To cover or not to cover... that is the question

[Abeard]

My wife and I have been wrestling with this subject for a year and a half now. Just wondering for people who are convinced in this area (whether pro or against), what has been your biggest influence in addition to 1 Cor 11? Books? sermons? Other passages in the Bible?

 

[Cymro]

The best short treatment I have read is Prof John Murray's paper on it that
deals with the text contextually and is very persuasive, although I have
always held to that position. Another is Arthur Pink's paper, and also a
treatment by the Rev M. Watts ofSalisbury who shows it cannot be cultural.
Indeed if it were cultural then we may as well rip that page out of our bibles.
Paul is reasserting the biblical order that was overthrown at the fall.

 

[Miss Marple]

What kind of made me go with "cultural," is what appears to be the concluding statement about we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

I feel like I can see the passage teaching thing and the other. That makes me give the most weight to what appears to be the conclusion.

I may EASILY be wrong and this and pray I lead no one astray. The worship of God is no trifling matter.

 

[MW]

Literal and cultural are not mutually exclusive. When it is resolved that the covering was a literal artificial covering it might still be argued it was cultural.

I hold it was cultural because the absence of it was a "shame," but I still consider it normative to maintain a culturally distinctive sign of authority on the head of the woman in public worship.

 

[Afterthought]

I have liked the treatments by Rev. Todd Ruddell and Dr. Richard bacon.

I'm still not sure whether the covering was cultural or moral-positive. The notion of "shame" and the appeal to the Creation order confuse me because of other passages seen as moral or positive that appeal to the same things (Romans 1, 1 Timothy 2). I do agree it was a literal covering and that on either view, the passage is still applicable today for women to cover their heads and men to have their heads uncovered. However, questions in my mind arise concerning unusual situations and other cultures regardless of whether I end up agreeing with the cultural or the positive view.

 

[Scottish Lass]

The site The Head Covering Movement | 1 Corinthians 11 For Today is very good for those considering a literal covering. They can also be found on Facebook.

 

[TylerRay]

The sermons that helped me come to a clear understanding of the passage were those by Todd Ruddell and by Brian Schwertley (Schwertley has his issues, and I am almost hesitant to recommend him because of those issues; that being said, he his teaching on headcoverings is excellent).

Both of these men are equally persuasive that women should cover. Pastor Ruddell is more helpful on the underlying why of the issue (beyond, of course, the clear command of God), and Schwertley is more helpful on what kind of covering is required (i. e., a cloth covering, or veil).

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

Paul is reasserting the biblical order that was overthrown at the fall.

How so? I'm not coming against that necessarily but I'm very curious what you mean by that.

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

Literal and cultural are not mutually exclusive. When it is resolved that the covering was a literal artificial covering it might still be argued it was cultural.

I hold it was cultural because the absence of it was a "shame," but I still consider it normative to maintain a culturally distinctive sign of authority on the head of the woman in public worship.

How does this play out practically in your context? Do the women all wear a head covering in the church your serve?

 

[Abeard]

Literal and cultural are not mutually exclusive. When it is resolved that the covering was a literal artificial covering it might still be argued it was cultural.

I hold it was cultural because the absence of it was a "shame," but I still consider it normative to maintain a culturally distinctive sign of authority on the head of the woman in public worship.

What would be the sign today? if not an actual covering.

 

[Abeard]

The best short treatment I have read is Prof John Murray's paper on it that
deals with the text contextually and is very persuasive, although I have
always held to that position. Another is Arthur Pink's paper, and also a
treatment by the Rev M. Watts ofSalisbury who shows it cannot be cultural.
Indeed if it were cultural then we may as well rip that page out of our bibles.
Paul is reasserting the biblical order that was overthrown at the fall.

I liked Watt's sermon on the covering. I think he was the one who said that man is the glory of God and women are the glory of man. When we come to worship it is good for man to have his glory covered as a sign of subjection to God.

 

[MW]

What would be the sign today? if not an actual covering.

A hat serves the purpose.

 

[PaulMc]

What kind of made me go with "cultural," is what appears to be the concluding statement about we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Calvin on this concluding statement in v16 interprets Paul as saying "that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church" (emphasis mine), and so rather takes it to be an extra support of head covering. It seems odd that after using arguments from creation and the angels to reinforce the issue of head coverings that he would then almost seem to undermine himself by saying that head coverings aren't practised in other churches.

Perhaps 1 Cor 4:17 is also relevant, where Paul speaks of Timotheus, 'who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church'?

 

[PaulMc]

My wife and I have been wrestling with this subject for a year and a half now. Just wondering for people who are convinced in this area (whether pro or against), what has been your biggest influence in addition to 1 Cor 11? Books? sermons? Other passages in the Bible?

In addition to the resources already mentioned, perhaps you might find this article by David Silversides useful:
"Is Headcovering Biblical?" - David Silverside

 

[The Baptist]

It seems to me that when we don't "know" or feel fully convinced, we'd err on the side of covering to respect what God would want. Certainly it is no "shame" to a woman to cover her head. Of course not being a woman, I welcome any woman's perspective on whether or not they would feel shamed. But I may still disagree. Peace.

 

[Jash Comstock]

Might I offer John Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (and related passages).

 

[Rich Koster]

I take covering both literally and figurative, in this manner: The hair being the literal covering, as a sign of submission to natural order. Also, I see the father/husband/other male relative (if orphaned or widowed) as a woman's spiritual covering.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I take covering both literally and figurative, in this manner: The hair being the literal covering, as a sign of submission to natural order. Also, I see the father/husband/other male relative (if orphaned or widowed) as a woman's spiritual covering.

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."

I agree Rich. It would not make sense for Paul to suddenly change the subject in mid-thought and start talking about hair if he did not intend to convey that hair is the covering that he was referring to. Verse 14 seems to make it pretty clear that the covering is hair, In my humble opinion.

 

[PaulMc]

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."

I agree Rich. It would not make sense for Paul to suddenly change the subject in mid-thought and start talking about hair if he did not intend to convey that hair is the covering that he was referring to. Verse 14 seems to make it pretty clear that the covering is hair, In my humble opinion.

If hair is the covering Paul refers to throughout the passage, then verse 6 seems to make no sense: "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."
And as the man is not to cover his head, is he then to always be bald, completely shaven?

Also, the word translated "covering" in v15 is different to those in the rest of the chapter.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."

I agree Rich. It would not make sense for Paul to suddenly change the subject in mid-thought and start talking about hair if he did not intend to convey that hair is the covering that he was referring to. Verse 14 seems to make it pretty clear that the covering is hair, In my humble opinion.

If hair is the covering Paul refers to throughout the passage, then verse 6 seems to make no sense: "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."
And as the man is not to cover his head, is he then to always be bald, completely shaven?

Also, the word translated "covering" in v15 is different to those in the rest of the chapter.

I understand your point, but Paul could simply be making a distinction between short hair and hair that is completely shaven. A lot of women have shorter hair, but few would be willing to shave it completely off, and the same applies to a lot of men.

 

[Logan]

For me it is helpful to recall that 1Co 10 comes before 1Co 11. Paul talks about being aware of others and not wanting to offend by using our "Christian liberty" in eating meat offered to idols if it causes someone else to stumble. It is very conceivable to my mind that some women in the Corinthian church could have been abusing their Christian liberty to throw off the cultural symbol of authority (head covering) and causing those around to despise the church, where the women were "insubordinate". This was wrong, not because the head covering was an absolute moral thing, from the foundation of the world, but because it was bringing shame to the name of Christ.

In my own study my take-home message has been "wives, show submission to your husbands". Far from "tearing this page out of our Bibles", the message is still very applicable and general. For example, I don't think Paul would have been happy if the women had acquiesced to wearing head coverings but had been rebellious in all other aspects of dress or attitude. Is there a culture where a shawl is a token of submission? Wear it. Not exposing legs? Then cover them. Paul doesn't even specify what kind of head covering it was. Obviously the Corinthians knew, but was it a burka? A doily or a handkerchief as I've seen some women wear? If the exact head covering doesn't matter, then perhaps it is more the sign of submission than the head covering that is important.

Please note though that I know many women gladly wear coverings, trying to be humble and obedient to Scripture and I have no problem with that and wouldn't want to discourage anyone against their conscience.

 

[Kaalvenist]

This was the initial article that convinced me. Since then, I've found a number of different helpful articles and sermons, several of which have already been mentioned.

Headship and Worship: Notes on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 - The Westminster Presbyterian

 

[Abeard]

I take covering both literally and figurative, in this manner: The hair being the literal covering, as a sign of submission to natural order. Also, I see the father/husband/other male relative (if orphaned or widowed) as a woman's spiritual covering.

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."

I agree Rich. It would not make sense for Paul to suddenly change the subject in mid-thought and start talking about hair if he did not intend to convey that hair is the covering that he was referring to. Verse 14 seems to make it pretty clear that the covering is hair, In my humble opinion.

To me, this verse seems to be implying that hair alone is not the only covering; because if you believe hair is the covering why would she need to be "shorn?" In other words, if Paul is saying that she is not covered, she is missing something besides her hair, otherwise why would she need to be shaven?
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."

 

[Abeard]

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

I've also heard a case for head coverings based on this verse. The preacher asserted that the angels are present during the worship service but they can only see our outwards actions. Therefore, head coverings serve as a sign not only for God but for His angels. Is this stretching the verse?

I know the Bible talks about the angels veiling their faces when they are in the presence of God. There also seems to be many examples of veiling/coverings in the Old Testament.

 

[Logan]

I would be curious, for those who see head coverings as mandatory for all cultures and periods, how do you (or your wife if you are the husband) fulfill the "prophesy" portion of this passage? What does that mean?

 

[MW]

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

I've also heard a case for head coverings based on this verse. The preacher asserted that the angels are present during the worship service but they can only see our outwards actions. Therefore, head coverings serve as a sign not only for God but for His angels. Is this stretching the verse?

Alternatively, "angels" might be a reference to human "messengers." Because they were men, and both sexes were meeting together in a single assembly, it was necessary to show the submission of women to masculine leadership.

 

[Abeard]

I would be curious, for those who see head coverings as mandatory for all cultures and periods, how do you (or your wife if you are the husband) fulfill the "prophesy" portion of this passage? What does that mean?

Here is what I found in the article Sean posted that explains prophesy

John Murray writes: "Paul explains to the Corinthians the significance of the head covering as a sign of the male authority to which the woman is subject, and then argues that it is improper for women to pray or prophesy in the church, because the authority that was entailed in these roles would necessitate removing the sign of the woman's subjection. The apostle's argument is that praying and prophesying in the church is always to be accompanied with an uncovered head, and since women are to have their heads covered, they are not to pray or prophesy in the church."

and also:
In his article "Of Silence and Head Covering" (Westminster Theological Journal 35:21-27), Weeks writes, "The man cannot cover his head when he engages in an authoritative function. For a woman to engage in prayer or prophecy would place her in the same position as the man. That is, she would be forced to exercise headship and thus uncover her head." John Murray writes, "In a word, head covering in praying and prophesying would be a contradiction." And with respect to verses 5 and 6, Murray comments, "The apostle is pressing home the impropriety of . . . praying and prophesying on the part of women, by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely, the removal of the head covering."

 

[Miss Marple]

"It seems to me that when we don't "know" or feel fully convinced, we'd err on the side of covering to respect what God would want. Certainly it is no "shame" to a woman to cover her head. Of course not being a woman, I welcome any woman's perspective on whether or not they would feel shamed. But I may still disagree. Peace. "

One of the things that makes me "feel" funny about it is that it looks sort of Islamic.

However, if it is God's will for us, that does not matter.

When I visited church as a new Christian, I wondered why "all the women had napkins on their heads." I meant no insult. I didn't understand. It can make visiting or new Christians or non-Christians confused, perhaps feeling left out. But then again, if it is God's will, that does not matter. Perhaps it is appropriate to feel left out, in that sense.

 

[inactivemember125]

Hi,

I am a very new member of PB. I am a survivor of a cult from years back, and have come out of the United Pentecostal Church, and the Assemblies of God church. I have been under the shepherding counseling ministry of a Baptist minister since 1996.

I have truly wrestled with the headcovering issue. I even began to wear them some while back. I found out some things while actually DOING the actual wearing of the headcovering.
There is a difference between doing and talking. As the bible tells us to not just be hearers but to do it.
2 Tim. 3: 7 talks about those who are always busy in studies and learning, but who fail to ever come to the knowledge of the truth.

When I studied out these passages, stepped into online forums to hear the debate on it. Then actually took the step to try it out, wearing a head covering to the track to go walking, wearing one to the store while shopping and wearing it to a church where no other women wore them, except a few who might have had a wavy hat on.
When I did this, I learned something. I found out a level of modesty began to grow in my spirit that I had never felt before. In fact, this level of modesty I experienced became very strong and when I broke out of wearing the head covering, I experienced a sense of exposure and being exposed to onlookers. My head covering seemed to do something to me, it seemed to change something in ME.

Because of the culture I live in and move around in, I felt compelled to forgo the practice, as I felt it was something that my husband felt more embarrassed at and since the issue was not an essential to salvation, I let it go, though with great reluctance. There was something about the headcovering I loved experiencing. Again, it is in the doing that I felt this new level of modesty that was going on in me.

I also felt resentful that the churches overall, seemed so against something that was instructed for women to do. I felt that I as a woman had been robbed of something that I felt I needed for me.

Now, in my studies and practice of it, I came to some conclusions. I concluded that Paul's argument was rooted in creation order. Not in the culture of their day.
I believe the word angels in the text meant for me, that of the ministers who ministered. Or any 'messenger'. The world I come from, Pentecostalism, allows a lot of messy boundaries in life. So that, many people become self assigned ministers and no one realizes that the wife has a head! lol. Its as if the husband of a woman is not even recognized. This loss of the due order to realize that women in the church who are married have a HEAD and that is the boundary. Ministers I have been exposed to, seem to forget that my husband is who he is. Or some people may be self assigned ministers out to fix a woman and or manipulate her feelings.
In all, I feel that this is part of the issue. The headcovering experience I went through helped me to understand it through doing it. There is a definite change that happens in me when I don a head covering. Just as much as you might feel more reverence to God when you bow or posture yourself in a certain way to pray. When you smile you can feel your mood lift slightly, (try it). i.e. by doing something we come closer to know something.

In todays culture women go to male ministers to get counsel and advice. It is truly a sad thing that there is not enough women on staff who are given credentials where the younger women can go to a female elder-ess, but is forced to turn to a male minister.

Ministers are the messengers to the churches. The minister and or pastor is NOT the head of any wife in that church. This is scriptural, for her head is her husband. This removes the woman from the pastors domain and sets her in her husbands domain. But today we experience a world where the woman sets out to become her self. She has her own identity today and it is harder to find women who live life in reference to their husband.

I hope this is okay for me to share, its my personal take on it, I hold no seminary degree. I have merely worked hard to study under the guidance of a Baptist minister for many long years.
Thanks for listening.

 

[Herald]

I am in the midst of an exposition of 1 Corinthians. It just so happens I am in chapter 11. I am not handling it very well. My presupposition about head coverings is being severely challenged. I do believe that the practice Paul was writing about was partly cultural, but as Matthew so eloquently pointed out that does not mean is not normative for the Church today. I am under obligation to teach the Word in truth, whether or not it means my own toes are being stepped on. And boy are my toes red right now.