# S/O of Headcovering: Wives Only or All Women?



## Ex Nihilo (Dec 26, 2008)

I've done a search and haven't found a thread that discusses this in-depth: Assuming the headcovering requirement is still applicable to worship in general, does it apply to all women or only to wives? The passage itself discusses the headship of the husband, which would suggest that the requirement is for wives. However, the discussion of the shame for a woman of having her head shorn would seem to apply to all women. And, of course, a single woman is still under the headship of her father. But is this headship somewhat different from the headship of a husband?

Lynnie discussed this in the last thread:



> Also, it seems most clear to me that Paul is speaking of wives, given the analogy to Eve and the verses about the husband. I do not think it must be applied to girls or even single women...although they are submitted to male authority in the church and many do choose to cover.



Different translations seem to translate γυνή differently -- some say "woman" and some say "wife." I have no idea which is better. What does everyone think?


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 26, 2008)

It is "woman" in general, but can be, and often is, "wives" in context (Eph 5:23, 25). This is what Jesus called His mother in John 2:4 and 19:26 (woman). As far as I can tell it's the most common designation for woman and wife in the NT. In other words, context and further exegesis would be demanded in every case. In this passage the word is used many times (every time woman or wife is used - depending upon translation). Does context demand "wife/wives"? I don't think it does, but it could bear further study by those more competent in Greek.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Dec 26, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> It is "woman" in general, but can be, and often is, "wives" in context (Eph 5:23, 25). This is what Jesus called His mother in John 2:4 and 19:26 (woman). As far as I can tell it's the most common designation for woman and wife in the NT. In other words, context and further exegesis would be demanded in every case. In this passage the word is used many times (every time woman or wife is used - depending upon translation). *Does context demand "wife/wives"? I don't think it does, but it could bear further study by those more competent in Greek.*



The ESV switches back and forth between "wives" and "women" in the passage, which does seem a little odd!

-----Added 12/26/2008 at 08:35:45 EST-----

I hate to bump the thread, but c'mon! I thought these headcovering threads always got some traffic!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 26, 2008)

I think it would depend if the unmarried woman's father was present maybe ???

(I do not know just throwing something out there...)


----------



## lynnie (Dec 26, 2008)

Hi....

I found this on a google search....

Head coverings in Scripture

While in context it seems like Paul is talking about wives to me, an awful lot of names in history sound like they interpret it to be all women.

I'm not 100% sure but I have the impression from one quote that there is a word for female that isn't used.....so it does not mean girls?....

We do not require our 12 year old daughter to wear one, nor would I personally tell a single woman I think scripture commands it for her.

I have to say I've know some wonderful gentle submitted praying women in my life who have been a blessing to all at prayer meetings, and they don't wear a covering....so like any other outward symbol of an inward reality I try to keep the focus on an inward reality. (the angels must see my independent unsubmitted moments and want to snatch that doiley off my head and slap me with it occasionally )


----------



## sofarawaykisses (Dec 27, 2008)

Great Website Lynnie!
I think one of the greatest quotes I found in there was from John Calivin.



> a. 10. John Calvin (1509-1564)
> The great theologian of the Reformation preached three sermons from
> from which the following excerpts are taken. "So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature. . . . So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."17




Sounds a little bit like today? Aye, aye??


I am not married, but this has been something I've been thinking and praying about. So thanks for that website. really puts things into prespective.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 27, 2008)

I realize this is not the direct point of your thread here, which is the applicability of women being required to wear "head coverings," whether that is all women, certain women, and where they ought to be worn.

It might be helpful to keep in mind that a recent poll here on the board show 63% do not do this or think it is a biblical requirement. Whether this is reflective of member views or not we can't know but based on the practices of the denominations represented here, it would seem seem a much higher number do not think this a biblical requirement, by anyone, anywhere.

Mr. Calvin is always worth considering, but he is not infallible. I do not, for example, think that immodesty automatically flows from the hair to the chest to the stomach as the passage implies. I understand his point, the biblical virtue of modesty, something that is sorely neglected in this generation, even in the church.

A woman learning to adorn herself with an inner beauty is very important, and of great worth in God's sight. I commend people for even thinking about it because it often is sorely lacking. But to logically deduce that this all flows from not wearing a strip of clothing on part of or most of one's head does not logically follow, in my estimation.

I would not want to discourage anyone who has a conviction about this, it certainly falls within Christian liberty. However, to make this an article of faith for living the Christian life for half the Christians out there based on an unclear interpretation of one verse in the whole of Scripture is unwise, I think. Apparently, the large majority of reformed denominations agree and offer that observation only to be helpful to those who may be considering this for the first time.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 27, 2008)

Ex Nihilo said:


> I've done a search and haven't found a thread that discusses this in-depth: Assuming the headcovering requirement is still applicable to worship in general, does it apply to all women or only to wives?



I just noticed you thread and while I was taking a look at some Blue Banner Journals

I found Pastor Richard Bacon article on 2 numbers in PDF attached 

Paul’s Discourse on the Use of Head Coverings During Public Worship: An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

I didn’t read it so please _examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good_ 1 Thessalonians 5:21 NASB

As the editor of Blue Banner was Chris Coldwell, now on The Confessional Presbyterian journal

I thought it should be useful


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 27, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> I realize this is not the direct point of your thread here, which is the applicability of women being required to wear "head coverings," whether that is all women, certain women, and where they ought to be worn.
> 
> It might be helpful to keep in mind that a recent poll here on the board show 63% do not do this or think it is a biblical requirement. Whether this is reflective of member views or not we can't know but based on the practices of the denominations represented here, it would seem seem a much higher number do not think this a biblical requirement, by anyone, anywhere.
> 
> ...



The whole of history weighs more on the subject in comparison to the past 60yrs of those descended from the feminist movement.


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 27, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > It might be helpful to keep in mind that a recent poll here on the board show 63% do not do this or think it is a biblical requirement. Whether this is reflective of member views or not we can't know but based on the practices of the denominations represented here, it would seem seem a much higher number do not think this a biblical requirement, by anyone, anywhere.
> ...



This is a good comment. The majority does not represent truth, necessarily. It only represents truth when it represents the verity of God's Word. And this is even more evident in contemporary western "churches," where man is elevated as God is denigrated; at least in one form or another (easy believism, arminianism, sensationalism of differing sorts (charismatics, eschatology, showmanship), self-esteem, name it and claim it/gab it and grab it, etc.). Scott referred to reformed in particular, which narrows the field in this reference. But, regardless of what the majority says, if it is what Scripture says, then all of us who do not practice, or promote, it are sinning. I would submit that any argument that proposes majority views sway our doctrine is standing on very tenuous ground.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Dec 27, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> I realize this is not the direct point of your thread here, which is the applicability of women being required to wear "head coverings," whether that is all women, certain women, and where they ought to be worn.
> 
> It might be helpful to keep in mind that a recent poll here on the board show 63% do not do this or think it is a biblical requirement. Whether this is reflective of member views or not we can't know but based on the practices of the denominations represented here, it would seem seem a much higher number do not think this a biblical requirement, by anyone, anywhere.



It is helpful. To clarify, I'm not quite on the brink of taking up the practice myself, but I wanted to know who, according to proponents, is included in the command. I have several questions about headcovering; this is just the one I wanted to focus on for now.


----------

