2012 01 22 A Long Hair, Coverings, Shaved 2 Dr Steven J Lawson 1221220164110 

This practice of women wearing head coverings has been observed throughout church history, both Calvin and Luther taught the wearing of head coverings for ladies during formal worship. C. H. Spurgeon and RC Sproul also taught this and their wives would practice this as well. In fact it was the practice of all the churches until the mid 1960s with the introduction of women's liberation spreading through out all the churches that the practice went away, now there are only a handful of women that remain faithful to this text.

RC Sproul has explained this subject simply,humbly and biblically. My suggestion is to look up his teaching on the matter. Often we make scripture way more complicated than it is.

Summing up he states “Men should lead the way.” Q. Should women wear a head covering? A. “I don’t know”. I’m sorry but that sounds like a cop-out to me.

I wear a head covering in church and when praying. I admit I get a lot of odd looks from others however I take the holy scriptures as truth so I will do as the holy scriptures say. It is about the fathers will not mine.

I dealt with some of Lawson's incompetence with the Greek text in my comments on Part 1, so I won't repeat them here. Having conclusively demonstrated that Paul's arguments in favor of head coverings are theological rather than sociological, Lawson then airs some specious arguments for women not covering their heads today. First, he appeals to the fact that this particular injunction appears only once in the New Testament. But that is no less true of multiple other injunctions given by Paul concerning women: being quiet in church; not teaching or exercising authority over men; dressing and behaving modestly. There are plenty of commandments that appear once in the New Testament alone. Do we discard those, too? Lawson's footwashing example (John 13:15) is facile; the verb ὀφείλω (opheiló), translated 'ought' there is in the present indicative active form, meaning it was not a commandment and was only for that moment. A commandment requiring ongoing fulfillment would at least require an imperative verb - as in Romans 13:8. Likewise Paul's reference in 1 Corinthians 11:2 to this being an established tradition and his insistence that head covering was the practice in _all_ the churches obviates the presumed need for a mention in Acts. When he gets to 1 Corinthians 11:16, Lawson questions the meaning of the Greek word συνήθεια (sunétheia), typically translated as 'practice' or 'custom', suggesting that it might only be a custom for that culture, rather than a practice for all places and times. One hardly need point out that even as early as when 1 Corinthians was written, Christianity spanned multiple cultures. Moreover, συνήθεια (sunétheia) is a compound word, comprised of σύν (sun) and ἦθος (éthos), here meaning 'including' and 'moral habit', respectively (i.e. an included moral habit). The second part, ἦθος (éthos), is a stronger form of ἔθος (ethos), which itself denotes behavior based on traditions in the religious life of a nation. It is hard to see how a Christian custom with a strong theological basis and a moral dimension can apply to only one culture or era.

Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut his off each time before prayers, or of course be bald........{;o;}

"The majority of Biblical scholars have held that "verses 4-7 refer to a literal veil or covering of cloth" for "praying and prophesying" and verse 15 to refer to long hair of a woman for modesty.[4] Although the head covering was practiced by most Christian women until the latter part of the 20th century,[5] it is now a minority practice among contemporary Christians in the West, though it continues to be the normal practice in other parts of the world, such as Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, and South Korea" Read yourself rich folks at @t

love it thank you.

Why is Paul speaking so firm to the Corinth church? We read in Revelations about the seven churches what God like about them and what he saw wrong. Shouldn't the order of our churches today draw upon the teachings of al these churches? I hear many taking about the ritual of the outward appearance yet we hear not much about the colthing of women who dress to impress the public of their beauty. Shouldn't we be addressing this issues. Why do women want to put themselves in the view of the weak eyes of the flesh. . I do enjoy preachers who are able to reveal the understand of the scripture.

In 1 Corinthians 11:5-15, Paul clearly teaches that women are to cover their heads when praying or prophesying. He makes no comment about women wearing head coverings in other contexts. The Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is different from the one he used in 1 Corinthians 11:15, clearly showing that the covering referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is not her hair. Paul uses the adjective ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakaluptos) for "uncovered" for the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:5-13, and the verb, κατακαλύπτω (katakaluptó), for *both the man and the woman being covered*, but the noun περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) for the woman's covering in 1 Corinthians 11:15. Had Paul wanted to say hair is the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15 in the same sense as he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 (notwithstanding that this would make nonsense of all that he'd said so far), all he needed to do was to use the corresponding noun, κάλυξ (kalux), instead of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion). Hence, given Paul's use of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) for the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15, one can only reasonably conclude he is referring to a different kind of covering there. This point is backed up in parallel usages in the Septuagint showing that ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakaluptos) does not refer to hair. The 'hair as a covering' claim is a modern invention. Those promoting it are, in effect, saying the earliest Christians, who lived in a world where koine Greek was the lingua franca, didn't understand what Paul wrote. None of the early church fathers - repeat, none - all of whom were closer in language and thought to the Apostles than we'll ever be thought it referred to anything other than a covering over the hair. Those promoting the 'hair as a covering' claim also need to explain why translations such as the: ASV, ERV NAB, NRSV & RSV render the covering as a veil: NLT renders it as a 'wear a head covering'; and CEV renders it as 'wear something on her head'. Do the 'hair as a covering' proponents really expect us to believe they know more about what the Greek text means than the scholars involved in making those translations??? Paul's admonition was also clearly counter-cultural (despite unfounded claims to the contrary) and, in any event, was theologically based, not culturally conditioned. Were those promoting the 'hair as a covering' interpretation to take it to a Greek Orthodox church, the Greek speakers there would probably either laugh in their face or walk away in disbelief and disgust. Either way, they'd get short shrift. Applying the logic of the 'hair as a covering' claim to the whole of *1 Corinthians 11:4-15 (NKJV)* gives: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered _with hair,_ dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head -un- _not_ covered _with hair_ dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered _with hair on her head,_ let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her _head_ be covered _with hair._ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head _with hair,_ since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have _hair as_ a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head -un- _not_ covered _with hair?_ Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a _head_ covering. *---* If a woman's hair is the covering throughout 1 Corinthians 11:5-15 it is also dishonorable for a man to have a covering on his head when praying or prophesying, per 1 Corinthians 11:4 and a man should have no hair on his head when praying or prophesying. Similarly, if a woman's hair is the covering and a man ought not to cover his head, per 1 Corinthians 11:7, logic demands that the man has his head shaved. Additionally, the 'hair as a covering' proponents' line of argument is tautological - as the re-worked 1 Corinthians 11:6 shows. Finally, when Paul refers to a woman's 'long hair' in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, he is merely contrasting its glory with the shamefulness of being shorn that he referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:16. Note, too, that (contrary to what some 'hair as a covering' proponents claim) Paul does not say in 1 Corinthians 11:15 that _long_ hair is given to her for the περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) covering, only that long hair is her glory. The insistence that hair is the covering misrepresents Paul's teaching, makes a tautological mockery of what he wrote, and promotes disobedience. Although this isn't a salvation issue, what is at stake is the heavenly rewards women might get for obedience. Women who refuse to cover their heads when praying or prophesying will suffer loss of standing in the next life, as will those who encourage such disobedience. Paul apparently thought the issue serious enough for anyone disputing it to be denied fellowship.

We’re they to ware them all the time wile awake ? What did the covering look like ? Is this the reason that men do not ware a hat in service? What about the unmarried women in service? Is this vs speaking to the formal church gathering , for in ch 14 they can’t speak but are to remain silent?

If the logic applied to get to the place of saying definitively that a man needs to be uncovered in order to not shame his “head” authority is used for the woman, than she needs to wear a covering. For the same reasons a man should be uncovered. Just because all the sources and “theological giants” that he read don’t give a definitive answer, doesn’t mean they are all right. I struggle to understand the refusal to take a position after preaching for 2 hours on the subject and doing a fabulous job of exposition. What is a leader? Someone who makes suggestions?

How do we understand and practice "SUBMIT TO ONE ANOTHER" in Ephesians 5 ❓

what does ones view, of the CCCP, have to do with this topic....

This seems like a modern thing, that some young males have long hair ie over 30 cm, & females don't wear a head covering at any church service.Seems like a sign of the apostate church, why was it followed for many many years but now not so much now, with same sex marriage, practising homosexuals church members and female pastors ect it's a sure sign of the last days.

Shalom,and Amen📖🤲🙏💪🤝

The fashions of the day seems to dominate peoples choice of what they wear and how they fix their hair. They love to reveal just a portion of their flesh or their well dressed hair; why do this; they seek attention. What happens to the women whose hair will not grow long.

Its like the sheet which confronted Peter when he was in a vision, God said rise and eat and Peter said not so Lord for I have never eaten unclean meat, but God repeated the commanded then he tells Peter go to the home of Cornilis he is praying and waits for you, seeing how God encludes all unto salvaltion so does he also says all christians wear a head covering. Even though he says if they are going to argue the churches has no such coustoms. I believe in the man being Man and Woman to woman Man is the headship of the woman in Christ.

What about unmarried women? If they don’t have a husband to be submissive too then does she still have to wear a head covering ?

A woman praying uncovered shames her Husband??? Then by this interpretation a woman being without a husband would not be held accountable to anyone since the gentleman distinctly says to her husband,, therefore a 85 yr old woman who is a widow can pray without a covering,,,WRONG,,,!! Man is responsible for the accuracy of the Devine word to be preached in a assembly,,therefore all Christian women married or not is to be in submission to God,then Jesus,the Holy Spirit ,, the Angels,, as they attend to us, and lastly man,,, some way the good preacher did a no no no,,by adding Husband,, don't add to or take away please,,,,man's head that He must submit to is Jesus yes, the God head consist of God, Jesus,and the Holy spirit, man being a part of the bride must submit to the Christ,,the husband of the church,,man cannot omit God the Holy Spirit, the Christ, or the angels in his worship and neither can a woman,, married or not!!

As a leader you left it to them??? The Church did it 1 thousand and 9 hundred 60 years plus. Read Rev.22:19 Deu.4:2 and Rev.9:8 "hair like a women"Then 1Cor11:2-16 then luke.7:36-47 and john11:2 &12:1-3 for her. Long enough to dry Jesus feet! Then go to "utub" for the "shrud of Turin", that hair of a Jewish man of the 1st. Century, Jesus time to his "shoulders". The military does not tell God what to do for what is short. PS. Read 1peter3:5-6

In 1 Corinthians 11:5-15, Paul is NOT teaching that women are to cover their heads as in a using a hat when praying or prophesying, but that they should maintain their hair long ergo covering their heads. Please note that veil promoters will sneak in the words “head coverings” when the Bible doesn’t say it that way. It says to cover the head. But this they do to manipulate the masses because “head coverings” has a strong connotation of it being a separate object. The fact that Paul makes no comment about women having to cover their heads in other contexts does not prove anything especially if Paul is simply trying for men and women to continue the tradition of having the proper hair length. Some have made the argument that the Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is different from the one he used in 1 Corinthians 11:15 as though it should mean something vital. Here is an excerpt that shows that it does not promote the wearing of a veil or hat. “Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.’ The argument that if Paul wanted to say hair is the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15 in the same sense as he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 that all he needed to do was use the corresponding noun, κάλυξ (kalux), instead of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) is very thin. Especially since we have already established that peribolaion means “throw around” which long hair has the capacity to do. We also noted that the other word katakalupto means “hanging down from the head’ which again hair has the capacity to do. Paul’s decision to use two types of words to describe the capacities of hair does not prove he was referring to two different “coverings.” There is no logical reason to assume that one or both of these Greek words MUST be referring to a cloth or hat or veil. The words needed to prove this idea are just not there. Would have been good to use the exact same word? Sure, but did he have to? No. Also, bringing up the point of using the corrupted Septuagint to show that it does not refer to hair does not help the case given that this book is well-known for having a ton of errors. What this alludes to is that one must be very desperate to find proof or confirmation that they would use anything. The argument that the 'hair as a covering' claim was a modern invention, is not provable. To say that “….promoters would be saying that the earliest Christians, who lived in a world where koine Greek was the lingua franca, didn't understand what Paul wrote…” is actually a tricky and sly move to gain a foothold on the argument. What do I mean? Well, the person who wrote this is saying that since it is ALREADY and OBVIOUSLY a foregone conclusion that the covering is a veil that people who don’t believe in this must think that the early Christians who understood Greek couldn’t understand Paul’s writings. No, I think they did as do many other people. If the covering was in fact long hair then I would believe that many of them understood this. The problem is that when veil promoters try to find proof that people believed in their version of the scriptures, they will look for those who they consider “early church fathers” And the question one should ask is who are they referring to? And although some do not mention who they are I have been in conversations when they start including an array of Catholic Scholars, people from sects that follow a ton of bad doctrines. So my response would be, why are you looking to false and religious groups or people that stray from many Bible truths? I don’t need a so-called “early church father” to prove what the Bible says is true, do you? Therefore it is irrelevant if “early church fathers” believed that the covering was a veil, especially when we read how they erred in, the method of salvation, deity of Christ, belief in Church officials, non-biblical church dogmas, hell, water baptism, redemption, grace and more. To say that the those promoting the 'hair as a covering' claim need to explain why translations such as the: ASV, ERV NAB, NRSV & RSV render the covering as a veil…. Um I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but those are the worst translations out there, where WHOLE sections of Mark are taken out. Where verses regarding hell are BLANKED out. When 1st John 5 mentioning God being three in one is removed. Where, horrible mistranslations are found. Why? because INSTEAD of using the Texus Receptus they use the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, etc. There are MANY Scholars who have denounced these translations. So it is not about whether a lowly person thinks they are better than those who translated them. There are BOOKS on why these translations are no good, written by people of high educational stature. It is NOT a singular personal opinion. But in order to win an argument they will try guilt or shame or make up nonsense by saying that those who believe hair is the covering really expect them to believe they know more about what the Greek text than the scholars. Rubbish. It is agreed that Paul's admonition was also clearly counter-cultural and was theologically based, not culturally conditioned. But the difference is that Paul was saying that women ought to keep their hair long and men’s short and that it is not based on culture whereas veil promoters will claim he is referring to foreign object that goes on the woman’s head. And when sticking to Scripture is not enough veil promoters tend to make quick jabs by saying that those who don’t believe in their interpretation would be “…either laughed in their face or walk away in disbelief and disgust by those who follow the Greek Orthodox church…” as though this highly religious and knee-deep-in-unfounded-traditions sect is some sort of standard. Now that is laughable. Just google “Greek Orthodox church” click on images and tell me that they are not steeped in religiosity and paganism. Allow me to apply the ACTUAL logic of the 'hair as a covering' claim to the whole of 1st Corinthians 11:4-15 (KJV) gives: For if the woman be not covered IN LONG HAIR, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered IN LONG HAIR. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head with LONG HAIR, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered (not covered in LONG hair)? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. The POINT is not about any kind of hair like the detractors like to claim but hair that COVERS the head in other words LONG hair which hangs from the head. If a woman's LONG hair is the covering (because LONG hair covers the head obviously) throughout 1 Corinthians 11:5-15 THEN it is also dishonorable for a man to have LONG HAIR covering his head when praying or prophesying, therefore as per 1st Corinthians 11:4 a man should not be “covered” meaning not covered in LONG hair. NOT the idea of having no hair on his head when praying or prophesying as veil promoters try to paint. Detractors love to play word games by inferring that those opposed to their beliefs think that their logic is wrong because it makes it sound as if men’s head should be bald aka shaved. But if they conveniently leave out the words LONG or SHORT hair which covered and uncovered is referring to then of course the way they paint their theory will sound logical.