Is a woman required to cover her head today?

[rockytopva]

Zac Poonen is an Indian preacher who is invited everywhere. He tells of preaching in California about why women should come to church with their head covered and ended up having half the congregation leave on him.

 

[Anchorite]

No, women must have a head covering i.e. spiritual authority on their head as a defense against another possible incursion of the Genesis 6 fallen angels who had previously mated with earthly women, who then birthed what would become giants. 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."

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. It has nothing to do with any physical garment/hat.

After the flood, the disembodied spirits of the giants remained, which is one reason why we are told that the woman is to have power on her head, because of the fallen angels and the possibility that these malevolent creatures may again desire to revisit our women for a repeat episode (1 Cor. 11:10). The disembodied spirits of the giants are what we refer to as devils or demons; they are not eligible for salvation; they remain in the air about us everywhere; and they seek physical embodiment in us in order to act out their wicked nature.

Your theory is insane.

Women in church have not worn hair coverings for 2,000 years.

Where are all the devil-human hybrids at?

 

[doctrox]

Your theory is insane.

It is scripture.

Women in church have not worn hair coverings for 2,000 years.

Nor are they required to. Again, this is about spiritual authority; it's about godly men spiritually protecting their womenfolk.

Where are all the devil-human hybrids at?

Where do you think the spirits of the drowned giants went after the flood?

 

[Gray_Joy]

No, we're not required to cover our head today.

I will say, when I do wear a dupatta and kaftan, I feel different than when I wear 501 Levi's and a tee shirt.

It's a choice. Not a mandate.

 

[doctrox]

No, we're not required to cover our head today.

I will say, when I do wear a dupatta and kaftan, I feel different than when I wear 501 Levi's and a tee shirt.

It's a choice. Not a mandate.

Sounds like you are saying that when you choose to wear a head covering, you are acknowledging God as your Sovereign, as exemplified in your godly husband, to whom you are submitted. Praise God!

 

[Bombastic]

It would be better if its shaved head or, worse, purple or pink hair were covered. Even better if the shaved or dyed hair, pig nose ring, and tat sleeves were covered by an extra-large, hefty bag.

 

[quietthinker]

You cannot be serious!

Women must cover their hair to keep angels from mating with them???

ie, assuming angels have the ability to mate?
What could that possibly mean? that some angels have penises and testicles? but what for? are there other angels with breasts and vagina's and are there baby angels in production as a result?

 

[Bombastic]

ie, assuming angels have the ability to mate?
What could that possibly mean? that some angels have penises and testicles? but what for? are there other angels with breasts and vagina's and are there baby angels in production as a result?

I tend to pause and remain silent when the Scriptures are silent. We at least know that angels can take on human form and that Satan and his demons can possess. And that the sons of G-d in Genesis took women for themselves.
Not implying anything more, plenty today blame Satan directly for human depravity, though both, by nature, seem to share an interest in defiling the human body.
On another note, it's quite entertaining to consider the gibberish some say is speaking in tongues and why it is necessary to do so to prevent Satan from intercepting their verbal prayers. Talk about an encryption process. What's next? Chastity belt? Religious talisman?

 

[markalan]

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

 

[Grailhunter]

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.
~~~~
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.

Nice try on the hat thing~~Boy, first century paintings would look a lot different if they wore hats.
Should a woman be required to cover her head during church services?
Few scriptures have caused as much trouble as these scriptures.....trouble? debates? arguments?
How many protestant women here would go to church if they had to wear a scarf on their heads during church services?
The Christians have the female head coverings and the Muslims have the burka. Cover those women up!
Sunday school questions that I have seen generated by these verses.
Was Paul a sexist?
You mean women were not created in the image of God?

God is the head of Christ.....boy that will set the 3 in 1 belief on its ear.

Most study Bibles will have notes all over these scriptures, mostly trying to clarify them away?

I was voice taping a presbyterian service one time, actually their Sunday school. And a young man went to the podium and sighed and said, Thank you for asking about women wearing a head covering during church services----I was up all night wrestling with this one. He said this looking at one of the women in the front row---sarcasm.
He starts out by saying---Let me just say this, a lot of what Paul said----People take as strict Christian beliefs or as tradition or as his personal option. (Another sigh) The Apostle Paul also made it clear that there is no divorce process in Christianity. Under certain conditions you can walk away from a marriage but you can never remarry.
(He pauses for a moment.) So if a woman walks away from a marriage because of abuse, does she get the children or if she does are the children to remain fatherless?
He says, in my opinion...(He pauses again.) These verses open a preverbal can of worms. To be honest, I have issues with some of these verses. Men the glory of God, but women the glory man? Women created in the image of Man? My mom does not look like my dad. But on the other hand Paul said these things and a lot of what we believe comes from the Apostle Paul. And you also know our pastor does not require women to wear head coverings. (Another pause as he looks over the class?)
At that point he opened it up to discussion and some of the discussions were heated. Most of the people present believed it was an old fashion tradition, that is about female head coverings and divorce. And some of the people there had been divorced before they married their present wife. And most of the people there believed in the equality of men and women in a marriage unless they could not come to agreement on a topic or action and then it was the call of the husband. Most but not all. Some strong feelings about male superiority.

Now I am not agreeing with or disagreeing with them. But on the topic of female head coverings Paul said, Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? And I am going to cop out and leave it at that. But still I acknowledge the questions---Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. What does this mean? To prevent women from tempting angels? Is the head covering a symbol of female authority? Or a symbol of respect to God? If so how does it show respect to God? And I have to admit I believe in the equality of women in marriage and the modern Christian church. (I will catch some heat on that one.)

Scriptures on Christian Head Coverings​

Several New Testament passages address the practice of head coverings, particularly in the context of worship and modesty.
Key Verses:

• 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 –
  Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 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. 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. 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. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
• 1 Corinthians 11:7 – “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”
• 1 Corinthians 11:10 – “For this reason, a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels”
• 1 Timothy 2:9 – “In like manner also, that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire”
• 1 Peter 3:3 – “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes”
• Genesis 24:65 – Illustrates modesty in worship: “So she took her veil and covered herself”

Spiritual and Cultural Context:
In the ancient world, head coverings often signified modesty, respect, and social status. In Corinth’s culture, women’s veils in worship could indicate marital status or honor toward their husbands Bible Hub. Paul’s teaching connects the practice to honoring God’s design, maintaining orderly worship, and reflecting proper authority and modesty Bible Hub.
Summary:
The main scriptural basis for head coverings in Christian worship comes from 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, which links the practice to honor, modesty, and the proper order of authority. Other passages like 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 reinforce the call for modest apparel and outward beauty that is not ostentatious.

 

[markalan]

Paul appeals to nature to make his case for covering a woman's head (the same argument he makes in Romans 1:26 about homosexuality) so that would refute the argument that it was only cultural.

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (1 Cor 11:14-15)​

In these verses, Paul refers to hair 3 times - so it would seem he was not talking about a veil or a hat.

 

[quietthinker]

I tend to pause and remain silent when the Scriptures are silent. We at least know that angels can take on human form and that Satan and his demons can possess. And that the sons of G-d in Genesis took women for themselves.
Not implying anything more, plenty today blame Satan directly for human depravity, though both, by nature, seem to share an interest in defiling the human body.
On another note, it's quite entertaining to consider the gibberish some say is speaking in tongues and why it is necessary to do so to prevent Satan from intercepting their verbal prayers. Talk about an encryption process. What's next? Chastity belt? Religious talisman?

Why is it assumed that the reference to 'the sons of God' in Genesis is referring to demons? There are other options.

 

[Bombastic]

Why is it assumed that the reference to 'the sons of God' in Genesis is referring to demons? There are other options.

I have no idea why anybody assumes anything about the sons of G-d in Genesis. The book of Job, however, uses the same biblical term for the sons of G-d. In Job the sons of G-d are unambiguously heavenly, divine, or spiritual creatures.

 

[Lambano]

 

[Lambano]

 

[Lambano]

I remember having a light-hearted argument here about the head covering with my favorite Anabaptist lady, me arguing against the covering, she arguing for it. I didn't win the argument (I never do), but the covering she made was so pretty (she posted a photo), I didn't mind losing.

 

[markalan]

I have no idea why anybody assumes anything about the sons of G-d in Genesis. The book of Job, however, uses the same biblical term for the sons of G-d. In Job the sons of G-d are unambiguously heavenly, divine, or spiritual creatures.

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea,
which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass,
that in the place where it was said unto them,
Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them,
Ye are the sons of the living God. (Hosea 1:10)

 

[Lambano]

I remember walking the Sneaky Labrador early one morning and my Muslim neighbor lady came out to put something in the trash without her head scarf on. It was the first (and only time) I'd ever seen what color her hair was. She saw me and quickly ducked back inside to put on her scarf.

I'm not sure who was more embarrassed, her or me. It felt like I'd just seen her naked.

 

[quietthinker]

I have no idea why anybody assumes anything about the sons of G-d in Genesis. The book of Job, however, uses the same biblical term for the sons of G-d. In Job the sons of G-d are unambiguously heavenly, divine, or spiritual creatures.

'Sons of God' is also a reference to believers. Could we say that those of faith mentioned in Hebrews 11 would be deemed Sons of God?
Conversely, could we also posit that 'sons of men' is reference to the unbelieving？

 

[quietthinker]

I remember walking the Sneaky Labrador early one morning and my Muslim neighbor lady came out to put something in the trash without her head scarf on. It was the first (and only time) I'd ever seen what color her hair was. She saw me and quickly ducked back inside to put on her scarf.

I'm not sure who was more embarrassed, her or me. It felt like I'd just seen her naked.

Well there ya go Lambano. Perhaps that's how that culture (muslim) sees it?