Servant of the Lord

You speak the truth and the truth will be evil spoken of... OSAS

A true believer would not say such things.

Lot's wife was almost saved, but she looked back towards Sodom and Gomorrah and became a pillar of salt! Thoughts? Are some today SO close to salvation, but not quite there? Genesis 19:26-29 (KJV) 26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. 27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD: 28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. 29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

As Dr. Daniel Wallace (professor at Dallas Theological Seminary) wrote, “The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically... The real danger, as I see it, is that many Christians simply ignore what this text says because any form of obedience to it is inconvenient.” However, obedience to Scripture is important – not only because disobedience dishonors God, but because His commands exist for a purpose. Paul states that the purpose of the headcovering is to honor the Lord's structure of headship and to promote His glory during communication with Him. Indeed, God's authority and glory are highly valued among His people. They are to be especially evident within marriage, a covenant intended to reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). One of Jesus' concerns with the Jewish leaders of His time was that they had let go of the “commands of God” in order to “hold onto the traditions of men” (Mark 7:8-9). Similarly, it can be tempting to forgo God's direction in v.2-16 in order to maintain conformity to the norms of modern Western culture. Knowing that some Christians would resist God's instructions in this passage, the Lord inspired Paul to promote unity in the practice of headcovering: “If one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God” (v.16). Phillips, David. Covered Glory: 1 Corinthians 11 & The Christian Use of Headcoverings .

This is the temple prostitutes argument. This is a violation of adding a reason why Paul wrote the reasons WHY within 1 Corinthians 11 1-16. In 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 the apostle Paul discusses women wearing prayer veils. Should women wear prayer veils? After much research and prayer, I was moved by the Spirit that half a chapter of Holy Scripture should not be ignored or treated as “incidental” and not preached by the churches. What are some of the common arguments heard against women wearing prayer veils in the church? One of the most common is that the women’s hair is their covering. Another is that it was a custom of the time and not a principle. Let’s discuss these one at a time. Many read only one verse v.15 out of the entire 16 verses and decide that women's hair is their covering, but such an interpretation would contradict itself and make the entire scripture nonsense. Let’s take a closer look about what I am referring to. If her hair has been given to her as a natural covering verse 15 then in verse 5 why would it read if her head is uncovered meaning "bald" let her be more bald? See the contradiction to such an interpretation? Obviously, two different types of coverings are being discussed here. One is her hair, her natural covering for the outside world and her veil inside the church. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (KJV) 1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. When we read scripture, we tend to come to the scriptures with natural biases whether we realize it or not. We currently live in a post-feminist society. This world view has also infiltrated into the churches. It is difficult in our current society to interpret certain scripture when it goes against what societal norms and dictates. In our post-feminist society women wearing prayer veils would be considered sexist. Yet, so would many other teachings of the bible such as Pastors being men and the divine order discussed not only here 1 Corinthians but throughout the bible. A veil may be whatever covering is customary for the day, other than hair. As long as the woman's head is covered is what the Apostle Paul was driving home in this half a chapter of Holy scripture regarding the topic. I try not to be dogmatic about what type of head covering it should be. As I stated earlier another common argument against head coverings is that it was a custom at the time and does not apply to us today. Principles are those commands of God that apply to all people at all time in every culture and in every life situation. Customs are those things that are variant local applications of principles. For example, in the NT the principle of tithing was there and in those days it was done in the Denarius or the Shekel. Does that mean that the only way we can please God today is by paying our tithes in Denarius or Shekel? Of course not! The monetary unit was customary the clothing styles those are the things that are subject to change from culture to culture from place to place. The principle of modesty applies to all generations, but how that modesty is manifested will differ from one country to another and from one time to another. We understand that those things are customary. Many times, distinguishing between custom and principles is a relatively easy matter, but not always sometimes it is excruciatingly difficult to make that distinction. Here is the Principle to apply if you can't decide if something is a custom or principle. The biblical principle would be whatever is not of faith is a sin. The burden of proof is always going to be on those who argue that such and such a command is custom and not principle. If you are not sure then the principle that applies is treat it as a principle, because if you treat a custom as a principle then the only guilt you bear is being overly scrupulous, but if you take a principle of God and treat it as a local custom and don't observe it you have sinned against God. Every serious student of the Word of God first seeks to discover its meaning and standards and then, and only then, to bring practice into conformity with it. Biblical principles determine Biblical practice. It would appear the church had a rich history of veiling for women up until the feminist movement launched a specific attack against the practice. It was the "meaning" of this act that the feminist movement took offense to as does our current day society regarding "male headship in the home & church," which is God's order of creation that the Apostle Paul touched on in several of his epistles. Excerpt used for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: from Gardiner, Jeremy. Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times Head Covering Movement. Kindle Edition. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is a feminist organization founded by Betty Friedan (author of The Feminist Mystique). In 1968 they rallied their troops to have a “national unveiling.” Here’s what they said: “Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection with many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a "national unveiling" by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman. At the spring meeting of the task force of women and religion, these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches.” [25] NOW rallied their various chapters to “undertake an effort” to stop the practice of head covering. They were so disgusted with the symbol and what it represented that they had a public burning of women’s veils. Sadly, their efforts achieved what they hoped it would.

You've brought up some excellent points. 1. In our society it is no longer shameful for a woman to have cut hair so it would seem it is not necessary to cover the head. First, although as Christians we live in a society with unbelievers we are to be set apart from it. As Christians we are to be holy and give our lives to Christ and follow him. This does not mean sinless perfection, but we are different from the unbelievers. Homosexuality is now accepted by society, but for God it is a sin. So as Christians we are not to follow societies norms and dictates is they contradict that of the teachings of GOD. The head covering was to be done during corporate worship. Does head coverings apply now? The local church, whether at Corinth, Colossae, Cleveland, or Cologne, is only part of the larger church (1:2d–f). This church is the church universal in its breadth. It is rooted in eternity and spread out through all time and space (1:2d). Most of its members are already in heaven. This larger church is the subject of his epistle to the Ephesians. Paul keeps it in mind, here, even though he is writing to a local church. For while he specifically addresses the church at Corinth, his letter is also for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ.” This letter, then, is as much for us, who dwell in lands of which Paul never dreamed and at a time as far from his age as was that of Abraham, as it was for those dear Christians in nearby Corinth in 1 Cor. A.D. 55. Phillips, J. (2009). Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary (1 Co 1:1–9). Kregel Publications; WORDsearch Corp. 2.However, social norms no longer require a woman to be in submission. So true... Again what society does or does not do is not applicable to a Christian who is set apart to be Holy and be a follower of Christ Jesus. 3. What are women to do if we don't have husbands? Christ would be their head in that case and they should cover with veil as should women who do have husbands. Why? The reasons Paul himself gave found in the periscope of scripture 1 Corinthians 11 1-16.

Greetings, Thanks for your contribution to the thread. The hair = head covering is one of the most common and poorly conceived explanations. Please see below: Two points are significant: (1) No word for veil occurs in vv 2-14. Thus, that the hair is regarded by Paul as a veil in v 15 is not necessarily an argument that the hair is the same as the head covering that he is describing in these verses. (2) Throughout this periscope, Paul points out the similarities of long hair with a head covering. But his doing so strongly suggests that the two are not to be identified. Precisely because they are similar, they are not identical. Note the following verses. 11:5-- “but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.” 11:6-- “For if a woman will not cover herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should keep it covered. 11:7-- “For a man ought not to cover his head . . .” 11:10-- “For this reason a woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head” 11:13-- “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” 11:15-- “but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory . . .” Several points can be made here. (1) If ‘covering’ = ‘hair,’ then all men should shave their heads or go bald because the men are to have their heads uncovered. (2) If ‘covering’ = ‘long hair,’ then v 6 seems to suggest a tautology: “if a woman will not wear long hair, then she should cut off her hair.” But this in no way advances the argument. (3) The argument caves in by its own subtlety. To see ‘hair’ = ‘head covering’ means that one has to go through several exegetical hoops. In short, it hardly appears to be the plain meaning of the text. (4) Verses 10 and 15 would have to be saying the same thing if long hair is the same as a head covering. But this can hardly be the case. In v 10, a woman is required to wear a ‘symbol of authority.’ Such a symbol represents her submission, not her glory. Paul begins the verse by pointing back to v 9 (διὰ τοῦτο in v 10, ‘for this reason,’ is inferential). Because ‘woman was created for the sake of man’ she ought to wear a symbol of authority on her head. But in v 15, a woman’s long hair is her glory. The Greek is even more emphatic: the dative αὐτῇ is a dative of advantage. A literal translation would be: ‘it is a glory to her’ or ‘a glory accruing to her,’ or ‘to her advantage.’ Surely this is not the point of v 10! To argue, then, that long hair is the woman’s head covering seems to miss the very point of the function of the head covering and of the long hair: one shows her submission while the other shows her glory. Both of these are contrasted with an uncovered head while praying or prophesying, or a shaved head at any time: such would speak of the woman’s humiliation and shame.

Please understand that it is not my intention nor desire to demean those who believe women should not have to wear a veil during prayer while in corporate worship, in any way. I am aware that many who believe this doctrine may be better Christians than I am in many ways. Yet, if I were to say to you that half a chapter of Holy Scripture was “incidental” what would you think? By what authority would I have to dismiss half a chapter of the Word of God? Why is 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 important to us today? Why is it so commonly ignored by the Churches and not followed by the majority of today’s Christian women? In 1 Corinthians 1:1-3 we read: Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God. That is a very impressive credential in his opening statement and all scripture he writes should be considered authoritative. Yet, many are quick to dismiss the first 16 verses of 1 Corinthians a half a chapter of Holy Scripture as either incidental or ignored altogether. Let me first say that we live at a time when it is unpopular to confront others for immoral or improper actions and words. The popular belief of today is that everyone should be able to do their own thing, and others have no right to “judge” or correct them. What a mess this idea has created in our society and in our churches. Sadly, many Christians have embraced this complacent attitude toward correcting others, and, as a result, sin and false doctrine in the church are seldom confronted and curbed. However, the Bible tells us that: 2 Tim. 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim. 4:1-2 1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage — with great patience and careful instruction. God tells us that His Word is not only to be used to teach and encourage but also to “correct” and “rebuke.” And in 2 Timothy 4: 3, He tells us why we must be faithful to use His Word to correct others who are in the wrong: 2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. This prophetic writing began its fulfillment shortly after it was penned and has escalated to what is happening in churches today. There are presently a great number of teachers willing to say what itching ears want to hear, instead of telling the truth as revealed in God’s Word. However, many who embrace certain views about doctrine inevitably end up altering the clear meaning of passages that contradict what they believe. And as a result, they pass their tainted understanding of the Scriptures on to those they share with. Sadly, this in turn distorts other people’s knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word. Why does it matter? Because this is very serious. That is why God urges us to contend for the faith: Phil. 1:27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel… Jude 3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. Below we come to the periscope in question. Let us read it plainly as it is written. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (KJV) 1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Two points seem to be the most significant: (1) No word for veil occurs in vv 2-14. Thus, that the hair is regarded by Paul as a veil in v 15 is not necessarily an argument that the hair is the same as the head covering that he is describing in these verses. (2) Throughout this periscope, Paul points out the similarities of long hair with a head covering. But his doing so strongly suggests that the two are not to be identified. Precisely because they are similar, they are not identical. Note the following verses. 11:5-- “but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.” 11:6-- “For if a woman will not cover herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should keep it covered. 11:7-- “For a man ought not to cover his head . . .” 11:10-- “For this reason a woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head” 11:13-- “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” 11:15-- “but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory . . .” Several points can be made here. (1) If ‘covering’ = ‘hair,’ then all men should shave their heads or go bald because the men are to have their heads uncovered. (2) If ‘covering’ = ‘long hair,’ then v 6 seems to suggest a tautology: “if a woman will not wear long hair, then she should cut off her hair.” But this in no way advances the argument. (3) The argument caves in by its own subtlety. To see ‘hair’ = ‘head covering’ means that one has to go through several exegetical hoops. In short, it hardly appears to be the plain meaning of the text. (4) Verses 10 and 15 would have to be saying the same thing if long hair is the same as a head covering. But this can hardly be the case. In v 10, a woman is required to wear a ‘symbol of authority.’ Such a symbol represents her submission, not her glory. To argue, then, that long hair is the woman’s head covering seems to miss the very point of the function of the head covering and of the long hair: one shows her submission while the other shows her glory. Both of these are contrasted with an uncovered head while praying or prophesying, or a shaved head at any time: such would speak of the woman’s humiliation and shame. So why is any of this important? Why does any of this really matter? It’s all about being in proper fellowship with the Lord! If you are a woman reading this, I strongly urge you to prayerfully seek out the Lord’s guidance. Perhaps you have been attending church for years and this is the first time this has been brought up to you? Given our post-feminist society, most Pastors will steer well clear of such passages to avoid conflict.

fe·cun·di·ty /feˈkəndədē,fiˈkəndədē/ noun the ability to produce an abundance of offspring or new growth; fertility. "multiply mated females show increased fecundity" This is one of the common explanations people repeat, but it is one which is poorly conceived. There is the one where the "hair" is their covering that is a really bad explanation which is easily disproved, that one gets thrown around by the laity often. There is also the one that in the culture at the time "prostitutes" had their heads uncovered so Paul worried about that so wanted the women covered in church. The angels alone argument does great violence to 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 because it ignores the main theme and reason for head coverings in the first place which would be "the divine order" invoked by the Apostle Paul which is trans-cultural (applies today). Paul gave 2 reasons for it himself found within that periscope of scripture. 1. The divine order 2. The angels lets investigate both further. If we look closely at the entire chapter it deals with corporate worship. The first 16 verses were in regards to coverings for women while the second half dealt with corrections regarding the Lord's supper. Excerpt used for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: [John Phillips Commentary Series, The - Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary.] [The second part of Paul's question takes up the obvious counterpart to all this. It has to do with nature and a woman's hair, especially with its loveliness: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (11:15). Some have taken this verse as an excuse for annulling all the previous teaching on the need for a woman to wear a covering on her head when she prays or prophesies. That cannot be. Paul does not devote a dozen verses to building his case only to knock it down casually and carelessly in the last verse. The woman's long hair is indeed her covering—but it is not the covering under discussion in the previous verses. Paul uses a different word altogether here from the ones he has used elsewhere in the chapter. He uses the word peribolaion. It denotes something thrown around someone. It is a composite word made up of peri (around) and ballō (to throw). The thought behind the word is that a woman's long hair is a mantle, a wrapper, provided by nature for a woman's covering. Her hair, indeed, is her glory. Many women, indeed, know how to make the most of it and use it to advantage to catch the eye and excite the admiration (or envy) of others. As long hair on a man is a shame to him, so long hair on a woman is a glory to her. This only adds weight to Paul's previous ruling. The woman, when she prays or prophesies, must put another covering over this natural covering. When she stands up to participate in worship she must not draw attention to herself. She must not put her hair on display. That would draw attention away from her words to her person. Her glorious, natural covering must be veiled. Only in this way can she honorably participate in audible public worship. The man, then, is to have short hair, the woman is to have long hair. The man is to participate in public worship with his head uncovered, the woman is to participate in public worship with her head covered. The man, with his head uncovered, acknowledges the headship of Christ. The woman, with her head covered, acknowledges the headship of the man. Paul is through. However, he adds a final caution: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (11:16). Paul, it seemed, realized that this teaching would be unpopular. He concludes with a sharp warning. The word for contentious here is philoneikos. It is a composite word made up of phileo (to love) and neikos (strife). It means to love strife or to enjoy squabbling. A companion word, philoeikia, is used to describe an incident in the Upper Room just after the Lord had instituted the communion feast, and just after He had bluntly stated that one of them would betray Him. We read "there was also a strife [philoneikia] among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest" (Luke 22:24). How sad! A love of strife leading to such an argument at such a time! Paul sensed this same un-Christlike spirit would motivate some to pick on his teaching and argue about it. "We have no such custom!" Paul bluntly declares. That is, we have no such custom, here or anywhere else in the churches, to quarrel, especially over divinely revealed truth. The subject matter he had been discussing was of the highest order. It was not open for debate by those who simply liked to argue for argument's sake. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (KJV) 1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11: 5-16 Biblical Exegesis Excerpt used for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: 1 MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (pp. 1785–1787). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 11:5 Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, that is, the man. She is saying, in effect, that she does not recognize man’s God-given headship and will not submit to it. If this were the only verse in the Bible on the subject, then it would imply that it is all right for a woman to pray or prophesy in the assembly as long as she has a veil or other covering on her head. But Paul teaches elsewhere that women should be silent in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34), that they are not permitted to teach or to have authority over the man but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:12). Actually meetings of the assembly do not come into view until verse 17, so the instructions concerning the head-covering in verses 2–16 cannot be confined to church meetings. They apply to whenever a woman prays or prophesies. She prays silently in the assembly, since 1 Timothy 2:8 limits public prayer to the men (lit., males). She prays audibly or silently at other times. She prophesies when she teaches other women (Titus 2:3–5) or children in the Sunday school. 11:6 If a woman is not covered, she might as well be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, then she should be covered. The unveiled head of a woman is as shameful as if her hair were cut off. The apostle is not commanding a barber’s operation but rather telling what moral consistency would require! 11:7 In verses 7–10, Paul teaches the subordination of the woman to the man by going back to creation. This should forever lay to rest any idea that his teaching about women’s covering was what was culturally suitable in his day but not applicable to us today. The headship of man and the subjection of woman have been God’s order from the very beginning. First of all, man is the image and glory of God whereas woman is the glory of man. This means that man was placed on earth as God’s representative, to exercise dominion over it. Man’s uncovered head is a silent witness to this fact. The woman was never given this place of headship; instead she is the glory of man in the sense that she “renders conspicuous the authority of man,” as W. E. Vine expresses it. Man indeed ought not to cover his head in prayer; it would be tantamount to veiling the glory of God, and this would be an insult to the Divine Majesty. 11:8 Paul next reminds us that man was not created from woman but woman was created from man. The man was first, then the woman was taken from his side. This priority of the man strengthens the apostle’s case for man’s headship. 11:9 The purpose of creation is next alluded to in order to press home the point. Nor was man created primarily for the woman, but rather woman for the man. The Lord distinctly stated in Genesis 2:18, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 11:10 Because of her position of subordination to man, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. The symbol of authority is the head-covering and here it indicates not her own authority but subjection to the authority of her husband. Why does Paul add because of the angels? We would suggest that the angels are spectators of the things that are happening on earth today, as they were of the things that happened at creation. In the first creation, they saw how woman usurped the place of headship over the man. She made the decision that Adam should have made. As a result of this, sin entered the human race with its unspeakable aftermath of misery and woe. God does not want what happened in the first creation to be repeated in the new creation. When the angels look down, He wants them to see the woman acting in subjection to the man, and indicating this outwardly by a covering on her head. We might pause here to state that the head-covering is simply an outward sign and it is of value only when it is the outward sign of an inward grace. In other words, a woman might have a covering on her head and yet not truly be submissive to her husband. In such a case, to wear a head-covering would be of no value at all. The most important thing is to be sure that the heart is truly subordinate; then a covering on a woman’s head becomes truly meaningful. 11:11 Paul is not implying that man is at all independent of the woman, so he adds: “Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.” In other words, man and woman are mutually dependent. They need one another and the idea of subordination is not at all in conflict with the idea of mutual interdependence. 11:12 Woman came from man by creation, that is, she was created from Adam’s side. But Paul points out that man also comes through woman. Here he is referring to the process of birth. The woman gives birth to the man child. Thus God has created this perfect balance to indicate that the one cannot exist without the other. All things are from God means that He has divinely appointed all these things, so there is no just cause for complaint. Not only were these relationships created by God, but the purpose of them all is to glorify Him. All of this should make the man humble and the woman content. 11:13 The apostle now challenges the Corinthians to judge among themselves if it is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. He appeals to their instinctive sense. The suggestion is that it is not reverent or decorous for a woman to enter into the presence of God unveiled. 11:14 Just how does nature itself teach us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair is not made clear. Some have suggested that a man’s hair will not naturally grow into as long tresses as a woman’s. For a man to have long hair makes him appear effeminate. In most cultures, the male wears his hair shorter than the female. 11:15 Verse 15 has been greatly misunderstood by many. Some have suggested that since a woman’s hair is given to her for a covering, it is not necessary for her to have any other covering. But such a teaching does grave violence to this portion of Scripture. Unless one sees that two coverings are mentioned in this chapter, the passage becomes hopelessly confusing. This may be demonstrated by referring back to verse 6. There we read: “For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn.” According to the interpretation just mentioned, this would mean that if a woman “does not have her hair on,” then she might just as well be shorn. But this is ridiculous. If she does not “have her hair on,” she could not possibly be shorn! The actual argument in verse 15 is that there is a real analogy between the spiritual and the natural. God gave woman a natural covering of glory in a way He did not give to man. There is a spiritual significance to this. It teaches that when a woman prays to God, she should wear a covering on her head. What is true in the natural sphere should be true in the spiritual. 11:16 The apostle closes this section with the statement: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Does Paul mean, as has been suggested, that the things he has just been saying are not important enough to contend about? Does he mean that there was no such custom of women veiling their heads in the churches? Does he mean that these teachings are optional and not to be pressed upon women as the commandments of the Lord? It seems strange that any such interpretations would ever be offered, yet they are commonly heard today. This would mean that Paul considered these instructions as of no real consequence, and he had just been wasting over half a chapter of Holy Scripture in setting them forth! There are at least two possible explanations of this verse which fit in with the rest of the Scripture. First of all, the apostle may be saying that he anticipates that certain ones will be contentious about these matters, but he adds that we have no such custom, that is, the custom of contending about this. We do not argue about such matters, but accept them as the teaching of the Lord. Another interpretation, favored by William Kelly, is that Paul was saying that the churches of God did not have any such custom as that of women praying or prophesying without being covered.

Is 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 applicable today? It appears so according to Phillips... whom authored the John Phillips New Testament Commentary, 19 volumes. The local church, whether at Corinth, Colossae, Cleveland, or Cologne, is only part of the larger church. This church is the church universal in its breadth. It is rooted in eternity and spread out through all time and space. Most of its members are already in heaven. This larger church is the subject of his epistle to the Ephesians. Paul keeps it in mind, here, even though he is writing to a local church. For while he specifically addresses the church at Corinth, his letter is also for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ.” This letter, then, is as much for us, who dwell in lands of which Paul never dreamed and at a time as far from his age as was that of Abraham, as it was for those dear Christians in nearby Corinth in 1 Cor. A.D. 55. Phillips, J. (2009). Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary (1 Co 1:1–9). Kregel Publications; WORDsearch Corp.

What is a Head Covering Is it a Woman's Long Hair or a Veil

We see many "Christians" around the world expressing words of love for God, but inwardly they are empty. Their profession of faith is not genuine or real. Jesus spoke of this when He said, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me” (Matthew 15:8).

The local church, whether at Corinth, Colossae, Cleveland, or Cologne, is only part of the larger church (1:2d–f). This church is the church universal in its breadth. It is rooted in eternity and spread out through all time and space (1:2d). Most of its members are already in heaven. This larger church is the subject of his epistle to the Ephesians. Paul keeps it in mind, here, even though he is writing to a local church. For while he specifically addresses the church at Corinth, his letter is also for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ.” This letter, then, is as much for us, who dwell in lands of which Paul never dreamed and at a time as far from his age as was that of Abraham, as it was for those dear Christians in nearby Corinth in 1 Cor. A.D. 55. Phillips, J. (2009). Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary (1 Co 1:1–9). Kregel Publications; WORDsearch Corp.

Thank you for reading my posts Heleadethme. I agree and understand what you mean. Yet in 1 Corinthians 11 both men and women are given instructions on head coverings. As an aside, I also understand for some my posts in this thread might appear lengthy in nature. The way this topic 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 is being presented in this thread might not be for everyone. Some might find extensive reading laborious while others many find it enjoyable. There is nothing wrong with either personality each has their own likes and dislikes. Yet, this particular thread and the manner that I have been presenting the information has been on the lengthy side as I attempt to dive into greater detail on the subject 1 Corinthians 11 1 -16 head coverings for men and women during corporate worship. So with that in mind please bear with me beloved brothers and sisters in Christ. The "short" answer to you post Heleadethme which I will try to relate back to the topic 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 would be: Men and Women are equal in Gods eyes, but He has a certain order He wishes followed. For women to willingly take the subordinate role to the man, not due to inferiority but due to obedience to the wishes of God the Father. Similar to the obedience displayed by Christ to the Father although both equal Christ willingly took the subordinate role which pleased his Father in Heaven. "God has His own order within the Godhead itself. This is not an order based on being. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each eternally, equally, and essentially God. What is revealed here is a voluntary subordination of Christ in terms of office. By virtue of the Incarnation He became man, although in no sense did He cease to be God. He "took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7), even though "being in the form of God, [he] thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (2:6). He became man in order to fulfill the law, to be man as God intended Man to be, and to carry out God's purpose in redemption. The Lord Jesus saw no reason for resenting the subordinate role He voluntarily assumed in becoming man. He could cheerfully say, "I do always those things that please [the Father]" (John 8:29)." John Phillips Commentary Series, The - Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary. "By the same token the woman is answerable to the man. This does not imply male superiority, nor does it imply female inferiority. It simply states it to be a fact that, in their respective roles in society, in the home, and in the church, this is God's ordained order and state of affairs. No amount of argument is going to change it. All attempts to defy it can only lead to breakdown and chaos." John Phillips Commentary Series, The - Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary. The "long" answer which I will try to relate back to the topic 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 would be: Excerpt used for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: John Phillips Commentary Series, The - Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary. At issue here is the controversial matter of the woman's role in the church. Paul is accused of narrow-mindedness (although how anyone could be broader-minded than Paul is difficult to say) and of a bias against women (which is totally unfair, since no one was more courteous to women and considerate of women than Paul). What Paul does insist on is order in the church, order based on experience, common sense, observation, nature, and, above all, Scripture and divine revelation. Anyone who has a quarrel with the order, especially where men and women meet together on the grounds of a common salvation, upon which the apostle insists, have a quarrel not with him but with the Holy Spirit. Paul is not airing prejudice or male chauvinism in this passage. He is writing under the direct inspiration and illumination of the Holy Spirit, who certainly knows what is best for the church He created, and who makes no mistakes. Paul begins with a word of commendation: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (11:2). The word for ordinances is paradosis, usually used in a negative sense in the New Testament. It is used of "traditions," especially the traditions of the Jewish rabbis. The word is used here and in 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6, positively. It seems, when used in this way, to refer to church order and to the two specific ordinances the Lord did give to the church—baptism and the communion feast. Always eager to find something to praise, Paul commends the Corinthians for their exercise about these things. However, he evidently has weightier matters on his mind. His but rings out with haste, before the ink is dry on his commendation. There follows a word of comprehension (1 Cor. 11:3-16), in which Paul develops the whole subject of the woman's role in the local church. Two subjects are discussed—headship (11:3-12) and hair (11:13-16). The headship of the man is made immediately and abundantly clear. The fact of man's headship is categorically declared (11:3). As to the human order of things, Paul says, "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man" (11:3a); and as to the higher order of things, "The head of Christ is God" (11:3b). This brings us back to basics. God is a God of order (1 Cor. 14:40), an order that reaches back into His own nature. He insists on order in the universe. Science is predicated on the fact that this universe is based on order. This order extends into human affairs, to government, to the home, to the church. In terms of human life the woman has a head, the man; the man has a head, Christ, who by virtue of the fact that He is God, absolutely and eternally, takes priority and preeminence over the headship vested in the man. The man is answerable for his actions, ultimately and inescapably, to Christ. By the same token the woman is answerable to the man. This does not imply male superiority, nor does it imply female inferiority. It simply states it to be a fact that, in their respective roles in society, in the home, and in the church, this is God's ordained order and state of affairs. No amount of argument is going to change it. All attempts to defy it can only lead to breakdown and chaos. When a person purchases an appliance or a piece of equipment it normally comes with the manufacturer's instructions and warranty. Usually the warranty is valid only so long as the instructions are heeded. The manufacturer knows the nature and complexity of the equipment better than anyone. Alter all, he designed and made it. If the instructions come with the warning, "Press button 'A' before you press button 'B' " it is because of some basic requirement connected with the structure and nature of the machine. If a person reverses the order and insists on pressing button B before button A, and things go wrong, what can he expect? The instructions were clear and plain. Human life and society are far more complex than any man-made appliance. We would do well to heed the Maker's instructions. He categorically states that the head of the man is Christ and that the head of the woman is the man. That is the way things are. The feminist lobby, for all its noise, anger, organization, and resentment, is not going to change the way things are. This is true of society in general, the home in particular, and the church above all. In this chapter, of course, Paul is more concerned with order in the church. He carries the principle of order even higher by affirming that even Christ has a head—God. He places this statement after the one which says that the head of the woman is the man, as though to soften any possible blow to the woman's pride. God has His own order within the Godhead itself. This is not an order based on being. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each eternally, equally, and essentially God. What is revealed here is a voluntary subordination of Christ in terms of office. By virtue of the Incarnation He became man, although in no sense did He cease to be God. He "took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7), even though "being in the form of God, [he] thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (2:6). He became man in order to fulfill the law, to be man as God intended Man to be, and to carry out God's purpose in redemption. The Lord Jesus saw no reason for resenting the subordinate role He voluntarily assumed in becoming man. He could cheerfully say, "I do always those things that please [the Father]" (John 8:29). So then, in the human order of things and in the highest order of things Paul establishes categorically the fact of headship. But he has only just begun. We note next that the fact of man's headship is correspondingly displayed (1 Cor. 11:4-7). First comes the principle (11:4-5). In the first place, the man must display his supremacy in the church: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (11:4). Since this statement follows right on from the previous one, it is evident that "his head," which he thus dishonors, is Christ. When a man takes a leading role in a church activity, such as praying or preaching, he is to leave his physical head uncovered in order to display his headship in spiritual things and in order to acknowledge the headship of Christ. This is a very remarkable statement. In the synagogue exactly the opposite was enjoined. To this day a Jew, reading the Torah in the synagogue, puts on a cap known as a yarmulke. Some of the stricter Jews always cover their heads in public. The Jewish custom of the man covering his head when the Scriptures are read goes back before Paul's day. The Holy Spirit, by requiring the very opposite practice in the church, is evidently striking a blow at the Judaizers, who were forever trying to corrupt Christianity into a mere extension of what Paul calls elsewhere "the Jews' religion." The "covering" to which Paul refers in verse 4 is technically a veil which covers the man's whole head and conceals all his hair. Possibly there were men in the Corinthian church who were going to this extreme of self-abnegation in worship, thinking they were pleasing God by such a display. Paul repudiates any such practice. The contrary was what was called for: the man must pray and preach with his head completely uncovered to display his headship and the Lord's. By contrast, the woman must display her subordination in the church: "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" (11:5). The woman's head, here, is the man. If and when a woman takes a public part in church worship she must cover her physical head in order to honor the man who is her spiritual head. By so covering her head she displays her subjection to the man and witnesses that she is functioning, in a public capacity, under the authority of the man.

You are very welcome :-)