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

[Lambano]

If we know that the hat or cover or Stetson would be offensive to our brother, would we or should we continue to wear it?

Let's turn that question around. When my Jewish friend asked me to serve in his wedding, he asked me up front if I would have a problem with wearing a yarmulke during the service. There would certainly be prayers said to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, asking for His blessing on this marriage. Should I wear the covering to avoid causing offense?

(The answer is that it took me about 750 milliseconds to agree to wear the kippah. It was an honor to stand with my friend, though it turned out I was not required to wear a yarmulke after all. And the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has indeed blessed their marriage; thirty-three years and a daughter and two sons later, they're still happily married.)

 

[Jim B]

It's interesting to me that male golfers in professional golf remove their hats before shaking hands at the end of a round. If it's appropriate for golfers then it's probably appropriate when talking to God. Although I presume there are acceptable exceptions, such as a soldier praying from a foxhole.

a) This has nothing to do with the discussion. And saying that "professional golf [sic] remove their hats before shaking hands at the end of a round. If it's appropriate for golfers then it's probably appropriate when talking to God. " As a point of trivia, Arnold Palmer would go ballistic if anyone wore a hat in the clubhouse.

b) Your exceptional example shows that your argument is flawed.

In my opinion, God doesn't care at all if you're wearing a hat or not when you pray. When a professional golfer prays with his hat before trying to make a crucial putt, will God make him miss because of his irreverence?

 

[Lambano]

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

I pray naked.

You too?

 

[Illuminator]

Head coverings is a matter of discipline, thus changeable; it was never a doctrine.

 

[Lambano]

When a professional golfer prays with his hat before trying to make a crucial putt, will God make him miss because of his irreverence?

At my stepson's Boy Scout retreat, the guest speaker told a story about a golfing buddy of his who'd use the name of Jesus Christ in a not-so-reverent way every time he'd miss a short putt. Finally, after about the fourth yipped three-footer and obligatory use of the Lord's name in vain, he says, "Y'know, Joe, if you'd call on Him BEFORE you strike the putt instead of afterwards, you might make a few more."

(I thought of that story because right about the time I was making impromptu prayers in the grocery store, my wife texted me that she was watching the Wasted Management Open golf tournament on TV, and Jordan Spieth was caught on a hot mic taking the Lord's name in vain.)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Don't tell me what I think. You clearly have misunderstood what I wrote. And I have reported your message to the staff.

I am putting you on ignore until you behave in a Christian manner.

bye bye then.

You said Paul did not mean what he wrote, so it is not part of the God inspired Scriptures. You can't say it doesn't mean what it says and still call it profitable for doctrine.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Better shave your head then, to be sure you are in full compliance. I will however consider the spiritual meaning to all ordinances in order to avoid legalism.

So what is the spiritual meaning of that shalt not commit adultery? We must avoid legalism.

and no hair is not the covering Paul is speaking of. Doing a word study shows that women's hair as a covering is a different word than the covering they must put on her head!

I disagree100% with the hair is a covering crowd! for if it is a covering then yes, men would have to shave their heads.

I know where I can find the meaning of the Inspired writers of Scripture- it is called the bible. but where does one go to find the authoritative spiritual meaning of the literal words? when does one draw a line and say this must be literal and this must be spiritual? It opens up for everyone ot privately interpret the Word and say they are taking teh "spiritual meaning".

 

[CadyandZoe]

I note that elsewhere in the 1 Corinthians FAQ, Paul indicates certain answers are advisory only, not normative. For example, 7:6, 7:25, 7:35. He also indicates in 7:10 that his teaching on divorce comes from the Lord Jesus Himself and thus should be considered normative.

As you noted, it is interesting that these plus the verse in question all pertain to the relationship between men and women.

One could argue that the verses pertain to husbands and wives specifically, not necessarily to all men or all women. But that is another discussion.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Ronald, this is the stuff the religious leaders in Jesus day made a big deal of. Can you think of other religious folk from any religion/ organisation who make a big deal of appearance and clothing? who have strict codes for what constitutes profane and what constitutes holy?.....and we can push the line further, like what to eat and what not to, who to associate and who not, gender separation etc.

I think the list will go on indefinitely and all because of being entrapped in the self.....that's the best they can come up with.

We must get over what religious leaders say and don't say. If we are followers of Jesus we must get our marching orders from the Inspired Word of God! Period!!!!!!

Paul devoted almost an entire chapter about this dress code when the saints gather (go to church). He said it was the universal teaching of the church- I think we should pay attention! what the modern culture accepts or rejects should not matter to a believer. It is what teh Word commands us.

I am not saying that people will lose their salvation or get oppressed by demons. but by deliberately disobeying this command, what are the local churches robbing themselves of because the culture is opposed to this? Paul gave the specific reasons for this command and not one was about religiosity.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Ronald, this is the stuff the religious leaders in Jesus day made a big deal of. Can you think of other religious folk from any religion/ organisation who make a big deal of appearance and clothing? who have strict codes for what constitutes profane and what constitutes holy?.....and we can push the line further, like what to eat and what not to, who to associate and who not, gender separation etc.

I think the list will go on indefinitely and all because of being entrapped in the self.....that's the best they can come up with.

So are you saying Paul was simply another religious leader in his day and doing all the stuff you just said? After all He issued this command.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

All,
Paul is dealing with a cultural practice, which became a problem after women began participation in the worship service. The locus of the issue is centered on the women because, according to both Jesus and Paul, women are now allowed to participate in the church service, which included public prayer. For the first time in the history of the Church, by order of Christ himself, women are being treated as equals with regard to worship, specifically public prayer.

In order that we might understand the problem, Paul reminds his readers of the meaning behind removal of the hat.

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.​

Here Paul describes TWO contradictory cultural practices: 1) to honor God, a man removes his hat., 2) To honor her husband, a wife wears a hat. These two contradictory practices are not a problem until a wife is allowed to pray in public. This is a bit tricky so stay with me.

While a women is in public, she wears a hat in order to honor her husband. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, when the woman is praying in public what does she do? If she removes her hat while praying, in order to honor God, she is also, at the same time, bringing dishonor to her husband. In other words, being allowed to pray in public has put her in a double bind. If she keeps her hat on her head while praying in public, she brings honor to her husband, but at the same time, she dishonors God. Or, if she removes her hat while praying in public, she brings honor to God, but at the same time she dishonors her husband.

The church wrote Paul to ask for his advice. What should the women do? We want to allow them to participate; we agree that it is a good and right thing to do. But we have a problem. Will you help us? Tell us what to do in this case. Should the woman wear a hat to honor her husband or should she remove her hat in order to honor God? It seems no matter what she does, she is going to bring dishonor to someone, which is not what anyone wants her to do.

Ultimately, Paul leaves it up to the local church (vs. 13 Judge for yourselves . . .) But he gives them a set of useful criteria by which to make a determination. If I read Paul correctly, I believe his answer is this. Since the husband is the head of the wife, and ultimately Christ and God are the head of the husband, then to bring honor to her husband is to also bring honor to her Lord. So a woman should wear a hat while praying in public, which honors both her husband and her God at the same time.

If wearing a hat had this same meaning in our culture today, then we would certainly follow Paul's instructions. But I wonder if wearing a hat has the same connotation today?


@lforrest
@Ronald Nolette
@Michiah-Imla
@Lambano
@RLT63

Well I would strongly disagree with most of your conclusions.

What something in culture may have or have not meaning is no criteria for what a believer should or should not do!

Let us look at things which now are very cultural acceptable and think if the body of believers should simply accept them.

Living outside of marriage
same sex relationships
decriminalizing drugs

Those are some of the most hideous. but should we reinterpret Scripture because the culture of today nearly fully accepts these?

Paul wrote an issue for the church. He was not leaving it for the local churches to decide for themselves. "The judge for yourselves" is a euphemism that means- in light of everything I just told you- you should come to the right decision.

This also was a universal command for all the churches! Paul said if anyone among seems contentious (wanting to argue over this) we have no such teaching- neither the churches of God (here meaning Jewish believers)

So the command is for married women, while in "service" should cover their head. In honoring their husbands, they honor jesus.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do you understand reductio ad absurdum? And what/where is Amerioca?

Thank you for correcting my spelling. so let us get to the weighty matter.

Yes your argument lends itself to reductio ad absurdum. For , by removing all the flowery and spiritual sounding speech, one is saying that Paul did not mean what he wrote and wrote what he did not mean. There is nothing in the construction or language of the passage to say it is parabolic or metaphorical etc. On the contrary- Paul says it is a universal teaching for the church!

And when one opens pandora box to reinterpret literal scriptures- where is the end? What is the authority to decide what should be literal and what not if it is not the grammar that God created so we could communicate simply to each other?

If one takes something allegorical that you take literal and both of you defend it by Scripture who decides who is right? If you come to differing conclusions over a passage- god is not the author of confusion.

So yes, if this passage is to not be regarded literally, what about all the other prohibitions against conduct issued to the church? why are they not legalism?

 

[lforrest]

So what is the spiritual meaning of that shalt not commit adultery? We must avoid legalism.

and no hair is not the covering Paul is speaking of. Doing a word study shows that women's hair as a covering is a different word than the covering they must put on her head!

I disagree100% with the hair is a covering crowd! for if it is a covering then yes, men would have to shave their heads.

I know where I can find the meaning of the Inspired writers of Scripture- it is called the bible. but where does one go to find the authoritative spiritual meaning of the literal words? when does one draw a line and say this must be literal and this must be spiritual? It opens up for everyone ot privately interpret the Word and say they are taking teh "spiritual meaning".

To commit Adultery is to betray one's love for their husband or wife, and a neighbor as well. The implications are far reaching in this world, and in the souls of many. And a little known side effect is the creation of soul bonds between the fornicators. It defiles the image of God and his church after which marriage was modeled.

Adultery is lust of the heart and the eyes. It is worldly behavior 1 John 2:16. And the world is condemned to death. Those who believe in Jesus are not condemned with the world.

1 Corinthians 11:15 equates long hair with a covering.

One turns to the Holy Spirit to interpret the Scriptures. The author of scripture surely knows how to properly interpret it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

To commit Adultery is to betray one's love for their husband or wife, and a neighbor as well. The implications are far reaching in this world, and in the souls of many. And a little known side effect is the creation of soul bonds between the fornicators. It defiles the image of God and his church after which marriage was modeled.

Adultery is lust of the heart and the eyes. It is worldly behavior 1 John 2:16. And the world is condemned to death. Those who believe in Jesus are not condemned with the world.

1 Corinthians 11:15 equates long hair with a covering.

One turns to the Holy Spirit to interpret the Scriptures. The author of scripture surely knows how to properly interpret it.

So apply your rule you just expounded and explain why we should reject the following passage as being literal:

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.

Nobody I know thinks this is a noon-literal deeply spiritual passage that has another meaning. Even the simple reading of a believer will tell you it is literal.. It isa men who introduced their own private interpretations that have made this a contentious passage.

 

[lforrest]

So apply your rule you just expounded and explain why we should reject the following passage as being literal:

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.

Nobody I know thinks this is a noon-literal deeply spiritual passage that has another meaning. Even the simple reading of a believer will tell you it is literal.. It isa men who introduced their own private interpretations that have made this a contentious passage.

Did I say it doesn't have a literal meaning? I choose to prioritize spiritual meaning to Scriptures, especially when I know it isn't impacting me. For if it was a concern I would be convicted about it.

 

[JunChosen]

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.". By saying "it is the same as", Paul is clearly not discussing hair length. He is making a comparison.

Paul is definitely saying he is making a distinction between long and short hair. When Jesus was asked, "How shall we pray?" He said to go to their closest and close the door." And then He gave the reasons why [Matthew 6:5-13].

You should read your Bible more carefully instead of making a clearly wrong statement. There is not a single translation that says " "God spoke in parables and without a parable He did not speak!"

Are you unequivocally sure? Psalms 78:1-3 reads"
1.Give ear, O my people, [to] my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.

And taking Hosea 4:6 out of context clearly shows that you are using eisegesis

As a matter of fact, those who take Scripture verses out of context, I call, "eyesegesis."

Your interpretation of Scripture is flawed. You might try reading verses 4-5

What is the significance about the head being covered or uncovered have to do with prayer or prophesying, per Matthew Chapter 5?

By saying "it is the same as", Paul is clearly not discussing hair length. He is making a comparison.

You are in ERROR! Please read the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 11 to get context.

And taking Hosea 4:6 out of context clearly shows that you are using eisegesis.

Hosea is speaking about scriptural knowledge and it's consequences for those who teach them wrongly! Remember, we are in the market place of the world and therefore, accountable to what we teach!

To God Be The Glory

 

[Jim B]

Paul is definitely saying he is making a distinction between long and short hair. When Jesus was asked, "How shall we pray?" He said to go to their closest and close the door." And then He gave the reasons why [Matthew 6:5-13].

Are you unequivocally sure? Psalms 78:1-3 reads"
1.Give ear, O my people, [to] my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.


As a matter of fact, those who take Scripture verses out of context, I call, "eyesegesis."


What is the significance about the head being covered or uncovered have to do with prayer or prophesying, per Matthew Chapter 5?


You are in ERROR! Please read the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 11 to get context.

Are you unequivocally sure? Psalms 78:1-3 reads"
1.Give ear, O my people, [to] my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.

Hosea is speaking about scriptural knowledge and it's consequences for those who teach them wrongly! Remember, we are in the market place of the world and therefore, accountable to what we teach!

To God Be The Glory

You are wrong and make no sense.

I wrote that there is not a single translation that says " "God spoke in parables and without a parable He did not speak!" And you obviously did a word search and found the word "parable" in an Old Testament psalm. Congratulations on you word search! I was referring to a quote from Mark 4 that was about Jesus only. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

This also makes no sense: "Paul is definitely saying he is making a distinction between long and short hair. When Jesus was asked, "How shall we pray?" He said to go to their closest and close the door." And then He gave the reasons why [Matthew 6:5-13]. That has nothing to do with the subject being discussed: long/short hair; head covering/uncovering.

You wrote, "As a matter of fact, those who take Scripture verses out of context, I call, "eyesegesis." Call it whatever you want; make up words. The correct English word is "eisegesis".

Since you make no sense, I won't debate with you until you do (if ever).

 

[quietthinker]

So are you saying Paul was simply another religious leader in his day and doing all the stuff you just said? After all He issued this command.

Wake up Ronald!

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well I would strongly disagree with most of your conclusions.

What something in culture may have or have not meaning is no criteria for what a believer should or should not do!

Let us look at things which now are very cultural acceptable and think if the body of believers should simply accept them.

Living outside of marriage
same sex relationships
decriminalizing drugs

Those are some of the most hideous. but should we reinterpret Scripture because the culture of today nearly fully accepts these?

Paul wrote an issue for the church. He was not leaving it for the local churches to decide for themselves. "The judge for yourselves" is a euphemism that means- in light of everything I just told you- you should come to the right decision.

This also was a universal command for all the churches! Paul said if anyone among seems contentious (wanting to argue over this) we have no such teaching- neither the churches of God (here meaning Jewish believers)

So the command is for married women, while in "service" should cover their head. In honoring their husbands, they honor jesus.

Follow the clues.

 

[Robert Gwin]

1 Corinthians 11:4
English Standard Version
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

(1 Corinthians 11:4-7) 4 Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames his head; 5 but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is one and the same as if she were a [woman] with a shaved head. 6 For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory.