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



## Abeard (May 22, 2014)

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 (May 22, 2014)

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 (May 22, 2014)

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 (May 22, 2014)

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 (May 22, 2014)

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 (May 22, 2014)

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 (May 22, 2014)

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 (May 22, 2014)

Cymro said:


> 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 (May 22, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> 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 (May 22, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> 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 (May 22, 2014)

Cymro said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (May 22, 2014)

Abeard said:


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



A hat serves the purpose.


----------



## PaulMc (May 23, 2014)

Miss Marple said:


> 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 (May 23, 2014)

Abeard said:


> 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 (May 23, 2014)

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 (May 23, 2014)

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 (May 23, 2014)

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 (May 23, 2014)

Rich Koster said:


> 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 (May 23, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> "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 (May 23, 2014)

PaulMc said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > "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 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 (May 23, 2014)

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 (May 23, 2014)

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 (May 23, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (May 23, 2014)

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 (May 23, 2014)

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 (May 23, 2014)

Abeard said:


> 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 (May 23, 2014)

Logan said:


> 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 (May 23, 2014)

"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 (May 23, 2014)

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 (May 23, 2014)

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.


----------



## Tim (May 23, 2014)

Miss Marple said:


> 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.



I can understand how that would be strange. I have met people a few times who use that style ["napkins"]. It is slightly off topic, but I think that one should take care to not look strange. I mean no disrespect to any women on the PB who might use that kind of style, but I think that there alternatives that can be a better choice. For example, I once attended Joel Beeke's church in Grand Rapids, MI. In the congregation there was widespread covering of the head by the women. They wore hats. The hats were stylish, yet modest. I liked that and actually found this quite attractive (in an appropriate way, of course).

Remember the TV show _Blossom_, from the 90s? People liked those hats, I think. 

Another example is modest dress. One can dress modestly but do it so poorly that it draws attention and becomes a distraction. This defeats the purpose and presents a big obstacle that outsiders must overcome: "If I become a Christian, will I have to dress like _that_?"

Let us work towards a church culture that promotes modest, appropriate, and stylish clothing and headcoverings (during worship) for the women. Let us also promote modest and respectable clothing and good grooming for the men. These are important for many reasons, but my point here is that we don't become a hindrance to outsiders when we don't have to.


----------



## au5t1n (May 23, 2014)

ptrchunt said:


> 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.



Care must be taken here. Every member of the church is under the ecclesiastical authority of the Session. The husband is a wife's head in the family, yes, but the Elders are both of their authorities in the church, just as the civil magistrates are both of their authorities in civil government.

I am not sure from your wording that you were necessarily saying otherwise, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. I have seen pro-head covering ladies (and I'm for it myself) say things like, "My Pastor has no authority over me; only my husband does," which is not correct because it confuses two different types of authority.

I suspect I may just not have fully understood what you meant and misinterpreted. Please let me know if I missed it completely.


----------



## Cymro (May 23, 2014)

Alex has quoted Murray's article which shows the impropriety of women prophesying
or teaching, when Paul also teaches that women ought to desist from having that authority
and to keep silence in the church. Rhetorically and logically Paul poses the issue, and shows that if women 
were to do so then they would have to remove the covering, as they would be functioning with authority as
the man. Murray also points out that there are two coverings mentioned, the hair and the covering over the 
hair which he proves from the text. 
If I were to attend a worship service or enter the pulpit wearing a hat, then that would contravene Paul's teaching
here and dishonours my head,ie,Christ. Similarly a women uncovering her head dishonours her head ie, the man.
Paul shows how the fall has disorganised the order of creation, and is reasserting the subordination not of the sexes,
but their roles. By an outward symbol he establishes the biblical truth. The form of covering, whether a veil, hat or
a form of handkerchief is immaterial as long as it hides her glory and shows her submissiveness to the authority of 
God. Being abroad I have not the article to hand.


,


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 23, 2014)

AustinW said:


> ptrchunt said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I certainly agree with you. I do believe that with both husband and wife in due order under due counsel is the best case scenerio. 
However, the woman is of course under her husbands authority and no other male. She has the authority of her husband upon her. She represents him in the world and modesty is key and crucial to this life of representing him. 
Because of serious crimes done to me in places called a church but was in fact an abusive, criminal cult, extreme and defiant 'church' I find great great comfort in my husband as my head. I find it problematic when ministers fight to get the head covering off any wife. Its like they dont want her to be who God ordained her to be, a helper to her own husband obedient to his way of life, and he her defense and stalwart strength in this life. To be ready to defend her against spiritual wolves and abusers and users. This would be the most ideal situation. I do agree with you.

I also wanted to note that when I was practicing headcovering and doing the scripture not merely studying and talking of it. I learned that by covering my hair, I learned to cover my mind. I became quieter and more comfortable. I talked less and kept silence more easily. There is something to the practice of it in order to know the doctrine. try it.


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 23, 2014)

1 Cor. 11
3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Jn. 4:16 Jesus said to her, Go, call your husband, and come here.


----------



## Abeard (May 24, 2014)

ptrchunt said:


> AustinW said:
> 
> 
> > ptrchunt said:
> ...



Thanks Patricia this has been helpful for my wife


----------



## kvanlaan (May 25, 2014)

I am also wrestling with this - all the study I have done on it really doesn't give any wiggle room; I don't know how to read the passage without coming to the conclusion that it requires a woman to wear a covering above and beyond her hair. As for the hair being the covering, there is the peribolaion/katakalupto distinction that really doesn't allow for the hair to be the covering. And yet it is something that is only sporadically practiced in our congregation (maybe 4 or 5 women in the church, all over 50) so the social pressure to not cover is unfortunately also present.


----------



## Scottish Lass (May 25, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> so the social pressure to not cover is unfortunately also present.


I know this is all too present and real, and it saddens me. For that I have no advice; I went from visiting a church that practiced covering, to covering while I was there, to Tim's current church. Since I already covered before we came here, I didn't have that awkward period of not covering one Sunday and then beginning, if that makes sense. One other woman in our congregation covers, plus our daughter. We also had a visiting family today where the wife covered.


----------



## MichaelNZ (May 25, 2014)

Tim said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



In traditionalist Roman Catholic churches and some Eastern Orthodox churches you will see women wearing veils or headscarves. I know that before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) Canon Law required RC women to cover their heads in church. I've read about women using tissues or other improvised headcoverings if they didn't have a proper one back then.

As for the issue of headcoverings, I'm a bloke and so it doesn't apply to me.


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 26, 2014)

I remember when I was further into covering my hair. I remember I began to view my hair just the way I would view the rest of me that I normally covered. To remove the covering felt like removing clothing. This is the idea I felt in me, that of a modesty that was birthed from the practice of wearing it. No one agonizes over covering the rest of their body. However, it is an agony to know if its appropriate to cover ones hair today or not. Considering, that it was the women's liberation from the 1960's onward that got the wheels rolling on not wearing coverings, its not a very good argument that we ought not to cover just because no one else does it in the world. Social pressure is huge. It can be very weighty. The last time I wore a head covering was when I went to an Assembly of God church with my husband and that day, the minister from the pulpit actually preached against it. I believe he noted me in the head covering and decided to preach against it. he mocked it as an old fashioned idea that needed to go. I do so disagree. I believe we have liberty of conscience, and I believe what Martin Luther knew, that his conscience is bound by the Word of God. 

If you do a search online of information, you can see women's head coverings from the early church through historical records of pictures, paintings and art that constantly depict women wearing head coverings. Then you arrive to the years of 1960s and you see hats merely, then the hats disappear.

Modesty is tied to the actual practice of wearing the head covering. However, modesty can also be grown within one without the head-covering. Covering ones head has to do with a boundary, in my experience. It has to do with an inward attitude that comes from within of quietness and gentleness and modest attitude. This the world around us scorns at with all due vehemence.
The world sees things that are gentle and modest and meek as something to be scoffed at. Remember we are not called to sit in the seat of the scorners.

All that it means to me personally as a woman is that what is important is to remember what is most important, the essential of faith and the essential of the fruit of the Holy Spirit. 
All forms without content are meaningless. Christians who are Sola Scriptura , like Martin Luther, believe their conscience is bound by Scripture. Forms of piety should be outwardly what is going on inwardly or they are a waste of time and energy.


----------



## Abeard (May 26, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> I am also wrestling with this - all the study I have done on it really doesn't give any wiggle room; I don't know how to read the passage without coming to the conclusion that it requires a woman to wear a covering above and beyond her hair. As for the hair being the covering, there is the peribolaion/katakalupto distinction that really doesn't allow for the hair to be the covering. And yet it is something that is only sporadically practiced in our congregation (maybe 4 or 5 women in the church, all over 50) so the social pressure to not cover is unfortunately also present.



There are not many people in the Reformed churches in Ontario that practice it from what i've seen. As Pratricia said sometimes you just have do it and the Lord will bless.

It is difficult to know how convinced we need of a command/doctrine before we practice it.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 26, 2014)

I am truly thankful that we have an example of a thread on the PB that has the potential to be divisive, and yet those posting to this thread have handled this issue with grace and understanding. This is truly an example of brothers and sisters helping one another, while doing so in a humble spirit of submission to the Holy Scriptures.


----------



## kvanlaan (May 26, 2014)

> It is difficult to know how convinced we need of a command/doctrine before we practice it.



But that's just it - I feel very conflicted on this (not unlike Bill, with his trodden toes) because I was not raised with it, my mother never practised it, my wife's mother never practised it (they were Southern Baptist), and it is something rapidly falling out of practise altogether. But I can't seem to get around it; I don't know how to ignore it, because the deeper I go in the study thereof, the more I see of it. Has the majority of the church been wrong for over 1900 years? And then right about it since the '60s? I'm just not sure which way to go in this matter. I think thus far I've been able to ignore it because I've been able to view it as an item of sanctification that neither my wife nor I have been very convicted about (or when I am, it passes, and fairly quickly).


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 26, 2014)

if we stop and consider the advancement of women's dress lengths over time. its only in the modern era that we see skirts going from floor length to above the knee length today. the underlying truth is the fruit of modesty. Wendy Shalit (Jewish) in her book, "A Return to Modesty" opens up vast information of how modesty has been derailed. 
A meditation and study about modesty is important, but we need examples of it. Todays modern Christian celebrity on TBN are women who are glamorous, not modest in the least. The impact of Christian TV on how women perceived themselves in Christian life, is, I personally feel big impact.
What is modesty? 
In wagon day times, I have an opinion it was humiliating for women to be seen with short skirts or even in men's clothing. However, no one thinks it alarming to see that today, and there are very few women who feel ashamed for wearing slacks, or even knee length shorts. 
In Biblical times, and all through most of Christian church history, it was felt embarrassing for a woman to be seen with her hair exposed. Just as much as today, any decent Christian woman would not flaunt her body out in the open, much less in a Church sevice! It would shame her husband and her family to do so. To remove the head-covering, especially in a Christian worship place, was an affront against all sensibilities. just as today it would be an affront against order for a woman to remove her blouse in any decent church worship service. 
It is a point too about how we perceive hair. When I was wearing the headcovering, I began to perceive my hair as a real appendage of who i was. A part of my body that needed a 'shirt' to cover it as much as my torso. It is in the perception of the hair we have gone amiss from the standards of church historical understanding. Hair is not a private thing any more. Just as a seeing womens legs in shorts is no longer a private thing today. its very common in todays world to see women who are wearing shorts and we hardly think twice about seeing their knees. 

again, what is modesty? Can you clearly define the meaning of modesty? What did Apostle mean when he wrote about shamefacedness as an attitude of godly women towards men? 
When I practiced head covering, I began to perceive my hair not as something to be styled but as an appendage to me as much as my arms and legs were an appendage to me. And as much as I would cover my other parts of me to a certain level of modesty, I began to perceive the covering of my hair part of dressing every day. 

the crux of it is the idea of modesty. the significance is rooted in how important it is to 
1. ones salvation
2. doing herself, her husband and her family good. 
3. understanding what is acceptable and not acceptable to God and then to the social world one lives in.

modesty is, in essence, the ability to blush.. blushing is part of us. a blush tells us the truth. 
modesty is an inner virtue even men portray...its an awareness of something from within 
Just some more of my thoughts on this...


----------



## Tim (May 26, 2014)

What is sad to me is the number of instances of "theological peer pressure" that have been reported in this thread.


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 26, 2014)

Abeard said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> > I am also wrestling with this - all the study I have done on it really doesn't give any wiggle room; I don't know how to read the passage without coming to the conclusion that it requires a woman to wear a covering above and beyond her hair. As for the hair being the covering, there is the peribolaion/katakalupto distinction that really doesn't allow for the hair to be the covering. And yet it is something that is only sporadically practiced in our congregation (maybe 4 or 5 women in the church, all over 50) so the social pressure to not cover is unfortunately also present.
> ...



Abeard,
Thank you and you are welcome, glad my sharing is helpful a in some small way. 
Truly, it is doing something that one comes to 'know' something. I am an artist, i can read all the art books in the world on art and speak eloquently about art, and i can explain art from all the various schools by my learning about art, but I would ever be learning and never 'arriving' at that true knowing that is only earned through the doing of something. It is in the doing of art, that i come to 'know' art in a very real way felt through out me fully. In head covering teachings, once one knows it from this depth, one can in real Christ given liberty make an informed and wise choice.


----------



## Abeard (May 26, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> > It is difficult to know how convinced we need of a command/doctrine before we practice it.
> 
> 
> 
> But that's just it - I feel very conflicted on this (not unlike Bill, with his trodden toes) because I was not raised with it, my mother never practised it, my wife's mother never practised it (they were Southern Baptist), and it is something rapidly falling out of practise altogether. But I can't seem to get around it; I don't know how to ignore it, because the deeper I go in the study thereof, the more I see of it. Has the majority of the church been wrong for over 1900 years? And then right about it since the '60s? I'm just not sure which way to go in this matter. I think thus far I've been able to ignore it because I've been able to view it as an item of sanctification that neither my wife nor I have been very convicted about (or when I am, it passes, and fairly quickly).



I know what you mean, Kevin. My wife's parents do not practice it, nor a lot of things that the reformed church does. It's difficult to go against the practices you have been given by your parents.


----------



## Miss Marple (May 27, 2014)

"This is the idea I felt in me, that of a modesty that was birthed from the practice of wearing it. No one agonizes over covering the rest of their body."

So does this go outside the worship service, as well? Do you feel immodest with your hair uncovered as you go about your day?

Please don't read an antagonistic or challenging tone into the questions, which are sincere. I wonder how far this feeling goes.


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 27, 2014)

Miss Marple said:


> "This is the idea I felt in me, that of a modesty that was birthed from the practice of wearing it. No one agonizes over covering the rest of their body."
> 
> So does this go outside the worship service, as well? Do you feel immodest with your hair uncovered as you go about your day?
> 
> Please don't read an antagonistic or challenging tone into the questions, which are sincere. I wonder how far this feeling goes.



Hi Miss Marple, and not to worry, I do not read you with any sense of antagonism, thank you for asking me. As I have mentioned previously, I no longer wear headcoverings but have adapted to my husbands wishes and let go of that particular form of modesty, while choosing in to comply with modern day church standards of dress. 

But, when I was doing the headcovering, _yes_, that inner experience of modesty birthed from practicing it did extend outside church and home. I no longer experience that depth of modesty regarding my hair. I wear my hair long, because I like long hair, so does my husband. I would like wearing hats in church, but just have never done that. but its the attitude in the heart that matters most of all. 

My personal conviction on the issue is, its not an essential of the faith for salvation, but a practice that was there for a reason. The reasons used by Paul were because of the angels or the messengers, and the order of creation. My personal thought is that the issue is about propriety and order. My opinion is that the headcovering serves a real bonafide purpose, _but _in our modern era we are not conditioned to see the purpose, so that particular scriptural passage is continuously and endlessly debated back and forth. 
As I am a survivor of a cult and a lot of spiritual authority abuse, I had to learn it by the doing of it for the debate left me crosseyed and filled with headaches. lol.


----------



## Abeard (May 27, 2014)

Does anyone who holds the cultural/hair interpretation know of any good resources that convinced you?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 27, 2014)

While history can never be the deciding factor, neither should it be forgotten that headcovering was the universal practice of the church until the twentieth century. And we have no examples of any great pastor/theologian preaching or teaching against the practice. On the contrary just about anything one can find on the subject prior to the twentieth century treats I Corinthians 11 as requiring women to wear a literal headcovering. And none of their writtings give the slightest hint that there is any controversy about the matter. The only debates that one will find is on _what kind_ of covering is required (full head scarf, veil, hat, etc.) and _when_ a women has to be covered (all the time or only in worship).

Can a Christian go against the nearly universal witness of the Church down through the ages if he believes that witness is unbiblical? Yes. But he had better have a solid argument for why he is right and why he believes so many for so long have been wrong.


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 27, 2014)

I am positive you all have read Calvin's commentary on 1 Cor. 11. I am in the midst of reading it. 

1 Corinthians 11 Calvin's Commentaries

Matthew Henry:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mhcw/1_corinthians/11.htm

Chrysostom:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/chrysostom/1_corinthians/11.htm

all three of these men-- Calvin, Henry and Chrysostom seem to indicate the practice of custom and time, yet emphasize women are to show their place by some sign of subjection, namely in those times, a veil, which is the eastern show of female subjection to men being first in order.


----------



## Logan (May 28, 2014)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Can a Christian go against the nearly universal witness of the Church down through the ages if he believes that witness is unbiblical? Yes. But he had better have a solid argument for why he is right and why he believes so many for so long have been wrong.



Without trying to be pedantic, there is a difference between the church practicing a thing, and the church holding it as a doctrine.

The "universal witness" of the church until the 20th century was that women did not wear pants. It is another thing to conclude that this was what the church held to. 

It is quite possible that the church consistently held this as a universal practice taught by Paul. It is also possible that this was a non-issue for the church through the ages because it was the cultural practice. Did the Puritans strive to bend their culture to the practice, or was the practice already part of the culture? 

I don't wish to be combative, but to look at this from all angles.

Calvin held that it was permissible for men to wear coverings in cold climates. Why is a covering cultural for the man but not for the woman when this passage would seem to restrict both?


----------



## Abeard (May 28, 2014)

Logan said:


> Without trying to be pedantic, there is a difference between the church practicing a thing, and the church holding it as a doctrine.



Thanks for the input Logan! could you give some examples of the church practicing a custom compared to holding the custom as a doctrine?


----------



## Logan (May 28, 2014)

As one example, William Gouge, in "Of Domestical Duties" frequently argues strongly for a particular point or practice based on the current laws or practice in England. However, in certain cases he will strongly encourage (based on custom) it but say he dares not pronounce it absolutely necessary. One of these was marriage contract, another was the practice of waiting three weeks before marriage (which he says is a laudable custom).

Specifically on a husband's superiority over his wife, he mentions coverings (Wife's duties, section 3, point 6)


> The very attire which nature and custom of all times and places have taught women to put on, confirms the same [regarding the husband's superiority]: as long hair, veils, and other coverings over the head: this and the former argument does the Apostle himself use to this very purpose.



Wife's duties, section 9


> A wife's outward reverence towards her husband is a manifestation of her inward due respect of him. Now then seeing the intent of the heart, and inward disposition cannot be discerned by man simply in itself, that the husband may know his wife's good affection towards him, it is behoovefull that she manifest the same by her outward reverence. A wife's outward reverence consists in her reverend gesture and speech. For the first, that a reverend gesture and carriage of herself to her husband, and in her husband's presence, beseems a wife, was of old implied by the veil which the women used to put on, when she was brought unto her husband, as is noted in the example of Rebekah: whereunto the Apostle alludes in these words, the woman ought to have power on her head. That cover on the woman's head, as in general it implied subjection, so in particular this kind of subjection, viz, a reverend carriage and gesture. But most expressly is this duty set down by St Peter who exhorts wives to order their conversation before their husbands, so as it be pure, with reverence.



I do not recall Gouge saying head coverings were required, but certainly taught the _general_ principle of showing subjection by our outward clothing and reverent speech. However, I have no doubt that head coverings were practiced in his day and that he thought it was a laudable custom. But again, the difference between laudable custom and universal command? Something to think about.


----------



## Logan (May 28, 2014)

In addition to Calvin's commentary on 1Co 11 (which I agree seems to me to treat it as a cultural token of the general principle of submission) he has this to say (it's long but relevant). Unless I have misunderstood him, he seems to place head coverings in the category of laudable custom, but not universal commandment.



Institutes said:


> 29. TRUE DECORUM IN WORSHIP, NOT THEATRICAL SHOW
> 
> As a consequence, we shall not say that decorum exists where there is nothing but vain pleasure. We see such an example in the theatrical props that the papists use in their sacred rites, where nothing appears but the mask of useless elegance and fruitless extravagance. But decorum for us will be something so fitted to the reverence of the sacred mysteries that it may be a suitable exercise for devotion, or at least will serve as an appropriate adornment of the act. And this should not be fruitless but should indicate to believers with how great modesty, piety, and reverence they ought to treat sacred things. Now, ceremonies, to be exercises of piety, ought to lead us straight to Christ.
> 
> ...


----------



## Afterthought (May 28, 2014)

Matthew Poole also believes the covering to be cultural. From his commentary:

"Dishonoureth his head; either dishonoureth Christ who is his Head, and whom he ought to represent, and doth as it were make the church the head to Christ, which is subject to him, while by covering his head he declares a subjection in his ministration. Or he dishonoureth his own head, (so many interpret it), to wit, he betrayeth his superiority, lesseneth himself as to that power and dignity which God hath clothed him with, by using a posture which is a token of inferiority and subjection. Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses are to be interpreted from the customs of countries; and all that can be concluded from this verse is, that it is the duty of men employed in Divine ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, behaving themselves with a just authority and gravity that becometh his ambassadors, which decent gravity is to be judged from the common opinion and account of the country wherein they live. So as all which this text requires of Christian ministers, is authority and gravity, and what are external ludications of it. Our learned Dr. Lightfoot observeth, that the Jewish priests were wont in the worship of God to veil their heads; so that Christian ministers praying or prophesying with their heads covered, Judaized, which he judgeth the reason of the apostle’s assertion. The heathens also, both Romans and Grecians, were wont to minister in their sacred things with their heads covered. Some think this was the reason why the Christians used the contrary gesture; but the apostle’s arguing from the man’s headship, seemeth to import that the reason of this assertion of the apostle was, because in Corinth the uncovered head was a sign of authority.

At this day the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The custom with us in these western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: hence ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ: but yet this custom is not uniform, for in France the Reformed ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered, to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered, as representing Christ, the great Teacher, from whom they derive, and whom they represent. Nothing in this is a further rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only the general observation of decency (which cannot by any be created, but ariseth either from nature, or custom, and prescription) which this text of the apostle maketh to be the duty of all Christians; though as to the Corinthians, he particularly required the man’s ministering in sacred things with his head uncovered, either to avoid the habit or posture used by Jews and pagans; or for the showing of his dignity and superiority over the woman, (whom we shall by and by find commanded to pray or prophesy covered), or that he represented Christ who was the Head of the church. The uncovering of the head being with them as much a sign of subjection, as it is with us of superiority and pre-eminence."


This thread has some more references.


----------



## Abeard (May 28, 2014)

I'm going to try to get some thoughts out before I lose them

To me, head coverings seem to be a universal command by the fact that they are connected to Christ and His headship. Anything else connected to Christ in the New Testament outwardly is practiced by the Church universally (Baptism, Lord's supper, Lord's day, etc) These are all outward means to point to something spiritual. Head coverings also receive their authority when Paul points to the creation order to validate the custom. Other mandates instituted by God and finding their origin in the creation order would include the Sabbath, marriage, and work.

Those are my thoughts, hope they made sense.

PS. I'm not implying head coverings are as important as the Lord's Day, Baptism, Lord's Supper. I am just suggesting that they have more significance than the modern church gives them.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 28, 2014)

Logan said:


> The "universal witness" of the church until the 20th century was that women did not wear pants. It is another thing to conclude that this was what the church held to.



The difference between your example and headcovering is that we have no passage of Scripture explicitly forbidding the wearing of pants by women. However the practice of headcovering is one explicitly commanded by Scripture. And the _practice_ itself is inextricably connected to Paul's _theology_ of headship.


----------



## kvanlaan (May 29, 2014)

Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 29, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.



Kevin, 
You are a very sensitive husband, regarding the feelings and issues that may be going on in your wife. To me, you exemplify the command in the NT to husbands to dwell with their wives in according to knowledge and you show in your struggle a concern for what is going on in your wife, being sensitive to her. I do not know you or your wife, however, you seem to be a servant leader in this. 
although I do not know all the cultural issues surrounding Abraham and Sarah, it is told to us wives in the bible by Peter to obey her husband like Sarah did calling Abraham lord. Considering the story and context of Sarah obeying Abraham in going to that King. 

One thing for me that has been helpful in the process of learning what obedience as a Christian wife is in realizing what it means when it says, "submit as is fit in the Lord" 
as I have progressed in walking with the Lord, I have grown to be able to discern what is fit in the Lord and what may be not fit in the Lord. The question to the woman is "Does this leading from my husband fit in with the Lord?"


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 29, 2014)

I would like to also add in that authentic authority and headship is that such which KNOWS what or who they have authority of. i.e. one cannot have authority over anything unless one knows, understands and 'gets' the other. This is why authoritarian/dictatorship cult rule cannot be biblical, for they do know 'dwell with their wives in knowledge' but merely bark out their selfish way of life and demand wife and children to be cookie cutter images of their own self. Truly blessed is the wife and family whose husbands really knows them and gets to know them and understands them and from this depth of understanding of them, knows what is best for them and as is fit in Christ Jesus


----------



## Rob Marsh (May 29, 2014)

Just to add my $.02, my introduction to this topic, that lead to further research and eventual conviction that this teaching still applies for believer's today was R.C. Sproul's excellent work "Now that's a Good Question!" that addresses this and affirms that it still applies today, as it's an instruction tied to the creation order.


----------



## Mindaboo (May 29, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.



I would fall into this category as well. I've gone back and forth, but I've never been convinced of the practice. I am submitting to my husband in practice, because he believes my hair is my covering. I've told him if he's ever convinced otherwise, all he has to do is say the word. I'd cover my head. I'd be one of the only women in the church that did, but I'm a woman who submits to my husband, although not perfectly.


----------



## Hemustincrease (May 29, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.



Obedience/submission is not always a matter of personal conviction. What I mean is; if a person’s submission (to the one making the request) is sincere then the performing of something (in this case head covering) is an act of true and meaningful obedience/service to Christ whether the one following the command counts it (head covering) necessary or not.


----------



## inactivemember125 (May 29, 2014)

This might could lead to problems in some areas of life. What if ones husband was in an extremist cult? or an emotionally abusive and spiritually manipulative church? And he asked his wife to attend with him? 
There surely must be levels of discrimination of what is fit in the Lord and what is not fit in the Lord. Headcoverings are within biblical grounds, however, what if your wife had been set free from an extremist cult that _enforced _headcoverings? How far can you stretch it outside of what is fit in the Lord?
I am very interested in hearing feedback from some of the senior members of the board here on what I am saying.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2014)

What is the headcovering supposed to cover? Hair, face or both?

As for the purpose of the headcovering, could it be to distract men from natural attraction during the worship when all our focus should be towards God?


----------



## Hemustincrease (May 29, 2014)

ptrchunt said:


> This might could lead to problems in some areas of life. What if ones husband was in an extremist cult? or an emotionally abusive and spiritually manipulative church? And he asked his wife to attend with him?
> There surely must be levels of discrimination of what is fit in the Lord and what is not fit in the Lord. Headcoverings are within biblical grounds, however, what if your wife had been set free from an extremist cult that _enforced _headcoverings? How far can you stretch it outside of what is fit in the Lord?
> I am very interested in hearing feedback from some of the senior members of the board here on what I am saying.



The ‘what if’s’ can only really be answered by those whom God is directly leading within a certain situation.


----------



## Abeard (May 29, 2014)

kvanlaan said:


> Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.



I don't think it will be empty ritual for her because she is acting in love by submitting to her husband. I can't tell you how loved I feel by my wife when she trusts me even though she may not understand or feel fully convinced as I do on certain subjects.


----------



## Abeard (May 29, 2014)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> What is the headcovering supposed to cover? Hair, face or both?
> 
> As for the purpose of the headcovering, could it be to distract men from natural attraction during the worship when all our focus should be towards God?



It's suppose to be a covering for her hair. Now how much is supposed to be covered is debatable.

The covering is mostly symbolic of headship Husband/wife - Christ/Church


----------



## MW (May 29, 2014)

Abeard said:


> The covering is mostly symbolic of headship Husband/wife - Christ/Church



It is not relative to husband/wife, but to man/woman, as is clear from 1 Cor. 11:3. It has to do with men and women meeting together in assembly. If it were relative to husband/wife it would have to apply outside of assembly.


----------



## Abeard (May 29, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Abeard said:
> 
> 
> > The covering is mostly symbolic of headship Husband/wife - Christ/Church
> ...



Agreed. Sorry I was too general


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 29, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> It is not relative to husband/wife, but to man/woman, as is clear from 1 Cor. 11:3. It has to do with men and women meeting together in assembly. If it were relative to husband/wife it would have to apply outside of assembly.



This truth has been obfuscated by the ESV's translation of *γυνή* as "wife" instead of "woman." In this, the ESV differs where ALL of the major translations are agreed. All of them agree that the best translation is "woman." And with the Reformed world drifting into an ESVOnly mentality, the ESV's translation choices exert a great deal of influence. But I digress.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 29, 2014)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > It is not relative to husband/wife, but to man/woman, as is clear from 1 Cor. 11:3. It has to do with men and women meeting together in assembly. If it were relative to husband/wife it would have to apply outside of assembly.
> ...



The general translation rule that is typically employed is to translate γυνή as "woman" when it is not coupled with a possessive pronoun, and "wife" when it is. Not sure why the ESV deviates from that in this instance.


----------

