemplified in the covering of a woman's head. <br><br>Secondly, Paul uses a very similar argument in 1Tim 2:11-14, i.e., the Creative Order, to show that a woman is not to teach or to have authority over men. The "principle" is the same but with a different application (practice) being established upon it. Both are grounded in God's eternal decree, purpose and recognized by the church universal.<br><br>In His Grace,

Dear Ruth and Pilgrim,<br><br>I realize that my post was short and not very detailed, so just as a follow-up, I do not believe the head coverings tradition was a cultural phenomenon, rather a redemptive historical one. My argument is that the covering was employed when a woman "prophesied" or "prayed". Being a cessationist, I do not believe prophesy occurs today, and I would argue that the "prayer" mentioned here also belongs to the order of peculiar spiritual gifts (see 1 Corinthians 14:14 - 16). Though Scripture does not have a different word for leading in prayer versus praying along silently, there are places where the context leads us to understand public, corporate prayer in view (such as 1 Timothy 2:8), and I would say this is the case here.<br><br>Given that context, it is my opinion that this tradition of head coverings was instituted by the apostles in order to address the apparent tension of women not being permitted to speak in worship (1 Corinthians 14:34) while yet being given the extraordinary gifts of the spirit in which they did speak. It seems to me that the head coverings were a reminder of their submisiveness while performing an act that could easily appear unsubmissive. Hence, my reason for not seeing the need for head coverings today is not because of a cultural difference, but due to the cessation of these gifts during which the head covering was worn (similar to my response to a charismatic who would say "Do not forbid to speak with tongues"). I would argue that a head covering is appropriate in such places where a woman is perceived as leading the congregation in worship (such as in a choir perhaps), but I don't personally hold to any practices that would permit such a tension to occur.<br><br>I hope that makes more sense. Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>

Jason,<br><br>Interesting approach. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] However, methinks one would be hard pressed to show that this "praying" and/or "prophesying" done by women refers strictly to the ecstatic gifts, which passed away at the close of the Canon and the death of the Apostles. If one could establish that prayer was an ecstatic "gift" and restrict "prophesy" to those mentioned elsewhere, you might have a reasonable and possible alternative interpretation. Of course, your explanation wouldn't account for Paul's disdain for men having long hair, which is against "nature". And thus, I see your suggestion as creating perhaps more problems than it hopes to resolve. <br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Interesting approach. However, methinks one would be hard pressed to show that this "praying" and/or "prophesying" done by women refers strictly to the ecstatic gifts, which passed away at the close of the Canon and the death of the Apostles.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Well, I would think that we could agree that the prophesying is a pretty open and shut case. As to prayer, I cannot prove that it means public prayer emanating from the special gifts of the Spirit, but I believe it is the more likely meaning. If Paul really intended for us to understand that the head covering was meant for the general participation of women in the corporate assembly, then the more suitable term would have been sunerxomai (see 1 Corinthians 11:18 for instance). The fact that prophesy has ceased would mean that we must extrapolate prayer to be shorthand for the corporate worship assembly in general to apply it directly today in the way it is typically observed, which I believe is reading more into the text than is necessary given the strong thematic context of the charismatic gifts throughout the remaining chapters and how much better it fits without those additional assumptions. At the very most it seems to me you can only make a case for covering oneself during prayer without making larger assumptions. So my argument at this point is simply that I find it much more compelling to believe that prayer is intended to mean prayer and that prophesy means prophesy since both of them are referred to in the context of miraculous gifts within this same discussion rather than introducing other concepts not necessary to making sense of the text.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Of course, your explanation wouldn't account for Paul's disdain for men having long hair, which is against "nature". And thus, I see your suggestion as creating perhaps more problems than it hopes to resolve. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I think our exegesis of verse 6 and following is identical actually, so I don’t understand the problem that is introduced by my narrower context in mind. The principle at work here for me is that a woman should not exercise what might be perceived as a “leading role” without a sign of authority on her. The polemic used by Paul to justify a covering is the same regardless of what we might consider the legitimate context for wearing the covering. He uses the argument from nature to justify his polemic for the covering, but I don’t believe the polemic itself bears upon the question as to what the setting is in which the covering is supposed to be worn.<br><br>Finally, I would just add a couple of thoughts here regarding the issue in general. If indeed this is referring to the general participation by women in the corporate worship assembly, then we should acknowledge that this is a new ordinance peculiar to the New Covenant that was not practiced in the Old. This has a tension of its own considering that Paul uses an argument from general revelation. This would mean that nature itself teaches that women should wear a head covering in worship at all times, but the people of God did not know this or practice it until the New Covenant. I don’t believe the “common sense” to which Paul appeals actually makes sense unless you assume that the woman is doing something that gives the appearance of usurping authority. Women participating in congregational worship do not give such an appearance ordinarily. When we consider the emphasis upon the simplicity of the New Covenant worship as opposed to the Old, with those former regulations having been fulfilled in the ministry of Christ, a reading that introduces a new ordinance of this kind is against the grain, so to speak (and I know you can identify with that analogy! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]).<br><br>Anyway, that’s the best I can do for now with just a few hours sleep over the last few days and a few minutes to spare for posting. I realize it’s off topic, but my wife, two daughters and I were blessed to receive a son into our midst on September 3rd. We named him Josiah Matthew. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/joy.gif" alt="joy" title="joy[/img]<br><br><br><br>Warm regards. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/doze.gif" alt="doze" title="doze[/img]<br><br>~Jason<br>