# Women praying with head wear. Can you guys explain this to me



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 16, 2005)

its still mind boggling.


> 1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
> 
> 
> 1Cr 11:5 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.
> ...


 what does covering ones head and not covering ones head have to do with angels.

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 16, 2005)

John Calvin: 



> Because of the angels. This passage is explained in various ways. As the Prophet Malachi 2:7 calls priests angels of God, some are of opinion that Paul speaks of them; but the ministers of the word have nowhere that term applied to them by itself -- that is, without something being added; and the meaning would be too forced. I understand it, therefore, in its proper signification. But it is asked, why it is that he would have women have their heads covered because of the angels -- for what has this to do with them? Some answer: "Because they are present on occasion of the prayers of believers, and on this account are spectators of unseemliness, should there be any on such occasions." But what need is there for philosophizing with such refinement? We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him.25 When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, "If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage." And this interpretation suits well with the Apostle's design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it -- that they discover their impudence in the view of the angels of heaven.



Matthew Henry: 



> She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to him, and inferior to the other sex. Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, put on her veil, in token of her subjection, Gen. xxiv. 65. Thus would the apostle have the women appear In Christian assemblies, even though they spoke there by inspiration, because of the angels, that is, say some, because of the evil angels. The woman was first in the transgression, being deceived by the devil (1 Tim. ii. 14), which increased her subjection to man, Gen. iii. 16. Now, believe evil angels will be sure to mix in all Christian assemblies, therefore should women wear the token of their shamefacedness and subjection, which in that age and country, was a veil. Others say because of the good angels. Jews and Christians have had an opinion that these ministering spirits are many of them present in their assemblies. Their presence should restrain Christians from all indecencies in the worship of God. Note, We should learn from all to behave in the public assemblies of divine worship so as to express a reverence for God, and a content and satisfaction with that rank in which he has placed us.



Basically, as I understand this passage, the angels of God, who are always with the saints, are present in a special way at the public assembly of God's people for worship, therefore, women who wear their heads uncovered in the worship of God and the presence of his angels do compound their sin in rejecting the ordinance commanded by Paul in I Cor. 11 that women should be covered in the assemblies of public worship.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 16, 2005)

ok that's a clear explanation. But is this binding to today's church, because heck, in my church only the elderly women would wear a church hat. Most of the women, have their heads uncovered.

If it is still binding, what is the impact of this form of disobedience on the particular body of Christ that practices such?


Thanks in advance.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 16, 2005)

I think the area of women's headcoverings in public worship is one area of many in which most churches need reformation. The Scriptural command for women to wear headcovering in this context is no less applicable today than when Paul wrote those words. We are to worship God has the Lord has commanded, and this is just one area where he has made a commandment that is often overlooked or discountenanced by his people. Reformation in worship calls to adhere to all of his commands. Such Reformation might begin by preaching and teaching from the pulpit about the nature and implications of this command.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 16, 2005)

For what it's worth see an analysis of 1 Cor 11:2-16 here:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 16, 2005)

ok, thanks for the info guys. so I guess it has to do with subjection and order that God instituted since Creation. God, Christ, Angels, Man, Women. Ok this is pretty clear.


----------



## Peter (Apr 16, 2005)

Chris my browser (IE 6) cuts off half the page. Are you aware of this problem? What settings do I need to change? Thanks.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 16, 2005)

Peter,
Interesting. I'm running IE 6 and it looks fine. Try printing it out; it "should" print out fine as the print settings strip out the formating that might be causing you problems. No time now, but I'll tinker with the format next week. You would think a page authored in Frontpage would work in Explorer.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 17, 2005)

Peter,
A quick note to let you know I redesigned things so you should get your bottom scroll bar now to read the full article. I'll take another look at this problem next week but it only happended in IE. Navigator and Foxfire worked fine at lower screen resolutions. IE wouldn't give the bottom scroll bar until the screen resolution was increased above 800x600. But all that by the way as the page should work fine for you now. If it does not, let me know.
Chris


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 18, 2005)

This thread is chock full of info from ancient to modern and includes miriades of links. (And yes, I do cover as are many other women coming back to it in obedience to the Scriptures)
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9794#pid144516


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 27, 2005)

> And yes, I do cover as are many other women coming back to it in obedience to the Scriptures)


 wow i dont here that too often. my church needs to quit dancing around the scriptures.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> If it is still binding, what is the impact of this form of disobedience on the particular body of Christ that practices such?
> Thanks in advance.



I'm not sure if we directly answered this question or not for you, Keon.

The impact is all around us...women not keeping their proper role in the church, in their homes, in their marriages, etc.

Women preachers, male preachers but women run churches, feel-good teaching (feministic, emotional, etc). The list could go on.



nonconformist,
many churches need to quite dancing around the scriptures. Unfortunately it seems that persons in the laity are willing to step up before the ministers, as the ministers don't want to lose half or more of their congregations or their positions.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 28, 2005)

I asked my wife last week what she thought of wearing a hat or covering to church. She laughed and laughed and laughed and then realized I wasn't joking.

She asked me why and I told her that we are going to look into those scriptures and I have a hunch we will come under that conviction. She said she thought it was one of those cultural things. I told her I didn't think so.

Thanks for bringing up the discussion. We'll start wading into it.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 28, 2005)

I'll keep you two in prayer...and you are doing the thing I encourage most...read it for yourselves. 
Also there is a link above to a thread where I have posted ALOT of studies and commentaries (many reformed and both ancient and modern writers).


----------



## Augusta (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> This thread is chock full of info from ancient to modern and includes miriades of links. (And yes, I do cover as are many other women coming back to it in obedience to the Scriptures)
> http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9794#pid144516



 I also cover in church upon studying this passage.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 29, 2005)

I find it an interesting thing that most proponents of women covering their heads in worship:

1. Ignore the historical setting in Corinth (and the reason for Paul's remarks), and

2. Pretend like 1 Corinthians 11:15 is not even in the Bible ("For long hair is given to her as a covering.")

Andrew, I'll have to look up the rest of Calvin to see what he says on verse 11, which was omitted in your quote. If he ignores verse 11, too, then we might have to consider the semi-blasphemous idea that Calvin was wrong...(gasp)


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 29, 2005)

Pastor Kevin, here's how those questions were addressed in Colleen's previous post.


1. Ignore the historical setting in Corinth (and the reason for Paul's remarks), and

QUESTION 7:
Assuming that your position is correct viz. that Paul does teach the wearing of a prayer veil, is it really necessary for one to keep it today?

ANSWER:
These things are the commandments of the Lord. See I Corinthians 14:37 where Paul says his writings are the commandments of the Lord.' The keeping of the ordinance is not the "custom" spoken of in verse 16 but it is an outward sign or symbol with a spiritual meaning. Women who wish to comply with the teaching of I Corinthians 11:1-16 will not cut their hair and will wear a prayer veil for praying and prophesying, indicating
that they take their place in the Divine order headship.


2. Pretend like 1 Corinthians 11:15 is not even in the Bible ("For long hair is given to her as a covering."

QUESTION 3:
But does not Paul settle this in quite another way when he says in verse 15 "for her hair is given her for a covering 11 . Is not therefore the hair the same thing Paul writes about in verses 5 and 6?

ANSWER:
Paul does say "her hair is given her for a covering" but he uses this as an illustration from nature of what he is teaching as an ordinance. The answer is no. Paul does not teach that the hair is that with which woman covers her head. This "covering" in verse 15 is not the same as the "covered" and "uncovered" in verses 5 and 6.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I think the area of women's headcoverings in public worship is one area of many in which most churches need reformation. The Scriptural command for women to wear headcovering in this context is no less applicable today than when Paul wrote those words. We are to worship God has the Lord has commanded, and this is just one area where he has made a commandment that is often overlooked or discountenanced by his people. Reformation in worship calls to adhere to all of his commands. Such Reformation might begin by preaching and teaching from the pulpit about the nature and implications of this command.



Careful, Andrew. If we view every remark Paul makes as a "command," we will have to conclude that worship must also conclude the following:

1. The whole church should speak in tongues (14:23)
2. Everybody should prophesy or in some way adress the church (14:24, 26)
3. Women can't make a peep once they hit the foyer (14:35-36)
4. It is a sin to forbid speaking in tongues (14:39)
5. Offerings should ONLY be taken up for the saints in Jerusalem (chapter 16), etc.

With regards to tongues, you will argue that this was something that was unique to the early church and Paul is addressing a particular error at Corinth.

I agree.

So why not consider the same for chapter 11?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Assuming that your position is correct



Key phrase...



> Paul does say "her hair is given her for a covering" but he uses this as an illustration from nature of what he is teaching as an ordinance. The answer is no. Paul does not teach that the hair is that with which woman covers her head. This "covering" in verse 15 is not the same as the "covered" and "uncovered" in verses 5 and 6.



This is perhaps a more compelling point. I, myself, assumed (!) Paul was using the same word. He isn't. I'll have to look at that,


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Because Paul's basis for commanding women to wear headcoverings in public worship is not grounded in particular circumstances of the day, but rather in the creation ordinance and for the sake of the angels who are present in a special way in that setting, both of which have universal application.


----------



## Solo Christo (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Paul does not teach that the hair is that with which woman covers her head. This "covering" in verse 15 is not the same as the "covered" and "uncovered" in verses 5 and 6.


Bob or Colleen, would you please be kind enough to supply some translation references on this? Forgive me if this has already been posted elsewhere.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

(Then he continues with the ordinances....1) the headcovering 2) the Lord's Supper....mayhap we could change the Lord's Supper, since he was just putting the order of things for the Corinthians alone due to special circumstances in Corinth?)

Your throw ins:

1) Please note that he follows with instructions in maintaining order in this...and this is not a command TO speak in tongues, but IF

2) Again, he is NOT commanding everybody TO...only stating IF and here is the order thereof

3) I have also answered this in a previous thread....synagogues are an example of why this was stated.

4) true, you should not forbid it if it follows the prescribed order and doesn't contradict or add to scripture...however this rarely happens anymore given that, though we are in a multicultural nation, we all tend to speak the same language, thus the need for tongues is not common today...it does still happen at times though. (Note: I am not refering to the inane babblings of the charismatics or pentacostals)

5) They were meeting a need. No where does this state that it is an ordinance of worship.

anymore straw men???

Back to the subject at hand....


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Because Paul's basis for commanding women to wear headcoverings in public worship is not grounded in particular circumstances of the day, but rather in the creation ordinance and for the sake of the angels who are present in a special way in that setting, both of which have universal application.



So a command is a command only if it is grounded in creation ordinance? That denudes about 99.9999999% of the commands in the Bible.

I agree with you to an extent. Paul is appealing to creation as a model. But we still have to ask questions of the text. What is Paul saying? Why is he saying it? How does it apply to us? These are basic hermeneutical queries that must be brought to bear on any passage.

You have rightly done that with chapter 14. And yet not here. In 14:39 we have an explicit command (stated in a customary fashion, no less) and yet it is ignored.

In chapter 11 we don't even have the imperative mood(!). In fact Paul calls headcoverings a "custom" in verse 16.

Now we need a good reason to disregard an explicit command and make a command out of a custom. That means we need to bring other factors to bear on the text: near context, far context, historical context.

We can infer from the entire epistle that Corinth was a fractious church and it seems that at least one (if not more) woman was trying to seize a position of spiritual authority in the church.

We know from archaeology that Corinth was a highly sexualized town and had an imposing temple to Aphrodite in it. We know that the temple employed an enormous amount of cultic prostitutes. We know that these prostitutes had their heads shaved...Hmmm...now THAT does give pause when once considers the text.

Paul was not writing in a vacuum. He was addressing particular issues: propriety in worship, the role of women in worship, etc. I think we need to be careful not to create a command where none is given. Rather, we should ask ourselves what principle Paul is teaching here and how we can apply it to our own situation.

Going back to creation: creation does not teach us that women should weare head coverings any more that nature can teach us that an unnatural act (getting a haircut, verse 14) somehow maintains the created order.

Paul is talking here about confusion of gender roles in worship. The appeal to creation teaches us that men should lead in the home and in the Church; it does not teach us that 21st century women cannot worship without veils. Headcoverins was merely a cultural expression of a woman's submission to her husband in that setting.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 29, 2005)

Keon,

This is an article on the issue of head coverings that you might find interesting taking the view that head coverings are not mandatory today:

Head Coverings


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> ...



When refering to a symbolic (physical, but not natural covering) the term is katakalypto meaning "to cover [the head]" (strongs greek 2619)

When refering to a natural covering the term is peribolaion "covering:robe" (strong's greek 4018) (as in covering nakedness)


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Sounds like your repeating a Baptist myth against headcoverings. Many whores did not cut their hair. Whores also used to cover themselves (think of Tamar).

Funny, but historically speaking a woman who walked around w/o a headcovering was easily considered a whore. Hmmm....

If you read the other thread you would see how the term "custom" was actually being used...not misused as you are doing. And yet you wish to ignore that Paul called it an "ordinance". Why do you celebrate the Lord's Supper in the way you do? Because of 1Cor 11

(BTW, yes, I have noticed that you chose to ignore me...must be because I'm female. Yet, most of what I have posted are other men's writings. I only jump in as I guess I can offer a little different perspective as someone who actually practices this)


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> (BTW, yes, I have noticed that you chose to ignore me...must be because I'm female. Yet, most of what I have posted are other men's writings. I only jump in as I guess I can offer a little different perspective as someone who actually practices this)



Tone down the rhetoric, dear sister. I was not ignoring you. I just did not realize that I was the one you were accusing of straw man arguments, etc, since you did not use the quote function.

I don't mind discussion or disagreement, as long as it remains civil.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Keon,
> 
> This is an article on the issue of head coverings that you might find interesting taking the view that head coverings are not mandatory today:
> ...



The problem I have with this article the most, is in trying to equate it with the Muslim practice of covering and make it as unappealing as possible to their congregation, they ignore the actual practice of it in the early church and throughout history in the practical sense (I think ppl need to look a pictures and templates throughout history on what a covering covered, rather than assuming that it was a burka...take it from one who has studied historical clothing)

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> So a command is a command only if it is grounded in creation ordinance? That denudes about 99.9999999% of the commands in the Bible.



I never said that. I was speaking specifically about the idea that this particular command by Paul is somehow localized to a particular time and place alone, when it is clear that the reasons he gives for his command are universal in nature.



> I agree with you to an extent. Paul is appealing to creation as a model. But we still have to ask questions of the text. What is Paul saying? Why is he saying it? How does it apply to us? These are basic hermeneutical queries that must be brought to bear on any passage.



Ok.



> You have rightly done that with chapter 14. And yet not here. In 14:39 we have an explicit command (stated in a customary fashion, no less) and yet it is ignored.



Who says I'm ignoring 14:39?



> In chapter 11 we don't even have the imperative mood(!). In fact Paul calls headcoverings a "custom" in verse 16.



In v. 2, he calls these "ordinances." To assume that "custom" is merely cultural as opposed to Biblical is to beg the question.



> Now we need a good reason to disregard an explicit command and make a command out of a custom. That means we need to bring other factors to bear on the text: near context, far context, historical context.
> 
> We can infer from the entire epistle that Corinth was a fractious church and it seems that at least one (if not more) woman was trying to seize a position of spiritual authority in the church.
> 
> ...



I don't dismiss historical and archeological evidence, but I don't make that the basis for Biblical interpretation either.



> Going back to creation: creation does not teach us that women should weare head coverings any more that nature can teach us that an unnatural act (getting a haircut, verse 14) somehow maintains the created order.



I would disagree with this. I work in the heart of the sodomite community of Washington, DC. I see butch women with butch haircuts walking around all the time. Culturally, it is accepted here. I believe however that it is both unnatural and unBiblical. Men and women are made to appear different and long hair is given to women for their glory, a glory which is to be covered in public worship. 



> Paul is talking here about confusion of gender roles in worship. The appeal to creation teaches us that men should lead in the home and in the Church; it does not teach us that 21st century women cannot worship without veils. Headcoverins was merely a cultural expression of a woman's submission to her husband in that setting.



Paul says the churches of God have no such custom as would allow for women to worship uncovered. It is sad that in our day that is not the case.

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



My apologies......

I just find it humorous/irritating that with everyone so big on quotes of reformers and others throughout history and present day (particurlarly Calvin and others) that ppl have chosen to ignore them in this respect and simply repeat the same old myth. It had nothing to do with prostitutes, regardless of what the prostitutes did...it had to do with the order of worship, of a woman's place, etc. Have you read any of the post under Headcoverings Revisited? There are writings from miriads of Godly men...

Here's a few....

Headcoverings in Scripture
by Greg Price
Chapter Five: What Does Church History Teach?
Each of the following witnesses cited agree on one point: the headcovering
mentioned in 1 Cor. 11:4,5,6,7,10,13 was a fabric headcovering to be worn by the women in worship. There may be differences amongst these witnesses as to the application of the headcovering, but they are uniformly in agreement that that Paul's reference to women being covered in worship was to a fabric headcovering and not to the hair of a woman.

1. The Catacombs (100-300 a.d.)
a. "Most of the catacombs were constructed during the first three centuries,
a few may be traced almost to the apostolic age."1

b. "The name of the catacombs is of uncertain origin, but is equivalent to
subterranean cemeteries or resting-places for the dead. First used of the
Christian cemeteries in the neighborhood of Rome, it was afterwards applied to those of Naples, Malta, Sicily, Alexandra, Paris, and other cities."2

c. "In their catacombs the Christians could assemble for worship and take
refuge in times of persecution. Very rarely they were pursued in these
silent retreats."3

d. "The catacombs carved in the substrata rock beneath the city of Rome
extend to an almost unbelievable 550 miles, are often six levels deep, and
contain the room for the interment of over six million bodies. . . . Herein
is the first Christian art."4

e. The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform
dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.

2. Irenaeus (120-202 a.d)
a. Irenaeus translates 1 Corinthians 11:10 as follows: "A woman ought to
have a veil [kalumma] upon her head, because of the angels."5

b. This is significant in that Irenaeus apparently understood the "power" on
a woman's head in 1 Corinthians 11:10 to be a veil of some kind and not a
woman's hair.

3. Tertullian (150-225 a.d.)
a. Tertullian addresses the practice of virgins of the church not being
required to be veiled. His whole line of argument presupposes that it was
the practice of his contemporaries to require those who were betrothed or
married to be veiled, yet Tertullian argues very persuasively that there is
no biblical reason to require one class of females (betrothed or married) to
be veiled while not requiring another class of females (virgins) to be
veiled.

b. "But that point which is promiscuously observed throughout the churches,
whether virgins ought to be veiled or no, must be treated of. For they who
allow to virgins immunity from headcovering, appear to rest on this; that
the apostle has not defined 'virgins' by name, but 'women,' as 'to be
veiled;' nor the sex generally, so as to say 'females,' but a class of the
sex, by saying 'women:' for if he had named the sex by saying 'females,' he
would have made his limit absolute for every woman; but while he names one class of the sex, he separates another class by being silent. For, they say, he might either have named 'virgins' specially; or generally, by a
compendious term, 'females.'"6

c. In commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:4,5, Tertullian notes, "Behold two
diverse names, Man and Woman 'every one' in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the other (a law) of baring."7

4. Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)


a. Clement also understands the words in 1 Corinthians 11:5 to refer to a
veil of fabric and not to a woman's hair.

b. "And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her
shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face.
For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray
veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].8

5. Hippolytus (170-236 a.d.)


a. To Hippolytus, a church father from Rome, is wrongly ascribed the
following canon for worship (though perhaps wrongly ascribed to Hippolytus, it appears to represent the practice of the church of that time in worship).

b. "Canon Seventeenth. Of virgins, that they should cover their faces and
their heads."9

6. John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)


a. Chrysostom was the great preacher of Antioch. The following excerpts are taken from Homily XXVI (1 Corinthians 11:2-16).

b. Chrysostom identifies the problem Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as "Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare."10

c. Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: "' And if it
be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another
covering?' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her
acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature
herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also,
that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of
most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."11

7. Jerome (345-429 a.d.)


a. Though Scripture does not endorse the practice of virgins shaving their
heads (rather the Scripture condemns such a practice in 1 Corinthians
11:14-15), nevertheless Jerome is quoted here because he clearly understood Paul to be teaching that a woman ought to wear a fabric head covering upon her head (this is especially obvious in this case for the virgin's head was shaved of all hair).

b. "It is usual in the monasteries of Egypt and Syria for virgins and widows
who have vowed themselves to God and have renounced the world and have trodden under foot its pleasures, to ask the mothers of their communities to cut their hair; not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command" [1 Corinthians 11:5].12

8. Augustine (354-430 a.d.)


a. Augustine, perhaps the greatest post-apostolic theologian prior to the
Reformation, quotes 1 Corinthians 11:4,7 with regard to men as follows:
"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.'"13 Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head.

b. "We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the
Supreme Trinity, that is, in the image of God, as that same image should be
understood to be in three human beings; especially when the apostle says
that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering
from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: '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.'"14

9. John Knox (1505-1572)


a. "First, I say, the woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and
obey man, not to rule and command him. As saint Paule doth reason in these wordes: 'Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man was created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man; and therfore oght the woman to have a power upon her head,' (that is, a coverture in signe of subjection)."15

b. Knox quotes Chrysostom with wholehearted approval: "'Even so, (saith he) oght man and woman to appeare before God, bearing the ensignes of the condition whiche they have received of him. Man hath received a certain glorie and dignitie above the woman; and therfore oght he to appeare before his high Majestie bearing the signe of his honour, havinge no coverture upon his heade, to witnesse that in earth man hath no head.' Beware Chrysostome what thou saist! thou shalt be reputed a traytor if Englishe men heare thee, for they must have my Sovereine Lady and Maistresse [Queen Elizabeth--GLP]; and Scotland hath dronken also the enchantment and venom of Circes [the enchantress represented by Homer as turning the companions of Odysseus into swine by means of a magic drink--GLP], let it be so to their owne shame and confusion. He procedeth in these wordes, 'But woman oght to be covered, to witnesse that in earth she had a head, that is man.' Trewe it is, Chrysostome, woman is covered in both realmes, but it is not with the signe of subjection, but it is with the signe of superioritie, to witte, with the royal crowne."16

10. John Calvin (1509-1564)


a. The great theologian of the Reformation preached three sermons from 1
Corinthians 11:2-16 from which the following excerpts are taken. "So if
women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their
hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and
they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they
will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature. . . . So, when it is permissible for the
women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering
the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else:
'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."17

b. "When he says 'her hair is for a covering [1 Corinthians 11:15 GLP],' he
does not mean that as long as a woman has hair, that should be enough for
her. He rather teaches that our Lord is giving a directive that He desires
to have observed and maintained. If a woman has long hair, this is
equivalent to saying to her, 'Use your head covering, use your hat, use your
hood; do not expose yourself in that way!"18

11. George Gillespie (1613-1648)


a. Gillespie, the youngest and one of the most brilliant commissioners at
the Westminster Assembly, addresses the issue of women speaking as a voice of one in the public worship services of the church when he says, "But where find we that women who were prophetesses, and immediately inspired, were allowed to deliver their prophecy in the church? I suppose he had a respect to 1 Cor. xi:5, 'But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head,' which is meant of the public assembly, for the Apostle is speaking of covering or uncovering the head in the church. . . . So that the Geneva annotation upon ver. 5, gives a good sense of that text, 'That women which show themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies, without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves.'"19

b. "As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public and common prayer), or prophesying (that is, singing, 1 Sam. 10:10; 1 Chron. 25:1), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings. . . ."20

12. A Group of Presbyterian Ministers from London during the time of the Westminster Assembly (1646)


a. "The wife must have power (exousia) on her head, i.e., a veil is token of
her husband's power over her (1 Cor. 11:10) . . . ."21

13. Matthew Henry (in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, published in 1706)


a. "The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head
uncovered dishonoureth her head [1 Corinthians 11:5-6 GLP], namely, the man, v.3. She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it
close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be in a
manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a manifest
affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on the other sex."22

b. "She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels [1
Corinthians 11:10]. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the
power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to
him, and inferior to the other sex."23

c. "It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public
assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent
that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would
quarrel with this, or lay it aside" [1 Corinthians 11:16].24

14. Henry Alford (1810-1871)


a. "[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man
(2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be
veiled in public religious assemblies."25

b. "The women overstepped the bounds of their sex, in coming forward to pray and to prophesy in the assembled church with uncovered heads. Both of these the Apostle disapproved, as well their coming forward to pray and to prophesy, as their removing the veil: here however he blames the latter
practice only, and reserves the former till ch. xiv. 34."26

c. "The woman ought to have power (the sign of power or subjection; shewn by the context to mean a veil."27

15. Frederick Godet (1812-1900)


a. The phrase [in 1 Corinthians 11:4], "'having down from the head,' that is
to say, wearing a kerchief in the form of a veil coming down from the head
over the shoulders."28

b. "And since the woman does not naturally belong to public life, if it
happen that in the spiritual domain she has to exercise a function which
brings her into prominence, she ought to strive the more to put herself out
of view by covering herself with the veil, which declares the dependence in
which she remains relatively to her husband."29

16. Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898)


a. "Two principles, then, are laid down: first, verse 4, that the man should
preach (or pray) with head uncovered, because he then stands forth a God's
herald and representative; and to assume at that time the emblem of
subordination, a covered head, is a dishonor to the office and God it
represents; secondly, verses 5,13, that, on the contrary, for a woman to
appear or to perform any public religious function in the Christian
assembly, unveiled, is a glaring impropriety. . . . The woman, then, has a
right to the privileges of public worship and sacraments; she may join
audibly in the praises and prayers of the public assembly, where the usages
of the body encourage responsive prayer; but she must always do this veiled
or covered."30

17. A. R. Fausset (1821-1910)


a. Fausset co-authored with David Brown and Robert Jamieson the work, A
Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New
Testaments.

b. "In putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to
man (which is her true 'honor'), and of her connection with Christ, man's
Head. Moreover, the head covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Gen. xxiv: 65), and chastity (Gen. xx: 16). By its unlawful excitement in assemblies is avoided, women not attracting attention. Scripture sanctions not the emancipation of woman from subjection: modesty is her true ornament. Man rules; woman ministers: the respective dress should accord. To uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the husband's power; whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Num. v. 18). . . . As woman's hair is given by nature as her covering (v. 15), to cut it off like a man would be palpably indecorous; therefore, to put away the head-covering like a man would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other head-covering, to show that she does of her own will that which nature teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man."31

18. Thomas Charles Edwards (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians was published in 1885)


a. Edwards was the Principal of the University College of Wales,
Aberystwyth.

b. "It is not improbable that the custom censured by the Apostle was an
attempt to symbolize by unveiling the face in public worship the spiritual
equality of the woman."32

c. "The man shames his natural head by wearing a veil; that is, he shames
himself by wearing a symbol of subjection to the woman, whereas Christ has given the man supremacy over the woman in Church order, and that supremacy is expressed by the symbol of an unveiled face."33

d. "He proves [in 1 Corinthians 11:6 GLP] that a woman that uncovers her
head is one and the same with a woman whose head is shorn or shaven. The proof is that woman's long hair is intended by nature and understood by all nations to be a symbol of her subjection to the man. . . . This, the Apostle
argues, shows the fitness of the veil to be a symbol of the same subjection
in the Christian order. In the Church the veil is added to the symbol of
long hair, because the subjection which nature has imposed upon the woman
receives a special character when it enters into the Christian series of
subordination's."34

19. M. R. Vincent (His Word Studies in the New Testament was published in 1886)


a. "The head-dress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair-bags, or
kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A shawl which enveloped the body was also often thrown over the head, especially at marriages or
funerals. This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the Christian
assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions,
and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of
Christ. This custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the divinely
ordained subjection of the woman to the man."35

b. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:16, Vincent notes: Not the custom of
contentiousness, but that of women speaking unveiled. The testimonies of
Tertullian and Chrysostom show that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in
the churches. In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a
close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short."36

20. G. G. Findlay (no specific date cited for his work on 1 Corinthians in The Expositor's Greek New Testament, but it was written in the late 19th century)


a. "For a woman to discard the veil means to cast off masculine authority,
which is a fixed part of the Divine order, like man's subordination to
Christ (3 f.)."37

b. In 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 "the high doctrine just asserted applied to the
matter of feminine attire. Since man is man has no head but Christ, before
whom they worship in common, while woman has man to own for her head, he must not and she must be veiled. The regulation is not limited to those of
either sex who 'pray or prophesy'; but such activity called attention to the
apparel, and doubtless it was amongst the more demonstrative women that the impropriety occurred; in the excitement of public speaking the shawl might unconsciously be thrown back."38

c. "And this 'glory' [that is the glory of the woman's long hair in 1
Corinthians 11:15 GLP] is grounded upon her humility: 'because her hair to
serve as a hood (anti perilolaiou) has been given her not as a substitute
for [the GLP] head-dress (this would be to stultify Paul's contention), but
in the nature of a covering, thus to match the veil."39

21. A. T. Robertson (His Word Pictures in the New Testament was published in 1931)


a. In commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:4 ("having his head covered"), he
points out, "Literally, having a veil (kalumma understood) down from the
head."40

b. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 11:6, "Let her be veiled. . . . Let her
cover up herself with the veil (down, kata, the Greek says, the veil hanging
down from the head)."41

c. ". . . . it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil
on the woman's head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the
uncovered head has over her [1 Corinthians 11:10]."42

22. William Barclay (The Letters to the Corinthians was published in 1954)


a. Though Barclay does not hold to an orthodox view of the authority of
Scripture, yet even he maintains the covering in 1 Corinthians 11 is a veil.

b. "The problem was whether or not in the Christian Church a woman had the right to take part in the service unveiled. Paul's answer was bluntly
this the veil is always a sign of subjection; it is worn by an inferior in
the presence of a superior; now woman is inferior to man, in the sense that
man is head of the household; therefore it is wrong for a man to appear at
public worship veiled and it is equally wrong for a woman to appear
unveiled."43

23. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament was published in 1955)


a. These noted Greek grammarians translate a portion of 1 Corinthians 11:5
as follows: "Prophesying with the head unveiled."44

b. Again they translate 1 Corinthians 11:6,7 consistently with verse 5
above: "But if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn, let her be veiled. Now
(gar) a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and
glory of God."45

24. John Murray (1898-1975) was Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary


a. These excerpts are taken from a letter to the Evangelical Presbyterian
Church (Australia) concerning the matter of women being veiled in worship.

b. "Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (Vss. 3b, vss 7ff), it is
totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only
local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and
perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising
therefrom."46

c. "I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for
the man (Vss 4 & 7) and enjoined for the woman (Vss 5,6,15). In the case of the woman the covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. In this
connection it is not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair
was given the woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5,6. The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: "the hair is given her for a covering." This is within the scope of the particular argument of verses 14,15 and does not interfere with the demand for the addtional covering contemplated in verses 5,6,13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from 'nature' of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (Vss 5,6,13) is in line with what 'nature' teaches."47

d. "On these grounds my judgment is that presupposed in the Apostle's words is the accepted practice of head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church . . . ."48

25. J. Vernon McGee (1904-1990)


a. "Apparently some of the women in the church at Corinth were saying, 'All things are lawful for me, therefore, I won't cover my head.' Paul says this should not be done because the veil is a mark of subjection."49

26. William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (The classic work, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, was published in 1957)


a. Under the Greek verb, katakalupto, the following translation is given for
1 Corinthians 11:6a: "cover oneself [with GLP] a veil."50

27. Charles Caldwell Ryrie (The Role of Women in the Church was published in 1958)


a. "If angels desire to look into things pertaining to salvation, then they
should see as they look at veiled women in the assembly of Christians the
voluntary submission of a woman to her head. Thus the early church (for this was the custom of the churches generally) while offering religious equality in spiritual privilege insisted on showing in public worship the principle of subordination of women by their being veiled."51

28. Albrect Oepke (A contributor to the highly acclaimed Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which was published in 1965)


a. "The veiling of women is a custom in Israel. A disgraced woman comes
veiled to judgment (katakekalummene, Sus.32). Yet one may suspect that a
woman muffled up (katekalupsato to prosopon) and lurking by the wayside is a harlot (Gn. 38:15). This opens the way for an understanding of the relevant NT passage. The veiling of women in the NT and the contemporary world. In the NT katakaluptein occurs only in 1 C. 11:6f in the middle voice. In support of his requirement that women should not pray or prophesy with uncovered heads, Paul appeals to the following considerations of natural law: [Oepke then quotes 1 Corinthians 11:6-7 in Greek]."52

29. Robert H. Gundry (A Survey of the New Testament was published in 1970)


a. "Paul's instructions concerning the veiling of women also demand
knowledge of prevailing ancient customs. It was proper in the Roman Empire for a respectable woman to veil herself in public. Tarsus, the home city of Paul, was noted for its strict adherence to this rule of propriety. The veil covered the head from view, but not the face. It was at once a symbol of subordination to the male and of the respect which a woman deserves. The Christian women at Corinth, however, were quite naturally following the custom of Greek women, who left their heads uncovered when they worshipped. Paul therefore states that it is disgraceful for Christian women to pray or to prophesy in church services unveiled. On the other hand, Paul goes against the practice of Jewish and Roman men, who prayed with heads covered, by commanding Christian men to pray and prophesy bareheaded as a sign of their authority."53

30. Bruce Waltke ("1 Corinthians 1:2-16:An Interpretation" was published in Bibliotheca Sacra in 1978)


a. "Although Paul does not use the word veil [kalumma GLP], it seems
reasonable to suppose that he has this article of apparel in view. . . . To
appear at the public assembly, then, with inappropriate headdress would
disgrace one's head."54

b. "The logical particle 'for' (gar ) introducing this section [1
Corinthians 11:7-12--GLP] relates it to the preceding statement that
improper headdress disgraces one's social head. In 11:7a Paul argues that a
veil on a man would disgrace Christ because it would veil the image and
glory of God mediated to man through Christ, and in 11:7b-10 he shows that a woman without a veil would in effect be displaying positional equality with
the man and would thereby usurp the glory that properly belongs to him by
the Creator's design."55

c. "In this writer's judgment, however, it would be well for Christian women
to wear head coverings at church meetings as a symbol of an abiding
theological truth."56

31. Gordon Fee (His commentary, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, was published in 1987)


a. "But what specifically does it mean for the woman to pray and prophesy
'uncovered as to the head'? There are three basic options: (1) The
traditional view considered her to be discarding some kind of external
covering. This seems to be implied both by the verb 'to cover' and by the
words about the man in v. 7, which imply an external covering ('he should
not have his head covered'). . . . (2) Because of v. 15, it has been argued
that the 'covering' contended for in vv. 4-7 and 13 is actually the long
hair of vv. 14-15, because some of the women were having their hair cut
short. . . . (3) More recently several scholars have suggested on the basis
of the usage in the LXX [Septuagint GLP] that the adjective 'uncovered'
refers to 'loosed hair,' that is, to letting her hair down in public and
thus experiencing shame. [After presenting a critique of each of the views
above, Fee gives his judgment--GLP] On the whole, a modified form of the
traditional view [modified in the sense that the covering is a shawl that
covers the head, rather than a veil that covers the face GLP] seems to have fewer difficulties, but 'loosed hair' remains a viable option [this is not a
ringing endorsement, however, the scales are tipped in favor of viewing the
covering as being a fabric head covering rather than the hair according to
Fee.]."57

32. Noel Weeks (The Sufficiency of Scripture was published in 1988)


a. "There is something ludicrous about being the head or authority while one
at the same time hides one's physical head. It follows therefore that
praying and prophesying are authoritative functions which call for an
unveiled head, unshrouded head. Hence any woman engaging in those activities must also be bare-headed. Consequently Paul turns to what such unveiling must mean for the woman. In contrast to the man, when she prays or prophesies, the unveiling of her head must be dishonorable to her. What does it mean for a woman to be bare-headed? As Paul says, it is equivalent to being shaved or having her hair shorn off. That of course is dishonouring
for a woman. Hence she should not uncover her head."58

33. Robert D. Culver (Contributed "A Traditional View" to Women in Ministry Four Views which was published in 1989)


a. "God distinguishes sharply between the sexes as to appearance and
activity in formal Christian assemblies. A man's hair is to be short and his
head uncovered by hat or shawl, while a woman's hair is to be uncut and, in
visible recognition of submission to God's order, she is to wear an
additional head covering in order to veil, not her face (as in Muslim
practice), but some of the rest of her head."59

34. Susan Foh (Contributed "A Male Leadership View" to Women in Ministry Four Views which was published in 1989)


a. "The reason for covering heads is directly connected with the head ship
of the husband; the head is significant here. To suggest some other cultural
expression, such as wedding bands to signify the wife's submission to her
husband, ignores this integral connection. . . . The discontinuance of
coverings for women, by most denominations only in this century, was not
done for theological reasons but for cultural reasons (hats went out of
style and became too expensive)."60

35. George E. Meisinger (no date given for The Hat: God's Visual of Headship in Creation )


a. "The term 'uncovered' [in 1 Cor. 11:5 GLP] consistently refers to taking
off some item of clothing, the term 'covered,' [in 1 Cor. 11:6 GLP] on the
other hand, consistently is used of putting on an article of clothing.
Either way, when one's head was in view, it was normally used in connection with the ancient veil being a sign of feminine subordination."61

b. "This verse [1 Cor. 11:6 GLP] shows that the apostle is not talking about
the woman growing hair as opposed to putting on an actual head covering of
some sort. The verse says that she is without a cover already. Now, if her
cover is her hair, it is nonsense to tell her to take off what is already
off. If her cover is a hat or veil, however, then it makes sense to tell her
to take of her hair, too!"62

36. Thomas R. Schreiner (Contributed "Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity 1 Corinthians 11:2-16" to Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism )


a. "One of the perplexing questions in this passage is this: What custom
regarding adornment is referred to here? We cannot treat this complex
question in detail, but the two most probable suggestions can be set forth:
(1) the custom Paul recommends is for women to wear shawls. (2) Paul objects to long, loose hair that falls down the back; he wants women to follow the usual custom of piling their hair up on top of their heads. . . . Despite these arguments in favor of the view that Paul is commanding the wearing of hair on top of the head by women, it is probable that Paul is speaking of wearing a head covering of some kind, such as a shawl."63


37. R.C. Sproul (this is added to the article by F.Chin)


The problem in Corinth, however, was not that men were prophesying in
the public assemblies with their heads covered, but that women were
appearing in public assemblies with their heads uncovered. One's
dress reflects the principles that one lives by, and that even our
exterior must conform to the order that God has established,
especially in matters pertaining to public worship.

The apostle makes the point that the veil, as a symbol of authority,
is inconsistent with the position of the man, but it is required for
women, who are subordinate to men. If they appear in the public
assemblies with their heads uncovered, then they are acting in such a
way that challenges the authority of men because they have removed
the symbol that they are under masculine authority.

It is obvious from this comparison between men having their heads
uncovered and women having their heads covered, that the covering is
not hair. For if the covering in this context were hair, verse 6
would make no sense in the context of this passage.

Though the many authors cited above differ on various issues associated with headcoverings, one important issue upon which they are all agreed is that Paul was not commanding the women in Corinth either to let their hair grow long so as to use their long hair as a headcovering in worship, or to neatly place their hair upon their heads as a headcovering in worship, but rather to place upon their heads a fabric headcovering when they worship before the Lord. This conclusion is reached by scholars from various denominational backgrounds, from different geographical locations, and from many periods of church history. 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 of Jesus Christ which is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)?



END NOTES:
1. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, ( AP&A), II:7:132.

2. Ibid., II:7:131.

3. Ibid., II:7:132.

4. Tom Shank, ed. Let Her Be Veiled, (Eureka,Montana: Torch Publications, 1992), p. 50.

5. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, 8:2, cited in The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, A. Cleveland Cox, ed., (U.S.A: The Christian Literature Publishing
Co., 1885), I:327.

6. Tertullian, On Prayer, cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Cleveland
Cox, ed,. (U.S. A.: The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), III:687.
Emphasis his.

7. Tertullian, On The Veiling Of Virgins, cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
A. Cleveland Cox, ed., (U.S. A.: The Christian Literature Publishing Co.,
1885 ), IV:32. Emphasis his.

8. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
A. Cleveland Cox, ed., (U.S.A: The Christian Literature Publishing Co.,
1885), II:290.

9. A. Cleveland Cox, ed. cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (U.S.A: The
Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), V:257.

10. Chrysostom, Homily XXVI:2; cited in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co.), XIII:149.

11. Ibid., XIII:154.

12. Jerome, Letter CXLVII:5, cited in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Philip Schaff, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co.), VI:292.

13. Augustine, Of the Work of Monks, cited in The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co.),
III:523.

14. Ibid., III:158.

15. John Knox, "The First Blast Of The Trumpet Against The Monstrous
Regiment Of Women," Works of John Knox, David Laing, ed. (Edinburgh: Printed For The Bannatyne Club), IV:377. The antequated spelling of some of the words in this quote is taken directly from the text used.

16. Ibid., IV:392

17. Seth Skolnitsky, trans., Men, Women and Order in the Church: Three
Sermons by John Calvin, (Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications,
1992), pp. 12,13.

18. Ibid. p. 53.

19. George Gillespie, "A Treatise of Miscellany Questions," The Works of
George Gillespie, (Edmonton,AB: Still Waters Revival Books, [1846] 1991),
II:32.

29. George Gillespie, A Dispute Against The English Poish Ceremonies
Obtruded On The Church Of Scotland, (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, [1844]
1993), p. 254.

21. David W. Hall, ed., The Divine Right of Church Government, (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, [1646] 1995), p. 44.

22. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing Co.), VI:561.

23. Ibid., VI:562.

24. Ibid., VI:562.

25. Henry Alford, Alford's Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), II:563.

26. Ibid., II:564.

27. Ibid., II:566.

28. Frederick Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel Publications, 1977), p. 54.

29. Ibid., p. 542.

30. Robert Lewis Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological,
(Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), II:104.

31. A.R. Fausset, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on
the Old and New Testaments, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1978), III:II:314.

32. Thomas Charles Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1979), p. 272.

33. Ibid., p. 273.

34. Ibid., p. 274.

35. M.R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, (McLean VA: MacDonald Publishing Co., no date), II:786.

36. Ibid., p. 787.

37. G.G. Findlay, The Expositor's Greek New Testament, W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), II:870.

38. Ibid., II:872.

39. Ibid., II:876.

40. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Nashville, TN:
Broadman Press, 1931), IV:159.

41. Ibid., IV:160.

42. Ibid., IV:161.

43. William Barclay, The Letter to the Corinthians , (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1956), p. 108.

44. H.E. Dana, Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (Toronto: The MacMillan Co., 1955), p. 90.

45. Ibid., p. 243.

46. John Murray, A Letter To The Evangelical Presbyterian Church
(Australia), Presbyteran Reformed Magazine, (Winter 1992).

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. J. Vernon McGee, through the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, (Pasadena, CA: through The Bible Radio, 1983), V:50.

50. William Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 412.

51. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Role of Women in the Church, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958), p. 74.

52. Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965), III:561.

53. Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 280.

54. Bruce K. Waltke, "1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation," Bibliotheca
Sacra (January-March 1978):50-51.

55. Ibid., p. 51.

56. Ibid., p. 57.

57. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians in The New
International Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, ed., (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), pp. 496,497.

58. Noel Weeks, The Sufficiency of Scripture, ( Edinburgh: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1988), pp.129,130.

59. Robert D. Culver, Women in Ministry Four Views, Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse, ed., (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989) p. 28.

60. Susan Foh, Women in Ministry Four Views, Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse, ed., (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), p. 86.

61. George E. Meisinger, The Hat: God's Visual of Headship in Creation,
unpublished, no date, p. 6.

62. Ibid., p. 9.

63. Thomas R. Schreiner, "Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity,"
Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, ed., (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), pp. 125, 126.
H

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Have you read any of the post under Headcoverings Revisited? There are writings from miriads of Godly men...
> 
> Here's a few....



No I haven't, but goodness! It appears that you have done a lot of study on this issue. I'll read the references and get bact to you.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 29, 2005)

> The problem I have with this article the most, is in trying to equate it with the Muslim practice of covering and make it as unappealing as possible to their congregation, they ignore the actual practice of it in the early church and throughout history in the practical sense (I think ppl need to look a pictures and templates throughout history on what a covering covered, rather than assuming that it was a burka...take it from one who has studied historical clothing)



I don't think his point was to make it unappealing (he wasn't suggesting a Burka!) but that if you are going to wear a head covering you need to follow the way they did it in Corinth.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

And in Corinth, they didn't cover their face.

He does make several references to how muslims cover. The inference is intentional. How about how Jewish ppl following tzitzit? Oh, that might make it seem more positive to some. And yet, that is where most of the early church came from. Interesting he chose the muslims as examples instead. That and the addition of him stressing the angels covering their feet...he kept pointing to a type of "if you are going to do this, then do it to the extreme" (thus my burka comment)...however that is not where Paul is going and not how it was practically put in use in his day.

BTW, my hair is not seen under my coverings, it is completely covered...occasionally I have used a lace covering where my hair is completely covered still, but you can "see" a strand here or there.

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by LadyFlynt]

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by LadyFlynt]

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

From above:

e. The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform
dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I find it an interesting thing that most proponents of women covering their heads in worship:
> 
> 1. Ignore the historical setting in Corinth (and the reason for Paul's remarks), and
> ...



WRT your second point here, I would be interested to know your thoughts on verse 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."

How can the hair be the only covering needed when the passage says that if a woman is not covered it is "as if she were shaven". So, she had hair, yet was considered uncovered.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 29, 2005)

I think women's headcoverings is the least of our problems in regards to women in the church. Go to my hometown church where I grew up and try to find one girl that isn't dressed like a prostitute and I'll give you a buffalo nickel.


----------



## Augusta (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think women's headcoverings is the least of our problems in regards to women in the church. Go to my hometown church where I grew up and try to find one girl that isn't dressed like a prostitute and I'll give you a buffalo nickel.



I know at my old church there was no headcovering and it got be there were no derrier coverings.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 29, 2005)

> try to find one girl that isn't dressed like a prostitute and I'll give you a buffalo nickel.



Great point Gabe, your nickels are very safe! Which brings up this observation. Whether are not you or I agree with the ladies on the board who advocate coverings, we must recognize how blessed we are to be in the presence (virtual as it may be) of genuine ladies. 

In today's culture they are the exceptions for being so diligent in seeking 'the rule'. They honor the Creator, the Word, their husbands, their families and we are privileged to have them share in this community.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

Gabriel, you might find this quote interesting...difficult to cover the head and not cover the rear (in a manner of speaking) and be consistant. Yes, immodesty is a HUGE issue. The problems stem from women's "liberation" and "equality" issues and the feminist movement especially. That is why the covering is becoming a practice brought slowly to the forefront again. Women aren't willing to except a different role. This has led to women taking over in different areas, demanning the men, and immodesty as acceptable.

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


----------



## Augusta (Apr 29, 2005)

Colleen and John Calvin.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> From above:
> 
> e. The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform
> dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.



Charles Hodge make the same point in regards to the type of head coverings in his commentary on these passages which I am sure you have read, which he also notes as being the dress whether in worship or not.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



And thus is the reason many women cover all the time and not just for services...but that is another topic and minces the issue's details furthur as does the question "is a hat an appropriate covering"  Right now, I'm just happy to see a principle acted upon and not gonna beat up differing applications.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

Kevin, I just thought of something that could be food for thought.

If you have a hat/cap...do you remove it when someone prays? Would you wear it into service?


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Hodge's point was that all women wore head coverings, not just Christians. If you haven't read his commentary, I highly recommend it, not just for this issue. The whole commentary is very good. But unfortunately its not online.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 29, 2005)

hmm...yes and no.

Just because you were a member of the Catholic church (or any other) also did not make you a Christian. I know many women that cover their heads, go to church, and yet are not Christians. Just because others wore them doesn't negate the requirement of Christian ladies. Women used to dress modestly, not just Christian women...doesn't change the fact that Christian women should still dress modestly.


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 29, 2005)

> many churches need to quite dancing around the scriptures. Unfortunately it seems that persons in the laity are willing to step up before the ministers, as the ministers don't want to lose half or more of their congregations or their positions.


 ladyflint unfortunately i am stuck going to a church that actualy ordanes women as pastors and at times it is utter chaos and total nonsence because of there example there is one family were the wife is literally the boss she orders the husband and runs the household and thinks she is a spiritual giant it is so twisted.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by nonconformist_
> 
> 
> > many churches need to quite dancing around the scriptures. Unfortunately it seems that persons in the laity are willing to step up before the ministers, as the ministers don't want to lose half or more of their congregations or their positions.
> ...



Stuck??? Are you serious? Truthfully, you'd probably see me go to a slightly arminian church before going to one that ordains women...or homechurching (which I am not supportive of).


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 30, 2005)

> Stuck??? Are you serious? Truthfully, you'd probably see me go to a slightly arminian church before going to one that ordains women...or homechurching (which I am not supportive of).


 long story short stuck until november.It is strange because i am now being looked at as the one that has been deceived by evil reformed "replacement" theologians.


----------



## cornelius vantil (Apr 30, 2005)

wow it is nice to see that there are some people that really practice 1 cor.11. for many years i attended a plymouth brethern church, they practiced it but thought there were the only noncatholics who did. after my conversion to reformed theology i thought it would be hard to believers who still thought it was biblical to practice it. i am very encouraged


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Kevin, I just thought of something that could be food for thought.
> 
> If you have a hat/cap...do you remove it when someone prays? Would you wear it into service?



 Yes. I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up. It appears I'm being inconsistent!


----------



## Arch2k (May 11, 2005)

For those interested, I have found an old Puritanboard thread on headcoverings that isn't available on the board anymore. I stumbled across it using Google.com.

It can be found Here



> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> For what it's worth see an analysis of 1 Cor 11:2-16 here:
> http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm



Honestly, this set article, along with a couple of audio lectures by Dr Michael Barrett and Brian Schwertley have pretty much convinced me of headcoverings. I would like to read a GOOD defense of the other side, just to be sure, but so far have not found one!


----------



## larryjf (May 30, 2005)

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 
(1Co 11:3)

So if the head of a man is Christ, Christ is not to be covered during worship?
If the head of a wife is her husband, he is to be covered so the focus can go to Christ?

I feel there may be some intense replies, please take it easy on me...


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 31, 2005)

It specifically states that WOMEN are to cover and MEN are not to. MEN are the only ones stated (also by example in the OT) that are to come before the Lord uncovered...even the angels covered themselves.


----------



## Augusta (May 31, 2005)

For another resource on this subject you can read John Chrysostom's sermon on 1 Cor 11. Very enlightening and very early exegesis of the subject. Seems it wasn't the women's error which spurred this correction from Paul it was the men's. The greek men were known for letting themselves go in the hygiene dept. as if they were too much engrossed in philosophical thinking to worry about such things as grooming.






Chrysostom Homily XXVI


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> For those interested, I have found an old Puritanboard thread on headcoverings that isn't available on the board anymore. I stumbled across it using Google.com.
> 
> It can be found Here
> ...



This  article is probably the best defense of no headcoverings that I've read to date.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 8, 2005)

I disagree with their conclusion and their rendering of what the contentions were.

In essence they are stating that I and other headcovering women are sinning and causing disunity by covering ourselves during worship.


----------

