Head covering in Christianity

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Well, reading the passage further, you come across this verse:

For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

This part of the passage I think is interesting. Is this to meant that the covering of a woman's head shows she has authority, or is it to show that there is someone with authority over her?  

[ferret658]

Probably the latter because women were just baby making machines back in thos days..... > sad  

[Atreadia Allaani]

Fushigi na Butterfly

Well, reading the passage further, you come across this verse:

For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

This part of the passage I think is interesting. Is this to meant that the covering of a woman's head shows she has authority, or is it to show that there is someone with authority over her?

This is not a popular subject in modern times, but in the ancient world, and in some communities today, the woman was under the authority of her father or her husband. She did not act on her own authority in spiritual or in financial matters. That being said, being under Godly authority did not mean she was worthless, or unable to control her life. Look to the actions of Deborah, Esther, Ruth, and the woman mentioned in Proverbs as being more valuble than the price of rubies.

The context is that a woman with unshorn hair, which is her covering before the angels and God, is submissive to God's authority. While the woman with shorn (the word is actually cut) hair has put herself outside of Godly authority.

Likewise, a man who does not cut his hair has also placed himself outside of Godly authority (not counting those who have taken Nazarite vows).  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

Look at all the women in this day and age who wear silly hats to church and tell me it doesn't still apply. wink  

[Priestley]

1 Corinthians 11:11-16 is quite telling on this issue:

1 Corinthians 11:11-16 NIV

11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Paul seems to start off in verses 11 and 12 to contradict what he has said in previous verses, stating the dependency of both sexes on one another and their equality under God. This undermines what he had previously said. He goes on to say that the Church has no other basis other than common practice, or "the very nature of things", upon which to judge the issue, so he is leaving it up to each member of the church to judge for themselves.

Also, verse 16 makes me want to rap some Run DMC.  

[Call Me Apple]

The Amazing Ryuu

Look at all the women in this day and age who wear silly hats to church and tell me it doesn't still apply. wink

No comment xd


@ Priestley:

Thanks for the breakdown :3
This goes back to my example of Pentecostal women.  

[Priestley]

Call Me Apple Juice

@ Priestley:

Thanks for the breakdown :3
This goes back to my example of Pentecostal women.

Right, but why the length of one's hair matters to God anyway is a mystery to me.

Paul says it is a practice -- a tradition -- as though that practice is "the very nature of things", when is not the case naturally (a man's hair grows long anyway if it is not unnaturally cut, taking Sikh men as an example).