# Ordination of women



## sotzo (Oct 18, 2012)

Needing some help on understanding the biblical principle behind ordination of only men. 

Specifically, what is the biblical principle and its textual support?

Secondly, is that principle the same as the one that lies behind the I Cor 11 command for women to wear headcoverings?

What I'm after is the underlying principle and whether one is inconsistent with that principle if they do not allow for women to be ordained yet not require headcoverings or vice versa.

Many thanks
Joel


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 18, 2012)

The command to wear headcoverings is given on the basis of the creation order (1 Cor 11:8-12). The command not to have women as elders is, indeed, based on the same principle (1 Tim 2:11). God created Eve from Adam, and it is her natural place to be in submission to him.


----------



## sotzo (Oct 19, 2012)

Then should we require women to wear head coverings and are we violating Scripture if we don't?


----------



## sotzo (Oct 23, 2012)

Any thoughts on this in terms of whether we are being inconsistent on principle if we do not require women to wear headcovers yet refuse to ordain them?


----------



## KMK (Oct 23, 2012)

If headcoverings and creation order were inextricably linked together, wouldn't Paul mention it also in 1 Tim 2? He goes out of his way to mention that women dress modestly, without "broidered hair". Wouldn't a headcoverning be included in modest dress? And if the woman is not to wear 'broidered hair' under her headcovering, then why doesn't Paul mention that in 1 Cor 11?

I have nothing against the use of headcoverings but don't see Paul linking it with the creation order with the same zeal as he does concerning the subjection of women in the church.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 23, 2012)

If you go to John Piper's website desiring God, he has a free PDF download of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that will address all your questions and beyond.
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem A Response to Evangelical Feminism - Desiring God


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 23, 2012)

sotzo said:


> Then should we require women to wear head coverings and are we violating Scripture if we don't?



Yes.



KMK said:


> If headcoverings and creation order were inextricably linked together, wouldn't Paul mention it also in 1 Tim 2?



No, not necessarily. He does mention it, however, in 1 Corinthians 11. And his argument is, indeed, zealous.



> And if the woman is not to wear 'broidered hair' under her headcovering, then why doesn't Paul mention that in 1 Cor 11?



I don't know. Perhaps that wasn't a problem in Corinth. And it certainly wouldn't have been as big a problem as women violating the custom of Apostles, and of the Church universally by not wearing headcoverings (1 Cor 11:16).


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 23, 2012)

Joel,

Your thread question is one that has been engaged many times on Puritan Board. You may find helpful the search feature, upper right for past discussions.

The case for men in ordination is overwhelming- explicitly and implicitly in Scripture and by the witness of church history.

Some may disagree, but I would not tie the headcovering issue to that, but take that as a separate issue on its own terms. There have been some passionate discussions about that topic, and you will benefit from a search of previous threads on that topic.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 24, 2012)

idk eve wore a headcovering.....hmmmm....


----------



## Edward (Oct 24, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> idk eve wore a headcovering



It was called 'hair'.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 27, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> idk eve wore a headcovering.....hmmmm....



Headcoverings are instituted by God for public worship, and so the command is binding on us under the Regulative Principle. What God prescribes for worship changes in the different dispensations of the Covenant.

We really don't know if she wore one or not. The Bible never tells if it was commanded during that dispensation of the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 30, 2012)

TylerRay said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > idk eve wore a headcovering.....hmmmm....
> ...



Nor during the Covenant of Works, I should add.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 30, 2012)

As to the 'hair'comment, aren't the Greek terms in the passage different for the covering of hair and the covering to add over the hair? I seem to recall (actually, just looked it up) that peribolaion (hair) and katakalupto (added covering) are used to describe the hair vs the covering, they are not interchangeable.


----------



## JoannaV (Oct 30, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> As to the 'hair'comment, aren't the Greek terms in the passage different for the covering of hair and the covering to add over the hair? I seem to recall (actually, just looked it up) that peribolaion (hair) and katakalupto (added covering) are used to describe the hair vs the covering, they are not interchangeable.



That's interesting. I just read some objections at the bottom of this page: The Covering of 1 Corinthians 11 In particular the second objection. Can anyone rebut please?


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 30, 2012)

The other part of the argument is the 1900+ years of church practise (check out a photo of most church gatherings of an orthodox nature prior to 1965). Does that make it a two millenia tradition based on a misreading of scripture? I don't think so, but some arguments seem to suggest it.


----------



## chuckd (Oct 30, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> The other part of the argument is the 1900+ years of church practise (check out a photo of most church gatherings of an orthodox nature prior to 1965). Does that make it a two millenia tradition based on a misreading of scripture? I don't think so, but some arguments seem to suggest it.



This is what bugs me. Almost 2000 years of the practice in the church, enter the feminist movement, and all of a sudden we say we got it wrong?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Oct 30, 2012)

chuckd said:


> This is what bugs me. Almost 2000 years of the practice in the church, enter the feminist movement, and all of a sudden we say we got it wrong?



That's what the Dispensationalists like to say, too!


----------



## KMK (Oct 30, 2012)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> > This is what bugs me. Almost 2000 years of the practice in the church, enter the feminist movement, and all of a sudden we say we got it wrong?
> ...



And the FVers, and the Hyper-preterists, and the Home Church Movement.


----------



## chuckd (Oct 30, 2012)

the feminists caused all that?


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 30, 2012)

chuckd said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> > The other part of the argument is the 1900+ years of church practise (check out a photo of most church gatherings of an orthodox nature prior to 1965). Does that make it a two millenia tradition based on a misreading of scripture? I don't think so, but some arguments seem to suggest it.
> ...


It's funny that the only thing that they really appeal to isn't scriptural support but the culture now, and slavery is banned in most places. 
So much for sola scriptura, you would think that the catholics would come up with this one in the near future.


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 30, 2012)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> > This is what bugs me. Almost 2000 years of the practice in the church, enter the feminist movement, and all of a sudden we say we got it wrong?
> ...



It's also what we reformers like to say about Justification By Faith Alone. The question always is "What saith the Scripture?" 2000 years of a given tradition may be just as wrong as one year of a given tradition. "To the law and to the testimony!"


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Oct 30, 2012)

Off to google hyper-preterists. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Edward (Oct 30, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> As to the 'hair'comment, aren't the Greek terms in the passage different for the covering of hair and the covering to add over the hair? I seem to recall (actually, just looked it up) that peribolaion (hair) and katakalupto (added covering) are used to describe the hair vs the covering, they are not interchangeable.



As to my 'hair' comment, I had in view this verse:

_1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering._ 

I don't know Greek, so I'll have to yield to you on argument from the original tongues.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 30, 2012)

Edward, I don't know Greek either, but that's the argument that I've heard from proponents and checking it out, came to the same conclusion. Verse 15 uses the same word "peribolaion" for covering, not 'katakalupto'.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 30, 2012)

> It's also what we reformers like to say about Justification By Faith Alone. The question always is "What saith the Scripture?" 2000 years of a given tradition may be just as wrong as one year of a given tradition. "To the law and to the testimony!"



That's just it - scripture saith wear a covering. Then we have 1900 years of that interpretation put into practise, then we have the social revolution of the 1960s.


----------



## nick (Oct 31, 2012)

Is an FVer a Federal Vision-er?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 31, 2012)

The best sermon series I've ever heard on the subject, by the way, is from Todd Ruddell.

http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/SiteContent/66/documents/Audio/092511S-P.mp3

http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/SiteContent/66/documents/Audio/100211S-P.mp3

http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/SiteContent/66/documents/Audio/100911S-P.mp3


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 31, 2012)

nick said:


> Is an FVer a Federal Vision-er?



Yes.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 31, 2012)

Calvin and Matthew Henry take it that a woman who was publicly praying or prophesying in the assembly (as was happening in the Corinthian church) were to have their heads covered as matter of decorum in common practice (headcovering being a symbol of submission in eastern cultures); and a woman in a place of presiding over an assembly ought not to violate propriety in such a matter, but to wear the proper symbol of the authority under which they were operating. They do not infer that head coverings must be worn in public worship assemblies simply as a matter of attendance upon them at all times and in all places. The question of a woman praying or prophesying in a public assembly involves a special question of authority, in which decorum ought not to be violated. Calvin points out that Paul later takes up the question of whether women ought to be praying or prophesying in the public assemblies at all, and forbids them to; but that headcovering would still have applied in more formal gatherings (like Bible studies) in private houses where women were at liberty to speak. He is careful to treat the whole topic not as a point not of superstitious observation but of propriety and decorum in an ordered society which Christians are not to be singular and contentious about (hence perhaps so many pictures in church history of men teaching with their heads covered, though this passage, if one reads it more superstitiously, would absolutely forbid such). Matthew Henry feels that the time of women praying and prophesying by divine inspiration has ceased with that era of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (hence also the need for headcoverings). Quotes below.



> Here we have the second proposition -- that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head. For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection -- involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1 Timothy 2:12.) It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty -- not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.
> 
> . . . 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 decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.


(Calvin on 1 Corinthians 11)




> It was a mark or token of subjection for persons to be veiled or covered in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of others where being covered betokens superiority and dominion. From this we may better understand the reasons on which this reprehension is grounded . . . Thus would the apostle have the women appear in Christian aseemblies, even though they spake there by inspiration, because angels were present. Their presence should restrain Christians from all improprieties in the worship of God. We should behave in the public assemblies so as to express reverence for God and content and satisfaction with the rank in which he has placed us.
> 
> The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these correspond with the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities in dress receive no countenance from the apostolic writings. And there are many ways in which pious females may be useful, though no longer inspired to pray or prophesy in the church . . .


(Matthew Henry)


----------



## JoannaV (Oct 31, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> Edward, I don't know Greek either, but that's the argument that I've heard from proponents and checking it out, came to the same conclusion. Verse 15 uses the same word "peribolaion" for covering, not 'katakalupto'.



The objection I mentioned above was essentially that the only place "peribolaion" is used is when it most definitely is referring to the woman's hair as a covering, yet that word is generally used to refer to some kind of garment whilst "katakalupto" is used in a more general sense. So that could seem to indicate that long hair actually takes the place of a covering.

I have long hair and don't prophesy or pray publicly (other than silent participation in corporate prayer) so I haven't felt the need to investigate further. But I am willing to be persuaded.

Heidi I like your summary better than Calvin and Henry; there's something about them on this subject (especially Henry) which has never seemed entirely conclusive.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 31, 2012)

Joanna, I confess that the explanation by Matthew Henry is compelling to me. It seems to me that the passage is addressing decorum and propriety in a matter involving special authority for one of the gifts poured out so liberally on the Corinthian church in that time (in keeping with the prophesy that the Holy Spirit would be poured out not only on sons but also on daughters). And it seems to me that at verse 14 & 15, Paul is showing that custom in this matter is in keeping with 'the great principles of truth and holiness,' as Henry says. Hence women are, by nature, already 'covered' with their more ornamental hair as being in a position of submission; which is also a certain special glory they have as being the 'fullness' of the man, who is their head. So it was not against nature and creation, but in keeping with it, to comply with this point of propriety about a woman's place of submission in a special matter of authority current in that time.

I have some health issues which make balance a difficult enough matter when sitting still for long periods, and headcoverings aggravate that; but as a matter of honoring the culture of my own church I do try to wear a headcovering when I can -- as if I were in an Eastern country, I would do all I could without violating my conscience or damaging my health to appear in keeping with their customs. The ongoing principle of the passage seems to me one of not simply being subject to my husband, but of not being contentious with (biblically congruent) customs of respect and submission and place that prevail wherever I might be. That seems to me more in keeping with what still applies of the passage now that those gifts have ceased and we know I am not to be in a position of ecclesiastical authority. I am actually hesitant to be very militant about headcoverings; for it seems in my experience of the issue too easy to become singular and contentious in the practice, sometimes even in disregard of one's husband. I personally think that misses the point. Just my small thoughts .

[edit: Perhaps I ought to add that of course our consciences are bound by God's word and I would not wish to convince anyone to behave against conscience in this matter; and I do very much respect those who follow their conscience even when it isn't very pleasant for them, though I might not agree with their interpretation here -- I might be mistaken! I mostly wished to show that the sweeping representation of a position via images in history is not necessarily accurate. One has to supplement with reading the commentary on the subject  Regardless of the view one takes, surely God will honor our conscientious observance of His word as we scrupulously try to understand it.]


----------



## JoannaV (Oct 31, 2012)

Your explanation of Henry is compelling to me haha.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 1, 2012)

JoannaV said:


> I have long hair and don't prophesy or pray publicly



Joanna, 

You _do_ pray and prophesy publicly if you engage in public worship. The Bible uses the term "prophesy" to refer to the singing of Psalms--the Word of God is in our mouths--(1 Chr 25:1-2; c. f. 1 Sam 10:5), and the whole congregation is to be praying as the minister leads.


----------



## Sebastian Kim (Nov 1, 2012)

Well 1 Tim 2:11 makes the case pretty clear and straightforward, as previously stated. There is no need to reinvent the wheel


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 1, 2012)

Pastor Richard Bacon has a great sermon on this but all I can find right now is this article:

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm

Is the hair given to the woman as a covering as a sign of authority on her head (if it is the ''covering" instead of a hat/shawl/veil)? If so, the man has the same sign of authority on his head...

I appeal to a short summary by our learned brother Rev Winzer:


> The covering cannot be the woman's long hair because, (1.) the apostle clearly distinguishes an artificial covering from a natural covering in 11:5, 6. His aim is to show the shamefulness of going into the presence of men in the church gathering without an artificial covering. To paraphrase, "For the woman to go without the artificial covering is as shameful as if she should go without the natural covering. If she goes without the artificial covering then let her also go without the natural covering." (2.) There is no indication in the passage that the women were praying and prophesying without long hair. If anything, the appeal to long hair as the woman's glory takes it for granted that the women understood this full well because the natural covering of long hair is brought in later in the passage for the purpose of showing what nature teaches. The women understood it was "their glory" and probably even flaunted it in the process of praying and prophesying. Hence the need for an artificial covering as a token of gender order in the context of the church gathering.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 1, 2012)

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the covering the woman praying or prophesying was to wear in passage is hair, nor are Calvin or Matthew Henry. 

However it's also quite clear that hair is spoken of in the passage as a natural covering, v 15, as part of a woman's created place of submission -- Henry's point is that Paul's injunctions to follow the custom of headcovering in this situation involving a special authority for a woman appeals to this natural fact.

The bible also uses 'prophesy' to refer to the daughters of Philip, who were something of an exception; and as Mr. Kim cited, to refer those activities which are inappropriate to women in the assemblies. Calvin and Henry's readings both point to these public activities, involving authority, being the case in point in this passage. Hence, history is not sweepingly on the side of those who say this passage means that a woman must be covered in public worship because she is engaging in those activities of public worship common to every member of the body. That is really my point in entering the discussion. I won't reiterate it, for I don't wish to argue it, simply to state it in the interest of representing the written views of the people in those pictures cited .


----------

