# Men's hats and 1 Corinthians 11:4



## MichaelNZ (Jun 11, 2013)

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head" (1 Corinthians 11:4 ESV)

Does this verse mean that men who wear hats have to take them off to pray? I usually wear a flat cap when I go out and if I want to pray, I take the cap off. Is this verse applicable to men today (since the majority of women in my church don't wear headcoverings which are mentioned in the next verse) or was it something cultural that no longer applies today?


----------



## Zach (Jun 11, 2013)

I've wondered about this verse too. I often will wear a ball cap while walking around outside or driving and I don't take it off if I am praying silently to the Lord as I walk or drive. That being said, I wouldn't wear a hat in a church service. I'm not sure how this verse is to apply today and I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's insights.


----------



## Vladimir (Jun 11, 2013)

Gill's commentary on this:


> Every man praying or prophesying,.... This is to be understood of praying and prophesying in public, and not in private; and not to be restrained to the person that is the mouth of the congregation to God in prayer, or who preaches to the people in the name of God; but to be applied to every individual person that attends public worship...
> 
> ..."dishonoureth his head"; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship; or otherwise the reverse is suggested of him, which is highly to dishonour him, and is the sense many interpreters give into: rather the reason should be, because Christ, the believer's head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, and his intercession not prevalent: but the natural head, taken in a literal sense, is rather meant; and the sense is, that by covering it, it looks as if he was guilty and ashamed, and in subjection; whereas to appear uncovered expresses freedom, boldness, and superiority, like himself, who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman's veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable.



I do not wear headwear, but I cannot imagine myself bowing before the high throne of the Holy God, when all the host of Heaven stops in silence, and I am wearing a ball cap.
On the other hand, to quote Paul Washer, 'there is prayer with your shoes on and prayer with your shoes off'.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Jun 11, 2013)

Culturally speaking, I think this is where the practice comes from. For instance, all the males had to remove their graduation caps during the prayer for my high school graduation (and the women did not). But I don't think that's a good interpretation of this verse.

This will likely reflect one's view on head coverings. I believe that women ought to have the hair covered during corporate worship, which is the context of this passage. It's not speaking about all the time. That's why he talks about the Lord's Supper later in the chapter - a sacrament which is only done in the context of public worship. So I would say this verse is not cultural and is saying that men ought not to have their head covered during corporate worship like women do. A woman covers her hair in order to cover her own glory (v. 15) and her husband/father's glory (v. 7) so that only God's glory (man) is uncovered. Verse 7 further expounds upon the verse you posted "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."

Here are some excellent sermons defending the use of head coverings by women during corporate worship, if you're interested: Headcoverings in Public Worship, Part 1 - SermonAudio.com


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist (Jun 11, 2013)

Vladimir said:


> Gill's commentary on this:
> 
> 
> > Every man praying or prophesying,.... This is to be understood of praying and prophesying in public, and not in private; and not to be restrained to the person that is the mouth of the congregation to God in prayer, or who preaches to the people in the name of God; but to be applied to every individual person that attends public worship...
> ...


Good example brother Vladimir. I would also add that, it's not as much brother Washer's quote, as the book of Exodus itself. *"Take your shoes off, for you are on holy ground"*. There is a certain way we ought to approach unto the most Holy. And two priests were smoked when they did not hallow Him (Lev 10). I fail so often in my frivolity and triviality. May God continue to pour out His Holy Spirit upon us, to make war against that corrupt flesh of ours day to day.


----------



## Vladimir (Jun 11, 2013)

SinnerSavedByChrist said:


> Good example brother Vladimir. I would also add that, it's not as much brother Washer's quote, as the book of Exodus itself. "Take your shoes off, for you are on holy ground". There is a certain way we ought to approach unto the most Holy. And two priests were smoked when they did not hallow Him (Lev 10). I fail so often in my frivolity and triviality. May God continue to pour out His Holy Spirit upon us, to make war against that corrupt flesh of ours day to day.


Paul Washer was not alluding to taking shoes off on holy ground, but talked about putting on boots when you embark upon a tedious task. To further quote him, 'Sometimes prayer is hard work'.
But interestingly enough, the Jews did turn this into a tradition of taking their shoes off, as well as covering their head. From the Pulpit Commentary:


> Prophesying; that is, preaching. Having his head covered. This was a Jewish custom. The Jewish worshipper in praying always covers his head with his tallith. The Jew (like Orientals generally) uncovered his feet because the place on which he stood was holy ground; but he covered his head by way of humility, even as the angels veil their faces with their wings. AEneas is said by Servius to have introduced this custom into Italy. On the other hand, the Greek custom was to pray with the head uncovered. St. Paul - as some discrepancy of custom seems to have arisen - decided in favour of the Greek custom, on the high ground that Christ, by his incarnation, became man, and therefore the Christian, who is" in Christ," may stand with unveiled head in the presence of his Father. Dishonoureth his head. He dishonoureth his own head, which is as it were a sharer in the glory of Christ, who is Head of the whole Church. "We pray," says Tertullian, "with bare heads because we blush not." The Christian, being no longer a slave, but a son (Galatians 4:7), may claim his part in the glory of the eternal Son. The head was covered in mourning (2 Samuel 15:30; Jeremiah 14:13), and the worship of the Christian is joyous.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 11, 2013)

It's hard to affirm that the 1 Cor. 11 passage requires men to remove hats for prayer unless you also affirm that it requires women today to wear headcoverings (which some here do affirm, but I do not).

However, for a variety of reasons, in most of the Western world today it is considered a sign of respect for a man to remove his hat in many situations, public worship and prayer being among them. For those of us who live in that culture, it's good to follow that custom... since showing respect for God is highly appropriate and is a discipline that's been somewhat lost. For your private prayer, do whatever helps you approach God with a proper state of heart.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jun 11, 2013)

Jack K said:


> However, for a variety of reasons, in most of the Western world today it is considered a sign of respect for a man to remove his hat in many situations, public worship and prayer being among them.


I do believe this is the result of a cultural history of men not wearing a head covering in public worship due to 1 Cor 11.
I find it interesting to note the frequency of this practice in works of art depicting protestant worshippers of the past. Modern interpretations as well as differing depictions of various groups seem to depict this practice differently.


----------



## PaulMc (Jun 11, 2013)

I take the issue of headcoverings from 1 Cor 11 to apply today, so I would not wear one, while my wife does.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 11, 2013)

Seems like the simplest solution, to me, that a man should just take the Bible at its word, and _provided you may in safety do it,_ just *take off your cover*. I do believe the main venue that is in view in 1Cor.11:4 is public prayer; so it is most appropriate in the general and stated gathering for prayer to heed Paul's counsel.

If you forget, God still hears his dear children's prayer. But remember, Scripture does say clearly there is honor at stake.

If you are in a situation where "hard-hat required" is the rule, such would appear to be a condition of necessity, and the rules of Sabbath-observance would seem to have applicability. But exceptions only prove the rule--what does Scripture say?

If your hands are tied (literally or figuratively) and you cannot take your hat off, would anyone think God _ignores_ a cry for help, or any other prayer of the hatted? But to recognize this particular only accentuates our responsibility to heed the ordinary maxim.

For a variety of reasons, women may not be much wearers of headcoverings, whether in general, or particularly in worship. But that is simply not relevant to the situation with men. Parents still tell their boys to take off their hats indoors. Teachers tell their male pupils. Maitre d's tell their male patrons. The judge tells the defendant, the president's protocol officer tells the visitor, or the pressman, etc. This is still a Western convention of deference, and probably a world-wide one.

So, what saith the Scriptures? There aren't _that many_ explicit statements in the NT concerning personal conduct in worship. Compared to the OT, we have a radical change, a huge amount of new freedom. But sure as we're alive, people seem to want to "buck" even the least bit of "law" the NT gives. Jesus makes this explicit statement, Mat 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth," and yet there are entire church-traditions that habitually choose to make "Father So-and-so" their standard address of their pastor. What's up with that?

Again, it's just a handful of acts--positive or negative--that set apart the "Christian" ways of doing things. Regulative-Principle Worship generally takes greater exegetical work to establish. And we seem to have trouble following the plain words of the text in a handful of verses. And our excuse? "We're not under law, but under grace!"


****************************


A few other thoughts on Christian liberty and social mores:

It is a perverse mind that takes a sort of "liberty" in pronouncing all or any flouting of social mores his "Christian right." All the more reason to remember that the main interest of Christian liberty is the moral and religious life, free in worship and in ordinary conduct from rituals and practices that invoke another *ultimate* authority. Common-life is more often recognized as penultimate authority, local ties that bind; unless a man prefers to be an outcast. Too many today (Christian or non-Christian) want radical inclusion while they live entirely on their own terms, owing nothing to anyone.

"Politeness" is little more than respect for others; and people who hate the common-life of shared habits have only themselves to blame when their demand for acceptance of their contradictory lifestyle is frowned at, even by a small segment of the population. These sort of individualists themselves show amazing intolerance for the right of someone else to withhold his full consent to the challenge of a convention he thinks is preferable.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Jun 11, 2013)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> I do believe this is the result of a cultural history of men not wearing a head covering in public worship due to 1 Cor 11.I find it interesting to note the frequency of this practice in works of art depicting protestant worshippers of the past. Modern interpretations as well as differing depictions of various groups seem to depict this practice differently.
> View attachment 3495



Yes, it is portrayed in art as such. It seems that in some instances, the worship service isn't being portrayed during corporate prayer. So, this extends the OP a bit and I don't want to abuse that. I wonder what writing is done in the Islands or Continental Reformed communities contemporaneous to this? I think back on how Walter Scott put it in his work, "Rob Roy" (mind you he notes that the men _prayed with their heads uncovered_ and then recovered them afterward) and wonder if the paintings and other art work of the time reflecting such practice is correct? And if correct, what Biblical warrant they used for it? Per "Rob Roy's" artistic representation:

"...enclosed within the building, were engaged, as the choral swell of voices from
within announced to us, in the solemn exercises of devotion. The sound of
so many voices united by the distance into one harmony, and freed from
those harsh discordances which jar the ear when heard more near,
combining with the murmuring brook, and the wind which sung among the old
firs, affected me with a sense of sublimity. All nature, as invoked by
the Psalmist whose verses they chanted, seemed united in offering that
solemn praise in which trembling is mixed with joy as she addressed her
Maker. I had heard the service of high mass in France, celebrated with
all the _e'clat_ which the choicest music, the richest dresses, the most
imposing ceremonies, could confer on it; yet it fell short in effect of
the simplicity of the Presbyterian worship...*I found a numerous
congregation engaged in the act of prayer.* The Scotch perform this duty
in a standing instead of a kneeling posture...Standing, therefore, the men being
uncovered, a crowd of several hundreds of both sexes, and all ages,
listened with great reverence and attention to the extempore, at least
the unwritten, prayer of an aged clergyman, who was very popular in the
city...*At the conclusion of the prayer, **most of the men put on their hats or
bonnets*, and all who had the happiness to have seats sate down."

I have heard this passage used not just to deal with "praying or prophesying" but all of corporate worship. But I hope not to derail the thread. Just throwing that out there.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 11, 2013)

Christopher, 
I appreciate this RLS quotation, and the historical setting in which it is drawn (admittedly literary). I've actually searched for this quote in the past, not recalling the exact source, and so I'm happy you have brought it forth again.

Although today, in the conditions of our warmed-and-sealed buildings, ordinarily the custom is the hat should be off the whole time, the best thing I believe the quoted description above affords us is: that there is a palpable sense there of corporate _seeking to fulfill the law of the Lord,_ however it manifests itself in the detail.


----------



## PaulMc (Jun 11, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Seems like the simplest solution, to me, that a man should just take the Bible at its word, and _provided you may in safety do it,_ just *take off your cover*. I do believe the main venue that is in view in 1Cor.11:4 is public prayer; so it is most appropriate in the general and stated gathering for prayer to heed Paul's counsel.
> 
> If you forget, God still hears his dear children's prayer. But remember, Scripture does say clearly there is honor at stake.
> 
> ...



Amen to that!

There are few churches over here in England where women's head-covering is practised.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 11, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jesus makes this explicit statement, Mat 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth," and yet there are entire church-traditions that habitually choose to make "Father So-and-so" their standard address of their pastor. What's up with that?



Yes, and the Pope also wears a giant goofy hat.


----------



## FCC (Jun 11, 2013)

On a side note: A Mennonite man that I am familiar with and with whom I was sharing the Reformed faith was extremely interested in John Calvin's approach to head coverings for men. This man was elderly and had fought an unsuccessful effort in his church to be allowed to wear his hat inside on cold days, because he found that he caught cold very quickly if he didn't wear it! He actually accepted some of Calvin's works because Calvin advocated that men could wear hats in order to protect themselves from the cold! I asked him to consider some of the other "things" that Calvin taught and he said he would! Maybe because of hats a Mennonite will be brought to the truth! Please pray for him!


----------



## Cymro (Jun 11, 2013)

1Cor11:7,10, states plainly, "a man indeed ought not to cover his head," but," for this cause
ought the woman to have power on her head." Now this is a Christian introduction into public
worship, so the cultural argument cannot be used. In the Jewish congregation all the male worshippers
would cover their heads with the Shallith,(prayer shawL) or even his cloak. Deut 22:12.
Whereas the women only veiled themselves for weddings or private occasions etc, but in ordinary worship their heads
were uncovered. 1 Sam1:12. Paul is recovering the creation order that was interfered with by the fall, and is 
reinstituting that order with Christian principles.
The Rev M. Watts of Salisbury has an article on this. The best short paper on women having to
cover their heads that I have read, is by Prof J. Murray.


----------



## Vladimir (Jun 12, 2013)

Rev. Buchanan,

I agree with you completely, especially on your statement about Christian liberty. I fail, though, to see the distinction between this case and the issue of tattoos. Why did you not advise to take the Bible at its word in that discussion?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 12, 2013)

Vladimir said:


> ev. Buchanan,
> 
> I agree with you completely, especially on your statement about Christian liberty. I fail, though, to see the distinction between this case and the issue of tattoos. Why did you not advise to take the Bible at its word in that discussion?



Because the prohibition against tattoos is in Lev.19:28; it belongs to the ceremonies (specifically the separation laws) of the Old Covenant, which things were temporary (Dan.9:27; Eph.2:15-16; Col.2:14-17); and we now live in the New Covenant age, in which we have been freed from life regulated to the same degree:

Act.15:10, "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"​
If I advised others to take and apply to themselves the commandment given to ancient Israel _on it's face,_ I would be *untrue* to my principle of treating God's book as an integrated whole, and as a rule of life.

That was then; this is now. We are not--literally--Israel the national body politic. We are "the Israel of God," Gal.6:15-16.

Now we have a case in which a NT apostle lays down a simple direction for the present age, and I haven't seen any contemporaneous or subsequent revelation indicating that what he said applied in a temporary fashion for the first generation of NT believers alone. There were some elements of the NT church that were, in fact, _apostolic_ and confined to the time of the establishment or founding of the NT church--the practice of certain miraculous gifts, for example.

But a universal practice (1Cor.11:16) put in place from the start by the apostles across the patchwork of cultures and languages that comprised the Roman Empire? I think I need an overwhelming argument to set that aside. And by "overwhelming," I mean undeniably according to standard principles of *biblical* interpretation.

So, unless it is exegetically demonstrable that 1Cor.11:4 has no explicit, face-value directions for the church today, I must conclude it does.


----------



## Vladimir (Jun 13, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> That was then; this is now. We are not--literally--Israel the national body politic. We are "the Israel of God," Gal.6:15-16.


Yes, but the problem is why a prohibition of tattoos for example is not, to quote the WCF:


> ... of great use to [true believers], as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 13, 2013)

Vladimir said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > That was then; this is now. We are not--literally--Israel the national body politic. We are "the Israel of God," Gal.6:15-16.
> ...



No, my friend,
You cannot invoke WCF 19:6, and ignore the prior sections 1-5. All the sections of the confession control one another, but prior paragraphs enjoy a contextual priority over others in the same chapter, because they form a connected case or argument.

Sections 1 & 2 define the moral foundation of God's law. It is associated with the beginning of the world, and the Covenant of Works. It is identified as fully summarized in the 10 Commandments.

Section 3 clearly states that the ceremonial laws given "besides *this* law," previously defined as moral and the 10C, are now under the NT _*abrogated*_, that means abolished or annulled.

Section 4 describes other laws given to Israel that were "judicial" in nature, meant to assist them in social government of a national body-politic as they were then constituted, in parallel to religion. They thereby possessed a "ready-made" body of case-law, divinely authorized and suitable to their landed estate in their historical setting. These laws are now _*expired*_, that means "dead." Some utility may be found for them still, but such benefit comes from the discovery of the internal "equity" or natural "fairness" inherent in good law.

So far then, a "three-fold" division of that Law given to Moses: a moral cornerstone; ceremonial distinctions; and judicial statutes. The first is timeless, and according to Section 5, "doth forever bind all." The other two are annulled and dead, though as *revelation* they have continuing value, if not validity.

So, Section 6, following directly from Section 5 with its renewed focus on the moral law, plus the repeated language from Section 1 concerning "a covenant of works," shows that what the divines have in view is the MORAL LAW, that is, the 10C.


The law against tattoos was a ceremonial law, a separation ordinance. It is abrogated, abolished, according to the witness of the NT. We take up those ceremonial laws at great peril, because there is NO WAY to take only a part of them without obligating oneself to the WHOLE law. Gal.5:3, "I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law." In for a penny, in for a pound.

We keep hold on the moral law, because the Law given at Sinai did not introduce moral law; therefore when the Law was superseded by Christ, we do not look for an overthrow of dictated morality woven into the fabric of the universe. And when the NT teaches morality, it is in perfect accord with the 10C, even at times to quoting it. We do not obey the 10C _because_ Moses gave them. We follow them because they still perform the admirable function of summarizing the Eternal Moral Law, because Jesus himself summarized the Ten in Two, because "love is the fulfilling of the law," Rom.13:8-10.


----------



## PaulMc (Jun 13, 2013)

Gesetveemet said:


> The verse requires all men to be bald when praying.



I think it's quite clear that a woman's hair (as mentioned in verse 15) is not the covering Paul is talking about earlier in the chapter, and for two reasons:

- The Greek word for 'covering' in verse 15 is different than that of earlier in the chapter.

and 

- That interpretation would make no sense of verse 6:
"For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short"

I don't think that works...


----------

