Head Covering

Status
Not open for further replies.

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
1 Cor 11:3-10
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
I've known a few women that believe that this means women ought to wear a shawl or hat or some other type of head covering during worship. I was reading through this the other day and re-read it a few times. It seems that the natural reading of the verses would indicate that the "head covering" Paul is referring to is having a full head of hair and that he's not talking about hats or any other accutrement.

Thoughts?
 
Dear SemperFideles,

I want to ask you read the next artical by Brian Schwertley : Head Coverings in Public Worship. It also deals with the issue of long hear of women.

http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Headcoverings in Public Worship2.htm

My wife wears headcovering, and i can not understand stand that those who hold to sola scriptura and regulative principel do say that 1 Cor. 11:2 is absed on a cultural manner of that the wearing is not to be apply today. But again let first read the artical of Brian Schwertley.

There is also a more indept book 351 pages (i think the author is reformed) about Headcovering. See :

Covered or Uncovered? How 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 applies to worship and leadership in the church - Gary Sanseri

http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookid=1361&quantity=1

I have not read that book yet, but soon i will order it.
 
Originally posted by Mayflower
Dear SemperFideles,

I want to ask you read the next artical by Brian Schwertley : Head Coverings in Public Worship. It also deals with the issue of long hear of women.

http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Headcoverings in Public Worship2.htm

My wife wears headcovering, and i can not understand stand that those who hold to sola scriptura and regulative principel do say that 1 Cor. 11:2 is absed on a cultural manner of that the wearing is not to be apply today. But again let first read the artical of Brian Schwertley.

There is also a more indept book 351 pages (i think the author is reformed) about Headcovering. See :

Covered or Uncovered? How 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 applies to worship and leadership in the church - Gary Sanseri

http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookid=1361&quantity=1

I have not read that book yet, but soon i will order it.
I feel like a dork. I've just re-read the Scripture and it does seem to say that a woman ought to have her head covered while praying. I'll check out the link.
 
Originally posted by SemperFideles
1 Cor 11:3-10
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
I've known a few women that believe that this means women ought to wear a shawl or hat or some other type of head covering during worship. I was reading through this the other day and re-read it a few times. It seems that the natural reading of the verses would indicate that the "head covering" Paul is referring to is having a full head of hair and that he's not talking about hats or any other accutrement.

Thoughts?

I believe others will point you to some threads where the entire topic of headcovering has been discussed at great length. I would just point out, respectfully, that I do not think the explanation that the "covering" is nothing more than a full head of hair is at all a tenable interpretation of this passage.

If the covering meant only hair, why would Paul need to be exhorting women to be covered while "praying and prophesying"? Presumably women would already generally have a full head of hair, and wouldn't need exhorting for that . . . and if for some strange reason a woman did not have a full head of hair, presumably she would not be able to put on a head of hair just for times of praying and prophesying.

And the statement "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn" would surely mean little if hair itself were the covering, for if the woman already did not have the covering of hair, what is there to be shorn? Perhaps you think being "not covered" here is referring only to having short hair as opposed to a shaved head, and that Paul is saying if a woman does not have long hair she might as well shave her head completely? This would be quite a stretch, and contradictory to other parts of the passage. And it would be strange for him to be focusing the command on specific occassions (praying and prophesying), if the command were really about the proper length of hair, which presumably could not change based on the occassion.

And if a full head of hair is the covering, what does it mean when Paul commands men NOT to pray or prophesy with a covering?

Finally, do you remove your hat during times of prayer (outdoors at a picnic, for example)? If so, what is that but an application of this passage as it applies to men, recognising that the covering is a head garment. Women covering their heads with cloth coverings during prayer/worship is simply the corresponding application of the feminine side of this passage.

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Jie-Huli]
 
Jie-Huli,

I'm not arguing the point anymore. I concede it. I don't think that the covering being hair could be a plausible explanation. I read over the verse twice too quickly and then realized I was misreading them.

I read the Bible while on an Elliptical trainer and I miss some things sometimes. Hopefully after reading it through a number of times throughout my life I'll misread less and less. ;)
 
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Jie-Huli,

I'm not arguing the point anymore. I concede it. I don't think that the covering being hair could be a plausible explanation. I read over the verse twice too quickly and then realized I was misreading them.

I read the Bible while on an Elliptical trainer and I miss some things sometimes. Hopefully after reading it through a number of times throughout my life I'll misread less and less. ;)

:handshake: Apologies, I did not see your later post before I myself posted. Well, I will leave my statements there for what they are worth anyway, perhaps others across the world had that question as well.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli
 
Bacon's article cemented my feelings about HC in favor.

Then I met my future wife, who already followed the practice. Obviously we were meant for each other...
 
When are the head coverings to be worn? During the entire church service, or only when the woman prays or prophesies?
 
I'm curious, I've never really done a study on the topic, but what does it mean to be 'covered'?

As Christ is the cover of the husband, it would seem to be a spiritual covering more so than an actual physical covering.

Isn't a covering something that protects or shelters? A husband is to protect the wife, a pastor or father is supposed to protect single women/daughters. Correct?

So is it possible, its more if a woman doesn't have a spiritual leader in her life?

Maybe consider this, when we get married, we are to leave our parents home and cleave to our spouse, the husband is no longer under the authority of his parents, and no longer answers to them, but is under Christ. The wife, leaves the parents home, and her fathers protection and becomes the husbands responsibility to care for and protect her. Or in other words it's his responsiblity to cover her, and to be her spiritual head.

For single adult women living on their own, they are no longer under the protection and care of their father, and as they aren't married they aren't under the protection and care of a husband. So therefore they don't have that covering or protection that a husband or father would provide.

If we look at some of the roles of a father in a daughters life, he is to protect her from men who would take advantage of her, he is to make sure she is provided for, they even found husbands for their daughters, to take on that role as the spiritual head of the daughter.

Looking at today's society we don't see this as much, as most fathers don't take an as much of an active role in their daughters lives when they date, they don't hold boys accountable for how they treat their daughters. They don't cover their daughters the way they used to. Sure they joke around and make comments when their daughters are little that when they start dating they will be sitting on the front porch with a shotgun, but the reality is, they really don't do that. And if a boy mistreats their daughter they don't hold them accountable for it, so that the boy can learn to become a man who will one day protect (cover) the woman he eventually marries.

Boys on the other hand, don't need that same protection (cover) from their fathers as they date, because they will be the *cover* of their wives. They were to become the provider, not the one needing to be provided for.

Maybe today's society is much like that of the days of Corthin, that women were moving out of their parents homes and living on their own, thinking they don't need the 'protection' or 'cover' of a man in their lives. Having the mindset of many women today, thinking they don't 'need a man in their lives'
so maybe Paul was saying, don't let women with that attitude speak out in your congregations. If we look around at many churches who allow women pastors we see they have more liberal views on many other aspects of the bible as well.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts on a possible meaning.

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by BJClark]
 
...during the entire church service, if she were in 1st Century Corinth.

" For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 1 Cor 11:6

It is not a shame here and now.
 
Originally posted by non dignus
...during the entire church service, if she were in 1st Century Corinth.

" For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 1 Cor 11:6

It is not a shame here and now.

I've seen quite a few women, even the wives of pastors, that would almost qualify as being "shorn". How short is too short?
 
And if a full head of hair is the covering, what does it mean when Paul commands men NOT to pray or prophesy with a covering?

Hair for a WOMAN is a covering, not for a man. Quite a few men are genetically bald. Do you really think the passage is talking about a shawl or hat ? ? That would be kind of silly don't you think ? Since it is the very same thing Adam and Eve tried to do . . provide for themselves a covering.

Paul is simply saying in a nutshell that Christian woman should not shave their heads like the temple prostitutes, because of the stigma it had in that day. Today I think the principle would be mini skirts or other lewd dress.

On a side note, I find it really interesting that Paul appeals to natural law and not scripture to prove the point about hair. Does that mean natural law bears the same weight as scripture ? Or does it reveal that this was a principle Paul was trying to explain concerning propriety, and not a scriptural law ?



[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]
 
A sincere question;

For those who hold to the hearcovering position, do you think it has any application outside of official church worship assemblies?
 
I used to run in Pentecostal circles. (Yes, we were running in theological circles) I affirmed coverings for women (something very pentecostal- affirming things for other people). Even today it is difficult for me to pray with my ballcap on.

What I know now is that the overall flavor, if you will, of the Christian religion does not consist in 'pillars of Islam' type commandments. Face it - this is a mysterious passage; let each one be convinced in his own mind.

While my conscience is pricked when I'm praying with my hat on, (unless it is very cold) my wife is perfectly comfortable being uncovered. I don't have a firm mandate to ask her to cover up.

We all have different ideas on what should be worn as a covering. Because of this we generate our own standards on what is appropriate since there are no particulars in scripture on what is regulation' and what is not regulation head gear. This tells me the whole idea, if rigidly prescribed, is foreign to our liberty in Christ.

And if it is not rigidly prescribed then perhaps it is in vain.
 
headcoverings

Women

Here are two articles I found on the subject, the second has some other interesting thoughts as well.

Such as

"when female rule becomes common, Isaiah 3:12 indicates it must be seen as the judgment of God."

Makes me wonder if liberals REALLY want Hilary as president.
 
I will not condemn anyone who does wear a literal covering. I do not believe it is a law/liberty issue. For one thing the law did not bind any woman to wear such a covering. I will advocate that we are indeed free from the ceremonial and judicial laws (and the curse of the moral law). I disagree with some of those who promote literal coverings and those who are against literal coverings based on their reasoning and conclusions. I respect those who cover despite what they desire to do over those who immediately dismiss the passage knowing they do not wish to cover. THAT is what I would argue against - people taking a stance due to preference over obedience; that is a crime of reading a passage to fit one's biased intentions.
With that, my view, and thus the reason my wise does not cover is as follows:

During apostolic times (before the canonized word of God), women, like men would be empowered to speak up in church to utter an inspired prayer or prophecy. Paul already made it clear that women were not to rule over men in the church, but to remain silent in regards to ruling and teaching (1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). When such a situation came up, they were to cover their heads with a covering during such to proclaim as a sign that they are still acting in holy submission while speaking since they are not remaining silent, but they are still acknowledging that they are not ruling or teaching over men while the church is assembled. To do such and not wear a sign would or could lead to confusion in regards to Paul's instruction that women are to refrain from addressing the congregation during the assembly. Since the sign gifts have ceased with the Apostles and the establishment of the finalized and complete canon of scripture, such situations do not come up anymore, thus head coverings are no longer used.

Some commentators, such as O. Palmer Robertson and James B. Jordan support such a view. In 1993 (before the Federal Vision controversy) James Jordan wrote an article that explains it in more detail: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh054.htm.

Honestly, in my opinion I believe that the passage in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is a very difficult passage, more so than the likes of Hebrews 6 and Romans 9, John 6, etc. However, I agree with such as Chrysostom and Calvin that Paul was addressing specific issues in the Corinthian church addressing the more severe to the least (which would be the head covering issue) and then concluding with the greatest offense with the treatment of the sacrament. Which the lack of attention and detail explains why it appears to be a difficult passage to understand.
 
Originally posted by pastorway
The Wife's Role at Church: Covered
by Pastor Phillip M. Way

Pastor Way,

I take it your wife wears a shawl to cover her hair in Church. Does it cause some discomfort in the other women who don't cover their heads? How do you manage the difference of opinions? Although a seemingly minor issue, nevertheless it would connote a right way and a wrong way in the very big issue of submission.:)

PS I confess I didn't listen to the audio. Could I access written text?
 
I do not have a written text of this sermon. In order to listen for FREE all you have to do is subscribe to sermon audios weekly email report.

In the sermon I make a case for properly and Biblically defining the term "covered."

I agree that women should be covered. My wife does not wear a head covering at church.

You will have to listen to the sermon to put the two together!

Phillip
 
I remember posting quite a lot on this subject in another thread earlier in the year, and I will not be able to post much more on this right now. But since it seems there are some new participants here who seem to believe headcovering is not a requirement in modern times, I would just like to put forward one question for consideration:

Aberrant interpretations aside, I believe it is clear to most that the command in 1 Corinthians is that women should cover their heads during worship. The argument many put forward is that this command was only an application of a larger scriptural principle (male headship) in a particular cultural setting, and that the specific command of headcovering is not a requirement for Christians in later times in different cultural settings.

My question is this: how can you arrive at this conclusion "Sola Scriptura"? The plain face meaning of the passage is a command for women to cover their heads while "praying and prophesying", and while it is obviously related to male headship, there is no evidence in the passage itself that this physical symbol of headship, headcovering, was not an enduring command. There is nothing within the Scriptures themselves which would prove this was only a temporary command addressed to the people in that culture. So the only way you can arrive at that conclusion is to decide, based upon your own human reasoning and view of the worth of the practise, that Paul would not have meant such a command for a physical symbol to be binding in later ages.

Now, how is this consistent with "Sola Scriptura"? How can we decide which parts of Scripture were only aimed at the culture of that time, if the Bible itself does not tell us this?
 
How can we decide which parts of Scripture were only aimed at the culture of that time, if the Bible itself does not tell us this?

John 13:13-15. "You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am, If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done for you."

Here is what appears to be a clear instruction from our Lord Himself to ash one another's feet. I am aware of certain sects that have carried out this practice in the past, but I don't think any mainstream churches do so today.
Why not? And if not, why do we insist upon head coverings for women?

Dr Peter Masters ('Not like any Other Book', Wakeman Press, 2004. ISBN 1-870855-43-4 )recommends four tests for deciding whether a thing either commanded or recorded as an example of conduct was intended to be temporary or permanent in the life of believers and the Church.

1. All Scripture is binding today unless Scripture itself cancels, limits or modifies what it prescribes.

2. All Scripture is binding today unless the passage records immoral or irreligious behaviour.

3. All Scripture is binding today unless that which is required appears obscurely in one text only, and is not even hinted at elsewhere
(eg. 1Cor 15:29- Martin ).

4. All Scripture is binding today unless it can be proved that the thing prescribed may be fully obeyed in different ways in different ages and customs.

With reference to No.4, Masters suggests asking two questions:-

A. Was the act a social custom in Bible times?

B. Can the underlying principle or purpose be equally well expressed in some other way? (In other words, is the act carried out in Bible times the only way to express the principle?)


If the answer to both questions is 'yes' (says Masters), then the physical, outward act is cultural, and it is not necessary to carry out that act today, although the principle must be obeyed and expressed in the appropriate way for our time and culture.

Martin

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Dr Peter Masters ('Not like any Other Book', Wakeman Press, 2004. ISBN 1-870855-43-4 )recommends four tests for deciding whether a thing either commanded or recorded as an example of conduct was intended to be temporary or permanent in the life of believers and the Church.

1. All Scripture is binding today unless Scripture itself cancels, limits or modifies what it prescribes.

2. All Scripture is binding today unless the passage records immoral or irreligious behaviour.

3. All Scripture is binding today unless that which is required appears obscurely in one text only, and is not even hinted at elsewhere
(eg. 1Cor 15:29- Martin ).

4. All Scripture is binding today unless it can be proved that the thing prescribed may be fully obeyed in different ways in different ages and customs.

With reference to No.4, Masters suggests asking two questions:-

A. Was the act a social custom in Bible times?

B. Can the underlying principle or purpose be equally well expressed in some other way? (In other words, is the act carried out in Bible times the only way to express the principle?)


If the answer to both questions is 'yes' (says Masters), then the physical, outward act is cultural, and it is not necessary to carry out that act today, although the principle must be obeyed and expressed in the appropriate way for our time and culture.

Martin

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

Greetings, Martin. I do have this book by Dr. Masters. In fact, I have read most of his books, and have quite recently, on two completely unrelated threads (alcohol consumption and guidance from God), argued very much in favour of his writings. I am in agreement with him most of the time, and have much affection for him.

However, I do question his third and fourth principles given above. The first and second principles he gives are certainly correct . . . both logically necessary and supported by the direct teaching of Scripture. The third principle, while I understand the sentiment, requires great care . . . for although the headcovering issue is covered in only one passage, quite a lot of attention is devoted to it and it is written with clarity.

And as for his fourth principle, all I can say is that I do not see any Scriptural justification for this proposition. It seems a rather humanly pragmatic statement. If a command is given in Scripture, what right do we have, based on our own judgment outside of Scripture, to decide that the purposes behind it can be applied just as well in another fashion in our own culture, and that we do not need to follow the command as written? Where has Scripture itself given us this license? I believe this method of interpretation can open the door to many dangers. And so I must, with respect and kindness, disagree with Dr. Masters here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top