Ordination of women

Status
Not open for further replies.
sotzo

sotzo

Puritan Board Sophomore
Needing some help on understanding the biblical principle behind ordination of only men.

Specifically, what is the biblical principle and its textual support?

Secondly, is that principle the same as the one that lies behind the I Cor 11 command for women to wear headcoverings?

What I'm after is the underlying principle and whether one is inconsistent with that principle if they do not allow for women to be ordained yet not require headcoverings or vice versa.

Many thanks
Joel
 
The command to wear headcoverings is given on the basis of the creation order (1 Cor 11:8-12). The command not to have women as elders is, indeed, based on the same principle (1 Tim 2:11). God created Eve from Adam, and it is her natural place to be in submission to him.
 
Then should we require women to wear head coverings and are we violating Scripture if we don't?
 
Any thoughts on this in terms of whether we are being inconsistent on principle if we do not require women to wear headcovers yet refuse to ordain them?
 
If headcoverings and creation order were inextricably linked together, wouldn't Paul mention it also in 1 Tim 2? He goes out of his way to mention that women dress modestly, without "broidered hair". Wouldn't a headcoverning be included in modest dress? And if the woman is not to wear 'broidered hair' under her headcovering, then why doesn't Paul mention that in 1 Cor 11?

I have nothing against the use of headcoverings but don't see Paul linking it with the creation order with the same zeal as he does concerning the subjection of women in the church. :2cents:
 
sotzo said:
Then should we require women to wear head coverings and are we violating Scripture if we don't?
Click to expand...

Yes.

KMK said:
If headcoverings and creation order were inextricably linked together, wouldn't Paul mention it also in 1 Tim 2?
Click to expand...

No, not necessarily. He does mention it, however, in 1 Corinthians 11. And his argument is, indeed, zealous.

And if the woman is not to wear 'broidered hair' under her headcovering, then why doesn't Paul mention that in 1 Cor 11?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Perhaps that wasn't a problem in Corinth. And it certainly wouldn't have been as big a problem as women violating the custom of Apostles, and of the Church universally by not wearing headcoverings (1 Cor 11:16).
 
Joel,

Your thread question is one that has been engaged many times on Puritan Board. You may find helpful the search feature, upper right for past discussions.

The case for men in ordination is overwhelming- explicitly and implicitly in Scripture and by the witness of church history.

Some may disagree, but I would not tie the headcovering issue to that, but take that as a separate issue on its own terms. There have been some passionate discussions about that topic, and you will benefit from a search of previous threads on that topic.
 
OPC'n said:
idk eve wore a headcovering.....hmmmm....
Click to expand...

Headcoverings are instituted by God for public worship, and so the command is binding on us under the Regulative Principle. What God prescribes for worship changes in the different dispensations of the Covenant.

We really don't know if she wore one or not. The Bible never tells if it was commanded during that dispensation of the Covenant of Grace.
 
TylerRay said:
OPC'n said:
idk eve wore a headcovering.....hmmmm....
Click to expand...

Headcoverings are instituted by God for public worship, and so the command is binding on us under the Regulative Principle. What God prescribes for worship changes in the different dispensations of the Covenant.

We really don't know if she wore one or not. The Bible never tells if it was commanded during that dispensation of the Covenant of Grace.
Click to expand...

Nor during the Covenant of Works, I should add.
 
As to the 'hair'comment, aren't the Greek terms in the passage different for the covering of hair and the covering to add over the hair? I seem to recall (actually, just looked it up) that peribolaion (hair) and katakalupto (added covering) are used to describe the hair vs the covering, they are not interchangeable.
 
kvanlaan said:
As to the 'hair'comment, aren't the Greek terms in the passage different for the covering of hair and the covering to add over the hair? I seem to recall (actually, just looked it up) that peribolaion (hair) and katakalupto (added covering) are used to describe the hair vs the covering, they are not interchangeable.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I just read some objections at the bottom of this page: The Covering of 1 Corinthians 11 In particular the second objection. Can anyone rebut please?
 
The other part of the argument is the 1900+ years of church practise (check out a photo of most church gatherings of an orthodox nature prior to 1965). Does that make it a two millenia tradition based on a misreading of scripture? I don't think so, but some arguments seem to suggest it.
 
kvanlaan said:
The other part of the argument is the 1900+ years of church practise (check out a photo of most church gatherings of an orthodox nature prior to 1965). Does that make it a two millenia tradition based on a misreading of scripture? I don't think so, but some arguments seem to suggest it.
Click to expand...

This is what bugs me. Almost 2000 years of the practice in the church, enter the feminist movement, and all of a sudden we say we got it wrong? :doh:
 
chuckd said:
kvanlaan said:
The other part of the argument is the 1900+ years of church practise (check out a photo of most church gatherings of an orthodox nature prior to 1965). Does that make it a two millenia tradition based on a misreading of scripture? I don't think so, but some arguments seem to suggest it.
Click to expand...

This is what bugs me. Almost 2000 years of the practice in the church, enter the feminist movement, and all of a sudden we say we got it wrong? :doh:
Click to expand...
It's funny that the only thing that they really appeal to isn't scriptural support but the culture now, and slavery is banned in most places.
So much for sola scriptura, you would think that the catholics would come up with this one in the near future.
 
GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
chuckd said:
This is what bugs me. Almost 2000 years of the practice in the church, enter the feminist movement, and all of a sudden we say we got it wrong? :doh:
Click to expand...

That's what the Dispensationalists like to say, too! :D
Click to expand...

It's also what we reformers like to say about Justification By Faith Alone. The question always is "What saith the Scripture?" 2000 years of a given tradition may be just as wrong as one year of a given tradition. "To the law and to the testimony!"
 
kvanlaan said:
As to the 'hair'comment, aren't the Greek terms in the passage different for the covering of hair and the covering to add over the hair? I seem to recall (actually, just looked it up) that peribolaion (hair) and katakalupto (added covering) are used to describe the hair vs the covering, they are not interchangeable.
Click to expand...

As to my 'hair' comment, I had in view this verse:

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

I don't know Greek, so I'll have to yield to you on argument from the original tongues.
 
Edward, I don't know Greek either, but that's the argument that I've heard from proponents and checking it out, came to the same conclusion. Verse 15 uses the same word "peribolaion" for covering, not 'katakalupto'.
 
It's also what we reformers like to say about Justification By Faith Alone. The question always is "What saith the Scripture?" 2000 years of a given tradition may be just as wrong as one year of a given tradition. "To the law and to the testimony!"
Click to expand...

That's just it - scripture saith wear a covering. Then we have 1900 years of that interpretation put into practise, then we have the social revolution of the 1960s.
 
Calvin and Matthew Henry take it that a woman who was publicly praying or prophesying in the assembly (as was happening in the Corinthian church) were to have their heads covered as matter of decorum in common practice (headcovering being a symbol of submission in eastern cultures); and a woman in a place of presiding over an assembly ought not to violate propriety in such a matter, but to wear the proper symbol of the authority under which they were operating. They do not infer that head coverings must be worn in public worship assemblies simply as a matter of attendance upon them at all times and in all places. The question of a woman praying or prophesying in a public assembly involves a special question of authority, in which decorum ought not to be violated. Calvin points out that Paul later takes up the question of whether women ought to be praying or prophesying in the public assemblies at all, and forbids them to; but that headcovering would still have applied in more formal gatherings (like Bible studies) in private houses where women were at liberty to speak. He is careful to treat the whole topic not as a point not of superstitious observation but of propriety and decorum in an ordered society which Christians are not to be singular and contentious about (hence perhaps so many pictures in church history of men teaching with their heads covered, though this passage, if one reads it more superstitiously, would absolutely forbid such). Matthew Henry feels that the time of women praying and prophesying by divine inspiration has ceased with that era of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (hence also the need for headcoverings). Quotes below.

Here we have the second proposition -- that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head. For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection -- involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1 Timothy 2:12.) It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty -- not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.

. . . Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this -- that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.
Click to expand...
(Calvin on 1 Corinthians 11)


It was a mark or token of subjection for persons to be veiled or covered in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of others where being covered betokens superiority and dominion. From this we may better understand the reasons on which this reprehension is grounded . . . Thus would the apostle have the women appear in Christian aseemblies, even though they spake there by inspiration, because angels were present. Their presence should restrain Christians from all improprieties in the worship of God. We should behave in the public assemblies so as to express reverence for God and content and satisfaction with the rank in which he has placed us.

The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these correspond with the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities in dress receive no countenance from the apostolic writings. And there are many ways in which pious females may be useful, though no longer inspired to pray or prophesy in the church . . .
Click to expand...
(Matthew Henry)
 
kvanlaan said:
Edward, I don't know Greek either, but that's the argument that I've heard from proponents and checking it out, came to the same conclusion. Verse 15 uses the same word "peribolaion" for covering, not 'katakalupto'.
Click to expand...

The objection I mentioned above was essentially that the only place "peribolaion" is used is when it most definitely is referring to the woman's hair as a covering, yet that word is generally used to refer to some kind of garment whilst "katakalupto" is used in a more general sense. So that could seem to indicate that long hair actually takes the place of a covering.

I have long hair and don't prophesy or pray publicly (other than silent participation in corporate prayer) so I haven't felt the need to investigate further. But I am willing to be persuaded.

Heidi I like your summary better than Calvin and Henry; there's something about them on this subject (especially Henry) which has never seemed entirely conclusive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jie-Huli
  • Locked
Should women speak in church?
Replies
29
Views
9K
Ex Nihilo
Ex Nihilo
Quatchu
  • Locked
The Cultural Argument For Women Pastors
Replies
7
Views
2K
arapahoepark
arapahoepark
psycheives
  • Locked
  • Poll
Is it "SIN" for women to teach men?
2
Replies
57
Views
12K
JimmyH
JimmyH
Croghanite
  • Locked
  • Poll
Can women teach or have authority over men?
Replies
22
Views
8K
Gloria
Gloria
J
  • Locked
  • Poll
1 Corinthians 11 1-16 Should women wear prayer veils?
Replies
4
Views
5K
Jorge
J
Back
Top