How is 1 Corinthians 2-16 supposed to be interpreted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
In it Paul is expressing apparel while at church and in prayer.
I praise you because you remember all my instructions, and you hold on to the traditions exactly as I handed them on to you. Now I want you to 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 who prays or prophesies with his head covered shames his head. Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head. It is the same thing as having her head shaved. If a woman doesn’t cover her head, then she should have her hair cut off. If it is disgraceful for a woman to have short hair or to be shaved, then she should keep her head covered. A man shouldn’t have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is man’s glory. Man didn’t have his origin from woman, but woman from man; and man wasn’t created for the sake of the woman, but the woman for the sake of the man. Because of this a woman should have authority over her head, because of the angels. However, woman isn’t independent from man, and man isn’t independent from woman in the Lord. As woman came from man so also man comes from woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it appropriate for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him; but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? This is because her long hair is given to her for a covering. But if someone wants to argue about this, we don’t have such a custom, nor do God’s churches.

So is what Paul saying that women should in fact cover their heads at church? I know women especially of older generations to wear veils but is Paul saying women should almost be covering their heads in the way many Muslim women wear hijabs? How is this passage supposed to be interpreted in today’s society?
 
Paul addressed problems existing in the Church at Corinth 2,000 years ago. The principles he expresses are true today, but the particulars may have no modern application, unless the Church at Corinth is still experiencing those same problems. We are not bible literalists.
 
This is often misinterpreted, especially by Muslim propagandists. Read it carefully…but first some background. As with all the epistles, Paul is not just writing out of the blue. People have visited his congregation in Corinth, and they have come to him to settle a bunch of disputes. One of those is whether or not women should cover their heads. Greek (and of course Corinth is a Greek city) women did NOT cover their heads while praying. How do we know? Numerous paintings on vases and carvings in stone of women praying and offering sacrifice withOUT covering their hair. Jewish and Roman women DID cover their heads when they prayed or offered sacrifices. Paul was a Jew and a Roman citizen. He went with what he knew–women should cover their heads.

Now look at the text: “Every woman who prays or prophesies…” NOT while going outdoors to the market, NOT while taking a walk…ONLY when praying or prophesying (which was another issue, but ignore that here). Then he says “Judge for yourselves…” so it’s not an edict. Paul is simply putting an argument to them and telling them to judge for themselves. Then he says “…her long hair is given to her for a covering…” Hmmm…so if the hair is a covering… and finally he tosses it up in the air again and closes with “But if someone wants to argue about this, we don’t have such a custom, nor do God’s churches.” Ah, “a custom.” It’s a custom. And it was. Nothing more.

But until the 1960s, women generally covered their heads in church. A tiny minority still do; more at Latin Masses. But you know what? Women in Europe covered their heads all the time–look at paintings. Peasant women in Spain, Italy, and Greece wore shawls on their heads until after WW II. Nothing to do with religion, it was just the way they dressed. Fashion. Was it ever canon law? Yes, it was. You can look it up, but I think it became part of canon law around 1905–when the church was fighting “modernism.” When the canon law was revised (I think in the 70s), this was omitted. Why? Because fashions had changed. Men stopped wearing hats, and so did women–not just in church, everywhere. Maybe not on race day at Ascot, but that was about it.

If you look on youtube, you’ll find a bunch of videos of Christian women of various denominations advocating bringing back head coverings. You’ll also find a bunch of videos about witchcraft, alien possession, and all sorts of neat stuff. As for Muslims, there is NOTHING in the Qur’an about covering your head. Not one word. It says women are supposed to cover their breasts with their head scarves…nothing about their heads. It also says women are supposed to cover their “ziinata,” which is a word usually translated as “ornament.” What is “ornament”? Who knows. It has come to be interpreted as “head” or “hair,” but that’s simply an opinion. The word “hijab” itself does appear in the Qur’an a few times–but NEVER as a head covering. It’s always as a “veil” that separates, for example, the material from the spiritual or something like that–it’s always used in an almost mystical sense.

Muslim propagandists love this verse in Corinthians because at their rallies there is always some naive ignorant girl who asks about the hijab, and then they trot out 1 Corinthians and say that they (Muslims) are the true followers of Jesus, and Western women are disobeying Paul. That’s simply not true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top