1 Corinthians 11 1-16 What is a Head Covering Is it a Woman's Long Hair or a Veil

[Servant of the Lord]

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

[Servant of the Lord]

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.

[Justin Adams]

7 minutes ago, Servant of the Lord said:

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.

The head covering was to do with fecundity beliefs as put forth by Greek Physicians. 'Because of the angels..'

It is not a requirement. However, one should be aware that fallen heavenly beings did actually major on sexual sins. See Gen 6. 

[Servant of the Lord]

On 3/11/2020 at 2:17 PM, Justin Adams said:

The head covering was to do with fecundity beliefs as put forth by Greek Physicians. 'Because of the angels..'

It is not a requirement. However, one should be aware that fallen heavenly beings did actually major on sexual sins. See Gen 6. 

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.

[Justin Adams]

Sure is a lot of words. Maybe listen to this. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9Q_YMSfA4  (https:)

Dr. Heiser is an ancient near east and and Hebraic Scholar. He knows ancient tongues, Hebrew, Greek (both forms) and Cuneiform as well as much History including second temple period Judaic writings. He is a scholar of renown.

 

[Servant of the Lord]

3 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Sure is a lot of words. Maybe listen to this. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn9Q_YMSfA4  (https:)

Dr. Heiser is an ancient near east and and Hebraic Scholar. He knows ancient tongues, Hebrew, Greek (both forms) and Cuneiform as well as much History including second temple period Judaic writings. He is a scholar of renown.

 

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.

[Justin Adams]

Just listen. Then talk bro.

[Heleadethme]

On 3/11/2020 at 3:17 PM, Justin Adams said:

The head covering was to do with fecundity beliefs as put forth by Greek Physicians. 'Because of the angels..'

It is not a requirement. However, one should be aware that fallen heavenly beings did actually major on sexual sins. See Gen 6. 

If that were the reason why didn't Paul just say so?  He didn't mention anything about that belief, but gave other reasons........which agree with lots of other scriptures, so it passes the test.

"Because of the angels"...is simply because angels can fall...and they are very closely involved with things like prayer and prophesying.  I think headcovering is a reminder for them..."a sign on her head".....a bit like a do not trespass sign.

[other one]

17 minutes ago, Heleadethme said:

If that were the reason why didn't Paul just say so?  He didn't mention anything about that belief, but gave other reasons........which agree with lots of other scriptures, so it passes the test.

"Because of the angels"...is simply because angels can fall...and they are very closely involved with things like prayer and prophesying.  I think headcovering is a reminder for them..."a sign on her head".....a bit like a do not trespass sign.

there are many things that were just very common knowledge at that time that the writers of the Bible expected people to know...    that's why it's really helpful to know the general cosmology of the time period to understand a lot of context of the Bible...   Both in the Old and New Testaments...

 

[Heleadethme]

7 minutes ago, other one said:

there are many things that were just very common knowledge at that time that the writers of the Bible expected people to know...    that's why it's really helpful to know the general cosmology of the time period to understand a lot of context of the Bible...   Both in the Old and New Testaments...

 

Agree in principle but this just isn't one of those occasions...Paul gave completely other reasons for the propriety of headcovering, and he simply wouldn't have lied.