Is it ok for a man to pray while wearing a head covering? Paul told the Corinthians it was NOT ok.

[CadyandZoe]

Well you may believe it is descriptive (which it is in part) but it is simply descriptive.

Paul offers no alternatives, no cultural or time expirations. He simply declared men in church ought to pray with no man made covering on their head and women ought to have a man made covering on their head in church and he gives the reason why! Very simple! No complicated philosophical musings to be had here.Paul said do it and heres why! NO length of hair is too short or too long, no cultural significance or relavance. Just Corinth needs to do it for it is the teaching in all the churches and that should end anyone who is contentious over this teaching.

I disagree. You seem to imply that Paul only wrote verses 4 and 5. But he wrote much more than that. And if we are seeking to understand what he meant to say, we need to take account for ALL he said.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well you may believe it is descriptive (which it is in part) but it is simply descriptive.

Paul offers no alternatives, no cultural or time expirations. He simply declared men in church ought to pray with no man made covering on their head and women ought to have a man made covering on their head in church and he gives the reason why! Very simple! No complicated philosophical musings to be had here.Paul said do it and heres why! NO length of hair is too short or too long, no cultural significance or relavance. Just Corinth needs to do it for it is the teaching in all the churches and that should end anyone who is contentious over this teaching.

Look, all we need to do is ask ourselves, is 1Corinthians 11:5 true in our culture or not? The answer is no. Why? Because head coverings have no meaning for us. It is not true, in our time and place, that a woman who removes her head covering disgraces her husband. It just isn't true.

When we see a woman walking down the street without a head covering we don't immediately think, "what a shame, she has brought disgrace on her husband." We just don't think like that anymore. We don't associate a woman's head covering with honor anymore. Sorry, we just don't.

 

[Davy]

I remember..a head covering.
- The first time I saw..many years ago.
---
A Mennonite (woman) wearing the head covering..
- during the chapel service (Protestant).

Mainstream Protestant Church I was raised in women always... wore a covering on their head. It didn't cover their whole head like Islamic women do though.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I disagree. You seem to imply that Paul only wrote verses 4 and 5. But he wrote much more than that. And if we are seeking to understand what he meant to say, we need to take account for ALL he said.

Relative to the subject at hand ? Yes. But talking about say teh Lords Supper has nothing to do with this instruction. Pauls entire commentary is found only in 1 Cor. 11:

1 Corinthians 11

King James Version

​

11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul wrote a simple instruction. It is man who complicates it because they do not like that it may not fit current culture and fashion trends and sense of independence.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Look, all we need to do is ask ourselves, is 1Corinthians 11:5 true in our culture or not? The answer is no. Why? Because head coverings have no meaning for us. It is not true, in our time and place, that a woman who removes her head covering disgraces her husband. It just isn't true.

When we see a woman walking down the street without a head covering we don't immediately think, "what a shame, she has brought disgrace on her husband." We just don't think like that anymore. We don't associate a woman's head covering with honor anymore. Sorry, we just don't.

And the answer is- for believers, Yes it is still relevant. Paul did not write an expiration date to this one teaching, nor did he leave it to the whims of carnal cultural whims.

And Paul said nothing about when women are walking on teh street. If you reasd the passage you would know that! He is speaking about when in worship service or what we call church,
ALONE! It is that simple

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Go  only to God in prayer to seek answers of question, that are in ones mind of what is required in service to him.
He does not fail to show us the truth of what he requires in obedience to him !
Let God be true and all men liars!

Matthew 7
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

 

[Jim B]

And the answer is- for believers, Yes it is still relevant. Paul did not write an expiration date to this one teaching, nor did he leave it to the whims of carnal cultural whims.

And Paul said nothing about when women are walking on teh street. If you reasd the passage you would know that! He is speaking about when in worship service or what we call church,
ALONE! It is that simple

The cultural customs of 1st Century CE Corinth are a world apart from the 21st Century CE US. It makes no difference if a woman covers her head in church or not. It makes no sense if, going into a modern church, you see women without head coverings, to judge them as being shameful.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The cultural customs of 1st Century CE Corinth are a world apart from the 21st Century CE US. It makes no difference if a woman covers her head in church or not. It makes no sense if, going into a modern church, you see women without head coverings, to judge them as being shameful.

It doesn't matter what customs of localities are. this is the Word of God!

Paul also included in that passage that they had no other teachings for any of the churches. so this is a church wide dictate.

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.

Other than for medical reasons, it is a shame for a woman to be bald.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul made it clear- this is a church wide issue!

 

[Jim B]

It doesn't matter what customs of localities are. this is the Word of God!

Paul also included in that passage that they had no other teachings for any of the churches. so this is a church wide dictate.

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.

Other than for medical reasons, it is a shame for a woman to be bald.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul made it clear- this is a church wide issue!

That is simply your opinion, and I disagree with it. Much of what is written in the epistles is directed at a culture that existed thousands of years ago. You should learn to interpret the Bible! What Paul is saying is that women (and men) should dress in a manner when they go to church that doesn't offend God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That is simply your opinion, and I disagree with it. Much of what is written in the epistles is directed at a culture that existed thousands of years ago. You should learn to interpret the Bible! What Paul is saying is that women (and men) should dress in a manner when they go to church that doesn't offend God.

Well then show me where in Scripture it says it is just for that culture.

When I read that paul said this was a teaching for all the churches of God- that crosses all the cultures the church was in!

Homosexuals say the ban on that was cultural only- do you agree with them also?

Also we are forbidden from "interpreting" the bible!

2 Peter 1:19-21

King James Version

​

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Is this only for the OT and does that mean we can "interpret" the NT the way we wish?

See you are interpreting Scripture, I am just giving it as it is written without comment.

1 Corinthians 11:16

King James Version

​

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Contentious=quarrelsome. Paul said if anyone wishes to argue- He had no other teaching, neither the CHURCHES (plural) of god.

 

[Jim B]

Well then show me where in Scripture it says it is just for that culture.

When I read that paul said this was a teaching for all the churches of God- that crosses all the cultures the church was in!

Homosexuals say the ban on that was cultural only- do you agree with them also?

Also we are forbidden from "interpreting" the bible!

2 Peter 1:19-21​

​

King James Version​

​

​

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Is this only for the OT and does that mean we can "interpret" the NT the way we wish?

See you are interpreting Scripture, I am just giving it as it is written without comment.

1 Corinthians 11:16​

​

King James Version​

​

​

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Contentious=quarrelsome. Paul said if anyone wishes to argue- He had no other teaching, neither the CHURCHES (plural) of god.

1 Corinthians 7:10-12, "To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her."

Clearly not everything Paul wrote was a command from the Lord. In the case of what he wrote regarding appropriate dress in Corinth, I maintain that it was cultural. If you don't agree that isn't important to me.

Secondly, your quotation from 2 Peter is not relevant, since we are not discussing prophecy. So your comment that "Is this only for the OT and does that mean we can "interpret" the NT the way we wish?" is clearly a comment!

1 Corinthians 11:16, "But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." He did not say teaching, he said custom: a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time. So clearly, my interpretation of what Paul wrote is correct!

You must learn to read Scripture more accurately. For a start, I suggest you get rid of the King James translation and get one that you can understand, one that is written in conventional English.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

1 Corinthians 7:10-12, "To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her."

Clearly not everything Paul wrote was a command from the Lord. In the case of what he wrote regarding appropriate dress in Corinth, I maintain that it was cultural. If you don't agree that isn't important to me.

Secondly, your quotation from 2 Peter is not relevant, since we are not discussing prophecy. So your comment that "Is this only for the OT and does that mean we can "interpret" the NT the way we wish?" is clearly a comment!

1 Corinthians 11:16, "But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." He did not say teaching, he said custom: a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time. So clearly, my interpretation of what Paul wrote is correct!

You must learn to read Scripture more accurately. For a start, I suggest you get rid of the King James translation and get one that you can understand, one that is written in conventional English.

Well custom is defined as teaching. sorry but I do read the SCriptures accurately. I go to the Greek and Hebrew often and learn what the meant in the times they were written and not todays culture.

The word is: synētheia and means an established practice.

Now show me that it is not valid for today. It was practiced across all cultura lines in the time of Paul, Roman, Greek and JEWISH. SO YOU NEEDS TO SHOW WHY THIS IS NOTVALID TODAY, SEEING HOW GOD DECIDED TO PLACE IT IN HIS INSPIRED WORD, WHICH IS POROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE. Do that instead of your ad-hominems and you have a cohesive and valuable argument instead of your petty trashing.

 

[Jim B]

Well custom is defined as teaching. sorry but I do read the SCriptures accurately. I go to the Greek and Hebrew often and learn what the meant in the times they were written and not todays culture.

The word is: synētheia and means an established practice.

Now show me that it is not valid for today. It was practiced across all cultura lines in the time of Paul, Roman, Greek and JEWISH. SO YOU NEEDS TO SHOW WHY THIS IS NOTVALID TODAY, SEEING HOW GOD DECIDED TO PLACE IT IN HIS INSPIRED WORD, WHICH IS POROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE. Do that instead of your ad-hominems and you have a cohesive and valuable argument instead of your petty trashing.

If you think that I would respond to this (semi-literate), condemnatory post, you are living in delusion.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If you think that I would respond to this (semi-literate), condemnatory post, you are living in delusion.

So in other words you have no evidence and just wish to vomit out more venom. OKAY then! You have been exposed. Have the last word if you wish. Bye.

 

[Jim B]

So in other words you have no evidence and just wish to vomit out more venom. OKAY then! You have been exposed. Have the last word if you wish. Bye.

I have given you all the evidence necessary. Obviously you are stuck in your own interpretation, i.e., Paul's rules for a city in the 1st Century CE apply to all cultures at all times. In other words, Paul, who opposed the law, is now creating new law. LOL!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I have given you all the evidence necessary. Obviously you are stuck in your own interpretation, i.e., Paul's rules for a city in the 1st Century CE apply to all cultures at all times. In other words, Paul, who opposed the law, is now creating new law. LOL!

So you do not believe the church has any laws? Adultery, homosexuality, stealing etc. are all ok by your logic here?

But if you read the passage carefully- the passage says it was a teaching, not just for Corinth, but for all the churches. why you refuse to acknowledge that is a mystery.

 

[Jim B]

So you do not believe the church has any laws? Adultery, homosexuality, stealing etc. are all ok by your logic here?

But if you read the passage carefully- the passage says it was a teaching, not just for Corinth, but for all the churches. why you refuse to acknowledge that is a mystery.

Reductio ad absurdum. I claimed that the covering of a woman's head in church applied to first century Corinthian society, and he thereby claims that I don't believe the church has any laws and that I approve of adultery, homosexuality, stealing etc. I mean, really! Is he serious?

I read what Paul wrote and stand by my understanding of what he meant. Even if Ronald twists what I wrote to mean something entirely different.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Reductio ad absurdum. I claimed that the covering of a woman's head in church applied to first century Corinthian society, and he thereby claims that I don't believe the church has any laws and that I approve of adultery, homosexuality, stealing etc. I mean, really! Is he serious?

I read what Paul wrote and stand by my understanding of what he meant. Even if Ronald twists what I wrote to mean something entirely different.

Well it is clear you are not a careful reader. You said Paul was against the law and was making new laws! So I asked (not stated if you were okay with those sins I wrote. Lying about my words to my face is not desirable.

Well I have been asking where you get your understanding and what facts lead you to conclude Paul was writing only about the Corinthian situation, especially when he said it was a practice in all the churches. that is all I wrote and asked and still wait for your answer.

 

[Jim B]

Well it is clear you are not a careful reader. You said Paul was against the law and was making new laws! So I asked (not stated if you were okay with those sins I wrote. Lying about my words to my face is not desirable.

Well I have been asking where you get your understanding and what facts lead you to conclude Paul was writing only about the Corinthian situation, especially when he said it was a practice in all the churches. that is all I wrote and asked and still wait for your answer.

Are you trying to be contentious? I never said that Paul was making new laws I said just the opposite! Lying about my words is not desirable. If you think that Paul was writing a law to be followed for thousands of years in a society he never dreamt of, you are clearly misinformed.

 

[Nancy]

If I were a cynical man, I would think Paul was trying to differentiate his Gentile followers of Jesus from our Jewish cousins whose men traditionally wear a head covering (e.g. a yarmulke) while praying.

If I honor God with praise and thanksgiving while wearing a Stetson, does it matter if my head is dishonored?

I used to own 3 Stetsons in the service, was a real cowgirl! Ahaha. I'm pretty sure Jesus is the head of the man....not the actual 'head" like, brains, ears, eyes nose..JMHO!