# No Such Custom- A Look at Head Coverings



## JOwen

> In the last 100 years, a 2000 year old doctrine, has been all but removed from most Reformed churches, by a single controlling element- culture. The doctrine abandoned was the use of head coverings in public worship.
> 
> The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship. Yet today there are hardly any congregations in Western Culture that practice this with any degree of consistency, if they practice it at all. When you ask the question “Why don’t you believe wearing a head covering is biblical?”, you are met with a uniform answer, “Because it was a cultural practice, and our culture no longer requires a head covering.” The question must be answered then, are head coverings cultural, or are they a requirement for corporate worship? This short paper will attempt to answer that question.



If you would like to read more click here


----------



## KMK

Pastor Lewis, could you give us some guidance as to what you would like to discuss in this thread?


----------



## JOwen

The article, if anyone is interested. I thought I'd not take up valuable space by posting the complete document.


----------



## KMK

> The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship.



Was this due to culture or conviction?


----------



## JOwen

I believe it was culture as the rest of the post indicates.


----------



## Augusta

Pastor Lewis, thanks for this cogent article. I concur with you in that a combination of Feminism and Enlightenment Rationalism are largely to blame for the almost complete disappearance of the practice of headcovering. I had never seen that Sproul quote at the end. Devastating!


----------



## ubermadchen

Thanks for the article. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on this subject.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Augusta said:


> Pastor Lewis, thanks for this cogent article. I concur with you in that a combination of Feminism and Enlightenment Rationalism are largely to blame for the almost complete disappearance of the practice of headcovering. I had never seen that Sproul quote at the end. Devastating!


 

I found it of interest that poor hermeneutics plays a large part in the loss of this biblical practice . . .


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Until today I was unaware that Sproul was an advocate of women's head coverings. I also had not read this article which is very good. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## JOwen

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Until today I was unaware that Sproul was an advocate of women's head coverings. I also had not read this article which is very good. Thank you for sharing.


 
If I'm not mistaken, R.C's wife (I'm sorry I do not know our sister's name) is one of the only women in their congregation that wears a head covering. I appreciate Sproul's approach in not letting what could be a potential "soap-box doctrine" take over, but simply hold the truth in love. Because I firmly believe this is not an issue of salvation, nor does it need to be a point of division, I think it is best to go at this softly. This is the first time I have ever written on the subject. I hope to complete the series, and then let it rest.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Please do complete it! I'm anxious to read the rest. You've done a great job.


----------



## ubermadchen

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Please do complete it! I'm anxious to read the rest. You've done a great job.


 
Yes! Yes! Ditto.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I heard a sermon on head covering from Dr. Sproul once that was very thought provoking. He approached it through the lens of how do we determine what is cultural and what is universal in Scripture. (I am doing this from memory so sorry that I cannot verbatim quote). He talked about things that are obviously cultural, things that are obviously universal, and things we cannot be sure of. He hinted that head covering was something that we cannot be sure of, but his guidance on this area was something along the lines of, "are we willing to allow a little piece of cloth cause us to sin? I do not know about you, but I would rather err on the side of caution. My family is not too prideful to submit to the possibility that headcovering is required and wear something just to be safe."

Now obviously I think he personally believes that headcovering is required, but I liked how he approached it. It is something to think about. Does it harm anything to wear a headcovering? No. Is there any possible way that headcovering could be a sin? No. Is there possibly harm in not headcovering? Yes. Could it possibly be a sin not to wear a covering? Yes. So even if you are not convinced, it is by far the safest bet.


----------



## JOwen

Do you know where I could find that sermon Boliver? I'd like to listen to it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian




----------



## Marrow Man

The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.


----------



## au5t1n

Marrow Man said:


> The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.


 
Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)


----------



## Marrow Man

austinww said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)
Click to expand...

 
Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.


----------



## au5t1n

Marrow Man said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.
Click to expand...

 
Oh yes, I didn't think of those caps. I hope she is able to leave soon and in perfect health.


----------



## Claudiu

Marrow Man said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.
Click to expand...


For unmarried women/girls what would be the Biblical argument for the head-covering. Because the passage in 1 Cor. 11 is in regards to a wife (v.5,6,&10). I ask from a neutral standpoint since I don't know where I stand on this issue and am eager to hear both sides of the argument. (excuse my ignorance on this subject).


----------



## Marrow Man

It's a good question. In this particular case, I would say that she (the baby girl) is wearing a sign of authority, because she would be under my authority as head of the household. However, that would not necessarily be the case if 1) she were not in my household any longer and/or 2) she were head of her own household (a Lydia type of case).


----------



## au5t1n

cecat90 said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For unmarried women/girls what would be the Biblical argument for the head-covering. Because the passage in 1 Cor. 11 is in regards to a wife (v.5,6,&10). I ask from a neutral standpoint since I don't know where I stand on this issue and am eager to hear both sides of the argument. (excuse my ignorance on this subject).
Click to expand...

 
I gather you are reading the ESV? Check out the passage in another translation. "Wife" is their interpretation of how the word is being used in that context. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, just that they don't know with any absolute certainty that Paul is talking about only wives. The word is woman/women, which can mean wife in certain contexts.


----------



## Claudiu

austinww said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For unmarried women/girls what would be the Biblical argument for the head-covering. Because the passage in 1 Cor. 11 is in regards to a wife (v.5,6,&10). I ask from a neutral standpoint since I don't know where I stand on this issue and am eager to hear both sides of the argument. (excuse my ignorance on this subject).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gather you are reading the ESV? Check out the passage in another translation. "Wife" is their interpretation of how the word is being used in that context. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, just that they don't know with any absolute certainty that Paul is talking about only wives. The word is woman/women, which can mean wife in certain contexts.
Click to expand...

 

Thanks for your response. I normally read the KJV, but I usually post in ESV on the PB. Anyways, in the KJV it does say only "woman." That makes sense now.


----------



## Claudiu

Marrow Man said:


> It's a good question. In this particular case, I would say that she (the baby girl) is wearing a sign of authority, because she would be under my authority as head of the household. However, that would not necessarily be the case if 1) she were not in my household any longer and/or 2) she were head of her own household (a Lydia type of case).


 
After reading the passage some more though I think one of the underlying themes is, from verse three: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; *and the head of the woman is the man*; and the head of Christ is God.

So it wouldn't matter if a woman be married or not the theme still stands that 'the head of the woman is the man.' Would this be correct?


----------



## ewenlin

This is timely. Thanks Pastor Lewis.


----------



## au5t1n

cecat90 said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question. In this particular case, I would say that she (the baby girl) is wearing a sign of authority, because she would be under my authority as head of the household. However, that would not necessarily be the case if 1) she were not in my household any longer and/or 2) she were head of her own household (a Lydia type of case).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading the passage some more though I think one of the underlying themes is, from verse three: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; *and the head of the woman is the man*; and the head of Christ is God.
> 
> So it wouldn't matter if a woman be married or not the theme still stands that 'the head of the woman is the man.' Would this be correct?
Click to expand...

 
The word "woman" can sometimes mean "wife" in certain contexts, which is why the ESV translates it that way. I am not convinced that they are right in this instance, however. Interestingly, the ante-Nicene church father Tertullian wrote a book about this very subject called _On the Veiling of Virgins_, I think. Apparently it was a controversy in his day whether only wives had to cover, or unmarried maidens too. Tertullian argued that maidens should cover too, but it wasn't the universal practice of the Church, it seems.

Added: Here's _On the Veiling of Virgins_ by Tertullian for anyone interested: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.iv.i.html

Added: Interestingly, though, baby Grace would be exempt in Tertullian's view. He argues that head covering is binding "from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age".


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Thanks for your article, Pastor Lewis - very well-written. While I love R.C. Sproul and agree with him 95% of the time, I think he's completely wrong on the head-covering issue. He misses the boat entirely on the cultural considerations of I Corinthians 11, at least in the quote you provided. Prostitution isn't the issue at all with regards to head-covering. All women in Hellenistic cultures wore head-coverings all the time, except perhaps at home. Remember, in the classical Greco-Roman world women were considered utterly inferior to men. Romans often didn't give their daughters first names because they were irrelevant in public life - the only name that mattered was the family name (hence all of Gaius Julius Caesar's female relatives were named Julia, since they were members of the Julii family). 

Paul is reminding the Corinthian women to continue to submit to their husbands, despite their newfound liberty and equal standing before God. Christianity was counter-cultural to the Corinthian women because it gave them MORE freedom and autonomy than before. In spite of this, Paul admonishes the women to continue to submit to their husbands, and as a sign the head coverings should continue to be worn when they speak in worship, just as it is outside worship. To discount the cultural aspect of this passage is, in my mind, to misread it entirely. Paul wasn't telling them to do something counter-cultural, he was telling them to continue to show signs of submission to their husbands in keeping with cultural norms. That's the point of the passage. So indeed, culture is a major factor in understanding this passage...


----------



## Notthemama1984

I am about to head to the laundry mat. When I get back I will search for it and post it.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

JOwen said:


> In the last 100 years, a 2000 year old doctrine, has been all but removed from most Reformed churches, by a single controlling element- culture. The doctrine abandoned was the use of head coverings in public worship.
> 
> The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship. Yet today there are hardly any congregations in Western Culture that practice this with any degree of consistency, if they practice it at all. When you ask the question “Why don’t you believe wearing a head covering is biblical?”, you are met with a uniform answer, “Because it was a cultural practice, and our culture no longer requires a head covering.” The question must be answered then, are head coverings cultural, or are they a requirement for corporate worship? This short paper will attempt to answer that question.
> 
> 
> 
> If you would like to read more click here
Click to expand...


My wife wears a headcovering in public and private worship. However, The idea that head covering began to be considered a cultural practice with the rise of feminism is not true. There were Reformation writers who considered head covering a cultural practice. Consider this note from the 1599 Geneva Bible on 1 Cor 11:4... 



> It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance 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.


----------



## Notthemama1984

The Sproul sermon was taken from his book _Knowing Scripture_. Here it is from google books. page 107 starts the discussion about the three options of looking at culture in the Bible.

Knowing Scripture - Google Books

The sermon can be bought at Ligonier.org here http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/knowing-scripture/principle-vs-custom/


----------



## jwithnell

I am eager to do what is right, particularly where worship is concerned, so I appreciate this thread and the scholarly approach.

Here's a potentially broader perspective, particularly since we are to see individual passages in the overall context of scripture. 

When considering apparel, we are given specifics for people in specific situations, for example, the exact instructions given for the high priest and the descriptions given for those taking the Nazirite vows. Do you see the women + head covering issue in this context?

We also have the broader context where we are given a more general description for apparel: we are to be modest, we are not to spend an inordinate amount of time and money on appearance, we are not to confuse the genders. In this context, we are not given specifics and indeed are given much Christian liberty. Rarely does the Bible give us a simple, specific rule that we can check off our list (read legalism). Where it is specific, the instructions are repeated in the law, the prophets, and by Christ. We shall have no other Gods; we are not to misuse His name ... from that perspective, head coverings would be an incidental instruction. Is this a fair reading?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## au5t1n

ColdSilverMoon,

Actually, it's been discounted that all women in that culture wore head coverings. At best, it is possible that all Jewish women did, but we know the practice was not required among the surrounding culture. Also, their women did have a lot of freedom in that culture. The latest evidence is that the head covering was a symbol of being married, which is why the ESV reads "wife" multiple times in 1 Cor. 11. However, I am not convinced this changes anything, because Paul's reasoning is creational. I'm sure Dr. Sproul is well familiar with the various cultural arguments. His wife covers, so I'm sure they have been treated to them many times - After all, he is a public figure. But like he said, if Paul had said to cover and given no reason, we might assume it was cultural, but Paul did give a reason. And his reasons were not cultural, as far as I can see.

I am also curious about your statements that when Christianity began, women had "newfound liberty and equal standing before God" and that "Christianity was counter-cultural to the Corinthian women because it gave them MORE freedom and autonomy than before." I have heard these claims, and used to make them when I was an egalitarian (I'm not saying you are one, just that I used to be one and used that argument), but I am wondering where they come from. What freedom and autonomy did women receive that they did not already have under the Old Covenant? Where are the verses for this? And furthermore, do you really mean to say that women received an increase in their standing before God? Were they not equal in God's eyes before?

I would be interested in your response if you get a chance.


----------



## JOwen

TaylorOtwell said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the last 100 years, a 2000 year old doctrine, has been all but removed from most Reformed churches, by a single controlling element- culture. The doctrine abandoned was the use of head coverings in public worship.
> 
> The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship. Yet today there are hardly any congregations in Western Culture that practice this with any degree of consistency, if they practice it at all. When you ask the question “Why don’t you believe wearing a head covering is biblical?”, you are met with a uniform answer, “Because it was a cultural practice, and our culture no longer requires a head covering.” The question must be answered then, are head coverings cultural, or are they a requirement for corporate worship? This short paper will attempt to answer that question.
> 
> 
> 
> If you would like to read more click here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My wife wears a headcovering in public and private worship. However, The idea that head covering began to be considered a cultural practice with the rise of feminism is not true. There were Reformation writers who considered head covering a cultural practice. Consider this note from the 1599 Geneva Bible on 1 Cor 11:4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
1 Corinthians 11:4 "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." This is not speaking to woman's head coverings, but to man using the prayer shawl. The complete quote:

(a) By this he gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God's ordinance. (b) It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance 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.​
The second error Paul was correcting was the male tendency to cover the head as per the "political law" of the land and not the ordinance mentioned in (a). "It appears, that this was a political law" is refering to the covering of a head by a man, which was not acccording to the ordinance Paul is delivering.

Here is Calvin, on the same verse, clearing it up for us.

Every man praying Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house — for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon.​


----------



## TaylorOtwell

> It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance 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*.



Pastor Lewis,

The bolded section of the quote makes me think that the authors were stating that for a man to speak covered in an assembly was acceptable in their day because it was a sign of subjection for them to speak bareheaded. Am I understanding this incorrectly?


----------



## JOwen

TaylorOtwell said:


> It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance 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*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Lewis,
> 
> The bolded section of the quote makes me think that the authors were stating that for a man to speak covered in an assembly was acceptable in their day because it was a sign of subjection for them to speak bareheaded. Am I understanding this incorrectly?
Click to expand...

 
I think Paul was addressing the fact that the "acceptable practice" of the day was contrary to the ordinance he was giving. It was instructional and corrective. My previous post should clear that up where I quote Calvin.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

Pastor Lewis,

I read the Calvin quote, but I'm not sure if that is really answering my question. Sorry, I may just be really slow today. I understand the author of the Geneva Bible notes to be saying that he understands verse 4 to be a "cultural thing", because, in the culture of the author of the Bible notes, it was a sign of subjection to appear uncovered in the assembly. Am I understand the Geneva Bible note incorrectly?


----------



## JOwen

TaylorOtwell said:


> Pastor Lewis,
> 
> I read the Calvin quote, but I'm not sure if that is really answering my question. Sorry, I may just be really slow today. I understand the author of the Geneva Bible notes to be saying that he understands verse 4 to be a "cultural thing", because, in the culture of the author of the Bible notes, it was a sign of subjection to appear uncovered in the assembly. Am I understand the Geneva Bible note incorrectly?


 
Brother,

The first part of the Geneva quote makes the second half understandable.

"_By this he gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God's ordinance_." So to do so, that is, to be covered, *robbed *the man of *the blessing of God's ordinance*, which was to be uncovered. Therefore for Corinth to submit to the *cultural ellement* by wearing a head covering was to go* against* the injunction Paul was now giving. Thus it was corrective. In other words,, "Don't put something on your head, even if it is the practice of the day, as it robs you of your dignaty according to the Lord". Then the second part of the quote becomes clear, "It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance 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." The *cultural ellement*, Paul is saying, needs to be *replaced* by the ordinance now delivered. The Genevan authors obeyed this injunction and preached uncovered, as do we.

Does that help any?


----------



## JOwen

Chaplainintraining said:


> The Sproul sermon was taken from his book _Knowing Scripture_. Here it is from google books. page 107 starts the discussion about the three options of looking at culture in the Bible.
> 
> Knowing Scripture - Google Books
> 
> The sermon can be bought at Ligonier.org here Knowing Scripture Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul | Watch and Listen to Reformed Theology Teaching Series at Ligonier.org


 
Wonderful. Have the book. Will buy the sermon.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

*The "When" of Headcovering*

Since this thread is about headcovering in general, I'd like to know how some of you would answer a related question. 

Should women be covered only in the public worship of the church, or at other times as well? Please explain you answer form Scripture. 
​


----------



## JOwen

I hope to cover that a bit on my blog in a future post. I have much to do today, so for me, it will have to wait. I'm sure others could chime in.


----------



## Claudiu

I'm glad the discussion about head-covering has turned to male covering too, it hardly ever does. Anyways, I noticed that many of the reformers and people around that time wore head-coverings, at least the pictures usually show them wearing something on their heads. Would they wear this in worship also? I've thought of this before but forgot to ask it.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

The reason I am not convinced that it is a cultural argument, is because Paul does not appeal to cultural reasons for his argument. He uses a cultural analogy but, the basis of his argument comes from an appeal to universal truths, that are timeless: 1. The creation order of men and women, 2. the roles of headship and submission between men and women and Christ 3. The angels (whatever that means, this is still not a cultural argument as angels are not "cultural") The reason why I am convinced that this only applies to public worship is because the very next thing Paul deals with is communion which we all should agree is only to be given in public worship. The reason I do not believe head-covering means a woman's long hair, is because in the it simply does not make sense in the Greek.

An excerpt from Robert Spinney



> Beginning in the late nineteenth century, some argued (based on verse 15b) that Paul is instructing women to have long hair and that the so-called head covering is nothing more than long hair. If this “long hair equals head covering” interpretation is true, then we should be able to substitute the phrase long hair for the word covering in this passage (and short hair for no covering) and retain the passage’s meaning. However, this substitution of phrases (and thus this interpretation) does not make sense. For example, if covering means long hair, then verse 6 would be arguing that those women with short hair should cut their hair short— which is a logical absurdity.
> 
> Likewise, verse 5 would then mean that a woman with short hair is one and the same with women who have no hair— again, a logical absurdity. This is why the Greek word used in verse 15 for the covering of a woman’s hair (peribolaion) is different from the Greek word used in verses 6 and 7 for the covering of cloth (katakalupto, which is derived from kalumma, a word that means “a covering, a hood, or veil”). The two Greek words are not interchangeable. *When Paul says in verse 15b that a woman’s long hair is given her as a covering, he is not defining the nature of the covering*. By the time he reaches verse 15, the inspired apostle has already presented his argument at length. His readers know what he is talking about, viz. a piece of cloth called a head covering or veil. He is now bringing to bear additional considerations for his listeners to weigh. One such consideration is how our innate sensibilities tell us that women’s heads ought to appear different than men’s heads. Our own natural sensibilities, says Paul, tell us that women’s heads should be more covered than men’s. This is what Paul means by his reference to hair in verse 15b.
> 
> It is only in the past century that some commentators have attempted to make this “hair equals head covering” argument. Whether we look at Hebrew women in the Old Testament or Christian women through the ages (and in a variety of different cultures), God’s people have always understood that the head covering is a piece of cloth or clothing worn upon the head and not merely a woman’s long hair.


More here: http://www.monergism.com/Spinney%2C%20Robert%20-%20Should%20Christian%20Women%20Wear%20Head%20Coverings%20Today.pdf


----------



## Christusregnat

Here's the passage under consideration with some comments:



> 1 Corinthians 11
> 1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.



Obviously, it appears that whatever one's understanding of "coverings," they are an ordinance of Christ, and rooted in the nature of God and the created human family.



> 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.



Christ is dishonored by a man's head covered.
Husband dishonored by the woman's head uncovered; uncovered the same as shaved bald.



> 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.



For the woman, the covering here is distinct from short (cut close) and shaven (cut completely off). This is rooted in God's created heirarchy.




> 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?



These are parallel thoughts: A woman should be covered, the man should not be. The man is covered if he have long hair; what does that mean for the woman?




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



Again, to restate the parallel, Paul explicitly tells us what the glory and symbol is upon the woman: her hair. The long hair is given to her <<anti>>, that is, in place of, a covering. The woman's long hair is her covering. A man with long hair is covered, because long hair is a covering. Therefore, an additional covering is not needed, unless a woman is to get a butch hair-cut, or to go Sinead O'Connor on us, or has a legitimate medical need.


Cheers,


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Christusregnat,

So, help me out. I'm having difficulty understanding your last post. Are you saying that the only covering required by this text is long hair? And that no additional covering is required (i.e. veil, scarf, bonnet, hat, &c.)? 

Or have I misunderstood you?


----------



## Christusregnat

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Christusregnat,
> 
> So, help me out. I'm having difficulty understanding your last post. Are you saying that the only covering required by this text is long hair? And that no additional covering is required (i.e. veil, scarf, bonnet, hat, &c.)?
> 
> Or have I misunderstood you?


 
Yes, that is my understanding. Otherwise, the parallels used by Paul seem to become somewhat unintelligible.

Cheers,


----------



## kvanlaan

So Adam, how do you explain the katakalupto/peribolaion issue in light of your last post? (I'm just curious how you tie it all together.)


----------



## Christusregnat

kvanlaan said:


> So Adam, how do you explain the katakalupto/peribolaion issue in light of your last post? (I'm just curious how you tie it all together.)


 
Good question. I'm going off of memory from a study my brother and I did about 14 years ago, but I think three or four words are used.

One is katakalupto, as you cite, or its privative akatakalupto. A woman praying akatakalupto is a shame to her head. Paul says if a woman refuses katakalupto, then she should be shorn or shaven. Katakalupto is the opposite of shorn or shaven (see v. 6 especially).

Then there is "shaven", or exuraemenae, and "shorn" or keiparstho, depending on the length of the hair.

V. 13 informs us again that it is unbecoming for a woman to pray akatakalupto. V. 14 juxtaposes a man who has koma (long decorated hair, if memory serves) with a woman who has koma (v. 15) as her peribolaiou. (sorry I don't know how to do those nifty Greek fonts.)

The peribolaion is "a covering thrown around, or a mantle", or a "veil" (Thayer's Lexicon). The woman's hair serves as her covering or veil. It is also clear from the usage earlier in the passage that katakalupto deals with a length of hair, as contrasted with shorn (cut like a man) or shaven. It likewise means "to cover up" or "to veil or cover one's self". Albeit the different words are used, the sense does not appear to be that different; a veil or a covering, which does not equate with short or shaved hair.

Long story short: they function as two words describing one thing: long hair serving as a mantle, veil or covering.

Cheers,


----------



## kvanlaan

There's a link in this previous thread to an article by Dr Richard Bacon. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/head-covering-10515/

I've heard a sermon of his on this and seems to quite clearly refute the idea of 'hair as a covering' (sorry, no link to that). I also simply can't wrap my head around the idea that the church, as a body, has been wrong on this for 1800+ years...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

austinww said:


> ColdSilverMoon,
> 
> Actually, it's been discounted that all women in that culture wore head coverings. At best, it is possible that all Jewish women did, but we know the practice was not required among the surrounding culture. Also, their women did have a lot of freedom in that culture. The latest evidence is that the head covering was a symbol of being married, which is why the ESV reads "wife" multiple times in 1 Cor. 11. However, I am not convinced this changes anything, because Paul's reasoning is creational. I'm sure Dr. Sproul is well familiar with the various cultural arguments. His wife covers, so I'm sure they have been treated to them many times - After all, he is a public figure. But like he said, if Paul had said to cover and given no reason, we might assume it was cultural, but Paul did give a reason. And his reasons were not cultural, as far as I can see.
> 
> I am also curious about your statements that when Christianity began, women had "newfound liberty and equal standing before God" and that "Christianity was counter-cultural to the Corinthian women because it gave them MORE freedom and autonomy than before." I have heard these claims, and used to make them when I was an egalitarian (I'm not saying you are one, just that I used to be one and used that argument), but I am wondering where they come from. What freedom and autonomy did women receive that they did not already have under the Old Covenant? Where are the verses for this? And furthermore, do you really mean to say that women received an increase in their standing before God? Were they not equal in God's eyes before?
> 
> I would be interested in your response if you get a chance.


 
Austin - 

I think you misunderstood my post, probably because I wasn't clear. I'm not saying women had more autonomy and freedom in the New Covenant compared to the Old (I don't think such a distinction exists), but that Christian Corinthian women found more freedom in Christianity than in their pagan Greek culture. As I tried to show in my post, women in Hellenistic cultures - particularly in Greece itself - were significantly oppressed. To that point, you are simply incorrect that women did not wear head coverings. They certainly did throughout Greece (except Sparta), and in some places wore heavy veils such that only their eyes were showing. In the most lenient city-states (not Corinth) women only wore head coverings, but may have worn them loosely or only covering part of their head. I refer you to Robin Lane Fox's _The Classical World_ in his chapter on women and children in ancient Greece and the accompanying bibliography (especially pages 181-184 where he discusses women, their dress, and particularly head coverings and veils). I'm curious what your sources are to the contrary?

But the point is that women did indeed wear head covering as a manner of routine in Corinth and were oppressed significantly. They were not educated, could not conduct business beyond local market transactions (a bushel of barley was the limit), and were considered inferior to men. This is not biblical submission of women to their husbands, but systematic oppression based on the belief that women were inferior. Biblical teaching is that women and men are equal in their standing before God and in salvation, something that was radically different and liberating from the surrounding culture. In I Corinthians 11 Paul is instructing them to continue to submit to their husbands (the clear, consistent biblical teaching) despite their liberty and freedom from the oppressive Greek culture.

So I'm not arguing from an egalitarian perspective - Paul is teaching submission to the headship of their husbands in church. The point isn't head-coverings, the point is submission. Paul is telling the Corinthian women to show their biblical submission to their husbands by the societal practice of head covering. If some women want to wear head-coverings as a sign of submission today so be it, but the universal principle here is women submitting to men in the church and at home, not the use of head-coverings at all times in all cultures.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

I'm still not sure if I accept the statement that the church has accepted this practice as universally binding for 1800+ years. Consider this quote from Turretin:



> Certain ordinances of the Apostles (which referred to the rites and circumstances of divine worship) were variable and instituted only for a time (as the sanction of not eating blood and of such thing strangled Acts 15:20); concerning the woman's head being covered and the man's being uncovered when they prophesy (1 Cor 11:4-5) because there was a special cause and reason for them and (this ceasing) the institution itself ought to cease also.



Also, I'm not sure if the "Paul appeals to creation" argument is solid either. I agree that Paul appeals to creation, but what does he appeal to creation for? I would suggest he appeals to creation to ground the moral principle of woman's submission to man, not the head covering itself. It seems to me that if Paul wanted to ground the head covering itself in creation, the head covering would transcend covenants. However, under the Old Covenant, the male priests were required to where a head covering by God when performing their temple duties. It seems to me that Paul grounds the moral principle in creation, and then commands a manifestation of it. 

My wife currently covers her head for public and private worship, but, currently, I would view head coverings as something prescribed as a type of New Covenant ordinance/tradition.


----------



## MW

1. In calling a practice "cultural" there is no relinquishing of its binding authority so far as intent is concerned. Greeting with a kiss and foot washing are also cultural, yet there is still an obligation to carry out the intent of those customs, e.g., a warm handshake or offering visitors a cup of tea. In terms of head covering, the cultural element is essentially understood the moment different kinds of head coverings are permitted, e.g., hats. The intent of the cultural practice is still observed, i.e., visibly showing the woman's place in the order of creation when men and women are gathered together in church assemblies; but the fact is that "hats" were never culturally created for that purpose. Through process of time they have come to be a Christian expression of the biblical principle. For a woman to abstain from wearing a hat would then be similar to failing to shake hands or offer a visitor a cup of tea. It brings "shame" in terms of social order, not "guilt" in terms of moral transgression. Hence it remains a matter of church discretion rather than of church discipline. To exalt it to a moral (ten commandments) or ceremonial (worship elements) issue is to blow it out of proportion and to obscure the Christian message of law and gospel.

2. 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.


----------



## N. Eshelman

John Knox preached with a head covering on: 






---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

Calvin preached with his head covered:


----------



## JOwen

Nice Pics!


----------



## TeachingTulip

nleshelman said:


> John Knox preached with a head covering on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------
> 
> Calvin preached with his head covered:


 
Yikes!!!



Since when has any Scriptural truth been verified or proven, according to the artful descriptions produced from the hands of sinful men?


----------



## au5t1n

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Austin -
> 
> I think you misunderstood my post, probably because I wasn't clear. I'm not saying women had more autonomy and freedom in the New Covenant compared to the Old (I don't think such a distinction exists), but that Christian Corinthian women found more freedom in Christianity than in their pagan Greek culture. As I tried to show in my post, women in Hellenistic cultures - particularly in Greece itself - were significantly oppressed. To that point, you are simply incorrect that women did not wear head coverings. They certainly did throughout Greece (except Sparta), and in some places wore heavy veils such that only their eyes were showing. In the most lenient city-states (not Corinth) women only wore head coverings, but may have worn them loosely or only covering part of their head. I refer you to Robin Lane Fox's _The Classical World_ in his chapter on women and children in ancient Greece and the accompanying bibliography (especially pages 181-184 where he discusses women, their dress, and particularly head coverings and veils). I'm curious what your sources are to the contrary?
> 
> But the point is that women did indeed wear head covering as a manner of routine in Corinth and were oppressed significantly. They were not educated, could not conduct business beyond local market transactions (a bushel of barley was the limit), and were considered inferior to men. This is not biblical submission of women to their husbands, but systematic oppression based on the belief that women were inferior. Biblical teaching is that women and men are equal in their standing before God and in salvation, something that was radically different and liberating from the surrounding culture. In I Corinthians 11 Paul is instructing them to continue to submit to their husbands (the clear, consistent biblical teaching) despite their liberty and freedom from the oppressive Greek culture.
> 
> So I'm not arguing from an egalitarian perspective - Paul is teaching submission to the headship of their husbands in church. The point isn't head-coverings, the point is submission. Paul is telling the Corinthian women to show their biblical submission to their husbands by the societal practice of head covering. If some women want to wear head-coverings as a sign of submission today so be it, but the universal principle here is women submitting to men in the church and at home, not the use of head-coverings at all times in all cultures.


 
My mistake in misunderstanding your earlier post. I will have to do some digging for my source; although it seems your sources are better, so for now I will concede the cultural point. As it happens, I am not totally convinced on this issue. Let's say I consider your position possible at this point, but not the most likely. I feel like Paul's language indicates more than just a cultural application of a broader creational principle. However, I don't think I have a strong enough case to continue for now, so I will let it go. Thank you for the points.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

armourbearer said:


> 1. In calling a practice "cultural" there is no relinquishing of its binding authority so far as intent is concerned. Greeting with a kiss and foot washing are also cultural, yet there is still an obligation to carry out the intent of those customs, e.g., a warm handshake or offering visitors a cup of tea. In terms of head covering, the cultural element is essentially understood the moment different kinds of head coverings are permitted, e.g., hats. The intent of the cultural practice is still observed, i.e., visibly showing the woman's place in the order of creation when men and women are gathered together in church assemblies; but the fact is that "hats" were never culturally created for that purpose. Through process of time they have come to be a Christian expression of the biblical principle. For a woman to abstain from wearing a hat would then be similar to failing to shake hands or offer a visitor a cup of tea. It brings "shame" in terms of social order, not "guilt" in terms of moral transgression. Hence it remains a matter of church discretion rather than of church discipline. To exalt it to a moral (ten commandments) or ceremonial (worship elements) issue is to blow it out of proportion and to obscure the Christian message of law and gospel.


 
Rev Winzer - I would respectfully argue that your analogy doesn't support head covering. If the universal intent of "greet with a kiss" is to encourage hospitality and warm greetings based on cultural norms, then the head covering command is only intended as a form of visible submission based on cultural norms. In modern Western culture that could be a wedding band, feminine dress, etc. Paul's command is for outward signs of submission, not head coverings per se. In the same way, the command wasn't to greet with a kiss in all cultures at all times but to extend appropriate greetings according to cultural norms. I think your analogy actually works more _against_ head coverings as a universal rule.


----------



## Robert Truelove

I reject the notion that head coverings are presented in scripture as a cultural issue. I also believe their purpose was tied to the Apostolic Church and have since expired. I preached a sermon dealing with this issue entitled:

Head Coverings - What Are They & How Do They Apply Today?
SermonAudio.com - Head Coverings - What Are They & How Do They Apply Today?


----------



## kvanlaan

What I am still not getting is how the majority of Christian believers have been so wrong for so many hundred years if the not-for-today argument is really the case. The early church did it (pictures in the catacombs attest to this) as did most other time periods in the last 1800 years (painting from the middle ages show it quite clearly too, and, of course, the Puritans). So why not now? What is it about the last 50 years or so that negates what was previously valid exegesis?


----------



## MW

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Rev Winzer - I would respectfully argue that your analogy doesn't support head covering. If the universal intent of "greet with a kiss" is to encourage hospitality and warm greetings based on cultural norms, then the head covering command is only intended as a form of visible submission based on cultural norms. In modern Western culture that could be a wedding band, feminine dress, etc. Paul's command is for outward signs of submission, not head coverings per se. In the same way, the command wasn't to greet with a kiss in all cultures at all times but to extend appropriate greetings according to cultural norms. I think your analogy actually works more _against_ head coverings as a universal rule.


 
Greeting with a kiss and foot washing were provided as examples to show the continuing relevance of biblical "custom" so far as intent is concerned. There are parallel practices which follow through on the intent of these customs. Those who argue that head covering was cultural have not succeeded in relinquishing the intent of the practice. If we accept the head covering was not a moral commandment or worship ordinance but a matter of congregational decorum, we are still obliged to show how the same mandated practice is observed in our present context. A wedding band will not answer to it for the simple reason that it will only apply to married persons and will usually be worn by men as well. Feminine dress is not going to serve the purpose because that is in fact a moral requirement for distinguishing male and female. It does nothing to show female submission to male headship. When all the options are exhausted it will be seen that the Western custom of women wearing hats in the church gathering is the only one which properly observes the intent of the biblical mandate.


----------

