Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.
Head Coverings?
Today's passage is pretty widely agreed upon to be one of the most difficult passages to figure out and correctly apply in the entire Bible. That being said, we won't be able to deal with everything in full here - just cover the basics to understanding one of the big issues here. If you're interested in further commentary on the issues, I'm providing the "Original Meaning" section from the NIVAC (Craig Blomberg) commentary if you'd like to take a look at it:
Head Coverings?
Today's passage is pretty widely agreed upon to be one of the most difficult passages to figure out and correctly apply in the entire Bible. That being said, we won't be able to deal with everything in full here - just cover the basics to understanding one of the big issues here. If you're interested in further commentary on the issues, I'm providing the "Original Meaning" section from the NIVAC (Craig Blomberg) commentary if you'd like to take a look at it:
| 1_corinthians_11.2-16_nivac.pdf |
| There are a variety of issues to deal with in this passage: women's roles in the church (we'll deal with that in later passage), man/woman and husband/wife relationship (also later), and the issue of head coverings. Today I want to deal with the issue of head coverings because this is basically the only passage in the NT that deals with it and there is a lot of confusion about it. | 
|
For those of you unfamiliar with the practice, there are a number of very conservative Christian denominations in which women are required to wear head coverings (some only in worship, others during all times). The picture above is a traditional Mennonite "bonnet" head covering, but you'll a number of other kinds ranging from straight-out hats to more bandana-like coverings. You'll also sometimes see particular women in large non-denominational churches that also practice head covering. The question from this passage is, I think, "Why don't all women wear them?" Check out verse 5:
"...but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head..."
The question was asked in the post on 1 Corinthians 7 if some of the things Paul said there weren't meant for us to follow today. My answer was that we should be VERY careful about assuming Biblical passages aren't to be followed today. So that leaves us with our question: why don't you see Christian women everywhere with head coverings? There are very many Christian women with deep respect for the Bible that don't wear head coverings - why? My goal is to summarize why, but again, if you're really confused/interested about this, I recommend you read the commentary excerpt above.
First of all, it's important to note that the context of the verse informs us that what Paul is talking about here isn't a covering such as a bonnet or hat, but most likely about hair. The earlier part of the passage is more vague, speaking of being "covered", but the later verses (14-15) show us that what that means is hair, talking about long and short hair.
This already changes the nature of our question and makes it now, "Is it okay for Christian women to have short hair?" I think the answer to that is still, "Yes, it's fine." The basic answer to our question, whether about hats or hair, is that this is a passage in which the specific comment that Paul gives is tied to the culture in which the Corinthians live. Blomberg explains the reason Paul uses:
"Verses 13–16 return to the specific problem of head coverings, this time explicitly referring to long hair on men and women, with three further arguments. After appealing to the Corinthians to conclude that what Paul is saying is true (“Judge for yourselves”—v. 13a; cf. 10:15), he argues further from propriety (v. 13b), nature (vv. 14–15), and the widespread first-century custom (NIV “practice”) of all believers (v. 16). The first and third of these clearly refer to the “status quo” in Paul’s day. “Nature” sounds like an appeal to the way God created things, but Paul the Jew would have known of the Nazirites whom God blessed precisely because they did not cut their hair (of whom Samson was the most famous example; Judg. 13:5). In the Greek world, the Spartan men were known for their shoulder-length hair. But it was true, then as now, that most cultures maintained a relative difference in hair length between men and women. So “nature” is probably best understood here as that which is “almost instinctive because of long habit,” a “long-established custom.”" [1] (emphasis mine)
Most cultures have some kind of tradition in which there are obvious ways to distinguish male and female. In this case (and in many cultures), one of the ways is hair length. One of the thoughts here is that treasuring the difference between male and female is important, but that's not the main point. If it was, what's going on with the comment in verse 6?
"But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head..."
Male and female distinctions are well and good, but calling it "disgraceful" seems to be taking it too far. So what is the principle that this passage operates under? What does Paul think that it's bad to go against the cultural norms of hair length? Here's some historical background on why it was important:
"Long hair on Greek men might well have led to suspicions of homosexual behavior. If an external covering is meant, then Paul is probably objecting to a practice which resembled that of Roman priests pulling their togas up over their heads while offering sacrifice or performing religious rituals. Still another possibility is that long hair on men made their appearance resemble the elaborate hairdos of the sophists...
...Or it could be that they are simply wearing their hair too short, perilously close to the shaven heads of a convicted adulteress in Jewish circles or of the more “masculine” partner in a lesbian relationship in the Greek world...
...In verses 5b–6, Paul remarks ironically that if women are going to send ambiguous signals about their sexuality or religious commitments through inappropriate hairstyles or lack of headdress, then they might as well go all the way and become bald (or discard all head coverings) and unequivocally send the wrong signals! Verses 7–10, however, state Paul’s true preference—that the Corinthian husbands and their wives revert back to the culturally appropriate signs of marital fidelity and worship of the one true God. Verse 7 makes this point by referring to the husbands as the “glory and image of God” and the wives as the “glory of their husbands.” In verses 14–15 “glory” is the opposite of “disgrace,” so in both places it probably carries the sense of “honor.” For a Christian man to appear gay or pagan dishonors God; for a woman to appear lesbian or unfaithful dishonors her husband. Obviously husbands also dishonor their wives and wives dishonor God when they act in these inappropriate ways, but if an authority structure is implicit in this passage, Paul’s less inclusive wording becomes understandable. One should be particularly concerned not to dishonor one’s immediate spiritual head." [2]
So this reveals the main point of this whole issue: make sure you're not purposely sending the wrong message about who you are to the culture around you. This means for us that we are simply ignoring this passage today: it has real implications for our lives. We might not have women wearing bonnets, but we still have a responsibility to follow the principles in this passage in a culturally appropriate way. Blomberg again helps us think through some cases in which this could be important:
"Clearly, head coverings send virtually no sexual or religious messages in contemporary Western societies. Perhaps the only exception is in those few extremely conservative churches that still insist on women wearing hats, scarves, or hairnets. And the message these churches usually send to the culture at large is that they are hopelessly out of touch with modernity! For them it would be best to abandon the practice at once, so that they could better implement Paul’s principle of being all things to all people in order to save as many as possible (9:19–23). In other cultures, however, head coverings often continue to carry great significance. Christian workers in Muslim lands will have to consider seriously whether or not it will promote their witness if their women wear some kind of veil. At the very least, they will have to avoid causing the offense that is almost universally created when women’s shoulders are not covered with appropriate attire. For many Muslims, bare-shouldered women are sexually promiscuous; the practice is almost tantamount to bare-breasted women in this country.
In Jewish circles, Christian men should be prepared to wear the yarmulke or skull-cap when entering holy places. This does not violate verse 4 precisely because it fulfills the same function that not wearing a head covering did in Corinth—it prevents people from thinking that a person is deliberately worshiping a false god or dishonoring the one true God of Israel...
...Men should not wear dresses, since this suggests transvestite behavior to most onlookers. Women should not wear the excessive make-up and revealing clothing typical of prostitutes “on their beat.” Less dramatically, both men and women should avoid any clothing that would prove unnecessarily seductive, particularly in settings where God is to be worshiped and participants should be free from such distractions. More specifically, husbands and wives should carefully guard against sending signals that suggest they are not married or are disloyal to their spouses. In some contexts, it would be misleading and inappropriate not to wear a wedding ring if one is married. Flirtatious conversation or behavior with someone other than one’s spouse also puts one in a position of asking for trouble." [3]
Some really good thoughts about how this plays out for us today. Today's post has been a lot longer than normal, but I hope it's been helpful. If you have questions, make sure you read the commentary excerpt first as that will most likely deal with many questions you might have. This is definitely a complicated passage - it's got really important implications for how we live and act today, but it takes a lot more work to understand what the passage means and how it applies to us today. Again, I hope this has been helpful and not more confusing. Sometimes Bible study takes some hard work, and this is definitely one of those passages, but it's a joy to rightly handle and understand the Word of God!
Thoughts?
"...but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head..."
The question was asked in the post on 1 Corinthians 7 if some of the things Paul said there weren't meant for us to follow today. My answer was that we should be VERY careful about assuming Biblical passages aren't to be followed today. So that leaves us with our question: why don't you see Christian women everywhere with head coverings? There are very many Christian women with deep respect for the Bible that don't wear head coverings - why? My goal is to summarize why, but again, if you're really confused/interested about this, I recommend you read the commentary excerpt above.
First of all, it's important to note that the context of the verse informs us that what Paul is talking about here isn't a covering such as a bonnet or hat, but most likely about hair. The earlier part of the passage is more vague, speaking of being "covered", but the later verses (14-15) show us that what that means is hair, talking about long and short hair.
This already changes the nature of our question and makes it now, "Is it okay for Christian women to have short hair?" I think the answer to that is still, "Yes, it's fine." The basic answer to our question, whether about hats or hair, is that this is a passage in which the specific comment that Paul gives is tied to the culture in which the Corinthians live. Blomberg explains the reason Paul uses:
"Verses 13–16 return to the specific problem of head coverings, this time explicitly referring to long hair on men and women, with three further arguments. After appealing to the Corinthians to conclude that what Paul is saying is true (“Judge for yourselves”—v. 13a; cf. 10:15), he argues further from propriety (v. 13b), nature (vv. 14–15), and the widespread first-century custom (NIV “practice”) of all believers (v. 16). The first and third of these clearly refer to the “status quo” in Paul’s day. “Nature” sounds like an appeal to the way God created things, but Paul the Jew would have known of the Nazirites whom God blessed precisely because they did not cut their hair (of whom Samson was the most famous example; Judg. 13:5). In the Greek world, the Spartan men were known for their shoulder-length hair. But it was true, then as now, that most cultures maintained a relative difference in hair length between men and women. So “nature” is probably best understood here as that which is “almost instinctive because of long habit,” a “long-established custom.”" [1] (emphasis mine)
Most cultures have some kind of tradition in which there are obvious ways to distinguish male and female. In this case (and in many cultures), one of the ways is hair length. One of the thoughts here is that treasuring the difference between male and female is important, but that's not the main point. If it was, what's going on with the comment in verse 6?
"But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head..."
Male and female distinctions are well and good, but calling it "disgraceful" seems to be taking it too far. So what is the principle that this passage operates under? What does Paul think that it's bad to go against the cultural norms of hair length? Here's some historical background on why it was important:
"Long hair on Greek men might well have led to suspicions of homosexual behavior. If an external covering is meant, then Paul is probably objecting to a practice which resembled that of Roman priests pulling their togas up over their heads while offering sacrifice or performing religious rituals. Still another possibility is that long hair on men made their appearance resemble the elaborate hairdos of the sophists...
...Or it could be that they are simply wearing their hair too short, perilously close to the shaven heads of a convicted adulteress in Jewish circles or of the more “masculine” partner in a lesbian relationship in the Greek world...
...In verses 5b–6, Paul remarks ironically that if women are going to send ambiguous signals about their sexuality or religious commitments through inappropriate hairstyles or lack of headdress, then they might as well go all the way and become bald (or discard all head coverings) and unequivocally send the wrong signals! Verses 7–10, however, state Paul’s true preference—that the Corinthian husbands and their wives revert back to the culturally appropriate signs of marital fidelity and worship of the one true God. Verse 7 makes this point by referring to the husbands as the “glory and image of God” and the wives as the “glory of their husbands.” In verses 14–15 “glory” is the opposite of “disgrace,” so in both places it probably carries the sense of “honor.” For a Christian man to appear gay or pagan dishonors God; for a woman to appear lesbian or unfaithful dishonors her husband. Obviously husbands also dishonor their wives and wives dishonor God when they act in these inappropriate ways, but if an authority structure is implicit in this passage, Paul’s less inclusive wording becomes understandable. One should be particularly concerned not to dishonor one’s immediate spiritual head." [2]
So this reveals the main point of this whole issue: make sure you're not purposely sending the wrong message about who you are to the culture around you. This means for us that we are simply ignoring this passage today: it has real implications for our lives. We might not have women wearing bonnets, but we still have a responsibility to follow the principles in this passage in a culturally appropriate way. Blomberg again helps us think through some cases in which this could be important:
"Clearly, head coverings send virtually no sexual or religious messages in contemporary Western societies. Perhaps the only exception is in those few extremely conservative churches that still insist on women wearing hats, scarves, or hairnets. And the message these churches usually send to the culture at large is that they are hopelessly out of touch with modernity! For them it would be best to abandon the practice at once, so that they could better implement Paul’s principle of being all things to all people in order to save as many as possible (9:19–23). In other cultures, however, head coverings often continue to carry great significance. Christian workers in Muslim lands will have to consider seriously whether or not it will promote their witness if their women wear some kind of veil. At the very least, they will have to avoid causing the offense that is almost universally created when women’s shoulders are not covered with appropriate attire. For many Muslims, bare-shouldered women are sexually promiscuous; the practice is almost tantamount to bare-breasted women in this country.
In Jewish circles, Christian men should be prepared to wear the yarmulke or skull-cap when entering holy places. This does not violate verse 4 precisely because it fulfills the same function that not wearing a head covering did in Corinth—it prevents people from thinking that a person is deliberately worshiping a false god or dishonoring the one true God of Israel...
...Men should not wear dresses, since this suggests transvestite behavior to most onlookers. Women should not wear the excessive make-up and revealing clothing typical of prostitutes “on their beat.” Less dramatically, both men and women should avoid any clothing that would prove unnecessarily seductive, particularly in settings where God is to be worshiped and participants should be free from such distractions. More specifically, husbands and wives should carefully guard against sending signals that suggest they are not married or are disloyal to their spouses. In some contexts, it would be misleading and inappropriate not to wear a wedding ring if one is married. Flirtatious conversation or behavior with someone other than one’s spouse also puts one in a position of asking for trouble." [3]
Some really good thoughts about how this plays out for us today. Today's post has been a lot longer than normal, but I hope it's been helpful. If you have questions, make sure you read the commentary excerpt first as that will most likely deal with many questions you might have. This is definitely a complicated passage - it's got really important implications for how we live and act today, but it takes a lot more work to understand what the passage means and how it applies to us today. Again, I hope this has been helpful and not more confusing. Sometimes Bible study takes some hard work, and this is definitely one of those passages, but it's a joy to rightly handle and understand the Word of God!
Thoughts?
[1] Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 213.
[2] Ibid, 210-211.
[3] Ibid, 220-222.
[2] Ibid, 210-211.
[3] Ibid, 220-222.
RSS Feed
