341 – Head Coverings in the Church

SEMESTER 3

341 – Head Coverings in the Church

BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CORRESPONDENCE

COURSE: ECCLESIOLOGY III LESSON # 41
HEAD COVERINGS IN THE CHURCH

Read I Cor. 11:1-6.

INTRODUCTION:

1. This passage is the only specific Bible instruction on this subject (of course, one is sufficient).
2. There has, for years, been much controversy on this matter, even to an issue of fellowship.
3. Not only is there the basic disagreement, but great variation within the ranks on both sides.

III: If it is hair, how long? If it is covering, what kind must it be?

I. THE TWO BASIC DIVISIONS OF THOUGHT

1. That according to I Cor. 11:1-6, the woman (while in worship service) is to wear some kind of a manufactured head covering.
2. That this passage of Scripture is teaching that the woman’s hair is to hang down, thus covering the physical features of her head.
3. Variations within the “covering” ranks are as follow:

i. Some head covering adherents teach or use a hat.
ii. Some find the hat improper or unnecessary and wear a doily or handker­chief of some kind.
iii. Some feel these do not meet the need and a hanging veil must be worn.

4. Variations within the “hair for a covering” ranks are as follow:

i. Some consider any female hairstyle satisfactory.
ii. Some contend it must be a style that hangs sufficiently to hide head shape and appear obviously feminine.
iii. Some feel that the woman should not cut her hair at all.

II. THE CASE MADE FOR MANUFACTURED COVERINGS

1. Obviously to demand a manufactured covering, one must differen­tiate between the word covering in verse 15 and the words covered and uncovered in verses 5, 6 and 13.
2. Thus, attention is drawn to the difference in the Greek word (katakalup­to) in verses 6, 7 and 13 and the word (paribolaion) in verse 15.
3. The conclusion is that since these words are different they are necessarily speaking of different articles. Certainly this is an honest direction of investiga­tion.
4. If, however, we appeal to the different words for differentiation, we must see if they indeed have different meanings.
5. The word (katakalupto) means to veil, cover or hide. It is only translated cover.
6. The word (peribolaion) appears only twice in Scripture, being translated once covering and once vesture.
7. Thus, it seems totally impossible for me to prove from Scripture that these two Greek words support a covering different from the hair.
8. The second area of argument, for the manufactured covering, is that the custom of Corinth demanded it to exhibit female subjection.
9. This is not a valid argument for today since the custom would have no meaning beyond its reach of influence, which is certainly not today.

III. SIMPLE CONTEXTUAL EXPOSITION

I think the passage is simply saying:

1. A man should not pray or prophecy with his head covered (v. 4) by long hair (v. 14), while that same long hair is a woman’s glory. (v. 15)
2. If the woman will not let her head be covered by that long hair, she dishonors her head (husband).
3. It is thus as if she were shaven or shorn, that is, all her hair cut off, as an unfaithful wife.
4. The principle is that the man (created in God’s image) should expose the image of his head. (v. 7)
5. The woman created in and for subjection should have her head covered, and long hair is given her for that covering. (v. 15)
6. This interpretation flows easily and simply through the entire passage.
7. The manufactured covering interpretation labors its way through the context changing back and forth among unintroduced texts.
8. Try to let verse 13 lead you into verses 14 and 15, with each of these interpretations in mind.