Head Covering

[Iosias]

Here is John Gill's Commentary upon 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 1 through to 16:

Ver. 1. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. &c] These words more properly close the preceding chapter, than begin a new one, and refer to the rules therein laid down, and which the apostle would have the Corinthians follow him in, as he did Christ: that as he sought, both in private and public, and more especially in his ministerial service, to do all things to the glory of God, and not for his own popular applause, in which he imitated Christ, who sought not his own glory, but the glory of him that sent him; so he would have them do all they did in the name of Christ, and to the glory of God by him: and that as he studied to exercise a conscience void of offence to God and man, in doing which he was a follower of Christ, who was holy in his nature, and harmless and inoffensive in his conversation; so he was desirous that they should likewise be blameless, harmless, and without offence until the day of Christ: and that whereas he endeavoured to please men in all things lawful and indifferent, wherein he copied after Christ, who by his affable and courteous behaviour, and humble deportment, sought to please and gratify all with whom he conversed; so he would have them not to mind high things, but condescend to men of low estates, and become all things to all, that they might gain some as he did: and once more, that as he sought not his own pleasure and advantage, but the salvation of others, in imitation of Christ, who pleased not himself, but took upon him, and bore cheerfully, the reproaches of men, that he might procure good for them; so the apostle suggests, that it would be right in them not to seek to have their own wills in every thing, but rather to please their neighbour for good to edification.

1 Corinthians 11:2 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#2)

Ver. 2. Now I praise you, brethren,.... The apostle prefaces what he had to say by way of commendation of them; though some think that this is said in an ironical way, because there are many things both in this chapter, and in the following part of this epistle, delivered in a way of reproof; but whoever considers the change of style in 1Co 11:17 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#17) will easily see, that this must be spoken seriously here, and is designed to raise the attention to what he was about to say, and to prepare their minds to receive, and take in good part, what he should say by way of rebuke; who could not well be angry when he praised them for what was praiseworthy in them, and reproved them for that which was blamable. The things he commends them for are as follow,

that ye remember me in all things; that is, either that they were mindful of him, though at a distance from them, and had such a veneration for him, and paid such respect to him, and to his judgment, as to write to him to have his sense about any point of doctrine, or case of conscience which had any difficulty in them; or that they bore in memory the doctrines of the Gospel which he had delivered among them; see 1Co 15:2 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/15.html#2) The Arabic version reads, "that ye remember my sayings and deeds"; the doctrines he preached among them, and the examples he set them:

and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you; meaning, among the rest, if not principally, baptism and the Lord's supper, which he received from Christ, and delivered unto them; see 1Co 11:23 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#23) and which they, at least many of them, kept and observed in the faith of Christ, from a principle of love to him, and with a view to his glory, and that as to the form and manner in which they were delivered to them by the apostle, agreeably to the mind of Christ; but was the apostle alive now, would, or could he praise the generality of those that are called Christians on this account? no; neither of these ordinances in common are kept as they were delivered: as to baptism, it is not attended to either as to subject or mode, both are altered, and are different from the original institution; and the Lord's supper is prostituted to the vilest of men; and, what is "monstrum horrendum", is made a test and qualification for employment in civil and military offices under the government.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#3)

Ver. 3. But I would have you to know,.... Though they were mindful of him, and retained in memory many things he had declared among them, and kept the ordinances as delivered to them; yet there were some things in which they were either ignorant, or at least did not so well advert to, and needed to be put in mind of, and better informed about: and as the apostle was very communicative of his knowledge in every point, he fails not to acquaint them with whatsoever might be instructive to their faith, and a direction to their practice:

that the head of every man is Christ; Christ is the head of every individual human nature, as he is the Creator and Preserver of all men, and the donor of all the gifts of nature to them; of the light of nature, of reason, and of all the rational powers and faculties; he is the head of nature to all men, as he is of grace to his own people: and so he is as the Governor of all the nations of the earth, who whether they will or no are subject to him; and one day every knee shall bow to him, and every tongue confess that he is the Lord of all. Moreover, Christ is the head of every believing man; he is generally said to be the head of the church, and so of every man that is a member of it: he is a common public head, a representative one to all his elect; so he was in election, and in the covenant of grace; so he was in time, in his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to, and entrance into heaven; and so he is now as an advocate and intercessor there: he is the political head of his people, or an head in such sense, as a king is the head of his nation: he is also an economical head, or in such sense an head as an husband is the head of his wife, and as a parent is the head of his family, and as a master is the head of his servants; for all these relations Christ sustains: yea, he is a natural head, or is that to his church, as an human head is to an human body: he is a true and proper head, is of the same nature with his body, is in union to it, communicates life to it, is superior to it, and more excellent than it. He is a perfect head, nothing is wanting in him; he knows all his people, and is sensible of their wants, and does supply them; his eye of love is always on them; his ears are open to their cries; he has a tongue to speak to them, and for them, which he uses; and he smells a sweet savour in them, in their graces and garments, though they are all his own, and perfumed by himself: there are no vicious humours in this head, flowing from thence to the body to its detriment, as from Adam to his posterity, whose head he was; but in Christ is no sin, nothing but grace, righteousness, and holiness, spring from him. There's no deformity nor deficiency in him; all fulness of grace dwells in him to supply the members of his body; he is an one, and only head, and an ever living and everlasting one.

And the head of the woman is the man, The man is first in order in being, was first formed, and the woman out of him, who was made for him, and not he for the woman, and therefore must be head and chief; as he is also with respect to his superior gifts and excellencies, as strength of body, and endowments of mind, whence the woman is called the weaker vessel; likewise with regard to pre-eminence or government, the man is the head; and as Christ is the head of the church, and the church is subject to him, so the husband is the head of the wife, and she is to be subject to him in everything natural, civil, and religious. Moreover, the man is the head of the woman to provide and care for her, to nourish and cherish her, and to protect and defend her against all insults and injuries.

And the head of Christ is God; that is, the Father, not as to his divine nature, for in respect to that they are one: Christ, as God, is equal to his Father, and is possessed of the same divine perfections with him; nor is his Father the head of him, in that sense; but as to his human nature, which he formed, prepared, anointed, upheld, and glorified; and in which nature Christ exercised grace on him, he hoped in him, he believed and trusted in him, and loved him, and yielded obedience to him; he always did the things that pleased him in life; he prayed to him; he was obedient to him, even unto death, and committed his soul or spirit into his hands: and all this he did as to his superior, considered in the human nature, and also in his office capacity as Mediator, who as such was his servant; and whose service he diligently and faithfully performed, and had the character from him of a righteous one; so that God is the head of Christ, as he is man and Mediator, and as such only.

[Iosias]

1 Corinthians 11:4 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#4)

Ver. 4. Every man praying or prophesying,.... This is to be understood of praying and prophesying in public, and not in private; and not to be restrained to the person that is the mouth of the congregation to God in prayer, or who preaches to the people in the name of God; but to be applied to every individual person that attends public worship, that joins in prayer with the minister, and hears the word preached by him, which is meant by prophesying; for not foretelling future events is here meant, but explaining the word of God, the prophecies of the Old Testament, or any part of Scripture, unless singing of psalms should rather be designed, since that is sometimes expressed by prophesying: so in 1Sa 10:5 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Samuel/10.html#5) "thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them, and they shall prophesy". The Targum renders it thus, Nyxbvm Nwnaw, "and they shall sing praise"; upon which Kimchi observes, that it is as if it was said, their prophecy shall be twryv, "songs" and praises to God, spoken by the Holy Ghost. So in 1Sa 19:23 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Samuel/19.html#23) it is said of Saul, that he "went on and prophesied". The Targum is, he went on, xbvmw, "and praised". And again, "he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied". Targum, xbvw, "and praised", or sung praise. Once more, in 1Ch 25:1 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Chronicles/25.html#1) it is said of Asaph, and others, that they "should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals"; which Kimchi explains of Asaph's singing vocally, and of his sons playing upon musical instruments.

Having his head covered; which, it seems, was the custom of some of them so to do in attendance on public worship: this they either did in imitation of the Heathens {r}, who worshipped their deities with their heads covered, excepting Saturn and Hercules, whose solemnities were celebrated with heads unveiled, contrary to the prevailing customs and usages in the worship of others; or rather in imitation of the Jews, who used to veil themselves in public worship, through a spirit of bondage unto fear, under which they were, and do to this day; and with whom it is a rule {s}, that "a man might not stand and pray, neither with his girdle on, hlwgm varb alw, nor with his head uncovered; nor with his feet uncovered.'' Accordingly it is said {t} of Nicodemus ben Gorion, "that he went into the school grieved, and Pjetn, "veiled himself", and stood in prayer;'' and a little after that "that he went into the sanctuary and "veiled" himself, and stood and prayed;'' though the Targum on Jud 5:2 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Judges/5.html#2) suggests, "that the wise men sit in the synagogues, ylg vyrb, "with the head uncovered", to teach the people the words of the law;'' and on Jud 5:9 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Judges/5.html#9) has these words, "Deborah in prophecy said, I am sent to praise the Scribes of Israel, who when they were in tribulation did not cease from expounding the law; and so it was beautiful for them to sit in the synagogues, "with the head uncovered", and teach the people the words of the law, and bless and confess before the Lord;'' but it seems that a different custom had now prevailed; now from this Gentile or judaizing practice, the apostle would dissuade them by observing, that such an one that uses it, "dishonoureth his head"; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship; or otherwise the reverse is suggested of him, which is highly to dishonour him, and is the sense many interpreters give into: rather the reason should be, because Christ, the believer's head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, and his intercession not prevalent: but the natural head, taken in a literal sense, is rather meant; and the sense is, that by covering it, it looks as if he was guilty and ashamed, and in subjection; whereas to appear uncovered expresses freedom, boldness, and superiority, like himself, who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman's veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable.

{r} Macrob Saturnal. l. 3. c. 6. Alex. ab. Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 2. c. 14. & 19. & 22. {s} Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 5. sect. 5. {t} T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 20. 1.


1 Corinthians 11:5 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#5)

Ver. 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,.... Not that a woman was allowed to pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to preach or explain the word, for these things were not permitted them: see 1Co 14:34 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/14.html#34) but it designs any woman that joins in public worship with the minister in prayer, and attends on the hearing of the word preached, or sings the praises of God with the congregation, as we have seen, the word prophesying signifies,

with her head uncovered. It may seem strange from whom the Corinthian women should take up this custom, since the Jewish women were not allowed to go into the streets, or into any open and public place, unveiled {u}. It was a Jewish law, that they should go out no where bare headed {w}: yea, it was reckoned scandalous and ignominious to do so. Hence it is said, {x} Mhl yang varh ywlgv, "that uncovering of the head is a reproach" to the daughters of Israel: and concerning the adulterous woman, it is represented as said by the priest {y}, "thou hast separated from the way of the daughters of Israel; for the way or custom of the daughters of Israel is Nhyvar twowkm twyhl, "to have their heads covered"; but thou hast gone "in the ways of the Gentiles", who walk with head bare.'' So that their it should seem that these Corinthians followed the examples of the Heathens: but then, though it might be the custom of some nations for women to go abroad bare headed; yet at their solemnities, where and when they were admitted, for they were not everywhere and always, they used to attend with their heads veiled and covered {z}. Mr. Mede takes notice indeed of some Heathen priestesses, who used to perform their religious rites and sacrifices with open face, and their hair hanging down, and locks spreading, in imitation of whom these women at Corinth are thought to act. However, whoever behaved in this uncomely manner, whose example soever she followed, the apostle says,

dishonoureth her head; not her husband, who is her head in a figurative sense, and is dishonoured by her not being covered; as if she was not subject to him, or because more beautiful than he, and therefore shows herself; but her natural head, as appears from the reason given:

for that is even all one as if she were shaven; to be without a veil, or some sort of covering on her head, according to the custom of the country, is the same thing as if her head was shaved; and everyone knows how dishonourable and scandalous it is for a woman to have her head shaved; and if this is the same, then it is dishonourable and scandalous to her to be without covering in public worship. And this shows, that the natural head of the man is meant in the preceding verse, since the natural head of the woman is meant in this.

{u} Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 24. sect. 12. {w} T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 72. 1. {x} R. Sol. Jarchi in Numb. v. 19. {y} Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 193. 2. {z} Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 4. c. 17.

[Iosias]

1 Corinthians 11:6 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#6)

Ver. 6. For if the woman be not covered,.... That is, if her head is not covered with some sort of covering, as is the custom of the place where she lives,

let her also be shorn; let her hair be cut short; let her wear it as men do theirs; and let her see how she will look, and how she will like that, and how she will be looked upon, and liked by others; everybody will laugh at her, and she will be ashamed of herself:

but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven: as it is accounted in all civilized nations: the very Heathens {a} speak of it as a thing abominable, and of which there should not be one single dreadful example: then let her be covered; with a veil, or any sort of covering in common use.

{a} Vid. Apul. Metamorph. l. 2. p. 21.

1 Corinthians 11:7 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#7)

Ver. 7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,.... The Ethiopic version adds, "whilst he prays"; which is a proper interpretation of the words, though a wrong version; for the apostle's meaning is not, that a man should not have his head covered at any time, but whilst he is in public worship, praying, prophesying, or singing of psalms: the reason is,

forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. The apostle speaks of man here as in his first creation, in his state of innocence before his fall; but now he has sinned and defaced this image, and come short of this glory; which lay partly in his body being made after the exemplar of the body of Christ, the idea of which God had in his eternal mind, and according to which he shaped the body of Adam: and partly in his soul, in that righteousness and holiness, wisdom and knowledge, and all other excellent gifts in which it was formed. So the Jews {b} say, the understanding is Mvh dwbk "the glory of God". And it chiefly lay in the power and dominion he had over all the creatures, and even over the woman when made; at least this is principally respected here, in which there is such a shine and representation of the glory and majesty, power and dominion of God; and therefore man ought to worship him with his head uncovered, where this image and glory of God is most illustriously displayed: not but that the woman, is the image and glory of God also, and was made as man, after his image and likeness, with respect to internal qualities, as righteousness, holiness, knowledge, &c. and with regard to her power over the other creatures, though in subjection to man; but yet man was first originally and immediately the image and glory of God, the woman only secondarily and mediately through man. The man is more perfectly and conspicuously the image and glory of God, on account of his more extensive dominion and authority:

but the woman is the glory of the man; being made out of him, and for his help and assistance, and to be a crown of honour and glory to him. The apostle speaks the sense, and in the language of the Jews. The words in Isa 44:13 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Isaiah/44.html#13). "After the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man", are by the Targum rendered, "after the likeness of a man, after the glory of a woman"; and the note of a famous {c} interpreter of theirs upon the last clause is, "this is the woman", hleb trapt ayhv "who is the glory of her husband"; but why is she to be covered for this reason, when the man is to be uncovered? it is to be observed, that it is in the presence and worship of God that the one is to be uncovered, and the other covered; the one being the glory of God, and therefore to be uncovered before him; and the other the glory of man, and therefore to be covered before God; and especially, since being first in the transgression, she who is man's glory has been the means of his shame and disgrace. The Jews seem to make this the reason of the difference; they ask {d}, "why does a man go out with his head uncovered, and a woman with her head covered? it is answered, it is like to one that has committed a sin, and he is ashamed of the children of men, therefore she goes howkm hvarw, "with her head covered".''

{b} Maimon. in Misn. Chagiga, c. 2. sect 1. 1. {c} R. Sol. Jarchi in Isa. xliv. 13. {d} Bereshit Rabba, sect. 17. fol. 15. 1.

1 Corinthians 11:8 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#8)

Ver. 8. For the man is not of the woman,.... In the present state of things, and according to the ordinary course of generation and propagation of mankind, man is of the woman, though not without the means of man; he is conceived in her, bore by her, and born of her; but the apostle respects the original formation of man, as he was immediately made by God out of the dust of the earth, before the woman was in being, and so not of her:

but the woman of the man; she was made out of his rib, and took both her name and nature from him; God was the author, and man the matter of her being; her original under God, is owing to him; and therefore as he was first in being, he must be superior to her: this serves to prove all that has been as yet said; as that man is the head of the woman, the woman is the glory of man, what he may glory in as being from him; and therefore there should be this difference in their appearance at public worship.

1 Corinthians 11:9 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#9)

Ver. 9. Neither was the man created for the woman,.... To be subservient to her; for she was not in being when he was created; and though it is the proper business of man to provide for, take care of, and defend the woman, as the weaker vessel, yet these were not the original ends of his creation; he was made for God, for his service and glory:

but the woman for the man; to be an help meet for him, who was already created; to be a companion and associate of his, both in religious worship and in civil life; and for the procreation and education of children.

[Iosias]

1 Corinthians 11:10 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#10)

Ver. 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head,.... The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman's head, as a sign of the man's power over her, and her subjection to him; which Dr. Hammond endeavours to confirm, by observing that the Hebrew word dydr, which signifies a woman's veil, or hood, comes from a root which signifies power and dominion; but in that he is mistaken, for the word is derived not from hdr, to rule, govern, or exercise power and authority, but from ddr, to expand, stretch out, or draw over, as a woman's veil is drawn over her head and face. The Greek word exousia more properly signifies the power she had of putting on and off her covering as she pleased, according as times, places, and persons; made it necessary:

because of the angels; various are the senses given of these words, some taking them in a proper, others in a figurative sense: some in a proper sense of angels, and these either good or bad. Tertullian {e} understands them of evil angels, and that a woman should cover her head in time of worship, lest they should lust after her; though much rather the reason should be, lest they should irritate and provoke lust in others: but it is better to understand them of good angels, who attend the assemblies of the saints, and observe the air and behaviour of the worshippers; wherefore women should cover their heads with respect to them, and not give offence to those pure spirits, by an indecent appearance: it is agreeable to the notions of the Jews, that angels attend public prayers, and at the expounding of the word; they often speak {f} of an angel,
twlpth le hnwmmh "that is appointed over prayers"; hence {g} Tertullian seems to have took his notion of an angel of prayer: and of angels being present at expounding of the Scriptures, take the following story {h}; "it happened to Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, that he was riding upon an ass, and as he was journeying, R. Eleazar ben Arach was leading an ass after him; he said to him, Rabbi, teach me one chapter in the work of Mercavah (Ezekiel's vision); he replied to him, not so have I taught you, nor in the Mercavah a single man, unless he was a wise man by his own industry; he answered him, Rabbi, give me leave to say one thing before thee, which thou hast taught me; immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai alighted from his ass and "veiled himself", and sat upon a stone under an olive tree; he said to him, Rabbi, why dost thou alight off from the ass? he replied, is it possible that thou shouldst expound in the work of Mercavah, and the Shekinah be with us, wntwa Nywlm trvh ykalmw, "and the ministering angels join us", and I ride upon an ass?'' And a little after, "R. Joshua and R. Jose the priest were walking on the road, they said, yea, let us expound in the work of Mercavah; R. Joshua opened and expounded, and that day was the solstice of Tammuz, and the heavens were thickened with clouds, and there appeared the form of a bow in the cloud, "and the ministering angels gathered together", ewmvl Nyabw, "and came to hear": as the children of men gather together, and come to see the rejoicings of the bridegroom and bride.'' Moreover, this veiling of the woman in public worship because of angels, may be an imitation of the good angels, who when they sung the praises of God, and adored and glorified his perfections, covered their faces and their feet with their wings, Isa 6:1 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Isaiah/6.html#1). Many understanding these words in a figurative sense, and in this also they are not agreed; some by angels think young men are meant, who, for their gracefulness and comeliness, are compared to angels; others good men in general, that attend religious worship; others ministers of the word, called angels often in the book of the Revelations; which last seems to be most agreeable of any of these senses; and the women were to cover their heads, that they might not offend either of these, or stir up any impure desires in them; see Ec 5:6 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Ecclesiastes/5.html#6) but as these words follow the account given of the creation of the woman from the man, and for his sake; this may have no reference to her conduct in public worship, but to the power she had of using her covering, or taking it off, or putting it on, at the time of her espousals to a man; which was sometimes done by proxy, or messengers, whom the Jews call Myxwlv, "angels" {i}; their canon is, "a man may espouse (a wife) by himself, wxwlvbw, "or by his angel", or messenger; and a woman may be espoused by herself, or by her angel, or messenger:'' wherefore because of these angels, or messengers, that came to espouse her to such, she had power over her head to take off her veil, and show herself, if she thought fit; or to keep it on, as expressing her modesty; or just as she pleased, when she by them was espoused to a man, for whose sake she was made; which sense, after Dr. Lightfoot, many learned men have given into, and seems probable.

{e} De Veland. Virg. c. 7. {f} Shemot Rabba, sect. 21. fol. 106. 2. Zohar. in Gen. fol. 97. 2. {g} De Oratione, c. 15. {h} T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 14. 2. {i} Misn. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 1.

1 Corinthians 11:11 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#11)

Ver. 11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman,.... This is said, partly to repress the pride and insolence of man, that he might not be too much elated with himself, and his superiority over the woman, and look with any degree of disdain and contempt upon her, and treat her with indifference and neglect; and partly to comfort the woman, that she might not be dejected with the condition and circumstances in which she was, since the one is not without the other; nor can they be so truly comfortable and happy, as not the man without the woman, who was made for an help meet for him,

so neither the woman without the man in the Lord. The phrase "in the Lord" is added, to show that it is the will of God, and according to his ordination and appointment, that the one should not be without the other; or it may design that lawful conjunction and copulation, of one man and one woman together, according to the will of the Lord, which distinguishes it from all other impure mixtures and copulations. The Arabic version reads it, "in the religion of the Lord"; and the sense is, that the one is not without the other in religious worship, and in the enjoyment of religious privileges; that though the woman may not pray publicly and expound the Scriptures, yet she may join in prayer, and hear the word preached, sing the praises of God, and enjoy all ordinances; for in Christ no distinction of sex is regarded, men and women are all one in him, and equally regenerated, justified, and pardoned, and will be glorified together.

1 Corinthians 11:12 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#12)

Ver. 12. For as the woman is of the man,.... Originally; so Eve was of Adam, made out of one of his ribs:

even so is the man also by the woman; now man is born of a woman, he is conceived of one, and brought into the world by one. This is the way in which mankind is propagated, the species preserved, continued, and increased; and therefore there is no reason why the woman should be despised, or the man should be lifted up with himself above her, since they are so dependent upon, and so useful to each other:

but all things of God. The Arabic version reads it, "all creatures are of God"; which is true, but not the truth of these words, which are to be restrained to the subject of the discourse; as that both the man and the woman are of God; they are made by him, and after his image and likeness; that the man is the glory of God, and the woman the glory of the man; the authority of the man over the woman, and the subjection of the woman to the man, are of God, and according to his constitution and appointment; as also that the woman should be of the man, and for his sake, and that the man should be by the woman, and neither should be without the other: these are not things of human constitution, but are settled by the wise counsel of God, and therefore to be cheerfully submitted to, as the best order of things.

[Iosias]

1 Corinthians 11:13 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#13)

Ver. 13. Judge in yourselves,.... The apostle having gone through a variety of reasoning and arguments, showing the superiority of the man to the woman, by which he would prove, that the one should be covered, and the other uncovered, returns to his subject again, and appeals to the common sense and understanding of the Corinthians, and makes them themselves judges of the matter; suggesting that the thing was so clear, and he so certain of what he had advanced being right, that he leaves it with them, not doubting but that they would, upon a little reflection within themselves, join with him in this point:

is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? in you judgment you can never think so, however pleasing and gratifying such a sight may be, to the lust of the flesh, and to the lust of the eye; he does not mention prophesying, only instances in praying; but it is to be understood of one, as of another; and his meaning is, that it is an uncomely thing in a woman to appear in public service with her head uncovered, whether it be in joining in the public prayers, or in singing of psalms, or in hearing the word expounded; and though the apostle does not put the case of the man's praying to God, or prophesying in his name with his head covered, yet his sense is the same of that, as of the woman's.

1 Corinthians 11:14 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#14)

Ver. 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you,.... By nature is either meant, the law and light of nature, reason in man, common sense, or rather custom, which is second nature; and which, in this case, must be restrained to the Greeks and Jews; for though among the Grecians the men cut their hair, and did not suffer it to grow long, as also did the Jews, yet there were many nations {k} who did not, even at that time, observe such a rule or custom; but as the Jews and Greeks were the persons chiefly, if not solely, known to the Corinthians, the apostle signifies, that the usages of these people might direct and inform them in this matter:

that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him; he looks unmanly and womanish, and exposes himself to ridicule and contempt.

{k} Alex. ab. Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 5. c. 18. Servius in Virgil. Aeneid. l. 10. prope finem.

1 Corinthians 11:15 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#15)

Ver. 15. But if a woman have long hair,.... And wears it, without cutting it, as men do:

it is a glory to her; it is comely and beautiful; it is agreeable to her sex, she looks like herself; it becomes and adorns her:

for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other: we read indeed of the daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion, that she was obliged to make use of her hair for a covering in such a sense {l}; "it happened to R. Jochanan ben Zaccai that he rode upon an ass, and went out of Jerusalem, and his disciples went after him; he saw a young woman gathering barley corns out of the dung of the Arabian cattle; when she saw him, hrevb hpjetn, "she covered herself with her hair", and stood before him:'' but this covering was made use of, not of choice, but by force, through her poverty, she having no other; this was not the custom of the nation, nor was the hair given to women for a covering in this sense, nor used by them as such, unless by Eve before the fall; but is rather an indication that they want another covering for their head, it not being so decent that their long hair should be seen. The Jewish women used to esteem it an immodest thing for their hair to be seen, and therefore they took care, as much as possible, to hide it under another covering; "one woman, whose name was Kimchith, had seven sons, and they all ministered in the high priesthood; the wise men said unto her, what hast thou done, that thou art so worthy? she replied to them, all my days the beams of my house never saw yrev yelq, "the plaits of my hair" {m};'' that is, they were never seen by any person, even within her house.

{l} T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 66. 2. {m} T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 47. 1.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/1_Corinthians/11.html#16)

Ver. 16. But if any man seem to be contentious,.... That is, if anyone will not be satisfied with reasons given, for men's praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered, and women's praying and prophesying with their heads covered; but will go on to raise objections, and continue carping and cavilling, showing that they contend not for truth, but victory, can they but obtain it any way; for my part, as if the apostle should say, I shall not think it worth my while to continue the dispute any longer; enough has been said to satisfy any wise and good man, anyone that is serious, thoughtful, and modest; and shall only add,

we have no such custom, nor the churches of God; meaning, either that men should appear covered, and women uncovered in public service, and which should have some weight with all those that have any regard to churches and their examples; or that men should be indulged in a captious and contentious spirit; a man that is always contending for contention sake, and is continually cavilling and carping at everything that is said and done in churches, and is always quarrelling with one person or another, or on account of one thing or another, and is constantly giving uneasiness, is not fit to be a church member; nor ought he to be suffered to continue in the communion of the church, to the disturbance of the peace of it. This puts me in mind of a passage in the Talmud {n}. "The Rabbans teach, that after the departure of R. Meir, R. Judah said to his disciples, do not let the disciples of R. Meir enter here, Nh Nynrtnqv ynpm, "because they are contentious".''

{n} T. Bab. Nazir, fol. 49. 2. & Kiddushin, fol. 52. 2.

[Erinwilcox]

Here is my personal opinion. I am rather undecided on this issue. In the past few years, my dad has thought about the matter various times and still feels that we do not need to wear headcoverings. If, in the future, he decides that it is necessary, I won't argue or have a problem with it.

[Joykins]

"Judge in yourselves"

This is a matter between a woman and her God.

[JimfromOhio]

I didn't vote because "head covering" is between the woman and God. My wife wears head covering and we have studied this issue for years. Often legalism would force women to wear "head covering".

My wife wear headcovering veil when we go to church simply because she loves the Lord and wants to submit to Him.

It's a matter of obedience to Christ or not. It's a matter of understanding of submission; that it's one of self-denial, surrender and obedience to the one Who first loved us. So this is simply one must realize that the veiling is a symbol of a biblical, spiritual truth. Christian women who are willing to wear the veiling because it is the symbol of their place in God's order with an attitude toward the Word along with discipleship and obedience.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Please understand... this headcovering concept is not part of legalist system within the Church. This is simply about Love and Obedience. Its a freewill choice of every believer. God knows every believer's heart. If a woman wants to wear a headcovering veil... let her..... If a woman do not want to wear a headcovering... and that is fine too. We are not under God's Law but God's GRACE.

Hair is womanly since it is a natural constitution of her sex. A woman's hair is sexy to a man while a veil (head covering) is to glorify God. Hair is a natural covering, but she is to add a second covering, the veil. A woman who loves the Lord should arrange her hair in such a way that is consistent with her veiling and not display her feminine glory before men to attract them. Paul uses the word glory, not to infer that the woman's hair should be shown off, but in the sense that it is a special part of her feminine endowment. The woman also should not forget other scriptural teachings that her adornment should be an inner beauty, not one of outward show "with broided hair" or "outward adorning of plaiting the hair" (I Tim. 2:8-9; I Pet. 3:3-5).

The primary purpose of the sign of the veiled head is to show God's headship order, and the faithful submission to her part in it. Every faithful woman who wears the veiling out of such a loving obedience can testify of the blessings that are inherent in so doing. However, one can only fully understand the deep principles it represents when they are experiencing them in their heart and walking them out in their daily life. A woman just feel the conviction (from the Holy Spirit) to wear a headcovering.

[Iosias]

"Judge in yourselves"

This is a matter between a woman and her God.

I am not sure you are correct here, the import of this phrase seems to be, IMO, rhetorical in that it is so obvious that a woman should be covered Paul need say no more on the issue.

Gill:
Ver. 13. Judge in yourselves,.... The apostle having gone through a variety of reasoning and arguments, showing the superiority of the man to the woman, by which he would prove, that the one should be covered, and the other uncovered, returns to his subject again, and appeals to the common sense and understanding of the Corinthians, and makes them themselves judges of the matter; suggesting that the thing was so clear, and he so certain of what he had advanced being right, that he leaves it with them, not doubting but that they would, upon a little reflection within themselves, join with him in this point:

is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? in you judgment you can never think so, however pleasing and gratifying such a sight may be, to the lust of the flesh, and to the lust of the eye; he does not mention prophesying, only instances in praying; but it is to be understood of one, as of another; and his meaning is, that it is an uncomely thing in a woman to appear in public service with her head uncovered, whether it be in joining in the public prayers, or in singing of psalms, or in hearing the word expounded; and though the apostle does not put the case of the man's praying to God, or prophesying in his name with his head covered, yet his sense is the same of that, as of the woman's.


There is good little book on headcovering here (http://www.gospelstandard.org/).

BTW, I wonder if we are in the same library ;)

[Hisbygrace]

I voted no because although I can not recall the exact scripture now, I know it says that a woman's hair is her crowning glory.

[LittleladyinChrist]

I voted undecided because Ive been wandering around aimlessly wanting to know Gods will in this for months. Ill have to read this commentary. Thanks alot

[Iosias]

I voted no because although I can not recall the exact scripture now, I know it says that a woman's hair is her crowning glory.

You may be thinking about 1 Cor 11:15.

My own commentary is:

A Commentary upon 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Copyright © 2004 Richard J Sherratt All rights reserved.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Paul starts off with a commendation of that which is praiseworthy at the church in Corinth. He then begins to correct that which the Corinthians were doing wrong. Some commentators have argued that verses 2 to 16 belong to times past, specific to Corinth and that the modern church can ignore these instructions. Whilst conceding that these verses may never have been written if there was no conflict between different groups in the Corinthian church, it does not necessarily follow that these fourteen verses belong to the dustbins of history. Indeed it is interesting to note that: (a) Paul sides with those arguing women ought to be covered in church; (b) Paul’s argument for this position are not at all cultural, instead referring to the timeless principles of male headship, the magnification of the glory of God, and the prevention of causing offense to angels. (c) He begins these fourteen verses by praising those who keep his ordinances and ends with establishing explicitly a new one!

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.
Now no one will disagree with the statements that the “head of every man is Christ” and that the “head of Christ is God” however when we read that “the head of the woman is the man” an outcry breaks forth. The use of Christ and God is Paul making the point that although God the Father has authority over God the Son, the two are equal in deity. Similarly man has authority over woman although they are equal in personhood.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Why is this? Paul kindly provides us with the answer in verse 7 when he says that a man ought not to cover his head for he is the “image and glory of God”. What then does this mean? Man reflect the glory of God, he is the mirror of God’s gloryand so for the man to cover his head would be to cover up the glory of God. This would then cause grave offense to God and to the angels that dwell in the churches of God.

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.
We have just considered why a man “praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head” and so we can use this framework to understand verse 5. If a woman was to cover her head she would be doing the right thing because “woman is the glory of the man” that is she is the mirror of man’s glory, and so in covering her head she covers up the glory of man (i.e. herself) which is as it should be. Why? Because in the church all glory should be given to God and so there should be no competing glories in the church. So if she uncovers her head, she allows her own glory to compete with God’s glory and that is as if she had short hair so allowing the glory of man to compete with the glory of God; both of which are detestable, i.e. disregarding those authorities above her.

6a For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:
This is a key verse and one can only understand it fully if one grasps the argument of verse 15. This states that, if a woman has long hair it is to her glory meaning that long hair is a good thing. Why? Well we are told that “the woman is the glory of the man” that is, she is the mirror of man’s glory, and this means that she should be covered by long hair. Therefore by not being covered with hair she is going against nature and therefore God. The long hair is the visible sign of man’s authority over her whilst the veil is the sign of God’s authority over her and so if she is not veiled then she has openly challenged the authority of God and so she may as well be shorn for one cannot recognize the authority of men is one denies the authority of God.

6b but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
The phrase “but if it be a shame” has let many to confuse the Paulian argument and the meaning of this whole passage. When Paul states ‘but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven” we know that it is indeed a disgrace because we know from verse 15 that long hair is a natural covering given to her by God and that it is to her glory to have flowing locks. This therefore means that we can read verse 6 as follows: If a woman is not to wear a veil she might as well have her hair cutoff for to wear a veil shows her submission to God’s authority whilst her long hair shows her submission to man’s authority and so to fail to wear a veil is to deny God’s authority; but if it is a disgrace for her to be cropped and shaved – which it is for her flowing locks are a gift from God and are to her glory, then she should wear a veil. But why say that if it is a shame then she should wear a veil? The answer comes about thus: If the woman recognizes that long hair is to her glory and she understands why, then she will recognize that it is a shame for her to be shorn or shaven and so she should wear a veil, that is, she will see the need for the veil!



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.
Man should not cover his head because he reflects the glory of God (see verse 4) however the woman reflects the glory of man and so needs to be covered. Therefore God has provided her with long hair as we are told: “for her hair is given her for a covering”. Woman is a mirror of man’s glory, she reflects his glory - the woman is the glory of the man. A question inevitably arises: Why is she the glory of the man? The answer is that she has her origin and purpose of life in man as seen in Genesis 2:20-25 and Genesis 3:16.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. That is to say she was created from the rib of man. Her origin is of man and so she mirrors his glory whilst man is of God and so he mirrors God’s glory.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Reflecting Genesis 2:20

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Here is another of Paul’s timeless arguments! A woman should cover her head so as not to cause offense to the angels. The long hair is the visible sign of man’s authority over her whilst the veil is the sign of God’s authority over her and so to have neither or one alone is to cause offense to the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
This verse is included to ensure that verses 8 and 9 do not lead men to be proud and abuse their position of authority. It is a reality check!

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
This verse is included to ensure that verses 8 and 9 do not lead men to be proud and abuse their position of authority. It is a reality check!

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Here Paul is being rhetorical and the answer is obviously no!

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Here Paul is again being rhetorical and the answer is obviously yes!

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Here we are told that long hair is what women should have! Why? Simple: because God has ordained it thus. We are told that long hair is a naturally given covering which is a good thing. God gave women long hair to cover the glory of man, i.e. themselves, which illustrates man’s authority over her. So in keeping her hair long she shows her willing acceptance of this divinely instituted order. Hence her long hair is to her glory. Or put another way: the natural covering of flowing locks, reflects the natural authority of men over women, and women in having long hair acknowledge this and submit to this natural order of things and so long hair is to her glory for her acceptance of her submission and this is pleasing to the angels (verse 10)

If a woman has long hair it is to her glory. Why? Because her long hair is given to her for a covering. To cover what? To cover the glory of man i.e. herself. And so if a woman has long hair it is to her glory because she is covering the glory of man in the church.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Here Paul is saying ‘I have told you why a woman must be covered in church however if you disagree then recognize that there is no need for disagreement on this issue: you should be covered up!’ Or it could refer to the occurrence of women engaging in theological arguments within the church and so Paul would be saying something similar to “If you wish to debate, we have no such practice and so remain silent as it is in the churches of God” which would seem correct in the light of 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12.

A summary of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

It seems to me the argument of Paul can be summarized thus: whilst “women is the glory of the man” God has given her a natural covering of long hair and whilst this long hair reflects “her own glory” so her hair is to be covered up with a veil. This is because all glory is to be given to God in church. Notice that the principles behind this specific instruction - women covering their heads in worship - are timeless and so one must conclude that the specific instruction must also be timeless and so 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 cannot be tied to any specific cultural period.

[Joykins]

I am not sure you are correct here, the import of this phrase seems to be, IMO, rhetorical in that it is so obvious that a woman should be covered Paul need say no more on the issue.


If that's so, that's a good argument for it being cultural.

[FallingWaters]

I believe it was a cultural issue.
It was a Jewish law to be covered.
It was a social law to be covered.

Paul told them to judge for themselves.

It is not a social or cultural or religious law to be covered,
where I live.
If it was, I would cover my head.

I apply to myself all those social laws in my culture,
regarding modesty,
to the best of my ability.

I, too, have struggled with this issue.

I do not judge others who do differently than I do.

I voted no.

[Palomino]

I do not so I vote no-

[psalm511013]

The issue is whether a woman has "covering" in Christ and by the head of her household -- i.e., her husband. If you examine the Greek, you will see that Paul is using a double entendre in the passage.

[PrincetonGuy]

The issue is whether a woman has "covering" in Christ and by the head of her household -- i.e., her husband. If you examine the Greek, you will see that Paul is using a double entendre in the passage.

This is nothing but imaginary fiction that has no basis of fact.

1 Cor. 11:1. Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9. for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
10. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13. Judge for 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 for a covering.
16. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (NASB, 1995)

The Apostle Paul is in this passage addressing one of the many points on which the church in Corinth was going astray from Christian standards of conduct that were being observed in the churches in other cities. In this case, some of the women were coming to church services without wearing a veil or other accessory covering their heads. Paul considered this conduct to be so serious that he found it necessary to strenuously oppose it. Sensing, however, the strength of the opposition that he was facing, he eases into his argument beginning in verse 2,

2. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

He praises the Christians in Corinth for remembering him in everything and for firmly holding to the traditions that he had delivered to them. The purpose of this is obvious—by praising them for holding to the traditions he is making it more difficult for them to argue against the traditions. And then he launches his argument against the practice of the women who were coming to church services without wearing a veil or other accessory covering their heads,

3. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

He begins by laying down here three basic principles that the Corinthians could not deny, very adroitly inserting the principle that the man is the head of a woman between the other two. And then, upon the principle that the man is the head of a woman, he makes the following statements,

4. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

The statement in verse 4 needs no defense, but the statements in verse 5 required the following defense,

6. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

In this verse Paul demonstrates the absurdity of the practice of women praying without a veil or other accessory covering their heads—they might as well cut off their hair as well and magnify the disgrace! This argument in verse 6 eliminates any possibility that the covering being spoken of in this passage is the woman’s hair.

Paul does not leave it at that, however, but teaches why it is so very important that the women wear a covering upon their heads,

7. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9. for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
10. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

This issue is of great importance to Paul so he continues to defend his teaching,

12. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13. Judge for 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 for a covering.

But knowing the contentious attitude of some of the women in Corinth, he closes his argument with the following words,

16. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

‘No other practice is acceptable, and what you women are contending for is a practice that is completely foreign to the practice of all the other churches.’


People who try to circumvent this teaching by saying that it is a cultural thing blatantly ignore the fact that Paul is teaching here on the basis of fundamental principles and that putting aside this teaching is putting aside the fundamental principles “that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”


The Greek verb translated ‘cover’ in vv. 6 & 7 of 1 Cor. 11 is κατακαλύπτεται, meaning veil, and it had this meaning from the time of Homer through the time of the Septuagint and into New Testament times. We find it in Septuagint translation of Exod. 26:34,
καὶ κατακαλύψεις τῷ καταπετάσματι τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ τῶν ἁγίων. (And you shall screen with the veil the ark of the testimony in the holy of holies.) Paul does not use this Greek verb in the sense of a man being the covering of a woman, nor is this verb so used anywhere in the New Testament. Indeed, in the New Testament this Greek verb occurs only in vv. 6 & 7 of 1 Cor. 11.

[Iosias]

If that's so, that's a good argument for it being cultural.

Not at all because Paul was arguing from nature.

[jsimms615]

I don't think the issue of a head covering for women is relevant anymore. It smacks of legalistic thinking to me.

[MrJim]

Coming from something of a mennonite background the cultural argument is the often used by mennonite folks that are tossing away the covering.

For the cultural argument folks-maybe if you present some other teachings from the New Testament that are cultural and no longer applicable for today it would give your case more merit.

[LittleladyinChrist]

I don't think the issue of a head covering for women is relevant anymore. It smacks of legalistic thinking to me.
Well then I dont think that calling ourselfs Christians is relevant anymore, the Bible was written over 1,900 years ago you know. I dont want to sound like a legalist, Ill just call myself a believer.

[Taylor43]

No i do not go head covering but i do respect that do

[Joykins]

Not at all because Paul was arguing from nature.

Some of his argument was from theology rather than nature. Christ head of man head of woman. And the underlying *assumption* seems to be that OF COURSE women wear head coverings; that's what women DO. But there is "no such custom" and we are to "judge for ourselves." There's also the strong implication that the hair is the covering intended. I really don't know what to make of the passage. I find verse 16 problematic in its ambiguity.

As a result, I am comfortable not covering my head. I don't think it was Paul's intention to lead Christians into a new legalism.

[Erinwilcox]

I think it's a matter of liberty/conscience. . .or up to the head of every household to decided how he wants his family to run.

[VCViking]

I voted no because although I can not recall the exact scripture now, I know it says that a woman's hair is her crowning glory.


:thumbsup:

1 Corinthians 11:15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

[MrJim]

:thumbsup:

1 Corinthians 11:15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."


:scratch: so does the man, if hair is given as a covering, have to take his off when he prays?:P

[LittleladyinChrist]

:scratch: so does the man, if hair is given as a covering, have to take his off when he prays?:P
hehe, amen

[rainbowpromises]

I broke down and voted "undecided" because I don't think this is a decision that is a black and white blanket statement.
If I were to start wearing head coverings two things would happen.

I would overheat and pass out during the service.
My husband would discount my belief as fanaticism.This in turn would make me a stumbling block to those treating me for heat exhaustion and to my husband.

[LittleladyinChrist]

All I know is that when you are obedient to what the word of God says blessings follow. Despite our excuses over what could happen, if we just trust and obey, God works the rest out, Im a living testimony of this exact thing. My boss was vehemently opposed, my pastor doesnt believe it, but both after much prayer said they "dont mind if I wear one" and recently I have been complimented by my boss who said "i dont know what it is but i like those scarfs on you, but not in a fleshly way, its something else." It was a direct answer to prayer, im so greatful for God who is faithful to pave the road for us to be obedient. Sometimes you just have to step out first.

[PaladinGirl]

I voted no. It is not a requirement that a woman wear a head covering in church.

[LittleladyinChrist]

I voted no. It is not a requirement that a woman wear a head covering in church.
According to which Bible?

[FreeinChrist]

:thumbsup:

1 Corinthians 11:15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."
And isn't interesting that OT men had to cover their heads.

I believe Paul was addressing the issue of how they appear to others - their witness. The local pagan temple had temple prostitutes who did not cover their heads and wore lots of jewelry, etc. Considering the false accusations that Christians had to deal with at the bginnning (i.e. they are cannibals, they have orgies), paul seems to have wanted them to set themselves apart from all that. Did he intend to make this legalistic rule for 500 or 2000 years later? I don't think so.

[rainbowpromises]

All I know is that when you are obedient to what the word of God says blessings follow.
I have seen that in action in difficult areas of my life. It is amazing!

Despite our excuses over what could happen, if we just trust and obey, God works the rest out, Im a living testimony of this exact thing.
Just a few weeks ago I was talking with my pastor's wife about the work I am doing with my husband. She marvelled at some of what I do and said she would never be able to. I realized, yet again, that God's hand is in my marriage, unequally yoked as it is. God knew that I would be able to adjust to my husband's expectations, yet stand firm in God's will. Right now it would be a stumbling block to my husband in his unbelief. One day he may question, in fact I pray he does question. Hopefully that happens after menopause is over. ;)

[JPPT1974]

But what if someone breaks down
And gets hot and faints if they are wearing
Head covering and people in their denomination
Didn't like that as they could take offense to that?

[rainbowpromises]

But what if someone breaks down
And gets hot and faints if they are wearing
Head covering and people in their denomination
Didn't like that as they could take offense to that?
I don't think overheating is a common problem. I personally have had problems with overheating since I was a child, but moreso now as I begin my menopause battle.

I also suspect that most people in churches would barely notice if a woman began wearing headcovers unless she became very vocal about others following suit.

I accept women wearing headcovers, but I am not prepared to take that step myself.

[LittleladyinChrist]

Yah I dont think that overheating is an excuse everyone can use. But we each have to do what we think the Lord is calling us to do. I mean I could have 1000 reasons not to follow Gods will, and sometimes I do ;)