It is actually Long Hair, not just hair. Long Hair
Keeping with the curiosity theme of the thread, if long hair is the covering, why should the uncovered woman
also be shorn?
Pastor, I think it is obvious that short hair and shorn hair are different things. Isn't that argumentum ad absurdium? Not different from Paul stating that he wished the judaizers would go all the way and emasculate themselves.
The entire portion deals with length of hair, or it makes no sense.
On the contrary, it makes no sense if hair is the covering. I would say the
argumentum ad absudium is to argue for it being the hair. It's quite evident from the passage that Paul is referring to something which symbolizes authority that is to be placed
on the head during worship that isn't on the head to begin with. If all Paul meant to teach is that women should have long hair and that men shouldn't, he could've simply said so (which he does a few verses later as an illustration), but that's not what he's teaching here. What he's teaching here has to do with corporate worship. He's concerned about preserving God's glory in the worship service.
Furthermore, I believe you've mistaken his illustration from nature (v. 14) with the actual teaching concerning worship. Otherwise, the illustration is not an illustration but the actual thing itself and it's clear that this isn't the case otherwise he wouldn't have used the example from nature as an illustration... The two would be one and the same thing and would be a rather confusing way to go about making the point, if that's what he meant.
If I may, I'll include an excerpt from a paper I wrote on this passage:
As for the first part of 11:10, which says “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head”, some things need to be mentioned. First, it must be understood that the Greek does not include the word “symbol” or “sign”, but simply reads, “Therefore the woman ought to have authority on her head.” This word for authority is
evxousi,an in the Greek and is defined as follows:
"evxousi,an—In context[,] the verse is part of the discussion of veiling (cf. the plh.n of v. 11). The verb ovfei,lei implies obligation rather than compulsion and thus suggests a moral duty. It seems, then, that the veil is a sign of subordination and the angels are guardian angels or watchers over the natural order.
evxousi,an is thus used materially for the veil in a bold image suggesting male dominion.”
Notice that the verse says that the authority is to be on her head. In order to better explain what this authority means, we shall turn, once again, to A.T. Robertson. Commenting on 11:10, he states:
"Ought (
ovfei,lei). Moral obligation therefore (
dia. tou/to), rests on woman in the matter of dress that does not (
ouvk ovfei,lei in verse 7) rest on the man. To have a sign of authority (
evxousi,an e;cein). He means
semeion evxousi,as (symbol of authority) by
evxousi,an, but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman’s head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her."
As previously mentioned, Paul goes on in 11:11-12 to remind the reader that there is ontological equality between men and women. Women should not allow themselves to fall into the trap of thinking that they are of a lesser value than men because of the economical order God has put in place. Again, Christ, too, was subject to the Father, but that role in no way makes Him inferior in essence to God the Father or the Holy Spirit.
With that said, we now move on to consider Paul’s argument from nature. In 11:13-15, he says,
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with 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 for a covering.
Paul begins this section with what is known to be a rhetorical question in which he anticipates everyone to answer “No!” After all that he has said up to this point, he expects that everyone will now understand, unconditionally, that it is not proper for a woman to go to worship with her head uncovered. Then he appeals to nature as one more proof to support his teaching. The word translated as “nature” in the Greek is
fu,sij and is “personified as a teacher; it reminds us of what is seemly.”
"Yet the statement that “nature” here means only a common sense of decency must itself be challenged. Paul uses “nature” to mean something different. In Rom. 1:26 [,] he calls homosexuality “against nature.” Here “nature” cannot mean the common sense of decency because the point of the passage is that man’s common sense of “decency” has been so perverted as to approve the practice. In Romans [,] it clearly means the created state of affairs. Certainly this created state of affairs may influence local customs and standards, but the primary and most important factor is creation not custom. This understanding of “nature” fits the context of I Cor. 11:14, which is clearly concerned with the created order."
Therefore, Paul argues that just as nature teaches that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him , nature also teaches that if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. In effect, Paul is saying that the natural created order teaches that the woman’s head is to be covered. This is seen by the fact that she has long hair that acts as a veil when outside of the worship service. According to Lenski, “Paul’s thought is this: if nature itself provides a covering for a woman, it is highly proper that she follow this hint of nature and cover her head during acts of public worship.”
"Paul contends that in the same way that the hairstyle IN EVERYDAY LIFE identifies and distinguishes man and woman, the wearing of a head-covering, or not, as the case may be, is symbolic of their distinct position IN PUBLIC WORSHIP. If the distinction is apparent in the natural realm – and it is – then it should be reflected, in worship, by the woman who acknowledges her true position before God."
Verse 15 also says, “For her hair is given to her for a covering.” Some have mistakenly understood this to mean that the woman’s hair is the head covering spoken of throughout the passage. This was addressed previously, but only in part. More must be considered at this point. Interestingly, the word for covering in this verse is not the same as the one used earlier in the previous verses. This word translated as “covering” is
peribolai,ou and is a word peculiar to 1 Corinthians. The word means,
"To cast around. A covering, cloak, wrap, cape, outer garment or mantle (Heb. 1:12 quoted from Psalm 102:26; Ex. 22:27). By implication, a covering for the head, a headdress or perhaps a veil (1 Cor. 11:15)."
Also, people have made reference to the preposition
avnti. within the verse and have come up with a translation which says, “For her hair was given to her (
avnti.) instead of a covering” as though the covering were the hair. There are many problems with such a translation. First, if the hair is the covering then why doesn’t Paul just say so and be done with it? Second, if Paul is referring to the hair as the covering throughout the passage, then why does he use different words in reference to the coverings? Third, the preposition
avnti. can also be translated “for” as the NAS and others have done implying equivalence of function. The translation would then read, “For her hair was given to her for a covering” which would agree with the lesson we learn from the natural order. Fourth, it would be ludicrous to say that the hair is the covering referred to in 11:4. For then the verse would read, “Every man who has hair on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.” If that were the case, then all Christian men should shave their heads before entering the worship service. Fifth, if we apply the same principle to 11:6, then we get the same nonsensical result. Verse 6 would then read, “For if a woman does not have hair on her head, let her also have her hair cut off.”
The covering referred to in this passage is one that is distinguished from the natural covering which is the hair. The covering is one that is put on while in the worship service and taken off outside the worship service. Otherwise, how could Paul make a distinction between what is practiced in Church and that which is seen in the natural order of things? Furthermore, it is absurd to think that men are not to have hair on their heads when in worship and that women are to put their hair on and take it off depending on whether or not they are in worship.
What do you think? Can the patient live?
I would just think that if you could look at a distance and confuse someone as a member of the opposite sex,just beacuse of hair length, that might be a clue!
