Male head covering

[Claudiu]

The discussion on head covering from 1 Cor. 11 is for the most part about women. However, I have a question about male head covering. Verse 4 says that, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (KJV). The contrast is male uncovered and female covered. But historically speaking we know male's had their head's covered (John Calvin, John Knox, William Tyndale, and so on). Were their head's covered during worship as well (all the images I've seen of them preaching were with their heads covered)? Do we know where they stood on this issue? If one holds to female's covering then it would be expected at the same time for the male's to be uncovered (with the contrast presented in 1 Cor. 11). I was just wondering how the Reformers and other Reformed people have seen this.

 

[Mushroom]

Inconsistent interpretations notwithstanding, the verses are dealing with hair, not hats.

 

[nwink]

Inconsistent interpretations notwithstanding, the verses are dealing with hair, not hats.

So do you mean Calvin would've dishonored his head if he wasn't bald? And what about verse 6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn"...does that mean if the woman has short hair, let her have short hair? It seems Paul's point in vs14-15 is that even nature itself teaches that it is shameful for the man to have a natural covering of long hair, but that the woman is to have a natural covering of long hair (which is her glory). As John Murray said on these verses: "the long hair is an indication from "nature" of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (vss. 5, 6, 13) is in line with what "nature" teaches."

---- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ----------

Were their head's covered during worship as well (all the images I've seen of them preaching were with their heads covered)? Do we know where they stood on this issue?

As a partial answer to your question, here's what Calvin wrote in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.

 

[Mushroom]

Inconsistent interpretations notwithstanding, the verses are dealing with hair, not hats.

So do you mean Calvin would've dishonored his head if he wasn't bald?

Read the portion as whole, without unwarranted dissection, and you will see that Paul is addressing hair length. Her hair is given to her as a covering. It is a shame for a man to have long hair. Somewhere along the way somebody had the bright idea to demonstrate their superior spirituality by donning a lid, and hundreds of years later we are still tempted to do the same and blind ourselves to the plain teaching of the scripture. It really is silly.

 

[kat2011]

On this topic, I've wanted to know recently -- does this only apply in church? I know that's the context, but where does it say that it only applies in church? And if we're to pray without ceasing, and it's a shame to pray with my head uncovered, and hair is given as a covering, then can the logical conclusion be that I should always have my hair down, never in a pony tail?

 

[nwink]

Read the portion as whole, without unwarranted dissection, and you will see that Paul is addressing hair length. Her hair is given to her as a covering.

Brad, I agree about reading the Scripture portion as a whole. I'm simply asking for you to apply the hair-as-a-covering argument to the whole passage. My argument is that the hair-as-a-natural-covering argument is a sidepoint further proving the artificial covering argument of the whole passage.

Should men be bald (not covering) when praying? What about long hair makes it a symbol (of authority) on the woman's head? Is the only point of this passage that women should have long hair? Should the elders at each church admonish women with short hair to grow it out?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Notwithstanding Brad's inconsistent interpretation . . . No, men should not have their heads covered during worship. And this is an important point to consider for women. Because their are those who maintain that women should always be covered whether in worship or not. But if that is true, then men must necessarily remain uncovered at all times, which is certainly not what the Apostle meant to require.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

All Paul is trying to say in these verses is that men should dress and look like men, and women should dress and look like women.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

All Paul is trying to say in these verses is that men should dress and look like men, and women should dress and look like women.

Nope. What Paul IS saying is that in worship, a Man's should be uncovered, and a woman's head should be covered.

 

[Croghanite]

Inconsistent interpretations notwithstanding, the verses are dealing with hair, not hats.

So do you mean Calvin would've dishonored his head if he wasn't bald?

Read the portion as whole, without unwarranted dissection, and you will see that Paul is addressing hair length. Her hair is given to her as a covering. It is a shame for a man to have long hair. Somewhere along the way somebody had the bright idea to demonstrate their superior spirituality by donning a lid, and hundreds of years later we are still tempted to do the same and blind ourselves to the plain teaching of the scripture. It really is silly.

Below is an excerpt from Head Coverings in Public Worship.

Is It Hair?


There is one common objection to all the proceeding arguments. It usually takes the form of a question. Doesn’t Paul explicitly say in verse 15 that her hair is given to “her for a covering”? In other words, why should a woman wear a veil for a covering when Paul says that long hair is her covering? There are a number of reasons why long hair could not be the covering that Paul requires throughout this chapter. As noted, the meaning of the word for covering used in verses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13 clearly refers to a cloth covering or veil in Scripture. Interestingly, when the apostle refers to long hair as a covering he uses a completely different Greek word (paribolain) in order to distinguish one type of head covering from another. It is noteworthy that when Paul refers to a cloth veil in this chapter he always uses a different form of kalumma (katakalupto, akatakaluptos, akatakalupto), but as soon as he discusses hair as a covering he introduces a completely unrelated Greek word (peribolaion). Paul is making a clear distinction between these two types of coverings that unfortunately is lost in translation. The apostle does not want as to confuse the covering of hair for the covering of cloth (the veil). Further, (as noted) if long hair is substituted for a cloth covering in verses 5 and 6, the passages make no sense whatsoever (e.g., “If your hair is cut short, then let it be cut short”). If Paul’s main concern in chapter 11 is to teach women that they must come to the worship service with long hair then why not simply teach on the necessity of women having long hair all the time as a law of nature. There would be no reason to have a separate discussion about long hair in public worship because a woman’s hair is not something that can be removed and replaced in a moment when one desires. Also, the idea that the head covering is long hair would require one to interpret the head covering in reference to men in verse 4 as long hair, which is extremely unlikely.

Paul’s reference to long hair as a natural covering comes in a series of reasons for the use of a cloth covering in public worship. The argument for long hair takes one of Paul’s sub-points for the use of a cloth veil and makes it the main proposition of the whole section. If Paul’s only and main concern was simply that women keep their hair long while men keep their hair short, then why not begin the discussion with this point? Also, why would Paul use a word for a cloth covering throughout his argument and then use a different Greek word in verse 15 if he was only concerned about hair styles? One of the greatest problems for the long hair argument is that short lesbian-like hair on women and long effeminate styles on men is not simply a problem for public worship, but is also a clear violation of God’s law relating to maintaining the God ordained difference between the sexes. If women were trying to look like men, which was common lesbian behavior in the Greco-Roman world, Paul would have dealt with this perverse behavior in his section on sexual immorality and would not have treated the matter as something only improper in public worship.

Obviously then, the apostle is pointing to nature (or the natural order) where a woman’s long hair is a natural covering as supporting evidence for the use of a cloth covering in public worship. “The implication is that as nature has provided women with a head-dress of hair, she is intended, not, of course, to consider this as a substitute for further covering, but to wear a head-dress when she is praying to God in the company of men, nature being regarded as supplying the norm even for such attire.”[11] John Murray writes,



“The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament,’ and this would justify the rendering, ‘her hair is given her for a covering.” The covering of long hair provided by nature (verse 15) “does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13,” and indeed Paul appeals to it in support of the artificial covering. Bruce Waltke observes, “The presupposition is used here nearer to its original meaning of ‘over against.’ Her long hair stands ‘over against’ and ‘corresponds to’ the covering desiderated for the public assembly.” The natural covering in verse 15 “asks for” the worship covering of verses 4- 7.

The point is that verses 5, 6 and 13 contemplate an artificial covering which is to be put on for the worship assemblies of the church, while verses 14 and 15 “adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage, but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from ‘nature’ of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering requires in verses 5, 6, 13, is in line with what ‘nature’ teaches.”[12]



The Greek scholar Buchsel has noted that the preposition anti which has the basic meaning of “over against” or “in place of” can refer to “a mere equivalent in estimation...or similarity.” He cites 1 Corinthians 11:15 as an example of similarity.[13] In other words, Paul is not saying that a woman’s long hair is the head covering that he is arguing in favor of in the worship service, but rather that it is similar to the cloth covering. Nature points to the use of a cloth covering in public worship. Godet writes, “It has been objected, not without a touch of irony, that for the very reason that nature has endowed woman with such a covering, she does not need to add a second and artificial one (Holsten). But this is to mistake the real bearing of the apostle’s argument. All is spiritual in his view. He means that nature, by constituting as it has done each of the two sexes, has given both to understand the manner in which they will fulfill their destiny; for man, it will be public and independent action; for woman, life in domestic retirement and silence. Whoever has the least appreciation of the things of nature, will recognize the profound truth of this symbolism.... Women’s physical constitution is a revelation of the Creator’s will regarding her. Not to conform to this indication, is not merely to offend social propriety, it is to transgress the will of the Creator.”[14]

Regarding the argument in favor of long hair as a covering, one more thing needs to be noted. It has been the experience of this author that virtually everyone (pastors, elders, sessions, individuals) who argues for long hair as a covering in public worship, does not require women to have long hair. Why is this fact important? It is important because it reveals that, at least for many people, the long hair argument is little more than an excuse to avoid the real sign of submission—a cloth head covering. Many avoid this charge by arguing that the apostle’s main concern in this section of Scripture is to teach believers that hairstyles must be different for men and women. In other words, the length is relative. Women’s hair must be at least a little longer or at least a different, more feminine style than men’s. If this assertion is the apostle’s point, then (as noted) why bring it up in a discussion regarding proper attire or decorum during public worship? Are we to believe that a reversal of sexual roles regarding appearance is permitted outside the worship service? Unfortunately, most of the pastors who exegete this section of Scripture today are more interested in justifying current practice than carefully determining the meaning of the text. Pastors who preach sermons that offend a large number of the feminist-influenced women in the church usually suffer some form of persecution.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Nope. What Paul IS saying is that in worship, a Man's should be uncovered, and a woman's head should be covered.

Nope? Really? Apparently you are saying that there is no possible way that you could be wrong. Anyway, Paul clarifies what he means in the latter part of this passage;

13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God

This seems pretty clear to me, but then who am I?

 

[seajayrice]

Interesting article on the subject by Rev Brian Schwertley Headcoverings in Public Worship

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Nope? Really? Apparently you are saying that there is no possible way that you could be wrong.

No, what I'm saying is that Paul nowhere in 1 Cor. 11 or anywhere else in the NT says "men should dress and look like men, and women should dress and look like women." THAT is exegetically unsustainable. And what's more, I don't know what you are intending to say by simply quoting the passage in question. I accept Paul's teaching, you are challenging it.

 

[nwink]

This seems pretty clear to me, but then who am I?

So do you mean men in church dishonor their heads if they aren't bald (vs 3)? And what about verse 6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn"...does that mean if the woman has short hair, let her have short hair? It seems Paul's point in vs14-15 is in making a comparison between the artificial covering in worship that he's been describing and the natural covering of hair that men and women have...that even nature itself teaches that it is shameful for the man to have a natural covering of long hair, but that the woman is to have a natural covering of long hair (which is her glory). As John Murray said on these verses: "the long hair is an indication from "nature" of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (vss. 5, 6, 13) is in line with what "nature" teaches."

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The following is from Simon Kistemaker's commentary on I Corinthians. Essentially he agrees with the assertion that Paul is referring to a head covering of some type, but he also shares my conclusion that the ultimate purpose is differentiation of the sexes.

The second clause of verse 15 summarizes, as a general statement, Paul's contention that the Corinthians should exhibit the creational differences of the sexes in their dress code. Not men but women have long hair that serves as a covering. Women show this created difference with the hair that nature has provided. Paul urges the Corinthian women to wear a head covering in addition to long hair as a symbol of honoring their husbands and showing submission to them.

In today's culture, the presence of a hat does not signify subordination of a wife to her spouse. And Paul is not asking a woman to wear a headpiece or put up her hair. Rather, he wants a woman to be distinctively feminine in respect to hair and dress and thus fulfill the role that God has intended since creation. He wants her to be submissive to her husband in femininity.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Bill,

The problem with Kistemaker's argument is that Paul argues definitively from creation (not culture) that a headcovering is the sign of a woman's submission to her husband. That argument transcends cultural trends. Paul did not base his argument on Corinthian culture, but on the created order. He doesn't say that we should use whatever the "cultural" sign of submission is in our context but instead provides the divine symbol to be employed in any culture. Therefore a headcovering is the feminine mark of submission in any culture yesterday, today, and forever.

If we were to employ this logic, WHAT would be the cultural symbol of a wife's submission to her husband in the West, a culture which inherently rejects the very idea of submission? I know of no such symbol - indeed there isn't any.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Bill,

The problem with Kistemaker's argument is that Paul argues definitively from creation (not culture) that a headcovering is the sign of a woman's submission to her husband. That argument transcends cultural trends. Paul did not base his argument on Corinthian culture, but on the created order. He doesn't say that we should use whatever the "cultural" sign of submission is in our context but instead provides the divine symbol to be employed in any culture. Therefore a headcovering is the feminine mark of submission in any culture yesterday, today, and forever.

If we were to employ this logic, WHAT would be the cultural symbol of a wife's submission to her husband in the West, a culture which inherently rejects the very idea of submission? I know of no such symbol - indeed there isn't any.

I wouldn't argue that you could certainly infer that from the text. The problem I see is that many people seem to believe that Paul is teaching the use of head coverings, however I would seriously doubt that many of the women in their churches are actually wearing them. If so many are so convicted by this passage, then why so little obedience to it?

 

[nwink]

The problem I see is that many people seem to believe that Paul is teaching the use of head coverings, however I would seriously doubt that many of the women in their churches are actually wearing them.

All of the people I know who are convinced of wearing a headcovering do wear one (the women, that is). The issue is that many people today believe the headcovering is long hair or merely cultural, and so not necessary today.

 

[Claudiu]

Were their head's covered during worship as well (all the images I've seen of them preaching were with their heads covered)? Do we know where they stood on this issue?

As a partial answer to your question, here's what Calvin wrote in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.

Back to the OP, is there any more info like the one above?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

If so many are so convicted by this passage, then why so little obedience to it?

I would say that there aren't many who are convicted of it. Those who are, do observe the ordinance given by Paul here. And up until the early 20th century, this was never a debated matter. Women wore headcoverings in church. The witness of the church throughout history has pretty well stayed the same on this matter. The divergence of opinions today is a result of the wholesale abandonment of a historic practice that otherwise orthodox theologians have to provide an rationale for.

Just read the host of historical witnesses in this article: Is Headcovering Biblical?

 

[reformedminister]

I am a painting contractor as well as a minister. I wear a hat to work every morning. I always pray with my eight year old daughter before I take her to school, and when I do I take off my hat, which is a custom I believe stems from this passage. My daughter asked me why I take my hat off when I pray and I read her the passage in 1 Corinthians 11. Now when we pray, I take my hat off and she takes it out of my hand and puts it on her head. She did this all on her own.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I am a painting contractor as well as a minister. I wear a hat to work every morning. I always pray with my eight year old daughter before I take her to school, and when I do I take off my hat, which is a custom I believe stems from this passage. My daughter asked me why I take my hat off when I pray and I read her the passage in 1 Corinthians 11. Now when we pray, I take my hat off and she takes it out of my hand and puts it on her head. She did this all on her own.

That's adorable. But it does brings up another good question about headcovering: Do the requirements for covering (or uncovering) apply to every situation or exclusively to the public worship of the church? I believe the context of Paul's statements in I Cor. 11:2-16 are only meant for the public worship of the church. I have heard some point to Paul's exhortation to "pray without ceasing" (I Thess. 5:17) to mean that women must have their heads constantly covered. But as I have said before, that argument would conversely require that men NEVER wear a hat. I don't suspect that Paul would have intended his instructions to be interpreted in that way. So, this leads me to conclude that Paul's instructions in I Cor. 11:2-16 are limited to the public worship of the church and or other meetings designated for worship and prayer.

Having said that, removing one's hat or covering one's head to pray (depending on your gender) is certainly an acceptable practice, but I would stop short of insisting on it in private settings.

 

[Scottish Lass]

however I would seriously doubt that many of the women in their churches are actually wearing them. If so many are so convicted by this passage, then why so little obedience to it?

You'll find many women here who do. Not all, of course, but many, including me.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

You'll find many women here who do. Not all, of course, but many, including me.

I think that if you feel led to wear a head covering than you absolutely should and I applaud and support you in that. I am just not convinced that that is what Paul is commanding.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I am just not convinced that that is what Paul is commanding.

Then what is he commanding? That women not shave their heads?

 

[Claudiu]

Were their head's covered during worship as well (all the images I've seen of them preaching were with their heads covered)? Do we know where they stood on this issue?

As a partial answer to your question, here's what Calvin wrote in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.

Back to the OP, is there any more info like the one above?

Guys, my question is about male head covering. If we could please address that (there are already many threads on female head covering).

 

[Mushroom]

I always remove any covering over my very short and very sparse hair before vocal prayer, but since I have this perhaps odd habit of conversing with the Lord a lot of the time, I don't think I could possibly remove hat or shades every time I was doing so. I am not a woman. Having my head covered is not needful during prayer. For a woman it is. And scripture tells her that her hair is given her for a covering. With appropriate long hair, she is always ready to pray. If you hold that a woman should have hat or doily to pray, it must be in every situation, since the verses are not limited in scope to the service of worship. Otherwise you must also concede it is acceptable for a woman to prophesy in the service of worship. So do you ladies who wear headcoverings in the service of worship run to cover your heads at all other occasions to pray? If you only wear them in worship, where does the second half of the clause apply? Where do you prophesy covered?

 

[FCC]

Claudiu,
I think that John Calvin's quote sets forward a good example of the Reformer's view on this matter. They believed in the principle expounded in I Corinthians chapter 11, women covered and men uncovered. Yet, they left the area open in matters of health and weather related issues. The Reformer's were known for their ill health and in accord with the medical knowledge of their times, they saw that an uncovered head would lead to illness and possibly death. They wore their caps out of a matter of protecting their health. They would probably and I have no historical proof of this, remove their cap in the pulpit for a short period of time, then replace it in order to protect themselves. They utilized Christian charity in the application of the passage and Calvin goes in-depth into the matter in his commentaries on I Corinthians, even allowing for a woman to run out of her house uncovered to aid a neighbor.

My two cents anyway.

 

[nwink]

And scripture tells her that her hair is given her for a covering. With appropriate long hair, she is always ready to pray.

Brad, explain to me how you understand I Cor 11:6 in light of the hair-argument.

 

[reformedminister]

Do the requirements for covering (or uncovering) apply to every situation or exclusively to the public worship of the church?

That is a good question, which I do not have a black and white answer for. It seems that most who hold to the position of women wearing headcoverings during worship (and men not) believe that this is concerning public worship only. What about family worship? What would be the main difference? It is still worship, but just less people. I do know that I go on a prayer walk every morning and I had to consider this question. I will go on that walk if it is not raining and at least in the teens. In those conditions, you betcha, I'm wearing a hat. If it is not to cover my messy hair in the morning, which could be considered vanity (6 a. m. ), then it will be to keep my head warm. Considering this question I believe we need to consider Scripture, historical evidence and tradition, as well as common sense. In the end we must all live with our conscience. What do you feel comfortable with considering all of the above?