# Head Coverings



## Smeagol

Hello all. I am new to having an account with Puritan Board, but I am not new to using Puritan Board as a resource to help me wrestle with certain theological topics.

Women wearing head coverings is something that I have wrestled with in the Scriptures. When I read through the text in Corinthian’s and take Paul at his word, (at least at the English translation in the ESV) it seems that head coverings are a requirement for women in the church gathering, ONLY if they are going to be praying or prophesy. I don’t believe head coverings is a hill to die on. 

I am not sure where I stand and will most likely wrestle with this for many years to come. We (me, wife, kids) currently serve and worship at a PCA church (no head coverings are worn).

The question I am looking for some guidance on is this, if my wife is not praying publicly during the corporate worship service And if she is not prophesying (taking into account the New Testament examples of prophesying) then is there any need for her to wear a head covering in the corporate worship service?

In other words the basic reading of the text seems to only stipulate a head covering for women if they pray or prophesy publically in the worship gathering.

Just looking for help. Depending on the day, some mornings I wake up believing that women should wear head coverings during the corporate worship setting, other mornings I wake up believing that they should not. Trying to humbly wrestle through this. (Yes I have read other threads I am looking for some insight on the above interpretion).

If my interpretation could be valid, then Head coverings isn’t ignored with the “cultural limitation” argument (which I do not buy). And the text could still be used to apply to our worship gatherings for a women who may publicly leads the congregation in a prayer or publically reads a bible verse (I am a comolimentarian).

Thoughts? Just trying to humbly think through this and I am open to brotherly rebuke. Is this a new interpretation?


----------



## Edward

While it's far from the general practice, there are several women in our congregation that wear hats to worship.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

From what I've read, most reformed commentators no longer see a need for head coverings. R.C. Sproul made a good argument that you could find. As for your view, I've never heard of it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think the conclusions of great exegetes that are basically in agreement do have a lot of weight.


----------



## OPC'n

no


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> no


Do all OPC congregations practice Head Coverings or do they vary?


----------



## PaulCLawton

I commend the article found in the July/August 2012 _Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth_ magazine to your reading, it starts on pg. 14 of the linked PDF.


----------



## Afterthought

Grant.Jones said:


> Do all OPC congregations practice Head Coverings or do they vary?


They vary. Many do not, although you will find individuals here and there who do (I knew a couple of families who did).

We in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) usually practice headcoverings, but I do not think it is an officially stated doctrine or anything. The Presbyterian Reformed Church women also usually cover; as do the FPs of Scotland.

Perhaps you may find John Murray helpful on the subject: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/head-coverings-and-decorum-in-worship-a-letter.php

Dr. Richard Bacon also has an article/sermon series somewhere.

You might find some past discussion helpful: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...prohibited-from-preaching.85306/#post-1063964

User "MW," along with John Murray, advocates that the assumption of the text is that the headcovering is to be worn, and hence to remove it while praying or prophesying publicly is a great shame. Others have advocated that the "praying" and "prophesying" are parts of worship actions intended to stand for the whole. Still others have advocated that it is simpler and more practical to just leave it on, even when other actions of worship are being performed.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol

PaulCLawton said:


> I commend the article found in the July/August 2012 _Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth_ magazine to your reading, it starts on pg. 14 of the linked PDF.


Thanks for the article. I just finished the read and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I agree with the article 100%. Still looking to hear from others as well.


----------



## Smeagol

Afterthought said:


> They vary. Many do not, although you will find individuals here and there who do (I knew a couple of families who did).
> 
> We in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) usually practice headcoverings, but I do not think it is an officially stated doctrine or anything. The Presbyterian Reformed Church women also usually cover; as do the FPs of Scotland.
> 
> Perhaps you may find John Murray helpful on the subject: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/head-coverings-and-decorum-in-worship-a-letter.php
> 
> Dr. Richard Bacon also has an article/sermon series somewhere.
> 
> You might find some past discussion helpful: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...prohibited-from-preaching.85306/#post-1063964
> 
> User "MW," along with John Murray, advocates that the assumption of the text is that the headcovering is to be worn, and hence to remove it while praying or prophesying publicly is a great shame. Others have advocated that the "praying" and "prophesying" are parts of worship actions intended to stand for the whole. Still others have advocated that it is simpler and more practical to just leave it on, even when other actions of worship are being performed.


Thank you for your reply!


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I'm glad this topic was raised, as I think about it a good bit. I believe the reason women are still to cover their heads is that when singing the Psalms, we are speaking prayers and prophecy. I don't know whether the Reformed consensus is that this is what Paul meant in 1 Cor. 11, or that he was referring to inspired prayer and prophecy outside of Scripture. But that either way, for a woman to speak in the assembly as she must do in singing the Psalms, she must cover her head. I have probably bungled the view, but Raymond and Tyler maybe can help further.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Do you know if any of them address the particular matter I mentioned and if so can you give me a brief synopsis? I don't have much opportunity these days to listen to media, but if you can tell me which one of the three addresses what I mentioned above I'll try to make it happen. I've read and listened to a lot on the topic and am familiar with all the reasoning on both sides, but haven't heard anything very helpful on the narrow focus I mentioned.


----------



## Smeagol

Jeri Tanner said:


> Do you know if any of them address the particular matter I mentioned and if so can you give me a brief synopsis? I don't have much opportunity these days to listen to media, but if you can tell me which one of the three addresses what I mentioned above I'll try to make it happen. I've read and listened to a lot on the topic and am familiar with all the reasoning on both sides, but haven't heard anything very helpful on the narrow focus I mentioned.


Looks like sermon # 2 starting at 35:00 minutes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> From what I've read, most reformed commentators no longer see a need for head coverings. R.C. Sproul made a good argument that you could find. As for your view, I've never heard of it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think the conclusions of great exegetes that are basically in agreement do have a lot of weight.


Think that the head covering was tied under Paul into the female being under the headship authority of Her husband.


----------



## TylerRay

Grant.Jones said:


> Hello all. I am new to having an account with Puritan Board, but I am not new to using Puritan Board as a resource to help me wrestle with certain theological topics.
> 
> Women wearing head coverings is something that I have wrestled with in the Scriptures. When I read through the text in Corinthian’s and take Paul at his word, (at least at the English translation in the ESV) it seems that head coverings are a requirement for women in the church gathering, ONLY if they are going to be praying or prophesy. I don’t believe head coverings is a hill to die on.
> 
> I am not sure where I stand and will most likely wrestle with this for many years to come. We (me, wife, kids) currently serve and worship at a PCA church (no head coverings are worn).
> 
> The question I am looking for some guidance on is this, if my wife is not praying publicly during the corporate worship service And if she is not prophesying (taking into account the New Testament examples of prophesying) then is there any need for her to wear a head covering in the corporate worship service?
> 
> In other words the basic reading of the text seems to only stipulate a head covering for women if they pray or prophesy publically in the worship gathering.
> 
> Just looking for help. Depending on the day, some mornings I wake up believing that women should wear head coverings during the corporate worship setting, other mornings I wake up believing that they should not. Trying to humbly wrestle through this. (Yes I have read other threads I am looking for some insight on the above interpretion).
> 
> If my interpretation could be valid, then Head coverings isn’t ignored with the “cultural limitation” argument (which I do not buy). And the text could still be used to apply to our worship gatherings for a women who may publicly leads the congregation in a prayer or publically reads a bible verse (I am a comolimentarian).
> 
> Thoughts? Just trying to humbly think through this and I am open to brotherly rebuke. Is this a new interpretation?


The series by Todd Ruddell, which I see you're listening to, was one of the most helpful things I found on the subject when I was studying it out several years ago.

If I recall correctly, the one thing that I came out disagreeing with Rev. Ruddell on was the matter of what kind of covering is required. The Greek term used for a woman covering her head is the term for veiling, in particular. However, when the man is discussed in verse 4, the Greek forbids him having _anything_ on his head. If memory serves, it was Brian Schwertley that pointed that out, in his series on the subject (though I'm reluctant to recommend Schwertley because of certain schismatic doctrines). If I remember correctly, I think Rev. Ruddell maintains that any kind of covering is appropriate for a woman.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> The series by Todd Ruddell, which I see you're listening to, was one of the most helpful things I found on the subject when I was studying it out several years ago.
> 
> If I recall correctly, the one thing that I came out disagreeing with Rev. Ruddell on was the matter of what kind of covering is required. The Greek term used for a woman covering her head is the term for veiling, in particular. However, when the man is discussed in verse 4, the Greek forbids him having _anything_ on his head. If memory serves, it was Brian Schwertley that pointed that out, in his series on the subject (though I'm reluctant to recommend Schwertley because of certain schismatic doctrines). If I remember correctly, I think Rev. Ruddell maintains that any kind of covering is appropriate for a woman.


Couldn't Paul though have meant the spiritual authority of the Male Headship that His wife would be coming under, instead of meaning the literal /physical head covering?


----------



## TylerRay

Jeri Tanner said:


> I'm glad this topic was raised, as I think about it a good bit. I believe the reason women are still to cover their heads is that when singing the Psalms, we are speaking prayers and prophecy. I don't know whether the Reformed consensus is that this is what Paul meant in 1 Cor. 11, or that he was referring to inspired prayer and prophecy outside of Scripture. But that either way, for a woman to speak in the assembly as she must do in singing the Psalms, she must cover her head. I have probably bungled the view, but Raymond and Tyler maybe can help further.


I don't know that there is much of a consensus on the question of what is meant by "praying or prophesying." Pretty good arguments are made that the singing of Psalms is what is referred to by "prophesying." My own view is that the terms are used as a synecdoche for all of public worship. Prayers and prophesying (speaking the Word of God) are some of the chief elements of worship, and could figuratively serve as a representative of the whole. Some "high church" types do this very thing with the Eucharist, by referring to their entire service as "Holy Communion."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

I think the text is clear that Paul is discussing a physical symbol, which visualizes and aligns with the spiritual reality of federal headship. So Paul is dealing with both a spiritual reality, which he is calling Christians to show submission and agreement to using a physical sign. I lean more towards believing my wife should have a physical covering during our corporate worship gathering. Now the next step is teaching (in love) and praying that she will see it as well. Even if we are the only family practicing the physical symbol in our congregation. After all I believe many in our local congregation are already practicing the spiritual reality.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Couldn't Paul though have meant the spiritual authority of the Male Headship that His wife would be coming under, instead of meaning the literal /physical head covering?


It's not an either/or question. She is under male authority, therefore she should wear a headcovering. I'd encourage you to read the articles and listen to the sermons on this thread before disputing the issue.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## lynnie

_The question I am looking for some guidance on is this, if my wife is not praying publicly during the corporate worship service And if she is not prophesying (taking into account the New Testament examples of prophesying) then is there any need for her to wear a head covering in the corporate worship service?_

I wear a head covering, so maybe that affects my view, but I don't understand why you think the praying has to be "public". I think based on 1 Cor 14, where Paul wants public prayer to be intelligible so people can say "amen" to it, that when the church is gathered together and there is a public prayer, we all pray. If I am silent while somebody else up front speaks, I am still praying. Jesus said his father's house is a house of prayer. How can you think of going to church as not including everybody praying, at least part of the time? 

Your church may in addition have responsive readings where the word is spoken by all, or pray the Lords prayer or some other written prayer together. But even if they don't and your wife does not speak one word, the angels for whom we wear this see us together and know that in our minds we are unified in offering up the petition or thanksgiving, and we are all praying.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

I work with seniors. In the 1940s every lady wore a head covering. If someone didn't, that would have been very strange.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

lynnie said:


> _The question I am looking for some guidance on is this, if my wife is not praying publicly during the corporate worship service And if she is not prophesying (taking into account the New Testament examples of prophesying) then is there any need for her to wear a head covering in the corporate worship service?_
> 
> I wear a head covering, so maybe that affects my view, but I don't understand why you think the praying has to be "public". I think based on 1 Cor 14, where Paul wants public prayer to be intelligible so people can say "amen" to it, that when the church is gathered together and there is a public prayer, we all pray. If I am silent while somebody else up front speaks, I am still praying. Jesus said his father's house is a house of prayer. How can you think of going to church as not including everybody praying, at least part of the time?
> 
> Your church may in addition have responsive readings where the word is spoken by all, or pray the Lords prayer or some other written prayer together. But even if they don't and your wife does not speak one word, the angels for whom we wear this see us together and know that in our minds we are unified in offering up the petition or thanksgiving, and we are all praying.


Thanks. Yes I agree that it would be impossible for a women not to be involved in praying and responsive reading in an Orthodox Church service. I was mainly just thinking out loud with the text. As I have stated, I agree that the covering should be worn in the corporate service. Thanks for responding, I found your insight helpful. Now I have the task of graciously and patiently implementing this within my household (I am married with two young daughters).


----------



## Smeagol

I believe Calvin saw coverings as cultural. Agree/disagree?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Grant.Jones said:


> I believe Calvin saw coverings as cultural. Agree/disagree?


Pointers or links to Calvin's view?


----------



## Smeagol

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Pointers or links to Calvin's view?


There are many to post. Here is one link... you will need to scroll down and look for the John Cavin header:

http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/headcovr/headcovr.htm

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Grant.Jones said:


> There are many to post. Here is one link... you will need to scroll down and look for the John Cavin header:
> 
> http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/headcovr/headcovr.htm


I would think the article would have done more justice to Calvin's views by considering his fuller treatment in his commentary on 1 Cor 11:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xviii.i.html

I am not finding any notions that what Calvin exposited therein to be a matter of cultural relevance or tradition.

See also a direct response to your linked RPNA item by Silversides:
https://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Silversides.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> I believe Calvin saw coverings as cultural. Agree/disagree?


Wasn't that the way the male authority/headship would be displayed? Would be like in certain cultures today, women would show husband respect by walking behind them.
It was the way to reflect the truth in their culture, but do not see how that command would be carried as mandatory for all cultures and all times going forward.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> It's not an either/or question. She is under male authority, therefore she should wear a headcovering. I'd encourage you to read the articles and listen to the sermons on this thread before disputing the issue.


I have never been in a Baptist church that followed this as a custom, so would this be more prevalent in Reformed Presbyterian churches?


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> I have never been in a Baptist church that followed this as a custom, so would this be more prevalent in Reformed Presbyterian churches?


Probably so, but I've known Baptists that do it, too.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Probably so, but I've known Baptists that do it, too.


I remember my Wesleyan Grandmother practiced that,but that seemed in her church to be an age thing, as younger women did not.


----------



## sc_q_jayce

Our family practices head coverings for the women. I was unconvinced of it when I married into my wife's family but upon further examination I was convicted of it through studying that passage in question as well as examining historical church practice. It's a hard sell to contemporaries, but as Ryan said earlier, it wasn't ever questioned until these last few generations.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> Wasn't that the way the male authority/headship would be displayed? Would be like in certain cultures today, women would show husband respect by walking behind them.
> It was the way to reflect the truth in their culture, but do not see how that command would be carried as mandatory for all cultures and all times going forward.


When you read the text do you not get the impression that Paul is explaining a pratic that is not mandatory for the Church (I think not)?

I recommended the article posted above (http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/sermons/distinctives/)

Read pages 14-17. It is a great read. If you pass over this text by saying “this is no longer mandatory because of culture”, then what prevents you from doing that with the symbols used in the Lord’s Supper. At some point we will be guilty of letting the culture dictate what symbols Christians should use to depict spiritual realities instead of what the Bible cleary describes as the correct symbol. Paul is expressing this as a church practice, so where did this practice stop and why did t stop ( scripture never commands the practice to stop)?


----------



## Smeagol

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I would think the article would have done more justice to Calvin's views by considering his fuller treatment in his commentary on 1 Cor 11:
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xviii.i.html
> 
> I am not finding any notions that what Calvin exposited therein to be a matter of cultural relevance or tradition.
> 
> See also a direct response to your linked RPNA item by Silversides:
> https://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Silversides.html


Calvin himself wore a hat during the corporate worship service as well right?
This also leads me to believe that Calvin differed.


----------



## Logan

I looked at all the cited materials Silversides used in his article a while back. The sources he chooses are very unimpressive and in some cases perplexing if you look at the original context.

I also did a survey of Reformed commentaries from the 16th and 17th centuries (about 20 of them) and all but two indicated that the man's not wearing a covering was "custom", since in their day keeping one's hat on was a sign of superiority, Calvin's commentary for example. What would seem odd is if someone could come away from that passage saying that for a man it is custom, but for the woman it is perpetually binding.

Not a word either way was said on the women's covering but given that the practice during that period was for a woman to be covered all the time, it's not surprising that it wouldn't have been an issue so I'm not sure what conclusions to draw.

My personal view is that what is being taught is a binding, universal principle (show submission to your husband) but can be exemplified in different ways in different cultures. Nowhere else under the New Covenant is our clothing regulated except in general terms (be modest). Now whether you argue our culture should still practice headcoverings is an entirely different matter.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Edward

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> R.C. Sproul made a good argument that you could find.



Sproul also allowed pictures of Jesus. That doesn't mean he was right.


----------



## Smeagol

Logan said:


> I looked at all the cited materials Silversides used in his article a while back. The sources he chooses are very unimpressive and in some cases perplexing if you look at the original context.
> 
> I also did a survey of Reformed commentaries from the 16th and 17th centuries (about 20 of them) and all but two indicated that the man's not wearing a covering was "custom", since in their day keeping one's hat on was a sign of superiority, Calvin's commentary for example. What would seem odd is if someone could come away from that passage saying that for a man it is custom, but for the woman it is perpetually binding.
> 
> Not a word either way was said on the women's covering but given that the practice during that period was for a woman to be covered all the time, it's not surprising that it wouldn't have been an issue so I'm not sure what conclusions to draw.
> 
> My personal view is that what is being taught is a binding, universal principle (show submission to your husband) but can be exemplified in different ways in different cultures. Nowhere else under the New Covenant is our clothing regulated except in general terms (be modest). Now whether you argue our culture should still practice headcoverings is an entirely different matter.


Thanks. I agree that the universal principle is still binding and of upmost importance. I am still wrestling with the sign. Today at least I lean more towards the sign still being binding today. But I am still wrestling and trying to be careful not to be dogmatic about the sign in my own household. The Lord has blessed me with a submissive wife who loves the Lord. I am slowly walking through this head covering text with my family. Regardless I do not believe this is an issue to divide over. No matter how biblical we think our worship is, we still need intercession and mediation.


----------



## Tom Hart

Edward said:


> Sproul also allowed pictures of Jesus. That doesn't mean he was right.



The same goes for everyone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> From what I've read, most reformed commentators no longer see a need for head coverings. R.C. Sproul made a good argument that you could find.


As written this appears to mean Sproul no longer saw a need for coverings, contra:


Spoiler: R.C. Sproul Now That's a Good Question!



*In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul deals with head coverings for women in the church. How does this apply to the Christian church today?*

During my high school years, when I went to church on Sunday morning, I never saw a woman in that church (this was a mainline Presbyterian church) whose head wasn’t covered with a hat or veil. That is one of those customs that has simply disappeared for the most part from Christian culture. If you go to my Presbyterian church this Sunday, you’ll see two women wearing hats. One is a woman from Holland who is dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and the other one is my wife because we are persuaded that that biblical mandate is still in effect.

We know that in the New Testament certain rules are dictated by custom and others are dictated by principle. For example, when Jesus sent out the seventy disciples on a mission of evangelism, he told them to take no shoes with them. That does not mean that all preaching and all evangelism for all times and all places has to be done in bare feet. Billy Graham is not sinning by wearing shoes when he preaches the gospel. But there are many questions like that that are not so obvious. In that whole context of the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, women are called to cover their heads with a veil as a sign of their willingness to submit to the leadership or headship of their husbands. There are three elements here: the submission of the wife to the husband as the head of the home, the covering of the head, and the covering of the head by a veil. How much is principle and how much is custom?

Many Christians believe that we should no longer tell women to submit to the headship of their husbands. Therefore, women don’t have to cover their heads. Others say that the headship principle still stands in the home, but the covering of the head was a cultural custom that does not carry over into our day, and therefore the veil would be insignificant as well.

The third view of this passage is that it is describing a principle, and that women must cover their heads and use veils to do so.

I am convinced that when Paul says the women are to cover their heads, he is basing that action on how God created male and female. It would seem to me, using a principle of interpretation of what we call hermeneutics, that if there’s ever an indication of a perpetual ordinance in the church, it is that which is based on an appeal to Creation. I’m persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect because it was built into creation. And even though it’s not culturally accepted anymore in our society, I still believe it’s principle. I don’t think it matters one bit whether it’s a babushka, a veil, or a hat, but I think that the symbol should remain intact as a sign of our obedience to God.



Perhaps I misunderstood and your second sentence quoted above was not meant to carry forward the first sentence. If so, apologies in advance for my confusion.

See also Isbell on the topic:
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/headship-and-worship-notes-on-1-corinthians-112-16.php

Former Westminster prof:
https://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Murray.html

Whether one sees the issue as cultural or literal, how exactly does a woman show her recognition of male headship when in corporate worship with men? I am failing to see how coverings are no longer normative.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Grant.Jones said:


> Calvin himself wore a hat during the corporate worship service as well right?
> This also leads me to believe that Calvin differed.


I have no idea whether Calvin did or not wear at hat during corporate worship, or—if it can be definitively shown he did—whether it was some form of vestments at the time.


----------



## OPC'n

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Whether one sees the issue as cultural or literal, how exactly does a woman show her recognition of male headship when in corporate worship with men? I am failing to see how coverings are no longer normative.



There’s no command for me to be submissive to every man in church. I’m not to have authority over men by being a pastor, elder, deacon, or any other office (being silent and having no authority over any man). I’m not to hand out the Lord's Supper, or baptize others, or take up tithe. If you like to think of this as me being submissive to every man in church, then perhaps this can fulfill your need for that show of women being submissive to you. I wouldn’t suggest that you run with that, however. No where in Scripture does it require all the women in church to be submissive to all the men church. That would create chaos and would subvert their husbands' authority over their own wives. Women are to be submissive to their husbands not to their husbands and also to every other man in church. Men and women are equally to be submissive to the governance of the church. The church is submissive to Christ. Therefore, there is no need for me to wear a hat to show my submissiveness to all the men in church.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## OPC'n

Head coverings are a creational command given to Adam and Eve by God. This isn’t a cultural command that Paul was enforcing for that generation. It is command for every generation. Eve’s head was covered when she and Adam worshipped God. This she did pre and post-fall. 

The problem comes in with the definition of head covering. One person says it’s a physical, material type of covering. Another person says it’s a woman’s long hair. But neither of these definitions can be correct. 

Adam and Eve had no clothing pre-fall in order for her to wear a hat, and yet she was able to fulfill this command. 

There were some men who took oaths to not cut their hair. If hair was the symbol of submission, then these men would have been breaking God’s command. 

Eve’s covering was clearly her husband’s authority over her. My covering is my church’s governance over me not a silly old hat.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> Head coverings are a creational command given to Adam and Eve by God. This isn’t a cultural command that Paul was enforcing for that generation. It is command for every generation. Eve’s head was covered when she and Adam worshipped God. This she did pre and post-fall.
> 
> The problem comes in with the definition of head covering. One person says it’s a physical, material type of covering. Another person says it’s a woman’s long hair. But neither of these definitions can be correct.
> 
> Adam and Eve had no clothing pre-fall in order for her to wear a hat, and yet she was able to fulfill this command.
> 
> There were some men who took oaths to not cut their hair. If hair was the symbol of submission, then these men would have been breaking God’s command.
> 
> Eve’s covering was clearly her husband’s authority over her. My covering is my church’s governance over me not a silly old hat.


I think you are saying some good things. However the problem is Paul uses two different Greek words for coverings in the text in 1 Corinthians, this shows that Paul does distinguish hair from a physical covering (veil). Paul is clearly asking women to have som form of a physics covering (veil) during a public worship gathering. Also I do NOT think this physical covering was silly. According to the text if men wore the physical covering this dishonored Christ! If women did not have the physical cover this dishonored her head (her husband).

I would recommend you take some time to listen to the below 3 part sermon seri es. The pastor takes the time to discuss the original greek words.http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/sermons/distinctives/

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood and your second sentence quoted above was not meant to carry forward the first sentence. If so, apologies in advance for my confusion.


Sorry I wasn't clear, but yes, I remember hearing Sproul have a neat stance that supported head coverings.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

I would like to see it explained how "because of the angels" can be taken to refer to a cultural custom.


----------



## De Jager

Tom Hart said:


> I would like to see it explained how "because of the angels" can be taken to refer to a cultural custom.



Everyone knows that the angels keep themselves up to date with the latest cultures and customs...

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Dachaser

Logan said:


> I looked at all the cited materials Silversides used in his article a while back. The sources he chooses are very unimpressive and in some cases perplexing if you look at the original context.
> 
> I also did a survey of Reformed commentaries from the 16th and 17th centuries (about 20 of them) and all but two indicated that the man's not wearing a covering was "custom", since in their day keeping one's hat on was a sign of superiority, Calvin's commentary for example. What would seem odd is if someone could come away from that passage saying that for a man it is custom, but for the woman it is perpetually binding.
> 
> Not a word either way was said on the women's covering but given that the practice during that period was for a woman to be covered all the time, it's not surprising that it wouldn't have been an issue so I'm not sure what conclusions to draw.
> 
> My personal view is that what is being taught is a binding, universal principle (show submission to your husband) but can be exemplified in different ways in different cultures. Nowhere else under the New Covenant is our clothing regulated except in general terms (be modest). Now whether you argue our culture should still practice headcoverings is an entirely different matter.


You have explained my own personal view here, as I do hold that while the principle Paul is addressing here is always to remain, as in male headship/authority within the local assembly, that can be shown bu different ways. Some would see it expressed as head coverings, but others might display that in a difdferent fashion.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> I think you are saying some good things. However the problem is Paul uses two different Greek words for coverings in the text in 1 Corinthians, this shows that Paul does distinguish hair from a physical covering (veil). Paul is clearly asking women to have som form of a physics covering (veil) during a public worship gathering. Also I do NOT think this physical covering was silly. According to the text if men wore the physical covering this dishonored Christ! If women did not have the physical cover this dishonored her head (her husband).
> 
> I would recommend you take some time to listen to the below 3 part sermon seri es. The pastor takes the time to discuss the original greek words.http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/sermons/distinctives/


Is this much more customary among Presbyterians, as have never encountered this being practiced in various baptist churches?


----------



## Dachaser

OPC'n said:


> Head coverings are a creational command given to Adam and Eve by God. This isn’t a cultural command that Paul was enforcing for that generation. It is command for every generation. Eve’s head was covered when she and Adam worshipped God. This she did pre and post-fall.
> 
> The problem comes in with the definition of head covering. One person says it’s a physical, material type of covering. Another person says it’s a woman’s long hair. But neither of these definitions can be correct.
> 
> Adam and Eve had no clothing pre-fall in order for her to wear a hat, and yet she was able to fulfill this command.
> 
> There were some men who took oaths to not cut their hair. If hair was the symbol of submission, then these men would have been breaking God’s command.
> 
> Eve’s covering was clearly her husband’s authority over her. My covering is my church’s governance over me not a silly old hat.


Are you saying here that the covering would be not a physical kind, but of a spiritual one that comes from the husband over his wife?


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> Is this much more customary among Presbyterians, as have never encountered this being practiced in various baptist churches?


I am probably not the best one to answer this question as in my area it is not prominent, though I am convicted it should be.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

_No where in Scripture does it require all the women in church to be submissive to all the men church. That would create chaos and would subvert their husbands' authority over their own wives. Women are to be submissive to their husbands not to their husbands and also to every other man in church. Men and women are equally to be submissive to the governance of the church. The church is submissive to Christ. Therefore, there is no need for me to wear a hat to show my submissiveness to all the men in church._

I agree with this. I've been wearing a head covering for over 35 years but I do it as a wife in submission to a husband. The Greek word there can be translated as wife or woman, and in the context of the passage it seems to be obviously a command to wives.

I am probably in the minority of those who practice this, but I think it is legalistic to require it of single women or young girls. When Paul says the wife was made for her husband, that does not mean I was made for any other man. In a sense I think it cheapens head coverings for non wives to wear them, and takes away something that is about the special relationship of one man and one woman in marriage.


----------



## Megs

I could be way off base here, but it seems to me that there is a symbolism in Christian worship that is often ignored with respect to the head covering:

1 Corinthians 11:7: 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.​
In a worship service, when the men uncover their heads while the women uncover their heads, we symbolize in part that in a worship service, God alone should be glorified and not man in any way. That is why the symbol, be it a hat, veil, etc., would be enduring and not changeable depending on culture.

This also ties in with women preaching, which would symbolize rebellion against God's order and also that in worship, man rather than God speaks to man from the pulpit. I don't have a lot of quotes I can post on this but here are a couple:

*Richard Bacon:*

“The answer is obviously “covered.” She should be covered. Why ought a man not to have his head covered? What is the reason that Paul gave? Because he is the image and glory of God. God’s glory is to be uncovered in worship. This is so important that the entire passage is going to be brought together at the end on this very basis: God’s glory alone is to be seen in the public worship service. The reason he “ought not to have his head covered” is that he “is the image and glory of God.” It follows that anything that brings glory to anything or anybody other than to God ought to be covered! “But the woman is the glory of man.” Therefore we cover the glory of man. This passage implicitly commands us to cover the glory of man and to uncover the glory of God! Consider the brilliance of this argument! Paul argued in these verses that this involves more than just a relationship of man to woman. It certainly involves that, but the matter also involves the relationship that our worship has toward God. God’s glory is to be uncovered and man’s glory is to be covered in public worship.”

Read more (pdf): http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner7-5.pdf

*The Sound of an Alarm on 1 Corinthians 11 and the symbolism in Christian worship:*

“It is the glory of God which must be seen in the house of God. The house of God is not place for giving glory to anyone or anything else. The man is deemed to be the image and glory of God, _v7_. He is not therefore to cover his head. But the woman who is described as the glory of the man is to cover her head so that in God’s house, in public worship, God may have all the glory.”

Source and read more about the theology of head covering in public worship: http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2017/08/headcovering-for-women.html

The logic of the headcovering passage often seems to be connected with the prohibition on women preaching. Most churches outside the Reformed world have concluded that the prohibition on women preachers is cultural and so is the requirement of headcovering. Once one adopts the cultural view of one passage, it is hard to reject it in relation to the other. Anyway, that's just my two cents. For me, it's hard to parse this passage but the above is what I've come across in my readings.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

OPC'n said:


> No where in Scripture does it require all the women in church to be submissive to all the men church.


Perhaps I could have been more clear. My comment to which you are responding takes into consideration Paul's speaking of _women in general_ being subject _to men in general_ (clearly in a restricted sense) and what I believe to be its applicability when men and women assemble for corporate worship together, with coverings by women as a _normative_ practice recognizing the same.

For more on the matter of the "in general" comments above, I would point you to:
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/9601a.html

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Grant.Jones said:


> Thoughts? Just trying to humbly think through this and I am open to brotherly rebuke. Is this a new interpretation?


Results from a similar poll can be found here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/to-cover-or-not-to-cover-that-is-the-question.83413/


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

lynnie said:


> I agree with this. I've been wearing a head covering for over 35 years but I do it as a wife in submission to a husband. The Greek word there can be translated as wife or woman, and in the context of the passage it seems to be obviously a command to wives.


There is disagreement of what I consider an unfortunate rendering in the ESV and a few other translations to specifically point to wives. But the whole topic is fodder for separate threads.



> I am probably in the minority of those who practice this, but I think it is legalistic to require it of single women or young girls.


I think such a restriction to wives only would have the unfortunate result of making the identification of single women quite easy at corporate assembly. That said, I suspect not a few unmarried men would welcome such a restriction despite its unnecessary distraction of the purpose of corporate assembly.


----------



## Smeagol

Megs said:


> I could be way off base here, but it seems to me that there is a symbolism in Christian worship that is often ignored with respect to the head covering:
> 
> 1 Corinthians 11:7: 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.​
> In a worship service, when the men uncover their heads while the women uncover their heads, we symbolize in part that in a worship service, God alone should be glorified and not man in any way. That is why the symbol, be it a hat, veil, etc., would be enduring and not changeable depending on culture.
> 
> This also ties in with women preaching, which would symbolize rebellion against God's order and also that in worship, man rather than God speaks to man from the pulpit. I don't have a lot of quotes I can post on this but here are a couple:
> 
> *Richard Bacon:*
> 
> “The answer is obviously “covered.” She should be covered. Why ought a man not to have his head covered? What is the reason that Paul gave? Because he is the image and glory of God. God’s glory is to be uncovered in worship. This is so important that the entire passage is going to be brought together at the end on this very basis: God’s glory alone is to be seen in the public worship service. The reason he “ought not to have his head covered” is that he “is the image and glory of God.” It follows that anything that brings glory to anything or anybody other than to God ought to be covered! “But the woman is the glory of man.” Therefore we cover the glory of man. This passage implicitly commands us to cover the glory of man and to uncover the glory of God! Consider the brilliance of this argument! Paul argued in these verses that this involves more than just a relationship of man to woman. It certainly involves that, but the matter also involves the relationship that our worship has toward God. God’s glory is to be uncovered and man’s glory is to be covered in public worship.”
> 
> Read more (pdf): http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner7-5.pdf
> 
> *The Sound of an Alarm on 1 Corinthians 11 and the symbolism in Christian worship:*
> 
> “It is the glory of God which must be seen in the house of God. The house of God is not place for giving glory to anyone or anything else. The man is deemed to be the image and glory of God, _v7_. He is not therefore to cover his head. But the woman who is described as the glory of the man is to cover her head so that in God’s house, in public worship, God may have all the glory.”
> 
> Source and read more about the theology of head covering in public worship: http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2017/08/headcovering-for-women.html
> 
> The logic of the headcovering passage often seems to be connected with the prohibition on women preaching. Most churches outside the Reformed world have concluded that the prohibition on women preachers is cultural and so is the requirement of headcovering. Once one adopts the cultural view of one passage, it is hard to reject it in relation to the other. Anyway, that's just my two cents. For me, it's hard to parse this passage but the above is what I've come across in my readings.


Thanks for the good info.


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> I think you are saying some good things. However the problem is Paul uses two different Greek words for coverings in the text in 1 Corinthians, this shows that Paul does distinguish hair from a physical covering (veil). Paul is clearly asking women to have som form of a physics covering (veil) during a public worship gathering. Also I do NOT think this physical covering was silly. According to the text if men wore the physical covering this dishonored Christ! If women did not have the physical cover this dishonored her head (her husband)./



First, let me apologize for the saying of "silly old hat". I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.

I also said head coverings have nothing to do with hair, so we agree on this point.

1Cor 11:6 For if a wife will not *cover *her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her* cover *her head.

1Cor 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a *covering.*

1Cor 11:6 ἀκατακαλύπτῳ: 1) disguise

1Cor 11:15 περιβολαίου :1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper 1a) a mantle 1b) a veil

As you can see, the Greek word for covering in verse 11 means disguise and the Greek word for covering (her hair) in verse 15 means veil etc. Paul is stating that in some way a woman should be covered. We all agree on this.

Verse 6 tells us how to thoroughly cover a woman. She is to be disguised. The English definition of disguised is to "give (someone or oneself) a different appearance in order to conceal one's identity." Verse 15 tells us that a woman's hair is her covering or veil. Now we know that hair does not disguise a woman. Her hair could be considered as effective of a covering as a veil would be (verse 15). But verse 6 tells us women are to be disguised while praying. It's not sufficient to use hair (which is also considered a veil in the Greek) or a material veil for a covering for neither of these two disguise a woman.

Now we have to ask why God would command a woman to be disguised when both He and the angels (frankly so would the congregation) know who the woman is no matter what type of disguise she wore? I think we need to find the answer in a clearer Scripture.

1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Both Scriptures are speaking to order and authority. This is the principle subject of both Scriptures. 1 Timothy, however, is a clearer Scripture.

1 Timothy instructs women to never teach or have authority over men and then adds the more strict command of being silent or quiet. Yet in 1 Cor 11 he instructs women to pray with their heads covered. It's like he's bipolar and is saying two different things. "Paul, am I to be quiet or am I to pray? Make up your mind!" one could say. But he isn't saying two different things. He is in fact saying the same thing only in a different manner.

1 Tim is showing the clear instruction that women are to never have authority over men via teaching, preaching, etc. If I were to preach to you, then I would actually have authority over you which we all agree is wrong and disorderly. But God extends his command unto the point of women being silent in corporate worship. For what reason? For the sake of order before God and the angels.

Now we have the command in 1Cor for women to pray. Praying is not a silent act. We know that God can hear the silent prayers of a women when she prays along with the pastor. How can praying be considered silence then? It is deemed qualified silence because her prayers are disguised/covered by the authority of her husband (for married women) or by the authority of the pastor (for single/widows). In essence, women pray through men (their husbands or the pastor) in corporate worship. Thus their prayers are being disguised/covered or in other words the women is in fact being silent because their prayers are offered to God through the man.

When women pray in church they pray under the authority of their husbands or if they are single under the authority of the pastor. How we worship God in corporate worship is still as important as how they worshipped God in the OT. God is still as holy as he ever was. Therefore, there needs to be order and order comes through authority. It's authority that is the true covering which God gave to men. The authority of a husband over his wife is the covering or disguise between herself and God/the angels while praying during corporate worship. Man is to have the authority in church. His wife comes under him and is thus hidden (covered/disguised) in him. Single/widowed women come under the authority of the pastor and are thus hidden (covered/disguised) in him.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## OPC'n

lynnie said:


> _No where in Scripture does it require all the women in church to be submissive to all the men church. That would create chaos and would subvert their husbands' authority over their own wives. Women are to be submissive to their husbands not to their husbands and also to every other man in church. Men and women are equally to be submissive to the governance of the church. The church is submissive to Christ. Therefore, there is no need for me to wear a hat to show my submissiveness to all the men in church._
> 
> I agree with this. I've been wearing a head covering for over 35 years but I do it as a wife in submission to a husband. The Greek word there can be translated as wife or woman, and in the context of the passage it seems to be obviously a command to wives.
> 
> I am probably in the minority of those who practice this, but I think it is legalistic to require it of single women or young girls. When Paul says the wife was made for her husband, that does not mean I was made for any other man. In a sense I think it cheapens head coverings for non wives to wear them, and takes away something that is about the special relationship of one man and one woman in marriage.



All the Greek words that I found show there is no distinction between married and single/widowed women in this text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

OPC'n said:


> First, let me apologize for the saying of "silly old hat". I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.


Thank you for this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> First, let me apologize for the saying of "silly old hat". I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.
> 
> I also said head coverings have nothing to do with hair, so we agree on this point.
> 
> 1Cor 11:6 For if a wife will not *cover *her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her* cover *her head.
> 
> 1Cor 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a *covering.*
> 
> 1Cor 11:6 ἀκατακαλύπτῳ: 1) disguise
> 
> 1Cor 11:15 περιβολαίου :1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper 1a) a mantle 1b) a veil
> 
> As you can see, the Greek word for covering in verse 11 means disguise and the Greek word for covering (her hair) in verse 15 means veil etc. Paul is stating that in some way a woman should be covered. We all agree on this.
> 
> Verse 6 tells us how to thoroughly cover a woman. She is to be disguised. The English definition of disguised is to "give (someone or oneself) a different appearance in order to conceal one's identity." Verse 15 tells us that a woman's hair is her covering or veil. Now we know that hair does not disguise a woman. Her hair could be considered as effective of a covering as a veil would be (verse 15). But verse 6 tells us women are to be disguised while praying. It's not sufficient to use hair (which is also considered a veil in the Greek) or a material veil for a covering for neither of these two disguise a woman.
> 
> Now we have to ask why God would command a woman to be disguised when both He and the angels (frankly so would the congregation) know who the woman is no matter what type of disguise she wore? I think we need to find the answer in a clearer Scripture.
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
> 
> Both Scriptures are speaking to order and authority. This is the principle subject of both Scriptures. 1 Timothy, however, is a clearer Scripture.
> 
> 1 Timothy instructs women to never teach or have authority over men and then adds the more strict command of being silent or quiet. Yet in 1 Cor 11 he instructs women to pray with their heads covered. It's like he's bipolar and is saying two different things. "Paul, am I to be quiet or am I to pray? Make up your mind!" one could say. But he isn't saying two different things. He is in fact saying the same thing only in a different manner.
> 
> 1 Tim is showing the clear instruction that women are to never have authority over men via teaching, preaching, etc. If I were to preach to you, then I would actually have authority over you which we all agree is wrong and disorderly. But God extends his command unto the point of women being silent in corporate worship. For what reason? For the sake of order before God and the angels.
> 
> Now we have the command in 1Cor for women to pray. Praying is not a silent act. We know that God can hear the silent prayers of a women when she prays along with the pastor. How can praying be considered silence then? It is deemed qualified silence because her prayers are disguised/covered by the authority of her husband (for married women) or by the authority of the pastor (for single/widows). In essence, women pray through men (their husbands or the pastor) in corporate worship. Thus their prayers are being disguised/covered or in other words the women is in fact being silent because their prayers are offered to God through the man.
> 
> When women pray in church they pray under the authority of their husbands or if they are single under the authority of the pastor. How we worship God in corporate worship is still as important as how they worshipped God in the OT. God is still as holy as he ever was. Therefore, there needs to be order and order comes through authority. It's authority that is the true covering which God gave to men. The authority of a husband over his wife is the covering or disguise between herself and God/the angels while praying during corporate worship. Man is to have the authority in church. His wife comes under him and is thus hidden (covered/disguised) in him. Single/widowed women come under the authority of the pastor and are thus hidden (covered/disguised) in him.



I just will have to disagree with your rendering of the text. Paul is crystal clear that he is discussing both a physical head covering (other than hair) representing the realities of our corporate worship. I am not sure how you conclude otherwise. I agree with the primary issue being headship (God-Christ-Man-Woman). I agree that it should be clear that women to not have authority over men. However, I am not sure you are seeing that Paul is requiring a physical cover (such as a veil-type cover).

There are also different Greek words used for "head", which indicate both our literal head and then our federal headship (spiritual head). With your understanding of the text, Paul's' message to the Church in Greek would have made no sense. Paul is being very clear with showing that our physical heads (covered or uncovered) symbolize spiritual realities. I think Paul is being clear and literal in this text as he is in the entire letter.

Your view seems to believe Paul is not requiring a physical cover, which I believe to be inaccurate. I am fairly certain that I have never read a reformed commentator, who would claim that Paul is NOT dealing with a physical type cover (even if they believe it was only cultural). Have you?

No matter if one thinks women should where a physical cover or not today is a moot point with your understanding, which causes your interpretation to stick out alone since you do not believe Paul is talking about a physical material cover.

Just seems like an odd interpretation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay

OPC'n said:


> 1Cor 11:6 ἀκατακαλύπτῳ: 1) disguise


Where did you get that definition? The standard definition (per Strong, Thayer, NAS Concordance) is to veil or cover.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> I am probably not the best one to answer this question as in my area it is not prominent, though I am convicted it should be.


I have come across this tradition few times, but was among older persons, and never was in any Baptist church.


----------



## Smeagol

lynnie said:


> _The question I am looking for some guidance on is this, if my wife is not praying publicly during the corporate worship service And if she is not prophesying (taking into account the New Testament examples of prophesying) then is there any need for her to wear a head covering in the corporate worship service?_
> 
> I wear a head covering, so maybe that affects my view, but I don't understand why you think the praying has to be "public". I think based on 1 Cor 14, where Paul wants public prayer to be intelligible so people can say "amen" to it, that when the church is gathered together and there is a public prayer, we all pray. If I am silent while somebody else up front speaks, I am still praying. Jesus said his father's house is a house of prayer. How can you think of going to church as not including everybody praying, at least part of the time?
> 
> Your church may in addition have responsive readings where the word is spoken by all, or pray the Lords prayer or some other written prayer together. But even if they don't and your wife does not speak one word, the angels for whom we wear this see us together and know that in our minds we are unified in offering up the petition or thanksgiving, and we are all praying.


This is good insight. Thanks.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> I just will have to disagree with your rendering of the text. Paul is crystal clear that he is discussing both a physical head covering (other than hair) representing the realities of our corporate worship. I am not sure how you conclude otherwise. I agree with the primary issue being headship (God-Christ-Man-Woman). I agree that it should be clear that women to not have authority over men. However, I am not sure you are seeing that Paul is requiring a physical cover (such as a veil-type cover).
> 
> There are also different Greek words used for "head", which indicate both our literal head and then our federal headship (spiritual head). With your understanding of the text, Paul's' message to the Church in Greek would have made no sense. Paul is being very clear with showing that our physical heads (covered or uncovered) symbolize spiritual realities. I think Paul is being clear and literal in this text as he is in the entire letter.
> 
> Your view seems to believe Paul is not requiring a physical cover, which I believe to be inaccurate. I am fairly certain that I have never read a reformed commentator, who would claim that Paul is NOT dealing with a physical type cover (even if they believe it was only cultural). Have you?
> 
> No matter if one thinks women should where a physical cover or not today is a moot point with your understanding, which causes your interpretation to stick out alone since you do not believe Paul is talking about a physical material cover.
> 
> Just seems like an odd interpretation.


Paul was speaking it seems of a Husband and His wife to be covered by His authority, so would not the veil be a symbol of the man having spiritual headship authority over His wife and household before God?


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> Paul was speaking it seems of a Husband and His wife to be covered by His authority, so would not the veil be a symbol of the man having spiritual headship authority over His wife and household before God?


Yes I do believe Paul is requiring a physical symbol (material head covering) to visualize a spiritual reality and to cover the glory of the man so that only God's glory is on display. My response was to a post where the "OPC'N" post is siding that Paul is NOT discussing a physical material head covering, which I disagree with.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

OPC'n said:


> 1Cor 11:6 ἀκατακαλύπτῳ: 1) disguise





TylerRay said:


> Where did you get that definition? The standard definition (per Strong, Thayer, NAS Concordance) is to veil or cover.



See also, for example, Mounce:
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/katakalypto


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Afterthought said:


> We in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) usually practice headcoverings, but I do not think it is an officially stated doctrine or anything.



You might also see:
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/headship-and-worship-notes-on-1-corinthians-112-16.php

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

I've never seen anyone explain why though, if it is rooted in creation, we never hear about it under the Old Testament. Headship certainly is, but head covering?



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



I quote from Calvin above, specifically regarding the men covering their heads. Calvin is not unique in his interpretation, as I mentioned earlier. So now one has to ask the question: why isn't it a problem if the men cover their heads, but it is a problem if the women uncover theirs? Wouldn't the principle of decorum apply to both sexes?

So we're left with several choices:
The Reformers were inconsistent (not likely)
They see a difference between the strictness of application between men and women (for men it's merely suggested, but for women it's demanded)...I don't see this as likely either
They saw both as "decorum" but the decorum in their day for men differed from that of the Corinthians, while it was the same for women.

Any other options?
I've posted on this almost universal view of the Reformers and Puritans before, by the way:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/womens-covering.91616/#post-1120859

And some good quotes from further back too:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-against-women-headcoverings-pre-1900.82178/


----------



## OPC'n

TylerRay said:


> Where did you get that definition? The standard definition (per Strong, Thayer, NAS Concordance) is to veil or cover.



I got it from the Greek translation online. If you can find a better and more thorough translation online that I can view, I welcome it.


----------



## Afterthought

Logan said:


> I quote from Calvin above, specifically regarding the men covering their heads. Calvin is not unique in his interpretation, as I mentioned earlier. So now one has to ask the question: why isn't it a problem if the men cover their heads, but it is a problem if the women uncover theirs? Wouldn't the principle of decorum apply to both sexes?


If the cap is viewed as a matter of decorum or a small positive matter (instead of a moral law), then morals may trump the custom, i.e., fear of catching cold. I don't know if the "cap" is the same thing as the "cap" Rev. Winzer speaks of in his answer to a similar question you asked in the thread you posted, but if this "cap" is the same as the "hat," that is another possible explanation as to what is occurring. If a woman had some moral reason for removing her covering (or perhaps it became accidentally undone during the service; or perhaps she forgot it entirely!), she should not be viewed as being at fault, anymore than the man for wearing a "cap" to prevent catching cold, especially at a time when catching cold was likely more deadly than it is now.



Logan said:


> I've never seen anyone explain why though, if it is rooted in creation, we never hear about it under the Old Testament. Headship certainly is, but head covering?


Perhaps it has something to do with men and women meeting together in a public assembly in Christian times, as Rev. Winzer hints in the same thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/womens-covering.91616/page-2#post-1121025


Edit: It would appear that a "moral" view of headcoverings is not consistent with what the Reformers held. A person with a "positive" view (i.e., a worship ordinance) could agree with what Calvin has said, as could those with a "customary" view of headcoverings.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Logan said:


> I've never seen anyone explain why though, if it is rooted in creation, we never hear about it under the Old Testament. Headship certainly is, but head covering?
> 
> 
> 
> I quote from Calvin above, specifically regarding the men covering their heads. Calvin is not unique in his interpretation, as I mentioned earlier. So now one has to ask the question: why isn't it a problem if the men cover their heads, but it is a problem if the women uncover theirs? Wouldn't the principle of decorum apply to both sexes?
> 
> So we're left with several choices:
> The Reformers were inconsistent (not likely)
> They see a difference between the strictness of application between men and women (for men it's merely suggested, but for women it's demanded)...I don't see this as likely either
> They saw both as "decorum" but the decorum in their day for men differed from that of the Corinthians, while it was the same for women.
> 
> Any other options?
> I've posted on this almost universal view of the Reformers and Puritans before, by the way:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/womens-covering.91616/#post-1120859
> 
> And some good quotes from further back too:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-against-women-headcoverings-pre-1900.82178/


Yes those quotes from the commentaries are interesting. But ultimately in the text Paul does seem to require the physical covering (which I know you agree with), but he further ties it into creation. Just because we don’t have an elaborate text in head coverings in the OT does not negate that Paul still ties head coverings to creation. 

With regards to the commentaries:
We should heavily weigh what godly men have interpreted. However ultimately my Conscience Is bound by what Paul says. Nothing in the text lends me to believe that this was temporary. Paul not only ties it to creation, but also to nature itself. If Paul commands this of the churches during that time, then when was the practiced stopped ( from scripture)?.... and why was it stopped (from scripture)? Therefore I feel it is a safer handling of the text to make physical head coverings for women in corporate worship (as defined by Paul) a binding practice.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## OPC'n

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See also, for example, Mounce:
> https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/katakalypto



This isn't working for me. I've put multiple Greek words and it comes up with "your search yielded no results". Do you have a link to a greek dictionary that works better or maybe has a large vocabulary? Right now I'm doing a word search for cover. Some didn't like the word disguise as a possible definition. I'm going to find all the Greek words for when we use the word cover. Thanks


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Afterthought said:


> They vary. Many do not, although you will find individuals here and there who do (I knew a couple of families who did).
> 
> We in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) usually practice headcoverings, but I do not think it is an officially stated doctrine or anything. The Presbyterian Reformed Church women also usually cover; as do the FPs of Scotland.
> 
> Perhaps you may find John Murray helpful on the subject: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/head-coverings-and-decorum-in-worship-a-letter.php
> 
> Dr. Richard Bacon also has an article/sermon series somewhere.
> 
> You might find some past discussion helpful: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...prohibited-from-preaching.85306/#post-1063964
> 
> User "MW," along with John Murray, advocates that the assumption of the text is that the headcovering is to be worn, and hence to remove it while praying or prophesying publicly is a great shame. Others have advocated that the "praying" and "prophesying" are parts of worship actions intended to stand for the whole. Still others have advocated that it is simpler and more practical to just leave it on, even when other actions of worship are being performed.



Thanks for sharing the John Murray article. That was very enlightening. I am a big fan of his work.


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> I just will have to disagree with your rendering of the text. Paul is crystal clear that he is discussing both a physical head covering (other than hair) representing the realities of our corporate worship. I am not sure how you conclude otherwise. I agree with the primary issue being headship (God-Christ-Man-Woman). I agree that it should be clear that women to not have authority over men. However, I am not sure you are seeing that Paul is requiring a physical cover (such as a veil-type cover).
> 
> There are also different Greek words used for "head", which indicate both our literal head and then our federal headship (spiritual head). With your understanding of the text, Paul's' message to the Church in Greek would have made no sense. Paul is being very clear with showing that our physical heads (covered or uncovered) symbolize spiritual realities. I think Paul is being clear and literal in this text as he is in the entire letter.
> 
> Your view seems to believe Paul is not requiring a physical cover, which I believe to be inaccurate. I am fairly certain that I have never read a reformed commentator, who would claim that Paul is NOT dealing with a physical type cover (even if they believe it was only cultural). Have you?
> 
> No matter if one thinks women should where a physical cover or not today is a moot point with your understanding, which causes your interpretation to stick out alone since you do not believe Paul is talking about a physical material cover.
> 
> Just seems like an odd interpretation.



I'm doing a more thorough word search on "cover" which will take some time. In the mean time, if you have time and are willing, I will ask you some questions which you can answer with supporting Scripture and/or Greek definitions etc.

1) Do you believe head coverings are a creational ordinance? Why or why not?
If you do:
A) Do you believe Eve wore a veil before the fall? Why or why 
not?

2) Why do you believe God gave the command for head coverings?

3) Do you believe a head covering is anything on top of a woman's head or is it more like a veil? Why do you believe one over the other?

4) Why does 1Cor 11 speak of coverings while 2 Cor 3 speaks of veils? The Greek words used in 1Cor 11 is not the same used in 2 Cor. 3

3) How does a veil show submission? Is there any other place in Scripture OT/NT that supports this thought? Moses wore a veil "so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end." not to show submission. In Gen women wore a veil to disguise who they were not to show submission. In Job it is used for hiding. Isaiah 3 uses veils as garment which hid. Isaiah 47 uses it as a form of humiliation when not worn.


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> 1)
> Do you believe head coverings are a creational ordinance? *Yes *Why or why not? *Because Paul uses creation as one of his theological arguments for the spiritual reality of headship, which he then explains should be symbolized with a physical symbol of a head covering.*
> If you do:
> A) Do you believe Eve wore a veil before the fall? Why or why
> not? *No. Because the bible gives no indication.*
> 
> 2) Why do you believe God gave the command for head coverings? *Because I believe all of scripture is God-Breathed and that it is clearly commanded in 1 Corinthians 11*
> 
> 3) Do you believe a head covering is anything on top of a woman's head or is it more like a veil? *Both. I believe it is a veil type covering, which would cover the head.* Why do you believe one over the other? *N/A, since I said both.*
> 
> 4) Why does 1Cor 11 speak of coverings while 2 Cor 3 speaks of veils? The Greek words used in 1Cor 11 is not the same used in 2 Cor. 3* I am not sure why Paul used a different greek word. However, I do not believe 2 Corinthians 3 to be specifically related to the text in 1 Corinthians 11 (which is dealing with a physical head covering for women in public worship gathering). *
> 
> 3) How does a veil show submission? *The head coverings symbolizes submission because the bible ( 1 corinthians 11) tells me so. *Is there any other place in Scripture OT/NT that supports this thought? *See below for the links. However, even if this is were the only place in scripture, it should be enough because of the clarity and logic, which Pauls uses to express the commands in 1 corinthians 11. *Moses wore a veil "so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end." not to show submission. In Gen women wore a veil to disguise who they were not to show submission. In Job it is used for hiding. Isaiah 3 uses veils as garment which hid. Isaiah 47 uses it as a form of humiliation when not worn.* And in 1 Corinthians 11 the women should wear a physical head covering because it "hides" or "covers" the glory of man. So that during public worship we are all focused on the Glory of Christ, which is symbolized in the man leaving his head uncovered and the women being covered. See below links, which expound.*
> 
> 4) How do you reconcile 1 Timothy 2:12 with 1 Cor 11? In one it says for the woman to be quiet in another it says for her to pray/prophesy. *Short Version: I believe the praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 is speaking to corporate prayer, singing of songs, and responsive readings which all of the congregation participate in. I believe 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibiting women from speaking or leading out in a authoritative manner. Basically anything that may present a women as having authority over a man in the regular corporate church gathering. Also again I recommend you take the time to check out both of the below links. *



*Your questions can be answered in greater detail below:
I think you will have all these questions answered if you will listen to the 3-part semon series previously mentioned in this thread.*
this page

or 

*Check out the article below Page #14 - 17*
July/August 2012 Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth magazine

*I think I have beat this horse to death. I hope this helps. I deeply appreciate everyones responses.*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> *Your questions can be answered in greater detail below:
> I think you will have all these questions answered if you will listen to the 3-part semon series previously mentioned in this thread.*
> this page
> 
> or
> 
> *Check out the article below Page #14 - 17*
> July/August 2012 Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth magazine
> 
> *I think I have beat this horse to death. I hope this helps. I deeply appreciate everyones responses.*



I can read why others believe in head coverings. I was hoping you would support your answers with Scripture/Greek definitions etc. since this is your thread. I think the only thing I want to say is if Eve was not commanded by God to wear a physical head covering, then Paul certainly doesn't have a different meaning for God's command.


----------



## sc_q_jayce

It seems to me that it's more along the lines of Paul referenced creation precisely because Eve did not wear a head covering and did not defer to any of Adam's authority. Because Adam was not deceived, but Eve was. So the fact that she did not have a sign of Adam's Authority over her head suggests that she was rebellious against the creation order.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> I can read why others believe in head coverings. I was hoping you would support your answers with Scripture/Greek definitions etc. since this is your thread. I think the only thing I want to say is if Eve was not commanded by God to wear a physical head covering, then Paul certainly doesn't have a different meaning for God's command.


I hope you see that I am supporting my argument with the Bible. I will be the first to admit that I am no Greek scholar. 

I am not sure I follow your comment about Eve? 

1) 1 Corinthians 11 is God speaking to his Church

2) Are we only required to be obidient to what God expressly commanded Eve (I don’t think you believe this, but that seems to be the logic exspressed) Eve was not expressly commanded to partake in th Lords Supper yet Paul dealt with this for the Church in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.


----------



## OPC'n

sc_q_jayce said:


> It seems to me that it's more along the lines of Paul referenced creation precisely because Eve did not wear a head covering and did not defer to any of Adam's authority. Because Adam was not deceived, but Eve was. So the fact that she did not have a sign of Adam's Authority over her head suggests that she was rebellious against the creation order.



If it's a creational ordinance, that would place it before the fall. This would then place Eve in sinless obedience.


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> I hope you see that I am supporting my argument with the Bible. I will be the first to admit that I am no Greek scholar.
> 
> I am not sure I follow your comment about Eve?
> 
> 1) 1 Corinthians 11 is God speaking to his Church
> 
> 2) Are we only required to be obidient to what God expressly commanded Eve (I don’t think you believe this, but that seems to be the logic exspressed) Eve was not expressly commanded to partake in th Lords Supper yet Paul dealt with this for the Church in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.



I don't see how you used Scripture to support your beliefs. I'm no Greek scholar either. 

If you believe that wearing head coverings is a creational ordinance, then you have to believe that Eve was commanded to have a covering over her head. Yet, like me, you don't believe that she wore a veil/hat. Where is your Scriptural evidence that Paul changed a creational ordinance? 

I'm confused. How are you tying Eve in with the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> If it's a creational ordinance, that would place it before the fall. This would then place Eve in sinless obedience.


Pre-fall the head of the man was Christ and the head of the women was man. In Corinthians Paul is requiring that the church should symbolize this reality with a physical head covering. 

If you believe a physical head covering was prescribed in 1 Corinthians 11. Then the questions you should need to answer if you alter that commanded practice are:

1. When did the church stop practicing a physical head covering for women (what verse)?

2. Why did the practice stop (what verse)?

I cannot answer either of those questions with scripture. This is why (among Other things) I lean towards believing women should still wear a physical covering in the worship gathering. At the end of the day I still see this as a topic brothers and sisters in Christ can maintain unity in visible membership over even if opinions differ.


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> I don't see how you used Scripture to support your beliefs. I'm no Greek scholar either.
> 
> If you believe that wearing head coverings is a creational ordinance, then you have to believe that Eve was commanded to have a covering over her head. Yet, like me, you don't believe that she wore a veil/hat. Where is your Scriptural evidence that Paul changed a creational ordinance?
> 
> I'm confused. How are you tying Eve in with the Lord's Supper?



Not sure I can reword it any better than i aready have. 

My question to you is:

1) when did the physical cover stop after 1 Corinthians 11 (what verse)?

2) And why did it stop (what verse)?


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> Pre-fall the head of the man was Christ and the head of the women was man. In Corinthians Paul is requiring that the church should symbolize this reality with a physical head covering.
> 
> If you believe a physical head covering was prescribed in 1 Corinthians 11. Then the questions you should need to answer if you alter that commanded practice are:
> 
> 1. When did the church stop practicing a physical head covering for women (what verse)?
> 
> 2. Why did the practice stop (what verse)?
> 
> I cannot answer either of those questions with scripture. This is why (among Other things) I lean towards believing women should still wear a physical covering in the worship gathering. At the end of the day I still see this as a topic brothers and sisters in Christ can maintain unity in visible membership over even if opinions differ.



I don't believe a physical head covering was prescribed in 1 Cor 11, therefore, I'm altering neither it nor the creational ordinance. It is you who is altering a command....the creational ordinance. I agree with your last statement. I hold no judgment against those whose conscious dictates wearing a physical head covering. Also, if anyone could extensively show through Scripture how Paul changed a creational ordinance, then I would change my mind.


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> Not sure I can reword it any better than i aready have.
> 
> My question to you is:
> 
> 1) when did the physical cover stop after 1 Corinthians 11 (what verse)?
> 
> 2) And why did it stop (what verse)?



I feel like you didn't see my post #57.


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> I don't believe a physical head covering was prescribed in 1 Cor 11, therefore, I'm altering neither it nor the creational ordinance. It is you who is altering a command....the creational ordinance. I agree with your last statement. I hold no judgment against those whose conscious dictates wearing a physical head covering. Also, if anyone could extensively show through Scripture how Paul changed a creational ordinance, then I would change my mind.


I am not advocating that Paul changed a creation ordinance. I am not sure how you come away thinking 1 Corinthians 11 does not deal with a physical covering. The Greek words are clear that a physical covering is discussed. The links I provided do a good job of looking at the Greek words. I am not aware of any Puritan or reformer who would hold your view that a physical material cover is not discussed in 1 Corinthians 11 (if you know one please provide).

Nonetheless I am still appreciative of you sharing your view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> I feel like you didn't see my post #57.


Yes. I have read every post.
I think your Greek on “disguise” was inaccurate in my opinion.


----------



## sc_q_jayce

OPC'n said:


> If it's a creational ordinance, that would place it before the fall. This would then place Eve in sinless obedience.


Exactly, and Eve disobeyed leading to the fall.


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> I am not advocating that Paul changed a creation ordinance. I am not sure how you come away thinking 1 Corinthians 11 does not deal with a physical covering. The Greek words are clear that a physical covering is discussed. The links I provided do a good job of looking at the Greek words. I am not aware of any Puritan or reformer who would hold your view that a physical material cover is not discussed in 1 Corinthians 11 (if you know one please provide).
> 
> Nonetheless I am still appreciative of you sharing your view.



I hate sounding argumentative. Really, I'm not trying to sound that way. By saying that Paul commands women to wear physical head coverings AND to say that Eve was not commanded to is indeed to say that Paul is changing a creational ordinance.


----------



## OPC'n

sc_q_jayce said:


> Exactly, and Eve disobeyed leading to the fall.



Creational ordinances have to do with pre-fall commands not post-fall commands. Eve followed this command before the fall sinlessly (not wearing a hat), then she fell and continued to follow this command (still not wearing a hat)


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> I hate sounding argumentative. Really, I'm not trying to sound that way. By saying that Paul commands women to wear physical head coverings AND to say that Eve was not commanded to is indeed to say that Paul is changing a creational ordinance.


Well if you are reading me that way (which I am not advocating) I am not sure what else I can say. Maybe we are playinword games.

Paul is referencing back to creation to show that his command of having women’s heads covered is shown in God’s created order. Paul is commanding a material covering (still not sure where your support is for not seeing that). Wearing a physical material covering may not be a creation ordinance (trying to avoid word games), but Paul defends the practice in the creation order and in nature.

Even the OPC website acknowledges a physical material head covering, but limits the material covering to culture.
https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=244

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> Well if you are reading me that way (which I am not advocating) I am not sure what else I can say. Maybe we are playinword games.
> 
> Paul is referencing back to creation to show that his command of having women’s heads covered is shown in God’s created order. Paul is commanding a material covering (still not sure where your support is for not seeing that). Wearing a physical material covering may not be a creation ordinance (trying to avoid word games), but Paul defends the practice in the creation order and in nature.
> 
> Even the OPC website acknowledges a physical material head covering, but limits the material covering to culture.
> https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=244



"Wearing a physical material covering may not be a creation ordinance (trying to avoid word games), but Paul defends the practice in the creation order and in nature." You've said two different things here. You've said, "It's not a creational ordinance but it is.". What Paul is defending is: head coverings are a creational ordinance which is to be practiced by all generations. You feel he's saying they are physical head coverings, however, this is not supported by the creational ordinance (you've admitted that Eve did not wear a physical head covering). 1Cor 11 is such a vague Scripture (hence all the debate over it by all sorts of reformed Christians) it needs to be interpreted by other Scripture. 

I know some in the OPC believe it to not be a creational ordinance thus it's a cultural command. I haven't seen their supporting proof of this. 

Anyway, I'll leave you be. I did enjoy our conversation. Have a great night.


----------



## Smeagol

Thanks everyone for your post. I have had my questions answered for myself. I hope others learned as well. Still prayerfully considering things.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

OPC'n said:


> This isn't working for me. I've put multiple Greek words and it comes up with "your search yielded no results". Do you have a link to a greek dictionary that works better or maybe has a large vocabulary? Right now I'm doing a word search for cover. Some didn't like the word disguise as a possible definition. I'm going to find all the Greek words for when we use the word cover. Thanks


I am not quite clear on exactly what you are trying to do, but here are a couple of starting points:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?s=references&q=cover&rc=
The page above also has lexicons for searching. As the results for the link above show, you will have quite a bit of work to do if you are seeking all the Greek variations for the word "cover". For example, the words cover, covering, covers, coverer appear about 243 times in the KJV translation (238 for the ESV).

Similarly, plenty of dictionaries and lexicons available here:
http://classic.studylight.org/

You might start with a complete concordance for the Bible translation you are using. Then examine these verses in their contexts in concert with an interlinear and lexicon.

For 1 Cor. 11:6 KJV you will likely be looking for:


Spoiler: Covered










Then again, if you have Logos, see:
https://blog.logos.com/2018/06/bible-word-study-english-easy-way/

I hope this helps.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Below is also a helpful article that takes time to explain the tradition (or ordinance) of Head Coverings. Hopefully this will be informative for some of you.
https://oldpathspaved.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/no-such-custom/

The article is Pro- Physical Material Head Coverings.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Thanks everyone for your post. I have had my questions answered for myself. I hope others learned as well. Still prayerfully considering things.


It seems that this discussion is much more among Presbyterians, as I think based upon the postings here, that a head covering is the main position, but not so much among others such as Baptists. Some Reformed Baptists probably still view the covering as mandatory for today.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dachaser said:


> seems that this discussion is mucj more among Presbartayrns, as I think based uypon the postings here, that a head covering is the main position, but no so much among others such as Baptists. Some reformed Baptists probably still view the covering as mandatory for today.


Interest and concern for what’s required will be greater where the Psalms are sung and it’s understood that one is singing prophetically. The question of what God commands in worship (we must only worship God as he has commanded) will be more pressing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Cedarbay

Would someone please post an example of what would be considered an appropriate head covering...thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought

There are different styles, and what is or is not appropriate is an intramural "issue" as to how much of the hair should be covered and whether a hat is appropriate (I put "issue" in quotation marks because I'm not aware of anyone actively debating this; I think we all understand ourselves to be trying to please the Lord and that this is a relatively small matter.).

Here is a picture from our family conference. Some of the ladies still have their covering on for the photo. You can see some of the covering styles there (although it seems to be more of the "veiling" or "scarf" sort of style): http://www.westminsterconfession.org/regions/family-conference/payment.php (Enlarged photo)

If you catch Greenville Presbyterian church live streaming or look at the beginning or end of some of its video recordings, you can see some more examples, including those wearing "hats:" GPC Youtube Channel

Some sort of hat seems to be the style among some of the older folk/those with a UK background, whereas the "veil" or "scarf" tends to be more popular among Americans (at least in my experience of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in America). There is another style that I cannot find a picture of off the top of my head that looks more like a headband, which I have sometimes seen on children (probably to make it easier to take on and off because they are young).

Some more hats (these are examples of the kinds of hats I've seen, so the ladies must have left them on despite it not being worship; see also the picture of everyone towards the end): http://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/publications/magazines/witness/item/witness-july-august-2016


Edit: With regards to the earlier conversation on Eve, it is kind of irrelevant (although I see the point Sarah was making). The Scriptures say nothing about whether she wore a covering or not, so speculating on the matter does not help interpret 1 Cor. 11. The only thing it might do is hinder someone from holding the covering itself being something moral or a creation ordinance (like the Sabbath or marriage). It does nothing to hinder the arguments that it is a positive requirement (or practice of mere decorum) to symbolize the creation reality in the NT assembly.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay

Afterthought said:


> Here is a picture from our family conference.


Hey, I'm in that picture! I hadn't seen it before.

Actually, there are a few PBers in there.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Cedarbay

Would a more decorative scarf typically worn around the neck be suitable? I noticed one woman putting her scarf over her head before prayer. Do most leave it on for the entire service?

I used to wear a beautiful, lace mantilla to mass. It was a joy at the time.


----------



## Smeagol

Cedarbay said:


> Would a more decorative scarf typically worn around the neck be suitable? I noticed one woman putting her scarf over her head before prayer. Does one then remove it from the head several times during the service?


Great Questions. I would recommend you check out the below website:

https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/

If you are convinced that a physical material head covering should be worn by women in corporate worship, then the above site has many good articles and videos for someone who is new to the practice (myself included.... or rather my wife included).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Cedarbay

Oh my, another movement, Grant. It will be a pleasure to check out later today. Thanks much.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Afterthought

Cedarbay said:


> Would a more decorative scarf typically worn around the neck be suitable? I noticed one woman putting her scarf over her head before prayer. Do most leave it on for the entire service?


So long as the scarf is put over the head in some manner (I think I know what kind you are referring to; a scarf around the neck that can be pulled over the head from the back of the neck), I have seen that style before.

(I looked at pictures of lace mantillas, and I can say that I have seen that kind of style before too.)

Most leave on their headcovering (whatever headcovering it is) for the entirety of a worship service. I do not recall ever seeing any who take it off and on several times during the service.

A few things to note, so far as what you might see in the videos. (1) The video recordings of GPC's prayer meetings come in the middle of their worship service, while their Lord's day services are usually recorded from right before the service starts. (2) I've noticed that the scarf sort of headcovering has a tendency to come off, so women either re-adjust it during the service in a minor fashion (like men re-adjust their shirts tucked into their pants) or simply take it off and put it back on again properly. Also, it may sometimes just be a nervous habit; or something may have happened that caused it to fall off (e.g., children pulling on it). (3) Those with a "bulkier" sort of headcovering (like a scarf) will sometimes remove it when they have to leave the worship service for some reason (e.g, bathroom, crying children, helping with crying children, and so forth) and then put it back on when they return to their seat for the service. (4) There are a small number of people I know (although they might not be at GPC) who believe headcoverings should be worn by women all the time, and during worship, they will wear the scarf sort of headcovering over the headcovering that they wear all the time. For those who hold this view, I have not seen any consistent practice with the use of the scarf so far as removing it or putting it on again during worship, so I'm not sure what their views may be.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I think it’s worth mentioning that even in the Free Church, women who aren’t convinced from Scripture of covering their heads are free not to do so. I imagine the way that’s handled depends on what an unconvinced wife’s husband thinks?- but what I’ve understood is that there’s a recognition that the issue of headcovering not being so easily discerned, and not addressed by our confession of faith, it seems there is patience and an unwillingness to bind someone’s conscience about it. Again others can speak to this better than I.

Though I don’t currently/yet cover my head during worship, I’m happy to when visiting a congregation where it’s the majority practice. I also find myself being inched along closer to thinking that will require me to begin wearing something each Lord’s day.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

TylerRay said:


> Hey, I'm in that picture! I hadn't seen it before.
> 
> Actually, there are a few PBers in there.


Someone should circle and identify all the PBers in the enlarged photo.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo

I would recommend this sermon by Pastor Michael Ives, of the Presbyterian Reformed Church in Rhode Island, on the positive apostolic tradition of women wearing head coverings for worship. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=318181691110



Jeri Tanner said:


> there’s a recognition that the issue of headcovering not being so easily discerned



I'd like to speak to this briefly, if I may. I don't think the officers of the FCC or the PRC would say head covering is a murky issue and that's why women are not disciplined for non-compliance. Rather, I think the acknowledgment is that head covering a _personal matter _that wouldn't mean much if it was simply mandated under threat of discipline. The aim is for women to willingly cover as a symbol of submission and modesty in the heart.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## OPC'n

Afterthought said:


> Edit: With regards to the earlier conversation on Eve, it is kind of irrelevant (although I see the point Sarah was making). The Scriptures say nothing about whether she wore a covering or not, so speculating on the matter does not help interpret 1 Cor. 11. The only thing it might do is hinder someone from holding the covering itself being something moral or a creation ordinance (like the Sabbath or marriage). It does nothing to hinder the arguments that it is a positive requirement (or practice of mere decorum) to symbolize the creation reality in the NT assembly.



The Scriptures do say she didn't wear a hat in the fact that it says both her and Adam were naked before their fall. They in fact had no clothing. After the fall they tried to make clothing out of leaves (further evidence they had no clothing) to cover themselves and they couldn't get that right. God had to give them clothing (further evidence they had no clothing). You will find no one who believes Eve had a physical head covering (this would be an article of clothing which they didn't have) before the fall. 

Also, I find it interesting that in 1Tim 2 he gives this command, 2:9 "...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, *not with braided hair and gold or pearls *or costly attire...". Back in this day wealthy women would braid their hair and twist it around their head weaving in strands of gold and place pearls in their hair. I believe Paul gives this command in order to teach others not to flaunt their wealth and show restraint on how much you are spending on jewels and flashy clothing. But he also mentions braiding of hair. Here is a quote about all the work that women put into braiding their hair.

"In the first century, many women were plaiting elaborate hair designs that would take hours to “construct” and weave. One writer, in describing such first-century hair designs, wrote:

Talk about high maintenance! During the late first century, the Flavian style of Julia, daughter of Titus fashioned the court with curls arranged on crescent-shaped wire frames. The back hair was divided into sections, braided, then curled. Sometimes the hair was coiled without braiding (see _Roman_…, 2002).

Apparently, some women were turning the worship assemblies into fashion shows, attempting to “one-up” their contemporaries with flashy, expensive clothes and costly gold jewelry. Instead of this gaudiness, Paul instructed the women to adorn themselves in that “which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”

Given that knowledge, it would seem silly to go to all that work if they knew they would have to wear a head covering. For me, this is further evidence that the covering of which Paul speaks is the covering of authority.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> The Scriptures do say she didn't wear a hat in the fact that it says both her and Adam were naked before their fall. They in fact had no clothing. After the fall they tried to make clothing out of leaves (further evidence they had no clothing) to cover themselves and they couldn't get that right. God had to give them clothing (further evidence they had no clothing). You will find no one who believes Eve had a physical head covering (this would be an article of clothing which they didn't have) before the fall.
> 
> Also, I find it interesting that in 1Tim 2 he gives this command, 2:9 "...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, *not with braided hair and gold or pearls *or costly attire...". Back in this day wealthy women would braid their hair and twist it around their head weaving in strands of gold and place pearls in their hair. I believe Paul gives this command in order to teach others not to flaunt their wealth and show restraint on how much you are spending on jewels and flashy clothing. But he also mentions braiding of hair. Here is a quote about all the work that women put into braiding their hair.
> 
> "In the first century, many women were plaiting elaborate hair designs that would take hours to “construct” and weave. One writer, in describing such first-century hair designs, wrote:
> 
> Talk about high maintenance! During the late first century, the Flavian style of Julia, daughter of Titus fashioned the court with curls arranged on crescent-shaped wire frames. The back hair was divided into sections, braided, then curled. Sometimes the hair was coiled without braiding (see _Roman_…, 2002).
> 
> Apparently, some women were turning the worship assemblies into fashion shows, attempting to “one-up” their contemporaries with flashy, expensive clothes and costly gold jewelry. Instead of this gaudiness, Paul instructed the women to adorn themselves in that “which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”
> 
> Given that knowledge, it would seem silly to go to all that work if they knew they would have to wear a head covering. For me, this is further evidence that the covering of which Paul speaks is the covering of authority.


It may seem silly to you that Paul would ask for the physical covering, but I think that overlooks the clarity Paul uses not only in our English translations, but also in the Greek. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul does use the Greek word for covering that implies a physical material covering, which would be a symbol of the authority of which you speak of. *For my own curiosity, do you know of any reformers who have held your view of the text NOT dealing with a physical material over?* I fear your interpretation may be a flattening of the text (i know this is not your intent) because Paul uses clear language (*the perspicuity of Scripture*) to explain a physical material symbol representing the spiritual realities of our corporate worship. If Paul were trying to simply explain *spiritual* covering of authority with no *physical* sign, then he would have left out v6-7. Some of the women in Corinth may have thought a physical covering was silly as well, which would help use understand why Paul needed to address it in the first place.

Below is a quote from an article which I will give a link to below:

"***In the last 100 years, a 2000 year old doctrine, has been all but removed from most Reformed churches, by a single controlling element- culture. The doctrine abandoned was the use of head coverings in public worship.

The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship.***"
https://oldpathspaved.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/no-such-custom/


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> It may seem silly to you that Paul would ask for the physical covering, but I think that overlooks the clarity Paul uses not only in our English translations, but also in the Greek. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul does use the Greek word for covering that implies a physical material covering, which would be a symbol of the authority of which you speak of. *For my own curiosity, do you know of any reformers who have held your view of the text NOT dealing with a physical material over?* I fear your interpretation may be a flattening of the text (i know this is not your intent) because Paul uses clear language (*the perspicuity of Scripture*) to explain a physical material symbol representing the spiritual realities of our corporate worship. If Paul were trying to simply explain *spiritual* covering of authority with no *physical* sign, then he would have left out v6-7. Some of the women in Corinth may have thought a physical covering was silly as well, which would help use understand why Paul needed to address it in the first place.
> 
> Below is a quote from an article which I will give a link to below:
> 
> "***In the last 100 years, a 2000 year old doctrine, has been all but removed from most Reformed churches, by a single controlling element- culture. The doctrine abandoned was the use of head coverings in public worship.
> 
> The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship.***"
> https://oldpathspaved.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/no-such-custom/



You placed "silly" on the wrong topic of which I was speaking. I didn't say I think Paul was silly for commanding physical head coverings since I don't believe that is what he is saying. I said it would be silly to go through all the work of doing elaborate braiding of the hair when they knew they would just have to cover up all their hard work. There would be absolutely no point in braiding their hair in this fashion. 

After people here disagreed with one of the Greek definitions of "cover" being "disguise", I went on youtube to see if there were any teachings on this subject. I did find a pastor who taught a very good lecture on this but the lecture needed more info. Much of what he had to say was interesting and began to lead to what I believe Paul is saying. He used historical facts, Greek definitions etc. However, at the very end when I felt he was going to give good solid evidence he cut it short because of time restraint and ended it with "in short the covering is authority and not a physical covering". He does believe that it is a creational ordinance. I'll go look for it again if you want to watch it. But in my opinion, I would want more proof from him in order for me to hold him up as someone to point others to. 

As far as this being a "a 2000 year old doctrine", the furtherest I can go back for evidence of this practice is with Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria around 150 AD. Although that sounds super close to when the Apostles were around, in the reality of church purity it's pretty far away. Many teachings can and did go corrupt within 150 years. Take for example the book of Revelations which was written in 95AD. Many of those churches had gone astray in some of their actions and teachings. 

Now, is it correct to discard church tradition without thorough study. I don't believe it is. Look at the ongoing dispute over baptism. Thankfully, I can point to church tradition on this point and say, "Not only does Scripture confirm paedobaptism, but it was also practiced by our spiritual forefathers.". Does that mean I just jumped on the paedobaptism bandwagon because our spiritual forefathers practiced paedobaptism? No. I had to be convinced by Scripture and more Scripture and more Scripture. Same thing with the Sabbath. I whole heartedly disagreed with Sabbath keeping and fought against it for a few years. But in the end with hard work and studying I now agree it's a Command. So you see, there might be salvation for me yet on this subject, but I want Scripture upon Scripture proof for either how I believe which is where I feel I am at right now or for your position or for the "it's only culture" position!


----------



## Afterthought

OPC'n said:


> The Scriptures do say she didn't wear a hat in the fact that it says both her and Adam were naked before their fall. They in fact had no clothing. After the fall they tried to make clothing out of leaves (further evidence they had no clothing) to cover themselves and they couldn't get that right. God had to give them clothing (further evidence they had no clothing). You will find no one who believes Eve had a physical head covering (this would be an article of clothing which they didn't have) before the fall.


No one is arguing Eve had a physical covering before the fall. I was merely pointing out one cannot determine one way or another. Although your point is fair enough about clothing after the fall, there is still not enough information to decide the point: among other things, we don't even know if a pre-fall worship service took place (they may have fallen day 6), and we do not know if some other headgear would have sufficed pre-fall. Anyway, this is still irrelevant to the argument, and that is my main point. As I know you know: be careful not to take down a weaker version of the pro-headcovering argument (which probably not many even hold; certainly none on this thread have intentionally argued that way) when a stronger version exists.



OPC'n said:


> Given that knowledge, it would seem silly to go to all that work if they knew they would have to wear a head covering. For me, this is further evidence that the covering of which Paul speaks is the covering of authority.


A lot of assumptions are being made here that cannot be determined from the text: either from this text or 1 Cor. 11. Do you really think women that wished to dress in such a way would not try to dress in a vain manner if they had to wear a headcovering during the worship service (how would you even know that?)? And who says that these women were in fact wearing a headcovering? Perhaps they wished to flaunt these braids as they attempted to pray or prophesy. Or perhaps they simply ignored wearing the headcovering entirely. Or perhaps they could flaunt these braids before and after the assembly when the headcovering had been removed. Or perhaps their headcoverings did not cover all the braids. Vain people can behave in a silly manner.

It's better to focus on 1 Cor. 11 and the reasons Paul gave than trying to argue from these other places and assumptions upon assumptions (or trying to find reasons in a supposed cultural context at the time; I have seen some argue "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6 means temple prostitutes based on an investigation of cultural context and assumptions; not quite the same interpretive method is being done here, but something to be wary of.). Anyway, if we were talking in person, I might continue to dialog, but as it is, I'll have to leave you to your own conclusions (unless another interesting something is posted that I feel like responding to).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n

Afterthought said:


> No one is arguing Eve had a physical covering before the fall. I was merely pointing out one cannot determine one way or another. Although your point is fair enough about clothing after the fall, there is still not enough information to decide the point:


 There is enough information because it's in the text. If they had clothing, God wouldn't have had to give them clothing.



Afterthought said:


> among other things, we don't even know if a pre-fall worship service took place (they may have fallen day 6), and we do not know if some other headgear would have sufficed pre-fall.


 I don't see how you can say this is a creational ordinance if you feel Adam and Eve never worshipped God before the fall.



Afterthought said:


> Anyway, this is still irrelevant to the argument, and that is my main point.


 It should be relevant to your argument if you don't want to fall into the notion of this command being a cultural command. Creational ordinances carry authoritative weight. No one is allowed to discard them.



Afterthought said:


> As I know you know: be careful not to take down a weaker version of the pro-headcovering argument (which probably not many even hold; certainly none on this thread have intentionally argued that way) when a stronger version exists.


 I have yet to see anyone here or elsewhere show that God through Paul changed a creational ordinance by commanding the usage of physical coverings which were not commanded in the Garden.




Afterthought said:


> A lot of assumptions are being made here that cannot be determined from the text: either from this text or 1 Cor. 11. Do you really think women that wished to dress in such a way would not try to dress in a vain manner if they had to wear a headcovering during the worship service (how would you even know that?)?


 I can't know with absolute certainty, but as a woman I would not bother to go through this much work (simple braiding is enough work much less this elaborate braiding) just to cover it up.



Afterthought said:


> And who says that these women were in fact wearing a headcovering?


 My point exactly. I don't believe they were.



Afterthought said:


> Perhaps they wished to flaunt these braids as they attempted to pray or prophesy. Or perhaps they simply ignored wearing the headcovering entirely. Or perhaps they could flaunt these braids before and after the assembly when the headcovering had been removed. Or perhaps their headcoverings did not cover all the braids. Vain people can behave in a silly manner.


 Or the more logical reason was that they just were not commanded to wear a physical head covering.



Afterthought said:


> It's better to focus on 1 Cor. 11 and the reasons Paul gave than trying to argue from these other places and assumptions upon assumptions (or trying to find reasons in a supposed cultural context at the time;


 I always find it more safe to interpret a vague Scripture (you can't deny it's not vague since even many of the reformed do not agree that women have to wear head coverings) with a more clear Scripture.


----------



## OPC'n

Afterthought said:


> among other things, we don't even know if a pre-fall worship service took place (they may have fallen day 6), and we do not know if some other headgear would have sufficed pre-fall.



I didn't catch this until after I posted. You are saying there's a possibility that Adam and Eve fell before God rested on the seventh day? That's not possible at all. And since it's not possible, Adam and Eve did have their first worship on the seventh day when God rested. So there's the proof for no hat for Eve who kept this command sinlessly.


----------



## lynnie

Maybe this has been mentioned, but in verse 2 when Paul speaks of this being handed down or delivered, it is the same Greek word for the Lord's supper being delivered down in verse 23. That is what the translation means when it says tradition- it was handed down. 

I don't think anybody can make a case that the Lord's Supper was handed down from the Lord and head coverings are not. The flow of the writing presents them both the same way. If it came from Paul, I think he would have said " I, not the Lord". I think the only conclusion here that does justice to the flow of the chapter and the way both symbols- headcoverings and communion- are presented in an identical way as being handed down, is that the command came straight from Jesus Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> There is enough information because it's in the text. If they had clothing, God wouldn't have had to give them clothing.
> 
> I don't see how you can say this is a creational ordinance if you feel Adam and Eve never worshipped God before the fall.
> 
> It should be relevant to your argument if you don't want to fall into the notion of this command being a cultural command. Creational ordinances carry authoritative weight. No one is allowed to discard them.
> 
> I have yet to see anyone here or elsewhere show that God through Paul changed a creational ordinance by commanding the usage of physical coverings which were not commanded in the Garden.
> 
> 
> I can't know with absolute certainty, but as a woman I would not bother to go through this much work (simple braiding is enough work much less this elaborate braiding) just to cover it up.
> 
> My point exactly. I don't believe they were.
> 
> Or the more logical reason was that they just were not commanded to wear a physical head covering.
> 
> I always find it more safe to interpret a vague Scripture (you can't deny it's not vague since even many of the reformed do not agree that women have to wear head coverings) with a more clear Scripture.


Again which reformed writer do you know of who does not believe 1 Cortinthians 11 is discussing a literal physical covering? If you look at the Greek you cannot get around that. No one in the thread is saying that Paul is changing a creation ordinance (could we please move on from that). Paul is saying that the physical material head covering should be worn in the corporate worship gathering. As a part of his justification for requiring this, he references a creation ordinance which is spiritual authority (God-Christ-Man-Women). The actual physical material head covering is not in the creation ordinance, the thing that the head covering symbolizes is in acreation ordinance. 
So let’s move on from the creation ordinance discussion because I believe we have beat it to death. 
There are things especially in the New Testament that we as Christians obey that are not found to be commanded pre-fall, examples: Baptism and Lords Supper. Physical material head coverings are an ordinance that Paul is requiring. His logic:
1. It glorifies Christ
2. It symbolizes one of the creation ordinances (spiritual authority)
3. Nature also attest to the Logic of his command for a literal head cover
4. The angels (good for another thread maybe)

Now I am not going to type out any more detailed explanation on your view because :

1. I do not think you have read the articles people have recommend. I truly believe they would help you see the plainness in Greek, which would show the scripture proof you need. (I could be wrong, you may have)
2. I don’t know a single person dead or alive that holds to your view that 1 Corinthians 11 is not discussing a literal material head covering, even if they believe it to be cultural. (Please share a reformed confessional source dead or alive.)
3. I respect you holding to your Conscience. You can only strive for obedience in what you believe to be biblical.
4. I am trying to finish cutting my grass, gotta get back to it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have no idea whether Calvin did or not wear at hat during corporate worship, or—if it can be definitively shown he did—whether it was some form of vestments at the time.



Calvin wore a Humphrey Bogart-style fedora. Trust me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> Again which reformed writer do you know of who does not believe 1 Cortinthians 11 is discussing a literal physical covering?


 Al Mohler doesn't believe that it's a physical head covering. https://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=02EEJJNU. Now, I completely disagree on what Al Mohler and his wife believe. I think they are leaving out the single/windows and so their reasoning doesn't make sense. BUT I did find a reformed pastor who believes it's not a physical head covering.



Grant.Jones said:


> If you look at the Greek you cannot get around that. No one in the thread is saying that Paul is changing a creation ordinance (could we please move on from that).



Change which ever one of these statements you feel is wrong:

1) Head coverings are a creational ordinance
2) There has never been a creational ordinance that the OT/NT changed
3) Adam and Eve partook in this creational ordinance
4) Adam and Eve kept this creational ordinance according to God's command and did so sinlessly.
5) Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden



Grant.Jones said:


> Paul is saying that the physical material head covering should be worn in the corporate worship gathering. As a part of his justification for requiring this, he references a creation ordinance which is spiritual authority (God-Christ-Man-Women). The actual physical material head covering is not in the creation ordinance, the thing that the head covering symbolizes is in acreation ordinance.


 Refer to your answer in #2 and #5.



Grant.Jones said:


> So let’s move on from the creation ordinance discussion because I believe we have beat it to death.


 I told you in a previous post that I would leave you be, but you decided to answer my post that was directed to someone else. If you prefer to not beat this horse any longer that is ok with me.



Grant.Jones said:


> There are things especially in the New Testament that we as Christians obey that are not found to be commanded pre-fall, examples: Baptism and Lords Supper.


 These are not creational ordinances that's why you won't find them in creation.



Grant.Jones said:


> Physical material head coverings are an ordinance that Paul is requiring. His logic:
> 1. It glorifies Christ
> 2. It symbolizes one of the creation ordinances (spiritual authority)
> 3. Nature also attest to the Logic of his command for a literal head cover
> 4. The angels (good for another thread maybe)


 You haven't proven that you can change a creational ordinance, or you haven't proven that Eve had a physical head covering, or you haven't proven that physical coverings were not apart of this creational ordinance and therefore can be changed. You would have to prove one of those in order to say, "Paul change this according to such and such Scripture or Paul continued what Eve did before the fall.".



Grant.Jones said:


> Now I am not going to type out any more detailed explanation on your view because :
> 
> 1. I do not think you have read the articles people have recommend. I truly believe they would help you see the plainness in Greek, which would show the scripture proof you need. (I could be wrong, you may have)


 I, in fact, did read one of your links.



Grant.Jones said:


> 2. I don’t know a single person dead or alive that holds to your view that 1 Corinthians 11 is not discussing a literal material head covering, even if they believe it to be cultural. (Please share a reformed confessional source dead or alive.)


 Please refer to the link I gave at the beginning of the post



Grant.Jones said:


> 3. I respect you holding to your Conscience. You can only strive for obedience in what you believe to be biblical.


 and I you.



Grant.Jones said:


> 4. I am trying to finish cutting my grass, gotta get back to it.


 I hope it didn't rain on you like it did me when I had to mow.


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> Al Mohler doesn't believe that it's a physical head covering. https://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=02EEJJNU. Now, I completely disagree on what Al Mohler and his wife believe. I think they are leaving out the single/windows and so their reasoning doesn't make sense. BUT I did find a reformed pastor who believes it's not a physical head covering.
> 
> 
> 
> Change which ever one of these statements you feel is wrong:
> 
> 1) Head coverings are a creational ordinance
> 2) There has never been a creational ordinance that the OT/NT changed
> 3) Adam and Eve partook in this creational ordinance
> 4) Adam and Eve kept this creational ordinance according to God's command and did so sinlessly.
> 5) Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden
> 
> Refer to your answer in #2 and #5.
> 
> I told you in a previous post that I would leave you be, but you decided to answer my post that was directed to someone else. If you prefer to not beat this horse any longer that is ok with me.
> 
> These are not creational ordinances that's why you won't find them in creation.
> 
> You haven't proven that you can change a creational ordinance, or you haven't proven that Eve had a physical head covering, or you haven't proven that physical coverings were not apart of this creational ordinance and therefore can be changed. You would have to prove one of those in order to say, "Paul change this according to such and such Scripture or Paul continued what Eve did before the fall.".
> 
> I, in fact, did read one of your links.
> 
> Please refer to the link I gave at the beginning of the post
> 
> and I you.
> 
> I hope it didn't rain on you like it did me when I had to mow.


I think continuing the conversation with you is adding confusion to the thread.

I watched the Mary Mohler video. She doesn’t seem to share your view. It would seem from the video that she takes the cultural argument and maintains that the spiritual reality must still be true and that the physical sign changed with culture.

Let’s go back and simply look at the text 1 Corinthians 11. I do not need to prove that Paul is changing a creation Ordinace because I do not believe he is commanding the church to symbolize the creation ordinance and remember it not to change it.

What I am trying to show is that 1 Corinthians 11 is requiring a physical material covering( which I believe should still be practiced today). If you give a literal reading of the text that is clear in English and greek.

You may want to start a new thread of your own since I believe your view is outside the pointed nature of this thread (which was to discover if people believed the physical material head covering is still applicable today as it was in Paul’s day). You may find information that is more pointed to your view if you were also to start a new thread for your interpretation that Paul is not discussing a material head covering. Of course you are welcome to still post on this thread(please don’t hear me saying “get out”, I have enjoyed the discussion with you). I just think you may find more pointed information about your view if you posted a separate thread regarding your interpretation. Just a thought as I thInk even the Mohler video does not support your view, but rather the cultural argument.

In an attempt to avoid seeming anymore argumentative than I may have already, this will be my last reply to you on this thread. Please don’t take offense, I just feel you and I have exhuasted each other’s views and i see no end in sight.

Hopefully we can keep getting more insight on the original purpose of the thread. Again Thanks for sharing your opinions.


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> I think continuing the conversation with you is adding confusion to the thread.
> 
> I watched the Mary Mohler video. She doesn’t seem to share your view. It would seem from the video that she takes the cultural argument and maintains that the spiritual reality must still be true and that the physical sign changed with culture.
> 
> Let’s go back and simply look at the text 1 Corinthians 11. I do not need to prove that Paul is changing a creation Ordinace because I do not believe he is commanding the church to symbolize the creation ordinance and remember it not to change it.
> 
> What I am trying to show is that 1 Corinthians 11 is requiring a physical material covering( which I believe should still be practiced today). If you give a literal reading of the text that is clear in English and greek.
> 
> You may want to start a new thread of your own since I believe your view is outside the pointed nature of this thread (which was to discover if people believed the physical material head covering is still applicable today as it was in Paul’s day). You may find information that is more pointed to your view if you were also to start a new thread for your interpretation that Paul is not discussing a material head covering. Of course you are welcome to still post on this thread(please don’t hear me saying “get out”, I have enjoyed the discussion with you). I just think you may find more pointed information about your view if you posted a separate thread regarding your interpretation. Just a thought as I thInk even the Mohler video does not support your view, but rather the cultural argument.
> 
> In an attempt to avoid seeming anymore argumentative than I may have already, this will be my last reply to you on this thread. Please don’t take offense, I just feel you and I have exhuasted each other’s views and i see no end in sight.
> 
> Hopefully we can keep getting more insight on the original purpose of the thread. Again Thanks for sharing your opinions.



You miss understood her [_nb_: Mary Mohler]. First she said egalitarians are the ones who like to push this off as cultural. Second she isn't dismissing 1Cor 11 as not being valid because it's just a cultural command. If she did, she would have said it was cultural and that she didn't need to wear a hat. Instead, she states that she is fulfilling this command by taking her husband's name. Her covering symbol is her husband's name. Thus, she believes in the command but doesn't believe the covering is a physical material covering, but instead is her husband's name.

So I did find a reformed pastor (her husband) who believes this is still a command but the head covering isn't a physical hat. You seem unwilling to concede to anything that I present even this video of Al's wife. You clearly listened with your mind made up that it wasn't what I said it was or you weren't really paying attention (something you have done to me when you misspoke things that I said).


Of course I don't take offend that you don't want to continue this conversation. I will agree that continuing this conversation with you is adding to the confusion of this thread. I had suggested that a few posts back when I said I won't bother you anymore it was your choice to continue our conversation.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

OPC'n said:


> I didn't catch this until after I posted. You are saying there's a possibility that Adam and Eve fell before God rested on the seventh day? That's not possible at all. And since it's not possible, Adam and Eve did have their first worship on the seventh day when God rested. So there's the proof for no hat for Eve who kept this command sinlessly.



You might want to consult Watson's _Body of Divinity, _Question 15, to note that your emphatic statement would be, and has been, disputed. I only note this to point out that there is disagreement. For example, à Brakel (TCRS, Ch. 13, v. 1) would be in your court of support, arguing that at least one week would have taken place before the fall.


----------



## OPC'n

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You might want to consult Watson's _Body of Divinity, _Question 15, to note that your emphatic statement would be disputed.



Which part of my statement? That Adam and Eve couldn't have sinned on the 6th day? or That they had their first worship to God on the seventh day? or Proof of no hat for Eve when she worshipped on the seventh day of creation? or all of it? I actually have this book. I'll try finding it.


----------



## OPC'n

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You might want to consult Watson's _Body of Divinity, _Question 15, to note that your emphatic statement would be, and has been, disputed. I only note this to point out that there is disagreement. For example, a Brakel would be in your court of support, arguing that at least one week would have taken place before the fall.



I found my book but I don't see a question 15 in any of the sections. Can you tell me a page number?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

OPC'n said:


> I found my book but I don't see a question 15 in any of the sections. Can you tell me a page number?


In my version it would be on page 122. Better to search for: 2. Adam's Sin, or Question 15 (Question 15: What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?) in the version of your book, or see:

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/watson/divinity.vii.ii.html


----------



## OPC'n

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> In my version it would be on page 122. Better to search for: 2. Adam's Sin, or Question 15 (Question 15: What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?) in the version of your book, or see:
> 
> https://www.ccel.org/ccel/watson/divinity.vii.ii.html



That's very interesting I've never heard of anyone with that doctrine. This book is my mom's which I obviously have never read. I have to say I whole heartily disagree with him. Here's why:

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

"And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation."

1. Like the other five days, God declares *everything* he had made on the sixth day was very good. 
2. Like the other five days he encapsulates the whole day as being very good by stating its beginning time and its end time. 

There is nothing in this text to allude to the fall before God finished the creational week. Then you have the seventh day. What is the seventh day? What did it mean for the Jews and for us? It is the Sabbath Command. The Sabbath day is, of course, a creational ordinance. Creational ordinances are pre-fall not post-fall.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Thanks for looking over the materials and commenting, Sarah.

The point I was making that emphatic statements, e.g., "That's not possible at all.", should rarely be made unless one is genuinely cognizant of what others that have come before us have to say on a particular matter of that which we hold dear, especially when they have some very sound arguments contrary to what is claimed to be impossible. Hence, a wee bit of trepidation is in order on many things that come up in discussions...as in this very thread. Which is why plenty of materials have been provided (by me and many others on both sides of the discussion) for careful review, study, and prayer.

Before I derail the thread further, you might also consider Gill's _Body of Practical Divinity_ and his treatment of the issues of the Sabbath as understood in Adam's case. He basically argues that the first Sabbath day rest was for God, not Adam in a pre-fall state, who did not groan from labors, as we all do in our fallen states. Again, just another pointer to materials worth reviewing that consider your position yet answer it differently.

And in case you or anyone else is wondering, I think Witsius, in his EOTC, nicely defeats the arguments in favor of Adam sinning on his very first day of creation. The most I can dare say is that Adam fell _very soon_ after he was created.


----------



## OPC'n

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> And in case you or anyone else is wondering, I think Witsius, in his EOTC, nicely defeats the arguments in favor of Adam sinning on his very first day of creation. The most I can dare say is that Adam fell _very soon_ after he was created.



I'm very glad you added this last part. I was beginning to wonder about you. I nearly called the heretic help line for you.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Smeagol

The below link gives arguments that the cultural sign of a physical material head coverings stoped in the conrithian society. The source is Albert Mohler and 4 of his radio series.

https://albertmohler.com/tag/head-covering/

Specifically Check our the 3rd Video Feb. 2006 at about 12:00 minutes in. But all of the 4 podcast demonstrate his cultural argument.

4th Podcast down in the link the dicussion is held at the 25:00 mark.

Albert Mohler believes we do not need the physical cover any more (though he does acknowledge women wore physical material coverings in Corinth). He argues because in our society headship can be shown for example, by a Wife taking her husbands last name and by Men taking physical leadership roles in Church. I disagree of course With Mohler, as currently I believe women should still cover, But I at least wanted Albert Mohlers view to be heard rightly and accurately since he is a prominent/respected man in the evangelical world. Hopefully some may find it interesting in the least.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> The below link gives arguments that the cultural sign of a physical material head coverings stoped in the conrithian society. The source is Albert Mohler and 4 of his radio series.
> 
> https://albertmohler.com/tag/head-covering/
> 
> Specifically Check our the 3rd Video Feb. 2006 at about 12:00 minutes in. But all of the 4 podcast demonstrate his cultural argument.
> 
> 4th Podcast down in the link the dicussion is held at the 25:00 mark.
> 
> Albert Mohler believes we do not need the physical cover any more (though he does acknowledge women wore physical material coverings in Corinth). He argues because in our society headship can be shown for example, by a Wife taking her husbands last name and Men takin physical leadership roles in Church. I disagree of course Mohler as currently I believe women should still cover, But I at least wanted Albert Mohlers view to be heard rightly since he is a prominent/respected man in the evangelical world. Hopefully some may find it interesting in the least.


Dr Mohler is one of the Calvinistic Baptists trying to bring the Baptists back to our particular Baptist roots, and His views in regards to this issue would be pretty much how I and may other Calvinistic/Reformed Baptists would see this as being now.


----------



## De Jager

How can one honestly argue for a male-only church council yet be against head coverings for women? The style of argument that Paul uses against both practices is nearly identical - he ties it to the creation order.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> Dr Mohler is one of the Calvinistic Baptists trying to bring the Baptists back to our particular Baptist roots, and His views in regards to this issue would be pretty much how I and may other Calvinistic/Reformed Baptists would see this as being now.


I agree that Mohler is doing a lot of good for the the Baptist. As a former baptist myself, I have a lot of respect for what he is doing.


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> The below link gives arguments that the cultural sign of a physical material head coverings stoped in the conrithian society. The source is Albert Mohler and 4 of his radio series.
> 
> https://albertmohler.com/tag/head-covering/
> 
> Specifically Check our the 3rd Video Feb. 2006 at about 12:00 minutes in. But all of the 4 podcast demonstrate his cultural argument.
> 
> 4th Podcast down in the link the dicussion is held at the 25:00 mark.
> 
> Albert Mohler believes we do not need the physical cover any more (though he does acknowledge women wore physical material coverings in Corinth). He argues because in our society headship can be shown for example, by a Wife taking her husbands last name and Men takin physical leadership roles in Church. I disagree of course Mohler as currently I believe women should still cover, But I at least wanted Albert Mohlers view to be heard rightly since he is a prominent/respected man in the evangelical world. Hopefully some may find it interesting in the least.



This 2006 sermon definitely defines his position as being cultural. Him and his wife must have changed their views since that time. I guess people can do that over a period of 11 years. Still, neither of their views can I agree with even though the 2017 video of his wife speaking comes closer to a better understanding than this 2006 sermon


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> This 2006 sermon definitely defines his position as being cultural. Him and his wife must have changed their views since that time. I guess people can do that over a period of 11 years. Still, neither of their views can I agree with even though the 2017 video of his wife speaking comes closer to a better understanding than this 2006 sermon


Okay. I do not believe Al Mohler himself holds your view. Al Mohler himself holds to the cultural view.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> I agree that Mohler is doing a lot of good for the the Baptist. As a former baptist myself, I have a lot of respect for what he is doing.


He is fighting the fight to have Baptists return to our Calvinistic roots.


----------



## De Jager

Honestly, I feel like the "we don't need head coverings" argument has the same roots as the "it is ok for us to have women in office" argument. 

1) There is a negative reaction against what is plainly stated in the text

2) The individuals who have the negative reaction consciously or unconsciously decide that they do not want to submit to this regulation.

3) With that decision in hand, they then apply hermeneutical gymnastics in order to achieve the desired outcome.


Look up some pictures of churches from the early part of the 20th century on google images. The women wore head coverings. It is pretty clear that the reaction against this is due to the culture's push for egalitarianism, not because we suddenly "discovered" the proper meaning of the text.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Our basic attitude as Christians when it comes to issues like this should be to err on the side of conservatism. The plain understanding of the text is that women should wear head coverings in public worship; thus, this should be our practice until we are very confident that it does not mean this. 

In the North American churches we have taken the opposite approach. Since we do not like the idea of men and women being different, and find head coverings either unfashionable, negative, or stifling, we assume the position that they are not necessary, and will continue this liberal policy until someone proves otherwise. I do not believe this is correct.


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> Okay. I do not believe Al Mohler himself holds your view. Al Mohler himself holds to the cultural view.



I guess I would prefer to say that his wife is submissive to his teachings however many time he may change them. 2006 and 2009 he held to the culture view. 2017 his wife discards the culture view as being egalitarian and holds to the belief that her husband’s name is the symbol of submission in worship.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Our basic attitude as Christians when it comes to issues like this should be to err on the side of conservatism. The plain understanding of the text is that women should wear head coverings in public worship; thus, this should be our practice until we are very confident that it does not mean this.
> 
> In the North American churches we have taken the opposite approach. Since we do not like the idea of men and women being different, and find head coverings either unfashionable, negative, or stifling, we assume the position that they are not necessary, and will continue this liberal policy until someone proves otherwise. I do not believe this is correct.


I would see this as being a secondary issue among Christians, so would listen to others viewpoints, and then agree to disagree in a charitable fashion, showing the love of Christ.


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> I guess I would prefer to say that his wife is submissive to his teachings however many time he may change them. 2006 and 2009 he held to the culture view. 2017 his wife discards the culture view as being egalitarian and holds to the belief that her husband’s name is the symbol of submission in worship.


Neither of Which is your view correct as I understand it. Therefore I still do not know a reformer who holds your specific view on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.

This thread is dealing with head coverings with the assumption that 1 Corinthians 11 is dealing with a physical material covering. A new thread may be better for an exploration into your view.


----------



## OPC'n

Grant.Jones said:


> Neither of Which is your view correct as I understand it. Therefore I still do not know a reformer who holds your specific view on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.
> 
> This thread is dealing with head coverings with the assumption that 1 Corinthians 11 is dealing with a physical material covering. A new thread may be better for an exploration into your



Her view: not culture and cannot be discarded
My view: not culture and cannot be discarded
Her view: not a hat or hair
My view: not a hat or hair
Her view: her husband's name (non-physical object)
My view: husband's authority over his wife/pastor's authority over single/widow women. (non-physical object)

Twice I have agreed to lay aside our discussion. Twice you have brought it up once by replying to a post I wrote for a different member and once when you placed a link to Al's Q&A link. Although you didn't name me in this last post with his link, it was clearly for my education since no one else has brought up Al's views. I will for a third time agree to lay aside our discussion, but you also have to follow your own desire to lay it aside and not post things to me for my education and expect me not to respond.


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> Her view: not culture and cannot be discarded
> My view: not culture and cannot be discarded
> Her view: not a hat or hair
> My view: not a hat or hair
> Her view: her husband's name (non-physical object)
> My view: husband's authority over his wife/pastor's authority over single/widow women. (non-physical object)
> 
> Twice I have agreed to lay aside our discussion. Twice you have brought it up once by replying to a post I wrote for a different member and once when you placed a link to Al's Q&A link. Although you didn't name me in this last post with his link, it was clearly for my education since no one else has brought up Al's views. I will for a third time agree to lay aside our discussion, but you also have to follow your own desire to lay it aside and not post things to me for my education and expect me not to respond.


That sounds great. I just wanted to make sure that Albert Mohler’s position was represented accurately. Which is all I have done.


----------



## Cedarbay

I've been settled on this issue for years, yet this discussion did cause further reflection of Scripture, reading some of the links presented here and re-reading from past and present Reformers.

Since the current church we are visiting nor my husband require head covering, I do not wear one and I am not convicted to do so, however, as Jeri suggested, I would wear one if visiting a church that did require it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> I would see this as being a secondary issue among Christians, so would listen to others viewpoints, and then agree to disagree in a charitable fashion, showing the love of Christ.



Of course it is a secondary issue, however it is the issue at hand. If you've already decided to "agree to disagree", then there is no point even discussing it. What do you 'disagree' on in my posts?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Time for closing this folks.

Reactions: Like 3


----------

