Simple Support For 2 Headcoverings

[Michael The Disciple]

Was Paul talking about 2 coverings in 1 Cor. 11?

The OT shows it clearly here.

Genesis 24:63-65

63And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. 64And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. 65For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

This IMO is what Paul had in mind. The women already had a covering of hair. Yet we see Rebekah taking a vail AND COVERING HER HEAD.

A HEAD COVERING.


It works the same way for men. It is shameful for a man to have long hair. But watch this.

Davids son stole his kingdom. His reaction:

2 Samuel 15:30

30And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.

When David was mourning and ashamed he covered his head. Well wait a minute. If Davids hair was his covering why did he cover his head? Did he suddenly grow out his hair very long to demonstrate his shame?

OR did he take something and COVER his head?

Point of course is there are 2 coverings.

There was famine in Jeremiahs days.

Jeremiah 14:1-4

1The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah concerning the dearth.

2Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.

3And their nobles have sent their little ones to the waters: they came to the pits, and found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads.

4Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered their heads.

The reaction of the men?

They were ashamed and COVERED THEIR HEADS.

Did these men suddenly grow their hair long that day to express their morning and shame?

OR did they actually COVER their heads with some form of vail/covering

Paul taught it was dishonorable for men to cover their heads. So the concept he was teaching in 1 Cor. 11 has its root in the way "covering the head" was presented in Old Testament.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Was Paul talking about 2 coverings in 1 Cor. 11?

The OT shows it clearly here.

Genesis 24:63-65

63And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. 64And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. 65For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

This IMO is what Paul had in mind. The women already had a covering of hair. Yet we see Rebekah taking a vail AND COVERING HER HEAD.

A HEAD COVERING.


It works the same way for men. It is shameful for a man to have long hair. But watch this.

Davids son stole his kingdom. His reaction:

2 Samuel 15:30

30And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.

When David was mourning and ashamed he covered his head. Well wait a minute. If Davids hair was his covering why did he cover his head? Did he suddenly grow out his hair very long to demonstrate his shame?

OR did he take something and COVER his head?

Point of course is there are 2 coverings.

There was famine in Jeremiahs days.

Jeremiah 14:1-4

1The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah concerning the dearth.

2Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.

3And their nobles have sent their little ones to the waters: they came to the pits, and found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads.

4Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered their heads.

The reaction of the men?

They were ashamed and COVERED THEIR HEADS.

Did these men suddenly grow their hair long that day to express their morning and shame?

OR did they actually COVER their heads with some form of vail/covering

Paul taught it was dishonorable for men to cover their heads. So the concept he was teaching in 1 Cor. 11 has its root in the way "covering the head" was presented in Old Testament.

Paul specifically mentions Hair is the covering. Its a shame for a man to have long hair, why? Because it covers his head. The woman's hair is given to her for a covering. it cant be that hard to understand...

[Esaias]

That the hair cannot be the covering he is commanding is proven thus:

1. If uncut hair is the covering, then when he said "every woman praying with her head uncovered" he meant every woman praying with cut hair. But he then said "if she be not covered, let her also be shorn." That means he is saying if she prays with her hair cut, then let her also have her hair cut. Which is an absurdity and an impossibility.

2. Paul is correcting error and proving his case. But in regards to hair, he assumes the reader is on the same page he is. He assumes the Corinthians know that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. He assumes they understand nature teaches long hair is a glory to a woman, but a shame to a man. Therefore he is not giving new information about hair, nor is he giving correction about hair. But he IS giving correction, and new information, to people acting contrary to apostolic practice. Therefore he is instructing and commanding something OTHER than hair, hair cutting, hair growing, or hair length (which his audience already understood).

3. The hair as a covering is a supporting argument, in support of his claim that it is uncomely for a woman to pray uncovered. Since it is a supporting argument, it cannot be the main argument. Since long hair is the supporting argument, long hair cannot be the main argument. Since head covered is the main argument, long hair being the supporting argument, long hair cannot be the head covering demanded by Paul.

4. The words Paul uses for head covered/uncovered are common terms in both the Greek Old Testament and secular Greek literature for an actual material head covering. They are never used to describe merely hair, whether long, uncut, or untrimmed. The word "covering" in v. 16 is a different word, and properly means a mantle or shawl.

5. There is an unambiguous historical record of Christians understanding Paul to be commanding an actual head covering, from the beginning until the last century. It has been the universal Christian practice for the same time period. It has never been disputed until the last century. Hair as the commanded covering is a wholly newfangled innovation of modern times.

6. Women started wearing pants, cutting their hair, and dropped the head covering, at the same time in history, and for the same reasons. Uncovered women is a sign right along with bobbed hair and pantsuits of the breakdown in gender distinctions and rebelliousness against God's order. All three go hand in hand.

7. The only actual command regarding hair in the chapter is an apostolic command for the uncovered woman to also be shorn. Thus, again, showing that Paul is not commanding women to not cut their hair, but rather to wear a head covering when in worship. And, if they won't, then he says they should be shorn AS WELL.

All this is sufficient to prove that the hair is not the covering being commanded, and that an actual head covering is in view.

[Esaias]

If the hair is the covering Paul was commanding, then this is the result:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with hair on his head, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without hair on her head dshonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have not hair on her head, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair on her head.

So then, hair is NOT the covering being commanded.

If you prefer the covering be "long hair", it becomes even more plain to see:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with long hair, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with short hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have short hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair.

It is ridiculous to teach that if a woman have short, cut hair, she should ALSO cut her hair short, that if she have short, cut hair it is AS IF her head was shaven.

The statement "her hair is given her for a covering" is the lesson FROM NATURE that corroborates the apostle's command. Otherwise the passage becomes nonsensical.

The claim ignores not only the plain meaning of the text, but also 1800 years of history. Practically ALL Christians everywhere at every time understood Paul taught that a woman should wear a head covering and a man should not, when praying or prophesying. Only in the last 100 years or so, in the west, did the Christian woman's head covering get abandoned by modernists who had no use for "old, archaic practices that oppress women."

Sisters who wear the head covering do not do so because they want an excuse to cut their hair short. But many who refuse to cover their heads do so because they like showing off their "glory".

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That the hair cannot be the covering he is commanding is proven thus:

1. If uncut hair is the covering, then when he said "every woman praying with her head uncovered" he meant every woman praying with cut hair. But he then said "if she be not covered, let her also be shorn." That means he is saying if she prays with her hair cut, then let her also have her hair cut. Which is an absurdity and an impossibility.

2. Paul is correcting error and proving his case. But in regards to hair, he assumes the reader is on the same page he is. He assumes the Corinthians know that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. He assumes they understand nature teaches long hair is a glory to a woman, but a shame to a man. Therefore he is not giving new information about hair, nor is he giving correction about hair. But he IS giving correction, and new information, to people acting contrary to apostolic practice. Therefore he is instructing and commanding something OTHER than hair, hair cutting, hair growing, or hair length (which his audience already understood).

3. The hair as a covering is a supporting argument, in support of his claim that it is uncomely for a woman to pray uncovered. Since it is a supporting argument, it cannot be the main argument. Since long hair is the supporting argument, long hair cannot be the main argument. Since head covered is the main argument, long hair being the supporting argument, long hair cannot be the head covering demanded by Paul.

4. The words Paul uses for head covered/uncovered are common terms in both the Greek Old Testament and secular Greek literature for an actual material head covering. They are never used to describe merely hair, whether long, uncut, or untrimmed. The word "covering" in v. 16 is a different word, and properly means a mantle or shawl.

5. There is an unambiguous historical record of Christians understanding Paul to be commanding an actual head covering, from the beginning until the last century. It has been the universal Christian practice for the same time period. It has never been disputed until the last century. Hair as the commanded covering is a wholly newfangled innovation of modern times.

6. Women started wearing pants, cutting their hair, and dropped the head covering, at the same time in history, and for the same reasons. Uncovered women is a sign right along with bobbed hair and pantsuits of the breakdown in gender distinctions and rebelliousness against God's order. All three go hand in hand.

7. The only actual command regarding hair in the chapter is an apostolic command for the uncovered woman to also be shorn. Thus, again, showing that Paul is not commanding women to not cut their hair, but rather to wear a head covering when in worship. And, if they won't, then he says they should be shorn AS WELL.

All this is sufficient to prove that the hair is not the covering being commanded, and that an actual head covering is in view.

Exactly.

[Apostolic1ness]

When Paul says hair is given her for a covering. what covering is this referring to?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Paul specifically mentions Hair is the covering. Its a shame for a man to have long hair, why? Because it covers his head. The woman's hair is given to her for a covering. it cant be that hard to understand...

???? You confuse me....so in you opinion a man must be shaved clean?? In todays UPC norms a mans hair would be to his ears and at the back of the neck coinciding to the bottom of the ear. This pretty much explains how I wear my hair. Guess what my head is covered by hair. Now if my hair were longer it would cover my neck, my back, my butt, etc etc depending on length. My mothers hair drags the floor but her hair covers no more of her HEAD than my hair covers of mine!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

When Paul says hair is given her for a covering. what covering is this referring to?

A peribolaion (shawl or mantle) is supplied by nature to teach that a woman OUGHT TO BE COVERED. The lesson doesn't take place unless she "has long hair". THEN is taught by her long hair that she OUGHT TO BE COVERED. And thus once again we see that the hair itself cannot be the covering that the apostle is teaching a woman needs when praying.

If A teaches B, then the teaching doesn't take place until condition A is met, which proves that A is not the exact same thing as B. If brushing your teeth is a lesson from the natural that your speech ought to be seasoned with grace, then brushing your teeth does not by itself SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT that your speech be seasoned with grace.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

When Paul says hair is given her for a covering. what covering is this referring to?

This was my next question...what exactly were they covering??

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A peribolaion (shawl or mantle) is supplied by nature to teach that a woman OUGHT TO BE COVERED. The lesson doesn't take place unless she "has long hair". THEN is taught by her long hair that she OUGHT TO BE COVERED. And thus once again we see that the hair itself cannot be the covering that the apostle is teaching a woman needs when praying.

If A teaches B, then the teaching doesn't take place until condition A is met, which proves that A is not the exact same thing as B. If brushing your teeth is a lesson from the natural that your speech ought to be seasoned with grace, then brushing your teeth does not by itself SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT that your speech be seasoned with grace.

when Paul addresses the man's hair being long is a shame. Is it a shame because his head would be considered covered?