Tours Travel

Shaved and Shameful: Paul’s Case for Head Covering

There is one more possibility for the text. What “custom” is Paul referring to? The old custom of covering the head? Or the new emerging practice of going bareheaded? Could Paul be saying, “You who are trying to introduce new ways into Jesus’ church need to understand that we have no such custom and will not abide by your innovations. Cover your heads!”

In my opinion, the issue is not resolved. I’ve learned not to base my beliefs on what I see around me in church, whether it’s “good” or “bad,” whether it’s conservative or liberal, my denomination or someone else’s. The question is always, what did the apostles say and why did they say it?

Let’s tackle that question now. After carefully reading the entire text before verse 16, consider its teaching and decide for yourself, if you think the KJV gives you that option, what to do about it.

The teaching begins in verse 3 of chapter 11, I Corinthians. The chain of command. The authority structure of Heaven in relation to God’s people on earth. Especially the Christian family. Perhaps by extension, the Christian church.

Leadership. The Father is head in relation to his Son. The Son, Jesus, is the head in relation to man. The man is the head in relation to the woman or wife. (“Woman” and “wife” translate the same Greek word. It seems that “wife” is a better word in the context here).

Paul has already given his whole argument! If only I Corinthians 11:3 were current in Christian families in the church! There would be no need to object to verse 16 if verse 3 were in place.

But let’s pour 4 anyway.

Over the centuries we have agreed that men should be bareheaded in church. This practice became so pervasive in the culture that it was simply “normal” for men and boys to remove their hats or caps when entering an indoor public gathering of any kind.

Somehow the other side of the tradition, the feminine part, was lost.

Paul makes it clear here that there must be a difference between the covering of the male and that of the female. Verse 4 is explained in verse 7. Since man, originally created in the image and glory of God, was to be the very reflection of that glory, symbolically covering that glory with a hat seems to suffocate that reflection.

Verses 5-6 show how different women, even women in Christ, must be considered in the scheme of things. This passage is regularly ignored because it is considered part of an archaic cultural practice abandoned long ago by liberated souls.

But as in the associated doctrine later in the chapter, Paul is not referring here to culture, but to theology. To the book of Genesis, to be precise. It’s a horrible thing for a modern woman to hear, but she must hear it.

A naked woman, Paul says, is the same as a woman without hair! Here we run into a double problem. How many women have you seen lately who have no hair? Unfortunately, his tribe is increasing. Then there are those with so little hair that they blend in with the male head. I speak sympathetically to those for whom illness or old age have created problems that have reduced hair growth. These in particular should see the need to cover themselves, and would welcome such a thing, or so it would seem.

No hair is a shame! Paul says. And no cover is an equal disgrace. Well, if it wasn’t for verse 16, you’d think he was serious… What if he was, and what if the teaching is for our day?

Verses 7-9 take us further into the mystery and deeper into political incorrectness. Pastors, do not read or believe this passage. Whatever you do, don’t show it. Your congregation will end. Your people will turn against you. Oh, how unmodern is this word…

Paul actually says that women were created to be the glory of man! (Just as man was created to be the glory of God!) A woman who operates on the principle that she can be the glory of God directly, keeps her head uncovered and basks in what she believes to be the glory of God. God. However, a woman who believes that she is made to help and bless and make this man glorious by her side will cover that glory over her head and show it to him alone.

Have women forgotten that they were created second and for a specific purpose? Short answer: yes.

More, according to Paul. The angels are watching. bad angel? Like in Genesis when the “sons of God” saw the “daughters of men”? Those kind of angels? Angels who are still looking for uncovered, unprotected women whose purpose in life is not directed at their husband? Rapacious angels, vulnerable women? A match made in hell?

Or are these good angels that Paul speaks of? Angels who know the order of Heaven and cry when they see it disturbed by all these bareheads, women who simply refuse to acknowledge their place in creation?

Whatever the meaning of the angels, it was Paul who brought this up, not me. In heavenly places, angelic beings make sure to cover their heads. An impressive thought. A biblical thought. An ignored thought. That was verse 10.

In verses 11 and 12, all feminists join us in pointing out that men should depend on women as much as women depend on men. Surely women originated from men. But every man was born of a woman! Wonderful, indeed, is the control that God has placed over human, masculine pride. Knowing that we are the first. in creation in glory in the very purposes of God. in leadership In public. Knowing all this would lead us to think that we don’t even need these women at all, except that God has ordained that you, sir, don’t even come into this world unless a woman oversees the event. You will most likely be trained by this woman and you will meet several of her like her in your first few days at school, and so on. You need a woman.

But none of this changes Paul’s point of view or his tone, and in verse 13 he dives back into the main conclusion he reaches. It is simply not proper for a woman to pray bareheaded. Period.

Having argued from Scripture, he now argues from nature. It is not natural to see a man with extremely long hair or a woman with extremely short hair. It just doesn’t “seem” right. One of the evils of our day is the attempt to take away the natural and make it unnatural, and to make the utterly strange seem normal. Think of gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc., and their slow rise to normalcy among the American people. The church unfortunately participates in the normalizations.

I used to abandon this teaching in verse 15. To a woman hair is given for a veil. Therefore, she does not need a scarf. God gave him a cover of it.

But that doesn’t work. Paul’s context in that verse is nature. God gave her a natural covering and taught us that it is “natural” for her to cover herself by doing so. Taking a tip from nature, he needs to cover his head more. No, if this long passage only meant nature, this long passage would not have to be here! God would have already covered the woman, uncovered the man, and all the preachers would have to deal with the length of the haircuts.

Can we not cry for our women today when we see the Muslim infusion in our culture? Wives who do not know Christ except as a great prophet should properly cover their heads and their entire bodies. It’s just a matter of common sense for them. Of course you cover up when you’re in public.

Yes, that brings up the whole issue of how some of our women dress for church. Or the beach, for that matter. Why is it fashionable among our people to bare body parts while the world watches? This is a subject for another message, but the fact is, if we can’t get some women to cover their upper bodies and legs, how will they have ears to hear about head coverings?

The shaven women of Corinth. No, they weren’t really shaven, except in Paul’s imagination. But they were practically shaven, because they were disrespecting their husbands by not wearing a symbol of their authority on their heads. And what can be said of Corinth must be said of a great number of women of God today. May God make us take these things seriously. Too many things are changing, too much is being left behind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *