« Church Membership | Main | Resurrection Tidings »
What the Bible Teaches About Women Covering Their Heads
By Bro. Cheek | March 10, 2008
What the Bible Teaches About Women Covering Their Heads
A Topical Study
By Pastor Robert L. Cheek Jr.
Victory Baptist Church
Living up here in Pennsylvania certainly makes this subject a common one. There are many Mennonites in this area and many of the women wear head pieces. Then too, many Baptist women think the Bible teaches that they should cover their head, especially in church. I want to deal with this subject, not to prevent or deter any conviction a Christian woman might have about wearing hats or other head gear, but to clear the air on the misconception that the Bible “commands” a woman to cover her head with a hat, or other such man-made covering. It is not sin to wear a hat or something on the head. The question is, “Is it a sin NOT to?” That is what we want to answer in this study.
The Scriptures that appear to teach head covering are found in 1 Corinthians. Before we look at the verses, let me say that the Bible DOES teach that women are to cover their heads. WHAT that covering should be is the real issue. Let’s now consider the passage in question, looking at each verse individually, but within the context .
1 Corinthians 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 is the opening verse dealing with the head. These are spiritual references to the head. The head of every man is Christ; the head of the woman is the man; the head of Christ is God. We are going to see that the covering of a woman’s head and the covering of a man’s head are physical symbols of the spiritual truth of God’s order of authority. Here is the order of authority established by God and His Word.
GOD THE FATHER
(Ephesians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 15:23-38)
⇓
JESUS CHRIST
(Ephesians 4:15; 5:25)
⇓
HUMAN FATHER
(Ephesians 5:23)
⇓
HUMAN MOTHER
(Ephesians 5:22-23)
⇓
CHILDREN
(Ephesians 6:1)
This verse (1 Corinthians 11:3) establishes the context and the key theme of this passage. Spiritual authority is the theme of this text. Paul uses the example of the head covering to reinforce the doctrinal teaching of the above mentioned order of authority.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
If this were a reference to wearing hats or other head pieces, it would obviously teach that it is a sin for a man to pray with a hat on, would it not? At the very least, it would teach that a man dishonors himself when he prays with a hat on. To quote Paul in another passage, “Doth God take care for oxen?” (1 Corinthians 9:9). In other words, is this written because God is concerned with whether a man wears a hat when he prays? Is that the meaning and purpose of this verse? Undoubtedly, this is a reference to something else, as we shall soon see. Permit me to emphasize this verse before we move on.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head [physical head] covered, dishonoureth his head [spiritual head].
Who is dishonored when a man prays with his physical head covered? He dishonors his spiritual Head, Jesus Christ. Let’s continue.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered [physical head] dishonoureth her head [spiritual head]: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
This is the first verse that begins to reveal the kind of head covering spoken about in this passage. The word shaven refers to hair, not a hat or head piece. What is this verse teaching? It is referring to a woman who prays with her head uncovered. The verse also mentions prophesying. Remember, the sign gifts were still in effect in the first century when this was written. God had in the past used women as prophets when Godly men could not be found. But that is another subject entirely. Returning to our point, what is this verse teaching? It teaches that a woman who prays with her physical head uncovered dishonors her head, which is her husband. The latter phrase, “for that is even all one as if she were shaven” means that if her head is not “covered” (more on that in a moment), then it might as well be shaved. In other words, if her head is not adequately covered, it is considered not covered at all in the eyes of God. She might as well shave off her hair as to have an uncovered head, as Paul plainly states in the next verse.
1 Corinthians 11:6 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.
If it is a shame for a woman’s head to be uncovered, then she should cover it. If it is not a shame for a woman’s head to be uncovered, then why not shave off her hair completely? According to Paul, there should be no middle ground on this subject. A woman’s physical head is either covered or uncovered. A woman’s spiritual head is either honored or dishonored.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
The man ought not to cover his head (physical head) because he is made in the image of God (spiritual head). Since God does not have an authority over Him (spiritual head), and man is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27), the man should not cover his head (physical head). But, since the woman is the glory of the man, she should cover her head (physical head) in submission to her head (spiritual head), the man. Are we confused yet? I certainly hope not. Let’s continue with the next verse.
1 Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
God created man. Therefore, man is of God. God made Eve from Adam. Therefore, Eve is of Adam. Because man is of God, God is man’s head. Because woman is of man, man is woman’s head.
1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Man did not come from woman, neither was man created for woman. The opposite is true that woman came from man and was created for man.
1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
There are not many verses in the Bible that have been more challenging to commentators than this verse. I admit that I do not fully understand the meaning of this verse. What is apparent to me is that this verse lends only an illustration to our subject, and not a doctrinal teaching of our subject. The illustration is that since the woman was made for the man, she ought to have the man as her authority, just as the angels were made for God, and therefore they ought to have God as their authority. There are other implications to this verse that do not deal with our subject, so I will leave off commenting any further and proceed with the next verse.
1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
The man cannot exist without the woman, neither can the woman exist without the man. God “called their name Adam.” (Genesis 5:2). Even though man is over the woman as her spiritual head, yet they both are for each other and cannot exist without this coexistence designed by the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Woman came from man (Genesis 2:22), but man is born of a woman (Job 14:1). Both man and woman were created by and exist by the design and purpose of God.
1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Having laid down the fundamental principle of authority and headship, Paul then asks the question, “Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” The word comely means, “proper, becoming, suitable.” Is it proper for a woman to dishonor her spiritual head (her husband) while at the same time trying to honor his spiritual head (the Lord)? Can a person gain access to God the Father without going through the God the Son? Certainly not!
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
The same principle is violated when a woman dishonors her spiritual head yet tries to commune with God at the same time. Do we not teach this same principle to our children? We teach children that God will not bless them unless they honor their parents (Ephesians 6:1).
Let us ask three questions:
1. Will God bless a child that rebels against the authority of the parents? The answer is NO.
2. Will God bless a wife that rebels against the authority of the husband? The answer is NO.
3. Will God bless a husband that rebels against the authority of Christ? The answer is NO.
All answers are, No – certainly and definitely not! That is all Paul is trying to say, through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. We ought to be able to judge that it is improper, unbecoming, and unsuitable for a woman to pray to God (or attempt to do anything spiritual, for that matter) if she is going to dishonor her head. Up to this point, we have only alluded to the head covering, which is symbolic of submission to authority. Now we shall see the plain and simple truth about the head covering. This should convince any open-minded, spirit-filled, child of God that the head covering is not a man-made object.
1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
What constitutes a man covering his head? Any man that wears his hair long is covering his head, and nature itself teaches us that long hair on a man is a shame. What does it mean that nature teaches us? I have heard it explained that a man has a natural hair line that defines the boundaries of his hair. This hair line runs around his ear, down and across the back of his neck, up and around his other ear, and across his forehead. This is said to be nature’s lesson on the length of man’s hair. The only problem I have with this analogy is that this would mean it is a sin for a man to wear bangs in the front of his head (even an inch), since the hair line does not extend over and cover the forehead. This would also mean that a man could not let his hair grow beyond this natural boundary at all. In addition, some men (including this preacher) have hair that connects with the body hair on the back, so that the only line that can be made on the back of the neck must be made with a razor. The final point that I wish to make about this definition is that it opens the door to so much speculation such as, “how long is long,” etc. I think there is a more definite way to answer the question and in fact, I think the Bible gives us some clue. The Bible and common sense can answer these questions.
What is to be considered long hair on a man? Fortunately, the Bible is not without examples of men with long hair. Some, as the Nazarites, wore long hair as a special sign of submission to God (which is what long hair is a sign of – submission to something). Numbers chapter six gives the laws concerning the vow of a Nazarite.
Numbers 6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
A Nazarite was one who had taken a special vow to God.
Numbers 6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
The last phrase of Numbers 6:2 is especially important. Taking the Nazarite vow meant that the person was to separate themselves unto the Lord. In other words, they were in a special kind of separation and submission unto God. Part of that involved the men letting their hair grow so that their hair produced “locks”. They were commanded not to cut these locks all the days of their separation unto the Lord. The obvious reason for this is that the locks gave the appearance of a woman’s hair, which is a sign of submission to authority – in this case, God’s authority.
So then, it seems obvious to this preacher that a man would have long hair in the eyes of God if his hair could produce locks. The legalist will ask, “What is a lock and how long must it be before it can be properly called a lock?” Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines a lock of hair as, “a tuft of hair.” A tuft is defined as, “a collection of small things in a knot or a bunch.” So then, for the legalist, a lock of hair would be a bunch of hair that is long enough to grab and tie into a knot.
As I wrote this, I realized that I was about mid-way between hair cuts. I reached up and took a bunch of my hair and was unable to wrap the hair in order to knot it. In fact, I asked my wife to try it as my oldest son stood by laughing at the facial gestures I made when she tugged and pulled on my hair. She was not able to knot a bunch of my hair either. I then tried to knot her hair. I calculated that it would take about six inches of hair to comfortably knot a lock of her hair. This experiment will doubtless cause some to say that this preacher believes a man can wear his hair up to 6 inches long before it would be considered long. That is not the point I am trying to make. Certainly six inches on the top of the head will look much more decent than six inches on the back of the neck.
Getting back to the subject, the Nazarites grew locks of hair, which constituted long hair. There is another example in the Bible of locks of hair that signify long hair. In this example, there is some indication of the length of a lock of hair.
Song of Solomon 4:1 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves’ eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
Here, the hair of the woman is long enough to cover her eyes, thus producing locks that hang down over them. In that sense, my hair on the front of my face would only need to be four inches long to completely cover my eyes if I wore my hair in bangs.
From these verses we can make some general conclusions from Scripture. A man would have long hair if his hair could be bunched and tied into a knot or if his hair style causes his hair to cover his eyes. This is my conclusion from looking at the Scriptures. I am sure a legalist would want more Scripture. Let’s return to 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Just as nature teaches it to be a shame for a man to have long hair, it teaches also that it is a glory for a woman to have long hair. We have concluded already that long hair on a woman is a symbol of submission to her spiritual head. By “covering” her head with long hair, she shows submission to her authority.
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
This is the last verse that deals with the head covering issue in this chapter. Paul’s final statement is an appeal to the customs of the churches of God. In other words, if a man wants to argue the reasoning Paul gives concerning this subject of head covering, another argument could be made that the church as a whole is not accustomed to long hair on men and short hair on women. Therefore, for the church at Corinth to be different in this respect would likely cause other churches and brethren to take offense. Paul told the church at Corinth in the previous verse not to be offensive to the church.
1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
This concludes my verse-by-verse analysis of the passage that is taken to mean women must cover their heads with a hat, hair piece, or other things. Let’s see two verses in this passage side-by-side so that the obvious conclusion can be clearly seen.
1 Corinthians 11:5 …her head uncovered
1 Corinthians 11:15 …her hair is given her for a covering.
The hair of a woman is her covering. The Bible nowhere teaches that women must wear a hat or hair piece in church or out of church. God has supplied the covering. She only needs to obey the Lord and let it be her covering.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn…
One more point should be made with respect to the purpose of the woman’s long hair. Verse fifteen states that her hair is given her for a covering. What is her hair to cover? One might say the head. Well, the hair of man’s head covers his head. Does that mean that his hair is long? In truth, the woman’s hair is to be a “COVERING”. In fact, hair styles that involve shaving the woman’s head is specifically mentioned as being shameful on a woman (1 Corinthians 11:5-6). Again, the woman’s hair is given for a covering. I think it is a reasonable conclusion that a woman’s hair should cover more than what the man’s hair covers. His hair covers his head. Her hair should cover more than her head, else her hair is no different than his. Her hair should be long enough to cover her ears, neck, and eyes (if it were pulled down over them). The only exception to this would be medical or natural hair loss.
I won’t spend much time on this but I think Christian women need to consider whether their hair style violates this passage and the purpose of hair. What is a woman’s hair given to her for?
1 Corinthians 11:15 …her hair is given her for a covering.
That’s the purpose of her hair. If the style of hair does not permit the hair to be a COVERING, I would seriously consider whether the hair style is preventing the whole purpose of having long hair in the first place. What good does it do for a woman to have long hair if she does not wear it that way? What difference does it make to have hair that is long enough to make locks if the locks are not permitted to exist.? This is something women need to think about. I am not proclaiming it a sin for a woman to put up her hair or anything like that. Godly women know their responsibility to dress according to Biblical standards for the glory of God. Paul clearly teaches in this chapter that they are responsible for the way they wear their hair as well. It is something to consider.
2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
To conclude, the Bible does not teach that a woman should wear a head piece, hat, or prayer veiling. It isn’t a sin to wear one. Neither is it a sin not too. (Romans 14:22).
(If this study has been a help to you, please post a comment.)
Topics: Studies |
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:38 am
I would just like to say that I have read a number of opinions of people about the differences and similarities between Islam and Christianity and have yet to see where exactly it states that a woman must cover her head otherwise she will burn in hell as Muslims believe. I would however like to know what the scripture says about clothing for Christian women.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Dear Pastor,
You tried to put up an argument. But I see your argument as illogical and out of context. You said what Paul did not say, and used it to draw your conclusions.
1. “Adequately”. Paul wrote about covering, and uncovering, of the head. He did not write about covering, and uncovering, of the head ‘adequately’. It was not about ‘inadequate covering’, or inadequate uncovering’. For instance, Paul did not say: ” Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered adequately, dishonours his head”. Neither did he say, “But every woman that prays, or prophesies with her head uncovered adequately, dishonours her head”. This was not what Paul said. This was what you said. Paul was a learned man, a lawyer. And when he writes ‘covered’, it would be unfair for you to rewrite it as ‘covered adequately’. If I said that Mr A. did not wear his shoes to the church. It will be wrong to say that I said that Mr A. did not wear his shoes to the church ‘adequately’. This was the beginning of your derailment.You make it look like Paul was talking of covered hair as long and untrimmed hair, while uncovered hair is trimmed hair.
2. “uncovered”. Word misdisplacement. “But if it is a shame for a woman’s head to be uncovered, then she should cover it”. You said this. Not Paul. In the first place, it was not a shame for a woman’s head to be uncovered. But it was a shame for her head to be shaved. This is Paul. Paul tells her that not covering her head is the same as if it were shaved.
3. “A woman’s physical head is either covered or uncovered”. I have no problem with this. But when you add “..by long hair”, the reasoning becomes illogical, because in nature the head includes the hair. Nature always supplies the hair. And so the reference to “..or uncovered”, is misleading, contradictory, and a derailment. In this sense, a woman cannot cover her head with long hair. Nature does that.
4.”She should cover her head”. This is an action of a woman on her head. This is something she can do on her head. It is not what nature does. It is not an ommission, or a refraining from acting on her head. In nature, a woman cannot cover her head with hair. If a woman would sit at a place for one year without touching, or doing anything on her head. The hair would be there. This shows it does not lie in her power to supply it. So it would be a contradictory to tell her “cover your head with hair”. It is like telling someone to put his eyes in his eye sockets (a thing which nature does).
I think that Paul refers to an external cover. If it were just for the women to allow their hair to grow and grow, and grow, I think Paul would simply have told them: “A woman should not cut her hair, but should allow it to grow and grow, ad infinitum. And when she has allowed her hair to grow and grow in this way, she has covered it.
Paul didn’t say such.
Finally, you acknowledged humbly that you “do not fully understand the meaning of this verse”. Please, as you do not fully understand it, do not teach it. Do not teach what you do not fully understand. You lead people astray.
God bless you.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Nnaa,
I assume from your comments that you have a problem with the teaching that this text refers to a woman’s hair as being her covering. You have focused your efforts on attacking my words. I think your issue is with Paul’s words not my words. Paul said:
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
It is sad that you have so thoroughly misquoted me and misrepresented my words. You insinuated that I said I didn’t understand this meaning of the verse about head covering, but that is not what I said at all. So I will paste from my comments above to show our readers what you have done in your last remarks.
1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
“There are not many verses in the Bible that have been more challenging to commentators than this verse. I admit that I do not fully understand the meaning of this verse.” (1 Corinthians 11:10)
I was speaking of this reference to angels, not the reference to head coverings. I certainly would not teach about hair being a woman’s covering if I did not understand this passage. But thankfully I do understand it. What I don’t understand is why so many Christians have such a hard time with such a simple text and why so much effort is made to discredit the obvious, clear teaching of the Bible.
If Paul said it’s dishonoring for a woman to pray with her head uncovered and then in the very same context state that a woman’s God-given covering is her hair, why is it illogical to conclude that the covering is her hair? I’m sorry, but it’s not illogical at all.
Bro. Cheek
October 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Fantastic. This is clearly defined, and very well put together. The context is paramount, and that’s the key anyway. Just one comment I might add. As the devil tries to pervert God’s way, I’d mention the temple of Diana. In Roman times and even before the temple of Diana has priestesses who had shaven heads. They were shorn as a symbol they served the goddess Diana (Satan in actuality). In most instances the Church of Corinth was a wicked Church that had several issues. It’s very possible that some of the women were shorn, or shaven and the men were taking the long hair. Reversing the roles God had intended. Just a note, but fantastic again. Thank you!
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Thank you very much!!! well put you add some clarity in the heads in verse 4 and 5. I had some thoughts but was not clear on then and your wirting helped to differentiate them. I Pray that God will continue to use you to help other christian understand the word of GOD. I pray that his Holy Spirit will continue to teach you and reveal his truth by His Spirit.I also Pray for God’s Blessing to be on your life.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:44 am
I think you did a great job explaining this verse. I found your post by searching for “women covering nazarite vow” because I have come to believe that hair was always a sign of one submitting to another, such as the nazarite vow. I wanted to see some other students of the Word have written. I think the “because of the angels” might have to do with the submissive angels not seeing the type of rebellion that was seen in the garden. The angels look into the activities of the church and it would not be fitting for them to see signs of what looks to be the church abandoning proper headship. Good job, this was a very encouraging article.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Gerald,
Thank you for your kind comments. I think you have an interesting take on the “angels” text. I agree that it has something to do with authority.
Bro. Cheek
March 20th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Dear Bro. Cheek -
As a fellow preacher, I understand the pressure of circumstances that require us to deal with this particular passage of God’s Word at a point where we still number it among those “things hard to be understood.” However, perhaps you might consider the following:
First, to say that the covering required is merely hair really makes no sense at all, because Paul would in that case be implying that we can put our hair on or off at will. Moreover, he makes a very clear distinction between removing a woman’s covering and removing her hair in v.5
Secondly, prior to WWII, virtually all Christians understood that the Bible teaches that a woman ought to be covered in the assembly as a sign of her acknowledgment of male headship. The vast majority of the older commentators show that this was the common understanding, and Paul himself says that this wasn’t some strange practice peculiar to Corinth because of the habits of local prostitutes, but the practice of the church everywhere (v.16). The truth is that the rejection of a head-covering among modern Christian women came about, not because of some wonderful advance in our theology, but because it was no longer fashionable for ladies to wear hats. The church simply followed the world, as it has a sad habit of doing.
Thirdly (Strange how we always have 3 points), the point of this practice was never more needed than it is in this age of feminism, when the men are mostly lazy little boys who refuse to grow up, and women are encouraged to take charge. The woman who covers her head in church is silently proclaiming that she acknowledges God’s order, and that she expects men to stand up and lead.
Try teaching Christians that they ought to resume this Biblical practice, and my brother, you will soon discover how wed people are to the world and it’s ways. But, in balance with the whole counsel of God, preach it we must.
God richly bless your ministry for His glory.
- Paul
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 am
I appreciate your comments and I understand them. You believe Paul teaches the covering to be man-made. I just don’t see that in the text. What I see in the text is a clear statement from Paul that God gave women their covering.
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
What a woman does with that covering is an indicator of her heart. I think most will agree that a woman can be in subjection to authority and not wear a hat. Conversely, a woman can be in rebellion to God while wearing a hat in church. There isn’t anything magical about the hat. Fashions change all the time. In fact, it is fashionable for teenage girls to wear a hat, but it has no bearing on how rebellious or subjective they are.
But stop and think about hair. A man with long hair is making a statement about his heart. A woman with short hair is also making a statement. I have seen many times in my years of ministry that Christian girls who rebel in their teens almost always manifest that rebellion by chopping off their hair. They wear it short like a man because they are not in subjection to God’s Word. I have also seen girls who do not rebel (thankfully), and they almost always manifest submission by keeping their hair style long.
Now, the above paragraph is one of my supporting arguments. You also gave supporting arguments that were fair and strong. I don’t think mine carry any more weight than yours do. But if we stay within the text and do not consider any historical or practical arguments, I think it is clear that Paul referred to hair and not hats in this text.
I know there are many preachers who agree with my understanding of this text and many also disagree. That’s fine with me. Preachers must stand by what they preach and I don’t mind publishing replies that do not agree with my interpretation, especially if they are sincere as yours was. Thank you for your sensible comments, but I really do not see your argument it in the text.
Take care,
Bro. Cheek
July 19th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I just wanted to say thanks for posting this and for all the comments. My Sunday School class had a discussion on this subject this morning and I have to say I can see both sides. But I think God will reveal to us what His will is.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:43 am
Bro Cheek,
Thank you very much for your post. I came across your site whilst surfing the net on information on locks.
I am a christian woman and recently cut all my relaxed hair off, inorder to start growing my natural kinky hair. I am considering wearing my natural hair in locks. Do you think it is okay for women to wear dread locks?
August 21st, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Grace,
In this lesson, my intent was to teach about the subject of a woman’s head covering and what the Bible teaches that covering to be. Hair styles and trends are not within the scope of Scripture, so I really do not have a comment on that. So long as a woman looks like a woman and a man looks like a man with respect to the length of their hair, that is what matters from the Scriptures. Thanks for posting.
Bro. Cheek
October 25th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
i was searching for the reason woman always covered their heads. you have answered my questions, and i appreciate all that you have discussed.
since islam, is derived from the old testament, does this discussion apply to them also.? thanks
October 28th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Rosemary,
God’s Word was written to God’s people. However, it is true regardless of the context. Hope this helps.
Bro. Cheek
February 16th, 2010 at 7:28 am
i think this should not generate argument among christians.if we all understand that it is not good for a man to pray with the head covered why do we make noise about women who pray with their heads uncovered.1 corinthians 11:4-5 is unequivocal.
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:15 am
When did women start wearing hats in the church?
July 25th, 2010 at 12:51 am
Aminah,
I Have not studied the history of women wearing hats in church. My study did not deal with tradition but rather with what the Scriptures teach about a commonly misunderstood passage of Scripture. It is my understanding that during the Middle Ages, the Catholic church decreed that women should cover their heads. But again, I have not studied it out and that would have applied only to them, not true believers as a whole. But to me, Scripture trumps tradition in every single subject so the point is moot. Perhaps you would enjoy studying that out for yourself, though?
Bro. Cheek