# Only for the pro- headcoverings!!!!



## Mayflower (Jan 10, 2008)

This is only for those few members who are viewing headcoverings for women during worship as today practise, and not as cultural manner. What do you think concerning the view of Greg L. Price :
The Practice Of Headcoverings In Public Worship


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 10, 2008)

On point #2 (still reading)...certain areas it may have been common...findings are that in Corinth, where Paul commanded it, it was counter-cultural (ie, not common practice to cover).

There are those of us who cover, that also hold to the modesty aspect of covering and thus cover for more than just services. Rebekkah was not married yet to Isaac when she first met him, I believe...or at least, obviously was not "known" by him. However, it is not unlikely that she was in the presence of a close kinsman or servants that are considered as family...thus not being covered in their presence would not be an issue.

Mary, uncovered head and cleaning Jesus' feet with her hair was a sign of shame. She was washing his feet in her most base position, that of being shamed of her life and sins. Thus, it makes the most sense that she came uncovered. More of uncovering a woman to publically announce her shame/accusation of shame is covered in Leviticus.

I do know churches that still practice the holy kiss and wash feet. Why it has stopped in the majority of churches, I have no idea...pride? fear?


----------



## Mayflower (Jan 10, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> There are those of us who cover, that also hold to the modesty aspect of covering and thus cover for more than just services.



Besides the church service, my wife and daughter (3.5 years old) are using headcovering during our family devotion, and my wife use it also when she has private devotion and prayer.

By the way, yesterday i listen to the next lecture which was very good : 
SermonAudio.com - What? Me? Wear a Hat?


----------



## larryjf (Jan 10, 2008)

He seems to equate the holy kiss of 2 Cor 13:12 as a command...which it is not - it's simply a greeting.

The fact that the author declares that headcoverings is a command, and that it is agreeable to moral principles found in nature says alot. How can something merely be cultural if it is part of the natural order of things?

The context of the passage is God's order...Christ the head of man, man the head of woman...and it is this order that gives warrant to the head covering.

We are further told in the passage (v.7) that since man is the glory of God he is not to cover himself, but since woman is the glory of man she must cover. This brings up an interesting point to all of this...the reason a woman is to cover her head is so that she does not glorify man in the presence of God. The reason a man is not to cover his head is so that God would be glorified.


----------



## Mayflower (Jan 10, 2008)

I just read : The Head CoveringTimothy Nelson > Gospel Standard Trust Publications

Which was very good!


----------



## Augusta (Jan 10, 2008)

I don't remember if I listened to Greg Price on headcovering. Here are a couple of sermons on it that firmed up my convictions concerning headcovering. I think they are both the first in a series. 

SermonAudio.com - Headcovering #1

SermonAudio.com - Head Covering - Introduction


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 11, 2008)

David Silversides has a good response to the the 2004 RPNA paper here. Greg Price wrote a position paper in support of headcoverings in worship 1996. Part of it is online here. He got it right the first time, In my humble opinion.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 11, 2008)

I was thinking on this subject further and wanted to ask y'all your thoughts on something...

Perhaps the question of head coverings has nothing to do with cultural vs. command...perhaps it has more to do with us mis-understanding the passage as it relates to covering the head.

_1Co 11:3
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
_

In this passage "head" is defined for us...for a man it is Christ, for a woman it is man/husband.

Does this passage really teach that a woman is to cover her head(husband) and a man is not to cover his head(Christ)? A woman would cover her husband during worship so that she can be under the direct authority of Christ instead of her husband (though not being independent of her husband...verse 11).

Thoughts??


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 11, 2008)

I am studying through to teach on 1 Cor. 11 soon as I am preaching through this epistle at this time. For the record I am 'pro' head coverings in corporate worship...

Close scrutiny in my preparations to preach this in a few weeks has uncovered two issues.

1. Fixing 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 as dealing with women in corporate worship is problematic. It is usually taken for granted that chapter 11 begins the instructions for corporate worship. Before chapter 11, corporate worship is not in view.

The real trouble is 11:17&18. In verse 17 is the first mention of 'when you come together', and verse 18 says 'For, in the first place...'. It would seem to be that based upon the text itself and not the uninspired chapter divisions, that this is where corporate worship is beginning to be addressed and this is after the text on head coverings.

Furthermore, the understanding of headcoverings for praying and prophesying being something not merely relegated to corporate worship also reconciles the difficulty with chapter 14 (v.34 the women should keep quiet in the churches).

2. The popular idea that Gordon Fee has promoted that there is absolutely no evidence that pagan priestesses with short hair existed in this time period and were thus not an influence that is being dealt with in this passage (one argument used by those who hold that the covering is the hair), was shockingly turned on its head yesterday when I discovered the existence of this statue of a Roman era priestess of Isis from the 2nd Century...

Imageriestess of isis.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am very early into looking into this but...the cult of Isis was very active in Corinth in the 1st Century and one of its distinguishing traits was that both women and men could hold high positions within the cult. It is an interesting side note that I found several modern feminist organizations who use ISIS in their name because of their perceived correlation of the cult of Isis with feminism.

What I am looking into is the possibility that Paul may be dealing directly with the pagan influence, not of temple prostitutes, but the feministic teachings of the cult of Isis and its wrongly being syncretized with the teachings of the church about equality between men and women; both agreeing with equality, but the cult of Isis denying the doctrine of headship. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Mayflower (Jan 11, 2008)

Maybe this is also helpfull:

Headcovering Customs of the Ancient World

Web Directory: Christian Womanhood


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 11, 2008)

prespastor said:


> snip...
> 2. The popular idea that Gordon Fee has promoted that there is absolutely no evidence that pagan priestesses with short hair existed in this time period and were thus not an influence that is being dealt with in this passage (one argument used by those who hold that the covering is the hair), was shockingly turned on its head yesterday when I discovered the existence of this statue of a Roman era priestess of Isis from the 2nd Century...
> 
> Imageriestess of isis.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



It's possible that statue has short hair but given the unfortunate camera angle doesn't let us see whether the lady had a bun behind or wore her hair down, I would want to see a side view before hardening any preliminary conclusions, especially since priestesses of Isis were believed to have "...the ability to control the weather by braiding or combing their hair, the latter of which was believed because the Egyptians considered knots to have magical powers." (Isis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Jan 11, 2008)

> That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:10, ESV)



Am I off track in saying that this verse gives the reason for Paul instructing the women to wear coverings? Along with being a symbol of submission, Paul gives this reason, which is in no way connected with any cultural circumstance. So, even if the culture rejects the symbol, do we continue to use the symbol because of this verse? 

Also, how much weight do the arguments that men sometimes wore a covering under the Old Covenant really hold? Is it possible that this changes because now we have a more full knowledge of eternal truth under the New Covenant? If so, and if actions that are sinful under the Old Covenant are sinful under the New Covenant, must that mean that the head coverings for men prescribed under the Old Covenant were a part of the ceremonial law?  (Biblical proof for any of this?)

These are not rhetorical questions, I'm really wondering about these things.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 11, 2008)

Actually, the statue looks like her head is shaved a few inches above the ear and that she has short hair on top with some sort of adornment (or could that actually be a braid?).

Seeing as the hair seems to be laying down in front, it doesn't seem like she has it in a bun in the back.

However, I agree, more images/angles of this statue would be helpful along with some information on its history. I can't find diddly about it except the picture. Searches for the museum it is in has not lead me to any results either.

Regarding the bit about braiding hair and such for magical powers, the trouble is that this cult was in existence from roughly 400BC and went to 600AD. The braiding of hair for magical powers is mentioned on Wikipedia as something done in Egypt which suggests it may have predated 1st Century Corinth (or not .

Bottom line, I don't buy the 'this whole thing is just cultural' argument but I do think considerations regarding of the influences in Corinth that were leading women in this particular church to deliberately throw off their sign of submission (or womanhood) would be helpful in considering some of the difficulties of this text. 




timmopussycat said:


> prespastor said:
> 
> 
> > snip...
> ...


----------



## Bygracealone (Jan 11, 2008)

prespastor said:


> [...]
> 
> 1. Fixing 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 as dealing with women in corporate worship is problematic. It is usually taken for granted that chapter 11 begins the instructions for corporate worship. Before chapter 11, corporate worship is not in view.
> 
> ...



I wrote an exegesis paper on this passage during my time in seminary. If I may quote from the introductory remarks of the paper:

The context of 1 Cor. 11-14 is that of the worship service. The passage beginning at 1 Cor. 11:2 is introduced by the Greek participle de. translated as “Now” in order to indicate that a new theme is being introduced. [footnote: Paul Ellingworth and Howard Hatton, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (London: UBS, 1985), 213.] The new theme is that of conduct in the worship service. The theme begins at 11:2 with the subject of head coverings and then moves on to discuss the abuses of the Lord’s Supper, and ends in chapter fourteen dealing with the abuses of spiritual gifts—all three items have to do with conduct in the worship service. We also find in 11:4-5 reference to two other elements of worship, prayer and prophecy. Additonally, there is a connection to be seen between 1 Cor. 11:2 and 11:17—the beginning and ending verses of the passage dealing with head coverings. In 11:2, Paul praises the Corinthians for remembering him and holding firmly to the traditions he had delivered to them and in 11:17 Paul says that in giving them instruction concerning the Lord’s Supper he does not praise them. Both verses are dealing with the idea of the Apostle Paul praising or not praising the Corinthians for their obedience to his teachings in regards to conduct in the worship service. Note also the fact that 11:17 and 11:18 make reference to the “coming together” of the Corinthians. This, too, offers further proof that the context we are dealing with here is one of conduct in the corporate worship service.

For what it's worth,

Your brother in Christ our Lord,

Steve


----------



## Neogillist (Jan 13, 2008)

I am totally pro-head covering, although my church does not practice it. I heard some excellent sermons by Rev. John Greer (Free Presbyterian Church of Irland). 

Go to SermonAudio.com - Search Results

I think there are five messages on it. To me Greer proves the point, and if I were a woman, I would wear head covering in public worship. However, that being a secondary issue to me, I don't think I should leave my church because they don't do it.


----------

