Judging another church over hair on a woman? Condemning the notion of women leading in worship???
Here's my contribution. Hope it helps somewhat... share with me what you think.
I’ll break down the entire passage and I think you’ll know where I’m coming from after we take a closer look at it. Here’s the passage breakdown….
I Corinthians 11:1-16….
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Paul commends them for obeying the teachings he had previously delivered to them.
3But 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.
Paul now wants to draw something to their attention. Paul breaks down headship. The head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman (wife) is the man (husband), and the head of Christ is God. Obviously there was an issue regarding this order told to Paul be Chloe, so Paul’s words imply that the women were not in subjection to their husbands. But what was the issue itself? The next few verses go into it…
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Here Paul states that every man who prays or prophesies with his head “covered” (Gk. kata, meaning, “something long hanging down over”) dishonors his “head” (i.e. Christ, for the head of every man is Christ). Many think this means long hair. Linguistically it could but it’s a stretch. One also has to ask, how would long hair shame Christ? Nazarites in their vow let their hair grow long, so obviously this doesn’t dishonor God. What could it be? Well, if we take it as meaning a veil we find that it would dishonor Christ. You see the male temple prostitutes would often dress like their goddesses and like women as part of their lascivious rituals. So if a man were to pray wearing a veil (a woman’s garment) in church gatherings he would be imitating the pagans. No doubt many of the men of the church used to worship in the pagan temples. Maybe some were coming with veils not fully understanding the Christian methods of worship. Maybe Paul was just laying the ground work for the next few points by addressing men first. But eiter way, if we understand that Paul was talking about a veil, it begins to make sense.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Here Paul turns to the women. He states that if a woman prays or prophesies with her head “uncovered” (Gk. akatakaluptos, meaning “unveiled”) she dishonors her head (i.e. her husband, for the head of every wife is the husband). Paul then says that if a woman prays with her head unveiled, it is AS IF she were shaven. So here we see Paul drawing a comparison between to conditions: being unveiled and being shaven. The two are obviously not the same thing, though in Paul’s mind being unveiled is just as bad as being shaven. Why would it be dishonoring for a woman to be shaven? As part of the Nazarite vow women shaved their heads when the vow was finished in honor of God, so a woman being shaven obviously doesn’t directly dishonor God or a woman’s husband. However, we have to know something about ancient Grecia and Asia Minor. When a woman was caught in adultery in these pagan nations they’d publicly shame her by shaving or sheering her head. When Paul sad that if a woman prayed unveiled it was as if she were shaven, it would make a Corinthian Christian gasp; because essentially Paul was saying if you pray unveiled you look like an adulteress.
6For 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.
Here Paul is angry because he uses some of the most powerful language in this passage. Paul zeros in on women saying that if a woman will not be covered (implying un-submission), she is to have her hair shorn like an adulteress. Obviously this would horrify our first century Corinthian readers. Paul then explains that but if they know how shameful it is to be shorn or shaven as an adulteress, they should submit and put their veils back on. This verse is actually strong evidence that Paul isn’t addressing hair. Because Paul implies that a woman can choose to put her covering back on. No so with hair, because hair must be given time to grow.
7For 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 now explains some deeper things. Paul states that man in principle shouldn’t be covered because he is the glory of God. He is made in God’s image and is to worship and give honor to God. However, the woman is the glory of the man. A man’s wife brings him honor and glory when she’s in submission and living modestly (in this instance veiled).
8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
This is because the woman was made from man, not man from woman. In addition the man wasn’t created for the woman, but the woman was created for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
The meaning of this verse is widely disputed. I believe Paul is saying that the Corinthian women should signify their submission to their husbands by placing their veils back on, giving their husbands authority over their heads. This is important because we all know what happened when the angels refused to be submitted, they were cast out. It could also mean that there is a special ministry of angels that a woman can experience when she’s submitted to her husband. I understand that there are multiple interpretations of this verse, but this is my take on it.
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Here Paul demonstrates that though there is headship and authority a woman isn’t to be denigrated or disrespected, there should be mutual respect. This is because there would be no men without women or women without men, after all every woman born was born from the seed of a man and every man born was born of a woman. Everything about this is of God’s design.
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Here Paul asks them a personal question. He asks them to look and determine for themselves if it’s proper for a woman to pray without a veil. And then Paul turns toward a supporting argument as part of his polemic….
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Here Paul draws an example from nature to support his admonishment to women that they should wear their veil in public worship. Paul demonstrates that even nature mirrors this standard of decency because even nature demonstrates that if a man has long hair it’s a shame for him; but if a woman has long hair it is her beauty and glory, this because nature has given her long hair for a covering. Now this word “covering” is interesting. It is “peribolaion” meaning a “covering (veil) wrapped around”. So in the Greek it would read more accurately, “for her hair is given her for a wrap around veil (or 'wrapping')." Here hair was given to her for the veil. Her hair was given as a glory to be covered in modesty.
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Here Paul is saying that if any believer be contentious, rebellious, and disregarding of headship and modesty in worship, we have no such custom.
Well…I hope that helps explain my angle. I've been in much prayer and study on this passage and this is my take on it. As you can see, I don’t see anything in this passage specifically about cut or "uncut" hair on a woman other than a reference to the specific practice of sheering the head of adulteresses as public humiliation. We don’t do that today, so it isn’t a shameful thing that would destroy our witness, as being shorn or unveiled would for a Corinthian believer in the first century. According to my understanding the passage is primarily about submission and modesty.
There isn't a single thing in the passage requiring women to wear uncut hair. That's just a Pentecostal tradition of man.
If we just let the passage say what it says naturally, we will understand it and false doctrines like HMH will not flurish. The confusion is stems from the effort of some to force it to teach uncut hair for women. Error begets error.
God bless.
Linear Mode
