Subject: is headcovering valid now? |
Bible Note: I have always been taught and believe that Paul is referring to the practice of the Corinthian prostitues, who wore their hair very short, and a Christian woman behaving in this same manner would bring shame upon her husband who is also her head. (This is a historical reference.) I have posted this excerpt from the Coffman Commentaries to substantiate my belief. ***With her head unveiled ... The word here rendered "unveiled" is [Greek: akatakaluptos]. "There is no intrinsic meaning in this word which suggests either the covering material or the object covered; it is simply a general word." [Katakaluptos] means covered completely. [Akatakaluptos] means not completely covered. Thus again, the passage falls short of mentioning any kind of garment. To suppose that Paul here meant "mantle" or "veil" or any such thing is to import into this text what is not in it. We have seen that he was speaking of "hair" in 1 Cor. 11:4; and that is exactly what he is speaking of here. "Not completely covered" would then refer to the disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian women in cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes; which, if they did it, was exactly the same kind of disgrace as if they had shaved their heads. It is crystal clear that Paul is not speaking of any kind of garment; because he said in 1 Cor. 11:15, below, "For her hair is given her instead of a covering." Only in 1 Cor. 11:15 does Paul mention any kind of garment ([Greek: peribolaion]) and even there he stated that the woman's hair took the place of it. Dishonoreth her head ... Understanding the "unveiled" in the preceding clause as a reference to cropping her hair explains this. Any man's wife adopting the style of the notorious "priestesses" on the Acro Corinthus would bring shame and dishonor upon her "head," that is, her husband, who would thus be scandalized in the conduct of his wife. Also, from this, it is clear that in 1 Cor. 11:4, man's "head," which is Christ, is the one dishonored there. Thus the thing which concerned Paul here was the arrogant adoption of the hairstyle (by women) of the shameless priestesses of Aphrodite. Is there any lesson for modern Christians in this? Indeed there is. Any time that Christian men or women adopt styles, whether of clothing or hair, which are widely accepted as immoral, anti-social, anti-establishment, or in any manner degrading, such actions constitute a violation of what is taught here (by Paul). *** -khuck |
Up | Down View Branch | ID# 103674 | ||
Questions and/or Subjects for Bible general Archive 2 | Author | ||
|
sib | ||
|
Knight | ||
|
EdB | ||
|
azzura | ||
|
BradK | ||
|
khuck | ||
|
kyd37 | ||
|
RODGERG | ||
|
cliffk | ||
|
macktony2000 | ||
|
Monica57 | ||
|
sparrow53 | ||
|
na†e | ||
|
steve r |