Head coverings/long/short hair

[DanielRB]

Peace, all :wave:

Another thread suggested starting a new thread on this topic, so here it is: how do you understand Paul's directions about "head coverings" and length of hair in 1 Cor 11?

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (ESV)
1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.
6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

In Christ,

Daniel

[HeyHomie]

A cultural directive given to those specific people at that specific place and time.

[DanielRB]

Peace, HeyHomie, :wave:

A cultural directive given to those specific people at that specific place and time.

Could you please give the reasons you have for this viewpoint? How do we distinguish between what directives in Scripture are for just a particular time, and what are for us today? Thanks!

In Christ,

Daniel

[cremi]

I'm glad you brought this up. I too have wondered why this practice was given up.

I have heard the cultural arguement, yet Paul seems to indicate that the covering of the head is not merely cultural, but a sign of authority.

10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Hmmm...I'll be interested to see what others have to say on this matter.

[KristaRae]

I wear a head covering. When I was 15 my dad decided he believed women should. My husband agrees. So I have worn one since I was 15. I can see both sides of it, but for the sake of being in submission, I wear one. I don't see it as something worth arguing with my father or husband about.

But I do understand that some believe it was cultural. I am very confused about it, really, and would like to see where this topic goes.

[LoveAlways]

I'm glad you brought this up. I too have wondered why this practice was given up.

I have heard the cultural arguement, yet Paul seems to indicate that the covering of the head is not merely cultural, but a sign of authority.

10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Hmmm...I'll be interested to see what others have to say on this matter.


Would you mind giving a book, chapter reference for that verse. I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

[WesWoodell]

1 Corinthians 11:10

[cremi]

Would you mind giving a book, chapter reference for that verse. I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
Sure...Guess I should have done that...

1 Corinthians 11:10:)

[mrconstance]

The best explanation I've seen for this verse is that "covering" can also mean a hairstyle in which the hair is worn up on the head, as opposed to loose and hanging down. This reading makes sense of 11:14-15:

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering."

If a woman has long hair as a covering, why would she need to wear a cloth on her head? The natural sense of the passage is that the long hair is the covering--and that women should cover their heads with their long hair, not let it hang down. This also makes sense of 11:6 "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off." Paul is saying that if a woman doesn't use her hair for its intended purpose, she might as well cut it off.

So this isn't about doilies; it's about wearing your hair up.

Next question--why is it important for women to wear their hair up?

I don't like the idea that some things in the Bible are "just cultural." If hairstyles are "just cultural," why can't we say that water baptism is also "just cultural?" But I do think that we need to look for the purpose of a commandment rather than simply following practices without understanding what they might mean. And if the meaning of a practice isn't clear, we should allow for freedom in interpreting it.

In this case, the most sensible explanation I've heard for women to wear their hair up while prophesying is this: there were pagan rites in which women pulled their hair down, showing that they were outside the bounds of normal human society. Paul wants Christian women to make it clear that they are still part of society (which, in his time, meant "under authority") even when they are under the influence of the Spirit--"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace." (14:33). So the message about hair is cultural, but the message about how we act when we prophecy is very relevant for us today.

Alan

[Splayd]

Interesting take on it mrconstance.

I'd never heard that and while I'd never been particularly concerned about this passage, I confess that I didn't really understand it, so thanks for sharing that. It gives me something to ponder a bit :)

[alabaster jar]

If God is an 'orderly' sort, perhaps he is greatly pleased when my hair is looking great;)

[annie1speed]

Yes, and the shoes should match each other too. :D Seriously though, I think God is more concerned that our hearts are in order. I think I read somewhere that the woman's head uncovered referred to a prostitute? That they cut their hair short. Has anyone heard about this? I read these things and then I don't remember everything about them. My husband says I dreamt it. :)

Annie

[Izdaari]

The best explanation I've seen for this verse is that "covering" can also mean a hairstyle in which the hair is worn up on the head, as opposed to loose and hanging down. This reading makes sense of 11:14-15:

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering."

If a woman has long hair as a covering, why would she need to wear a cloth on her head? The natural sense of the passage is that the long hair is the covering--and that women should cover their heads with their long hair, not let it hang down. This also makes sense of 11:6 "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off." Paul is saying that if a woman doesn't use her hair for its intended purpose, she might as well cut it off.

So this isn't about doilies; it's about wearing your hair up.

Next question--why is it important for women to wear their hair up?

I don't like the idea that some things in the Bible are "just cultural." If hairstyles are "just cultural," why can't we say that water baptism is also "just cultural?" But I do think that we need to look for the purpose of a commandment rather than simply following practices without understanding what they might mean. And if the meaning of a practice isn't clear, we should allow for freedom in interpreting it.

In this case, the most sensible explanation I've heard for women to wear their hair up while prophesying is this: there were pagan rites in which women pulled their hair down, showing that they were outside the bounds of normal human society. Paul wants Christian women to make it clear that they are still part of society (which, in his time, meant "under authority") even when they are under the influence of the Spirit--"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace." (14:33). So the message about hair is cultural, but the message about how we act when we prophecy is very relevant for us today.

Alan
Makes perfect sense to me! :thumbsup:

I'm happy not to be outside the bounds of normal human society, but if I wore a hat to church I'm afraid I'd be mistaken for a blue-haired old lady (the only kind of women I've seen wearing hats in church lately). ^_^

[Theophorus]

"“And if it be given her for a covering,” say you, “wherefore need she add another covering?” That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

St. John Chrysostom.

[sidekick]

After giving reasons for the woman to be covered v.5-16, Paul then sums it up with verse 16...But if anyone seems contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. To me the key word is custom. It may have been the custom at that time. For us, I understand this to mean that it is a personal choice or conviction, not divine law. If it is not divine law it can't be bound on others.

[abadhaircut]

That's what I think sidekick. Paul says the Church has no such custom, meaning that maybe it's just a matter of preferance?

Also, annie1speed, while I think God does care about what is in our hearts, I don't think he wants us to just pick and choose what parts of the Bible we want to obey. You have to have a good heart, but also follow ALL of his commands, because Jesus said "If you love me, you will keep my commands."

[dancingwithhim]

I believe that God doesn't see us on the outside; He sees our hearts. To me, this scripture is symbolic. The natural is an indication of the spiritual. Paul was giving the example of heads being covered. Just like in the spiritual way we have our coverings. That is just the way that I see it. He was using the natural to get the point of the spiritual across. (Just my opinion)

[DanielRB]

Peace, dancingwihhim :wave:

I believe that God doesn't see us on the outside; He sees our hearts. To me, this scripture is symbolic. The natural is an indication of the spiritual. Paul was giving the example of heads being covered. Just like in the spiritual way we have our coverings. That is just the way that I see it. He was using the natural to get the point of the spiritual across. (Just my opinion)

I agree, though I would say that sometimes what's on the outside indicates something of whats on the inside. In our culture, the lack of head coverings doesn't necessarily mean anything about one's heart. However, certainly immodest attire can indicate something about one's heart.

Of course, what is "modest" vs. "immodest" can be greatly different across cultures...but if we aren't at least as "modest" in attire as the rest of our cutlure would consider "modest", then perhaps we should re-consider what we wear. (Although what's immodest today might be considered modest tomorrow.)

In Christ,

Daniel

[annie1speed]

Peace, dancingwihhim :wave:



I agree, though I would say that sometimes what's on the outside indicates something of whats on the inside. In our culture, the lack of head coverings doesn't necessarily mean anything about one's heart. However, certainly immodest attire can indicate something about one's heart.

Of course, what is "modest" vs. "immodest" can be greatly different across cultures...but if we aren't at least as "modest" in attire as the rest of our cutlure would consider "modest", then perhaps we should re-consider what we wear. (Although what's immodest today might be considered modest tomorrow.)

In Christ,

Daniel
What a scary thought. From some of what I have seen they can't get much more immodest.

[annie1speed]

That's what I think sidekick. Paul says the Church has no such custom, meaning that maybe it's just a matter of preferance?

Also, annie1speed, while I think God does care about what is in our hearts, I don't think he wants us to just pick and choose what parts of the Bible we want to obey. You have to have a good heart, but also follow ALL of his commands, because Jesus said "If you love me, you will keep my commands."

Welcome abadhaircut. :wave: Hope you enjoy the forum. I agree we are to obey His commands. Did you have a specific one in mind? Just askin. :)

Annie

[Theophorus]

I believe that God doesn't see us on the outside; He sees our hearts. To me, this scripture is symbolic. The natural is an indication of the spiritual. Paul was giving the example of heads being covered. Just like in the spiritual way we have our coverings. That is just the way that I see it. He was using the natural to get the point of the spiritual across. (Just my opinion)

I agree. Depending on your perspective, covering can be seen as something done for spiritual reasons.

[DanielRB]

Peace, annie1speed :wave:

What a scary thought. From some of what I have seen they can't get much more immodest.

I can't claim prophetic status, but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that "modesty" one day might be defined as a g-string and pasties. :(

In Christ,

Daniel

[annie1speed]

Hahahaha! :eek: But it's really not funny at all is it?

[Splayd]

Oh I don't know Annie. I'm inclined to think that modesty is mostly a relative thing anyway. While it may be inappropriate for someone to walk down the main street in a bikini, it's pretty much the norm at the beach and perhaps even considered overdressed in some Island villages etc...

Seriously - What's the bigger modesty issue: a) Wearing a bikini top amongst bare-breasted women (where such is the norm) OR b) Not wearing a veil in an Islamic place (where women always wear a veil)?

Peace

[DanielRB]

Peace, Splayd :wave:

Oh I don't know Annie. I'm inclined to think that modesty is mostly a relative thing anyway. While it may be inappropriate for someone to walk down the main street in a bikini, it's pretty much the norm at the beach and perhaps even considered overdressed in some Island villages etc...

Seriously - What's the bigger modesty issue: a) Wearing a bikini top amongst bare-breasted women (where such is the norm) OR b) Not wearing a veil in an Islamic place (where women always wear a veil)?

Peace

For what it's worth, the Islamic "veil" is just a head covering, covering the hair. Some "Islamic" cultures also have veils covering the face, but this is not a requirement of Islamic law. Many westerized Muslim women don't even wear a hair covering (even in "Muslim" countries), except if they go to a place of prayer.

In that regard, the Muslim practice bears a striking resemblence to what was considered standard practice in Christian circles up until a few generations ago...when all women wore hats/bonnets to Church and usually outside of it, too.

In Christ,

Daniel

[ParsonJefferson]

Peace, all :wave:

Another thread suggested starting a new thread on this topic, so here it is: how do you understand Paul's directions about "head coverings" and length of hair in 1 Cor 11?

In Christ,

Daniel

I believe this to be primarily a cultural thing.

The "unveiled women" in that time & place were primarily prostitutes and women of ill-repute. And Christian women, though free in Christ to be unveiled, risked being mistaken as prostitutes as a result of not wearing head-coverings.

I don't believe that, in most cultures, this is an issue today. But there are probably other "appearances" that could be equally as problematic.

[RefrusRevlis]

After giving reasons for the woman to be covered v.5-16, Paul then sums it up with verse 16...But if anyone seems contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. To me the key word is custom. It may have been the custom at that time. For us, I understand this to mean that it is a personal choice or conviction, not divine law. If it is not divine law it can't be bound on others.


The custom Paul mentions is not what he's just finished talking about, rather it is "being contentious". Being contentious is not a church custom. What would the point be in Paul going into detail about acceptible coverings etc if he then turns around and says, but this is not my nor the church's custom, so just ignore it.

Refrus

[DanielRB]

Peace, RefrusRevlis :wave:

The custom Paul mentions is not what he's just finished talking about, rather it is "being contentious". Being contentious is not a church custom. What would the point be in Paul going into detail about acceptible coverings etc if he then turns around and says, but this is not my nor the church's custom, so just ignore it.

Refrus

I had never thought of it that way, but it makes perfect sense, especially because a merely cultural practice would not be based upon the order of creation (1 Cor 11:3) or the sake of the angels (v 11), unless angels are subject to our cultural limiations. ;)

In Christ,

Daniel

[barrykind]

This is a link that brings out many scriptures on the subject if your interested in reading.

Remember as with anything else, always check everything with the Bible. Check references, check context of scriptures used, pray ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth.
http://www.eliyah.com/talmidim/headcovering.html



love barry
hope this helps

[Izdaari]

IMHO, this whole topic is a good example of what's meant by "majoring in minors". Not that it isn't interesting, mind you, but that it's focusing on things that are relatively unimportant.

http://branchofvine.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

[- DRA -]

Peace, all :wave:

Another thread suggested starting a new thread on this topic, so here it is: how do you understand Paul's directions about "head coverings" and length of hair in 1 Cor 11?

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (ESV)
1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.
6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

In Christ,

Daniel

This thread brought back to memory a previous thread where this issue was briefly discussed. That previous thread is presently back on page 18 of the archives. It is entitled, "headcovering." Here is the last post from that thread. Hopefully, it will shed some light on the passage from a different perspective than has been presented.

Originally Posted by kamikat

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. I Cor 11:6

I've heard that this verse is just cultural. Are there any ICC/coCs that believe in headcovering?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I encourage you to spend more time with the text of 1 Cor. 11:2-16. Headship or subjection is discussed in verse 3. Considering the discussion that follows, it is NOT about God (the Father) being over Christ or Christ being over man, but focuses on subjection as far as men and women are concerned -- when they pray or prophesy. Note: subjection is NOT a problem at other times -- just when they pray or prophesy. The basic instructions are given in verses 4-6. Men are NOT to be covered when praying or prophesying, but women are to be covered when doing these same things. Then, pay close attention to the reasons given for these instructions in verses 7-15. Are the reasons based on culture or customs, or are the reasons based on subjection? I see subjection under consideration in those verses. Especially note what nature teaches us: a man is to have short hair, but women are to have long hair as a covering i.e. a symbol or sign of her subjection to man (see verse 10). Think what the text is telling us -- a woman's long hair is a natural covering, but she needs an additional covering when she prays or prophesies. Why does she need that additional covering, and a man NOT need the additional covering? I see the text explaining it as a matter of subjection.

I sincerely hope this very concise commentary on 1 Cor. 11:2-16 helps you somewhat in your studies. Please note that I didn't address the issue of whether or not the passage applies just to the assembly, NOR did I explain what I the passage itself suggests about the meaning of "praying or prophesying." But, just in case you're wondering, I don't think this passage is restricted just to the assembly, and I am convinced that "praying or prophesying" are speaking of spiritual gifts e.g. 1 Cor. chapter 14, with the point being that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is basically addressing how a woman could exercise her spiritual gift and still be in subjection to men i.e. Acts 21:9.

As far as how the word "custom" is used in 1 Cor. 11:16, I do NOT believe that it negates the previous thoughts and just dismisses the instructions about the head covering and the reasons for them by saying they are just a custom. The custom seems to relate to the point being made about being "contentious." We have NO such custom or practice among God's people.

I know some brethren that believe the headcovering should be worn by women today in the assembly.

Additional Comments added 7/20/2007:
Simply stated, I believe the instructions were specifically given so women could exercise spiritual gifts and remain in subjection to men. Therefore, since spiritual gifts have ceased (i.e. 1 Cor. 13:8-10), women no longer need to follow the instructions.

Is it wrong for women today to wear a covering in the assembly of the church. No, I don't believe it is. I just don't find this text teaching that a covering is required today. As for the text applying just to the assembly, note 1 Cor. 11:1. Should brethren just remember Paul's example in the assembly? Is verse 2 just true in the assembly? Skip down to verse 17. A new paragraph begins. Note verse 18. Now Paul writes, "When you come together as a church." Why would he make that point if he had previously been focusing on just the assembly? Make sense to anyone?

[- DRA -]

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (ESV)

1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.
6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Food for Thought on this text ...

The English Standard Version (ESV) is the latest of the literal translations. I have just begun to include this translation in my studies. Notice the word wife in verses 3,5,6,10, and 13. It is translated from the Koine Greek word "gune." Now, note the word woman in verses 7,8,9,11,12, and 15. Woman is also from the Greek word "gune." Hmmm! Gune can be used to refer to either a married or single woman. Sometimes it is translated wife - if the context warrants it. I am confused with the ESV translation committee's decision to flip-flop back and forth from wife to woman throughout the context. Other translations that are generally considered to be accurate did not do this i.e. KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, NIV. It makes me wonder why the ESV committee chose to translate the word this way in the text. I think it confuses the issue.

For instance, was the married woman who prayed or prophesied the only one who was supposed to wear a covering, or was any woman who prayed or prophesied supposed to wear a covering? Frankly, I don't see any indication in the text that it mattered if the woman was married or not. I am left with the impression that it is not an issue of whether or not she was married - but what she was doing, which I believe was exercising a spiritual gift. The instructions were that a woman had to be covered when she prayed or prophesied. That implies/infers that she was in subjection at other times without being covered. To me, that is a clear indication that the focus was on what she was doing, not upon her marital status.

Let's say a woman exercised a spiritual gift. Prophesy, in particular, was designed to edify the church (i.e. 1 Cor. 14). Now, I don't believe that necessarily means that it had to be exercised solely in the assembly (because I don't). However, I also have no reason to believe that women who exercised spiritual gifts had to go in a closet by themselves to do so (e.g. Acts 21:9). If men were present when women exercised their gift, how could women speak out and still be in subjection to the men (all of them in attendance - not just her husband if she were married)? I believe 1 Cor. 11 gives us the answer. She was to be covered. It was a sign of authority (or subjection) on her head when she prayed or prophesied. As I understand it, the instructions given in 1 Cor. 11 empowered a woman to actually be able to pray or prophesy - not just sit there quietly while a man did these things. Since we no longer perform spiritual gifts, the need to obey these instructions ceased. I compare the principle to the instructions given in Luke 24:49. These instructions were given solely to the apostles and have no direct application to us today. Therefore, we do not need to make plans to travel to Jerusalem and wait on the Lord.

Make sense to anyone?

[RefrusRevlis]

But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.


I do not see that 1 Corinthians 11 talks about a separate covering apart from the hair. Apparently, the temple prostitutes of Corinth had shaved heads, this is what he alludes to in Verse 5:

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
The question is, what does the head being uncovered mean - what is the covering?

Looking at the words:



"uncovered": akatakaluptos: not covered, unveiled.



The word unveiled seems to suggest the type of covering, whereas uncovered does not.

"have long hair"

komao: verb, to let the hair grow, have long hair.

This verb is a present subjunctive active verb, which could probably be expressed better by the phrase "if has growing hair" or "if has lengthening hair". "Long" is an adjective and is thus not as accurate as the verb "growing". The fact that it is a present tense verb must not be overlooked. The present tense is described thus:
The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time.
Pierce, L. Tense Voice Mood.

Growing hair is the covering as verse 15 says:

for her hair is given to her for a covering.

The word "for" is the Greek word "anti"

"over against, opposite to, before. for, instead of, in place of (something)."


The woman's hair is given to her in place of a covering.

However, men and women both have hair. the difference is a woman is to have "growing hair" and a man is not:

verse 14.
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair (komao), it is a dishonor to him?

How can we make sense of this?
How can a man stop his hair from lengthening?
How can a woman allow her hair to lengthen?

Answer these questions and I believe you have the answer as to what the hair covering is.

Refrus

[Terry07]

It is believed by some that paul is referring to a story in a book called the jubilee's, or something like that. It say's that the angels lusted after the women on earth and made children with them. They think that's why he say's to cover your head for the angels. Even if this is correct, the scripture tells you to judge for yourself. He plainly states that this is not a commandment, but his opinion. There were books that were taken out of the old testament in 1880. These books had been in the bible in the old testament since it was created. So it can be assumed that paul had knowledge of these. So sometimes when we read the bible we get confused because we don't have the books or stories that are being referred to. I hope nobody gets mad at me for this, i'm new to this site and I don't quite get the rules. I don't mean to offend anybody. I just thought you might be interested in this.

[DarkNLovely]

This is no doubt one of the more challenging topics to address in all of the Bible, but I'll give it a shot!

Plain and simple- I belive the reference to hair was meant to be an analogy. For example:
The problem that the Corinthians were probably asking Paul about was should a woman cover her hair in the assembly and during prayer. Undoubtedly there were some objections raised by non Jewish Belivers about an older practice of Jewish Belivers. (Or else it would never have come up.)
Verse 4 is what really seems to make this point. For in ths verse the covering and the hair (or not having any rather) are compared, which means that they cant be the same. "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head- it is just as though she were shaved." Verse 6 is yet another proof. Algebraicaly:
A womans head in daily life -hair=shame, for her hair is her glory
A womans head(full of glory) in the Presence - a covering= impropriety.
I have always taken the "no such custom" comment to mean that the only custom they had was to cover. Also, the long hair doesent seem to make the point as strong considering 1. How long is long enough.? 2. Does that mean that women who are balding, or dont have long hair naturally are less than other women? and 3. If men can't have long hair then practically every dipiction of Jesus, a Nazerene, in art must be cahnged. I dont belive, a womans prayers are ignored however, if she is not covered. Some people come to church dressed improperly, but they are at least in church, right? God looks at the heart. Covering, according to Paul and the already established practice, just seems to be the more proper way. All this tells me Paul was just making an example using hair. I dont know if I would say it was a good one! lol!:crosseo:

[DarkNLovely]

I should also mention that I once heard that the word used for authority in verse 10 eactually means "authoratative power" and not the commonly belived "subjective power", but I can't seem to find the word. If any one knows please let me know too! Thanx!

[Lisabeth]

1 Corinthians 11:3-15

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. (for the man's head is Christ, therefore Christ is his covering, praying with another covering of any kind(spiritual or natural) dishonoureth Christ)
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.(if a woman pray or prophesieth with her head uncovered having not long hair or Christ as her covering it dishonoureth her husband, Christ is also our husband,(she might as well be shorn/being without Christ)
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. (if she have not long hair and Christ as her covering she dishonoureths her head, which is her husband)
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.(for a man is not to cover his head(naturally or spiritually) with anything but Christ)
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.(for man was created first, then the woman from 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.(the woman aught to have the power and glory of Christ on her head/as her head/covering , that she may not be seduced by the fallen angels as Eve was by Satan)
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? (is it appropriate that a woman pray unto God with out her spiritual and natural covering)
14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?(for his long hair will become a covering, and not Christ and will dishonor his head/Christ)
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.( a woman's long hair is her covering in the natural, but also shows that she has the Glory of Christ in the spiritual, for Christ is her covering, as is also her husband)

Spiritual types the natural and natural types the spiritual through out God's Word.
We, women in Christ, are to have a natural covering, this is our long hair, which is the Glory of our husbands.
Also in the spiritual, Christ also being our husband, our long hair represents the Glory of Christ as our covering.

This being my own opinion.......I believe that when a young girl becomes a woman, she should wear her hair up as a sign of maturity, not down and flowing as a young girl/maiden.

Many blessings,
Lisabeth