Is a woman required to cover her head today?

[TonyChanYT]

Wiki:

Christian head covering was universally practiced by the women of the Early Church, which continued the biblical ordinance.[1] This was attested by multiple Church Fathers throughout the first centuries of Christianity who taught that because the hair of a woman has sexual potency, it should only be for her husband to see and covered the rest of the time.[46]

If you feel like those early Christians, then go ahead and cover your head. I am not against that. However, generally speaking, I don't think every Christian woman is required to cover her hair today. To me, this rule today seems to focus on superficiality. Paul had his legitimate reason for asserting it at his time and place.

English Standard Version 1 Corinthians 11:

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul called this a tradition, not a doctrine.

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. 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.

Paul commanded the wife/woman to do so at that time to show respect for their husbands. Today, his logic does not carry that significance in Western culture.

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,

I think the word nature referred to a local social norm. Paul told us to judge for ourselves. See Christian freedoms.

On the other hand, only one glory should be on display in worship. Women's hair could be distracting and angels are watching. Again, Paul told us to judge for ourselves. In this case, if a woman has a distracting hairdo, then I think she should cover it.

In any case, you don't want to be legalistic and judgmental like the Pharisees who focus on external superficial behaviors. They strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Bottom line: Modesty is the key.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Wiki:


If you feel like those early Christians, then go ahead and cover your head. I am not against that. However, generally speaking, I don't think every Christian woman is required to cover her hair today. To me, this rule today seems to focus on superficiality. Paul had his legitimate reason for asserting it at his time and place.

English Standard Version 1 Corinthians 11:


Paul called this a tradition, not a doctrine.


Paul commanded the wife/woman to do so at that time to show respect for their husbands. Today, his logic does not carry that significance in Western culture.


I think the word nature referred to a local social norm. Paul told us to judge for ourselves. See Christian freedoms.

On the other hand, only one glory should be on display in worship. Women's hair could be distracting and angels are watching. Again, Paul told us to judge for ourselves. In this case, if a woman has a distracting hairdo, then I think she should cover it.

In any case, you don't want to be legalistic and judgmental like the Pharisees who focus on external superficial behaviors. They strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Bottom line: Modesty is the key.

Well said. Cultural trappings in one society has a different impact in another society. The lesson is that husbands and wives should respect the individual role of each, and show Christian respect in all cases. Paul made a big point of "becoming like the culture to win the culture." Externals are superficial differences that can mean different things in different societies. What matters is loving God and loving your neighbor. This means we respect all boundaries.

 

[quietthinker]

Is a woman required to cover her head today?​

when missiles are around her a bike helmet becomes useful.

 

[ScottA]

Wiki:


If you feel like those early Christians, then go ahead and cover your head. I am not against that. However, generally speaking, I don't think every Christian woman is required to cover her hair today. To me, this rule today seems to focus on superficiality. Paul had his legitimate reason for asserting it at his time and place.

English Standard Version 1 Corinthians 11:


Paul called this a tradition, not a doctrine.


Paul commanded the wife/woman to do so at that time to show respect for their husbands. Today, his logic does not carry that significance in Western culture.


I think the word nature referred to a local social norm. Paul told us to judge for ourselves. See Christian freedoms.

On the other hand, only one glory should be on display in worship. Women's hair could be distracting and angels are watching. Again, Paul told us to judge for ourselves. In this case, if a woman has a distracting hairdo, then I think she should cover it.

In any case, you don't want to be legalistic and judgmental like the Pharisees who focus on external superficial behaviors. They strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Bottom line: Modesty is the key.

Do we even now need an interpreter?

Is it not clear in 1 Corinthians 11 that Paul wrote first by example and then plainly said that any such practice or tradition was according to the "image" of man (meaning men and woman) and bears the image of God, plainly adding that a woman's hair was that cover that rightly displays that mankind without God as Head, is as if headless or Godless, while for a woman to wear long hair is to show that she is covered by the headship of God?

Christian: Everything is written in parables.

Mark 4:13​

And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?​

 

[Randy Kluth]

Is a woman required to cover her head today?​

when missiles are around her a bike helmet becomes useful.

Yes, noted. However, we are told that hair for a woman is meant to be longer than that of men, accentuating her beauty as opposed to men, who at best are handsome. And as such, it is symbolic of a need for protection from angelic judgment.

Angels were from the beginning guardians of God's purity on earth. An angel was positioned to keep man from the Tree of Life after he had sinned in the garden.

And so, angels oversaw man and woman following the Fall, to continue to protect God's integrity. Man was created to display God's image, and angels apparently were assigned to ensure people don't go too far in spoiling the image of God.

Certain boundaries were set for man and woman after the Fall. God had made women, in marriage, to defer to the man's leadership in some respects. And angels would ensure this is taking place, or pass judgment (or so I think).

The woman, we know, defied God's word and ignored man's hesitancy, who listened to his wife, but not to the serpent. Thus, the woman is supposed to show some deference to her husband , the hair symbolizing recognition of this weakness in her character by deferring to male leadership in the marriage. She is beautiful, yes, but she is also not rebellious.

It really isn't that the hair is necessary to show submission, but that in the culture of the time, this did represent acknowledgement of the need for submission in a marriage. In reality, we all need to show such submission to one another. Men and women just do it in different ways. Hair itself is not the critical component--the heart is.

I will just add one more thing, to complete an entire thought. Man was created 1st, and it might seem that the Woman was assigned 2nd place in a form of servitude to Man. But I don't believe that was the original idea.

Man and Woman were created with this particular order, the Man leading and the Woman following. But it was never meant to be harsh rule by Man with Female servitude. That was purely the product of the Fall, in which Man's place as "1st" came to become something oppressive that the Woman would have to submit to in marriage.

I think the original order of Man 1st and Woman 2nd was no different than 1st born and 2nd born, all children sharing equally in an inheritance. They get along as equals, though the 1st born would have opportunities 1st--that's all.

With the introduction of Sin, 1st place becomes something of a burden that women in marriages have to confront, and 2nd borns (like myself) have to recognize and deal with.

 

[quietthinker]

Yes, noted. However, we are told that hair for a woman is meant to be longer than that of men, accentuating her beauty as opposed to men, who at best are handsome. And as such, it is symbolic of a need for protection from angelic judgment.

Angels were from the beginning guardians of God's purity on earth. An angel was positioned to keep man from the Tree of Life after he had sinned in the garden.

And so, angels oversaw man and woman following the Fall, to continue to protect God's integrity. Man was created to display God's image, and angels apparently were assigned to ensure people don't go too far in spoiling the image of God.

Certain boundaries were set for man and woman after the Fall. God had made women, in marriage, to defer to the man's leadership in some respects. And angels would ensure this is taking place, or pass judgment (or so I think).

The woman, we know, defied God's word and ignored man's hesitancy, who listened to his wife, but not to the serpent. Thus, the woman is supposed to show some deference to her husband , the hair symbolizing recognition of this weakness in her character by deferring to male leadership in the marriage. She is beautiful, yes, but she is also not rebellious.

It really isn't that the hair is necessary to show submission, but that in the culture of the time, this did represent acknowledgement of the need for submission in a marriage. In reality, we all need to show such submission to one another. Men and women just do it in different ways. Hair itself is not the critical component--the heart is.

I will just add one more thing, to complete an entire thought. Man was created 1st, and it might seem that the Woman was assigned 2nd place in a form of servitude to Man. But I don't believe that was the original idea.

Man and Woman were created with this particular order, the Man leading and the Woman following. But it was never meant to be harsh rule by Man with Female servitude. That was purely the product of the Fall, in which Man's place as "1st" came to become something oppressive that the Woman would have to submit to in marriage.

I think the original order of Man 1st and Woman 2nd was no different than 1st born and 2nd born, all children sharing equally in an inheritance. They get along as equals, though the 1st born would have opportunities 1st--that's all.

With the introduction of Sin, 1st place becomes something of a burden that women in marriages have to confront, and 2nd borns (like myself) have to recognize and deal with.

ahhhhh, the imagination of man knows no end. Men will even imagine that an image made from stone or wood is worthy of being called a god.....and they will believe it!
All this speaks volumes of God's long-suffering....it seems the words 'long suffering' are a complete understatement.

 

[Randy Kluth]

ahhhhh, the imagination of man knows no end. Men will even imagine that an image made from stone or wood is worthy of being called a god.....and they will believe it!
All this speaks volumes of God's long-suffering....it seems the words 'long suffering' are a complete understatement.

So you don't believe there is an order in marriage? It's not popular in the current rebellious environment, but it should at least be acknowledged--not insulted. What is *not* an imagination is our experience in life whenever we have had to be under a boss or superior officer. Everybody who serves the Lord will know what it is to defer. Anybody who serves under a flawed authority will understand.

Gen 2.20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Gen 3.6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it....
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

1 Cor 11.3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God...
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.

At some point in our lives we will not get to be 1st in line. We will recognize that even if we come 2nd we will still get an equal share in the food. It is when we have to be 2nd in line that we know what it is like to defer to flawed people, who relish their place as 1st in line, and who use their position to oppress those who have to wait.

Neither is it a shame to be created to serve another. Just as the woman was created to serve the man, so we were all created to serve Christ. But we were not created for *servitude.* True service is "unto the Lord" and is what gives us opportunity to share in the riches of God's Kingdom.

Man also was created to serve the woman in a different sense, to find fulfillment in fellowship with her. But he has to learn to lay down selfish choices in order to accommodate her in an equal relationship.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Wiki:


If you feel like those early Christians, then go ahead and cover your head. I am not against that. However, generally speaking, I don't think every Christian woman is required to cover her hair today. To me, this rule today seems to focus on superficiality. Paul had his legitimate reason for asserting it at his time and place.

English Standard Version 1 Corinthians 11:


Paul called this a tradition, not a doctrine.


Paul commanded the wife/woman to do so at that time to show respect for their husbands. Today, his logic does not carry that significance in Western culture.


I think the word nature referred to a local social norm. Paul told us to judge for ourselves. See Christian freedoms.

On the other hand, only one glory should be on display in worship. Women's hair could be distracting and angels are watching. Again, Paul told us to judge for ourselves. In this case, if a woman has a distracting hairdo, then I think she should cover it.

In any case, you don't want to be legalistic and judgmental like the Pharisees who focus on external superficial behaviors. They strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Bottom line: Modesty is the key.

If God commands something it is not legalistic.

You intersperse your opinion with Biblical verses and get a monstrous hybrid mixture.

This was not a local issue or a custom/norm issue.

It is not a tradition as we think of tradition. The Word tradition in Greek means teaching!

Not all women were required to wear head coverings- just the married women.

Paul concluded this thought with saying the churches everywhere had no other teaching. Why should we?

 

[doctrox]

Ok, so there's been some chat about (good) angels, modesty, doctrines and traditions. But we've missed a big clue.

The head covering thing is all about the application of proper authority, in terms of proper spiritual alignment, such that we all remain protected. Specifically, in this instance, we're talking about the woman.

The clue is here:

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (verse 10)

It was a commonly accepted belief that a repeat of the Genesis chapter 6 episode, where fallen angels mated with earthly women, was not only possible but probable. IOW, these rebellious and malevolent angels remain highly desirous of earthly women. And that is why it's still vital to this day that women remain "under cover."

 

[Bob Estey]

Wiki:


If you feel like those early Christians, then go ahead and cover your head. I am not against that. However, generally speaking, I don't think every Christian woman is required to cover her hair today. To me, this rule today seems to focus on superficiality. Paul had his legitimate reason for asserting it at his time and place.

English Standard Version 1 Corinthians 11:


Paul called this a tradition, not a doctrine.


Paul commanded the wife/woman to do so at that time to show respect for their husbands. Today, his logic does not carry that significance in Western culture.


I think the word nature referred to a local social norm. Paul told us to judge for ourselves. See Christian freedoms.

On the other hand, only one glory should be on display in worship. Women's hair could be distracting and angels are watching. Again, Paul told us to judge for ourselves. In this case, if a woman has a distracting hairdo, then I think she should cover it.

In any case, you don't want to be legalistic and judgmental like the Pharisees who focus on external superficial behaviors. They strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Bottom line: Modesty is the key.

I don't think she ever was, despite what Paul said.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Wiki:


If you feel like those early Christians, then go ahead and cover your head. I am not against that. However, generally speaking, I don't think every Christian woman is required to cover her hair today. To me, this rule today seems to focus on superficiality. Paul had his legitimate reason for asserting it at his time and place.

English Standard Version 1 Corinthians 11:


Paul called this a tradition, not a doctrine.


Paul commanded the wife/woman to do so at that time to show respect for their husbands. Today, his logic does not carry that significance in Western culture.


I think the word nature referred to a local social norm. Paul told us to judge for ourselves. See Christian freedoms.

On the other hand, only one glory should be on display in worship. Women's hair could be distracting and angels are watching. Again, Paul told us to judge for ourselves. In this case, if a woman has a distracting hairdo, then I think she should cover it.

In any case, you don't want to be legalistic and judgmental like the Pharisees who focus on external superficial behaviors. They strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel.

Bottom line: Modesty is the key.

You missed the point of the passage. It had nothing at all to do with modesty or superficial behaviors.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Ok, so there's been some chat about (good) angels, modesty, doctrines and traditions. But we've missed a big clue.

The head covering thing is all about the application of proper authority, in terms of proper spiritual alignment, such that we all remain protected. Specifically, in this instance, we're talking about the woman.

The clue is here:

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (verse 10)

It was a commonly accepted belief that a repeat of the Genesis chapter 6 episode, where fallen angels mated with earthly women, was not only possible but probable. IOW, these rebellious and malevolent angels remain highly desirous of earthly women. And that is why it's still vital to this day that women remain "under cover."

Paul wasn't talking about supernatural beings here.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Wiki:

To me, this rule today seems to focus on superficiality. Paul had his legitimate reason for asserting it at his time and place.

I agree. However, you left out a critical point. Paul was responding to an issue that arose in the Corinthian church.

Upon closer examination of the letter as a whole, we come to realize that Paul dedicated much of his letter to answering questions coming from the Corinthian church. As Paul said, there were conflicts and disputes among them and the church was breaking up into factions.

In this section, Paul was answering a dilemma that he, himself created. Contrary to Jewish practice, Paul gave Christian women freedom to participate in a public church service. And the question is, what do women do while praying or prophesying.

1 Corinthians 11:3-5

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. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 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. ​

In the passage mentioned above, Paul presents a dilemma and brings it into focus. The question is what to do with the head covering while praying or prophesying. It is evident that during Paul's initial visit, he instructed the new, Gentile believers to remove their head covering while praying or prophesying.

It can be concluded that both men and women used to wear hats in public, since he mentions the removal of hats for both men and women. Therefore, it can be inferred that both genders wore hats in public.

Furthermore, Paul explains the significance of a man wearing a hat while praying or prophesying, and also the significance of a woman wearing a hat while praying or prophesying.

This is the dilemma that we are starting to approach. The commandment to remove a woman's head-covering during prayer or prophesying puts her in a difficult situation. She has to choose between offending God and offending her husband, both of which are undesirable. In her mind, If she removes her head-covering, she honors God but dishonors her husband. On the other hand, if she doesn't remove her head-covering, she honors her husband but dishonors God. What is she supposed to do? Paul corrects her mistaken perspective.

In Paul's opening statement, he establishes a hierarchy of authority where Christ is the head of every man, the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. To resolve a woman's dilemma, she must understand that by honoring her husband, she also honors Christ, his Lord. And by honoring her husband's Lord, she honors God. Therefore, a woman can keep her hat on while praying or prophesying because wearing the hat is not only a sign of respecting her husband, it signals respect of Jesus, his head, and respect of God his head. To honor her husband is to honor Jesus, is to honor God. Leaving the hat on honors all three at the same time.

The main point is that Jesus and Paul granted women the freedom to participate in church services alongside men. Paul also made efforts to accommodate women and encourage their participation. It is customary for men to remove their hats while praying or prophesying as a sign of respect to both Jesus and the Father. On the other hand, women should not remove their hats while praying or prophesying because wearing the hat signifies respect for their husbands, and by respecting her husband, she also respects his head -- Jesus Christ.

 

[Scott Downey]

Ok, so there's been some chat about (good) angels, modesty, doctrines and traditions. But we've missed a big clue.

The head covering thing is all about the application of proper authority, in terms of proper spiritual alignment, such that we all remain protected. Specifically, in this instance, we're talking about the woman.

The clue is here:

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (verse 10)

It was a commonly accepted belief that a repeat of the Genesis chapter 6 episode, where fallen angels mated with earthly women, was not only possible but probable. IOW, these rebellious and malevolent angels remain highly desirous of earthly women. And that is why it's still vital to this day that women remain "under cover."

Sure is a possibility. Women attracting Fallen angel attentions. No real idea that is happening ever again though. Many women have gone about with uncovered heads and not seeing any Nephilim being born yet past the end of the giants being mentioned in the OT times.
I figure God put a stop to that. After a while the fallen ones learned the hard way God was locking them up in gloomy dungeons when they sinned like that.

I have wondered if at the end we will see Angelic like hybrids (giant men of renown with extraordinary abilities) as Christ said it will be like the time of Noah. WEF certainly is promoting transhumanism and genetic hacking of people.

There is this modern fascination of heroic godlike figures in movies and popular culture, like the Avengers.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Sure is a possibility. Women attracting Fallen angel attentions. No real idea that is happening ever again though. Many women have gone about with uncovered heads and not seeing any Nephilim being born yet past the end of the giants being mentioned in the OT times.
I figure God put a stop to that. After a while the fallen ones learned the hard way God was locking them up in gloomy dungeons when they sinned like that.

I have wondered if at the end we will see Angelic like hybrids (giant men of renown with extraordinary abilities) as Christ said it will be like the time of Noah. WEF certainly is promoting transhumanism and genetic hacking of people.

There is this modern fascination of heroic godlike figures in movies and popular culture, like the Avengers.

It is not about the possibility of angels having sex with women again. It is about a wife showing she is in submission to her husband!

Paul made it very clear Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the wife. Having a head covering in worship shows she is in submission to her head as the man shows he is in submission to his Head

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Paul commanded the wife/woman to do so at that time to show respect for their husbands. Today, his logic does not carry that significance in Western culture.

Sorry Tony, but now you are allowing culture to define whether or not we obey Scripture.

Tradition means teaching!

Paul also said there is no other teaching in the churches of God

And it is for wives and not all women.

 

[quietthinker]

Is a woman required to cover her head today?​

head or no head, I don't even cover my feet!