Is Hair Considered a Covering in Worship? Comparing 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 11:14, 15

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it so sad that some women find headcoverings to be humiliating*. Where does this thought come from?

I, for one, find it most attractive (in the most appropriate, Biblical way) to see younger women and older women wearing a headcovering during times of worship. It is a sign of submission, to be sure, but it is a sign that points to a wonderfully beautiful femininity worthy of admiration.

*I mean humiliating in a bad way. This is different, I think, than the approach Lynnie has taken above.
 
your view is the only one I have heard that consistently allows that women could ever take the covering off.
That appears to be the case to me, that they can put it on or take it off. In 1 Corinthians 11 v 6 it clearly shows me a women can be either covered or uncovered, that if she decides to be uncovered then to be shorn. So if she is not covered, but told to be shorn if she chooses not to be covered, then she is to me choosing to remove the cover. Which she can also put back on. It says if the women be not covered then let her also be shorn. If she is not covered and that not being covered is her hair then why is she asked to be shorn if it was already so? The covering can only be something other than her hair!
 
Heidi's charismatic gift argument is what I have recently heard from Rev. Sawtelle as he interprets this section of Scripture. Providentially, I JUST listened to it on my ride in and I want to do some of my own homework first, but it sounded pretty compelling in context of the epistle, especially considering that Paul seems particularly concerned with praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:5). He then goes on to discuss this in light of cessationist theology. Again, I haven't done all of my homework on this yet, but it was a pretty good sermon, I thought.

Head Coverings: A Cessationist Argument | SermonAudio.com

Lynnie, this passage is regulating a charismatic gift. We don’t derive an order of service from the regulations about tongues. In this case hair is cited as standing for an abiding principle that the Corinthian woman were struggling with (and I believe they were struggling with it in their own cultural context: as have a few reformed commentators) – they had received the same prophetic outpouring as the sons, and needed to be reminded that this did not overturn the order of Creation. By creation, women have a head and have a covering, and should behave accordingly – even when engaged in exercising a charismatic gift. (I think the regulation on women not speaking in the assemblies is the focus of a later passage: the focus on this one seems to be that even a direct, supernatural gift -- wherever exercised – does not nullify the created order). I am unconvinced that we are supposed to derive doctrines of angels or of headcoverings or of hair length from the passage.

I think that Jeri’s point about the vulnerability of submissive women to bad (manipulative) argumentation is worth noting – it isn’t a good argument to imply that there is some kind of character issue where a woman will not see the passage or experience the experience in whichever particular way a proponent is arguing (there are clearly a number of distinct and even opposed interpretations for both sides of the practice). I don’t think it’s kind to imply (if I read you right) that the writer of the article has a troublesome wife, if she doesn’t like standing out via what amounts in our culture to a fashion statement (citing royalty only confirms this – it’s quite a parade when they put on their hats: most people don’t see respect for order, but simple – or more complicated – display), in a place where other women are not making that statement. I didn’t read the article, so if he implied that women who are convicted of this practice are simply displaying, that is something I would very strongly disagree with. I do know first hand that even women convicted of the practice struggle with going against ‘custom’.

I don’t like to argue over what isn’t even a confessional matter, and so probably won’t be engaging further in this thread. I've stated my own understanding because it makes sense to me of a puzzling part of Scripture: God is capable of convincing my or another person's conscience, and I believe it is more important that our consciences are tender towards Him than that others should confirm our views: I think God cares a great deal about tenderness of conscience. I confess to failing in it all the time, but I am blessed to have that example in women on both sides of this discussion. I hope you are well: it's genuinely always a blessing to even think of you.
 
The issue of women praying and prophesying in the united assembly was clearly a matter of concern, as was the participation of the Lord's supper without respect to others. Both are exceptions to the praise given for observing apostolic ordinances, 11:2. In addressing these concerns, however, the apostle reasons from fundamental principles which have broad application. In the first concern he goes back to creation; in the second he reiterates the original institution. What he teaches is not confined to the specific concerns he addresses but has broad reaching application to the church gathering.

In the case of women praying and prophesying it should be noted that the expectation for her to uncover her head to engage in the action is an argument against the action. It would be a shame for her to do so. The basic premise of this argument is that she should not have her head uncovered in the united assembly. It especially applies to the activity of praying and prophesying, but that is only because it applies in general to her presence in the assembly.
 
I have read all these posts and I am still unsure of it being something other than the hair. From what I have read in the scripture it was for the angels? 1 Co 11:10.
I have heard it said this was for then not today
Or the Corinth church had problems with women in the church. But that always confused me. If this? The head covering is for today also wouldn't that also mean no fancy jewelry. 1 Tim 2.9
I don't really wear make up or jewelry with exception to a cross necklace my husband bought me which has with God nothing is impossible inscribed on it (because to me the fact my husband got it for me was a testimony amd confirmation in itself so I never take it off) .
Also if i started going to church with a veil on my head my husband would say i was in a cult.
If it is for the Angels should i do it in secret at home when when praying?
 
I also meant to add if they were having problems with the Corinth women how much more problems are we having today with un properly dressed women today who gossip in the church during prayer?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
I am not a minister of the gospel, sister, but my reading, and that of the Church officers set over me, is that what Paul said by the Holy Spirit is true - that a woman's hair is given to her as a covering. Some here will disagree, and would want to bind your conscience and lay on you burdens difficult to bear. My recommendation is that you consult with the Church officers the Lord has placed over you, and ignore the assertions of strangers on the internet.
 
Thank you. Currently the church I go to does not practice this. And to my understanding if this is to be as to the husband form of submitting it would be more of embarrassing to him for me to be wearing a veil as he is not yet saved. But if it honors God and angels I would do it in my personal prayer time.
As for humiliation well I have no problem with that. I humiliated myself enough whilst drunk and high seems more honorable to do so for my savior [emoji1]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
I'm not sure I understand why it matters if one's church teaches/practices this, if one is personally convicted. I've never been a member of a church where it's practiced by more than a a few. In addition, the fact that I (and Gracie) cover has never caused the discord that everyone seems to think it will.
 
It matters what the leaders the Lord sets over us teach us. Maybe more important than what we hear internet forums.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
 
I have vacillated to and fro on this issue a few times, but I keep coming back to the "long hair is the covering" position. The difference in Greek words is not convincing for the other position, since stylistic variation is common in Koine Greek. Matthew's argument is the strongest for a separate covering, and it is certainly a well-respected opinion. I would point out, however, that long hair can be removed: it's called a haircut. I am not sure why the temperature on this issue has gotten so high. Is there a need for that? I agree that how people feel about the issue is completely irrelevant. I deeply respect ladies who believe that the passage teaches them to wear a head-covering other than their hair. I have no problem if people interpret the text that way. But as the text is not particularly clear, charity should rule on this issue.
 
but I keep coming back to the "long hair is the covering" position. The difference in Greek words is not convincing for the other position.

Rev. Keister, would you help me understand your reading of the following verses? I don't know the Greek.

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.

Is it your understanding that "head uncovered" means short hair and that "shorn or shaven" signifies even less than short or no hair? I have had difficulty understanding the long hair argument in view of this section, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated. If the above is your interpretation, then would v. 7 suggest "head covered" to mean "long hair"?
 
It matters what the leaders the Lord sets over us teach us. Maybe more important than what we hear internet forums.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
Not sure what you're implying there. Most don't teach on it all, in the first place.
Anna, my implication is that while you may not have heard a Pastor or Elder teach on this matter, others of us have, and it would likely behoove us to trust the men the Lord sets over us rather than what we're told on an internet forum until we can cite obvious error. We have as a case in point a new member here, a relatively recent convert, with an unbelieving husband. It has been implied in this thread, albeit in a veiled manner, by a minister of the gospel, that there is something deficient or nefarious in those who come to the conclusion that the covering referred to is hair, which is just getting weird.

If her Church doesn't practice secondary headcoverings, then to assume they 'don't teach on it' violates the ninth commandment. It is scripture - it is to be taught in the Churches. Charitable judgment would instead assume they DO teach on it, and that they teach the covering to be hair. Attempting to overthrow the authority of her Church officers by binding her conscience and laying a burden upon her that is of questionable biblical accuracy would be wrong, and even more so that by it she would suffer greater difficulty with her husband. You may disagree with their teaching. I don't. But neither of us should usurp what the Lord has set over her. I don't care if some women in some Churches want to wear doilies. I don't try to stop them. But I also think they ought not go about trying to convince other women to put on doilies. She should consult the shepherds the Lord has given her on such matters.
 
Ryan, at the moment, I would be hesitant to comment on your excellent question, only because I have not studied the passage in great depth yet. I know this sounds like a dodge, but I really don't feel comfortable commenting on it until I have done my exegetical work in-depth.
 
I don't care if some women in some Churches want to wear doilies. I don't try to stop them. But I also think they ought not go about trying to convince other women to put on doilies.
I've done no such thing.
Anna, dear sister, I did not mean to imply that you had. My purpose was to point out that we can find all kinds of arguments one way or another on any subject on the internet, but that the Lord sets over us shepherds who have a responsibility and are accountable to the Lord in the care for our souls. You are a Pastor's wife. Might I humbly submit that your position is quite different from that of Angela's, and that the charity advised by Rev. Keister above is particularly called for in this instance?
 
I agree with the call to charity. But charity is not indifference to others. It seeks what is good for them. And if this particular text is clear to any, then charity would dictate hoping the best by seeking to convey that meaning so that the confusion of others might be cleared up.
 
To declare a matter lawful and necessary it seems we should have incontrovertible evidence.

So, Matthew, let me ask this - would it be acceptable in your view for a woman to have a shaved head as long as she wore a separate covering? Why or why not?
 
Charitable judgment would instead assume they DO teach on it, and that they teach the covering to be hair.
I would suggest that since we both used the term "most churches" (not even "most Reformed churches"), that the teaching is far more likely "That was then; this is now," since those same churches aren't instructing all women (or even just wives) to have long hair, disciplining those that don't, etc.?
 
To declare a matter lawful and necessary it seems we should have incontrovertible evidence.

So, Matthew, let me ask this - would it be acceptable in your view for a woman to have a shaved head as long as she wore a separate covering? Why or why not?

I don't understand the intent of your statement or your question. The evidence for this cultural sign is in the text. Nothing in the text suggests the hair is the covering. Everything in the text works against it. The suggestion of cutting hair as taking off the covering would have the woman cutting her hair and being unable to attend the assembly again until her hair grows back. Every imposition on the text just lays a heavier imposition on the woman, It is better to stick to what the Word teaches and relieve her of such burdens.
 
Hey Brad-

I have spoken to numerous men and women over the years who have told me/us to our face that they believe this command is for today and that women should wear headcoverings. But they don't, because the pastor does not believe it, or they think the elders wont like it or people in the church might think they are legalistic. When I/we say: "are you telling me you think God commands you to do this but you are not because of your church", they say yes.

What on earth kind of mentality is this? You think scripture commands something but you can't do it because of your church?

It does not matter who is right about headcoverings in this situation, but that a person here disobeys what they are convinced is a New Testament command because of his pastor/church. Huh? Are you kidding me?

If a church does not allow that freedom of conscience, run as fast as you can and never look back.
 
I find it so sad that some women find headcoverings to be humiliating*. Where does this thought come from?

I, for one, find it most attractive (in the most appropriate, Biblical way) to see younger women and older women wearing a headcovering during times of worship. It is a sign of submission, to be sure, but it is a sign that points to a wonderfully beautiful femininity worthy of admiration.

As a girl who wears a headcovering, I agree that it is wonderful to wear this in obedience to my Lord. The two pressures come from 1) I look stupid and legalistic to others and 2) it hides my glory - my hair and I look less attractive. Which is fine by me. But I can totally see the struggle many women must feel who enjoy dressing up and looking their best on Sunday. Only to cover their hair and extinguish this great aspect of their beauty. But I agree with you - a women obeying the Lord is the most beautiful thing of all. :)
 
I find it so sad that some women find headcoverings to be humiliating*. Where does this thought come from?

I, for one, find it most attractive (in the most appropriate, Biblical way) to see younger women and older women wearing a headcovering during times of worship. It is a sign of submission, to be sure, but it is a sign that points to a wonderfully beautiful femininity worthy of admiration.

As a girl who wears a headcovering, I agree that it is wonderful to wear this in obedience to my Lord. The two pressures come from 1) I look stupid and legalistic to others and 2) it hides my glory - my hair and I look less attractive. Which is fine by me. But I can totally see the struggle many women must feel who enjoy dressing up and looking their best on Sunday. Only to cover their hair and extinguish this great aspect of their beauty. But I agree with you - a women obeying the Lord is the most beautiful thing of all. :)

You've got very beautiful eyes Psyche , I think the head covering would highlight that. I wish I could get my wife to wear a head covering.
 
I have respect for women who both wear and don't wear headcoverings. My church has women who do cover and women who don't. I do not, because I'm not convinced that I need to. I've studied it, read commentaries, spoken with numerous pastor's I've sat under, and discussed this with my husband. I am confident that if I am in error in this matter the Lord through His Word and Spirit will convict me of this matter. This thread has not done that. I am not one to go with the flow. If I was the ONLY woman in my church to wear a covering, I wouldn't care what others thought. If my husband asked me to wear a covering even if I didn't agree with his stand, I would. This is not an issue that determines salvation. The Lord knows my heart, and if I'm in sin, eventually He's going to deal with me on that.
 
I've enjoyed following this thread. My wife and daughters do wear the covering to church, and one observation I've noticed when visiting other churches is that you will have people come up to you, out of the blue, and they will comment quietly that they agree Scripturally with the practice and love to see it in the church again, but alas, it's just not something practiced anyone, so no one does it anymore (save for a few women of mature years who continue the practice of wearing a hat to church.)
 
In light of the view favoring a separate covering, at what point should daughters begin to cover their heads?
There's variation on this in h/c community, but we've covered our daughter from the first Sunday she was physically able to attend corporate worship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top