I believe the language is rather clear. In addition early Christian writings on this subject also express an understanding closer to the literal meaning of the text's language. Let's look at
I Corinthians 11:2-16 in the ESV for a little clarity,
Paul commends the Corinthian church for maintaining Apostolic "traditions",
2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
Paul explains the rule of headship,
3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
Paul addresses males wearing head coverings in prayer,
4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
Paul addresses women and head coverings in prayer. Notice that if she prays without her head covered it is "as if she were shaven." This simple statement clearly distinguishes being uncovered from a woman having her head shaven. Both are apparently a shame...
5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.
In the following verses Paul states that if a woman will not cover her head in prayer she should cut her hair short. Again the covering and hair length is compared and distinguished from one another. (Two subjects being compared.) Since it is a shame to cut off her hair, it serves as a proper example that she should be covered.
6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
Paul explains that a man should not cover his head seeing that he is in the image of Christ. For a man to be covered, it would indicate that he is under an authority other than Christ...but a woman is under her husband's authority...
7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Paul illustrates that a head covering serves as a symbol of a woman's submission to her husband. However she is to be honored for each gender is in need of the other.
10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
Now to underscore Paul's initial point (verses 5 and 6) he draws an illustration from nature and presents it to the Corinthians. A woman should be covered, even nature teaches us this for it has given a woman her hair as a natural covering (Hair is not a symbol of authority as is the actual head covering referenced in verses 5,6, and 10). Paul indicates that practice and nature both agree....
13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
Here Paul states that this practice is a universal practice throughout the churches of God...
16If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Early Christian writings indicate that Christian practice asked that a woman wear a head covering while in worship and prayer. Conservative Christian practice (both Modalist and Trinitarian) throughout the centuries indicates that this was the norm until the mid to late 1800's.
The question isn't so much as to what Paul was talking about, for the text appears to be plainly comparing two subjects head covering and hair. The question is has culture changed so drastically that this custom is no longer applicable or should this be a permanent part of Christian practice?
It should also be noted the issue is public disgrace or shame, not so much "sin". The reason that this was considered "shameful" was because in Corinth and throughout Asia Minor the cult of Isis was relatively common. In this cult the women worshiped the pagan goddess by letting down their hair and ecstatically calling upon the goddess. During many of these pagan rituals gross sexual perversions also took place. Any resemblance to this practice was indeed a shame. Not to mention a man covered as was customary for women was wearing that which pertained to a woman. A woman uncovered was considered immodest and/or in rebellion from male authority.
Such was never considered a damnable sin but rather an issue of Christian practice and decency.
Many women have found deep spiritual blessings in accepting this practice. I've discovered their meek and humble spirits speak volumes as they seek true Biblical womanhood.
The real question is...does it apply today?
Linear Mode
