I'm not judging anybody, since I know they do what they do with the intent to obey, but I also don't think this is a matter of Christian liberty so it's really not something to leave up to individuals. Either long hair is the covering Paul puts so much energy into exhorting us to wear, in which case this should be enforced in the churches, or the head should be covered with something additional, in which case THAT should be enforced in the churches. Covering the head IS Paul's command, and he's knocking himself out in this passage telling us why we need to do it. It's no minor thing if he takes fifteen verses to explain it.

If, as I believe, the long hair is merely an example he is using to argue for the additional covering, then the long hair is not a command, the additional covering is, but if, as so many here believe, that long hair IS the covering, then it IS a command and it should be enforced.

Paul is apparently answering some questions the elders of the Corinthian church had about this, as he has been doing about many problems that occurred in that church, and telling the ELDERS what THEY should do. THEY have the responsibility to enforce Paul's command here, but I don't see that this is done in any church where long hair is taken to be the covering. In many churches I've formerly attended there would be some women in the church who believe long hair is the covering and they would therefore have long hair. There might also be a few from an older generation who believed in an additional covering and you would see some hats here and there. I was always a bit fascinated by one middle-aged lady who would wear a pretty broad brimmed hat over her long flowing blond locks. But nobody enforced anything concerning this passage.

Churches that understand the covering to be a shawl or a hat or something else generally DO require it of the women, which is right, since clearly Paul is ORDERING us to obey this.

But generally it is simply ignored. In fact it's regarded as a sort of hot potato. I ran across sermons by a few decidedly nervous pastors who confessed they'd really rather not have to preach on it. One way or another SOMEBODY is going to be mad at them.

"Let her be covered" sounds like a command to me.

No, the scripture is not talking about Jewish women. As Gill also says, there were Corinthian women in the church, and probably Roman women and maybe even German women for that matter.

[JaeByrd]

Originally Posted by Pastor Mikie

Diligent, would you elaborate a little more about the comment on shaving the head.

I'm fairly sure he didn't mean anything other than joking about it and pointing out that he doesn't by any means have what could be considered long hair for a man. And sometimes he has NO HAIR. It gets pretty hot in the summer time when you're working outside. So since he has NO hair he can't really be accused of it being too long could he. Plus, I think he looks pretty good bald. However I come from a family of good looking bald men so maybe that has influenced my thinking.

My hair ranges from middle of my back to the back of my knees. Once I start sitting on it (every 2-4 years) I grow it long enough to be able to donate 10-12" of my hair to be made into wigs for children/women going through chemotherapy (or other hair loss) and still have enough hair for myself that is unquestionably long hair.

A friend once told me I had a hair ministry. I don't know about that... I just like the idea of being able to give someone who is bald through illness and such a covering when they have none...

Beth reminded me of John Gill's commentary and I found it online. A good reminder because his interpretation of the passage is pretty much the one I ended up with.

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/...inthians11.htm

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Pastor Mikie

Diligent, would you elaborate a little more about the comment on shaving the head.

Just a passing point -- I don't think it's important to put pressure on men to have "short" hair, but that's not because mine is long (it never has been). Paul says that nature teaches us that it is a shame for men to have long hair. I've seen churches turn this over twice -- turning shame into sin, and then making rules about men having short hair (even though that's not what Paul said). Legalism -- making up rules where Scripture isn't specific. Anyway, it's only a side-issue to the whole "covering" thing.

[Renee]

Well put Granny (post #59) Connie should learn as you have. If you have been convicted by the Word and the Spirit to have an extra head covering, it is only obedient for you cover your head. I have not been so instructed. If you have read all of the post on this thread, you know we will not convince Connie and Connie will not convince us so I say sow the word and let the Holy Spirit do His job.

Here's one for long hair: off with his head! Where do they cut? The neck!

I'd say your hair was short enough if it didn't get in the way of the blade.

Originally Posted by Connie

Well, but it was the custom of Jewish MEN and still is, for them to cover their heads, and they would pull a prayer shawl up over their heads, and still do, during prayer in the congregation, which practice Paul is specifically prohibiting, so he's not affirming the Jewish customs.

Actually, this was a custom invented by lost Jews in the second century - not during the time of the Apostles or Christ.

Back to another point:

Considering that Paul was writing to correct the Corinthians about the many things that they were doing wrong, it makes perfect sense that he would address women with short hair and men with long - they probably had that mixed up in their congregation too, and Paul had to address it.

I checked the history and checked many commentaries that covered the history. No women wore their hair short in those days. Period. That simply did not occur until the 20th century. It was regarded as a disgrace in all western cultures and possibly all cultures in the world until it became fashionable after WWI. Africans can't easily grow their hair long so that is probably the only exception.

Again, Paul was not addressing hair length, he was using hair length as one of his arguments -- a woman's long hair was a hint that since nature covered her she should also cover, while a man's short hair or lack of hair was a hint that since nature didn't cover him he also shouldn't cover. Check Gill's commentary for an example of just one who reads it that way.

What Paul was addressing was OBVIOUSLY the refusal of some women to cover their heads, and probably also the habit of some men in covering theirs.

And I'd still like to see evidence from someone that there is any commentator at all who understood the covering to be long hair before the 20th century. That seems to be a peculiarly recent misreading of the scripture.

I also read many conflicting reports on when the Jewish custom of having men cover the head in prayer began. But if that's not certain, what is certain is that some Greek and Roman men covered the head in attendance on their various gods. Again, I believe Gill comments on this.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Connie

And I'd still like to see evidence from someone that there is any commentator at all who understood the covering to be long hair before the 20th century. That seems to be a peculiarly recent misreading of the scripture.

See Albert Barnes' comments, 19th century. Comments that women should be "veiled" and then on verse 15 says hair is the natural "veil" a woman is given.

Adam Clarke, 19th century, also says on verse 15 that her hair is a natural veil.

As I said before, I don't really care what the commentators say, but there is the answer to your question. I am sure there are more, but I don't have the time or desire to keep going through them.

If those are online I will check them, but the scripture itself already says that her hair is a natural veil or covering so that alone proves nothing. They'd have to say that the hair IS the covering that Paul is asking for and what you have quoted does not show that.