Head Coverings

[Once4all]

The new 2010 NIV has what I think is an interesting change to a passage in 1 Corinthians 11:

From the translator notes:

1 Corinthians 11:10 now reads, ‟It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head.” The expression ‟a sign of” before ‟authority” in the 1984 NIV did not correspond to anything explicitly in the Greek and is increasingly recognized as an inadequate rendition of this verse. Whether Paul wanted the women in Corinth to wear
an external head covering while praying or prophesying, or simply to have long hair, or maybe even to wear a partial face veil, the point is they should be able to control what they do or do not have on their heads.

They explain that a woman having "authority over her own head" means that the woman has the authority "to control what they do or do not have on their heads."

In other words, the "covering" is not the authority on the woman's head, it is about the woman having authority (having control over) HOW she covers her head, whether it be with a hat, a veil, or long hair. "Ladies' choice!"

[Morris]

This isn't something I'm altogether firm on, but it appears to me that Paul is speaking of traditions (i.e. culture).

He begins with "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ". In other words, 'do what I do'. Then he says, "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you". So far things make sense - he says do what I do, and I applaud you for remembering what I do.

But then I think he corrects them in saying "But I want you to know" (or in the AV "But I would have you know"). Could it be that these Corinthians held to a tradition that they didn't understand the significance of? Paul continues by saying "that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God". We need to know this.

The next verse appears "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head". However, the Greek appears (transliterated) "Every man praying or prophesying down of-head having is-down-viling the head of him". The first thing to note is that the word 'down' is the root of the word 'is-down-having'. The exact word for 'down' here is not translated "covered" anywhere else, but it is used in describing the pigs Jesus sent the demons into that "ran violently down the steep place into the sea". I'm still not able to quite figure out why it is even understood as carrying the concept of covered.

Now I don't really know what all this means but I do think this much is reasonable; when Paul talks about "having his head covered, dishonors his head" he is talking about what he just said previously, "that the head of every man is Christ". Thus I don't really believe that this is talking about cloth on our noggin, but rather having to do with something more important.

And to really disappoint you, I don't know what exactly, just that there something more important being said here, of which their tradition of head covering spoke of symbolically. However, it is interesting that he says "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God".

[Once4all]

Nov 5, 2010 15:38:40 GMT -5 Morris said:

This isn't something I'm altogether firm on, but it appears to me that Paul is speaking of traditions (i.e. culture).

He begins with "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ". In other words, 'do what I do'. Then he says, "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you". So far things make sense - he says do what I do, and I applaud you for remembering what I do.

But then I think he corrects them in saying "But I want you to know" (or in the AV "But I would have you know"). Could it be that these Corinthians held to a tradition that they didn't understand the significance of? Paul continues by saying "that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God". We need to know this.

The next verse appears "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head". However, the Greek appears (transliterated) "Every man praying or prophesying down of-head having is-down-viling the head of him". The first thing to note is that the word 'down' is the root of the word 'is-down-having'. The exact word for 'down' here is not translated "covered" anywhere else, but it is used in describing the pigs Jesus sent the demons into that "ran violently down the steep place into the sea". I'm still not able to quite figure out why it is even understood as carrying the concept of covered.

Now I don't really know what all this means but I do think this much is reasonable; when Paul talks about "having his head covered, dishonors his head" he is talking about what he just said previously, "that the head of every man is Christ". Thus I don't really believe that this is talking about cloth on our noggin, but rather having to do with something more important.

And to really disappoint you, I don't know what exactly, just that there something more important being said here, of which their tradition of head covering spoke of symbolically. However, it is interesting that he says "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God".

That's the only place that word is translated as "covered," though it appears to have a very wide variety of translations elsewhere in the NT (according to the King James Concordance in e-Sword).

I did a study years ago about how people prayed in the Bible, specifically what their body position was. The vast majority prayed with arms outstretched toward heaven. The rare instances where the text indicated a bowed head during prayer was in the context of shame or regret. I looked for the study just now and can't find it, so this is from memory. But that's the gist of it.

Your comment made me think of it. I suppose there's a minuscule chance that Paul was saying that for a man to pray with his head bowed (gaze toward the earth rather than toward heaven) was a disgrace. However, that idea doesn't really fit well with the context of the rest of the passage.

[didymus]

Morris,

Are you referring to the Greek word, "katalupto"? As I understand the word it means, "to flow down."

As far as authority, I think that is easy to understand. A symbol of authority on your head shows whose authority you are under. For example, baseball teams wear basball caps. The Phillies have a red cap with the letter "P" in front center position. This shows that they are under the authority of the Phillies organization. A policeman wears a cap showing whose authority they are under. Same for the military.

I wear caps with no insignia, shows I am under my own authority. The symbol of authority on a woman's head has the same function as the wedding ring does today. It tells other men, "this girl's taken, go find your own." There is no need for an unmarried girl to wear such a symbol.

Also, Corinth was home to the temple of Diana. The women shaved their heads to pray to Diana. It makes sense that new converts to Christ would wonder if they should do the same thing.

In other cultures women wore necklaces with something to symbolize they're under authority, or that they were married. Elvis Presly did a song called, "Ring Around Your Neck." In the song he sings, "Won't you wear my ring around your neck, to tell the world I'm yours by heck..."

Mankind has always used symbols like this. I think this is what Paul was dealing with in I Ccorinthians 11.

[Once4all]

That's possible, Didy, since the word translated woman usually indicates a married woman. But what would that have to do with praying or prophesying?

P.S. Welcome back!

[didymus]

Nov 6, 2010 19:08:03 GMT -5 Once4all said:

That's possible, Didy, since the word translated woman usually indicates a married woman. But what would that have to do with praying or prophesying?

P.S. Welcome back!

You must have missed what I said about the temple of Diana,

Also, Corinth was home to the temple of Diana. The women shaved their heads to pray to Diana. It makes sense that new converts to Christ would wonder if they should do the same thing.

Remember, I Corinthians, at least in part, was Paul answering questions that came from them. 7.1

The women that were followers of Diana, and prayed and prophesied for Diana that were converted to Christianity, it makes sense that would ask Paul if they should also pray to God and prophesy for Him with their heads shaved.

[Morris]

I still think we're missing something here. Paul says "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ... Every man praying or prophesying, having his head [which he just finished telling us is Christ] covered, dishonors his head". There is something going on here in Paul's train of thought that I'm not getting yet.

[Once4all]

Dec 14, 2010 17:06:41 GMT -5 Morris said:

I still think we're missing something here. Paul says "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ... Every man praying or prophesying, having his head [which he just finished telling us is Christ] covered, dishonors his head". There is something going on here in Paul's train of thought that I'm not getting yet.

Well, then, what could it mean to have Christ "covered"? Maybe like covering a lamp with a basket?

Consider this:
2 Corinthians 4:4 NASB
(4) in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Based on that, what if we looked at verse 7 (for example) differently:

1 Corinthians 11:7 NASB
(7) For a man ought not to have his head (Christ) covered (hidden) (katakalupto), since he (Christ) is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

Ooh! Ooh! Lookie here:

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NASB
(3) And even if our gospel is veiled(kalupto), it is veiled to those who are perishing,
(4) in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


With this in mind, let's also look at verse 5 to see how that might be viewed differently:

1 Corinthians 11:5 NASB
(5) But every woman who has her head uncovered (glorifying her husband?) while praying or prophesying disgraces her head (her husband/man), for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

Naah. I thought I might have been onto something, but it's not working out through the text.

Could all Paul's talk of hair length, cut hair, and shaved heads be an illustration? I'm not abandoning this wild idea yet. I'll try the concept substitution on the whole passage.

[Once4all]

Continued from my previous post...

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 NASB
(3) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
(4) Every man who has something on his head the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ covered up while praying or prophesying disgraces his head Christ.
(5) But every woman who has her head uncovered gives glory to her husband while praying or prophesying disgraces her head husband, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
(6) For if a woman does not cover her head conceal her husband's glory, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head conceal her husband's glory.
(7) For a man ought not to have his head Christ covered, since he Christ is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
(8) For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
(9) for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
(10) Therefore the woman ought to have (a symbol of) authority on over her head husband, because of the angels. (Don't panic; see Note)
(11) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
(12) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
(13) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered husband glorified?
(14) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
(15) but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
(16) But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other such practice, nor have the churches of God.

Note: This is in regard to praying. Could this have something to do with ensuring women have as much right as the men to pray to God? In the OT, wasn't it always the men who were called to congregate for worship before God? (Just pulling from vague memory on that one.) Maybe this is about breaking an old tradition of segregating women and not allowing them the same privileges of worship and access to God.

This was just a quick run-through of seeing if an idea works. Can it be improved? (Most likely.) Is it even a possibility?

[Morris]

Very interesting Bev! We may be advancing here. I do believe that in the NT we see that women are given more freedom and importance. Just look at those that are mentioned in scripture as being Godly examples and workers.

[Note: The following is me working things "out loud", as it were, recording various points while examining our topic.]

One thing I'm still wrestling with is this "covered" word. We already discussed that it is closer to "down" than "covered". I was just reading that this word is a preposition which, perhaps too-simply, could be described as, "'anywhere a mouse can go', such as, 'under', 'in', 'around', 'through', and so forth". "Covered" just doesn't seem to fit. Prepositions are words that developed in order to help define a more precise and explicit relationship of a noun to other words in the sentence".

It appears that the word "down" (kata) is defining the word "head" in relationship to the 'man praying or prophesying'. Thayer gives a clearer understanding of "kata" for me;
1) down from, through out
2) according to, toward, along
Yet there are many occasions where it is translated "against".

Here is some more information. In Mark 14:3, we read "Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head". The Greek appears as "kata (down) tes (of the/the) kephales (of-head)". This is almost identical to what we are looking at in 1 Corinthians. There it appears "kata (down) kephales (of-head)". "Kata" the preposition defines "kephales" the noun in relationship to what is around it. In Mark, it speaks of the ointment going "down the head".

Another Greek grammar quote, "For example, a noun in the genitive case [which "head", in 1 Corinthians 11:4, is] may carry the sense of "from" (without an actual preposition being used in Greek). But if the writer wanted to make clear that it was "out from" something, he would include the preposition meaning "out from". In this situation the noun which was the object of the preposition would still be in the genitive case [which in our place it is]."

Now, I'm not saying that "head" carries the sense of "from", as the quote above uses as an example, but it is in the Genitive case which usually is used to show possession. In English we could say "of". Here in verse 4, it is used to indicate that "head" belongs to (or is in reference to) "man" to distinguish it from any head ("although it does not necessarily indicate actual, literal ownership" from ntgreek.org).

Just to make note, back in verse 3, "the head of every man is Christ", "head" and "Christ" are is the Nominative Case which shows that they are the subject of the sentence. In verse 4 the subject is the man.

Whoa! I just discovered something big (IMHO). Let me post this and work on this new discovery.

[didymus]

I have been through this issue over and over again with my former Mennonite brethren. They left the Mennonites and yet cling on to some Mennonite doctrine and traditions. They can't seem to understand the correlation of hair and covering.

I told them, if you read it taking all referrences to hair out, they would be right. But, with the hair referrences are there, and they cannot not simply be ignored.

To me, the meaning is simple.

Now perhaps it was figured out. I stopped reading when someone asked, how is Christ to be covered?

If a man covers his physical head he dishonors his spiritual head which is Christ. What does it mean for a man to cover his physical head? Does it mean not to wear a cap? Absolutely not. It means if a man has long hair, he dishonors his head which is Christ. Does nor even nature itself teach that it is wrong for a man to have long hair?

So, what is taught in I Corinthinans 11 is that a man should not have long hair, but it is a glory for a woman to have long hair. That is all this leads up to.

[Morris]

Alright, 1 Corinthians 11:4 says "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head". I think I found out where this "covered" thought comes from. But first, the discovery. (Everything is coming at me so fast!)

That word above, "dishonors", is made from two other words. The second part is from "aischunomai" (G153) meaning "to feel shame", while the first part is from, you guessed it, "kata" (G2596)! The same kata that we've been calling "down" or "covered"! Thus it appears as "kataischunei", which can be transliterated as "is-down-viling", and which Strong's says has the meaning of "to shame down".

I have little doubt that Paul is using these words intentionally. That said, I'm still not seeing the full picture. However, I do feel like I've located the "X" on the map and just need to dig!

Now for the "covered" aspect. In verse 5 we read "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved". This "uncovered" ("akatakalupto" G177) is again made from other words including our "kata", transliterated "to-un-down-cover", and according to Strong's meaning "unveiled". The other word in it make-up is "kalupto" (G2572), "to cover up". Interesting.

Bev already used a verse in which "kalupto" is used. It is in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, "But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing". So at least I can now see where the idea of covered and uncovered comes from.

It took me a long time, but I think I have figured out at least something; "covered" is not quite the image Paul is making. "Covered" implies something over top to conceal. "Down Covered" implies something 'hanging' or 'between' you to conceal. Think of the veil in the temple, it hung "down" to conceal the Holy of Holies. It was a down covering.

That's all for the moment. I'm sure there's more to come.

[Once4all]

Dec 15, 2010 12:17:20 GMT -5 Morris said:

Very interesting Bev! We may be advancing here. I do believe that in the NT we see that women are given more freedom and importance. Just look at those that are mentioned in scripture as being Godly examples and workers.

[Note: The following is me working things "out loud", as it were, recording various points while examining our topic.]

One thing I'm still wrestling with is this "covered" word. We already discussed that it is closer to "down" than "covered". I was just reading that this word is a preposition which, perhaps too-simply, could be described as, "'anywhere a mouse can go', such as, 'under', 'in', 'around', 'through', and so forth". "Covered" just doesn't seem to fit. Prepositions are words that developed in order to help define a more precise and explicit relationship of a noun to other words in the sentence".

It appears that the word "down" (kata) is defining the word "head" in relationship to the 'man praying or prophesying'. Thayer gives a clearer understanding of "kata" for me;
1) down from, through out
2) according to, toward, along
Yet there are many occasions where it is translated "against".

Here is some more information. In Mark 14:3, we read "Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head". The Greek appears as "kata (down) tes (of the/the) kephales (of-head)". This is almost identical to what we are looking at in 1 Corinthians. There it appears "kata (down) kephales (of-head)". "Kata" the preposition defines "kephales" the noun in relationship to what is around it. In Mark, it speaks of the ointment going "down the head".

Another Greek grammar quote, "For example, a noun in the genitive case [which "head", in 1 Corinthians 11:4, is] may carry the sense of "from" (without an actual preposition being used in Greek). But if the writer wanted to make clear that it was "out from" something, he would include the preposition meaning "out from". In this situation the noun which was the object of the preposition would still be in the genitive case [which in our place it is]."

Now, I'm not saying that "head" carries the sense of "from", as the quote above uses as an example, but it is in the Genitive case which usually is used to show possession. In English we could say "of". Here in verse 4, it is used to indicate that "head" belongs to (or is in reference to) "man" to distinguish it from any head ("although it does not necessarily indicate actual, literal ownership" from ntgreek.org).

Just to make note, back in verse 3, "the head of every man is Christ", "head" and "Christ" are is the Nominative Case which shows that they are the subject of the sentence. In verse 4 the subject is the man.

Whoa! I just discovered something big (IMHO). Let me post this and work on this new discovery.

Sheldon, just a quick additional thought. Don't know if it's of any use. You mentioned usages such as to cover, to pour over. To anoint? And Christ meaning, of course, anointed.

Other scriptures that have floated into my thinking are "Christ in you, the hope of glory" and "that we may present every man complete in Christ" (Colossians 1:27-28).

[Morris]

Dec 15, 2010 14:30:30 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Does nor even nature itself teach that it is wrong for a man to have long hair?

Really?! How does nature teach this? Do we have to do something against nature to acquire our long hair?

It's interesting that Leviticus 19:27 AV seems to contradict this; "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"

So, what is taught in I Corinthinans 11 is that a man should not have long hair, but it is a glory for a woman to have long hair. That is all this leads up to.

But you left out what lead up to this in the first place, "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ".

[Once4all]

Dec 15, 2010 15:46:02 GMT -5 Morris said:

Dec 15, 2010 14:30:30 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Does nor even nature itself teach that it is wrong for a man to have long hair?

Really?! How does nature teach this? Do we have to do something against nature to acquire our long hair?

It's interesting that Leviticus 19:27 AV seems to contradict this; "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"

There is also the vow of the Nazirite, which required the growing of the hair:

Num 6:2 "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the LORD,
Num 6:3 he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes.
Num 6:4 'All the days of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin.
Num 6:5 'All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long.