A Shieldmaiden wrote:Paul writes, "And every woman who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors herself. ... And if a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off. She should cover her head."
The Scriptures say that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, let something be established. I think this is the only place in the Scriptures where it talks about this particular issue. Paul is insisting women, who pray in the church in public prayer do so with their heads covered. Is this a tradition or something women must do today. If this was a tradition, Paul was asking women to honor that tradition out of respect.
In the Middle East some Islamic women dress similar to Biblical times. In the days of the Roman Empire, a woman would cover her head, (they covered only their hair and did not veil their faces) because it was one way to avoid being thought a prostitute, who would go around with their heads uncovered as part of their dress.....and Paul here is just speaking of covering the hair.
It also states in 1 Corinthians 11 7-9
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. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but rthe woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11:7–9.)
Not sure what your point is. The latter verse clearly implies women are subordinate to men, a belief shared by traditional Jews and Muslims.
Another New Testament book, Ephesians expands on the idea in chapter 5:
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
There is some evidence that goes against this trend. For example Galatians 3:28 which reads:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Paul may be quoting a baptismal formula that he learned in the diaspora churches. This suggests that egalitarianism was already being practiced in the earliest Christian gatherings when Paul joined. Or, it seems to me, at least it was the ideal they sought, as opposed to general norm of male superiority that predominated in first century Mediterranean culture.
The formula doesn't keep perfect symmetry by saying "man or woman" since it's a quotation from Genesis "man and woman he created them" (1:27). In other words: "There is no more man and woman as originally divided since they are now united in Christ."
Thus, the early gatherings of Jesus followers may have been the among most egalitarian groups of their day. But, if so, there has been a concerted effort over the centuries to hide or diminish this fact in favor of patriarchy not unlike that of the other major monotheistic religions.
