This objector to the head covering accuses Paul of violating his own teachings about grace versus law

The arguments against the head covering I dealt with in my research on this subject were all from within the Bible-believing church. I didn't try to deal with the feminist arguments.

But now I've heard from someone who argues what is really a feminist position although she may not see it that way; she simply thinks Paul was not qualified to be an apostle, certainly not a writer of God's word. That's a typical stance of an unbeliever, and of feminists who consider themselves to be Christians but refuse to take the Bible as God's word.

I've posted this elsewhere but I realized it belongs on this blog in full as an example of one attitude toward the head covering.

This is to my mind about the most offensive kind of argument possible, an amazing display of sophistry pitting Paul's own teachings against himself in the service of what can only be a mere personal dislike of his writings on the head covering and on women in general.

Paul was NOT PERFECT. Paul made errors in what he said and did, that as you align them with the teaching of the Word -- they don't line up. For example, look at this.

Acts 23 1And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
2And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
3Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
4And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?
5Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

Paul was speaking of the "mindset" as if the priesthood of the old covenant was still in force -- and AS IF the high priest of the OT was still the high priest. But this is not true. Jesus Christ is the High Priest of the second covenant. Paul was not completely renewed in his mind. Paul even wrote the Book of Hebrews declaring the change in priesthood, that Jesus is now the High Priest and Jesus is therefore the Ruler. Yet, in his humanity, Paul was not "in the Spirit" as he spoke giving respect and submission to the outdated priesthood and thus not giving respect and submission to Jesus Christ. It was an error because Paul was not perfect and Paul was not entirely renewed in his mind.

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Hebrews 7:11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

The scripture is clear that the priesthood before God CHANGED when Jesus went to the cross and the vail was rent in two, Jesus resurrected, and ascended to the right and of God the Father. The priesthood of the OT was not in effect. The priest who CLAIMED to be the high priest towards whom Paul gave respect was NOT the High Priest in the sight of God -- but rather Jesus Christ was/is the High Priest.

But, Paul, being human and having been a Pharisee of the Pharisee, was much like the Jews who left Israel and kept thinking like slaves of Egypt wanting to go back to be under Pharoah after God having sent Moses to bring them to the Promised Land.

Paul, though the scripture refutes his behavior, kept "thinking" that the high priest of the OT before whom he had appeared -- really WAS the high priest at that time. This is impossible. The high priest of the OT had LOST his place and position when Jesus Christ replaced the first covenant with the second covenant and replaced the high priest of the OT having become the High Priest of the NT in His death, burial, resurrection, ascension to the right hand of God and the sending of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

................
Paul, basically, was not entirely renewed in his mind and gave up his dominion in Christ by submission to a high priest who had no authority before God... rather Jesus Christ did.

We all make mistakes.

Paul has a habitual "strain" of Pharisaical sin in him "showing through" in which he knows better than to believe that righteousness can be attained by the law, knows better than to believe that the law is still in effect, knows that the only righteousness there is to be gained is through Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God and the High Priest and the Temple of the New Covenant -- by His blood and death burial and resurrection and through faith alone in Jesus by grace alone -- but Paul just "can't get his mind" to think that way 100%.

So, unless you want to denounce Jesus Christ as the High Priest of the New Covenant and return to the law and replace Jesus with a current high priest of the Old Covenant -- we can see that Paul made a mistake there out of human conditioning.

The matter of head coverings is a LIKE ERROR on Paul's part -- perhaps.

Because, spiritually, in Christ, Jesus Christ Himself has become the covering of all saints by the Spirit. What was in the natural is now in the spiritual.

The law was a shadow of things to come but the reality is found in Christ.

When Paul states, "AS the law also states...!!" -- we should be able to see that the old nature of Paul is "showing through". He has not yet "left behind" the law and pressed fully into Christ.

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

This is why he states in Philippians 3 that he has not yet been made perfect, but is striving to be found fully in Christ having no righteousness that comes from the law but rather in resting fully in faith in Jesus Christ and the righteousness that comes from faith in Christ.

When Paul starts quoting the LAW in relation to women -- wanting them to come under some natural element -- you see that the church resisted him. They would not obey and instead asserted their liberty in Christ.

What Paul is saying about SPIRITUAL COVERING and being under submission to God in Christ and having the HOLY SPIRIT UPON ONE is New Testament theology.
But going back to the law -- and Paul getting so uptight because women weren't wearing natural veils -- friend, that doesn't "line up" with scripture any more than Paul's grovelling before the high priest of the OT (and him forgetting Jesus as the High Priest of the NT in that moment) lines up with scripture and spiritual Kingdom laws, principles and dynamics -- the reality of the Spirit.

I may come back to add some comments later.

Disobedience is the real reason for the abandonment of the head covering

I haven't forgotten this blog, it's just that there's only so much you can say about the head covering unless someone comes along and has objections or questions and wants to start a dialogue about it, or I run across something newsworthy, neither of which has happened. Otherwise I think I've made the case throughout the blog and it's here for anyone to read.

Thought I might try to restate the Bottom Line at least:

Paul couldn't possibly have meant long hair by the covering he so strenuously insists on in fifteen verses, for many reasons which I cover in my research posts, but I think the main and most obvious reason is that there wouldn't have been any women in the Corinthian church who DIDN'T wear their hair long as that was the norm pretty much everywhere on earth both in Paul's day and up until the 20th century. Context, context! Paul was writing to the Corinthians to resolve some disputes, and there would have been NO dispute about the length of a woman's hair. As he says in verse 6 (see below for the text of the whole passage), they would have regarded short hair on a woman as shameful, and in verses 14 and 15, it was regarded as given by nature that a woman's hair be long and a man's short. SURELY they were NOT having a dispute over short-haired women!

As for the other main misinterpretation, that the covering Paul was advocating was merely a feminine custom that was peculiar to his time, this too flies in the face of the most likely habits of women in his day or any day. Was Paul criticizing a contentious contingent of Corinthian women for failure to present themselves in their culture's customary feminine manner? Really, how likely is that? Even in our day, when women MAY dress like men or in "unisex" styles, the overarching motivation still manages to be a desire to show off their femaleness if not exactly femininity in a certain sense. It's ridiculous to think that any significant number of women in their day or our day would want to efface their femininity and rebel against a cultural expression of it. Beyond that, in Corinth covering the head WASN'T a uniform cultural standard except for Jewish women. In any case, the covering is not about "femininity" at all, it's about God's creation ordinance oncerning the headship of the man over the woman (verse 7) which requires the covering of the woman's head as the glory of man so that the glory of Christ in the head of the man can be displayed in worship.

And there are plenty of other reasons neither of these interpretations is defensible, which I've covered in my Research posts. I'm just trying here to state the most obvious ones.

Nope, on its face it is very clear that Paul is definitely calling for a covering to be worn over the head and hair, so that there is really no excuse for its abandonment. That is how all commentators interpreted it up until the 20th century and it was also obeyed in all the churches until around the 1960s when just about all of them abandoned it. The alternative interpretations that justify its abandonment are really very flimsy, mere excuses for disobedience.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Here's the text of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16:

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not be covered, then let her be shorn! But since it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For indeed a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason the woman should have authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 In any case, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman, in the Lord; 12 for as woman is [created] from man, so man is now [born] through woman. And all things are from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Yet Another Way to Deny the Head Covering -- Deny the Bible Itself

It seems a certain Christian commune got a special revelation from God that the women there aren't required to cover their heads. Some of their members had been obeying the requirement to that point.

I won't reveal who they are unless I find the same message at their website as was reported on the forum where I found this out.

There wasn't any argument that the scripture doesn't SAY the female head is to be covered, or any argument that it was "really" long hair and not an actual covering over the head, or any other argument with the historical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, no argument at all. They have no doubt that Paul is requiring that the head be covered. But in their case the Holy Spirit supposedly told them they didn't have to cover. They prayed about it as a community for some time and that was what they concluded the Holy Spirit was saying to them.

Oy.

Ya know why, they think? It might alienate potential converts.

Oy.

I argued that the Holy Spirit never contradicts scripture which is the same as contradicting Himself. I was dismissed in terms that suggested my point of view is rather neanderthal spiritually speaking, that obviously I'm stuck back in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and then I got a lecture about what's wrong with Sola Scriptura. I could hardly believe my ears.

Turns out they also deny the first chapters of Genesis so they reject all creationist arguments against evolution. Well, that figures.

Yet of course they also affirm that they do indeed believe and follow scripture.

Just the parts that agree with them. They do indeed believe good and hard and follow good and hard those parts of scripture they agree with. The illogic of this escapes them.

Oy.

Then there's that REASON they think the Holy Spirit gave them! As if the gospel itself weren't enough to alienate potential converts! As if the cross of Christ weren't an offense to the flesh! As if conversion weren't a supernatural event that has nothing to do with human machinations. So you get these "seeker-sensitive" churches that play to the flesh of the unbeliever and of course they must get lots of "converts" who are never truly converted by the Spirit of God.

I'm not doubting their story that they prayed and got this "revelation," so how is that to be explained? Well, doesn't scripture say God will be perverse with those who are perverse, and will answer their prayer according to their folly or something like that? The meaning of the head covering passage is quite clear, and they acknowledge that it is clear, so to pray to have it revealed whether it applies to THEM is the same as to tell God they already reject His word, they just want Him to ratify their rejection. Apparently He obliged.

Oy.

(Sorry, it's just that "oy" gets across the feeling in this case so much better than any other word I can think of.

And I do have some Jewish relatives.

Though they don't use the expression.

Oy.)

Calvin's prophetic word about the head covering

This quote from Calvin was posted at a message board I visit, pointing out how right he was about what would follow. Since women started uncovering their heads in the last hundred years just look at what has followed. No connection? Think again.

"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature…Further, we know that the world takes everything to its own advantage. So, if one has liberty in lesser things, why not do the same with this the same way as with that? And in making such comparisons they will make such a mess that there will be utter chaos. So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, `Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead for something else; `Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also bare this and bare that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard" (John Calvin - 1509-1564)

Head covering, Long hair, the Watchers and the Nephilim

Some who understand 1 Cor 11:2-16 to require a covering over the head and hair also understand the verse about the "angels" to refer back to Genesis 6 when the angels were tempted by the "daughters of men."

1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

This verse is particularly hard to understand when you come upon it cold among the many in this passage that can be difficult. But if it hints back at Genesis 6 it makes rather startling and extremely important sense.

Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

It would require some exegesis to prove it -- it's fairly simple, really; I spell it out at End Times Monitor -- but the common interpretation that the "sons of God" refers to the line of Seth just makes no sense. It can be shown that the phrase is used to describe angels and that makes a lot more sense. It also makes sense of I Cor 11:10.

The apocryphal Book of Enoch understands the sons of God to be angels and elaborates on the event of Genesis 6 in great detail, which has implications for the very last days we are now rapidly approaching. The Book of Enoch is not to be taken on the same plane as scripture, but at the same time it also should be recognized that many of the early church writers treat it as if it were scripture and at least it's to be respected as a commentary on scripture.

But my reason for writing this post wasn't to get into all that, it was merely to say that those who think the head covering is simply a woman's hair ought to think about it in relation to those watching angels who can be seduced by the beauty of women. Clearly, exposed hair can't be the covering in that case because it's part of a woman's attractiveness. There are plenty of other reasons why Paul isn't saying the hair is the covering, which have been discussed throughout this blog, but this one ought to be persuasive to those who take the Book of Enoch seriously AND think the covering is hair. It doesn't compute.

Women should cover their heads to avoid being a temptation to the angels.* This is one of four or five arguments Paul gives for covering the head in this passage, and it takes on great importance in the light of Genesis 6 and Jesus' warning that the last days will be "like the days of Noah."

* The "power" symbolized by the covering over the head (same verse 10) indicates something more than that, however, and I'm not sure what it means, but perhaps an authority that protects the woman FROM the angels, the man's authority?
===========================================================

One other thought concerning long hair. The passage says it is NATURAL to the woman to have her hair long, so that it would be a disgrace to her to have it short. This refers to the fact that women always customarily had their hair long except in unusual circumstances, and a man's was short, or at least shorter by comparison, and this was the case across all cultures with very few exceptions up until very recently. It is this near-universal practice that Paul refers to as dictated by "Nature." It is NOT what he is advocating, it is something he is observing about the natural state of things. So those who take it as something he is advocating are of course missing the point completely.

HOWEVER, since it IS referred to as what Nature dictates, for women to wear their hair short is to violate a law given by God nevertheless. Short hair on women is certainly not advocated by the passage. The overall understanding of the passage should be that women are to have long hair, at least longer hair than the standard for men, AND that they are to cover it at least in church, and some would argue, at all times except in private.

The command is universal but we have to maintain separateness

The ordinance that requires women to cover our heads is not specifically for Christians, although it has been spelled out accurately only by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Throughout history many peoples have intuited God's law in themselves and required that women cover their heads, and Islam and Judaism in particular have required it. They are right to do this and really, they put Christans to shame because we have abandoned the practice, although their reasons for it are not our reasons. Modesty is usually their reason, but modesty is at best a peripheral issue as Paul discusses the head covering in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The central issue is the hierarchy of headship, which requires the display of the male head as the image of Christ, who is of course not recognized as God in Judaism and Islam, and the covering of the female head as the glory of man which must not compete with the glory of Christ.

1Co 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.

We can't join forces with these other groups, and I think it is a mistake to link with them in spirit at all as some Christians seem to be doing. We can acknowledge their rightness by God's standard of male headship, but we can't join with them in any general way. This includes Catholics who also cover or are now learning to cover.

It's important that we keep the gospel testimony pure and separate from all other frames of reference.

I think Christian women who learn to cover now should be seeking a style of covering that sets us apart from these other groups.

Is God using Islam to judge us?

It is disturbing to me, now that I believe women are to cover our heads (and I'm coming more and more to believe that means not just in church but in general, which I'll have to get around to explaining), that Muslims are so specifically known for their covered women. I just watched a brief news clip on the "ethnic" violence in China and immediately realized from the women's head scarves that this is not "ethnic" at all, it's Muslims as usual against the majority population, doing what they consider to be their God-given mission -- to disrupt all nonMuslim communities and finally supplant them. The media will never tell you that of course -- but at least they are reporting that it is the Muslims doing most of the killing.

Since 9/11 I've recognized the growth of Muslim influence in the world, everywhere but especially in the "Christian" West, as God's judgment, but when I became persuaded that we are to cover our heads it also occurred to me that it's very possible God is telling us something specific by imposing this tribe of people on us who insist on women covering their heads. If they do nothing else right they do that much right, although of course they sometimes take it to an unrighteous extreme.

Some Muslim groups also emphasize modest dress, some of course to the extreme of cruelty such as the burqa, but also simply to the complete covering at the beach or swimming pool, which is pretty much the way it used to be done in the west too. Of course westerners now scream about it, but that too had me wondering about a possible message from God.

In the early part of the 20th century American and European women still always wore hats in public. That was already a degeneration of the head covering from a functional thing to a fashion statement whose meaning was completely lost by that time, but it was at least women covering their heads. Film of a suffragette march, year unknown, shows women completely covered up in identical long dress suits all wearing hats -- well, at least all the same color.


Then gradually hats were given up as a general thing but continued for church attendance until the 60s.

Also, women all had long hair then too, but always wore it up, under the hat. Always.

Bathing suits used to cover most of the body, too. Then hats were gradually abandoned, skirt lengths came up, bathing suits got skimpier, hair first got cut and then got longer and started to be worn loose. It got longer and looser through the 40s, but short hair also was popular. In the sixties the trends all peaked together with the bikini along with the mini skirt, very very long straight hair or very short hair and no head covering at all (during the same period the men's hair also got long). An increase in the popularity of nudism about that time, with nude beaches and the like, shouldn't surprise us either.

All this happened within the first few decades of the 20th century.

I saw a picture of Nancy Pelosi yesterday talking with a Muslim leader, Syrian President Bashar Assad, sitting in a very short skirt with her legs exposed up to the mid-thigh. She had to keep her knees tightly pressed together of course. Somehow that whole discordant picture stuck in my mind, kind of an emblem of everything that's wrong with us. [Decided to go find and post it here:]

So, this is the thought: The barbaric Muslims may in fact be the scourging instrument God is using to judge us, partly because they do demonstrate one of the ways we've been going wrong. It's reciprocal of course; Muslim women are now wearing tight jeans along with their head scarves, and tons of makeup. It's a race to see which culture wins in the end. I'm betting on the traditionalist scimitar-wielding vengeful Muslims myself, unless we in the west radically repent of our immodesty, our rejection of the head covering as God's chosen symbol of God's creation ordinance of male headship, along with all the other offenses we need to repent of.

But, back to my opening thought, it does put me in a quandary. What SORT of head covering should Christians wear? I'm pretty sure we don't want to be confused with Muslims. Hats are an option but it seems to defeat the whole purpose of covering the head to draw attention to it by wearing fashionable hats, so the hats chosen would have to be modest in themselves, unprepossessing. I don't see why we have to look frumpy in any of this, but it's hard to figure out just what we should look like. I've spent some time designing possibilities, but although I did make one hat I do wear I haven't done any more sewing yet and kind of bogged down in the project generally.

Of course the idea that covering the head could become a general movement among Christian women is probably overly optimistic considering the strong resistance to the whole idea. But I pray for it anyway.