HEAD-COVERINGS: When OPPOSITION Occurs



For now we see through a glass, darkly;
but then face to face:
Now I know in part,
but then shall I know
even as also I am known.
1 Cor. 13:12

Any Christian witness is going to bring opposition. But what should a Sister do when Husband opposes the head-covering? What should she do when  Husband does NOT want her to wear it ?

Scripture , as always, has the anointed answer. Let us consider the context of the Head-Covering, 1 Corinthians, chapter 11.

Verse 3 BEGINS the reasoning for a Sister to wear a veiling:

"But 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. "

Thus, the Apostle establishes the authority-line, the Headship, that is to be found amongst Christian churches....  and Christian HOMES. 

Husbands dislike the head-covering for a variety of reasons. One major reason is embarrassment: they don't want to be married to a "dowdy"- looking wife. They want "their" wife to look fetching and lovely !

Sisters, can you honestly blame them?

Do you want Husband to dress

in any way

to embarrass YOU ?     

NO!  

Each of us has different "standards" in our mind's eye as to what is "okay" and what is "embarrassing."  When we go to church, go out to eat or shopping,  go to visit "our" side of the family, or when we are on a public job.... IT MATTERS  how Husband looks when we are together ! 

Chances are that you not only want his fingernails without car grease, but you also want him  not to appear as a  homeless street-man [ in his most comfy old plaid flannel shirt , moccasins, and rubbed raw cordoroys].... even if he is sparkling clean!  Some Sisters cannot stand to have the public see Husband's knobby knees underneath those bermuda shorts, either... it simply robs Sister of dignity!

Likewise, MOST husbands want their wives to REFLECT THEM and THEIR VALUES. 

Now, a head-covering can look dignified. It also can look lacey and feminine. However, it can be quite UN-dignified,  looking like canning-day or garden-work attire. Sometimes, a red or blue man's work handerchief is worn.... and dignity flees !   

Furthermore, a well-designed "early Christian" head-covering can resemble a Roman Catholic nun's covering. It may resemble an Anabaptist's cap or shorter veiling. The Charity veiling comes in all lengths. Most are either dark or light. Some are see-through.

Some veilings sit back on the head as a "symbol" of a head-covering ( ? ) and some hug the circle of the face, showing NO HAIR at all.

BUT, if Husband is embarrassed to have "his wife"  seen in public with ANY of those head-coverings on, then the Sister better find out WHY.... with a firm assurance to Husband that she will not go against his standard. 

If Husband wants his wife to CHANGE the style , then she should do so. 

But, if Husband is uncomfortable with ANY head-covering, then forsake it ... for his sake and to keep the Authority / Headship line in tact in the home...  as per Verse 3 ! 

Likely, a Sister in that predictament will be able to wear it IN HER PRAYER CLOSET where no-one else is present. She may be able to wear it IN THE HOUSE when no-one is home.... but she should walk in integrity towards Husband and remove it before answering the door or doing garden work if she lives in a suburb.

Even worse, if Husband wants his wife to look pretty when he arrives home from work.... she should do so. Fix the hair becomingly yet modest. Remove the chore clothes or garden clothing and don something appropriate --- home clothes that are fetching. If Husband likes earrings, put them on for at least his entrance and suppertime at the table.

IT IS NO SIN to look pretty for Husband.

Indeed,  it is a way to say, "You are important to me... so important that I will STOP my day and LOOK WELCOMING just for  you . "

So, even if YOU, dear Sister, are convinced that you need to wear a covering .... but Husband opposes it.... lovingly follow his headship in this matter.

For, that is what the COVERING means, in truth: that you are under Husband's headship!

The LORD knows your heart of obedience towards HIM+ .... but let it begin at home, with your Husband.

Truly ,

it will be accounted

as your obedience

towards HIM+.

+  +  +

In the name of The FATHER,

WHO created us;

HIS Holy SON+ JESUS,

Who+ saves us;

And their Blessed HOLY SPIRIT,

Who sanctifies our obedience

unto The Living Word+.



THE HEAD COVERING... part 2

The Head Covering ….. part 2

.

.

We are continuing on the Head-Covering Teaching from 1 Corinthians 11, picking up from where we stopped. In review, the first 3 verses establish the Godly governing order in the Christian home and church: man is the head of woman, CHRIST JESUS is the head of man: GOD is the head of CHRIST.

<(((><

.
.

Every man praying or prophesying,

having his head covered,

dishonoreth his head.

1 Cor.11:4

.
.
Verse 4 today is straightforward and easy to understand… in the KJV. Some modern scholars, however, dislike this rendition BECAUSE the Greek text literally says… “Every man praying or prophesying having down over the head dishonors his head”.
.
.
Upon careful reading, WHAT is “hanging down over the head” is missing in the Greek text. It is grammatically an “understood” element [according to the classic Greek New Testament Lexicon, BADG, p. 405, under kata.]
.
It is understood to be a cloth covering and has so been understood in the Early Christian writings of the first 200 years as well as by all the Christian church up to the last few decades!
.
.
Tertullian, a well-known Christian apologist, wrote (circa 211 A.D.) about a soldier who was somehow a Christian. He would not put the Roman laurel band or wreath as a crown on his head because he was Christian. He was martyred because he wouldn’t deny CHRIST before men. Keeping in mind 1 Cor. 11 regarding the head covering issue for both men and women, let us hear what Tertullian said to the church when he gave instruction as to wearing a “band” or crown, as awarded by the Roman government for various government honors:
.
.
Much less may the Christian [man] put the service of idolatry on his own head — nay, I might have said, upon Christ, since Christ is the Head of the Christian man — (for his head) is as free as even Christ is, under no obligation to wear a covering, not to say a band.
.
.
But even the head which is bound to have the veil, I mean woman’s, as already taken possession of by this very thing, is not open also to a [laurel] band. She has the burden of her own humility to bear. If she ought not to appear with her head uncovered on account of the angels, much more with a crown on it will she offend those (elders) who perhaps are then wearing crowns above.
.
.
For what is a crown on the head of a woman, but beauty made seductive, but mark of utter wantonness, — a notable casting away of modesty, a setting temptation on fire? Therefore a woman, taking counsel from the apostles’ foresight, will not too elaborately adorn herself, that she may not either be crowned with any exquisite arrangement of her hair.
.
.
What sort of garland, however, I pray you, did He who is the Head of the man and the glory of the woman, Christ Jesus, the Husband of the church, submit to in behalf of both sexes? Of thorns, I think, and thistles, — a figure of the sins which the soil of the flesh brought forth for us, but which the power of the cross removed, blunting, in its endurance by the head of our Lord, death’s every sting.
.
.
Yes, and besides the figure, there is contumely [contempt] with ready lip, and dishonor, and infamy, and the ferocity involved in the cruel things which then disfigured and lacerated the temples of the LORD+, that you may now be crowned with laurel, and myrtle, and olive, and any famous branch, and which is of more use, with hundred-leaved roses too, culled from the garden of Midas, and with both kinds of lily, and with violets of all sorts, perhaps also with gems and gold, so as even to rival that crown of Christ which He afterwards obtained.
.
.
For it was after the gall HE+ tasted the honeycomb, and HE+ was not greeted as King of Glory in heavenly places till HE+ had been condemned to the cross as King of the Jews, having first been made by the FATHER for a time a little less than the angels, and so crowned with glory and honor. If for these things, you owe your own head to HIM+, repay it if you can, such as HE+ presented HIS+ for yours; or be not crowned with flowers at all, if you cannot be with thorns, because you may not be with flowers.
.
.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VOL 3. TERTULLIAN, PART FIRST, SECTION 4, entitled: The Chaplet or De Corona (Of the Crown), Chapter 14, pg. 102
.
.
<(((><
.
.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth

with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head:

for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

For 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.

1 Cor.11:5-6

.
.
No woman I know is happy about going bald or being bald, as some dear ones have endured with chemotherapy treatments. Every woman who has had to endure baldness has gone to great lengths via wigs or hair-pieces or scarves or hats to avoid looking freakish. It is a great sorrow to her.
.
.
The Apostle here is teaching the church that BEFORE GOD, a woman praying or prophesying unveiled is as outlandish TO HIM+ as a bald woman is to normal society. If she refuses to cover her head properly, then she is to be made bald. It’s a good antidote. She’ll cover her head then, and without a struggle, no doubt!
.
.

<(((><

.
.
There are some teachings out there that affirm the head covering IS hair. That cannot be because substituting “hair” in the above verses for covering makes the entire verses of no sense.
.
.
Next blog on this topic will show WHY … the Biblical reasons… WHY The LORD governs the home and church this way.

WHY WE WEAR A HEAD COVERING...

Let us look closely at the Word of GOD

to find out why we are wearing the head covering.

The instructions are found in 1 Corinthians 11: 1-16 and are given by The Apostle Paul to the Church gathered in Corinth… a wildly pagan Greek city of commerce, trafficking in everything, including the bodies and the souls of men.

Brazen women… bald-headed, shaven and shorn and uncovered… walked the streets openly, since one of the “temples” of pagan worship to Venus (basically, prostitution) was located in Corinth. To make matters worse, Rome ruled it, so the Roman soldiers were there, adding to the open debauchery.

In the midst of this environment, the Apostle Paul was sent. A church developed. Here is what the Apostle wrote to the young church.
.

.

<(((><

11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
.

.

Yes, the Apostle Paul delivered his instructions to the brothers, not to the sisters. Brothers were always in leadership positions in the Early Church. The brothers received these Apostolic ordinances and instructed the church in these ordinances.
.

.

<(((><

11:3 But 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.

.

.

This next verse establishes the Spiritual foundation of Christian order, specifically, the order in the Christian church and home. The “one in charge” of every man is Our LORD JESUS CHRIST. That means that all men must answer to CHRIST our LORD. The governing authority of the woman is the man. And, the governing authority of CHRIST is GOD.

There is nothing complicated about this governing order. The complicated part comes about because our churches and homes are out of order.

.

. They are culturally and socially oriented instead of focused on CHRIST.

.

.

In other words, our homes and many of the modern churches are fleshly and worldly, doing things the “world’s way.” Their values are entrenched deeper in this world, deeper in this culture, than they are in CHRIST’S ways. Politically and socially correct values are emphasized rather than the Apostle's instructions for the Church.

.
Because of that, another problem exists. We sisters discover we have fathers, husbands, and pastors who simply are not submitted to CHRIST as their governing head. IN THIS CASE, a sister must seek the LORD and wait patiently and quietly before HIM+ to hear His+ leading on this.

.

.

It is hard to be a single sister, working and supporting yourself, and at the same time, trying to find a Christian pastor or Godly couple (as in a prayer group) in order to be under a governing authority. [It is wiser to meet or talk with a couple, rather than 1-to-1 with a brother.]
.

.
It is also hard to be a married sister, submitting to a husband who is not as concerned about Spiritual things as his wife.
.

.
Now…. having said that, we sisters do NOT need to get under a burden nor stress about this issue.

.

.

The LORD knows the opposition facing us. HE+ knows the dysfunctional families, disinterested husbands, and nonchalant pastors.

.

.

It is HARD for some of us to “find” a covering husband, father, pastor, or prayer-meeting couple in order to obey the Apostle’s ordinance here.

.

.

The LORD WILL NOT DESTROY someone who simply cannot find someone appropriately to function as a human “covering.” Again, go slowly and quietly before The LORD in this matter, covering yourself in prayer.
.

.
DO NOT DISPAIR,
BUT RATHER LOOK UNTO CHRIST,
THE AUTHOR
AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH.

.

.

Since HE+ is the author, all authority comes from HIM+. As our Author, HE+ will provide everything needed for whosoever comes under His+ Wing… for the orphan who takes refuge in HIM+, for the single sister, for the widow, and for the married wife whose husband is not Spiritually-minded.

.

.

Our LORD leads the willing soul and protects whosoever comes under His+ Shelter. HE+ will become your over-covering and governing authority until HE+ sees fit to change your circumstances.

.

.

Remember:

HE+ is able…

HE+ doeth all things well….

and, HE+ is in charge.

<(((><

.

.

There is yet another danger that exists which has come up recently. This danger is coming from inside the flock of GOD….

.
.
“Head” does NOT mean “source of life” instead of governing authority in these verses or in ANY verse in the New Testament.
.

.
There is a popular movement afoot in the theological circles that is promoting this teaching. It has NO language support in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, nor English, as I have discovered. This particular teaching is taken from pagan Greek philosophers. The older, standard reference books all state HEAD means “governing authority” or one in charge. Some of the newer ones are putting out that HEAD means “source of life.” This is false.
.

.

The purpose of this false teaching is to nullify the governing order. that will weaken the church... and it does NOT NEED TO BE WEAKENED any further!

.

.

Yes, The LORD is the source of our life… but these verses are NOT ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE; they are addressing the governing order in the Christian home and church.

.

.

Indeed, it is the governing order for men and women everywhere, but only Christians recognize CHRIST as their HEAD; others, alas, will be accountable if they have heard of CHRIST and yet reject HIM+. Likewise, Christian men and women will also be in trouble who reject the governing order in the church and home.
.

.
<(((><.

.

We who are members of the Underground Church in America (regardless of whatever church or denomination we may or may not attend ) seek to follow the Apostle’s ordinances written in the Word.

.

.

It is delivered to us to keep us safe. May The LORD add His+ blessing to us all, as we seek to do His+ Will. His+ will is not mysterious; in many instances, it is plainly written for all to see. Some simply do not want it.

.

.

But thanks be to GOD... there's an Underground... an Underground Church full of unregistered, unorganized members rising up quietly who ARE determined to do His+ will to the best of their knowledge, to the best of their ability... regardless of their affiliation or non-affiliation with an institutional church.

.

.

That is the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church that exists without spots and blemish, that exists without schisms, that follows their CAPTAIN+ withersoever HE+ leads them... even to following the Apostle's ordinances which the mainline denominations have discarded. These include the head covering for sisters and the Christian governing order, for all.

[ to be continued ]

HEAD COVERINGS... the Historical Record

The Veiling or Head-Covering for the Christian Sisters
from the Early Christian writers
.

.

Clement of Alexandria (150-200 AD) was a presbyter in the church of Alexandria, Egypt. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, Fathers of the Second Century, The Instructor, Book 3, Chapter 11, page 566

Going To Church

Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence, possessing unfeigned love, pure in body, pure in heart, it to pray to God. Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.
+ + +

John Chrysostom ( 345 ?—407 ) lived after the Council of Nicea.

This writing was taken from the Nicene-Post Nicene Fathers, first series, Vol. 12, Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Homily 26, p. 348-349.

Verse 6. “But if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it be a
shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.”

Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that the head be not bare: but as he proceeds he intimates both the continuance of the rule, saying, “for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven,” and the keeping of it with all care and diligence.

For he said not merely covered, but “covered over,” meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, “but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn.” As if he had said, “If thou cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.”

Having taken then what was confessedly shameful, and having said, “but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven,” he states in what follows his own conclusion, saying, “let her be covered.”

And he said not, “let her have long hair,” but, “let her be covered,” ordaining both these to be one, and establishing them both ways, from what was customary and from their contraries: in that he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. “For it is one and the same thing,” saith he, “as if she were shaven.”

But if any say, “And how is it one, if this woman have the covering of nature, but the other who is shaven have not even this?” we answer, that as far as her will goes, she threw that off likewise by having the head bare. And if it be not bare of tresses, that is nature’s doing, not her own. So that as she who is shaven hath her head bare, so this woman in like manner. For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering, that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself.
+ + +

Hippolytus (170-236 AD) was a pupil of Irenaeus and a church leader.
from The Treatise on The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. , xviii, section 5, p. 29:

Moreover let all the women have their heads veiled with a scarf ( pallion) but not with a veil [ lit. thing, eidos] of linen only, for that is not a covering (kalumma).
+ + +

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Vol. 7, Book 8, p. 506, Eludidations, a note from the translator and editor, James Donaldson, DD :

Finally, let me suggest that there are fragments of the Apostle’s instructions everywhere scattered through his Epistles, such as the minute canon concerning the veiling of women in acts of worship, insisting upon it with a length of argument which in one of the Apostolic Fathers would be considered childish. He also insisted that his taxis is from The LORD.

+ + +

HERE, TERTULLIAN DISCUSSES NOT IF A CHRISTIAN WOMAN SHOULD BE VEILED BUT IF THE YOUNGER VIRGIN WOMEN SHOULD BE VEILED ALSO! THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONTENTION IN THE CHURCH DURING HIS TIME.

Tertullian (140-230 AD) was in some position as a leader in the church at Carthage, North Africa.

ANF, Vol. 3, part 3, On Prayer, Chapter 21, p. 1245 [Master Christian Library, Version 8, Ages Software, Ante-Nicene Fathers] …Of Virgins
[Note: p. 687 in the Hendrickson Volume 3, 2nd printing, June 1995]

But that point which is promiscuously observed throughout the churches, whether virgins ought to be veiled or no, must be treated of.

.

.

Tertullian, Chapter 22 (excerpts) pp. 1246-1249 (MCL, Version 8) [Hendrickson,p. 687-688] Answer To The Foregoing Arguments

... is applicable too to a “virgin.” In fact, all the other passages are in consonance herewith.


But, withal, the declaration is plain: “Every woman,” saith he, “praying and prophesying with head uncovered, dishonoreth her own head.” What is “every woman,” but woman of every age, of every rank, of every condition? By saying “every” he excepts nought of womanhood, just as he excepts nought of manhood either from not being covered; for just so he says, “Every man.” As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of “man” even the “youth” is forbidden to be veiled; so, too, in the feminine, under the name of “woman,” even the “virgin” is bidden to be veiled.


For indeed it is “on account of the angels” that he saith women must be veiled, because on account of “the daughters of men” angels revolted from God. Who then, would contend that “women” alone — that is, such as were already wedded and had lost their virginity — were the objects of angelic concupiscence, unless “virgins” are incapable of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? Nay, let us see whether it were not virgins alone whom they lusted after; since Scriptures saith “the daughters of men;” inasmuch as it might have named “wives of men,” or “females,” indifferently. (etc.)…

Again, while he says that “nature herself,” which has assigned hair as a tegument and ornament to women, “teaches that veiling is the duty of females,” has not the same tegument and the same honor of the head been assigned also to virgins? ...

.

.

This custom, in short, even Israel observes; but if Israel did not observe it, our Law, amplified and supplemented, would vindicate the addition for itself; let it be excused for imposing the veil on virgins also.

Under our dispensation, let that age which is ignorant of its sex retain the privilege of simplicity. For both Eve and Adam, when it befell them to be “wise,” forthwith veiled what they had learnt to know. At all events, with regard to those in whom girlhood has changed (into maturity), their age ought to remember its duties as to nature, so also, to discipline; for they are being transferred to the rank of “women” both in their persons and in their functions. (etc.)…

Be veiled, virgin, if virgin you are; for you ought to blush. If you are a virgin, shrink from (the gaze of) many eyes. Let no one wonder at your face; let no one perceive your falsehood. You do well in falsely assuming the married character, if you veil your head; nay, you do not seem to assume it falsely, for you are wedded to Christ: to Him you have surrendered your body; act as becomes your Husband’s discipline. If He bids the brides of others to be veiled, His own, of course, much more.

+ + +
Tertullian
ANF,Vol. 4, Book 2,On the Veiling of Virgins CHAPTER 9
Veiling Consistent With The Other Rules Of Discipline Observed By Virgins And Women In General

Let is now see whether, as we have shown the arguments drawn from nature and the matter itself to be applicable to the virgin as well (as to other females), so likewise the precepts of ecclesiastical discipline concerning women have an eye to the virgin.

It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.

Let us inquire whether any of these be lawful to a virgin. If it is not lawful to a virgin, but she is subjected on the selfsame terms (as the woman), and the necessity for humility is assigned her together with the woman, whence will this one thing be lawful to her which is not lawful to any and every female?

+ + +



Augustine ( 354 – 430 AD )
NPNF, Series 1, Vol. 1, The Letters of Augustin, 4th Division, p. 1183

LETTER 245
TO POSSIDIUS, MY MOST BELOVED LORD AND VENERABLE BROTHER AND PARTNER IN THE SACERDOTAL OFFICE, AND TO THE BRETHREN WHO ARE WITH HIM, AUGUSTIN AND THE BRETHREN WHO ARE WITH HIM SEND GREETING IN THE LORD.

…in regard to the matters on which you have consulted me. Let me say, however, in regard to ornaments of gold and costly dress, that I would not have you come to a precipitate decision in the way of forbidding their use, except in the case of those who, neither being married nor intending to marry, are bound to consider only how they may please God.

But those who belong to the world have also to consider how they may in these things please their wives if they be husbands, their husbands if they be wives; with this limitation, that it is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands women to keep their heads covered.

[Curious how Augustine affirms the keeping of the Apostle Paul’s words about the head-covering, yet not his instructions (1 Tim. 2:9) regarding adornment, n’est-ce pas?]
+ + +


A Not-so-Early Familiar Voice from 500 years (or so) Ago

Although not one of the best authorities one could choose, John Calvin did keep some of the Apostles’ ordinances, especially involving church government and the order(ing) of women. This is from his Commentary on 1 Corinthians, Vol 1, Chapter 11: 1-16, Section 6:

“Should anyone now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul said it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it.” John Calvin clearly understood this instruction of the Apostle Paul that sisters should be covered or veiled and that it was required in the New Covenant.
+ + +

THE HEAD-COVERING, part 1

or...
Veiling
for
Christian
Sisters
I Corinthians 11 Verses 1-16

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, it is time for this topic to be addressed. Although we started out as Christian sisters who met the LORD in every topsy-turvey way one could imagine... we soon found out that we didn't stay that way!

There is order in the church... Scriptural order that must be followed. It is not optional.

Although no-one will hold a gun to your head if you refuse the head-covering, one thing is sure to happen: the continued refusal of the veiling will accomplish a few things in your life that you DON'T want to happen, if you are a serious Christian.

1) It will weaken your prayers.

2) It will allow more struggles to come your way, more wrestling with the flesh, and more struggles with applying Truth and discipline to your own life.

3) It will cloud your discernment and greatly decrease your ability to know HIS+ will for your life.

4) Your witness will be greatly impaired; your Light for CHRIST will be under a bushel, as it were.

5) Not to mention: dishonoring your head ( the husband or father... whoever heads your home) AND CHRIST JESUS... because HE+ gave those words to The Apostle Paul as part of the GOD-breathed Scriptures for us to follow.
+ + +

For some, the passage is not clear in 1 Corinthians 11.

Here is why:

The key is how one reads his writings.

To get to the core, the kernel, of his basic instructions to the primitive churches, it is often necessary to set aside for a moment his sometimes elaborate reasonings and explanations. THEN, ONE CAN SEE THE CORE OF HIS INSTRUCTIONS.

The Apostle Paul was a very learned man. Throughout his letters to the primitive churches, the Apostle draws examples and parallels from the Old Covenant and Jewish history.

This is how he teaches. He also draws from the example of natural things, things in nature, which he assumes everyone would know.

Let us momentarily set aside those illustrations, allusions, and examples from the Old Covenant and from nature which the Apostle uses in 1 Cor. 11. Then, we can clearly see his basic instructions to the primitive church.

After we comprehend clearly the import of his directives, we will add the illustrations, etc., back into the reading to understand his reasoning behind his instructions.

+ + +

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

But 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.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered or veiled dishonoreth his head.

+ + +

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered or unveiled dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

For if the woman be not covered or veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (veiled).

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

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

+ + +

The remaining the verses in this passage (from 1 to 16), including his examples and reasonings for this instruction, draw from the Old Covenant references and from nature.

Before adding his explanations back into his words, however, let us take a look at what is the gist of his instructions in this adapted reading.

We see here that he is re-establishing both his authority and his reason for writing this epistle to the primitive church.

The Apostle Paul then clearly and plainly states the way it is: If the brothers cover or veil their heads while praying or prophesying, it shows they are dishonoring the authority line which the Apostle just stated as fact.

If the sisters have their heads UNcovered or UNveiled during praying or prophesying, it also dishonors the authority line.

The Apostle goes on to give his directive to the sisters who will not cover or veil their heads: shave the hair off and go bald.

This is rather humorous!

If a sister refused to cover or veil her head and would rather show her head in the assembly, The Apostle says, in essence, “Well then, let her show her bald head instead and see if she is still proud.” Likely, any sister would hasten to cover her head appropriately, due to the shame of being bald-headed! That measure would have dealt effectively with any spirits of worldliness and pride lurking in the assembly.

[Now, this is not as improbable as it may sound. The Apostle had to deal with proud spirits amongst the various factions in that very church, the letter reveals, chapter 4. It is within reason to think that the sisters had been subjected to spirits of pride, also. ]

The Apostle Paul appeals to their sound judgment of propriety when praying to the Living GOD, the Maker of the Heavens and the earth: is it right that a woman pray to GOD uncovered (unveiled)?

Well, he answered this question earlier by teaching them that it WASN’T right to dishonor the authority line, so he assumes they know the correct answer: NO.

The Apostle addresses the issue of disagreement or contention with this set of instructions. His last remarks were in a question form: Is it right that a woman pray unto GOD uncovered ? He plainly says NONE of the primitive churches have such a custom… and that settles the discussion.

The confusion amongst modern readers is that the words: "such a custom" refers to Christian sisters praying uncovered or unveiled. The Apostle said neither we nor any other of GOD’S churches had a custom of sisters praying unveiled.

This is the reasonable understanding of verse 16; otherwise, it makes the Apostle Paul contradict himself from what he stated as facts and directives in the immediate preceding verses! We know that the Apostle Paul was NOT confused, but rather, the western church’s perspective might be in want.

+ + +
(To be continued)