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

[Ronald Nolette]

There are no problems, only challenges.

Well you once said God wishes us to use our good judgment. And that cannot be any further from teh truth. He knows our judgments are clouded by our sin nature, culture, physical and emotional distresses which is why He commanded this:

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding (good judgment). In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well you once said God wishes us to use our good judgment. And that cannot be any further from teh truth. He knows our judgments are clouded by our sin nature, culture, physical and emotional distresses which is why He commanded this:

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding (good judgment). In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Yes, I said that God wants us to use our good judgment. I said this in contradistinction to those who say we need to lean on the judgment of human authorities, such as a priest or a Pope. The underlying assumption of authoritarian based groups is that the Holy Spirit does not lead and guide everyone, but only the "priesthood."

This is not true. The author of the proverbs speaks to everyone when he says that we should trust in the Lord. Everyone should Trust in the Lord and lean on his understanding. I don't need a priest or a Bible teacher to mediate the Lord's wisdom for me. We worship a personal God who deals with each of us on an individual basis.

I'm not dismissing the need for teachers and other people to guide us. What I said is meant as a word of encouragement to those who lack confidence in their own ability to learn wisdom directly from the Lord. A priest or a teacher can't "Walk with the Lord" for me. I must do that myself. The proverb writer expects me to have a personal relationship with the Lord and to learn from him and to trust him myself. If I am leaning on a priest or a teacher then I am not leaning on the Lord.

But don't dismiss the idea that the Lord is able to guide us as we study the Bible. We lean on him as we study the Bible also.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm not dismissing the need for teachers and other people to guide us. What I said is meant as a word of encouragement to those who lack confidence in their own ability to learn wisdom directly from the Lord. A priest or a teacher can't "Walk with the Lord" for me. I must do that myself. The proverb writer expects me to have a personal relationship with the Lord and to learn from him and to trust him myself. If I am leaning on a priest or a teacher then I am not leaning on the Lord.

And far too many use this as an excuse to define for themselves what is truth and what is merely optional principles in Scripture, even glaring things!

Yes to learn and trust in Him. But not to decide which prinicples are accepted as truths for all, or merely cultural.

We must remember this:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It is not for us to "decide for ouselves" as you dared proclaim that Paul was saying the Corinthians should decide for themselves. You should know it was merely rhetorical especially in light of his following statements:

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.

Now you need to ask why would Paul use 2 completely separate words for covering that the Greek speakers knew meant two different types of covering if he was merely speaking of hair?

 

[CadyandZoe]

And far too many use this as an excuse to define for themselves what is truth and what is merely optional principles in Scripture, even glaring things!

Yes, I can see how you might think this about me. But I don't think you can accuse me of suggesting that Paul gives us "optional" principles to follow. I never said that. Surely you know the difference between a principle and an ordinance? An ordinance is a command we follow; a principle is the rationale or the reason why the ordinance was given.

Father asks his son not to swing the baseball bat in the house. He might break furniture, or hurt someone.

Command:
Don't swing the baseball bat in the house.

Principle:
Be concerned for life and property.

One day a fire breaks out in the kitchen and the flames are blocking the exit. Will the father punish his son if the son should break a window to save his life and the lives of his brothers and sisters? In this case, the father will praise his son for swinging the baseball bat in the house. Why? Because of the principle. The son disobeyed the command in order to maintain the principle. Out of concern for life, the son disobeyed the command; he used a baseball bat to save life.

Conditions change, principles remain the same.

Command:
Women -- continue to wear your head covering while praying or prophesying.

Principle:
To honor one's husband is to honor his head, which is Christ.

Whether or not a woman wears a head covering depends on the culture. If a faithful, Christian woman lives in a culture where women don't wear head coverings, then the command to continue to wear them is meaningless. Conditions may change but the principle remains true. When a wife honors her husband, she honors his head -- which is Christ.

I haven't changed or dismissed the principle. I simply apply the principle in whatever way is meaningful in my own situation.

Yes to learn and trust in Him. But not to decide which prinicples are accepted as truths for all, or merely cultural.

As I say, principles remain.

Now you need to ask why would Paul use 2 completely separate words for covering that the Greek speakers knew meant two different types of covering if he was merely speaking of hair?

Why do you think I need to ask this? What is at stake? What does it matter?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes, I can see how you might think this about me. But I don't think you can accuse me of suggesting that Paul gives us "optional" principles to follow. I never said that. Surely you know the difference between a principle and an ordinance? An ordinance is a command we follow; a principle is the rationale or the reason why the ordinance was given.

You spent many posts saying that Paul was telling people to decide for themselves whether or not to have a man made head covering for women in church . Sorry but now you are denying your own writing!

But not all principles are ordinances and that is just over complicating the simple issue again. Principles are good things to follow but not necessarily commands. Ex. Going out dressed warm on a bitter cold day is a good prinicple to follow.

One day a fire breaks out in the kitchen and the flames are blocking the exit. Will the father punish his son if the son should break a window to save his life and the lives of his brothers and sisters? In this case, the father will praise his son for swinging the baseball bat in the house. Why? Because of the principle. The son disobeyed the command in order to maintain the principle. Out of concern for life, the son disobeyed the command; he used a baseball bat to save life.

Conditions change, principles remain the same.

But now you are not giving the full info of the command. Teh command would have been issued to not swing it in "having fun" or "as a sport". YOu should know there are conditions laid down when commands are given And not swinging the bat in the house is a conditional command that can be overridden for life reasons. You are rejecting the unspoken absolutes that override the condtional command. We both know that no one would actually absolutely forbid someone from swinging a for every reason.

Whether or not a woman wears a head covering depends on the culture. If a faithful, Christian woman lives in a culture where women don't wear head coverings, then the command to continue to wear them is meaningless. Conditions may change but the principle remains true. When a wife honors her husband, she honors his head -- which is Christ.

I haven't changed or dismissed the principle. I simply apply the principle in whatever way is meaningful in my own situation.

You yourself have just admitted that both the command and principle are relative to you and not what the Apostle declared. So you have made this passage of Scripture a moral relative issue based on personal preference and culture, though nothing written suggests it. Paul never mentioned culture as a caveat- actually the opposite was true. IN pagan temple worship, women were not subject to covering their heads.

But I will give you a passage to ponder written by the same Apostle to the same church, where he lft the decision to each individual and merely made what he considered a good "suggestion" or idea that COULD be followed.

1 Corinthians 7:25-40

King James Version

​

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.


Here, Paul is giving his advice and letting people decide for themselves and one not have to do grammatic gymnastics to see it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You spent many posts saying that Paul was telling people to decide for themselves whether or not to have a man made head covering for women in church . Sorry but now you are denying your own writing!

If that is what you thought I said, then I miscommunicated. I think I said that the women were already wearing head covering. Paul wouldn't need to command them to do something they were already doing.

But not all principles are ordinances and that is just over complicating the simple issue again. Principles are good things to follow but not necessarily commands. Ex. Going out dressed warm on a bitter cold day is a good prinicple to follow.

We are not over complicating things. We are untangling things, You don't seem to understand the difference between an ordinance and a principle although I explained it.

But now you are not giving the full info of the command.

The full info is not contained in the command. That is the point.

We both know that no one would actually absolutely forbid someone from swinging a for every reason.

Of course not. But that's the point. Conditions change.

You yourself have just admitted that both the command and principle are relative to you and not what the Apostle declared.

I don't think I did that.

So you have made this passage of Scripture a moral relative issue based on personal preference and culture, though nothing written suggests it.

I don't think I ever claimed that it was a personal preference.

Paul never mentioned culture as a caveat- actually the opposite was true.

Yes, he did. But you don't recognize it.

IN pagan temple worship, women were not subject to covering their heads.

Pagan temple worship has nothing to do with it.

But you didn't answer my question, did you? I don't know if you did.

 

[forever]

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

all of Paul's letters have been in-credibly corrupted by Esau
[=scribes / pharisees]
Paul never said this .
Esau has let Paul to say the greatest Nonsense things .

i ll make a thread about that okay

 

[Patrick1966]

ll make a thread about that okay

Please tag me.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If that is what you thought I said, then I miscommunicated. I think I said that the women were already wearing head covering. Paul wouldn't need to command them to do something they were already doing.

Well even that is a gross misread of the passage! for if all believing women were already wearing man made head coverings to "church", then Paul would not need address it! If they were already doing so- Hew would have no need to address the issue at all!

We are not over complicating things. We are untangling things, You don't seem to understand the difference between an ordinance and a principle although I explained it.

But you conflated two things that do not necessarily equate. You also imply the command as an all encompassing command which would not be so! It wold have been to not play with a bat in the house.

I showed you a priniciple Paul laid down that allowed for the people to decide.

YOu do tangle things up with muddied examples Paul simply said women in church need to have their heads covered with a man made covering to honor their head which honors THE Head and because of the angels!

If a woman went to church without a man made covering- let her be like one that got a haircut or was shaven which are both shameful!

These people knew what Paul wa saying when he used the two different words for covering. It is modern liberal mindsets that murk up what was really simple.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well even that is a gross misread of the passage! for if all believing women were already wearing man made head coverings to "church", then Paul would not need address it! If they were already doing so- Hew would have no need to address the issue at all!

He addressed their problem with his earlier teaching about removing head covering while praying or prophesying. Since it was a disgrace for a woman to remove her head covering, Paul told the women to leave it on. Why? Because, as he said, the head of the wife is the husband.

You also imply the command as an all encompassing command which would not be so!

No, you must have brought that assumption to what I said, which is why I gave that example. I think you are doing something similar with Paul.

I showed you a priniciple Paul laid down that allowed for the people to decide.

I know. So what?

Paul simply said women in church need to have their heads covered with a man made covering to honor their head which honors THE Head and because of the angels!

Women were already wearing the man made covering.

If a woman went to church without a man made covering- let her be like one that got a haircut or was shaven which are both shameful!

Paul isn't talking about attending church. He is talking about praying or prophesying. And the issue isn't shame; the issue is respect.

These people knew what Paul wa saying when he used the two different words for covering. It is modern liberal mindsets that murk up what was really simple.

What difference does it make?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

He addressed their problem with his earlier teaching about removing head covering while praying or prophesying. Since it was a disgrace for a woman to remove her head covering, Paul told the women to leave it on. Why? Because, as he said, the head of the wife is the husband.

Which is what I said since the beginning and you have disagreed

I know. So what?

man made head coverings in church is not one of those.

Women were already wearing the man made covering.

You need to learn Grecian and Roman culture and history. for you are 180 degrees wrong.

Paul isn't talking about attending church. He is talking about praying or prophesying. And the issue isn't shame; the issue is respect.

And that was in church! C'mon you cannot be that benighted can you ?

What difference does it make?

Obedience or disobedience to God! that is the difference it makes.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Which is what I said since the beginning and you have disagreed

man made head coverings in church is not one of those.

You need to learn Grecian and Roman culture and history. for you are 180 degrees wrong.

And that was in church! C'mon you cannot be that benighted can you ?

Obedience or disobedience to God! that is the difference it makes.

If I am wrong then Paul is wrong because he gives us the background to his argument.

Remember the issue: removing a head covering while praying and prophesying. Was this ever a Jewish concern? No. Why? Because praying and prophesying was restricted to the men. Jewish women were NOT allowed to participate in a synagogue service. On the other hand, due to the fact that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" women were allowed and encouraged to pray and prophecy in Christian assemblies.

Paul delivered a tradition to the Corinthians involving the removal of a head covering while praying or prophesying, which is a Jewish tradition that didn't translate unchanged over to Christianity. Jewish wives wore a head covering out of respect for their Jewish husbands. And so did Christian women. But unlike a Jewish woman who was not allowed to pray and prophesy, Christian women were allowed. And this is the reason why Christian women wrote to Paul with this concern.

The question is this, since men are required to remove their head covering while praying and prophesying what about the women? It is a disgrace for a married woman to remove her head covering and doing so will dishonor him. Did Paul mean to disqualify women from participation in worship? Paul answers no, women are not required to remove their head covering while praying and prophesying like the men.

Paul is speaking into a culture where it has already been established that married women should wear a head covering. And Christian women want to know if Paul would allow them to continue that practice or must they disrespect husband at the same time as giving honor to Christ and/or the Father?

Paul answers, continue to wear the covering for the sake of the angels -- meaning for the sake of the messages.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Remember the issue: removing a head covering while praying and prophesying. Was this ever a Jewish concern? No. Why? Because praying and prophesying was restricted to the men. Jewish women were NOT allowed to participate in a synagogue service. On the other hand, due to the fact that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" women were allowed and encouraged to pray and prophecy in Christian assemblies.

This is deceptively wrong. Paul did not address should a woman remove a man made head covering.

He instructed that women while in service should pray and prophesy with their head covered.

and what was done in synagogue is complete irrelevant to this argument. Paulk is giving instruction to the church regardless of history, culture or custom.

The question is this, since men are required to remove their head covering while praying and prophesying what about the women? It is a disgrace for a married woman to remove her head covering and doing so will dishonor him. Did Paul mean to disqualify women from participation in worship? Paul answers no, women are not required to remove their head covering while praying and prophesying like the men.

Irrelevant. Paul is not addressing worship or no, but manner of dress while worshipping. YOu are adding something not even there!

Paul is speaking into a culture where it has already been established that married women should wear a head covering. And Christian women want to know if Paul would allow them to continue that practice or must they disrespect husband at the same time as giving honor to Christ and/or the Father?

Corinth was a pagan culture and many of the believers came from paganism! They had Greek or Roman mindsets. Paul is giving instruction for them as believers and how they should dress in worship! You really need to learn history. Pagan and Roman and Greek cultures had no prescription for women covering their heads in general or in pagan temples.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is deceptively wrong. Paul did not address should a woman remove a man made head covering.

Yes, he did. For some reason you don't see it.

He instructed that women while in service should pray and prophesy with their head covered.

Of course he did, he was answering the question put to him.

and what was done in synagogue is complete irrelevant to this argument.

Yes, it is. Where do you think he got the tradition?

Paulk is giving instruction to the church regardless of history, culture or custom.

This is your unproven assumption and it isn't a very good one. Paul wrote a letter to a specific church located in a particular time and place. He addressed his letter to THEM. He starts this section with a word of praise directed at them personally.

Irrelevant. Paul is not addressing worship or no, but manner of dress while worshipping. YOu are adding something not even there!

Paul is addressing a tradition he delivered to the Corinthian church, which involved removing the head covering "while praying and prophesying." Paul isn't telling men or women to don a hat. Rather, in the specific case of prayer or prophesying, a man is to remove his hat. He praises the Corinthians for obeying his instructions. But Paul never addressed the women at that time, which is why they wrote him to ask whether his instructions applied to them also. Paul answers the women to say that they are allowed to keep their head covering on their head while praying and prophesying.

Corinth was a pagan culture and many of the believers came from paganism! They had Greek or Roman mindsets. Paul is giving instruction for them as believers and how they should dress in worship! You really need to learn history. Pagan and Roman and Greek cultures had no prescription for women covering their heads in general or in pagan temples.

You are wrong about that. Paul tells you they did.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes, he did. For some reason you don't see it.

Well Here is the passage. show where he speaks of removing a man made covering.

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.

Of course he did, he was answering the question put to him.

This is what I have said from teh beginning. so why have we spent all this time when you agree with Scripture and me.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well Here is the passage. show where he speaks of removing a man made covering.

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.

This is what I have said from teh beginning. so why have we spent all this time when you agree with Scripture and me.

Our disagreement is centered on two issues: 1) interpretation and 2) significance.

Your interpretation of the passage suffers from a couple of mistakes. (Those who interpret the Bible, and I include myself, must account for the entire passage, without ignoring or deemphasizing parts.) Your interpretation doesn't account for verses 1 and 2, which you left out of your read back above. Verse 2 is vitally important to the correct meaning of Paul's subsequent statements.

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

The Apostle's praise is predicated on the fact that Paul delivered traditions to the Corinthian church and, by clear implication, what follows is NOT among the traditions he delivered to them. What follows is a new tradition or a correction of the previously aforementioned traditions.

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.

By the end of this passage, we will come to learn that Paul's aforementioned instructions concerning removing the head covering during prayer or prophesying concerns the men only. He did not mean to suggest or command that women ought to remove their head covering during prayer or prophesying. Here in verse 3, the Apostle begins his defense. His defense will rest on the propositional truth concerning headship, which is the rationale for why women need to be treated differently than the men with regard to public prayer and prophesying.

The central question is this. "Why are women allowed to keep wearing the head covering during prayer or prophesying? Answer? In verses 4 and 5, Paul will draw the contrast between men and women with respect to the meaning of wearing a head covering during prayer and prophesying.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
On the one hand, a man having his head covered during prayer or prophesying, dishonors Christ. Paul asserts this without explanation, which means that the Corinthians already know what the head covering represents. According to Corinthian culture, a man removed his head covering in order to pay respect to his superiors. Wearing the hat is a sign of disrespect.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:
On the other hand; a woman that prays and prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her husband. Paul explains why.

for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Here it is easy to become distracted and forget that Paul is speaking about her husband's honor not hers. She might personally feel dishonor and shame after receiving a hair cut, but according to the Apostle, the Corinthians would assign dishonor to her husband as well. By strong implication, then, a wife wears a head covering to honor her husband. If she removes it during prayer or prophesying, she might bring honor to Christ, but at the same time, she will bring dishonor to her husband.

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.
For some reason, which Paul will reveal later, a woman can avoid bringing dishonor to her husband if she should shave her head. But since shaving the head brings dishonor to the wife, she should continue to have her head 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.
Paul continues his contrast between the men and their wives with respect to prayer and prophesying. The man is the glory of God, while the woman is the glory of man. In this case, one's origin story becomes an essential element in one's glory. Man is the glory of God because God created man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
According to the man's origin story, God created Adam from the dust of the ground. Therefore, man is not "of the woman."

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
According to her origin story, Eve was created to be a helper for Adam. She was created for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Literally, the wife wears "authority" on her head. A wife wears a head covering because of what the head covering indicates, i.e. her husband's authority over her. It is fitting that a wife wear a head covering because of what the head covering signifies.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Implied objection: But Paul, I thought you said that in Christ, there is neither male nor female. Why are we treating woman different than the men with respect to praying and prophesying?

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
While it is true that God created Eve to be a helper for Adam, she was also the mother of Adam's sons. A man begins life with a women over him -- his mother -- and that is how God set things up. A wife ought to obey her husband but her children ought to obey her. This reality was created by God and it continues even among the church of Christ.

In other words, a wife's first duty is to her husband, and if she remembers this, then she honors the one who created her.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Since Biblical truth is propositional truth, and since Paul has good reasons to believe what he says, he encourages his readers to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. If they do, he is confident that they will arrive at the same conclusion he did.

In our idiom we might say, "It is bad optics for a woman to pray with her head uncovered." Why? Because of what the head covering represents. In that culture, a married woman wore a head covering out of respect for her husbands authority over her. If she removes her head covering, then, she inadvertently signals disrespect for her husband.

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.

To understand this point, one should ask, "what does a woman's hair cover up that a man's hair doesn't cover?" The Neck. A man's short hair leaves his neck exposed. A woman's long hair covers the neck, and if she wears it right, it can also cover her cleavage. The longer her hair, the more it covers.

What nature teaches us is that a woman's long hair is a significant aspect of her beauty and it functions as a covering of her nakedness.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Here the apostle speaks of a specific custom: A man's wife is to cover her head. From this verse we understand that Christian women were already wearing "authority" on their heads. And she was wearing authority on her head for the reasons that Paul gave. It is fitting that a woman continue to wear her head covering, even while praying and prophesying because of the message it sends. And as the Apostle implies, that message is common throughout the churches of God. A wife wears a head covering as a sign of respect for her husband. And because a wife's duty to her husband was established by God at the time of Creation, respect for husband is tantamount to respect for God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well Here is the passage. show where he speaks of removing a man made covering.

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.

This is what I have said from teh beginning. so why have we spent all this time when you agree with Scripture and me.

Significance:
Once we understand what a passage means, we next make application to our lives. And in that regard, we are asking why is it important to us today and how does it affect us today?

Our disagreement centers on how we differ concerning our orientation with respect to verses 4 and 5. In other words, are verses 4 and 5 descriptive or prescriptive? I believe they are descriptive, while you believe they are prescriptive.

Descriptive:
(Verse 4), if a man should do 'x', this will be the result.
(Verse 6), if a woman should do 'y', this will be the result.

Prescriptive:
(Verse 4), A man ought to do 'x' for the following reason.
(Verse 5) A woman ought to do 'y' for the following reason.

A prescriptive orientation to the passage understands these two verses to be an objective truth, which remains true for all believes for all time. A descriptive orientation to the passage understands these two verses to be the rationale for a conclusion, which answers to the question, "what should women do in light of the message that it would send if she should remove her headcovering?"

If woman believes that Paul is being prescriptive, then a woman would do well to don a head covering while praying or prophesying. But if a women believes that Paul is being descriptive, then a woman would do well do don a head covering if it represented respect for her husband. But if a head covering is meaningless in her culture, then she has no basis on which to wear one during prayer or prophesying.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Our disagreement is centered on two issues: 1) interpretation and 2) significance.

Your interpretation of the passage suffers from a couple of mistakes. (Those who interpret the Bible, and I include myself, must account for the entire passage, without ignoring or deemphasizing parts.) Your interpretation doesn't account for verses 1 and 2, which you left out of your read back above. Verse 2 is vitally important to the correct meaning of Paul's subsequent statements.

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

The Apostle's praise is predicated on the fact that Paul delivered traditions to the Corinthian church and, by clear implication, what follows is NOT among the traditions he delivered to them. What follows is a new tradition or a correction of the previously aforementioned traditions.

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.

By the end of this passage, we will come to learn that Paul's aforementioned instructions concerning removing the head covering during prayer or prophesying concerns the men only. He did not mean to suggest or command that women ought to remove their head covering during prayer or prophesying. Here in verse 3, the Apostle begins his defense. His defense will rest on the propositional truth concerning headship, which is the rationale for why women need to be treated differently than the men with regard to public prayer and prophesying.

The central question is this. "Why are women allowed to keep wearing the head covering during prayer or prophesying? Answer? In verses 4 and 5, Paul will draw the contrast between men and women with respect to the meaning of wearing a head covering during prayer and prophesying.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
On the one hand, a man having his head covered during prayer or prophesying, dishonors Christ. Paul asserts this without explanation, which means that the Corinthians already know what the head covering represents. According to Corinthian culture, a man removed his head covering in order to pay respect to his superiors. Wearing the hat is a sign of disrespect.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:
On the other hand; a woman that prays and prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her husband. Paul explains why.

for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Here it is easy to become distracted and forget that Paul is speaking about her husband's honor not hers. She might personally feel dishonor and shame after receiving a hair cut, but according to the Apostle, the Corinthians would assign dishonor to her husband as well. By strong implication, then, a wife wears a head covering to honor her husband. If she removes it during prayer or prophesying, she might bring honor to Christ, but at the same time, she will bring dishonor to her husband.

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.
For some reason, which Paul will reveal later, a woman can avoid bringing dishonor to her husband if she should shave her head. But since shaving the head brings dishonor to the wife, she should continue to have her head 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.
Paul continues his contrast between the men and their wives with respect to prayer and prophesying. The man is the glory of God, while the woman is the glory of man. In this case, one's origin story becomes an essential element in one's glory. Man is the glory of God because God created man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
According to the man's origin story, God created Adam from the dust of the ground. Therefore, man is not "of the woman."

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
According to her origin story, Eve was created to be a helper for Adam. She was created for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Literally, the wife wears "authority" on her head. A wife wears a head covering because of what the head covering indicates, i.e. her husband's authority over her. It is fitting that a wife wear a head covering because of what the head covering signifies.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Implied objection: But Paul, I thought you said that in Christ, there is neither male nor female. Why are we treating woman different than the men with respect to praying and prophesying?

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
While it is true that God created Eve to be a helper for Adam, she was also the mother of Adam's sons. A man begins life with a women over him -- his mother -- and that is how God set things up. A wife ought to obey her husband but her children ought to obey her. This reality was created by God and it continues even among the church of Christ.

In other words, a wife's first duty is to her husband, and if she remembers this, then she honors the one who created her.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Since Biblical truth is propositional truth, and since Paul has good reasons to believe what he says, he encourages his readers to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. If they do, he is confident that they will arrive at the same conclusion he did.

In our idiom we might say, "It is bad optics for a woman to pray with her head uncovered." Why? Because of what the head covering represents. In that culture, a married woman wore a head covering out of respect for her husbands authority over her. If she removes her head covering, then, she inadvertently signals disrespect for her husband.

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.

To understand this point, one should ask, "what does a woman's hair cover up that a man's hair doesn't cover?" The Neck. A man's short hair leaves his neck exposed. A woman's long hair covers the neck, and if she wears it right, it can also cover her cleavage. The longer her hair, the more it covers.

What nature teaches us is that a woman's long hair is a significant aspect of her beauty and it functions as a covering of her nakedness.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Here the apostle speaks of a specific custom: A man's wife is to cover her head. From this verse we understand that Christian women were already wearing "authority" on their heads. And she was wearing authority on her head for the reasons that Paul gave. It is fitting that a woman continue to wear her head covering, even while praying and prophesying because of the message it sends. And as the Apostle implies, that message is common throughout the churches of God. A wife wears a head covering as a sign of respect for her husband. And because a wife's duty to her husband was established by God at the time of Creation, respect for husband is tantamount to respect for God.

YOu make lots of assumptions here on a simple command.
One can make suppositions on how new this teaching is, I wouldn't argue either way.

But it is significant because it is taught in all the churches! I do not interpret. I accept what is taught at its face value. there is nothing in the passage to warrant thinking Paul is not being literal about women covering their heads with a man made covering in the church!

Also I do not interpret the two words for covering. One is used for a man made covering the other for hair!

YOu also add to why Paul issued command. Hair covering neck and cleavage- that is simply you roaming around and adding things Paul didn't say.

And now I am saying you are intentionally lying when you say THAT culture, women wore head coverings! the answer is a definite sometimes. there was no rules for head coverings for women either in Greek or Roman culture- you are simply wrong.

Paul is most definitely not leaving it up to the Corinthians to decide for themselves- that is a basic interpretation of the English "Judge for yourselves". But if you delved deeper you would find out that Paul was not telling them to decide whether or not to have women veil there heads- but using a rhetorical flourish- He was showing that even nature showed women need a covering! Once again sloppy studies lead to sloppy conclusions.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Significance:
Once we understand what a passage means, we next make application to our lives. And in that regard, we are asking why is it important to us today and how does it affect us today?

Our disagreement centers on how we differ concerning our orientation with respect to verses 4 and 5. In other words, are verses 4 and 5 descriptive or prescriptive? I believe they are descriptive, while you believe they are prescriptive.

Descriptive:
(Verse 4), if a man should do 'x', this will be the result.
(Verse 6), if a woman should do 'y', this will be the result.

Prescriptive:
(Verse 4), A man ought to do 'x' for the following reason.
(Verse 5) A woman ought to do 'y' for the following reason.

A prescriptive orientation to the passage understands these two verses to be an objective truth, which remains true for all believes for all time. A descriptive orientation to the passage understands these two verses to be the rationale for a conclusion, which answers to the question, "what should women do in light of the message that it would send if she should remove her headcovering?"

If woman believes that Paul is being prescriptive, then a woman would do well to don a head covering while praying or prophesying. But if a women believes that Paul is being descriptive, then a woman would do well do don a head covering if it represented respect for her husband. But if a head covering is meaningless in her culture, then she has no basis on which to wear one during prayer or prophesying.

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.

 

[CadyandZoe]

YOu make lots of assumptions here on a simple command.

I disagree. I made no assumptions; rather, I drew conclusions from evidence, which is what we do.

One can make suppositions on how new this teaching is, I wouldn't argue either way.

But it is significant because it is taught in all the churches!

Did Paul say that it was taught in all the churches? I don't think he said that. He means to say that the custom of prescribing head covering for women was universal.

I do not interpret.

Everyone interprets. Reading is the process of interpreting. We all do it.

I accept what is taught at its face value.

Then you will be mistaken most of the time.

there is nothing in the passage to warrant thinking Paul is not being literal about women covering their heads with a man made covering in the church!

Paul isn't talking about church. He is talking about praying or prophesying. Also, I never said that Paul wasn't being literal.

Also I do not interpret the two words for covering. One is used for a man made covering the other for hair!

No, that is not the two words. With respect to women, Paul uses two words: One means "authority" and the other means "covering". He tells us that women ought to wear an "authority" on her head. Later, he will say that a woman's hair is a covering.

YOu also add to why Paul issued command. Hair covering neck and cleavage- that is simply you roaming around and adding things Paul didn't say.

Of course, I'm speculating. I have no idea why anyone would force a woman to wear a head covering. All I did was take account of the fact that both men and women have hair on their heads. A man's hair is short and a woman's hair is long. So why is a woman's hair a covering but a man's hair is not? The Bible never says. We are left to speculate. What does a woman's hair cover that a man's hair doesn't? Think about it.

And now I am saying you are intentionally lying when you say THAT culture, women wore head coverings! the answer is a definite sometimes. there was no rules for head coverings for women either in Greek or Roman culture- you are simply wrong.

If I am wrong, so is Paul. He tells you that the custom of women covering their heads was ubiquitous.

Paul is most definitely not leaving it up to the Corinthians to decide for themselves- that is a basic interpretation of the English "Judge for yourselves". But if you delved deeper you would find out that Paul was not telling them to decide whether or not to have women veil there heads- but using a rhetorical flourish- He was showing that even nature showed women need a covering! Once again sloppy studies lead to sloppy conclusions.

No, First of all, Paul is not like a sophist who employs rhetorical flourish. He said, "judge for yourselves" because he wants his readers to reason it out for themselves based on the available information. Secondly, if Paul were giving a commandment under the authority of Jesus Christ, he wouldn't offer any reasons for it. Just do what he says and that's it. But he DOES offer reasons and he structured his answer in terms of a logical argument. He expects his readers to follow his argument and decide.