I have a question about 1 Corinthians 11:5

[Blood Bought]

Originally Posted by Mitsy

A woman's covering is a man and for men it is Christ. It's in the verse right before it.



Not a physical covering. A spiritual one.

Yes!

Concerning short hair, long hair, etc... customs change. If I'm recalling correctly, prostitutes of the time had shaved heads, so they would stand out. In that light, it would make sense.

I don't greet the brethren with a holy kiss, which Paul mentions as well. That's not a custom we are familiar with today. I still love the brethren, even though I don't kiss them!

[OtherSideOfTheBoat]

Verse 14 says, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" This is very simple and straightforward. It is wrong for a man to have long hair. To avoid obedience to God, people often want to read something else in. It is also universal. Nature is not subject to custom. It applies to all locations and all times not just Corinthians 2000 years ago.

[millky]

Originally Posted by OtherSideOfTheBoat

Verse 14 says, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" This is very simple and straightforward. It is wrong for a man to have long hair. To avoid obedience to God, people often want to read something else in. It is also universal. Nature is not subject to custom. It applies to all locations and all times not just Corinthians 2000 years ago.

I take your point. Men should not have long hair, okay. That's clearly stated there.

But we're talking about women and whether they should wear head coverings or have long hair. Firstly, it doesn't say anywhere how we are supposed to define 'long' hair, so if there's no conclusive answer to that question, how can we obey that commandment literally? We'd have to define long hair by the world's standards, by whatever is considered long in whatever culture we happen to live in. E.g. my hair just touches my shoulders. Most people say it's long. Heaps of people in other places would call it very short for a woman. And there doesn't appear to be any definition put forward in the Bible so we're left to decide what is right for ourselves. Doesn't God tell us not to do this? God is excellent at giving clear direct instruction. If this was such a crucial, important thing, would He not have made it explicit? He doesn't. So what does that say?

Also, Romans 14 instructs us not to judge one another based on their personal convictions about particular things.

E.g. Romans 14:5-6

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord;[a] and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

I don't deny that women should have long hair, but I question the definition of long and I also have issues with people who would say that a woman with short, uncovered hair is in sin, because of the above verse I posted. In 1 Corinthians 11:16 Paul talks about 'custom' in worship - that all the churches of God observe the custom of long hair and head coverings. Okay, well what is a custom?

# A practice followed by people of a particular group or region.
# A habitual practice of a person: my custom of reading a little before sleep. See synonyms at habit.
# Law. A common tradition or usage so long established that it has the force or validity of law.

So, it's either a tradition of a group of people, in which case it is not required of anyone to do. Or it's the habit of a single person, in which case each woman may decide whether or not she will make covering/long hair her custom; OR it's a tradition used for so long that it might as well be law, which I think is a fairly weak definition since traditions and laws are vastly different things and still doesn't justify anybody saying that women who do not follow the tradition are in sin.

Paul thought that since all the other churches were enforcing long hair and head coverings as a custom that the Corinthians and by extension all of us, ought to do it as well. Fine, but looking at what a custom or a tradition means, we aren't legalistically required to do it. Being absolutely required to do such a thing flies in the face of what Jesus went to such great pains to explain to us, that the greatest of ALL commandments is love and that we are not to judge one another for what we do in faith (as the Romans 14 passage explains).

Also, 1 Corinthians 11:3 says that Paul wanted the Corinthians to understand a SPIRITUAL concept (the headship of Christ over man and man over woman) and then instructs them to adopt a physical representation of this concept. I took this to mean he was trying to teach them, explicitly, the hierarchy of authority from God down to men, and did this by demonstrating it in a physical sense, not to literally say that if we don't cover our heads/have long hair/etc, that we are in sin.

So I'm still not totally convinced that we can throw out Mitsy's spiritual interpretation of these verses, even if I can see what you're trying to say. If it's a custom followed in your church and not doing it could cause a brother to stumble, then sure, do it. But in my opinion at this moment, we women are under no otherwise obligation to cover.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I can't say I'm really seeing it. I still think Mitsy has it right.

[millky]

Actually I should revise something there. My Bible, which is a Good News version, reads, for 1 Corinthians 11:16 - But if anyone wants to argue about it, all I have to say is that neither we nor the churches of God have any other custom of worship.

The King James version is quite different. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

One says they ONLY observe this custom, the other says they don't at all. Well that's a tad confusing.

The word custom still has me very sceptical though about the whole covering thing. I would appreciate some insight into what that one verse is saying, though, since my Bible seems to have a different reading to the one linked.

[millky]

Also I found this http://www.lhc-pa.org/_files/Notes%2005-09-11.pdf online, a sermon from a church called Living Hope?

Reading it, I believe it is sound in what it is saying.

I have also found this which goes into much more detail: http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/RBMW_5.pdf

This is an excellent article. The conclusion seems to be that women are not obligated to cover today but that the point is making a distinction between the sexes and for women to behave in the feminine and submissive manner that they must in order to occupy their proper place in the hierarchy of God - Christ - Man - Woman. I need to read it again, though, as it's quite long and I read it fast this time to see if it was appropriate for this thread topic.

[Blood Bought]

Hi miilky. I'm with you on your general analysis. But concerning the following verse...

1 Corinthians 11:16

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I read it to be saying the churches not giving place to contentions (in general) within.

It is one of those verses I have not come to full understanding of. It may be another 10 years as I wait for it, who knows.

That's just my falible view of it at this point, and not 100% solid on it. The term used, custom, may very well be in specific connection to the above controversy.

[millky]

Originally Posted by Blood Bought

Hi miilky. I'm with you on your general analysis. But concerning the following verse...

1 Corinthians 11:16

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I read it to be saying the churches not giving place to contentions (in general) within.

It is one of those verses I have not come to full understanding of. It may be another 10 years as I wait for it, who knows.

That's just my falible view of it at this point, and not 100% solid on it. The term used, custom, may very well be in specific connection to the above controversy.

Thanks for your insight. I don't quite understand what it's saying either, now, but I think you could be right. I need to think about it.

[Kliska]

This is talking about social custom in Corinth at the time. Notice an important point; Jewish men did indeed cover their heads when praying. More than likely Jesus would have had His head covered. And, men under a Nazarite vow would have had longish hair (as did Samson). That is why I do think Paul meant they don't have the customs spoken of in those passages.

A woman covered her head when married to show she was married; it is like putting on a wedding ring in our culture. One of the main points is that we should be acting decorously; if we are married women, we should be wearing our ring and not acting as though we are not. We shouldn't be dressed up like prostitutes (which is what short or shaven hair would have shown; also certain priestesses of pagan religions looked that way as well), or try to look like a man intentionally. As clearly pointed out elsewhere in scripture; we are always to obey the spirit of instruction, not necessarily make a legalistic letter of the law from them.

To put it all another way, if I was to go out shopping or to a restaurant with friends, how are others going to know I'm married? If I wear a hanky on my head, or if I wear a wedding ring? If I wear a handkerchief on my head, is it ok if I take my ring off? If I have long hair is it ok to dress like a hooker? I dishonor my husband (and that ultimately means Christ) if I don't "look" and act married and in our culture, that is different than Corinth culture.

For single ladies, they are also betrothed to Christ, so that means acting and dressing decorously too, so one doesn't dishonor the Bridegroom. Apparently the Corinthians needed a bit of help in this area.

[4Godisjust]

Originally Posted by Kliska

This is talking about social custom in Corinth at the time. Notice an important point; Jewish men did indeed cover their heads when praying. More than likely Jesus would have had His head covered. And, men under a Nazarite vow would have had longish hair (as did Samson). That is why I do think Paul meant they don't have the customs spoken of in those passages.

A woman covered her head when married to show she was married; it is like putting on a wedding ring in our culture. One of the main points is that we should be acting decorously; if we are married women, we should be wearing our ring and not acting as though we are not. We shouldn't be dressed up like prostitutes (which is what short or shaven hair would have shown; also certain priestesses of pagan religions looked that way as well), or try to look like a man intentionally. As clearly pointed out elsewhere in scripture; we are always to obey the spirit of instruction, not necessarily make a legalistic letter of the law from them.

To put it all another way, if I was to go out shopping or to a restaurant with friends, how are others going to know I'm married? If I wear a hanky on my head, or if I wear a wedding ring? If I wear a handkerchief on my head, is it ok if I take my ring off? If I have long hair is it ok to dress like a hooker? I dishonor my husband (and that ultimately means Christ) if I don't "look" and act married and in our culture, that is different than Corinth culture.

For single ladies, they are also betrothed to Christ, so that means acting and dressing decorously too, so one doesn't dishonor the Bridegroom. Apparently the Corinthians needed a bit of help in this area.

You put this beautifully...thank you...I have been thinking of this for a while...and now I have an answer..you answered a long time question...this was a good thread. Thanks guys..