Woman’s Head Covering
Written by: Pat Rogers
Statement 4:35 minute mark: “One can make a perfectly comprehensive exegetical argument from the Greek text of 1 Cor. 11 that the head covering is not a hat, or a veil but long hair.“
Comment/question: So if the “covering” is indeed literally the hair then why would we have to spiritualize it? The thing is, if you’re going to make the text emblematic, then you need to put it all in emblematic terms and not just cut and paste only the women and her covering; but include what it says to men being uncovered, praying and prophesying.
Statement 5:00 minute mark: “Corinthians (11) tells us one aspect, Ephesians (5) another. The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. A husband is a head covering of his wife. Her head covering is her husband. Long hair, hat, wedding ring whatever…it maybe emblematic of it but the meaning is her covering is her husband. THIS REMINDS THE CHURCH, that the covering of the church is her husband Jesus. Christ is the head of the church. Christ is the head of the church as His bride and this is reflected in Christian marriage. The husband is the head of his wife hence the headship of Christ is reflected in the head covering within the church.“
Comment/question: Parsch says, a husband is a head covering of his wife, how can that be? If he’s the head how can he be a covering of the head? Even if it is emblematic the covering and head are two different things.
Prasch goes on to point out that literally the long hair is now emblematic of the husband, a hat or a wedding ring is now representing the husband…”long hair, hat, wedding ring whatever…but the meaning is her covering is her husband.” So is he the head or the hat? Covering or head, head or covering??? All of this is to “remind the church, that the covering of the church is her husband Jesus.” So Jesus would also be emblematic of long hair or a hat; rather than the head of …?? Confused? It gets worse.
I have read and re-read this one statement countless times and it simply makes no sense. Seriously, since I have listened to these few videos I’m finding more and more of these types of statements or comments from Prasch. I’m also finding them throughout other teachings and books of his. The statements that supposedly sound “super spiritual,” at least that’s what one is supposed to think. Or maybe you just can’t grasp the understanding because those that speak them are from the “spiritual elite.” Of course no explanation is given of them and we know why, it’s because there is no reasonable, rational, scriptural explanation for them. But when one sits and simply looks at them they are pointless and meaningless.
It runs parallel to the charismania deception I came out of. Great swelling words. My best guess is that Prasch has combined parts of 1 Cor. 11 and Eph. 5 trying to make them work. While the two texts can support one another in the headship verse 3 of Cor. 11 it does not on the covering. The husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. This is true; even more so in Corinthians 11 verse 3 it makes a further distinction by saying:
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God.”
Notice: the head of every man is Christ and yet Jacob chose to use Ephesians 5:23 instead of 1 Cor. 11 verse 3.
Eph. 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church..”
Remember 1 Cor. 11 verse 3 is in context of what Parsch is teaching and basing his doctrine on and yet it is left out. So why would he leave out the head of every man is Christ? We also have to remember that much of the context of this chapter is left out because it’s actually dealing with the man praying and prophesying also, which is rather critical to understanding the text. If we follow out Jacobs teachings on the covering and stay in context and use the scriptures he leaves out what will we find?
Following the order of 1 Cor. 11:3-16 dealing with the covering for women and men being uncovered when they pray or prophesy. This is the topic and issue being addressed in these verses. So Jacob uses the words head and covering interchangeably when referring to women and also referencing Christ and the church. But nowhere in Ephesians does it mention covering of any kind. Two distinct words with two very different meanings. Back to 1 Cor. 11, Prasch’s statement that a women must always have a covering even if it’s not her husband… a brother, father or church leader. Now there is absolutely no scriptural reference for this and he gives none, unless you go old testament and still never a pastor or church leader. It certainly isn’t in the context. What is there is this in verse 6
1 Cor. 11:6 “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.”
Here it’s saying if the woman is not covered let her be shorn or shaved, praying and prophesying and again “if” it be a shame let her be covered. If it’s a shame? So is it saying that if the woman doesn’t have a covering according to Jacob Prasch i.e. a husband, father, church leader etc. that it’s ok to pray and prophesy?
Now when it comes to the men praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered. If we follow out Jacob’s teaching to its logical conclusions concerning the “covering” of not only women; but Christ being the covering the church, one has to assume that when 1Cor. 11:3 says ….” the head of every man is Christ” that Christ is the “covering” of the man also, using head and covering interchangeably like Prasch does then of course one has to ask why or how could or should a man be praying and prophesying without his covering, head? Covering?… which is Christ? Reading chapter 11, it clearly does not give leeway to the man, but seems to be more flexible for the woman as we’ve seen in verse 6
The more context verses that you add to this teaching of Prasch’s the more convoluted and twisted his teaching becomes. verse 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.
Paul makes no distinction between a man and a woman praying or prophesying other than one should do so uncovered and one covered, but he does add exemptions for the woman in verse 6 depending on if it be a shame or not she can be uncovered, shorn or shaved.
I know that there may be some things mentioned here that have been touched on in previous articles but I hope and pray all can see the blatant error and abuse of the scriptures in what is being taught here. Finally, Paul levels the playing field with in verse 11 and 16
“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”
“But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” Would really like to hear Prasch’s emblematic rendition of this scripture, which seems to set at naught the entire covering and uncovered issue within the body of Christ and the churches if others seem to have issue with it. Perhaps that’s why he was trying so hard to mesh parts of Ephesians 5 with parts of chapter 11. Bits and pieces make for faulty and erroneous teachings, as we see here, a sad example.