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

[CadyandZoe]

No but in the day most woman had a covering on their head like something that could be considered a hood like extension of their robe. And given the faqct Paul uses aner and gune in the passage for man and woman it is referring to married woman in context. I understand the passage well.

I do not understand teh opinions of many hear of what they think Paul is trying to say. I would like to see your biblical defense of your position.

The key to understanding Paul's first letter to the Corinthians is to get properly oriented to the structure of his letter. In the latter half of his letter, he is answering direct questions raised by the Corinthians. To this end, he repeats the question as a positives statement, It's as if he is saying, "You guys believe this . . . bla bla bla" and here is what I say about that. For instance, take a look at chapter 7, which begins:

"Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman." The part in bold is what the Corinthians wrote. Paul doesn't believe this but some of the Corinthians do believe it. Why? Because the Corinthians are living in a Greek culture which affirms Plato's dichotomy, one of which is the following assumption: the flesh is evil, the spirit is good. The new believers in Corinth want to know how to live a holy life, which they assume is necessarily free of sexual intimacy, given their assumptions. A holy man, for instance, would not get married or have intimate relations with a woman. The Corinthians want to know if Christianity requires that married men and women avoid intimacy or at the least, abstain from intimacy for long stretches of time.

Anyway, the point is, in order to understand his letter, we need to pay attention to the times when his statements are cultural "givens." It's as if the Corinthians were asking, "Given that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, how shall a Christian man live?" Paul doesn't agree with the original premise but he does agree with their desire to live in a holy manner. He doesn't attack their assumptions directly, he presents other reasons to support his position. For instance, he tells believers that a married man doesn't have the right to withhold his body from his wife (for spiritual reasons, say) because, he says, his wife owns his body. Likewise, a wife can not withhold her body from her husband for spiritual reasons because her husband owns her body. If a husband needs to abstain from intimacy for the sake of prayer, then it is acceptable for him to abstain for that reason BUT only for a very limited time.

Okay, lets look at our passage.

2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 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.

In the paragraph above, Paul draws a distinction between two sets of ideas: 1) the traditions that Paul delivered to Corinth, and 2) his clarification.

The Traditions:
a. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
b. 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.

Clarification:
a. Christ is the head of every man,
b. and the man is the head of a woman,
c. and God is the head of Christ.

In order to understand the "tradition" that Paul delivered. one needs to keep track of who is the "head" in any given social structure. Paul's former instruction concerning husbands is predicated on the fact that Christ is the head of the husband. Therefore, if a husband pays with his head covered, according to the tradition that Paul passed down to them, then the husband disgraces Christ BECAUSE Christ is the head of the husband.

But if a wife prays with her head uncovered, whom does she dishonor? To answer that question, all we need to do is remember Paul's assertion that the woman's head is the husband. Therefore, if she prays with her head uncovered, she will dishonor her husband. The husband removes his covering in order to honor God. And logically speaking, the wife would do the same thing. She would also remove her covering in order to honor God. But, at the very same time she is honoring God with her head covering removed, he is bringing dishonor to her husband.

When a wife prays in public, this situation places her in a double bind in which she is confronted with two irreconcilable demands: remove the covering to honor God, or leave the covering on her head to honor her husband. What is she supposed to do? How can this double bind be resolved? Paul answers that question.

Now, to answer you point directly, let's go back to verse 2, where Paul praises them for following the traditions that he delivered to them. Bear in mind that traditions are not the same thing as commandments or ordinances. Traditions are cultural practices which reflect the mores of the people involved. The Traditions Paul delivered were probably Jewish traditions he felt were helpful to the Gentiles in their walk with the Lord. I don't know.

One more thing, which is important. The following verse is always misunderstood (in my humble opinion) but has a bearing on this question.

Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

When this verse is taught in church, many pastors mistakenly believe that Paul is talking about angelic beings. According to this view, a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because angelic beings might be tempted by her beauty, (or some such thing as this.) But that is not Paul's point here. In this context, "angels" means "messages." A woman ought to wear a head covering for the sake of the message it conveys. A faithful Christ women needs to project and convey holiness, righteousness, and dedication with the way she dresses. If tradition says that a faithful wife always wears a head covering then a Christian woman conveys that message when she wears her covering. The covering is a sign of her loving devotion and faithful loyalties, which is both holy and righteous. A woman should wear the covering because of the message it sends.

 

[CadyandZoe]

YOu did not read the passage wellthen. Paul concludes this discourse about head coverings this way:

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.

Paul is not merely rehashing culture- He is saying this is his teaching and it is the teaching in all the churches! If you accept Paul at his word. If not why not?

It isn't a matter of believing what Paul says or accepting what he says. At this point in our conversation, it's a matter of knowing what he meant to say. Once we know what he actually meant, then of course we will follow his instruction and obey the gospel.

What do you think he meant to say here? "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"

In my view, Paul makes an appeal to reason here. He wants his readers to work out a rational basis for what they do and believe doesn't he?

 

[Robert Gwin]

Every scripture properly understood is profitable. First understand the passage. Then make application. In my opinion, you don't understand the passage. Paul is NOT commanding anyone to wear a hat.

God through Paul states concerning women:
(1 Corinthians 11:3-6) . . .I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head shames his head; 5 but every woman who 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, she should have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved, she should be covered.

The context is about headship Cady

 

[CadyandZoe]

God through Paul states concerning women:
(1 Corinthians 11:3-6) . . .I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head shames his head; 5 but every woman who 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, she should have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved, she should be covered.

The context is about headship Cady

The context is headship but the subject at hand is public prayer. The churches desired that women be allowed to pray in public. Paul agreed with their wish but public prayer for women, in that culture presented a problem. Since Paul told them that a man must remove his covering when praying, then it stands to reason that the women should also remove the hat to pray in public. But, if she removes her hat to honor God, then she -- at the same time -- dishonors her husband. And the women wanted Paul's advise or ruling on what to do in that case.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

"Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman." The part in bold is what the Corinthians wrote. Paul doesn't believe this but some of the Corinthians do believe it. Why? Because the Corinthians are living in a Greek culture which affirms Plato's dichotomy, one of which is the following assumption: the flesh is evil, the spirit is good. The new believers in Corinth want to know how to live a holy life, which they assume is necessarily free of sexual intimacy, given their assumptions. A holy man, for instance, would not get married or have intimate relations with a woman. The Corinthians want to know if Christianity requires that married men and women avoid intimacy or at the least, abstain from intimacy for long stretches of time.

That is incorrect. It is Paul who wrote that and then proceeded to explain why, and why it is not sin for them to marry.

And also flesh evil... is also Gnosticism

The Traditions:
a. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
b. 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.

Clarification:
a. Christ is the head of every man,
b. and the man is the head of a woman,
c. and God is the head of Christ.

In order to understand the "tradition" that Paul delivered. one needs to keep track of who is the "head" in any given social structure. Paul's former instruction concerning husbands is predicated on the fact that Christ is the head of the husband. Therefore, if a husband pays with his head covered, according to the tradition that Paul passed down to them, then the husband disgraces Christ BECAUSE Christ is the head of the husband.

But if a wife prays with her head uncovered, whom does she dishonor? To answer that question, all we need to do is remember Paul's assertion that the woman's head is the husband. Therefore, if she prays with her head uncovered, she will dishonor her husband. The husband removes his covering in order to honor God. And logically speaking, the wife would do the same thing. She would also remove her covering in order to honor God. But, at the very same time she is honoring God with her head covering removed, he is bringing dishonor to her husband.

When a wife prays in public, this situation places her in a double bind in which she is confronted with two irreconcilable demands: remove the covering to honor God, or leave the covering on her head to honor her husband. What is she supposed to do? How can this double bind be resolved? Paul answers that question.

Now, to answer you point directly, let's go back to verse 2, where Paul praises them for following the traditions that he delivered to them. Bear in mind that traditions are not the same thing as commandments or ordinances. Traditions are cultural practices which reflect the mores of the people involved. The Traditions Paul delivered were probably Jewish traditions he felt were helpful to the Gentiles in their walk with the Lord. I don't know.

Wrong again! Logic has no place in this argument. So your logically speaking is irrelevant.

Paul is teaching about order in the assembly- not every day life.

1 Corinthians 11:4-7

King James Version

​

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.

And traditions are not cultural values. When Paul uses the word "traadition" (paradosis) it means a corpus of teching and ordinanced handed down to one.

​

When this verse is taught in church, many pastors mistakenly believe that Paul is talking about angelic beings. According to this view, a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because angelic beings might be tempted by her beauty, (or some such thing as this.) But that is not Paul's point here. In this context, "angels" means "messages." A woman ought to wear a head covering for the sake of the message it conveys. A faithful Christ women needs to project and convey holiness, righteousness, and dedication with the way she dresses. If tradition says that a faithful wife always wears a head covering then a Christian woman conveys that message when she wears her covering. The covering is a sign of her loving devotion and faithful loyalties, which is both holy and righteous. A woman should wear the covering because of the message it sends.

Incorrect. Angels is messenger not message. But in the assembly or gathering of saints- a married woman needs to cover her head! Not for some philosophical rewrite as you attempted but in the simple words of Paul.

But if you have empirical historical documentation that Paul was just speaking about cultural traditions, I am all ears- though the language Paul uses speaks explicitly against that idea.​

.

 

[Always Believing]

No but that is the conclusion one has to draw from what Paul wrote if hair is the covering Paul is referring to a woman must have on her head when in the assembly of believers.

No it's not, because Paul does not say that men having men's haircuts means they ought to shave it all off. That is only for women that get men's haircuts. You need to take the Bible at it's word to understand what it says.

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.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That is incorrect. It is Paul who wrote that and then proceeded to explain why, and why it is not sin for them to marry.

And also flesh evil... is also Gnosticism

Wrong again! Logic has no place in this argument. So your logically speaking is irrelevant.

Paul is teaching about order in the assembly- not every day life.

1 Corinthians 11:4-7​

​

King James Version​

​

​

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.

And traditions are not cultural values. When Paul uses the word "traadition" (paradosis) it means a corpus of teching and ordinanced handed down to one.

​

Incorrect. Angels is messenger not message. But in the assembly or gathering of saints- a married woman needs to cover her head! Not for some philosophical rewrite as you attempted but in the simple words of Paul.​

​

But if you have empirical historical documentation that Paul was just speaking about cultural traditions, I am all ears- though the language Paul uses speaks explicitly against that idea.​

Do your own research. I'm not hear to convince you and I don't answer to you. I gave you my reasons. You disagree with me, fine.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No it's not, because Paul does not say that men having men's haircuts means they ought to shave it all off. That is only for women that get men's haircuts. You need to take the Bible at it's word to understand what it says.

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.

That is not what it says. If a womans covering is her hair then a mans covering is his hair! So if a man ought to pray uncovered he must be bald.

No where does it say a mans or womans haircut length. Show me in the Bible the definition of those! You are just interjecting your opinion in to the Scripture.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do your own research. I'm not hear to convince you and I don't answer to you. I gave you my reasons. You disagree with me, fine.

I have done my research. I do disagree with your reinterpretation of Scripture. It is the reinterpreting of Scripture to fit cultural mores' that is the big big issue here.

You will not find any ancient writings discussing hair lengths and the appropriateness thereof. Only mentions of temple prostitutes

 

[CadyandZoe]

I have done my research. I do disagree with your reinterpretation of Scripture. It is the reinterpreting of Scripture to fit cultural mores' that is the big big issue here.

You will not find any ancient writings discussing hair lengths and the appropriateness thereof. Only mentions of temple prostitutes

I disagree. The main issue between your interpretation and mine is your apparent assumption that the Bible lacks any commentary on culture. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

What is you concern? Do you also assume that Paul's commandments are universal for all time? Where did you get that assumption?

Your assumptions are unwarranted.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I disagree. The main issue between your interpretation and mine is your apparent assumption that the Bible lacks any commentary on culture. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

What is you concern? Do you also assume that Paul's commandments are universal for all time? Where did you get that assumption?

Your assumptions are unwarranted.

I never said that there are no cultural issues in the Bible. that is a false assumption on your part. but as to this not being a cultural issue:

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.

Verse 3: Shows the biblical order- Jesus, husband, wife.
Verse 7: man is the image and glory of God and woman the glory of man. that is why man uncovers while praying and wo0man covers while praying.
Verse 9: Woman was created for teh man ( to be a help meet)
Verse 14-15 Paul shows from nature (not culture) a woman covering is a glory.
Verse 16: Paul declares this is a universal (not cultural) teaching for all churches!!!!!

There should be no contention here. there is because people demand we make it a cultural instead of a biblical issue.

 

[Always Believing]

That is not what it says. If a womans covering is her hair then a mans covering is his hair!

True. And the woman's hari ought be long enough to cover here head, and a man's hair ought not be long enough like a woman's to cover his head.

Women with men's haircuts dishonor God, and and men with a woman's hair is a shame.

and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women,

That's length, not color nor curliness.

You want women to have men's haircuts, and men to have hippy hair, you go right ahead. It's not me you have to deal with. I could care less what you do with your hair. But, when someone asks, I tell them what God says about it. Length of hair in the NT is the one identifier of men and women, that we have control over, and God wants to see.

So if a man ought to pray uncovered he must be bald.

Scripture speaks of a woman. You want to put a man there.

No where does it say a mans or womans haircut length.

First you say hair is not involved, now you say haircut length is not involved. Your dragging your fingers through the dirt to avoid correction.

 

[ButterflyJones]

I think we have to be careful in matters of implied legalism.
God knows the heart. If we feel led to cover our head so be it.
Everyone of course is entitled to their opinion on that, even dear Paul.

Btw, hi! I'm new. Glad to be here.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I never said that there are no cultural issues in the Bible. that is a false assumption on your part. but as to this not being a cultural issue:

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.

Verse 3: Shows the biblical order- Jesus, husband, wife.
Verse 7: man is the image and glory of God and woman the glory of man. that is why man uncovers while praying and wo0man covers while praying.
Verse 9: Woman was created for teh man ( to be a help meet)
Verse 14-15 Paul shows from nature (not culture) a woman covering is a glory.
Verse 16: Paul declares this is a universal (not cultural) teaching for all churches!!!!!

There should be no contention here. there is because people demand we make it a cultural instead of a biblical issue.

There should be no contention here. there is because people demand we make it a cultural instead of a biblical issue.
What is the actual source of our disagreement? Isn't the source of your disagreement your concern that Christians too easily dismiss Paul's worldview? Without question Paul is making universal statements with regard to the nature of men and women and their differences with regard to authority and worship. I have no argument with Paul or his universals.

That is on the one hand. On the other hand, Paul deals with cultural issues in his letters and when he does, our job is to sort out which aspects of his arguments are applicable outside of the subject culture. Which of Paul's statements are universal propositions, which are not? Which concepts does he intent to be absolute or axiomatic? Are his predicate statements widely held principles or parochial?

Verse 16: Paul declares this is a universal (not cultural) teaching for all churches!!!!!
Okay, but let's be clear about this. Paul is talking about a universal practice that is performed throughout all the churches during his lifetime based on cultural values held by all the churches. What practice is that? To answer this we go back to Paul's original declaration. He gave the Corinthians traditions to follow, and among those traditions is removing the head covering out of respect for Christ and God. Raul, he says, removes his head covering while praying or prophesying, which is a practice we should imitate. In verse 16 he declares that this practice is universally practiced by all the churches. When praying or prophesying all the men remove their head coverings.

Okay. But what if we live in a culture where no man ever wears a hat? In the case when no man is wearing a head covering, a command to remove a head covering is moot. Among men who have no hat on, commanding that the hat be removed is superfluous and irrelevant. I can imagine the wife right now, telling her husband, "Honey, you are supposed to remove your hat when praying or prophesying!" The husband will complain saying, "but dear, I am not wearing a hat."

The actual universal principle in this passage is "bring honor to your "head" and do nothing to bring disgrace to your "head." This is universally true, but universals are manifested within everyday culture. Throughout history hats identified social standing and removing a hat was a gesture of respect. If that is the case in modern culture, then we behave as Paul would have behaved, removing the hat as a sign of respect for Christ and for God. But if I live in a culture where hats do not signify social standing or respect, then the question is moot. (arguable)

 

[Jim B]

God doesn't care about anything so trivial as wearing a hat (or not).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

True. And the woman's hari ought be long enough to cover here head, and a man's hair ought not be long enough like a woman's to cover his head.

Women with men's haircuts dishonor God, and and men with a woman's hair is a shame.

and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women,

That's length, not color nor curliness.

You want women to have men's haircuts, and men to have hippy hair, you go right ahead. It's not me you have to deal with. I could care less what you do with your hair. But, when someone asks, I tell them what God says about it. Length of hair in the NT is the one identifier of men and women, that we have control over, and God wants to see.

That is your private interpretation. the passage says nothing about length of hair other than if a man has long hair it is a shame and if a woman is shaved it is a shame. show me biblically what constitutes a mans haircut and a womans length.

And I never said it is okay for women to have men's haircuts. that is your falsely assuming on my words like you did with Scripture.

All I have said is what Scripture says here:

1. That Jesus is over men, men overr woman.
2. In public prayer a woman needs a man made covering on her head!
3. It shows her responsibility to the order God established.
4. and a man needs to have his head uncovered in public prayer.
5. If hair is the covering mentioned throughout, then a man must be bald if hair is the covering Paul is speaking of.

Without accepting opinions of others but simply reading Gods Word- this is what is said and the conclusion that must be if you accept hair as the only covering.

Paul did not cite culture but nature and the teachings of all the believing churches.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That is on the one hand. On the other hand, Paul deals with cultural issues in his letters and when he does, our job is to sort out which aspects of his arguments are applicable outside of the subject culture. Which of Paul's statements are universal propositions, which are not? Which concepts does he intent to be absolute or axiomatic? Are his predicate statements widely held principles or parochial?

Well give us an example of cultural issues Paul specifically deals with. There are some but they give the church priniciples to live by.

So please cite an example of a specific cultural issue. And then show how the principle or specific rule is now invalid because of a change in culture.

Verse 16: Paul declares this is a universal (not cultural) teaching for all churches!!!!!
Okay, but let's be clear about this. Paul is talking about a universal practice that is performed throughout all the churches during his lifetime based on cultural values held by all the churches. What practice is that? To answer this we go back to Paul's original declaration. He gave the Corinthians traditions to follow, and among those traditions is removing the head covering out of respect for Christ and God. Raul, he says, removes his head covering while praying or prophesying, which is a practice we should imitate. In verse 16 he declares that this practice is universally practiced by all the churches. When praying or prophesying all the men remove their head coverings.

Okay. But what if we live in a culture where no man ever wears a hat? In the case when no man is wearing a head covering, a command to remove a head covering is moot. Among men who have no hat on, commanding that the hat be removed is superfluous and irrelevant. I can imagine the wife right now, telling her husband, "Honey, you are supposed to remove your hat when praying or prophesying!" The husband will complain saying, "but dear, I am not wearing a hat."

Well men in most cultures still wear hats on occasions or as a matter of taste! Gentile culture in Pauls day had no specific rule of head coverings. some did, some did not wear coverings. Paul laid down a specific ordinance for public prayer. Remember tradition here means teaching, not something that was a practice or cultural thing

The actual universal principle in this passage is "bring honor to your "head" and do nothing to bring disgrace to your "head." This is universally true, but universals are manifested within everyday culture. Throughout history hats identified social standing and removing a hat was a gesture of respect. If that is the case in modern culture, then we behave as Paul would have behaved, removing the hat as a sign of respect for Christ and for God. But if I live in a culture where hats do not signify social standing or respect, then the question is moot. (arguable)

Well you are arguing on teh mans side. but for the married woman, she needs to have head covered with a man made covering in public prayer! that is what Paul said and defended it by nature and teaching and not by culture or practice. So whatever practice a culture may have- when they enter in to public worship with teh saints- these are the rules.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well give us an example of cultural issues Paul specifically deals with. There are some but they give the church priniciples to live by.

So please cite an example of a specific cultural issue. And then show how the principle or specific rule is now invalid because of a change in culture.

Well no, that's my point. Cultural practices change while the general principle always remains. But the question here is whether or not the statement "a man who covers his head while praying or prophesying dishonors his head" is axiomatic, self-evident or unquestionable. And the answer is it depends. On what does it depend? It depends on the meaning of the act.

Even today, men remove the head covering as sign of respect. If THAT is what removing the head covering represents, then Yes, a man should remove his head covering while praying or prophesying. But if that is NOT what removing the head covering represents, then why remove the hat?

You too easily dismissed my interpretation of 1Corinthians 11:10 where Paul helps his readers to understand the principle that actions convey ideas: i.e. messages. The word "angels" in this passage means "messages" and Paul is concerned with the message a woman sends by her behavior. Today a woman wears a wedding ring to signify to all available mates that she is married and not interested in mating with anyone else. Wearing the ring sends a message. Likewise, in Paul's day, when a woman wore a head covering this also sends a message. Her head covering says to everyone, "I respect my husband." A woman wears the symbol of authority on her head for the sake of the "messages".

This entire passage hinges on our understanding of this principle. A man removes his head covering. Why? Because it signals his respect of his head, i.e. Christ. The central question is, "what actions do we perform and what do they signify?"

This is a cultural issue in that everyone in the Corinthian culture knows what it means to remove a hat. Everyone understands the message. Paul is not instructing men to wear a hat or take one off. This passage is focused on the women because women are being allowed to pray and prophesy in church. If she removes her hat during prayer she conveys TWO contrary and opposite messages.

Wearing a hat while praying conveys honor and respect of husband, at the same time that it conveys dishonor to God. The Corinthians want to know what to do in this case.

Well men in most cultures still wear hats on occasions or as a matter of taste! Gentile culture in Pauls day had no specific rule of head coverings. some did, some did not wear coverings. Paul laid down a specific ordinance for public prayer. Remember tradition here means teaching, not something that was a practice or cultural thing.

Paul predicates his argument on the premise that men wore hats. If men didn't wear hats, there would be no reason to deliver a tradition whereby men should remove their hat while praying or prophesying.

No where does Paul command that men wear hats or head coverings. His argument is predicated on the fact that men in that culture indeed wore hats.

Well you are arguing on teh mans side. but for the married woman, she needs to have head covered with a man made covering in public prayer! that is what Paul said and defended it by nature and teaching and not by culture or practice. So whatever practice a culture may have- when they enter in to public worship with teh saints- these are the rules.

This is different because Paul actually commands women to wear hats. He tells a married woman that if she doesn't want to wear a hat then she should shave her head, which she is not going to do. So, according to Paul, while men were already wearing head coverings, women were not. But Paul advises them to start.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Even today, men remove the head covering as sign of respect. If THAT is what removing the head covering represents, then Yes, a man should remove his head covering while praying or prophesying. But if that is NOT what removing the head covering represents, then why remove the hat?

Well unless one doesn't understand basic word meanings, Paul is saying a man removes his head covering because of respect to honor his head (Christ). this should be a moot point as Paul clearly expresses this point unequivocally.

You too easily dismissed my interpretation of 1Corinthians 11:10 where Paul helps his readers to understand the principle that actions convey ideas: i.e. messages. The word "angels" in this passage means "messages" and Paul is concerned with the message a woman sends by her behavior. Today a woman wears a wedding ring to signify to all available mates that she is married and not interested in mating with anyone else. Wearing the ring sends a message. Likewise, in Paul's day, when a woman wore a head covering this also sends a message. Her head covering says to everyone, "I respect my husband." A woman wears the symbol of authority on her head for the sake of the "messages".

I dismiss it because it is a faulty definition. "Angelos" never means a message but the messenger or envoy or a messenger from god-never just a message. so you are starting from a false premise which makes your conclusion wrong.

This is a cultural issue in that everyone in the Corinthian culture knows what it means to remove a hat. Everyone understands the message. Paul is not instructing men to wear a hat or take one off. This passage is focused on the women because women are being allowed to pray and prophesy in church. If she removes her hat during prayer she conveys TWO contrary and opposite messages.

Wearing a hat while praying conveys honor and respect of husband, at the same time that it conveys dishonor to God. The Corinthians want to know what to do in this case.

Actually not many in Corinth knew what it meant. This was a pagan culture and did not subscribe to the dress codes for head coverings as Jews did. Women went to the pagan temples with heads uncovered, etc. . also this is not about dasy to day living, but order when teh believers gathered for worship or what we call church!

Wearing a hat while praying conveys honor and respect of husband, at the same time that it conveys dishonor to God. The Corinthians want to know what to do in this case.

Sorry but this is you adding to the text something not there. Paulo is speaking directly about how to conduct oneself in the worship service.

This is different because Paul actually commands women to wear hats. He tells a married woman that if she doesn't want to wear a hat then she should shave her head, which she is not going to do. So, according to Paul, while men were already wearing head coverings, women were not. But Paul advises them to start.

No Paul did not say she should shave her head, but that if she would not cover her head in worship service- let her be like a shaved woman. that is to show the disrespect a woman shaved bears. IN Corinth that equated to the temple prostitutes who were most disrespectful. It is not a literal but comparative phrase- we know this because of the word

This passage is focused on the women because women are being allowed to pray and prophesy in church. If she removes her hat during prayer she conveys TWO contrary and opposite messages.

I find this sadly ironic. for further on in his letter to Corinth, Paul commands this:

1 Corinthians 14:34-37

King James Version

​

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

I like verse 37- He doesn't say it is a cultural thing or a good idea, or his opinion, but a command from god.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well unless one doesn't understand basic word meanings, Paul is saying a man removes his head covering because of respect to honor his head (Christ). this should be a moot point as Paul clearly expresses this point unequivocally.

Do you mean "moot" or "established"? I would agree that Paul established the meaning behind the behavior he taught them. He taught men to remove their head covering when praying or prophesying. That is the tradition he delivered to the Corinthians. Here, in his epistle, he reminds them of the reason. Removing a head covering means something. It conveys an idea. The behavior has meaning and the meaning is significant. According to Paul, one should remove the head covering out of respect for the Lord. Removing the head covering during prayer or prophesying is a SIGN of respect to the Lord.

11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

Normally, this would be the same for a man as for a woman. Whoever removes the head covering while praying or prophesying conveys the idea of respect for the Lord. Remember, Paul is focused on a particular situation: Prayer and prophesy. Does the wife pray to her husband? No. When the wife prays, she is praying to the Lord. When she prophesies, she represents the Lord, not her husband. And for this reason, she should remove her head covering out of respect for her Lord just as her husband does. The wife is not independent of the Husband. She does what her husband does.

If the husband should bow to the Lord out of respect, she should also bow to the Lord out of respect. If her husband should refer to Jesus as "Lord and Master" out of respect, then his wife should also refer to Jesus as "Lord and Master" for the same reason. If her husband should refer to Jesus as "Rabbi" out of respect, then his wife should follow his lead and refer to Jesus as "Rabbi" out of respect. In whatever manner her husband chooses to honor the Lord, the wife should follow his example.

I take note of the fact that Paul has chosen to speak about headship rather than lordship. While it is true that a man and his wife show respect to the LORD by removing their head coverings; it is also true that a woman disrespects her HEAD when she removes her head covering. Get the difference? In order to help the Corinthians sort out the issue here, Paul has framed the question in a slightly different way. Rather than talking about respect for the LORD, he talks about respect for the HEAD.

When a man removes his head covering, he shows respect for both his HEAD and his LORD, because for the husband, these two are one-in-the-same person. That is on the one hand; but on the other hand, when a wife removes her head covering, she shows disrespect for her HEAD, even while she shows respect for her LORD because these two men are NOT the same person. Right? The wife wants to do both. She wants to respect both her husband and her Lord, but removing her head covering during prayer or prophesying respects her Lord at the very same time that she disrespects her husband.

See the problem?

I dismiss it because it is a faulty definition. "Angelos" never means a message but the messenger or envoy or a messenger from god-never just a message. so you are starting from a false premise which makes your conclusion wrong.

First of all, there are passages of scripture, and this is one of them, where the focus is on the message and not the messenger. And yes, the term "angelos" can refer to the message, which the messenger brings.

Consider the following passage:

Galatians 3:19

Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.​

What does Paul mean here? Is he actually suggesting that Israel received the Law through angelic beings? I don't think so. He states very clearly that "a mediator" was the agency by which the Law was delivered to Israel. The Mediator was Moses. The "angels" were the signs that Aaron and Moses performed, which signaled God's presence and his power. Aaron and Moses were to perform signs in the presence of both the people and the Pharaoh in order to prove that it was God who commanded that Pharaoh let the people go in to the wilderness to worship the Lord. The Lord delivered the Law to the people, having been ordained through signs and the agency of a mediator. In this instance, the angeloi were signs.

Why does a woman don a head covering in public? For the sake of angelic beings? No. For the sake of the meaning the behavior conveys. Why does the husband remove his head covering? For the sake of the meaning it conveys, i.e. honor. Removing the head covering signals honor and respect for the Lord. But when a woman removes her head covering, it signals dishonor of her husband.

The larger question here is; "What message does the behavior convey?" Paul wants the women to continue to wear the head covering because it conveys the message, "I honor my husband."

The question you should be asking yourself is whether or not a head covering continues to convey that message or not.