The Narrow Path Ministries

Steve,

I just recently read your excellent article on Headcoverings and Women. I found it to be fairly exhaustive on the subject, except for one interpretive approach you left out: That headcoverings equals uncut hair, a principle that applies to all women in all cultures at all times.

I was raised Oneness Pentecostal/Apostolic (UPC, ALJC, AMF, ACI) and this is the interpretation they make of that passage. I understand some fundamental Baptists do as well.

They believe this for two primary reasons:

1) Paul states that a woman's headcovering is her hair in verse 15: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

2) Because of verse 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." They ask, "If this passage was referring to veils rather than hair, why would Paul have them cut their veils?

I would love to see your response to this view as well, if you ever get time. Thank you!

It is possible that Paul has this in mind, but there are a couple of things that raise doubts.

One is that the Greek word Paul uses for "covering" in v.15 (where he speaks of hair as a covering) comes from a different verb root than that which he uses in the rest of the chapter (vv.6-7). While it is not impossible to suppose that Paul used the two words as synonyms, it raises questions as to why he didn't use the same word if the same concept was intended in both places.

In verse 6, it has always seemed to me (and to some others I have read) that Paul is distinctly contrasting the hair with an additional covering of some kind. The assumption is that women ought to have BOTH long hair AND an additional covering, and that Paul is saying that the discarding of the one would equally argue for the discarding of the other—"If she is going so far as to discard her shawl, she might as well discard her hair as well!"

My perceptions on these things may not be correct, since Paul is, by all accounts, vague in his language. I myself would prefer to live in a world whereb all women wore their hair longer than men—but this then invites the additional question as to what is the length-range that may be considered "long enough" for a woman's hair.

If a woman is to never cut her hair at all, then that would answer that question, but it would present challenges (and much unnecessary time consumed) with reference to even moderate grooming. We knew a cult group that forbade their women to cut their hair. One young woman in the group had hair that reached to the ground. She seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time brushing out the tangles, washing, drying, braiding, etc. It seemed to me to be a poor use of a Christian woman's time and energy.

Whatever the custom Paul was alluding to, it is my understanding that he regarded it as a local custom of the Corinthians, and not a mandatory rule for all Christians (1 Cor.11:16).

We had discussed this a little bit here:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... d+covering

Thank you, Steve! I had the same explanation in mind about verse 6, but I had not known a different Greek word was used for "covering" in verse 15.

Loaves - I will check out that link you posted. Thanks!