[chopperk]

Its an assumption that headwear makes women subservient to men. Most people don’t feel that way, just a few who want to be argumentative.

[ConservativeInPA]

Not so long ago - within my lifetime - women covered their heads when attending religious services. It was and is the biblically correct thing to do.

[Karl Spooner]

It’s Warning to cover their heads with Christ because the fallen angles are coming back. And they like women. As in the days of Noah.

[Boogieman]

“...in Christ, there is no separation by gender. Woman and man have equal standing”

“No separation” is not the same thing as “equal standing”.

There’s no separation between Christ and the Church, and yet the Church certainly does not have equal standing with Christ. Christ is the head, and the Church is the body. The head can command the body, but the body cannot command the head.

[delchiante]

Philip B. Payne (Ph.D. The University of Cambridge)

Piled high.Deep.

Good luck to the spiritual Pharisees and Sadducees of the last about 2,000 demon possessed swine years..

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Yes

[AppyPappy]

It’s hard to tell sometimes when Paul is commanding or just saying what he prefers.

[Theophilus 7]

Versus 9 and 10 in that chapter are key to the answer... For the woman’s submission and because of the Angels.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Christ is risen. We are no longer bound by Mosaic Law. Head coverings for Christian women is an obsolete standard.

Without a doubt, it was standard practice throughout most of US history for women to wear head coverings at church — a hat, a veil, a scarf. The practice ended in the 1970s.

“In the 1970s there was a judgment issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document titled Inter Insigniores that basically stated that since chapel veils were not a matter of faith, it was no longer mandatory for women to wear them. In paragraph 4 it states:

“It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-happened-to-head-coverings-at-mass

[Penelope Dreadful]

From my experiences in divorce, I think it would be better for women to cover their mouths. Most men who come to me, that is their biggest complaint - that their wives never shut up their nagging. That they nag for the pure joy of nagging. That they nag, for the noise-aspect of it, like chickens continually cluck to each other. Then, when the women have destroyed any sense of closeness, they, the women, seek a divorce because they are no longer happy.

[CommerceComet]

We know that the Corinthian church was a church that was rife with error and Paul was responding to those errors throughout the two epistles. What makes this passage particularly difficult, IMO, is that we don't know exactly what the controversy was about. Paul could be referring to specific arguments about head coverings that were well known to the Corinthian church members but are now lost in time. In other words, some of Paul's argumentation could be set in a context that we don't know about and if we did, some of the perplexing arguments may be more understandable.

Isn't the only imperative in this passage about head coverings in verse 13? "Judge among yourselves" could be seen as commanding the church to make up its mind and don't fight about it and be contentious (verse 16). Is there any other passage in Scripture where head coverings for women are commanded? Could this be one of these debatable things that Paul tells us not to fight about but make up your own mind on the issue?

I don't think that Paul completed his thought in verse 16. In verse 17, Paul appears to change topics but does he really? In verse 16, he shows his disapproval of contentions within the church over head coverings and in the following verses about the Lord's Supper, he is upset about the fractious nature of the Corinthian church as shown by their practices in communion. I'm not sure that Paul is as concerned about doctrine in this section of the epistle (approximately Chapter 11) as he is about the Corinthians' contentious behavior.

An observation from my church. The two most submissive wives in the congregation (which is fairly small) do not wear head coverings. On the other hand, the two whose submission to their husbands I would see as the most questionable, conscientiously wear head coverings. The two who have the reality don't have the symbol and the other two have the symbol but not the reality. The former is definitely a better situation than the latter, although some would argue that all women should have both.

[cowboyusa]

2 Corinthians.😆😆

[Glad2bnuts]

Break it down into the original Greek, and see if it differs. The RCC changed things over the centuries. It usually clears things up. I would solve this by not going to church myself. Organized religions are the bane of true Christianity. It is like Bud Lite, Coors Light, or Lite beer by Miller. The truth is bent, to appeal to different sensibilities.

[Delta 21]

My understanding is that the Corinthians were a lasivious bunch of sex crazed fo!ks and needed chastising extra hard. Punishments fitting the crime sorta thing.