# Women's Covering



## ChananBachiyr

I tried searching for this for a while and read several threads, but I've found them inconclusive... and all of them are closed so a new thread must be started.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16... Coverings... What's the interpretation? 

I saw that someone mentioned the Greek terms being different:
• katakalyptō in verse 6, taken from kalypto which is usually used in the sense of concealment.
• peribolaion in verse 15, taken from periballo which is usually used as a garment or covering.

A woman's long hair is said to be "given" to her for a covering."

Thoughts?


----------



## johnny

Hi Daniel, have you seen this website?

http://www.headcoveringmovement.com

The site is supported by RC Sproul among others.


----------



## ChananBachiyr

johnny said:


> Hi Daniel, have you seen this website?
> 
> http://www.headcoveringmovement.com
> 
> The site is supported by RC Sproul among others.



No sir, I'll check it out!


----------



## Logan

I culled through a bunch of Reformation and Puritan-era commentaries a while back and was surprised to find what appeared to be complete consensus: that this was an abiding precept wrapped in a temporary custom.

Note that many of these comments refer to the men's portion of the passage in 1 Corinthians 11, but in my mind it is hard to detatch the two: if the one is a perpetually binding precept, then the other cannot be just a custom with general application. Either both are principles adapting to the customs and times of the nation, or both are perpetual. Almost all of these commentaries were referenced through Travis Fentiman's listing:
https://reformedbooksonline.com/commentaries/



Calvin's Commentary (1559): said:


> 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...
> "Doth not even nature itself": He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom — even among the Greeks — he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn. It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome — about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned an unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed.





Geneva Bible notes (1560) said:


> This tradition was observed according to the time and place that all things might be done in comeliness and to edification.






Beza's Notes on the Bible (1599) said:


> It appeareth that this was a politic law serving only for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection...
> And in like sort he concludeth, that women which shew themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves.





Diodati's Pious Annotations (1642) said:


> V. 3. "But I,": a new precept or renewed by the Apostle, concerning common civility for habit namely that women in public assemblies of the church should be covered, and men should have their heads uncovered by reason that in those places and times, the covered head was sign of subjection and an uncovered head contrary-wise of liberty, and command wherefore that they might keep in the church that degree amongst sexes which God had established, they were to observe such signs and marks thereof as were used by the common consent of nations.





Edward Leigh Annotations (1650) said:


> Among the Corinthians the covering of the head was not as it is with us, a token of preeminence and superiority, but a sign of subjection; therefore the Apostle would have the women of Corinth when they came into the Congregation to have their heads covered, to signify their submission and reverence unto the Ministry of the Gospel.





John Trapp's Commentary (1656) said:


> "Dishonoureth his head": As they accounted it then and there. In other places it is otherwise. The French preach covered. The Turks neither kneel nor uncover the head at public prayer, as holding those postures unmanly. Several countries have their several customs.





Matthew Poole's Commentary (1685) said:


> His argument seems to be this: That the woman in religious services ought to behave herself as a person in subjection to her husband, and accordingly to use such a gesture, as, according to the guise and custom of that country, testified such a subjection...
> Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses are to be interpreted from the customs of countries; and all that can be concluded from this verse is, that it is the duty of men employed in Divine ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, behaving themselves with a just authority and gravity that becometh his ambassadors, which decent gravity is to be judged from the common opinion and account of the country wherein they live. So as all which this text requires of Christian ministers, is authority and gravity, and what are external ludications of it. Our learned Dr. Lightfoot observeth, that the Jewish priests were wont in the worship of God to veil their heads; so that Christian ministers praying or prophesying with their heads covered, Judaized, which he judgeth the reason of the apostle’s assertion. The heathens also, both Romans and Grecians, were wont to minister in their sacred things with their heads covered. Some think this was the reason why the Christians used the contrary gesture; but the apostle’s arguing from the man’s headship, seemeth to import that the reason of this assertion of the apostle was, because in Corinth the uncovered head was a sign of authority. At this day the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The custom with us in these western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: hence ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ: but yet this custom is not uniform, for in France the Reformed ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered, to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered, as representing Christ, the great Teacher, from whom they derive, and whom they represent. Nothing in this is a further rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only the general observation of decency (which cannot by any be created, but ariseth either from nature, or custom, and prescription) which this text of the apostle maketh to be the duty of all Christians; though as to the Corinthians, he particularly required the man’s ministering in sacred things with his head uncovered, either to avoid the habit or posture used by Jews and pagans; or for the showing of his dignity and superiority over the woman, (whom we shall by and by find commanded to pray or prophesy covered), or that he represented Christ who was the Head of the church. The uncovering of the head being with them as much a sign of subjection, as it is with us of superiority and pre-eminence.





Baxter's Paraphrase of the New Testament (1699) said:


> [paraphrasing Paul:] "It being the custom then to cover the faces of those that were put to any great shame, a man that shall veil his head and face, doth thereby take reproach unto himself...as custom maketh it a shame to be shaven, so also to be unveiled (note, that this was a changeable custom, and is contrary now with us)...the signification of being uncovered, being by custom, a note of superiority, judge in your selves whether such be decent for a woman at the church's prayers."





Matthew Henry's Commentary (1710) said:


> In this chapter the apostle blames, and endeavours to rectify, some great indecencies and manifest disorders in the church of Corinth; as, I. The misconduct of their women (some of whom seem to have been inspired) in the public assembly, who laid by their veils, the common token of subjection to their husbands in that part of the world...
> The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,...





Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary said:


> We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal...
> It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.





Burkitt's Expository Notes (1724) said:


> The contrary is found with us at this day; for those that have power over others, now keep their heads covered, and those that are inferior to others, keep their heads uncovered before them...
> it being then and there accounted as immodest a thing for a woman to appear in public uncovered, as to appear with her head shaven. From the whole learn, That God requires at the hands of all persons, who either administer behaviour and comely accomodation in his house, especially in the acts and exercises of his worship and service. For if in their habit and dress, surely much more in their gesture and deportment, doth he hate what is unseemly and unbecoming in any person.





Philip Doddridge's Family Expositor paraphrase with notes (1756) said:


> [paraphrasing Paul:] "Now, upon this principle, I may say, in reference to the usages which prevail at this time in your country..."
> By the passage before us, we see the force of custom for determining in many respects what is decent, and what is otherwise. Let us maintain a proper regard to this: lest even our good should be, through our imprudence, evil spoken of, and all our infirmities magnified into crimes.





John Brown's Self-Interpreting Bible (1778) said:


> [paraphrasing Paul:] "Now the veiling of the head being a badge of modesty and subjection, and uncovering of it a token of superiority, in your country and many others..."
> it therefore follows, that veils, or any mode of dress which betokens modesty or subjection, ought always to be worn by your women in your religious assemblies.





Hodge Commentary (1882) said:


> Having corrected the more private abuses which prevailed among the Corinthians, the apostle begins in this chapter to consider those which relate to the mode of conducting public worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing in public without a veil. Dress is in a great degree conventional. A costume which is proper in one country, would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress to all those usages which the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The veil in all eastern countries was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of modesty and subjection.



Kistemaker likewise agreed with the above commentators.

I also looked at Gill, Dodd, Hammond, Lightfoot, and Dickson but they aren't clear to me one way or the other.

Note that I did not find any commentaries that specifically disagreed with the above. Though I am sure they are out there and if I had found them, I would have posted them. I was just surprised at how uniform thought seems to have been in the mainstream commentaries of the past.

Note also at how commonly it seems to have been taken to be a veil. And how the common propriety of the day historically seems to have been for women to wear something on their head _all the time,_ not just during worship, yet still not a veil. I'm more convinced that a veil was the custom in the Corinthian's time, a cap in the Puritans.


----------



## ChananBachiyr

Logan said:


> I was just surprised at how uniform thought seems to have been in the mainstream commentaries of the past.
> 
> Note also at how commonly it seems to have been taken to be a veil. And how the common propriety of the day historically seems to have been for women to wear something on their head _all the time,_ not just during worship, yet still not a veil. I'm more convinced that a veil was the custom in the Corinthian's time, a cap in the Puritans.



Wow! Thanks for this! Seems to be unanimous! 
I also noticed on the website that John posted, Dr. R. C. Sproul states


> "The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church...?


"Always Reforming" 
... man, seems like this one flew right under my radar!


----------



## Logan

ChananBachiyr said:


> Wow! Thanks for this! Seems to be unanimous!



Unanimous yes, but not quite in the way you seem to think it is. Seemingly unanimous that it was appropriate to the customs and times, not a perpetually binding practice. The point about the veil was to show that even with the Puritans, the symbol apparently changed based on the culture.

Now whether our culture's customs should be the same is another topic.


----------



## ChananBachiyr

Logan said:


> Now whether our culture's customs should be the same is another topic.



Well that's the only reason any of us want insight and help understand how to apply Scripture, isn't it? How can we best live out the holy Scripture and bring glory to God, through Christ, in daily life?

 I'm hoping to find application for today... it seems as though it should be for today, but just like all things new, its like God needs to whack me over the head with it in order for me to see that its biblical and I need to adopt the teaching.

Men don't wear hats behind the pulpit... why? Same reason? Men don't wear hats while praying or while in congregational worship... same reason or just tradition? Or is the tradition based on the reason!? 

If men don't wear hats in worship and service today, for a sign of submission to God, respect to God,and authority in the church and home, then it would seem hard if not impossible to separate male precepts from female precepts from the passage; females ought to be continuing the precepts too.

Just thinking logically here... I'm not sure I've ever even considered this subject...


----------



## OPC'n

Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed. We would end up being mistaken for muslims. Lol


----------



## ChananBachiyr

OPC'n said:


> Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed. We would end up being mistaken for muslims. Lol



I'm not talking about full time covering, I would figure that would be up to the individual's conscience. Rather, what I'm speaking of, as what most theologians seem to interpret the passage also speaking of, is _*corporate worship*_.


----------



## OPC'n

ChananBachiyr said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed. We would end up being mistaken for muslims. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about full time covering, I would figure that would be up to the individual's conscience. Rather, what I'm speaking of, as what most theologians seem to interpret the passage also speaking of, is _*corporate worship*_.
Click to expand...


I've read most of the head covering threads here, and from what I can remember some think women should wear head coverings whenever they pray. Also, if we are going to take this chapter literally then women are not allowed to have short hair and men are not allowed to have long hair. If we ever agree on that, then who decides what long and short hair is?


----------



## Logan

ChananBachiyr said:


> Men don't wear hats behind the pulpit... why?



Check out the commentary quotations again. They specifically say that some men do wear hats in the pulpit or while praying, because of different customs in different times or because of different circumstances.


----------



## Romans922

First, one would be hard pressed to find a minister/theologian against a type of cloth covering prior to the 19th C. 

It is important also important to separate the arguments, is a covering required? Then after that is determined what is the covering? 

When tackling the first argument it is important to grasp the argument Paul is making.

The goal of the passage is the glory of God in corporate worship.

A man ought not cover his head since he is the image and glory of God (v.7a). Man doesn't cover because of the glory of God.

But woman must cover for she is the glory of man (v7b). If woman is the glory of man, then woman is to cover her head to not take glory away from the Lord. God alone is to be brought glory.

A woman's long hair is her glory (v15a). Woman's glory must be covered (just like man's glory - woman). Thus as a woman's hair is given as covering (man's glory) so her hair (her glory) must be covered, so that only God's glory is shown.


----------



## lynnie

The most important thing to grasp, in my opinion, is that in the Greek Paul uses the same terms for both communion and head coverings in Ch 11. They are both handed down or delivered over or "traditions." Not tradition like turkey on thanksgiving or fireworks on the 4th of July which originate with man, but something handed down and delivered over that is binding upon us...in the case of communion by the recorded words of Jesus. To try and separate the two and say that one was for back then only but one is for all time, is very poor exegesis. 

Having determined that it is for today as is communion, not a cultural tradition but something delivered over with authority for all time, you can move on to the other questions like what does that covering look like and who wears it. But the latter subjects must follow from accepting that the command is for all time everywhere. 

Having said that OP, Paul repeatedly refers to the headcovering with one word, and then says her hair is given as another word. If he was trying to say her headcovering was hair he would have said the long hair was the Katakalypto. But he does not. 

I happen to be something of a congregation of one (well two, counting my hub) in who I think is commanded to wear it. I believe that passage is clearly referring to husbands and wives, not all men and all women. The Greek words are interchangeable and my husband has authority over me, but not all men everywhere over all women. So I do not believe it is binding on girls or single women. That usually invokes criticism from the average head covering believers....but I think we would have more impact if we stuck with the unmistakable command to wives and didn't try to add to it with all females. Just my opinion.


----------



## ChananBachiyr

Just found another thread on this topic from 2010 with some good discussion! 
"No such custom - A look at head coverings"


----------



## ChananBachiyr

Also, I was doing some reading earlier and remembered something about Rebekah and Isaac. 
Check out Genesis 24:63-67


> Isaac went out to meditate in the field toward evening; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, camels were coming. Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac she dismounted from the camel. She said to the servant, "Who is that man walking in the field to meet us?" And the servant said, "He is my master." Then she took her veil and covered herself. The servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.


As soon as Rebekah knew who it was that was approaching, the man she is soon to marry, she covered herself.
Just as Paul seems to allude in 1 Corinthians 11, I'm thinking head covering is a sign of submission to God above all, husbands of the married, fathers of the single...

A cultural argument has always had very little weight for me except when it comes to partaking in particular things rather than abrogation of established practices... because let's face it, if we reason away practices for "cultural" reasons, then *a lot* can be reasoned away.


----------



## Logan

ChananBachiyr said:


> A cultural argument has always had very little weight for me except when it comes to partaking in particular things rather than abrogation of established practices... because let's face it, if we reason away practices for "cultural" reasons, then a lot can be reasoned away.



I mean this gently, but you seem very exuberant about this topic without having studied it in-depth. And you still don't seem to understand the point of the quotations posted earlier. I thought I was clear earlier but let me outline the specific train of thought:

1. The passage makes the case for women's head coverings. The question (to me) is whether the practice of headcoverings is perpetually binding, or if the general principle of submission is what is being taught (and is binding)
2. The passage likewise makes the case for men's head being uncovered.
3. Many people in support of coverings believe that head coverings were not cultural, but are a perpetually binding practice (at least in public worship).
4. I propose that if the men being uncovered is cultural and not perpetually binding, then so to with the female.
5. It is clear from all those quotations that the overwhelming consensus, is that both male and female coverings are indeed cultural (or part of the customs of the country). At the very least, that the male being uncovered is cultural.
6. Therefore, at least according to every Reformation-era, Puritan, and reformed commentator I could find (I would have included opposing views if I had found them), this is not meant to be a perpetual regulation on clothing, but on the heart.
7. Now again, I have absolutely no doubt that this was a non-issue, the common practice of nearly every European country being that women wore coverings on the head all the time, so naturally would in worship. 
8. However, note again that this covering was not a veil, as many of the commentators believed Paul to have been speaking of. Does this not heavily imply that they believed following the practice exactly to be non-critical?

I culled through these expecting to find a unanimous consensus in support of head coverings for all ages. What I found was surprising because it appeared to be a unanimous consensus of the opposite, though once again, I have no doubt they approved of their own cultural practice. The "cultural argument" is NOT just dismissing whatever we want to reason away. 

To this add that the Directory for Public Worship does not mention head coverings and I think there is a strong case that none of the Reformed thought this essential in all ages. They certainly didn't for men, and how can you have a cultural argument for the one and not the other? Now note, I am not opposed to head coverings at all. I have no problem with those who have such a conviction if they believe they are honoring God and showing submission in that way. But I also do not think it is a sin not to be convicted of the practice.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Note that many of these comments refer to the men's portion of the passage in 1 Corinthians 11, but in my mind it is hard to detatch the two:



In seeking to find out the mind of others it would be important to learn whether they detached the two. I think there is enough evidence in the text to show that the focus of the passage was on the actions of the women, not the men, and that there are reasons given for the actions of the women which are not given for the actions of the men, e.g., the angels. The commentators, in following this focus, tend to present the same disparity.

It is also noteworthy that some of the commentators who appeal to "custom" also find something fitting in the custom, and some of them go further so as to state the obligatory nature of the custom because of the reference to the angels. We see both of these points, for example, in the comments of Diodati. On verse 5, "it is fitting that custom should second nature now nature hath given a woman the natural vail of the hair wherefore she is obliged to make use of the other artificial vail to cover her head, which a woman ought to hold to be as proper for her as her natural vail of hair." And on verse 10, supposing men gave permission for women to cast off their covering, Diodati comments, "The Apostle answereth; though men would give consent to this disorder, yet the Angels who are continual guardians of the Church, and assistants in their assembles, they would be offended at it."

The fact Diodati maintained the covering of the head was a "custom," and yet gave further reasons for the fitness of the "custom," indicates to us that the subject is not as simple as finding the term "custom" in the text of a commentator.


----------



## Parakaleo

OPC'n said:


> Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed.



The Dutch Reformed had an expression for a short plea to God during the day; they called these "hat-on" prayers. This term describes a man struck with a sudden need to pray and he proceeds without taking off his hat because of expediency, not defiance to God's order and commandments. I think the same principle would apply to women who pray throughout the day without going to fetch their cover first.


----------



## Logan

MW said:


> In seeking to find out the mind of others it would be important to learn whether they detached the two. I think there is enough evidence in the text to show that the focus of the passage was on the actions of the women, not the men, and that there are reasons given for the actions of the women which are not given for the actions of the men, e.g., the angels. The commentators, in following this focus, tend to present the same disparity.



Do you believe men praying uncovered to be a mere custom while women praying covered to be required? 

I used the term "I propose" to hopefully indicate that I couldn't see how the two could be disconnected as such, even if there are different reasons given they are part of the same passage. Yet I don't claim infallibility there.



MW said:


> It is also noteworthy that some of the commentators who appeal to "custom" also find something fitting in the custom,


And I stated multiple times that I see this and agree with it. And that a form of head covering was practiced historically both by pagan and Christian, inside the church and outside, makes it all the more interesting that it even received this much attention as a "custom". 



MW said:


> The fact Diodati maintained the covering of the head was a "custom," and yet gave further reasons for the fitness of the "custom," indicates to us that the subject is not as simple as finding the term "custom" in the text of a commentator.


Agreed. But that the word "custom" or "tradition" or "practice" was even used indicates that it's not as simple as "Paul instructs men to pray uncovered and women to pray covered in public worship." And for example, Poole seemed to explain pretty clearly what he meant by his term.


----------



## TylerRay

For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?

In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?


----------



## Jake

TylerRay said:


> For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?
> 
> In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?



I think that the meaning had changed, so I'd be wary of basing whether to cover or not on that alone. The cultural argument necessarily changes, and I'm not sure I could definitively assert what covering for women and not covering for men symbolizes in our culture. For example, among men, it seems that covering/wearing a hat in the assembly showed authority in time past among the Jews and still does in some cultures today. 

Gillespie noted in his English Popish Ceremonies that the meaning of covering/uncovering had changed, and that at the time, men covered in worship. This is covered in Naphtali Press edition p. 247-248. I can get quotes later if anyone is interested/doesn't have the volume.


----------



## Logan

TylerRay said:


> For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?
> 
> In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?



These seem to me to be questions coming from a specific viewpoint already. But I said earlier:



Logan said:


> Now note, I am not opposed to head coverings at all. I have no problem with those who have such a conviction if they believe they are honoring God and showing submission in that way. But I also do not think it is a sin not to be convicted of the practice.



A better question for those with a cultural view, might be "how do women show submission today"? I don't have the best answer for that and once again, if some are convicted that the way they can show it is by using head coverings, I'd encourage it. As for me personally, I admit that when I do see a head covering I don't naturally correlate that with "submission to husband's headship". Maybe that's just my cultural upbringing and maybe that culture isn't what it should be, but that's another discussion. I'd be curious to see how many people do automatically correlate it with "submission". My gut feeling is that, whether right or wrong, most Christians today (let alone people) would completely miss that symbolism.


----------



## Dachaser

In addition to it being, as the other bethren stated here, as being a reference to a local custom regarding women in church, there also seems to be here in the letter Paul addressing the issue of headship in the local churches. In that the female is under her husband spiritual covering, and that there is an ordained/set pattern of one being under authority, as shown by Jesus being head over His church, and that God the Father is head over Christ Himself.


----------



## OPC'n

TylerRay said:


> For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?
> 
> In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?



Head coverings only remind me of Muslims


----------



## OPC'n

Parakaleo said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dutch Reformed had an expression for a short plea to God during the day; they called these "hat-on" prayers. This term describes a man struck with a sudden need to pray and he proceeds without taking off his hat because of expediency, not defiance to God's order and commandments. I think the same principle would apply to women who pray throughout the day without going to fetch their cover first.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that their custom overceeded (is that a word? Lol) what they felt was a requirement from the Bible out of convenience? I mean i can see in an emergency a man not taking off his hat, but otherwise one should all the time if one believes in it.


----------



## Afterthought

OPC'n said:


> Head coverings only remind me of Muslims


There are head coverings that do not look like what Muslims use. There are also hats.



Logan said:


> As for me personally, I admit that when I do see a head covering I don't naturally correlate that with "submission to husband's headship". Maybe that's just my cultural upbringing and maybe that culture isn't what it should be, but that's another discussion. I'd be curious to see how many people do automatically correlate it with "submission".


You never did mention what you do associate it with. Merely out of curiosity, what do you associate it with (if anything)? Do you think of 1 Cor. 11 when you see a woman covering her head in worship?


----------



## ChananBachiyr

Logan said:


> ChananBachiyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cultural argument has always had very little weight for me except when it comes to partaking in particular things rather than abrogation of established practices... because let's face it, if we reason away practices for "cultural" reasons, then a lot can be reasoned away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean this gently, but you seem very exuberant about this topic without having studied it in-depth. And you still don't seem to understand the point of the quotations posted earlier.
Click to expand...


I'm only exuberant to study God's word and learn, I am not, however, eager to jump on band wagons.
I want to get back to the text itself... its all too easy to rest on the opinions of saints before us rather than resting on the Holy Spirit's teaching instead.
I didn't mean that cultural arguments have no place in the Bible... I understand that often times, they do, but I don't believe that in this passage, the apostle Paul is making a cultural argument. Here is why:
1) He appeals to the creation order (vv. 7-9, 11-12)
2) He appeals to the angels (v.10)
3) He appeals to nature (vv. 13-15)
4) Lastly, he appeals to the practice of the church ("traditions, just as I delivered them to you." v2)(v16)

Wouldn't the only cultural comment in the passage be v. 6b? "but if it is disgraceful..."



Logan said:


> The question (to me) is whether the practice of headcoverings is perpetually binding, or if the general principle of submission is what is being taught (and is binding)


Couldn't it be both? Couldn't the question be "Is the practice of headcoverings for both genders meant to be kept because of it's significance, pointing to submission to God in all things, especially ministry and corporate worship?"
Is this or anything other passage in the Bible required to state "This is a perpetually binding practice..." in order for us to imitate it and adopt it as such? Didn't he say in the very 1st verse of this chapter, "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." - So I'd say no... it isn't always required to be stated.

Brother, please don't take me to be combative. 
I'm coming from a background where everything was taken as tradition (Independent Fundamental Baptist) and upon realizing that, it seems to me that God's word ought to be carefully thought out, prayed over and searched diligently for God's will in our practice. Learning of God's sovereignty in the realm of saving grace over the past 3 years or so, learning about presbyterianism, Biblical form of government, Covenant Theology, paedobaptism... my world is pretty much flipped. So I never want to just dismiss or adopt a practice without thoroughly studying and fleshing out arguments for both sides first.
I hope you can understand where I'm coming from


----------



## OPC'n

I could probably be convinced of head coverings if every Christian man felt it was a sin to have long hair and every Christian woman felt it was a sin to have short hair. That command is also tucked into this Scripture, but I don't see anyone having trouble with women having short hair. I really haven't seen too many Christian men having long hair so I don't think it would be a large issue, but there are many Christian women who have very short hair.


----------



## ChananBachiyr

Dachaser said:


> In addition to it being, as the other bethren stated here, as being a reference to a local custom regarding women in church, there also seems to be here in the letter Paul addressing the issue of headship in the local churches. In that the female is under her husband spiritual covering, and that there is an ordained/set pattern of one being under authority, as shown by Jesus being head over His church, and that God the Father is head over Christ Himself.



Indeed, this is a good observation! This would go right along with 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." 

To which I would like to add that this goes to the men as well, it is shameful to be speaking and carrying on during worship, for any participant, but apparently there were problems with the women in particular so as to invoke the rebuke of the apostle.

Also that great passage in Ephesians 5, particularly verses 22-23 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior."


----------



## ChananBachiyr

OPC'n said:


> I could probably be convinced of head coverings if every Christian man felt it was a sin to have long hair and every Christian woman felt it was a sin to have short hair. That command is also tucked into this Scripture, but I don't see anyone having trouble with women having short hair. I really haven't seen too many Christian men having long hair so I don't think it would be a large issue, but there are many Christian women who have very short hair.



I wonder if our liberty has come into play concerning this? 
As he points to nature, Paul says its shameful for men to have long hair... that should settle it for us. I've seen men from behind or from the side and could've sworn that it was a woman... the new age, often "metrosexual" clothing these days doesn't help at all. But also the same with women, I've seen them from another angle and thought for sure it was a man... this is bad! 
Paul also says that a woman's glory is her long hair... it is so befitting for a woman... it is feminine and natural... seems to call attention to creation if you ask me and people have just let it go.


----------



## OPC'n

ChananBachiyr said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could probably be convinced of head coverings if every Christian man felt it was a sin to have long hair and every Christian woman felt it was a sin to have short hair. That command is also tucked into this Scripture, but I don't see anyone having trouble with women having short hair. I really haven't seen too many Christian men having long hair so I don't think it would be a large issue, but there are many Christian women who have very short hair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if our liberty has come into play concerning this?
> As he points to nature, Paul says its shameful for men to have long hair... that should settle it for us. I've seen men from behind or from the side and could've sworn that it was a woman... the new age, often "metrosexual" clothing these days doesn't help at all. But also the same with women, I've seen them from another angle and thought for sure it was a man... this is bad!
> Paul also says that a woman's glory is her long hair... it is so befitting for a woman... it is feminine and natural... seems to call attention to creation if you ask me and people have just let it go.
Click to expand...


But we have to remember that Paul was talking *first* to the Corinthians when he wrote this and not to us first. During Biblical times, it wasn't shameful for a man to have long hair. We know this because of the nazarite.


----------



## ChananBachiyr

OPC'n said:


> But we have to remember that Paul was talking *first* to the Corinthians when he wrote this and not to us first. During Biblical times, it wasn't shameful for a man to have long hair. We know this because of the nazarite.



Indeed... hmmm... 
So maybe that comment should be chalked up to the "cultural" category. 
Its interesting that he would say that it is shameful while knowing the laws and customs of the jewish priests and nazarites...


----------



## TylerRay

Jake said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?
> 
> In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the meaning had changed, so I'd be wary of basing whether to cover or not on that alone. The cultural argument necessarily changes, and I'm not sure I could definitively assert what covering for women and not covering for men symbolizes in our culture. For example, among men, it seems that covering/wearing a hat in the assembly showed authority in time past among the Jews and still does in some cultures today.
> 
> Gillespie noted in his English Popish Ceremonies that the meaning of covering/uncovering had changed, and that at the time, men covered in worship. This is covered in Naphtali Press edition p. 247-248. I can get quotes later if anyone is interested/doesn't have the volume.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't presume to make an argument on that alone, brother.

In my opinion, it is clear enough to anyone in our culture that when women cover their heads in worship and men uncover their heads, there is a clear distinction between the sexes, witnessing to their distinct roles.

My point in asking the question was to illustrate that, though the symbol speaks clearly in our culture*, folks still want to buck against the ordinance. They're making a cultural argument against the practice simply because they think it does away with the requirement. It's a heart issue.

I know that there are exceptions to my generalizations in this post; I really believe the generalizations hold true, though, on the whole.

*People can deny that clarity if they want--for my part, I think people know what they are seeing when they look at Anabaptists or Muslims, for example. I only bring up Muslims and Anabaptists because everyone in the U. S. (not to mention the world) will readily acknowledge them as people who systematically cover; I don't intend to endorse the views of those groups on the particulars of feminine submission.


----------



## Logan

Afterthought said:


> You never did mention what you do associate it with. Merely out of curiosity, what do you associate it with (if anything)? Do you think of 1 Cor. 11 when you see a woman covering her head in worship?



Honestly? Legalism or tradition, coming from a region with a large Mennonite population. Yet I know mentally that these aren't the only motivations and I wouldn't imply that of anyone here. But my reaction doesn't determine truth so I wouldn't focus on that. And I guess I would have to say that yes, I do think of 1 Cor. 11.


----------



## OPC'n

ChananBachiyr said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have to remember that Paul was talking *first* to the Corinthians when he wrote this and not to us first. During Biblical times, it wasn't shameful for a man to have long hair. We know this because of the nazarite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed... hmmm...
> So maybe that comment should be chalked up to the "cultural" category.
> Its interesting that he would say that it is shameful while knowing the laws and customs of the jewish priests and nazarites...
Click to expand...


Or perhaps he's not talking about physical hair or physical head coverings, but instead, is talking about man being the head of woman as Christ is head of the church and women being submissive to their husbands (single women submissive to the church) which places them under the leadership of Christ. You can't say one part of the chapter is culture while the other part is not culture. It all has to fit and be logical.


----------



## lynnie

I can't seem to copy and paste the straightforward Greek from the online interlinears. But you can look it up. Same Greek Paul is using. 

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. ( followed by section on headcoverings)

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:...

You have to keep the two together or your logic is flawed. 

I don't know why we even get off into these culture discussions. Paul is crystal clear:

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

The ONLY question is what the angels think when they see a headcovering. The only discussion is about whether or not it still means the same to the angels in modern times. Angels are smart, so you can debate if they think it has any meaning today or not. But debating about what the culture thinks is irrelevant to the passage. If you think the angels no longer regard it the way they did 2000 years ago, then fine, you can argue that. But please, keep it about the angels.


----------



## Dachaser

I think that Paul was addressing local customs of the time in how to regulate status of women in the assembly of the saints, but also that he was using that as application to the much greater spiritual aspect that you are alluding to here!


----------



## ChananBachiyr

This guy has 5 seriously good arguments for an artificial covering. (7 Minutes long)
What is a head covering? Is it a woman's long hair or a veil?

Also, I was thinking earlier... about men with long hair and women with short... doesn't that just throw fuel on the _sexuality_ and _identity_ flames of the day??


----------



## Jake

TylerRay said:


> Jake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?
> 
> In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the meaning had changed, so I'd be wary of basing whether to cover or not on that alone. The cultural argument necessarily changes, and I'm not sure I could definitively assert what covering for women and not covering for men symbolizes in our culture. For example, among men, it seems that covering/wearing a hat in the assembly showed authority in time past among the Jews and still does in some cultures today.
> 
> Gillespie noted in his English Popish Ceremonies that the meaning of covering/uncovering had changed, and that at the time, men covered in worship. This is covered in Naphtali Press edition p. 247-248. I can get quotes later if anyone is interested/doesn't have the volume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't presume to make an argument on that alone, brother.
> 
> In my opinion, it is clear enough to anyone in our culture that when women cover their heads in worship and men uncover their heads, there is a clear distinction between the sexes, witnessing to their distinct roles.
> 
> My point in asking the question was to illustrate that, though the symbol speaks clearly in our culture*, folks still want to buck against the ordinance. They're making a cultural argument against the practice simply because they think it does away with the requirement. It's a heart issue.
> 
> I know that there are exceptions to my generalizations in this post; I really believe the generalizations hold true, though, on the whole.
> 
> *People can deny that clarity if they want--for my part, I think people know what they are seeing when they look at Anabaptists or Muslims, for example. I only bring up Muslims and Anabaptists because everyone in the U. S. (not to mention the world) will readily acknowledge them as people who systematically cover; I don't intend to endorse the views of those groups on the particulars of feminine submission.
Click to expand...



Yes, I know this wouldn't be how we would argue for headcoverings. I don't think the cultural argument would also lead to headcovering today because I don't think there is a consistent message in the modern day for our culture that headcovering signifies. If you had asked me 10 years ago, despite growing up in the church, I would say, at best, it represented legalism as others in this thread have noted. However, to be fair, there are cultures where at least some combination of men or women uncovering or covering for worship does signify something, such as in Jewish assemblies even in the pre-Christian era. I believe in the era of the Reformers/Puritans, despite the fact that many (as Logan noted) viewed the passage as cultural, headcovering was still the norm. It shouldn't be today with that as the interpretation. 

However, I do know someone who is a member of the OPC but visits with congregations from time-to-time where female headcovering is the norm. She does not cover in the OPC where she would be the alone in the practice, but does when visiting a Free Church for example, because there the covering is seen as a symbol of submission. I can see how this would be consistent with a cultural interpretation of the passage, just as modesty is cultural. 




lynnie said:


> I don't know why we even get off into these culture discussions. Paul is crystal clear:
> 
> 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
> 
> The ONLY question is what the angels think when they see a headcovering. The only discussion is about whether or not it still means the same to the angels in modern times. Angels are smart, so you can debate if they think it has any meaning today or not. But debating about what the culture thinks is irrelevant to the passage. If you think the angels no longer regard it the way they did 2000 years ago, then fine, you can argue that. But please, keep it about the angels.



I'm not sure the mention of the angels affects whether the particular manifestation of men uncovering and women covering is cultural or not. The argument should be whether its the eternal ordinance of God, and the angels would desire that which is in keeping with the ordinance. I have trouble reducing the entire question down to this verse which seems at least a little unclear to me.

We're also asked to judge in ourselves whether it is good for a woman to pray uncovered (I Corinthians 11:13). The question does not come down to us judging God's law.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Do you believe men praying uncovered to be a mere custom while women praying covered to be required?



I think the passage as a whole is directed to the issue of women praying and prophesying with the gifts of the Spirit. It is not about head coverings per se, but head coverings are brought in as an argument why the women should be silent. They would have to take off their covering to speak, which would be dishonourable to masculine headship. It is not a moral issue, but an issue which concerns decency and order. I liken it to sitting at the table for communion. Sitting is the appropriate posture. It would be disruptive for someone to stand up or kneel while everyone else was sitting; and if one argued for freedom to stand or kneel it would be appropriate to show from Scripture that sitting is the norm. Likewise, a covered head is fitting for a woman in order to cover her natural glory and show that the head of the woman is the man.

As for men, it is appropriate to have the head uncovered in order to reflect the basic principle that he is not under a visible head, but under the headship of the unseen Christ in the Christian assembly. Having said that, there are different customs. If we take the English, who are the majority of the commentators in the earlier post, they wore a hat and a cap; and when the hat was removed the wearing of the cap would be considered as if the head were uncovered.

It is clear from the dispute about the English Popish ceremonies that the men were accustomed to take their hats off in order to show reverence in some parts of the worship. They would also do so in the case of swearing an oath. I think I remember correctly that the men uncovered their heads when they entered into the Solemn League and Covenant.


----------



## Jake

MW said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe men praying uncovered to be a mere custom while women praying covered to be required?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the passage as a whole is directed to the issue of women praying and prophesying with the gifts of the Spirit. It is not about head coverings per se, but head coverings are brought in as an argument why the women should be silent. They would have to take off their covering to speak, which would be dishonourable to masculine headship. It is not a moral issue, but an issue which concerns decency and order. I liken it to sitting at the table for communion. Sitting is the appropriate posture. It would be disruptive for someone to stand up or kneel while everyone else was sitting; and if one argued for freedom to stand or kneel it would be appropriate to show from Scripture that sitting is the norm. Likewise, a covered head is fitting for a women in order to cover her natural glory and show that the head of the woman is the man.
> 
> As for men, it is appropriate to have the head uncovered in order to reflect the basic principle that he is not under a visible head, but under the headship of the unseen Christ in the Christian assembly. Having said that, there are different customs. If we take the English, who are the majority of the commentators in the earlier post, they wore a hat and a cap; and when the hat was removed the wearing of the cap would be considered as if the head were uncovered.
> 
> It is clear from the dispute about the English Popish ceremonies that the men were accustomed to take their hats off in order to show reverence in some parts of the worship. They would also do so in the case of swearing an oath. I think I remember correctly that the men uncovered their heads when they entered into the Solemn League and Covenant.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your comments Mr. Winzer.

As far as I can tell Gillespie had no issue with men having their heads covered during worship and then uncovering when taking communion for example. I think based on what you're saying we're thinking of the same section. Would this be consistent with him interpreting the headcovering primarily in light of the customs/practices of the day and wishing to not cause offense to what was customary and in decent orders, but not an absolute command for men to uncover during worship? 

I do appreciate your explanation of it being about decency and order. This makes sense of the passage as well as some of the commentators from earlier times.


----------



## MW

Jake said:


> As far as I can tell Gillespie had no issue with men having their heads covered during worship and then uncovering when taking communion for example. I think based on what you're saying we're thinking of the same section. Would this be consistent with him interpreting the headcovering primarily in light of the customs/practices of the day and wishing to not cause offense to what was customary and in decent orders, but not an absolute command for men to uncover during worship?



Jake, The issue comes up in the general literature on the ceremonies, not just in Gillespie; but yes, the section you are thinking of in EPC is the type of thing I had in mind, and it is typically dealt with in the literature from the English Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian perspective. They would not see it as "regulative," since it was a custom, but at the same time they would follow customary manners in things which pertained to "the light of nature" and "Christian prudence."

I suppose the problem we have today is that the unisex culture casts off all customs. At that point we are left without any guide and nothing to appeal to in society, which means everyone does what is right in his own eyes. At that point I find it to be the safest course to respect the Christian practice which has a clearer view on the place and roles of men and women.


----------



## Jake

MW said:


> Jake said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell Gillespie had no issue with men having their heads covered during worship and then uncovering when taking communion for example. I think based on what you're saying we're thinking of the same section. Would this be consistent with him interpreting the headcovering primarily in light of the customs/practices of the day and wishing to not cause offense to what was customary and in decent orders, but not an absolute command for men to uncover during worship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, The issue comes up in the general literature on the ceremonies, not just in Gillespie; but yes, the section you are thinking of in EPC is the type of thing I had in mind, and it is typically dealt with in the literature from the English Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian perspective. They would not see it as "regulative," since it was a custom, but at the same time they would follow customary manners in things which pertained to "the light of nature" and "Christian prudence."
> 
> I suppose the problem we have today is that the unisex culture casts off all customs. At that point we are left without any guide and nothing to appeal to in society, which means everyone does what is right in his own eyes. At that point I find it to be the safest course to respect the Christian practice which has a clearer view on the place and roles of men and women.
Click to expand...


Thanks, that's helpful. Regarding your last paragraph, on what basis would you call this the Christian practice, that men's heads should be uncovered in public worship and women's covered? Would this be on the basis of Paul's instructions to the Corinthians? Because if this was cultural admonition, it would not necessarily be the same among all of the churches; indeed, it seemed to be a break from the Jewish custom of the time (I could be wrong, but I would think both men and women would cover in the assembly then). Or is on the basis of received Christian history? Also, I would argue that even with a more unisex culture it is still generally clear from nature that long hair pertains to a woman and short to the man, though both hair lengths are shorter than in, say, Gillespie's day. Likewise, there are yet differences between men and women in dress, especially in more formal attire.


----------



## Afterthought

MW said:


> They would have to take off their covering to speak, which would be dishonourable to masculine headship. It is not a moral issue, but an issue which concerns decency and order. I liken it to sitting at the table for communion. Sitting is the appropriate posture. It would be disruptive for someone to stand up or kneel while everyone else was sitting; and if one argued for freedom to stand or kneel it would be appropriate to show from Scripture that sitting is the norm. Likewise, a covered head is fitting for a women in order to cover her natural glory and show that the head of the woman is the man.


From this analogy with sitting at the table, are you arguing that (a) the passage in question universally (even today) requires a man's head to be uncovered and a woman's head to be covered but (b) what is considered to be "uncovered" or "covered" is what is cultural? Would there be a cultural case in which the man would have his head covered and the woman not?

Regarding men having their heads covered for some elements of worship and uncovered for others, I had heard that this was a practical matter (keeping from getting cold, etc.). Because the issue was one of custom not worship, there could be no harm in "violating" custom in the interest of things such as self-preservation. Is that the case?


----------



## Jake

Afterthought said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would have to take off their covering to speak, which would be dishonourable to masculine headship. It is not a moral issue, but an issue which concerns decency and order. I liken it to sitting at the table for communion. Sitting is the appropriate posture. It would be disruptive for someone to stand up or kneel while everyone else was sitting; and if one argued for freedom to stand or kneel it would be appropriate to show from Scripture that sitting is the norm. Likewise, a covered head is fitting for a women in order to cover her natural glory and show that the head of the woman is the man.
> 
> 
> 
> From this analogy with sitting at the table, are you arguing that (a) the passage in question requires a man's head to be uncovered and a woman's head to be covered but (b) what is considered to be "uncovered" or "covered" is what is cultural? Would there be a cultural case in which the man would have his head covered and the woman not?
> 
> Regarding men having their heads covered for some elements of worship and uncovered for others, I had heard that this was a practical matter (keeping from getting cold, etc.). Because the issue was one of custom not worship, there could be no harm in "violating" custom in the interest of things such as self-preservation. Is that the case?
Click to expand...


Gillespie, p. 248: "customary signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a man coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he sees the hearers covered, he knows by this customary sign that sermon has begun"


----------



## MW

Jake said:


> Regarding your last paragraph, on what basis would you call this the Christian practice, that men's heads should be uncovered in public worship and women's covered? Would this be on the basis of Paul's instructions to the Corinthians? Because if this was cultural admonition, it would not necessarily be the same among all of the churches; indeed, it seemed to be a break from the Jewish custom of the time (I could be wrong, but I would think both men and women would cover in the assembly then). Or is on the basis of received Christian history? Also, I would argue that even with a more unisex culture it is still generally clear from nature that long hair pertains to a woman and short to the man, though both hair lengths are shorter than in, say, Gillespie's day. Likewise, there are yet differences between men and women in dress, especially in more formal attire.



As I understand it, the Jews did not meet in the way we are accustomed to see in a Christian assembly. Christ brought men and women together in the new creation, and that new scenario is part of the situation which required clear instruction from the apostle. The Jewish customs pertained to divine adoration, which could be no guide to a Christian since these were the "commandments of men" which were taught for "doctrines."

I think there is a respect due to the Christian tradition in a matter of this nature unless there is some moral reason which imposes itself on the issue. If there were a gospel-issue at stake then we are free to forego customs in accord with 1 Cor. 9. But I don't think anyone would be stumbled by the practice unless he were deliberately trying to find fault with the church, as when someone brings up the practice of the Mohammedans. The difference between the two practices is such that it would be worth keeping the Christian practice just to show the liberality of the gospel in contrast to the bondage of Mohammedanism.

It is interesting that you bring up formal attire. I have found the same patterns. But then we face another issue in that more people today do not see a need for formal attire in public worship. This might even raise the question as to whether attitudes on these two things go hand in hand.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Because the issue was one of custom not worship, there could be no harm in "violating" custom in the interest of things such as self-preservation. Is that the case?



The general rule is, Morals take precedence over rituals. Thomas Manton has a very instructive sermon on it in his Works; I think it is in volume 2.


----------



## Afterthought

MW said:


> The general rule is, Morals take precedence over rituals. Thomas Manton has a very instructive sermon on it in his Works; I think it is in volume 2.


Sorry for not being clear. I was wondering whether this principle was behind men leaving their heads covered for some of the worship service and removing the covering for other parts of the service. Re-reading Poole mentioned earlier, this does not seem to be the case. Instead, it seems that a variety of customs were in place--including men not having a covering on the head. The one thing that is uniform though is that...a custom that differentiated between men and women was in place, rather than both men and women going uncovered (or both covered).

It is still not clear to me though if,

"[A]re you arguing that (a) the passage in question requires a man's head to be uncovered and a woman's head to be covered but (b) what is considered to be "uncovered" or "covered" is what is cultural? Would there be a cultural case in which the man would have his head covered and the woman not?"





Jake said:


> Likewise, there are yet differences between men and women in dress, especially in more formal attire.





MW said:


> It is interesting that you bring up formal attire. I have found the same patterns. But then we face another issue in that more people today do not see a need for formal attire in public worship. This might even raise the question as to whether attitudes on these two things go hand in hand.


Interesting. My short explanation to those unfamiliar with our headcovering practice is in terms of formal attire (e.g., I say that the men usually dress this way, and the women usually dress that way and usually also wear a hat or other head covering).


----------



## MW

Raymond, sorry for misunderstanding. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if this has been a real custom or if it falls within the realms of acceptable custom?


----------



## ChananBachiyr

MW said:


> It is interesting that you bring up formal attire. I have found the same patterns. But then we face another issue in that more people today do not see a need for formal attire in public worship. This might even raise the question as to whether attitudes on these two things go hand in hand.






Lets not forget about the ever blurring of the lines in today's culture...


----------



## ChananBachiyr

MW said:


> Raymond, sorry for misunderstanding. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if this has been a real custom or if it falls within the realms of acceptable custom?



Rev. Winzer, 
I think that Raymond is asking 
1) Do you interpret the passage in a way that you think women covering and men uncovering during worship is biblical?
And if you do, then do you believe that it should be adjusted to conform to different cultures?
For example, if there were a place (and hes asking if there is) where it is customary for men to cover and women not to cover, would we as Christians need to adjust to the custom of the time/place or strickly stick to our conviction of men don't and women do?

This is how I'm understanding the question... I hope I'm on the right track.


----------



## Afterthought

MW said:


> Raymond, sorry for misunderstanding. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if this has been a real custom or if it falls within the realms of acceptable custom?


I am asking two questions. One of them is historical and the other is your opinion concerning the interpretation and application of 1 Cor. 11 today (which, I guess, is in part asking about what falls within the realms of acceptable custom). The goal of the latter question was to determine what precisely was determined by cultural concerns and what precisely was mandated (if anything); this question was raised in my mind because of the analogy raised between head coverings and sitting at the table. We sit at the table in order to most appropriately fulfill the circumstances of worship regarding the Lord's Supper; it is most appropriate (it's the cultural posture we usually take when eating at a table) and less likely to lead to superstition because this is the way the Supper was originally observed. But what it means to "sit" at the table will vary across cultures.

The historical question was about the practice of men having their heads covered for some elements of worship and uncovered for other elements of worship. I was wondering whether the reason for not having the head uncovered for the whole service was practical, e.g., keeping from getting cold? I then noted that I may have answered my own question: From Poole's comments, it seems that if the custom was initially motivated by practical concerns, by Poole's time it was due to custom, not practical reasons that men did not have their head uncovered the whole time.


The question of interpretation and application is multifacted and is as follows. (1) Are you arguing that 1 Cor. 11 across all cultures requires that men ought (as a matter of decorum) always to uncover their heads and women cover their heads? And so, (2) Although men must always be uncovered and women must always be covered, do culture and custom determine what it means to be "uncovered" or "covered"? That is, the command to be covered or uncovered is always obeyed, but the intent of the command is fulfilled in different ways in different cultures: What is considered to be "covered" and what that "covering" consists of (cloth, hats, etc.) is determined by custom?

Furthermore, (3) could culture and custom ever reverse the situation, i.e., so that men wear something on thier heads while women wear nothing on their heads, or can this never be the case, i.e., culture and custom determine what "uncovered" or "covered" means, but "covered" must be relative to something being worn on the head? Finally (which, I guess, supposes that (1) is false), (4) could culture and custom ever determine that men and women are both to be covered (or both uncovered)? Similarly, could culture and custom determine that men and women are both to wear something on the head (or not wear something on the head)?


----------



## MW

Thankyou for clarifying. Historically, I can't think of such a situation. Hypothetically, I suppose it could happen that the order and function of men and women reflect the biblical ideal and yet the signs of that order and function have changed. One would have to see it to assess it, but if it reflected the biblical ideal I think the goal of the apostle's instructions would be honoured in spirit although not following the strict letter. And I take the Reformed position to be one of basic consent that circumstances of decency and order are not a matter of "regulation," but of the "general rules of the Word."

But in today's western society, shaped as it is by biblical values, and seeing the tendency today is to oppose the biblical view of life, I think it is safest to adhere to the practice which has best reflected biblical values.


----------



## ChananBachiyr

Thank you everyone for your studies and feedback!
Great conversation here!


----------



## KGP

ChananBachiyr said:


> Thank you everyone for your studies and feedback!
> Great conversation here!



Agreed; I haven't thought on this topic much at all in recent years. Very good discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BG

[QUOTE="OPC'n, You can't say one part of the chapter is culture while the other part is not culture. It all has to fit and be logical.[/QUOTE]
Amen, great point


----------



## Dachaser

Afterthought said:


> I am asking two questions. One of them is historical and the other is your opinion concerning the interpretation and application of 1 Cor. 11 today (which, I guess, is in part asking about what falls within the realms of acceptable custom). The goal of the latter question was to determine what precisely was determined by cultural concerns and what precisely was mandated (if anything); this question was raised in my mind because of the analogy raised between head coverings and sitting at the table. We sit at the table in order to most appropriately fulfill the circumstances of worship regarding the Lord's Supper; it is most appropriate (it's the cultural posture we usually take when eating at a table) and less likely to lead to superstition because this is the way the Supper was originally observed. But what it means to "sit" at the table will vary across cultures.
> 
> The historical question was about the practice of men having their heads covered for some elements of worship and uncovered for other elements of worship. I was wondering whether the reason for not having the head uncovered for the whole service was practical, e.g., keeping from getting cold? I then noted that I may have answered my own question: From Poole's comments, it seems that if the custom was initially motivated by practical concerns, by Poole's time it was due to custom, not practical reasons that men did not have their head uncovered the whole time.
> 
> 
> The question of interpretation and application is multifacted and is as follows. (1) Are you arguing that 1 Cor. 11 across all cultures requires that men ought (as a matter of decorum) always to uncover their heads and women cover their heads? And so, (2) Although men must always be uncovered and women must always be covered, do culture and custom determine what it means to be "uncovered" or "covered"? That is, the command to be covered or uncovered is always obeyed, but the intent of the command is fulfilled in different ways in different cultures: What is considered to be "covered" and what that "covering" consists of (cloth, hats, etc.) is determined by custom?
> 
> Furthermore, (3) could culture and custom ever reverse the situation, i.e., so that men wear something on thier heads while women wear nothing on their heads, or can this never be the case, i.e., culture and custom determine what "uncovered" or "covered" means, but "covered" must be relative to something being worn on the head? Finally (which, I guess, supposes that (1) is false), (4) could culture and custom ever determine that men and women are both to be covered (or both uncovered)? Similarly, could culture and custom determine that men and women are both to wear something on the head (or not wear something on the head)?


 
Would not all of that passage though be due to the situation historically of the time? That Paul adapted cultural norms and application to how the local church was to handle this? The principle ofheadship covering as authority such as Jesus over the Church, over the Husband and thus his wife would stand, but is not the actual custom of headwearing not really for today in church?


----------



## au5t1n

MW said:


> The general rule is, Morals take precedence over rituals. Thomas Manton has a very instructive sermon on it in his Works; I think it is in volume 2.



Yes, it is in volume 2. I have read the sermon ("The Preference of Duties: Morals before Rituals") and it was one of the more profitable, convicting, and memorable Puritan sermons I have read. Highly recommend.


----------



## BG

If Paul is here engaging in situational ethics for the sake of cultural norms this would in essence destroy the authority of Scripture leaving the Church with the most tyrannical form of government that being mans opinion.

If someone quotes a passage that says that women can not be deacons or elders or that homosexuality is wrong you can just declare those passages as cultural.


----------



## au5t1n

BG said:


> If Paul is here engaging in situational ethics for the sake of cultural norms this would in essence destroy the authority of Scripture leaving the Church with the most tyrannical form of government that being mans opinion.
> 
> If someone quotes a passage that says that women can not be deacons or elders or that homosexuality is wrong you can just declare those passages as cultural.



I support head covering for women during the worship service, but I do not understand this type of response. Everyone believes there are cultural/customary elements in Scriptural commands. A common example is the "holy kiss" which some epistles enjoin. What is needed is a robust hermeneutical approach that can aid us in distinguishing when Scripture is addressing changeable customs and when it is not, so that we avoid the trap of declaring any practice cultural which we do not want to keep, as well as distinguishing when moral and cultural elements are mixed in the same instruction. What I would be interested to see on a head covering thread is a proposal for what distinguishing marks in a passage of Scripture identify changeable customs.


----------



## BG

Great point. How do we determine what is cultural and what is not?


----------



## Afterthought

Dachaser said:


> Would not all of that passage though be due to the situation historically of the time? That Paul adapted cultural norms and application to how the local church was to handle this? The principle of headship covering as authority such as Jesus over the Church, over the Husband and thus his wife would stand, but is not the actual custom of headwearing not really for today in church?


This is what a large part of the thread has been about: does the principle in the passage require us to practice headcoverings in our culture today? Yes, I think headcoverings are for today. Man is still the head of the woman, so the woman must have power on her head when in the mixed assembly. I do not know if I agree with the cultural interpretation of the verse, but I think that even if one does take the cultural interpretation, one will end up with a headcovering practice in our Western cultures today. As has already been noted by Austin, something being cultural does not mean we do nothing. Instead of greeting each other with a holy kiss, we shake a hand or give a hug (depends on the culture). The intent of the command is observed although the cultural form has changed to suit the culture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

BG said:


> How do we determine what is cultural and what is not?


The question seems to express the desire for an answer both convenient and definitive. And yet this is exactly the kind of question that calls for the most care, and may demand the most patience.

"Take a little wine for your stomach." 1Tim.5:23. Timeless advice? Scriptural command? Cultural admonition?

Context is crucial. Widening, concentric contexts. Language arts. Theology.

If, for some given direction it is determined by careful exegesis, with attendance on the history of the question--should we not listen to ancient wisdom as well?--we think a command is cultural, rather than normative: we should be prepared to justify that conclusion to others without painful gymnastics. And the more convoluted, the less persuasive (most likely).

But, the very next question may call for a different set of values and a markedly different equation. So, the short answer to the question is: There is no short answer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Daniel M.

Well said, Reverend.

As for my stance, I don't think Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11 as a cultural tradition for a few reasons:

1.) "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous I was *for the traditions of my fathers.*" ~Galatians 1:14 (ESV)

Paul understood the dangers of of following "truths" propagated by men, and takes special care to contrast the gospel he received from the reckless aberrations of men. Later in this very letter, he comments on the Judaizer Crisis, which is arguably the "man" gospel he would eviscerate in his argument. Moreover, notice that he uses the words "extremely zealous" - as in, _to a fault_ - for the traditions of his fathers. Here it is important to understand the character and thinking of Paul - that tradition could be the very enemy of truth, and that cultural relativity could taint the message he was tasked to spread purely.

2.) "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions *even as I delivered them to you.*" ~ 1 Corinthians 11:2

Let me balance my first point with this text. Paul was not _against _tradition. He was against _man's_ traditions. In almost every doxology, Paul firmly states his authority given him by God - that is, he understands that the words he carries *have weight*, and that he needs to spread a message that does not create a Pharisaic system of rituals and traditions, but one that promotes godly behavior and liberty in non-essential differences.

3.) "But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." ~ 1 Corinthians 8:9

"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. *Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him."* ~ Romans 14:1-3

Note how Paul is not an all-or-nothing, dogmatic thinker in much of his writing. He understood Christ's fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, and that many ceremonial rites and regulations were shadows of the Visitation that descended and ascended back into Heaven. Now, you may be thinking - "Dan, doesn't that mean Paul likely regarded the roles of men and women as non-essentials, then?" to which I answer, *Most assuredly not*!

There is no doubt that Paul, after having encountered Athenian philosophers and likely having a solid understanding of Koine at the time, as well as an outstanding education as evidenced by his argumentative skills, was a logical and organized thinker. His letters do _not hop from place to place_. Meaning that, particularly when inspired by the Spirit of God to write these letters, they are providentially organized.

My question: Why, then, would we assume that Paul, after writing in chapter 8 that we ought to be careful with our many liberties, is being less than entirely serious when he lays down the principles for man and woman's attire and behavior in church in chapter 11? What I'm saying is this: Paul was no fool. If he considered women's head coverings to be cultural or non-essential, would he not only use it to further his earlier point that we should not let the liberties we exercise cause someone else to stumble? Instead, he uses *eternal, inspired truths* to back up what he says about women and men in the church.

"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." ~ 1 Corinthians 11:7

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." ~ 1 Timothy 2:12-13

In each of these instances, Paul doesn't say something like: "Well, women aren't educated, so don't let them teach," or "Women should be in the kitchen and letting men do the real work". Instead, he evokes God-given truths to drive home a sobering point: As filled with potential and intelligent as women are, and though they stand shoulder-to-shoulder to men in the sight of God, God simply did not create them to be prominent, outspoken members of our churches, nor to hold any manner of church office. We all know that God _can_ use a woman; but is it His will to do so in the particular case of a congregational setting? Moreover, we must trust that Paul is setting an apostolic example here, as well as laying out a principle for worship - we cannot approach God any which way we want!

Here's where I may have to duck a few stones: I think the Puritans are *wrong *on this one. Why? Because we have it well-documented that the very reason Puritan men wore caps under their hats because of how unattractive their unruly, unwashed hair looked. As opposed to examining their own culture in this instance and conforming it to Scripture, they bent the rule slightly (I concede that, to them, leaving the cap on but no hat _was_ being bare-headed) and let their home culture win out.

My quarrel with thinkers like John Piper on this issue is that they split the bill: head coverings are cultural, church roles are not. Exegetically, we do not have a sound basis to make the conclusion for one and not the other.

I agree with R.C. Sproul's support for the head covering movement. The nineteenth century saw women having no head covering, but keeping their hair up. By the mid-twentieth, women started going to church with their hair _down; _in no time in history did Middle Eastern or European culture concede that a woman's hair being down in the presence of anyone but her husband was acceptable. And now, many women are being ordained and governing the church. It is progressive degradation, and a sign that the church visible is adhering more and more to liberalism and applying cultural relativity where we haven't got a place to apply it.

Finally, with all that said: We all know that, when Christ comes, He's likely going to let us as His people know where we missed the mark in interpreting the Scriptures. And I guarantee you, we will likely fall short in _many areas. _But thanks be to God, brethren - this issue is not salvific. It is one of many instances in the kingdom of God where He demonstrates tremendous forbearance to His people. 

So while I encourage anyone to get behind the head-covering movement, let's not put the same energy into this that we would put into a doctrinal foundation of the faith.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> The question seems to express the desire for an answer both convenient and definitive. And yet this is exactly the kind of question that calls for the most care, and may demand the most patience.
> 
> "Take a little wine for your stomach." 1Tim.5:23. Timeless advice? Scriptural command? Cultural admonition?
> 
> Context is crucial. Widening, concentric contexts. Language arts. Theology.
> 
> If, for some given direction it is determined by careful exegesis, with attendance on the history of the question--should we not listen to ancient wisdom as well?--we think a command is cultural, rather than normative: we should be prepared to justify that conclusion to others without painful gymnastics. And the more convoluted, the less persuasive (most likely).
> 
> But, the very next question may call for a different set of values and a markedly different equation. So, the short answer to the question is: There is no short answer.


 
Wouldn't the deciding factor in this be if the principle can be done by different means/ways depending upon culture, or, if it needs to be done always in the same way in every culture to meet Gods demands? In this case, head dress would seem to be more of the culture back then, no?


----------



## THE W

I've actually been persuaded to believe that a woman's long hair is adequate for a covering due to that greek word 'parabalion(sp?)'. women with short hair would need to use some other material to cover their head.

I don't think this passage is referring only to corporate worship as women are not allowed to speak in church per 1cor14:34-35 which is what prophesy entails.

I don't see anything in the passage that would suggest it to be cultural. Paul's reasoning comes from the created order and nature.

that would be my take on it anyway. i'm open to alternatives.


----------



## BG

Contra_Mundum said:


> But, the very next question may call for a different set of values and a markedly different equation.



if this is the case we are left with mans opinion. We can not have a flexible method of interpretation.


THE W said:


> I've actually been persuaded to believe that a woman's long hair is adequate for a covering due to that greek word 'parabalion(sp?)'.



So you are saying that vs 6 should read if a woman has short hair let her also have short hair?


----------



## THE W

BG said:


> So you are saying that vs 6 should read if a woman has short hair let her also have short hair?



rather, it would read if she doesn't have an adequate covering for her head(long hair or material covering) it would be the equivalent of her being bald.


----------



## BG

vs 6 for if a wife will not cover her head, then she should *cut* her hair short.

vs 10 says that it is a symbol of authority

vs 5 would be saying that if a women with short hair prays it is like she has short hair


----------



## THE W

BG said:


> vs 6 for if a wife will not cover her head, then she should *cut* her hair short.
> 
> vs 10 says that it is a symbol of authority
> 
> vs 5 would be saying that if a women with short hair prays it is like she has short hair


indeed that is what vs 6 says. it then says it is shameful for a woman to cut short or shear her head so she should instead cover her head.

vs 5 reads that if a woman is not covered she is dishonoring her head, and it would as if her head were shaved(bald).

long hair, which is the covering that God has given naturally to women to her glory(vs 15), is the symbol of authority. some woman don't have long hair so they should use an artificial covering. the symbol of authority is the covering of the head.


----------



## BG

THE W said:


> indeed that is what vs 6 says. it then says it is shameful for a woman to cut short or shear her head so she should instead cover her head.
> 
> vs 5 reads that if a woman is not covered she is dishonoring her head, and it would as if her head were shaved(bald).
> 
> long hair, which is the covering that God has given naturally to women to her glory(vs 15), is the symbol of authority. some woman don't have long hair so they should use an artificial covering. the symbol of authority is the covering of the head.





That is an interesting theory but I just can not see that in the text.

Where is parabalion in the text?


----------



## au5t1n

THE W said:


> I don't think this passage is referring only to corporate worship as women are not allowed to speak in church per 1cor14:34-35 which is what prophesy entails.



This needn't be a reason for taking 1 Cor. 11 to refer to something besides the corporate worship service, which numerous contextual markers support. I have heard two interpretations of the praying and prophesying which effectively resolve chapters 11 and 14, while maintaining based on the contextual evidence that chapter 11 pertains to the worship service.

1. My pastor, Rev. Todd Ruddell, in his 3-part sermon series on this passage, views the praying and prophesying to be legitimate acts of praying and prophesying which the entire congregation participates in, such as praying silently along with the minister, and singing Psalms. Supporting evidence for the latter would include occasions in Scripture where prophesying was associated with music, such as Micaiah's prophesying to Ahab, or Saul being among the prophets. Aside from that, he also has an interesting take on the reference to angels, which I had not heard elsewhere. It revolves around the fact that angels in Scripture are often found covering themselves (i.e., covering their glory) in the presence of the Lord (e.g., Isaiah 6, Revelation 4) so that only the Lord's glory is seen.

2. John Murray's view is that the praying and prophesying are authoritative public acts, and thus Paul is employing the matter of covering to show the impropriety of women performing these authoritative acts to a mixed assembly, whereas Paul later condemns it explicitly in chapter 14.


----------

