# Headcoverings



## puritanhope

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” WCF 1:6

Is it not interesting that the reference to this glorious statement includes as reference, the verse which says, “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” This statement, by virtue of the context of the Confession says that the covering for women is a general rule of the Word, which is always to be observed. Isn't that interesting?


----------



## Casey




----------



## Croghanite

puritanhope said:


> “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” WCF 1:6
> 
> Is it not interesting that the reference to this glorious statement includes as reference, the verse which says, “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” This statement, by virtue of the context of the Confession says that the covering for women is a general rule of the Word, which is always to be observed. Isn't that interesting?



Yes, Thats very interesting. I didn't realize that was the referenced verse.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The prooftext is 1 Cor. 11:13 *&14*, they are meant to be read as a unit.

In the confessional context, the text explicitly references "the light of nature." This is the proof _from the Scripture_ that circumstances of worship (specific category of churchly behavior) and church government may be ordered by natural and Christian wisdom. So the Bible isn't going to give us detailed instructions on decorum or service hours, for examples.

I happen to think women should cover the head in worship, but I also think that's not what the confession's writers and those who added the proofs were thinking of when they were including this passage. Direction to wear a cover certainly wouldn't be a "general rule," but a very specific one, the general rule being that it is manditory that the church maintain dignity in worship--even nature teaches people to avoid shame.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Custom

sunetheia
from a compound of 4862 and 2239; mutual habituation, i.e. usage:--custom.

Mutual habituation...another words no OTHER custom like this...this is it.


----------



## Casey

Your analysis misses the point.


> “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: *and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.*” WCF 1:6


The bolded section is that which the Scripture "proof text" is in reference to -- the Westminster divines considered 1 Cor. 11:13-14 an example not of an "expressly set down in Scripture" or even "deduced from Scripture" but rather a matter "common to human actions and societies." In other words, headcovering was the custom _of that time,_ but not today. There is simply no other way to read the Westminster Confession in the light of where they placed the proof text -- and therefore the Confession ought to be read differently than expressed in the OP.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Custom for that time? Then do you want to explain the rest of history???


----------



## NaphtaliPress

As I noted on the RPNA thread on this same topic, "That proof text is adduced as a place where the light of nature is mentioned in scripture to justify that we can even appeal to it. This says nothing about what the divines indivudally or as an assembly thought about headcoverings. And besides, Paul's appeal to the light of nature is secondary ('even nature teaches' etc.).


----------



## Casey

LadyFlynt said:


> Custom for that time? Then do you want to explain the rest of history???


Apparently the custom has changed, since I don't see a lot of women wearing head-coverings.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yes, the times have changed...sadly so. And thus many women would be done a service if once again reminded of their roles.

The covering subside "some", but has yet to be lost.


----------



## Casey

LadyFlynt said:


> Yes, the times have changed...sadly so.


I don't know about you, but I prefer living in pagan America to pagan Rome. The times have changed and we're the better for it. Thanks be to our Sovereign!


> And thus many women would be done a service if once again reminded of their roles. The covering subside "some", but has yet to be lost.


What does this have to do with roles? You mean, like "kissing" the brethren with a holy kiss? Do you do this, too? Or footwashing? All these are lost customs. A lost custom is just that: lost.

None of these customs have to do with the moral law of God; they are not binding on believers. Why be so concerned with externalisms that do not profit? The law of God concerns the heart, not a piece of fabric on your head.


----------



## Davidius

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> I don't know about you, but I prefer living in pagan America to pagan Rome. The times have changed and we're the better for it. Thanks be to our Sovereign!
> 
> What does this have to do with roles? You mean, like "kissing" the brethren with a holy kiss? Do you do this, too? Or footwashing? All these are lost customs. A lost custom is just that: lost.
> 
> None of these customs have to do with the moral law of God; they are not binding on believers. Why be so concerned with externalisms that do not profit? The law of God concerns the heart, not a piece of fabric on your head.




Is Paul not beginning a list of instructions in 1 Cor. 11 that have to do with properly ordering worship services? Paul never commanded holy kisses as an aspect of the worship service itself, merely as forms of greeting, so while you're right in saying that they may be lost customs, I don't see how those kinds of obscure references can be included in the same category as what Paul is dealing with in this chapter, especially considering that Paul appeals to the creation order in verses seven through eight to make his point.


----------



## Casey

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Is Paul not beginning a list of instructions in 1 Cor. 11 that have to do with properly ordering worship services? Paul never commanded holy kisses as an aspect of the worship service itself, merely as forms of greeting, so while you're right in saying that they may be lost customs, I don't see how those kinds of obscure references can be included in the same category as what Paul is dealing with in this chapter, especially considering that Paul appeals to the creation order in verses seven through eight to make his point.


I'm sorry. What I'm saying is in the context of the previous posts. In other words, the Westminster divines determined that the 1 Cor. headcovering passage was not _simply_ instruction for worship, but a circumstance "concerning the worship of God" which was _at that time_ "common to human actions and societies," much like "kissing the brethren" and footwashing. In fact, four times in four different epistles, Paul commands the saints: "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (a command, then, that by its very repetition seems more important than the headcovering). My argument, then, is not a biblical one, it is a confessional one (based on the way the Confession uses this proof-text). It seems to me that the "kissing" and footwashing were other customs that no longer apply to us today. If you're going demand headcovering and be consistent about the matter, I cannot see why you wouldn't "greet the brethren with a holy kiss" and practice footwashing, too. But, that would be a little strange, because these are not _custom_arily how we greet and serve each other today.


----------



## Kaalvenist

Thoughts on Headcoverings


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The "light of nature" can only instruct with respect to "circumstances" of church worship or government that are "common to human actions and societies" (societies here could mean anything from cultures to clubs, but more likely closer to the latter--e.g. the meeting of the "*S*PCA" will meet at 10am).

So, the RPW continues to speak precisely and distincly to its subject.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I don't believe Paul was issuing a command that changed with the customs; however, we don't cover (that is, my wife).

We believe the covering was commanded to keep the roles in order during times when women did speak in worship services through various gifts of prophecy. Women are not to speak up to address the church during the service, but in the case of women who had the gift of prophecy and had to address the church they covered to show that they are still in submission even while speaking to the congregation.

If woman still had any reason to address the congregation today, then they ought to cover when doing so to show they still recognize headship. But being that the gift of prophecy is no more and we have the closed canon, women have no reason to address the congregation.


----------



## lv1nothr

*For me, tis a matter of obedience!!!*

1 Samuel 15:22 - 23 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 


I wonder why people get upset at this ordidance, I wonder why it is so hard to just accept, as for our house, it is a matter of obedience and I for one love the symbol that so reminds me of God's order..and my place in His kingdom. For me, godly submission to anything the Lord has asked is protection, maybe some of us need more reminders than others, I am willing to be my Master's dumb sheep and just do as HE asks in those things that He's impressed upon our house! He gives meat in due season, I'm thankful for that. I would never argue with anyone not convinced of headcovering, but I know whom I believed and I don't have to worry that I need to pick what parts of the Bible are cultural, for me, not for me...I think the Holy Spirit brings us to truths that the Lord would have us know, I'll put my trust in Him rather than man any day! Simplistic maybe...but that's where I am in this matter.  
 

Psalm 118:8
Remembering man's chief end!


----------



## LadyFlynt

Well said, Grace. Trevour, you are correct that the headcovering doesn't mean a person is holy...but neither should that keep us from covering. However, I must say that your little jab was quite insulting. Yes SOME women choose to use a "doily"...many of us do not consider that an appropriate covering to start with. Most women who cover, do so fully.


----------



## lv1nothr

trevorjohnson said:


> LadyFlynt;
> 
> 
> I think I probably view this issue more negatively because I am surrounded by it and see the fruits of outward religion (Islam) here that is lacking any internal grace. Doily, full-covering or not, a bit of cloth cannot cover a black heart.
> 
> I am thankful that this does not apply to those Reformed women who are trying their best to follow Scripture and relying upon grace alone for their salvation.



Trevor, 

If a woman thinks that her covering is covering her black heart, or her sins...the problem still doesn't lie with the covering...regeneration has nothing to do with covering...only the blood of Christ can do that work, by God's grace. But you knew that!!  
Thank God that we don't have to view scripture through the eyes of those who would pervert God's Word. I should not observe the Lord's Table after having grown up in the R.C. church's counterfits of the Word of God. Satan is the great counterfitter...think of the first question he asked..."Did God say that?" He's still asking the same questions....there's nothing new under the sun!! I'm thankful I'm under the SON!!! Covered by His blood and washed and free to obey His every command!!! 

Love ya Colleen!!

Trevor, may the Lord give you grace to see His Word, not throug the eyes of sinful man, but through His Word alone!! 
In Jesus' love!  

Remembering man's chief end,


----------



## Augusta

Grace. Welcome to another fellow head coverer. Is that a word?


----------



## LadyFlynt

A strong distinction needs to be made between Christians vs Jews or Muslims that cover. The reasons for covering between them are totally different. Jews and Muslims that do cover, cover out of "modesty"...Christians do out of obedience to a command having to do with headship and order in the church. Trevour, I also see many women that cover that have the blackest of hearts. I don't let it stop me. My covering actually holds me above reproof in the situation I am in. I have been declared an unbeliever recently by a particular anabaptist...but he cannot say why (and yet they are teaching their children to lie, cheat, and steal...literally).


----------



## Davidius

trevorjohnson said:


> Come to where I live..there's lots of headcoverings here! Not a lot of rightousness though - except for the external kind.
> 
> 
> And yes, I think that greeting one another with a holy kiss is in the same category.



Trevor,

Could you qualify this statement? WHY should the holy kiss, which was merely a greeting, be put in the same category with rules for proper worship?


----------



## satz

ChristopherPaul said:


> I don't believe Paul was issuing a command that changed with the customs; however, we don't cover (that is, my wife).
> 
> We believe the covering was commanded to keep the roles in order during times when women did speak in worship services through various gifts of prophecy. Women are not to speak up to address the church during the service, but in the case of women who had the gift of prophecy and had to address the church they covered to show that they are still in submission even while speaking to the congregation.
> 
> If woman still had any reason to address the congregation today, then they ought to cover when doing so to show they still recognize headship. But being that the gift of prophecy is no more and we have the closed canon, women have no reason to address the congregation.



 

The principle of male headship is obviously eternal, but Paul gives in 1 Cor 11 the specific circumstance where the principle requires the action of a headcovering - a woman that _prayeth or prophesieth_ (v5) in formal worship. I agree with Chris that the prayer and prophecy under consideration here is inspired prayer and prophecy that was part of the spiritual gifts that operated before the whole canon came togeather. I believe this interpretation is correct by Paul's use of the word 'prophecy' when in other places he is very able to use other words such as 'preach', 'exhort' etc. This is also the interpretation that avoids the contradiction of Paul giving rules to regulate something he would later forbid completely in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 (ie women speaking in formal worship). While those two passages give us the general rule, I believe there was an exception made during the time of the apostles when women and men were given the gift of inspired prophecy, and it is primary these inspired women that Paul is regulating in 1 Cor 11.

I am aware that teachers like Calvin said that Paul was holding off his condemnation until chapter 14, but with respect, I see no reason to take that route when the one mentioned above fits much better.


----------



## lv1nothr

Augusta said:


> Grace. Welcome to another fellow head coverer. Is that a word?



Always an encouraging pleasure!! Nice to meet ya!  
Head coverer...it's a word now!


----------



## lv1nothr

satz said:


> The principle of male headship is obviously eternal, but Paul gives in 1 Cor 11 the specific circumstance where the principle requires the action of a headcovering - a woman that _prayeth or prophesieth_ (v5) in formal worship. I agree with Chris that the prayer and prophecy under consideration here is inspired prayer and prophecy that was part of the spiritual gifts that operated before the whole canon came togeather. I believe this interpretation is correct by Paul's use of the word 'prophecy' when in other places he is very able to use other words such as 'preach', 'exhort' etc. This is also the interpretation that avoids the contradiction of Paul giving rules to regulate something he would later forbid completely in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 (ie women speaking in formal worship). While those two passages give us the general rule, I believe there was an exception made during the time of the apostles when women and men were given the gift of inspired prophecy, and it is primary these inspired women that Paul is regulating in 1 Cor 11.
> 
> I am aware that teachers like Calvin said that Paul was holding off his condemnation until chapter 14, but with respect, I see no reason to take that route when the one mentioned above fits much better.



 AIAIAIAIAI!!!! Now you've done it, you've made the Italian in me come out...I think Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was perfectly capable of making distinctions if he wanted to...but you know...once again...I'm not here to argue anyone into this...as for me and my house...says my hubby!! And that's good enough for me! 
Shalom!


----------



## satz

lv1nothr said:


> AIAIAIAIAI!!!! Now you've done it, you've made the Italian in me come out...I think Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was perfectly capable of making distinctions if he wanted to...but you know...once again...I'm not here to argue anyone into this...as for me and my house...says my hubby!! And that's good enough for me!
> Shalom!



Well, I'am not here to argue either, but just let me say this;I do agree (if I understand what you are saying correctly) that the Holy Spirit is capable of making distinctions, but sometimes the distinction is understood by looking at other places in scripture and may not be explicitly stated in the same passage. Its the same way we understand the distinctions made in things like do not kill, do not judge, do not worry, do not look at wine etc etc.


----------



## CDM

For reference I'll post the scripture for the "cultural" arguments sake:

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But 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. 
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6For 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. 
7For 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. 
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.​
In chapter 11, Paul is teaching propriety in worship. He goes on to expound and even give illustrations of why what he is saying is true. He specifically appeals to creation (not to the wicked culture) and the authority of the man (among other examples) in order to convince the Corinthians (and the gainsayers in v.16). Paul, by the Holy Spirit, also mentions angels. Note, too, this doctrine taught by the Holy Spirit is sandwiched between (ch.10), warnings against idolatry, including doing things to the glory of God, and teaching on the Lord's Supper further in chapter 11. 

Five chapters later, Paul says, “All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.”

Question for the “cultural” side: Do you mean to tell us that by looking at these sections of scripture, it is fair to propose you can put Christian head covering in the same category of an Apostle sending a greeting to someone? Seriously? And the reason given is the Apostles send greetings to different people on 4 different occasions?  

Again, Paul doesn't appeal to “pagan Rome” in order to set right the things of God. Rather, to creation. He says (paraphrase), "Because woman was made _for_ man (not the other way around) she should have an outward symbol [in Christian worship] of 'power' on her head." He didn't say" Because of this bloodthirsty pagan government, and its debased people you Christian women should be similar so as not to offend." Please.

Let's stick with the exposition of the text then we can move on to possible reasons why we may be misunderstanding the breathed-out word of God.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Thank you, Chris. 

Graziella, quella scheda siciliana ha bisogno dei limiti!

Trevour, Q1, It shows in scripture where it is commanded specifically for assembly (and for us this includes family devotions as well)...however, there are a list of reasons that I will not go into right now why many women wear it not only then, but also when going out and about...let's just start with "because my husband requested that I do".
Q2, (how much material, how much covered)...this is where ppl walk the fine line of principle vs your "list of detailed, legalistic rulings". Some groups, it has to be a certain material, a certain length, a certain amount covered, a certain colour, etc. Many times these groups are so legalistic that it's not a just "you have to do it this way", but also a "if you go beyond our standards...gasp!". The principle is that the head (not face) is to be "fully" covered. Some will let their hair hang and not cover all the hair, but will cover the head. Some will let it hang and wear a long enough covering to cover all the hair. Many will simply put their hair up and will fully cover their head and coif. Colour doesn't matter...what is available?...scripture doesn't dictate size, colour, style. I wear a variety as long as my head is fully covered and it is recognizable as a religious covering. There are also women that wear hats (the kind that do cover the head, not just sit upon) and doilies (which I personally avoid because they sit like a decoration upon the head rather than "fully cover"). I will not go out of my way to criticize someone who is wearing a "doily", because they may either be new to covering or that may be all they are comfortable with at the moment. In discussion, I will bring up my reasons for my manner of practice. I have seen all varieties of covering in the PRC and FPC...I applaud the presence of the practice of principle.


----------



## lv1nothr

LadyFlynt said:


> Graziella, quella scheda siciliana ha bisogno dei limiti!
> 
> Colleen,
> 
> lo so', lo so', perdonami, ti ringrazio!!


----------



## LadyFlynt

LOL! Babelfish is worthless!!! 

Babelfish says...


> the so', the so', it pardons to me, ringrazio to you!


----------



## LadyFlynt

trevorjohnson said:


> What does this verse mean?
> 
> 1 Cor 11:15, saying: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God



From R.C.Sproul...


> Paul concludes by urging the Corinthians to disregard those who would stir up dissention by refusing to comply with the apostle's authoritative instruction. Some have misinterpreted this passage by saying that Paul suddenly throws everything he has been passionately teaching onout the window with his staement that neither the apostles not he churches of God practice the custom of head coverings. This, of course, makes no sense in the grand scheme of the text. For on thing, it is commonly known that the women in most of the churches at that time wore veils, a practice that continued in one form or another until modern times. Secondly, the word for custom here can mean "practice," or "habit," or "being accustomed to," all of which can apply to being contentious, not to wearing head coverings. As Calcin says, "it is not the custom [or habit] of the church to enter into strifes and contentions." Because such contentious behavior over matters of propriety in worship is not hte practice of God's people, then we must not give heed to those who refuse to submit to the apostle's teaching.
> 
> COREM DEO
> 
> Contention can be a common thing in churches, but, according to Paul this should not be our practice. Why, then, is it so common? Are you guilty of being contentious about issues in the church? If so, pray that God will give you a humble disposition and live for others. If not, pray that those who stir up trouble in the church will be humbled.



(btw, Grace has been teaching me Italian...my goal: to hold a suitable conversation with her mamma


----------



## LadyFlynt

trevorjohnson said:


> *quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur*



Okay, that is Latin, not Italian!


----------



## Romans922

Contra_Mundum said:


> The prooftext is 1 Cor. 11:13 *&14*, they are meant to be read as a unit.
> 
> In the confessional context, the text explicitly references "the light of nature." This is the proof _from the Scripture_ that circumstances of worship (specific category of churchly behavior) and church government may be ordered by natural and Christian wisdom. So the Bible isn't going to give us detailed instructions on decorum or service hours, for examples.
> 
> I happen to think women should cover the head in worship, but I also think that's not what the confession's writers and those who added the proofs were thinking of when they were including this passage. Direction to wear a cover certainly wouldn't be a "general rule," but a very specific one, the general rule being that it is manditory that the church maintain dignity in worship--even nature teaches people to avoid shame.


 
Do women and/or your wife cover their heads in your church?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

My wife does, and has done so from well before we met and married. It happened that about the time we started to court I became convinced of the scripturalness of head-covering (previously having taken the 'hair' or 'culture' positions). So, we have had singleness of mind on this point from the beginning of our relationship.

As far as I know, she is alone in the practice at our church, although there is a regular visitor who covers (this woman's practice is _always_ to cover, in or out of church).

I would not promote the practice apart from the consent of a session. In other words, it is worse in my opinion to create a division in a church regarding a disputed worship practice than it is to have failure in a definite area of sanctification. I would of course encourage study of Scripture on this point, and would gladly explain, if asked, why I thought this was a biblical norm that should be followed regardless of the era. I would object to being told that we should violate our consciences for the sake of visible unity.


----------



## lv1nothr

LadyFlynt said:


> From R.C.Sproul...
> 
> 
> (btw, Grace has been teaching me Italian...my goal: to hold a suitable conversation with her mamma



Mamma says "Ciao bella!!!"


----------



## lv1nothr

*To all those who claim it's not for today...*

For those thinking that Paul was somehow addressing only those women there at that time period in that particular place, custom, etc...
Allow me to point out that the Epistle to the Corithians addresses Christians everywhere.

1 Corinthians 1:1 - 3 
1Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, *to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: * 3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 

 

Remembering Man's Chief End


----------



## lv1nothr

satz said:


> Well, I'am not here to argue either, but just let me say this;I do agree (if I understand what you are saying correctly) that the Holy Spirit is capable of making distinctions, but sometimes the distinction is understood by looking at other places in scripture and may not be explicitly stated in the same passage. Its the same way we understand the distinctions made in things like do not kill, do not judge, do not worry, do not look at wine etc etc.



May I just point out that Paul in the Epistle to the Corinthians was not just speaking to a particular crowd, or limited time period! As it is written: 

1 Corinthians 1:1 - 3 (KJV) 1Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, *2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:* 3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 

I hope that you can come to see that if the Lord has not revealed this to you or your wife, rejoice that to us who joyfully embrace this ordinance it is a matter of obedience! And will not give in to contention, as God commands! 

 

Remembering Man's Chief End


----------



## puritanhope

I wanted to thank y'all for your responces, as they were greatly appreciated. This was simply something I never noticed before and I wanted to hear your take on it. It was pointed out to me while reading the book, _Covered or Uncovered: How 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Applies to Worship and Leadership in the Church_ by Gary Sanseri. The book is actually quite good and I would strongly recommend it as a fair historical analysis of the practice.

What I find ironic is how many Presbyterians essentially cling modernism with regards to the covering. It is not as easy to dismiss as one may think. 

Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Methodius, John Chrysostom from Antioch, Jerome, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, George Gillespie, John Cotton, Thomas Manton, John Milton, John Bunyan, John Gill, Jonathan Edwards, John Newton, Matthew Henry, Charles Hodge, Charles Spurgeon, Robert Dabney, John Murray, any many other respected men of the faith have upheld the practice.

With history on the side of the practice in Protestant, Anabaptist, Catholic, and Orthodox congregations the burden of proof is indeed on those who say women ought not cover themselves when entering into public worship.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Contra_Mundum said:


> I would not promote the practice apart from the consent of a session. In other words, it is worse in my opinion to create a division in a church regarding a disputed worship practice than it is to have failure in a definite area of sanctification. I would of course encourage study of Scripture on this point, and would gladly explain, if asked, why I thought this was a biblical norm that should be followed regardless of the era. I would object to being told that we should violate our consciences for the sake of visible unity.


I am a bit confused by this...on one hand you say not to unless you have support of the session (one reason we left or were reccomended to leave an OPC) and on the other hand you say that we shouldn't violate our consciences for the sake of visible unity. I would rather obey God than man. There are few churches that fully accept such practice and none of those exist in a local area (other than heretical ones) would you insist they fellowship and forego the practice or forego fellowship? In our case we have kept both fellowship and the practice in the past (though not without added troubles from others).


----------



## satz

lv1nothr said:


> May I just point out that Paul in the Epistle to the Corinthians was not just speaking to a particular crowd, or limited time period! As it is written:
> 
> 1 Corinthians 1:1 - 3 (KJV) 1Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, *2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:* 3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> I hope that you can come to see that if the Lord has not revealed this to you or your wife, rejoice that to us who joyfully embrace this ordinance it is a matter of obedience! And will not give in to contention, as God commands!
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering Man's Chief End



Hi Grace,

I certainly respect those who cover in public worship because they believe that is what the bible commands. I understand that such a practice requires going against the norm today and I do admire their willingness to obey the Lord even at the cost of looking odd to today's world.

That said, by way of replying to your post:

I understand your point that 1 Corinthians is addressed to all christians and not just to a select group. But look at it this way; later on in the book Paul goes on to give instructions for speaking in tongues. I believe the majority of reformed churches would say that tongues as a spiritual gift has ceased today. So while the book of 1 Corinthians is directly addressed to us, the specific instruction on tongues has on direct application since we no longer have tongues. It still teaches general principles, off course. That is (at the moment) how I see 1 Cor 11, as I believe the prayer and prophecy under consideration there is of the inspired sort.

No contention intented, just sharing what I believe.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

LF,
What I'm saying is NOT that we wouldn't _practice_ HC without session's approval, but that *I* would not impose or agitate for the practice without session's approval. But as an individual family convicted, we WOULD practice, and not be deterred by any opposition.

What I said was in response to a specific question asked: "do YOU (Bruce and family) practice HC, and does the church YOU serve?" (i.e. other women).

My response is: We practice it (my wife wears some sort of hat--unless she forgets and whips out a scarf, and has once in a while not even had that and gone bare), _and_ she does it virtually alone.

And no one has ever said anything to us regarding our practice/conviction, aside maybe for asking if she was HC on conscientious grounds.

I added to that answer to say that: given that the church I serve, and in particular the elders who lead here are not convinced

1) of the normativeness of this practice, and 

2) might not insist on it if they were convinced, thinking it might be better to pray for general conviction rather than sessional imposition (since this is not broadly held in the church and certainly not in the denomination, and is not spelled out in the subordiate standards),

that *I* would not be trying to get around the session by "agitating" for HC, buttonholing parishoners, putting literature out on the vestibule tables, etc. etc. etc. I see that as a recipe for church-splitting. Now, if the session were to become convinced of HC as biblically normative, then they could do #1 or #2 above, in my opinion.

They could say "OK everybody, women get the hats/scarves on!" and probably get people riled up, and the leaders could split the church. Or they could be quieter and slower about it. First by leading their own families into the practice, then having the pastor preach on the topic, meanwhile praying constantly that God would soften all hearts toward conviction. When only the "contentious" were resisting the NEW common practice, then they could be more firm.

But just think how many steps and how much time that takes! Why? because it's a lost practice. It won't come back into general use overnight.

I'm sorry you have encountered opposition in places where you sought to do as we have done in both OPC and PCA churches never having opposition ourselves. I always promote attendance and membership in doctrinally sound churches, even where they did not generally practice HC, while doing so ourselves. Going to an unsound church where all the women HC is gravely in error, I think.

If an apparently otherwise sound church threatened a HC family with some sort of discipline, or advised them to go elsewhere, well, I hardly know how to respond. Perhaps they had a divisive HC couple or whole bunch of people in the past and just don't want to go through that again. Or maybe they are a frozen lot themselves. I have never had such a bad experience, on either side, so I just don't know.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Okay, thank you for the clarification, Bruce. I totally understand where you were coming from now. I also have never pushed for it in any church, nor would I for the sake of not stepping on the toes of the authorities of the church.


----------



## lv1nothr

satz said:


> Hi Grace,
> 
> I certainly respect those who cover in public worship because they believe that is what the bible commands. I understand that such a practice requires going against the norm today and I do admire their willingness to obey the Lord even at the cost of looking odd to today's world.
> 
> That said, by way of replying to your post:
> 
> I understand your point that 1 Corinthians is addressed to all christians and not just to a select group. But look at it this way; later on in the book Paul goes on to give instructions for speaking in tongues. I believe the majority of reformed churches would say that tongues as a spiritual gift has ceased today. So while the book of 1 Corinthians is directly addressed to us, the specific instruction on tongues has on direct application since we no longer have tongues. It still teaches general principles, off course. That is (at the moment) how I see 1 Cor 11, as I believe the prayer and prophecy under consideration there is of the inspired sort.
> 
> No contention intented, just sharing what I believe.



Hi Mark, 

Thank you for your respect for us head covering women, much appreciated, and if I look odd in today's world, may I look odd to the glory of God! I've seen what fitting in looks like!  I'm grown up, and I'll pass! I love being a keeper at home too...but that's not for today either... Maybe I'm just gettin' old! 

I understand where you might think your point is relevant, though I must say that once again scripture does not leave us in the dark, soto speak; we are told what will cease just as you say: God is sooooooo gracious to give us what we need, don't you think? 1 Corinthians 13:8: Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 

I don't find head covering being said to cease...but hey, you know, that's just probably me, not wanting it go go away eh?  

And on a side note, as for tongues, I've actually given it thought and because I believe that the gift of tongues was God giving men/women the ability to hear His Word spoken in their own native tongue, or supernatural understanding and speaking of a language foreign to you naturally, that when my mother is in church with us, I find myself praying the Lord would grant that gift to her that she might hear the gospel in Italian as it is preached in English...ya know? Just my little secret prayer I suppose! I hope you enjoyed that side note!!!  

Remembering Man's Chief End


----------



## CDM

lv1nothr said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> Thank you for your respect for us head covering women, much appreciated, and if I look odd in today's world, may I look odd to the glory of God! I've seen what fitting in looks like!  I'm grown up, and I'll pass! *I love being a keeper at home too...but that's not for today either... Maybe I'm just gettin' old!*. . .



No, you are just being sanctified.


----------



## lv1nothr

mangum said:


> No, you are just being sanctified.



Thanks for the encouragement Chris, (somewhat hard to come by these days...when one is swimming against the current as it were) all glory to our Great God and King!!! I believe HE gives great grace to obey Him in what He shows us. I've heard a Pastor recently say something to the effect that it's good not to have be alone in our Christian walk. I'm thankful for those the Lord has put in my path that we might encourage and strengthen each other as we're being sanctified! 

May you have a blessed day. 

All glory to God.  

Remembering Man's Chief End,


----------



## satz

Just to satisfy my curiousity, for those of you who believe the headcovering still applies today, would you say a woman can today prophesy in church if she has her head covered since she would be avoiding the dishonor described in v5?


----------



## Romans922

lv1nothr said:


> For those thinking that Paul was somehow addressing only those women there at that time period in that particular place, custom, etc...
> Allow me to point out that the Epistle to the Corithians addresses Christians everywhere.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 1:1 - 3
> 1Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, *to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: *3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering Man's Chief End


 
What is the point of your highlighting? It seems to be directly to the Church at Corinth, at the same time relating the church at Corinth to all the saints (unity), but not specifically directed at/to all saints everywhere at all times (I am not saying that this letter does not apply to all saints, but it seems to me that Paul did not write this to people outside the church at Corinth or with that intention/thought. At least I don't think you can prove that from Scripture.).


----------



## Augusta

Here is a long thread with alot of good comments. Not sure if your question was answered in it but probably. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=14161


----------



## lv1nothr

Romans922 said:


> What is the point of your highlighting? It seems to be directly to the Church at Corinth, at the same time relating the church at Corinth to all the saints (unity), but not specifically directed at/to all saints everywhere at all times (I am not saying that this letter does not apply to all saints, but it seems to me that Paul did not write this to people outside the church at Corinth or with that intention/thought. At least I don't think you can prove that from Scripture.).



I suppose I see the part that addresses those who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. I for one think that all the letters were shared with all believers, just as we have them today being shared. If we are to take the "these people were addressed" mentality, are any of the epistles for us today? I don't think head covering has been done away. I don't have one to the church in Pennsylvania, though there is one to the church in Philadelphia...hmmm....

Bottom line, if you don't want to see this as an ordinance handed down by God, we can go 'round and 'round...I choose to obey God and my husband on this! Thank you for understanding.  

So, do you think it is a sin for woman to practice this ordinance?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

There are three positions here. Mark and I would disagree with both your reasoning and Andrews. No this is not only a command for the Corinthian church, but for all churches just as the rest of the letters - so I agree with you on this point, Grace. But then I believe that the headcovering command ceased along with the gifts that resulted in special occasions where women indeed addressed the congregation. My position is not a cultural one at all, but the same as that of the cessation of spiritual gifts. If the gifts still applied today, then the command to cover would as well.


----------



## lv1nothr

ChristopherPaul said:


> There are three positions here. Mark and I would disagree with both your reasoning and Andrews. No this is not only a command for the Corinthian church, but for all churches just as the rest of the letters - so I agree with you on this point, Grace. But then I believe that the headcovering command ceased along with the gifts that resulted in special occasions where women indeed addressed the congregation. My position is not a cultural one at all, but the same as that of the cessation of spiritual gifts. If the gifts still applied today, then the command to cover would as well.



Are you saying that headship has ceased as well? Prophecy means to bear testimony or witness. Has that ceased? Have women ceased to pray? 
I like how you say that "in special occasions" women addressed the congregation...funny how today the modern Christian women can not seem to stay out of the limelight, taking the place of men all over the place. Sad state we're in.  

Once again, if you're not convinced, you will not be by taking the Word for what it is, plainly by faith. Has the Lord's supper ceased? It is afterall addressed in the same passage...and it is grouped in the beginning of this epistle as ordinances that Paul say we are to keep!!! 


 

Remembering Man's Chief End,


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Grace, all I am saying that ceased (in agreement with our confession) is the apostolic gifts such as prophecy. Do you believe the sign gifts ceased? 

And yes, to be consistent, all the churches today that allow women to address the congregation should require them to cover when doing so, but then again many of these same churches are egalitarian, so they would scoff at both commands.

Your other examples of roles and sacraments ceasing are extremely fallacious.


----------



## Redaimie

Hi all,

I'm new & mostly lurk here but I did want to say, as one who covers her head that I have appreciated the comments on this thread.

I don't make a big deal about it nor would I judge anyone who does not but I wear a hat during worship. The reason is because the scripture says for a woman to cover her head. Since I don't see any verse that says you no longer need to, I feel convicted to cover my head by the word of God.

Blessings,


----------



## LadyFlynt

Welcome to the board, Mary!

Christopher, YOU are the one off. Covering is not mentioned alongside things as tongues, miracle working, or foretelling of the future. It IS mentioned in with ordinances, order in the church, the Lord's Supper, the angels observance, prayer, and prophesying (which translates as to witness or give testamony...which does happen even today). And personally, most of us to care less who scoffs at us...even the more liberal of us are seen as "peculiar people".


----------



## lv1nothr

Redaimie said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm new & mostly lurk here but I did want to say, as one who covers her head that I have appreciated the comments on this thread.
> 
> I don't make a big deal about it nor would I judge anyone who does not but I wear a hat during worship. The reason is because the scripture says for a woman to cover her head. Since I don't see any verse that says you no longer need to, I feel convicted to cover my head by the word of God.
> 
> Blessings,



Hi Mary,  

Welcome to the board. I appreciate what you said, and pray the Lord would give to us great conviction to obey Him in good conscience as He has! 
I too do not judge anyone who does not cover, I just know what He's asked of me! Though I find that most women who do not, do not out of not knowing about it, because it's not taught or have been taught the non-existant culture reasons. I've lost count as to the number of women who will engage in coversation about it with me, and say: "OH, but that's in the Old Testament." And are then shocked to find that it's in 1st Corinthians...doesn't say much for household head-ship, but that's where we are nowaday unfortunately!!  

May the Lord bless you, 
Remembering Man's Chief End.


----------



## satz

> Christopher, YOU are the one off. Covering is not mentioned alongside things as tongues, miracle working, or foretelling of the future. It IS mentioned in with ordinances, order in the church, the Lord's Supper, the angels observance, prayer, and prophesying (which translates as to witness or give testamony...which does happen even today). And personally, most of us to care less who scoffs at us...even the more liberal of us are seen as "peculiar people".




Colleen,

My point has been that the bible specifically tells us when the covering is required – a woman praying or prophesying in public worship. What is most important is to identify the kind of prayer and prophesying under consideration here for that is the key to the whole controversy. You say prophesying is giving witness or testimony: but I am not sure that follows. Were Jeremiah and Isaiah only giving witness and testimony or were they speaking by the inspiration of God? I think the vast majority of the usage of the word prophecy in the bible indicates divine revelation. I am not saying the word can never refer to uninspired teaching, but it would be a rare occurrence and from the context of the book of 1 Corinthians were Paul goes on to teach about spiritual gifts, I do not believe that to be the sense here. We in 2006 are more likely to see ‘prophecy’ as uninspired, but I believe the Corinthians themselves, living at a time when they had men and women with the gift of inspired prophecy would have understood Paul to be referring to that spiritual gift. The praying under consideration is likewise inspired by its close contextual connection with prophecy. If Paul wanted to speak of uninspired activities, he was very capable of using words such as teaching, preaching, exhorting etc which would be more in line with the definition you gave of ‘witness or testimony’.

Finally, could I ask the question I asked before? Would you be comfortable to stand up and give a testimony or witness in front of a public assembly on the Lord’s Day as long as your head was covered? I also believe identifying ‘praying and prophecy’ as inspired is the interpretation that avoids conflict with 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 that deny women a public teaching role in church (and what is prophecy if not teaching?).


----------



## ChristopherPaul

LadyFlynt said:


> Welcome to the board, Mary!
> 
> Christopher, YOU are the one off. Covering is not mentioned alongside things as tongues, miracle working, or foretelling of the future. It IS mentioned in with ordinances, order in the church, the Lord's Supper, the angels observance, prayer, and prophesying (which translates as to witness or give testamony...which does happen even today). And personally, most of us to care less who scoffs at us...even the more liberal of us are seen as "peculiar people".



Nah ah, YOU are the one off. (where does that get us?)  

I am saying that the counter-cultural argument does not work on my position because I agree with you that Paul IS speaking on ordinances for church then and now. 

We know Paul commands that women do not address the congregation, yet here he is specifically speaking in regards to women praying and prophesizing, which according to you and I, this is in respect to church ordinances. So when it comes to women addressing the church he adds that they must not do so uncovered. Now, IF women still address the church today whether it be for prayer or prophecy, they, I believe, should indeed cover. But as we know, this is no longer the case (unless you know of confessional churches that allow women to speak words of prayer or prophecy in church).

And Paul does address spiritual gifts later in his letter as you know. Apparently women were addressing the church while uncovered which does not recognize the proper headship. If you like I will look up a formal argument for this position by TE if you would like to read more on it. 

Last, I must say I am dumbfounded by the reaction to my post. In no way was I speaking to the reformed churches when I mentioned churches that allow women to speak in church. I was speaking to the liberal non-confessing churches who allow women pastors and such. For those churches to be consistent, they should require those women to cover, BUT then again they do not follow Biblical roles, why should they follow Biblical mandates to cover. They would scoff at such requirements. That is my point.

This is the reason my wife and I feel we do not have to cover. To those who are convicted to cover while in church or at all times – God bless you. It is a great blessing to know that families seek to obey the word of God. Many who don’t cover decide not to for cultural reasons (“everyone else is not doing it, so I will not”) not because they actually search the scriptures and come to a conclusion on the matter. So I am grateful for the godly women who take all of scripture seriously. 

Just do not lump people like me and Mark (Satz) into the cultural argument for not covering.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I don't believe that "prophesying" in the context that you are refering to (ie., Jeremiah, Isaiah) happened in the Corinthian church or other churches at that time other than what we see from Paul and the Apostles...or else we would have more inspired texts...from women no less!

Also mentions prayer...big assumption you make in thinking that it is only refering to vocalized prayer. Given that women are to remain silent AND that Scripture doesn't contradict itself...I do believe the prayer was not refering to vocalized prayer and prophesying to giving witness or testamony (perhaps even to the other women...and the definition of the word was NOT mine).

Also, you ignore the reference to the angels...which works it's way back to the OT. MAN alone has been able to approached the Lord uncovered. Even the Angels covered.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

satz said:


> Colleen,
> 
> My point has been that the bible specifically tells us when the covering is required – a woman praying or prophesying in public worship. What is most important is to identify the kind of prayer and prophesying under consideration here for that is the key to the whole controversy. You say prophesying is giving witness or testimony: but I am not sure that follows. Were Jeremiah and Isaiah only giving witness and testimony or were they speaking by the inspiration of God? I think the vast majority of the usage of the word prophecy in the bible indicates divine revelation. I am not saying the word can never refer to uninspired teaching, but it would be a rare occurrence and from the context of the book of 1 Corinthians were Paul goes on to teach about spiritual gifts, I do not believe that to be the sense here. We in 2006 are more likely to see ‘prophecy’ as uninspired, but I believe the Corinthians themselves, living at a time when they had men and women with the gift of inspired prophecy would have understood Paul to be referring to that spiritual gift. The praying under consideration is likewise inspired by its close contextual connection with prophecy. If Paul wanted to speak of uninspired activities, he was very capable of using words such as teaching, preaching, exhorting etc which would be more in line with the definition you gave of ‘witness or testimony’.
> 
> Finally, could I ask the question I asked before? Would you be comfortable to stand up and give a testimony or witness in front of a public assembly on the Lord’s Day as long as your head was covered? I also believe identifying ‘praying and prophecy’ as inspired is the interpretation that avoids conflict with 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 that deny women a public teaching role in church (and what is prophecy if not teaching?).



Well said, I will add that even if prayer and prophecy were to be the non-inspired type, Paul is still addressing cases where women do indeed speak during church.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Christopher, I do not lump Mark with you. Also, it would be Scripturally unsound to request you to cover in services...in fact, I believe you would be expected to REMOVE your hat 

As far as scoffing...uhmmm, yeah! There ARE reformed churches that both scoff at the covering AND at the proper roles of men and women.


----------



## LadyFlynt

ChristopherPaul said:


> Paul is still addressing cases where women do indeed speak during church.


Really? Is that in the CPIV?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

LadyFlynt said:


> Christopher, I do not lump Mark with you. Also, it would be Scripturally unsound to request you to cover in services...in fact, I believe you would be expected to REMOVE your hat



You know what I mean.  

Although Calvin not only said that women must cover, but that men were permitted to cover in church as well. Maybe I will wear a cap this Lord's day and see how serious people take 1 Cor. 11.  



LadyFlynt said:


> As far as scoffing...uhmmm, yeah! There ARE reformed churches that both scoff at the covering AND at the proper roles of men and women.



Reformed? Well, regardless, I am talking about the non-reformed churches that ignore God ordained roles.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

LadyFlynt said:


> Really? Is that in the CPIV?



Well, usually it is NASB, but CPIV sounds very compelling...


----------



## Redaimie

Thank you both for the welcome.




> I've lost count as to the number of women who will engage in coversation about it with me, and say: "OH, but that's in the Old Testament." And are then shocked to find that it's in 1st Corinthians...doesn't say much for household head-ship, but that's where we are nowaday unfortunately!!



 




> Also, you ignore the reference to the angels...which works it's way back to the OT. MAN alone has been able to approached the Lord uncovered. Even the Angels covered.



The reference to the angels is the most compelling reason for me, I can't say that I understand it but if God says cover for their sake than I do. 
Also though I wouldn't think of speaking out during worship I think the verse does include as you mentioned silent prayer & singing, reciting the creeds, etc.


----------



## satz

Hi Colleen,

I do not want to be argumentative, but while many headcovering threads have come and gone on this board, none (to my knowledge) so far have addressed what me and Chris are saying. So I will take my liberty to speak a little further.  Again, let me say I do respect those women who believe the bible commands them to cover in public worship and I admire the fact that they are willing to take a stand for what they believe the Lord wants even though it is against the course of the world and even the majority of the church. I do not have a wife yet, so this argument has no direct application to me. Still, I would like to settle it in my own mind before it becomes relevant (if it ever does).

I think the burden falls on you to prove that ‘prophesying’ refers to giving witness or testimony. In both the bible and common speech I would understand prophecy generally refers to some kind of divine revelation. Even if you were say it refers to some kind of uninspired activity, I think it would have to be at the least preaching or teaching. Again, prophecy in the bible was always something authoritative. I do not see why we would take it to mean something like giving a testimony.



> I don't believe that "prophesying" in the context that you are refering to (ie., Jeremiah, Isaiah) happened in the Corinthian church or other churches at that time other than what we see from Paul and the Apostles...or else we would have more inspired texts...from women no less!



I don’t believe that every word of inspired prophecy must be recorded down in the bible. Some prophecies were made simply for their specific audiences. The bible gives us examples of women prophets in the New Testament, but does not record down their words (Luke 2:36-38, Acts 21:9).



> Also mentions prayer...big assumption you make in thinking that it is only refering to vocalized prayer. Given that women are to remain silent AND that Scripture doesn't contradict itself...I do believe the prayer was not refering to vocalized prayer and prophesying to giving witness or testamony (perhaps even to the other women...and the definition of the word was NOT mine).



Here is how I understand the word ‘prayer’. When studying 1 Cor 11, I come to verse 5 and see that apparently there are women prophesying in the public worship of the church of Corinth. My first reaction is that this seems to contradict 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 that say a woman is to be silent. But in 1 Cor 12, 13 and 14 I see that in Corinth at that time there was a spiritual gift called prophecy present amongst the members. I believe this is the key to solving the apparent contradiction. There is an exception made to the general rule of 1 Cor 14 of women being silent for those women with the spiritual gift of inspired prophecy. How can a women be usurping the authority of men or disrupting the order of the church if it is actually God’s inspired words she is teaching? (Off course even for this gift their were rules regarding its use to make sure all was in order, as Paul explains in chapter 14).

It is understanding prophecy in this way that leads me to believe the closely related prayer in verse 4 and 5 is likewise inspired prayer. Note that in 1 Cor 14:14 Paul refers to praying in tongues, a sort of inspired prayer by the Spirit. 

Remember also that the prayer women are doing here is by context very similar to that which the men do in verse 4. If you want to say it was silent prayer shall we apply that to the men as well? Though there is obviously a difference between men and women in public worship, the difference being dealt with in chapter 11 is that one gender covers, the other does not, not the vocality of their prayers.

Again, no one has answered my question: do you think it is right for a woman wearing a proper covering to stand up in church on the Lord’s Day and prophesy? Or to give a testimony or witness, if you like.



> Also, you ignore the reference to the angels...which works it's way back to the OT. MAN alone has been able to approached the Lord uncovered. Even the Angels covered.



I guess you would have to explain more of how you view the application of that verse before I could interact with it. Still, verse 10 reads: “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” The cause referred to here is, I believe the authority structure between men and women described in verses 7-9. However, while that structure is true, the practical effects of that structure are stated in the passage – a women ought to cover herself when she prays and prophesies. regardless of what ‘because of the angels’ means, again, I believe it comes down to identifying what is the ‘prayer and prophecy’ referred to in verses 4 and 5.

PS: On a lighter note, I don't know if your new avatar fits too well with your board title...


----------



## Kevin

Chris & Mark, thanks I have learned alot from your posts on this thread. 

Ladies, a question. If covering is required when "praying & prophesying" & this refers to all silent prayer as well as witnessing, then do you cover all the time or only in public worship?

Sorry if this next question sounds silly but... My only experience with women who cover has been has been for only the last 5 or 6 years. One aspect of the practice I do not understand and when I ask them they do not have a clear answer, so I thought I would ask you all.

I have observed that the hat is worn into the church building and is usually put on at home before going to church, yet is removed as soon as the benediction is said. Any explanation beyond "that is how we do it" would help. Or do you even do it that way?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yes, I know...that title has to go...I found it humorous last night. Maybe it will fit a bit better with Lizzie.

CP, thanks for the laugh...but the NASB doesn't clarify that they were speaking out loud.

On the gifts issues. I do not believe prophesy meant a divination in the NT cases other than when applying to the apostles and Paul...again, because that would be inspired word and we would have other written records of such...and by women! No, there are other sources that use the definition of "witness" and "testamony". On tongues, I do not believe that has ended. I believe it means, as Grace noted, someone is able to understand, by a micracle of God, another language that they have not learned. I've heard of this happening in the far reaches of the world and in cases were ppl have been in unusual circumstances and it saved their lives. Is it a common thing? No. However, what is being discussed is apparently a regular part of worship. Since divination is not regular, it must needs mean something else. Since prayer is definately regular, but rarely vocal...particularly from women...and scripture doesn't contradict itself, then yes, it's still something that happens today.

Gents, I'm not the one arguing against scriptural practice...the burden of proof is on you.


Kevin, there is dispute on the frequency of the covering. Some believe it only to be for assembly (since the passage refers to the order in the church along with the Lord's Supper). Others see it to be for all *possible waking hours (since prayer is mentioned, giving of testamony, and the angels' observance). There are also more types of headcoverings than hats. My husband likes coverings that are obviously coverings and prefers me to cover "full time". I generally wear headscarves or cloth snoods as they fully cover my head and hair.


----------



## lv1nothr

*To Mark and Kevin*

Hi gentlemen, 

As I see it you are under the impression that praying and prophesying is some activity that in your minds conjures up some only some telling of future events, or some gibberish language being spoken, much like what counterfeit Christianity has proposed in Charismatic circles today. Think of the all Prophets, when they brought "prophecy" they were declaring the Word of God to the people!! One thought that I think you've not considered much is, when women in the worship today are engaged in the singing of the Psalms, are they not declaring the Word of God? Is that not part of prophecy that is still with us? Still edifying, still new to those that have not heard or been regenerated, I know it's still edifying to me when I hear it declared, I pray it edifies you too!!! It is a the inspired Word of God being brought to the hearers. As I contemplate that more and more, I think you think of extraordinary things (because of what we're exposed to) when you see the word "prophecy" and I guess that's what today's wolves are there to do...cast doubt on the Word of God. 

I just don't think you can ignore that the woman's covering is spoken of as being power on the head, a sign of submission to the angels, as keeping order, as putting away of our (womens' hairdo's, a.k.a. flesh) glory so that only God's glory may have reign in the worship of our God! 

With that...the burden of proof does not fall on us. We're obeying a scriptural command/ordinance. 

btw, I think men should rejoice that there are still women willing to joyfully obey God and their husbands in the Lord. Most are looking for ways to get out of their biblical roles! 


May the Lord give us grace to rightly divide the Word of Truth.


----------



## Kevin

Thanks Ladyflint, that is what I was interested in. The only person I know who covers "full-time" is a "sister" at a Ukrainian Orthodox monastary. I will see her in a couple of days and I will ask her about her reasons for doing so.

BTW you ladies are begging the question when you claim that "the burden is on the other side, we are simply following scripture". In fact that is exactly what is in dispute--what do the scriptures require?

On this thread/board I think everyone is willing to do what the scriptures require--we are just trying to settle what that is.


----------



## Casey

I've been out of town for a few days, so I haven't been able to respond or read the forum. 

I find the direction of this discussion to be interesting. The OP, if I read it right, was basically making the claim that since the headcovering passage is cited in connection with WCF 1:6 that, therefore, it would seem that the Confession supports headcovering. (This is why this post is in the "The Confession of Faith" portion of the forum, yes?)  

So, I argued that no, that is an incorrect reading of the proof-texts, because the proof-text is referencing the last phrases of WCF 1:6 and not the beginning phrases. In other words, the way the Confession uses the passage actually proves just the opposite: The Confession understands headcovering to be a "circumstance" that, at that time, was "common to human actions and societies" (but clearly is no longer common to human actions and societies!).

But this whole discussion has changed from discussing the use of the proof text to biblical arguments. While that's fine (since I consider the Bible to be my primary standard!) I believe that that discussion is outside of the scope of this thread. Right?  

As far as the Confession is concerned, headcovering is a custom that has passed away, and that simply means we need not have our women cover during worship. If you want to get into the biblical issues, it seems to me that should be saved for a different thread.


----------



## Redaimie

Hi Casey
 

I hope you had a great trip.

I see what you are saying now. I was in fact going strictly by the word of God but I still don't see that it is contrary to what the confession says.



> and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]



I do see that it is not explicit but it does say *"according to the general rules of the Word"* which goes back to how the passage is interpreted.


----------



## Casey

Hi, Mary!  I didn't look close enough to notice that that was you!  

Let me rephrase what I'm trying to communicate, because my last post was a bit confusing! The Confession _itself_ (by its use of the 1 Cor proof text) does not give support to the idea of headcovering in worship.

I'm sure the headcovering topic in the scope of Scriptural pro/con arguments has been covered before on this forum! But it's not really a confessional issue, seems to me . . .


----------



## Augusta

Chris and Mark, I think the following exerpt of Brian Schwertley's article on headcovering may be what you are looking for. Or not, because it may blow away your arguement.  The Calvin source and the John Gill source are both below also.



> Before we consider the apostle’s argument from shame there are a number of things to consider in this passage. (a) There is a need to define the apostle’s reference to praying and prophesying in public worship. Many commentators consider the reference to women praying and prophesying in public worship problematic because in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 women are commanded not to speak during the worship service. Since it is impossible for Scripture to contradict itself, and since it would be especially absurd for the apostle to blatantly contradict himself within the same epistle, scholars have offered a number of different yet possible interpretations that answer this alleged difficulty. Calvin argues that Paul’s discussion of women praying and prophesying during public worship is merely hypothetical because he later forbids the practice altogether.[5] Another possibility is that the apostle regards women setting forth direct revelation from God to be an exception to regular speaking (e.g., the uninspired exposition of scripture). In other words, since prophecy is God Himself speaking without human exposition, a woman prophesying is not herself exercising authority over a man (see Matthew Henry's commentary on this passage).[6]
> 
> Probably the best interpretation is that the acts of prayer and prophecy mentioned by Paul represent congregational participation in public worship. (Scholars refer to a description of a part [in this case a part of public worship] for the whole as a synecdoche). The commentator John Gill gives an excellent explanation of this passage. He writes: “Not that a woman was allowed to pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to preach or explain the word, for these things were not permitted them: see 1 Cor. xiv.34, 35. 1 Tim. ii.12. But it designs any woman that joins in public worship with the minister in prayer, and attends on the hearing of the word preached, or sings the praises of God with the congregation.”[7] While it is true that women do not teach in the public assemblies or lead in prayer they do pray liturgically (i.e. in unison with the whole assembly, e.g., the Lord’s prayer) and they do sing inspired songs that are prophetic scripture when they sing the Psalms.
> 
> The reason it is important to properly understand the meaning of prayer and prophecy is that if coverings were only required during the specific act of setting forth divinely inspired prayer or new divinely inspired teachings directly from God then one could argue that head coverings for women applied only to the first century for the gift of prophecy ceased with the death of the apostles and the close of the canon. Since the use of head coverings in both the Eastern and Western church was universal in the post apostolic era, it is extremely unlikely that head coverings were used only during the exact time that divinely inspired teaching or prayer was being spoken.​






> Calvin writes: “It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church (1 Tim. ii.12). It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in chapter xiv.” (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 11:356; see also Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, [1857] 1959), 208-209.



John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, 2:684.​


----------



## CDM




----------



## lv1nothr

That is how we (our household) understand prayer and prophesying for women in the public worship, their participation congregationally has not ceased! Thank you Traci, I think that was helpful.


----------



## satz

Ahh..

I still feel you folks are taking an extremely strained definition of the word prophecy. What is the definition of prophecy generally in both secular and reformed-christian terms? Is it supernatural revelation or just normal exhorting? I would submit it is the former. I believe most if not all secular dictionaries define prophecy as something with a supernatural element. I have never heard any man or woman today describe their religious activities, be it preaching, teaching, exhorting, singing, etc as prophecy, except in the context of this passage like some of you are doing now. Again, I do not deny that the word can be used as reference to an uninspired activity, but the general use of the word implies inspiration. And that is how I is used the majority of time in the bible. 

* Prehaps you could show some bible verses that use ‘prophecy’ to describe an uninspired activity? *

I am not denying such verses exist, though I can’t think of any off hand. Prehaps seeing some of them might be helpful to me.



> On the gifts issues. I do not believe prophesy meant a divination in the NT cases other than when applying to the apostles and Paul...again, because that would be inspired word and we would have other written records of such...and by women! No, there are other sources that use the definition of "witness" and "testamony".



Colleen, where does it say only apostles could speak inspired words or that all inspired words must be written down? The last verse of John’s gospel tells us that there are many more things Jesus did that are not recorded down. Only those things God believes need to be preserved in the bible need be recorded.

Also, where does it say God would not speak though women? The scriptures do contain small portions that were initially spoken by women, be it Deborah, Mary or King Lemuel’s mother. There are also women described as prophetess(es) in both OT and NT.

Finally, what exactly are these sources that define prophecy as ‘witness’ and ‘testimony’? I would be interested to see them.



> On tongues, I do not believe that has ended. I believe it means, as Grace noted, someone is able to understand, by a micracle of God, another language that they have not learned. I've heard of this happening in the far reaches of the world and in cases were ppl have been in unusual circumstances and it saved their lives.



Whether tongues has or has not ended is not important to what I have been saying. In later chapters Paul goes on to give rules concerning tongues. If they have ended those rules do not apply, beyond teaching general principles. Even if tongues have not ended, if you do not have that gift (and you yourself indicate that at most tongues is rare today) than the rules do not apply to you apart from teaching general principles. That is precisely what I have been saying about HC. Unless you pray or prophesy in the sense of v4 and 5, Paul’s rules don’t apply to you.



> Is it a common thing? No. However, what is being discussed is apparently a regular part of worship. Since divination is not regular, it must needs mean something else.



Like tongues, I believe inspired prayer and prophecy was common in the church of Corinth. That is why Paul dealt extensively with rules for the speaking of tongues. But you yourself admit tongues is now much rarer than it was then. My own position would be inspired prayer and prophecy has ceased. It was regular in Corinth, but not today. 



> Since prayer is definately regular, but rarely vocal...particularly from women...and scripture doesn't contradict itself, then yes, it's still something that happens today.



Like I said before, the prayer of women in v5 is by context very similar to the prayer of men in v4. You can’t just say one is not vocal but the other is.



> As I see it you are under the impression that praying and prophesying is some activity that in your minds conjures up some only some telling of future events, or some gibberish language being spoken, much like what counterfeit Christianity has proposed in Charismatic circles today. Think of the all Prophets, when they brought "prophecy" they were declaring the Word of God to the people!! One thought that I think you've not considered much is, when women in the worship today are engaged in the singing of the Psalms, are they not declaring the Word of God? Is that not part of prophecy that is still with us? Still edifying, still new to those that have not heard or been regenerated, I know it's still edifying to me when I hear it declared, I pray it edifies you too!!! It is a the inspired Word of God being brought to the hearers. As I contemplate that more and more, I think you think of extraordinary things (because of what we're exposed to) when you see the word "prophecy" and I guess that's what today's wolves are there to do...cast doubt on the Word of God.



Grace,

What I am saying has nothing to do with the current actions of charismatics. I would say what the majority of them are doing are imitations of what I am describing, be it tongues or prophecy. Again I would ask, what does the word prophecy typically mean to you? Is it inspired or not? If not for this passage, would you ever describe your singing of Psalms to be prophecy? Hence making you a _prophetess_?

You say the prophets were declaring the word of the Lord to the people. I agree! But they were not preaching the Law of Moses to people, they were declaring new words from the Lord by inspiration. That’s what I am saying was going on in Corinth. 

Think about it, did Paul ever ask Timothy or Titus to prophesy? If anyone should be involved in declaring the word of the Lord, sure it is the minister of the gospel? But he did not (that I know) ask them to prophesy. He asked them to preach and exhort. The bible can distinguish between inspired teaching (prophecy) and non inspired teaching by a pastor using the inspired scriptures.


> I just don't think you can ignore that the woman's covering is spoken of as being power on the head, a sign of submission to the angels, as keeping order, as putting away of our (womens' hairdo's, a.k.a. flesh) glory so that only God's glory may have reign in the worship of our God!



I am not ignoring all these things. I am saying God gives us the application of those things right there in the passage – a covering when praying or prophesying. The type of prayer and prophecy being, the key point 



> Chris and Mark, I think the following exerpt of Brian Schwertley's article on headcovering may be what you are looking for. Or not, because it may blow away your arguement. The Calvin source and the John Gill source are both below also.



Hi Traci,

Thanks for the reply.

Though as your probably already knew, I’ll take an exception to the blown away part. 

Mr Schwertley’s argument seems to me to be like this:

1. We must define prayer and prophecy. (AMEN!)
2. There are three possible options: Calvin’s, Gill’s and the inspired prayer and prophecy one. (He mentions Henry in the footnote, but I don’t have time now to check that out)
3. He says Gill’s interpretation must be correct, (For what ever its worth, Gill is my favourite commentary of the bible to use) but he never addresses the other two options to say why they are wrong.

He does say:



> The reason it is important to properly understand the meaning of prayer and prophecy is that if coverings were only required during the specific act of setting forth divinely inspired prayer or new divinely inspired teachings directly from God then one could argue that head coverings for women applied only to the first century for the gift of prophecy ceased with the death of the apostles and the close of the canon. Since the use of head coverings in both the Eastern and Western church was universal in the post apostolic era, it is extremely unlikely that head coverings were used only during the exact time that divinely inspired teaching or prayer was being spoken.



With respect this seems to be a circular argument. He chooses a interpretation that requires headcoverings today, because if he did not, headcoverings would have ceased with the apostolic era. Erm… He seems to be starting with the assumption that headcoverings are still valid today, and chosing an interpretation to fit that.

And yes, I know there is the argument of church history, but why don’t we try to prove this from scripture?


Again, I respect all of you, but I don’t think your arguments work.


----------



## satz

Not to  but here are some verses regarding prophets and prohesying in the NT for reference.


Luke 2:26-38: And there was one Anna, *a prophetess*, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. 

Acts 2:14-21 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, *I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:* And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 


Acts 21:8-9 
And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, *which did prophesy.* 

1 Cor 12:8-10: For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; *to another prophecy*; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 

1 Cor 12:28: And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, *secondarily prophets*, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1 Cor 13:1-2: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have *the gift of prophecy*, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 

1 Cor 13:8-10 Charity never faileth: *but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail*; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. *For we know in part, and we prophesy in part*. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 

1 Cor 14:1-5:Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, *but rather that ye may prophesy.* For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 

1 Cor 14:22-24 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: *but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.* If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? *But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:*

1 Cor 14:29-33 *Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.* If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Augusta said:


> Chris and Mark, I think the following exerpt of Brian Schwertley's article on headcovering may be what you are looking for. Or not, because it may blow away your arguement.  The Calvin source and the John Gill source are both below also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, 2:684.



Thanks for the article Traci.

It appears that the "conflict” Scwertley, Calvin, Gill, et all are trying to resolve is that Paul says on one hand that women do not speak during the assembly of the saints and yet here he mentions women praying and prophesying at church. We can all agree that this is an apparent contradiction at first that cannot be so because Scripture cannot contradict itself - so we must resolve this. Mr. Schwertley resolves the conflict by stating that by Prayer and Prophecy Paul must have meant congregational prayer and testimony to scripture. Ok, well I am attempting to avoid the same conflict as well, but I don’t think we need to assume Paul was speaking hypothetically or that he is talking about congregational responses. 

As Mark is pointing out, Prophecy in it’s Corinthian context as well as much of the NT context is regarded as a supernatural spiritual gift – not necessarily to tell of future events but to proclaim the word of God. 

Without getting even more off topic with a discussion on spiritual gifts, I will just say that prior to the closed canon, prophecy is associated with proclaiming the word of God. It could very well have been proclaiming the word that we have today, but during the apostolic era was not available in its completed form while epistles were still being written and the Apostles were still speaking with divine authority. Women in the apostolic times were empowered with various supernatural gifts the same as men. If this is disputable, then I suggest starting a new thread to address this because it is a presupposition that needs to be addressed before going any further.

Based on what I believe about the apostolic spiritual gifts, women had gifts of prophecy, tongues, prayer, knowledge, etc. just the same as men. Paul – in the same letter to the same church addresses prophecy specifically in the context of supernatural proclamation of the word of God. None of this poses a problem for me when coming to 1 Corinthians 11.

To avoid the conflict, Schwertley must reinterpret Prayer and prophecy to make his argument work, whereas I can maintain what the text clearly says of women praying and prophesying IN church AND still avoid the conflict of women not speaking in church due to the headship ordained at creation. Men use their special gifts in church and women do so, but they require a covering to show the congregation, the outsiders, and the angels that yes they are speaking in church but maintaining submission to God and His ordinances while doing so. 

Regarding the history argument, as I already stated, history allowed for men to cover while in church, does that mean I can cite Calvin and wear a hat this Lord’s day?

I appreciate the discussion and the zeal to obey the word of God. My intent is not to convince all women to refrain from covering their heads while in church. I believe you are doing so out of humble reverence for our Lord, and I thank God for such faithfulness by our sisters. I do not believe it is sinful to cover while in church and understand you must believe it is sinful not to cover. So by all means for the sake of conscience – cover and give God the glory.


----------



## Romans922

lv1nothr said:


> I suppose I see the part that addresses those who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. I for one think that all the letters were shared with all believers, just as we have them today being shared. If we are to take the "these people were addressed" mentality, are any of the epistles for us today? I don't think head covering has been done away. I don't have one to the church in Pennsylvania, though there is one to the church in Philadelphia...hmmm....
> 
> Bottom line, if you don't want to see this as an ordinance handed down by God, we can go 'round and 'round...I choose to obey God and my husband on this! Thank you for understanding.
> 
> So, do you think it is a sin for woman to practice this ordinance?


 
If I didn't believe that it was necessary for a woman cover her head in a literal way, then I wouldn't say it was sin for her to do that. If it was commanded in Scripture that it was a sin, then I would say it was a sin. 

I do question if it is still commanded to practice it. I was taught something of its meaning in seminary which is contrary to your view.


----------



## lv1nothr

Romans922 said:


> If I didn't believe that it was necessary for a woman cover her head in a literal way, then I wouldn't say it was sin for her to do that. If it was commanded in Scripture that it was a sin, then I would say it was a sin.
> 
> I do question if it is still commanded to practice it. I was taught something of its meaning in seminary which is contrary to your view.



If it's an important issue to you, I pray you will continue to search the scriptures. To me, it would be sin to *not* cover, especially during worship. I hope you can respect that.


----------



## Casey

lv1nothr said:


> If it's an important issue to you, I pray you will continue to search the scriptures. To me, it would be sin to *not* cover, especially during worship. I hope you can respect that.


Quick question, if ya don't mind: Do you think Eve covered her head?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Before the fall or after? (sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## lv1nothr

Contra_Mundum said:


> Before the fall or after? (sorry, couldn't resist)



Rev. you beat me to it! The Lord Himself covered them both. That seems to be where the shame began. But you knew that.


----------



## non dignus

Was John Calvin uncovered while preaching in winter?

I think not.


----------



## Augusta

ChristopherPaul said:


> I appreciate the discussion and the zeal to obey the word of God. My intent is not to convince all women to refrain from covering their heads while in church. I believe you are doing so out of humble reverence for our Lord, and I thank God for such faithfulness by our sisters. I do not believe it is sinful to cover while in church and understand you must believe it is sinful not to cover. So by all means for the sake of conscience – cover and give God the glory.



Thanks Chris for the above comments. I think a couple of points are being overlooked so far. One being that this passage is not all about women covering. It has women as well as men being instructed. Men are instructed NOT to cover, and women are instructed to cover. Why? It is explained very clearly why. Headship is the reason. Both women AND men dishonor their respective "heads" when they "pray and prophesy" without covering and uncovering respectively. So even if you say that womens "praying and prophesying" has changed with the close of the cannon, what about the men. We know from Ezekiel that preaching the Gospel to dead men is "prophesying" to them. This continues today and is unchanged. 

Men are still the image and glory of their creator thus they should not be covered, this still stands today. 

Women are still the glory of man, this still stands today.

The man was not made for women but the woman for the man THEREFORE she should have a sign of power on her head. This still stands it is a creational principle.

I heard a sermon that made the point that the women's glory is covered because she is the glory of man and only the glory of God should show forth in the assembly thus the man should go uncovered because he is the glory of God but the womans should be covered. This still stands today.

You are taking one aspect of the practice. Half of one actually, because women still pray silently in the assembly, and saying that since that one aspect is no longer practiced that you throw out the whole thing. I don't think you can ignore the other things that still stand.


----------



## Casey

lv1nothr said:


> Rev. you beat me to it! The Lord Himself covered them both. That seems to be where the shame began. But you knew that.


I didn't really make the point of my question very clear. If all women are to express their love to God in submission to his law by putting a piece of fabric on their heads, why would such an application of his law ever change, fall or no fall? So, you still didn't answer my question.  Before or after the fall, did Eve cover her head with a piece of fabric? If not, why, seeing that God's law doesn't change? If so, can you demonstrate from the Old Testament that putting a piece of fabric on your head is required? When was the first time God commanded this? Is it an outworking of the 5th Commandment? If 1 Cor. is the first time this is commanded, why is it a "presumed practice" when it is nowhere commanded in the Word of God prior to Paul's comments on the custom? Thanks.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yes, due to what I have seen and read of historical practice throughout cultures and the world as far back as we can see (we have drawings taken from artifacts, sculptures, engravings, etc), YES, I believe that Eve covered her head...after the fall.


----------



## satz

LadyFlynt said:


> Yes, due to what I have seen and read of historical practice throughout cultures and the world as far back as we can see (we have drawings taken from artifacts, sculptures, engravings, etc), YES, I believe that Eve covered her head...after the fall.



Would that be in worship or generally?


----------



## LadyFlynt

In worship definately...but also generally. Generally though, a woman would not "freak" if she was caught without her covering...but it was always with her for a purpose. And it generally served more than one purpose (given the ruggedness of many cultures, she wasn't likely to have a covering for weather and a pretty thing for worship...the one served both). If you look at the woodcut of "Covenanters worshipping by the banks of the Whitadder River" you will notice the same there...some of the women covered their heads with their shawls...some had kerchiefs and others hats...the principle was the same though...a covered head (all the men in the picture are uncovered EXCEPT for the minister...looks like a cap taken from the practice of Catholic Cardinals).


----------



## satz

Thanks, Colleen.


----------



## SRoper

LadyFlynt said:


> In worship definately...but also generally. Generally though, a woman would not "freak" if she was caught without her covering...but it was always with her for a purpose. And it generally served more than one purpose (given the ruggedness of many cultures, she wasn't likely to have a covering for weather and a pretty thing for worship...the one served both). If you look at the woodcut of "Covenanters worshipping by the banks of the Whitadder River" you will notice the same there...some of the women covered their heads with their shawls...some had kerchiefs and others hats...the principle was the same though...a covered head (all the men in the picture are uncovered EXCEPT for the minister...looks like a cap taken from the practice of Catholic Cardinals).



So when was the practice dispensed with? Matthew Henry writes:

"The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion."


----------



## Casey

LadyFlynt said:


> Yes, due to what I have seen and read of historical practice throughout cultures and the world as far back as we can see (we have drawings taken from artifacts, sculptures, engravings, etc), YES, I believe that Eve covered her head...after the fall.


So, you have no Scriptural (namely OT) justification for your belief that Eve covered her head with a piece of fabric after the fall? Your only evidence is of an archaeological nature, supposing various pagan nations _after the flood_ still would follow such a practice? Let me rephrase this: You're allowing the "historical practice" of cultures (aka, other nations' _customs_) be definitive in determining an aspect of God's law (namely, headcovering)? This really doesn't sound like a very good road to go down . . .  When, then, do you believe headcovering was first commanded in Scripture?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Wrong...History merely backs up or proves the use of Scriptural principle.


----------



## Casey

LadyFlynt said:


> Wrong...History merely backs up or proves the use of Scriptural principle.


Okay . . . so where is this Scriptural principle of headcovering first revealed?


----------



## Romans922

LadyFlynt said:


> Yes, due to what I have seen and read of historical practice throughout cultures and the world as far back as we can see (we have drawings taken from artifacts, sculptures, engravings, etc), YES, I believe that Eve covered her head...after the fall.



If Eve covered her head what did she use to cover her head? A fig leaf? What about before the fall? Is covering your head a creational ordinance like the Sabbath or roles of men/women?


----------



## LadyFlynt

The principle is shown throughout. Only a blind man wouldn't see it. BTW, this has been hashed over and over. I have pointed out OT and NT example as well as it's corelation to the Creation Order in those threads. Personally, other ladies on here as well as myself are tired of casting pearls. Nothing can change your mind, not even pointing it out in scripture....as proven in past threads.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Romans922 said:


> If Eve covered her head what did she use to cover her head? A fig leaf? What about before the fall? Is covering your head a creational ordinance like the Sabbath or roles of men/women?



Well, I would presume she covered just as God covered the rest of her. Thanks for the snark. And yes, it's an ordinance, like the Lord's Supper...reread the chapter from BEGINNING to end.


----------



## Casey

LadyFlynt said:


> The principle is shown throughout. Only a blind man wouldn't see it. BTW, this has been hashed over and over. I have pointed out OT and NT example as well as it's corelation to the Creation Order in those threads. Personally, other ladies on here as well as myself are tired of casting pearls. Nothing can change your mind, not even pointing it out in scripture....as proven in past threads.


This is _hardly_ charitable or fair. I'm _blind_ because I don't see what you see? The idea of "headcovering" is a _pearl_? I'm a _swine_, now? 

As far as I can remember, I've never discussed this topic on the PuritanBoard before. Is it so difficult to give a reference from the OT proving your point? I've never heard anyone claim that Eve wore a piece of fabric on her head before! Why so offended by my asking for Scriptural proof backing for this idea?

Honestly, I'm confused at your response. Maybe the Puritans did have their wives "cover" their heads. Maybe the Covenanters did the same. I realize the importance of church history and the history of theology -- but ultimately, _it doesn't matter what they did_ if they didn't support it from Scripture.

I'm asking _you_ where _you_ get this from the _Bible_. Is that wrong?


----------



## fredtgreco

LadyFlynt said:


> The principle is shown throughout. Only a blind man wouldn't see it. BTW, this has been hashed over and over. I have pointed out OT and NT example as well as it's corelation to the Creation Order in those threads. Personally, other ladies on here as well as myself are tired of casting pearls. Nothing can change your mind, not even pointing it out in scripture....as proven in past threads.



Colleen,

With respect, this kind of statement of statement is exactly why the vast majority of Reformed Christendom does not take the headcovering issue seriously. I realize that there are sound Reformed brethren (both modern and historical) that understand 1 Corinthians to be saying that women should cover themselves _during worship_, but I have not really ever seen any exegetical argument anywhere (esp. from the OT) that states women must _always_ cover. You have never (to my knowledge) ever shown one OT text that proscribes covering. If you are going to mandate a practice, it must be shown from the Scripture.

Saying that you point something out in Scripture (while failing to do so) and then when called on it, saying _with handwringing and angst_ that you point something out from Scripture (while still not giving a text) is disingenuous and a blow to your lesser argument (i.e. that in the NT dispensation women ought to cover in worship).


----------



## gwine

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Is it so difficult to give a reference from the OT proving your point?


Um. Because there _is_ no scriptural support?

Searching for the word 'head' in e-sword (ESV) produces 305 hits.



> 2Sa 15:30 And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.


Note: every *man*.



> Est 6:12 And Mordecai came again to the king's gate. But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and having his head covered.


A *man*, again.



> Eze 13:17 Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou against them,
> Eze 13:18 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you?
> Eze 13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
> Eze 13:20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
> Eze 13:21 Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> Eze 13:22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:
> Eze 13:23 Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.


Not really sure what this means, but the reference to kerchiefs got my attention.

If there is a reference to women covering amongst all those 305 hits (in the context of what you are discussing), I did not see it, so I must be blind, too.


----------



## LadyFlynt

My apologies. Between sickness and overviewing this thread this week, I'm a bit touchy. Casey, the OT has been pointed out numerous times on the board...Fred's right though, I kinda shot off into left field.

The OT mentions Rebekkah. Also mentions in Leviticus while testing a woman accused of adultery, she had to remove her covering (thus, she must have been wearing one and presumably as a regular habit or at the very least while in the temple or synagogue...this is also why there is the argumentation that the covering is just for married women, though others will argue that young ladies are under their fathers' headship till married). Then there is the mention of the angels covering. Then in the NT you have 1 Cor 11. Then add to that examples throughout history, both in archaeology, arts, fashion, and writings of church fathers.

To put it simply, I weary being made to DEFEND what is so obvious to even some of the most simple minded ppl I know (not saying that anyone here is simple minded, which is my issue, you're not). Prayer hasn't ended...regardless of your view of the term prophesy. It is listed as an ordainance which Paul said we are to keep along with the Lord's Supper. No where do you see that lifted in scripture. It would be a waste of space for Paul to mention it just to retract it later.

Instead of looking up the word head and covering...try veil, veiled, veiling.


----------



## LadyFlynt

okay, since the ladies on the board have defended themselves...

tell me...

Why should we NOT cover our heads?


----------



## lv1nothr

LadyFlynt said:


> My apologies. Between sickness and overviewing this thread this week, I'm a bit touchy. Casey, the OT has been pointed out numerous times on the board...Fred's right though, I kinda shot off into left field.
> 
> The OT mentions Rebekkah. Also mentions in Leviticus while testing a woman accused of adultery, she had to remove her covering (thus, she must have been wearing one and presumably as a regular habit or at the very least while in the temple or synagogue...this is also why there is the argumentation that the covering is just for married women, though others will argue that young ladies are under their fathers' headship till married). Then there is the mention of the angels covering. Then in the NT you have 1 Cor 11. Then add to that examples throughout history, both in archaeology, arts, fashion, and writings of church fathers.
> 
> To put it simply, I weary being made to DEFEND what is so obvious to even some of the most simple minded ppl I know (not saying that anyone here is simple minded, which is my issue, you're not). Prayer hasn't ended...regardless of your view of the term prophesy. It is listed as an ordainance which Paul said we are to keep along with the Lord's Supper. No where do you see that lifted in scripture. It would be a waste of space for Paul to mention it just to retract it later.
> 
> Instead of looking up the word head and covering...try veil, veiled, veiling.



 with you sister! But you knew that!!  
Why is it that those who say they want to see this from scripture, can't accept the verses that Paul has given to be sufficient. The Holy Spirit knew this would indeed be a point of contention and so very wisely concludes the passage with rebuke to contention on the matter. I still find it so interesting that such a simple thing can cause so many ruffled feathers. I believe as I've pointed out before that our glory is to be put away in the worship of God, His glory is to have the preeminence. Headship once again. Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 

When contrast is made to the shame and glory concerning hair in men and women I believe in the original language it is referring to the manner in which hair is styled and groomed. Let's face it, most women do spend much time and money on the hair do's and during worship especially, what if God asks us to put a sign on our heads to remind us to put our flesh away, that nothing might hinder us or others in worship to Him! Have you been in churches where flesh rules? Do you not think God knows our inclinations? The heart is what?...desperately what???...I will be a dumb little sheep of God's any day!! 

as for it only being mentioned once in the NT...like I tell my children: "How many times do I need to tell you something before you obey?" CHILD:"One time mommy." 

With love and respect


----------



## Casey

LadyFlynt said:


> My apologies.


No hard feelings. Forgiven. I just want to see why you believe the OT teaches headcovering . . .


LadyFlynt said:


> okay, since the ladies on the board have defended themselves...
> 
> tell me...
> 
> Why should we NOT cover our heads?


Actually, you've stated that you believe Eve covered her head, and that you can prove such from the OT. So, I wanted to deal with that claim -- not headcovering in general.


LadyFlynt said:


> The OT mentions Rebekkah.


*Gen. 24:64.* Then Rebekah lifted her eyes, and when she saw Isaac she dismounted from her camel; 65 for she had said to the servant, “Who is this man walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took a veil and covered herself.​This is an example of a woman veiling herself. An example is not the same as a command. She also put on "jewelry of silver, jewelry of gold" (v. 53); do you believe you must wear jewelry of silver and gold in obedience to God, too? In other words, the mere example of someone doing something in Scripture is not proof that we must do it. Had Moses recorded _why_ she covered herself, explaining that she did so out of obedience to God, then that would be evidence supporting your view.


> Also mentions in Leviticus while testing a woman accused of adultery, she had to remove her covering (thus, she must have been wearing one . . .)


Can you cite the where in Lev you are talking about?


> Then there is the mention of the angels covering.


Can you cite where in the OT it mentions "angels covering"?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Angels, when one of the prophets was shown the thrown and the angels. The angels on the ark, etc.

I never said I could prove from scripture that Eve covered her head...I said that I believe she did, from a historical perspective.

Numbers 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: (It was numbers not leviticus, sorry)

You're not answering my question.


----------



## Casey

LadyFlynt said:


> Angels, when one of the prophets was shown the thrown and the angels. The angels on the ark, etc.
> 
> I never said I could prove from scripture that Eve covered her head...I said that I believe she did, from a historical perspective.


Okay. So, you admit that headcovering is no where commanded in the OT?


> You're not answering my question.


Which question? Why you shouldn't cover your head with a piece of fabric? Well, simply because it's nowhere commanded in Scripture that you do so. You may cover your head if you enjoy doing so, but it seems clear to me that it's not a command from God.

You might wonder why I care so much about what the OT says on the matter. If it is nowhere commanded in the OT that women cover their heads, then it's further proof that Paul is speaking about a cultural custom in 1 Cor that is prone to change. God's law simply doesn't change -- customs do.

Putting a piece of fabric on your head is not the mark of female Christian piety. Having been exposed to Baptist fundamentalism, the whole thing smells of legalism and externalism. I realize you don't want the matter to be shown in that light, but each time I've hear someone defend headcovering, it is most always in a legalistic fashion.

To claim, then, as you do, that women who don't cover their head during worship with a piece of fabric are sinning and in violation of God's moral law (which, by the way, is of the heart) just rubs me completely the wrong way.

Is my wife sinning by playing an instrument in worship, for not covering her head with a piece of fabric during worship, and for singing anything besides the Psalms? All of these things are externalisms and have little to do with true spirituality. (I'm sure I'm stepping on some toes here!) Again, to me, it all smells of legalism -- all of these views have very weak Scriptural arguments and act as a sort of "badge" that people wear.

Let's just be honest here: As I just said, the Scriptural argument for headcovering is very weak. You have a single passage in 1 Cor to work with, and even then your interpretation of the passage isn't very convincing.

I respect you as a sister in Christ, and you are by all means entitled to your own opinion, but there's a reason I disagree with you: your view simply cannot be upheld by Scripture. Many of the Puritans were God-honoring Christians and we ought to learn from them, but not all of their practices and beliefs are to be followed if they cannot be defended with the Word of God.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Where did Paul appeal to the culture as his reasoning for his command?

Legalism...I'm sorry, but there are many ppl today that truely don't understand what real legalism is. Do I? Yes, because I've lived in the midst of it in a way that you can't possibly imagine. Try having someone count the pleats on your covering, remind you that your dress is missing it's belt, your sleeves are either too gathered or not gathered at all (one being considered liberal, the other considered being legalistic), do you have a collar or a piece of bias and if a collar how big (?), you're dress material is too thin or you can't wear a dress again because the flowers in the print are larger than a quarter...oh, and heaven forbid you are one of those women that don't care enough about her family that you don't make a cotton pickin dessert for EVERY stinkin meal!

Okay...THAT, my dear sir IS legalism.

Yes, I believe the covering is commanded, no I don't believe it was cultural for it has crossed time and culture barriers (except for times when we've had a rebellion of women). I don't believe it is legalistic...I don't dictate colour, size, style, or whatnot, and I do insist a women discuss it with her husband...I'd rather they understand WHY to cover than to do it simply because "it's always been done" or "is commanded by the church". 

I have a term for certain ppl (and no, I am not applying it to you, sir, as I honestly don't know you well enough to do so...but just food for thought)...

Legalistically Liberal. (I'll fill in the explaination on this in a bit...I'm being called to the supper table by my husband and baby is done nursing).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

There is actually quite a bit of "worship activity" that we adhere to that is based upon "approved example," and not on a specific command (thou shalt, etc.).

I think the handful of examples provided prove that it was indeed a "longstanding" practice of women in the Bible to cover or veil themselves, going back at least to the patriarchs. Dismiss it as you please, but it can't be said that 4000 years of regular activity is NOT ingrained.

As for there not being a specific command: well, that IS the whole debate over the Pauline passage, true? If it is a command, then the (rather lengthy) discussion of it in one place suffices to establish it as an cross-cultural, a-temporal norm that distinguishes Christian worship practice. The question doesn't have a thing to do with a cultural practice outside of worship, but rather what is normative in worship.

As for a "legalism," well you might as well state that insisting on Bread & Wine instead of bananas and beer is punctillious legalism (since that's all we had in the church fridge!).


On a different front, check out the # of thread-views for this thread!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Contra_Mundum said:


> There is actually quite a bit of "worship activity" that we adhere to that is based upon "approved example," and not on a specific command (thou shalt, etc.).
> 
> I think the handful of examples provided prove that it was indeed a "longstanding" practice of women in the Bible to cover or veil themselves, going back at least to the patriarchs. Dismiss it as you please, but it can't be said that 4000 years of regular activity is NOT ingrained.
> 
> As for there not being a specific command: well, that IS the whole debate over the Pauline passage, true? If it is a command, then the (rather lengthy) discussion of it in one place suffices to establish it as an cross-cultural, a-temporal norm that distinguishes Christian worship practice. The question doesn't have a thing to do with a cultural practice outside of worship, but rather what is normative in worship.
> 
> As for a "legalism," well you might as well state that insisting on Bread & Wine instead of bananas and beer is punctillious legalism (since that's all we had in the church fridge!).
> 
> 
> 
> On a different front, check out the # of thread-views for this thread!


----------



## lv1nothr

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> You have a single passage in 1 Cor to work with, and even then your interpretation of the passage isn't very convincing.



If we are to follow your line of reasoning on this, and you cannot see this as commanded in 1st Cor. 11, I supppose you also don't see where women should strive to be keepers at home...after all it's only mentioned once in scripture, in Titus 2. Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. 

Was that all cultural as well...as I look around, you might as well say it was. Without good godly men (I thank the Lord for my hubby) and encouraging women in our day, (I'm thankful for those who won't compromise whom God has put in my path) this would be absurd, and yet, still God breathed! 

I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with "man" and "church" that would make you question the simplicity of God's commands. I pray the Lord would show you that it's not legalism, nor is it bondage to Obey Him...as He makes us willing!  

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. 

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 

If you've judged that Paul is saying that it is proper that the woman pray uncovered...(notice he didn't even mention prophesying there)...so be it...but you have to get rid of the whole 16 verses, church history, OT and NT, so the question stands...where do you see that this ordinance is taken away?  

In Christ's love


----------



## CDM

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Okay. So, you admit that headcovering is no where commanded in the OT?
> 
> Which question? Why you shouldn't cover your head with a piece of fabric? Well, simply because it's nowhere commanded in Scripture that you do so. You may cover your head if you enjoy doing so, but it seems clear to me that it's not a command from God.
> 
> You might wonder why I care so much about what the OT says on the matter. If it is nowhere commanded in the OT that women cover their heads, then it's further proof that Paul is speaking about a cultural custom in 1 Cor that is prone to change. God's law simply doesn't change -- customs do.
> 
> Putting a piece of fabric on your head is not the mark of female Christian piety. Having been exposed to Baptist fundamentalism, the whole thing smells of legalism and externalism. I realize you don't want the matter to be shown in that light, but each time I've hear someone defend headcovering, it is most always in a legalistic fashion.
> 
> To claim, then, as you do, that women who don't cover their head during worship with a piece of fabric are sinning and in violation of God's moral law (which, by the way, is of the heart) just rubs me completely the wrong way.
> 
> Is my wife sinning by playing an instrument in worship, for not covering her head with a piece of fabric during worship, and for singing anything besides the Psalms? All of these things are externalisms and have little to do with true spirituality. (I'm sure I'm stepping on some toes here!) Again, to me, it all smells of legalism -- all of these views have very weak Scriptural arguments and act as a sort of "badge" that people wear.
> 
> Let's just be honest here: As I just said, the Scriptural argument for headcovering is very weak. You have a single passage in 1 Cor to work with, and even then your interpretation of the passage isn't very convincing.
> 
> I respect you as a sister in Christ, and you are by all means entitled to your own opinion, but there's a reason I disagree with you: your view simply cannot be upheld by Scripture. Many of the Puritans were God-honoring Christians and we ought to learn from them, but not all of their practices and beliefs are to be followed if they cannot be defended with the Word of God.



Friend, it may be helpful for everyone if you first defined "legalist" before you start using labeling members of Christ's body with it. Should I respond in kind and say that your position "smells" of liberalism and contempt for God's Word?


----------



## Casey

mangum said:


> Friend, it may be helpful for everyone if you first defined "legalist" before you start using labeling members of Christ's body with it. Should I respond in kind and say that your position "smells" of liberalism and contempt for God's Word?


There are those who believe alcohol is an evil -- that it is a sin to drink it. When asked why, many first appeal to statistics of alcohol-related car accidents and medical journals. When pressed to reason their position from the Scriptures, they do so with questionable exegesis. Perhaps some are convinced from their Scriptural arguments, but it seems to me many first assume the belief and search the Scriptures for any shred of evidence that may support their view. I think that is a form of legalism, an adding to God's Word.

The head-covering issue is often handled in the same way. When I asked LadyFlynt for OT evidence of head-covering being commanded, she basically said "it's there" and appealed to archaeological evidence for the practice and that the Puritans did it. When I pressed the matter, she gave me three questionable OT references, none of which _command_ head-covering (and none dealing with worship). When I pressed questions about these references, I got silence.

I believe it has been said that there is OT proof of the command (at least, that's what I've been asking for), but that simply is not true (and it's highly speculative to believe Eve wore a piece of fabric on her head!). Perhaps you and a few others are convinced from the 1 Cor passage of the practice, but I am not. To claim that the passage is "clear" or "obvious" is not to be honest about the matter--if it were clear and obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Understanding that good men/women may disagree on this issue, the sad truth is that often people take their pro head-covering stance and ride with it for all to see. But, look: Adultery is clearly forbidden in Scripture. So is homosexuality. So is murder. To deny such is more along the lines of "liberalism and contempt for God's Word." Head-covering is _not_ a clear issue. I don't call people who disagree with my view on the Sabbath a "liberal."

I've asked for proof of the position, and haven't seen it. I've witnessed people fumbling for Scriptural proof of the practice, and simply resort to name-calling when they can't find it. I'm sorry, but my impression is that there is a desire to honor this practice instead of honoring what God's Word says about it. You may just as well feel the same way. I don't recall calling anyone a "legalist," but I do recall someone calling me a "swine."


----------



## gwine

lv1nothr said:


> If we are to follow your line of reasoning on this, and you cannot see this as commanded in 1st Cor. 11, I supppose you also don't see where women should strive to be keepers at home...after all it's only mentioned once in scripture, in Titus 2. Titus 2:3-5



Pro 14:1 *Every wise woman buildeth her house*: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.

Pro 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. 
Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 
Pro 31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
Pro 31:13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. 
Pro 31:14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. 
Pro 31:15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. 
Pro 31:16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. 
Pro 31:17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. 
Pro 31:18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. 
Pro 31:19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. 
Pro 31:20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. 
Pro 31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. 
Pro 31:22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. 
Pro 31:23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. 
Pro 31:24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 
Pro 31:25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. 
Pro 31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 
Pro 31:27 *She looketh well to the ways of her household*, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 
Pro 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. 
Pro 31:29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. 
Pro 31:30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. 
Pro 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

I'm sure I could find more if I was willing to take the time. I'm sure you could, too.



> To claim that the passage is "clear" or "obvious" is not to be honest about the matter--if it were clear and obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


 and  , Casey. Wish we could go out and have a beer. Or better yet, that you and Jennifer (and the baby) could come over and visit.


----------



## lv1nothr

gwine said:


> Pro 14:1 *Every wise woman buildeth her house*: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.
> 
> Pro 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
> Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
> Pro 31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
> Pro 31:13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
> Pro 31:14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
> Pro 31:15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
> Pro 31:16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
> Pro 31:17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
> Pro 31:18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
> Pro 31:19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
> Pro 31:20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
> Pro 31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
> Pro 31:22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
> Pro 31:23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
> Pro 31:24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
> Pro 31:25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
> Pro 31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
> Pro 31:27 *She looketh well to the ways of her household*, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
> Pro 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
> Pro 31:29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
> Pro 31:30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
> Pro 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
> 
> I'm sure I could find more if I was willing to take the time. I'm sure you could, too.
> 
> 
> and  , Casey. Wish we could go out and have a beer. Or better yet, that you and Jennifer (and the baby) could come over and visit.



 Thank you so much for taking the time.  Good to know God's will.
by the way, interesting reference in verse 22 to her making herself coverings and clothing. 
Good night and have a blessed Lord's Day!


----------



## LadyFlynt

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> 1) When I pressed questions about these references, I got silence.
> 
> 2) I don't call people who disagree with my view on the Sabbath a "liberal."
> 
> 3) simply resort to name-calling when they can't find it.
> 
> 4) I'm sorry, but my impression is that there is a desire to honor this practice instead of honoring what God's Word says about it.
> 
> 5) I don't recall calling anyone a "legalist,"
> 
> 6) but I do recall someone calling me a "swine."



1) That could be because a) I didn't see you press further and b) I've been cleaning my home in preparation for tomorrow

2) No, but you call someone that disagrees with your view on the Headcovering a legalist.

3) name calling and not being able to find something were in no way connected. I was frustrated by several things earlier and was tired of  

4) No, carrying out this practice is seen as obedience to God and the commands and principles set forth in the Scriptures. The application is that of putting some form of cloth upon out heads and over our hair.

5) Yes, you said wearing a headcovering or believing that it is commanded "smacks of legalism"

6) It was more a matter of  (casting pearls...things ppl don't want to hear but are part of God's Word). The assumption that you were a swine was not meant to follow...more the focus upon my wasting my breath. However, I admitted the irritation was there and apologized...also you stated you forgave me...apparently not, you are still stewing over it and I don't blame you. Hopefully, in time you can truely accept my apology for my crassness and careless words.


You've still yet to show where Paul appeals to the culture. Simply because you don't find it as a specific command in the OT doesn't do it. The practice was there. And Paul appeals to the Creation Order in the OT.


----------



## fredtgreco

lv1nothr said:


> Thank you so much for taking the time.  Good to know God's will.
> by the way, interesting reference in verse 22 to her making herself coverings and clothing.
> Good night and have a blessed Lord's Day!



Not really. The same word is used in Proverbs 7:16, which is variously translated:



> ESV Proverbs 7:16 I have spread my couch with coverings, colored linens from Egyptian linen;
> 
> NAU Proverbs 7:16 "I have spread my couch with coverings, With colored linens of Egypt.
> 
> NKJ Proverbs 7:16 I have spread my bed with tapestry, Colored coverings of Egyptian linen.
> 
> KJV Proverbs 7:16 I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.



Basically a bedspread.


----------



## Augusta

Casey, Mark, et al, would you please interact with the following comments. All of the following reasons given from my previous post by Paul are ETERNAL. They are NOT cultural. Are they not also good reasons (Paul thought so) for continuing the practice even if we grant you, for the sake of argument, your prophesy/close of the canon argument?



Augusta said:


> 1. The command is two-fold, it is not just directed at women but at women and MEN. So we are not just discussing women covering here. The principle includes both covering and uncovering.
> 
> Men are still the image and glory of their creator thus they should not be covered, this still stands today.
> 
> Women are still the glory of man, this still stands today.
> 
> The man was not made for women but the woman for the man THEREFORE she should have a sign of power on her head. This still stands it is a creational principle.
> 
> I heard a sermon that made the point that the women's glory is covered because she is the glory of man and only the glory of God should show forth in the assembly thus the man should go uncovered because he is the glory of God but the womans should be covered. This still stands today.
> 
> Women and men still pray today in the solemn assemblies.



It could be argued that singing the Psalms is prophesying and that is still done today. I find it interesting that following both of the EP scripture texts Col 3:16 and in Ephesian 5:19 that Paul reinterates submission of wives, children etc. In fact in the Ephesians passage he reinterates headship as well.


----------



## Romans922

Maybe this has been discussed before but as I am searching the Scriptures and looking specifically at 1 Cor. 11, I am seeing a creation ordinance or at least foundation.

But I also see this:



> 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? *For her hair is given to her for a covering*. 16If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.


In fact it seems that much of the first part of 1 Cor. 11 is referring to hair, and the hair being the covering. Just what I am noticing at first glance.


----------



## Augusta

Hi Andrew, it is definitely not hair. Here is a sermon that deftly illustrates that point. If read carefully you can see that it is not hair. 

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=92406194811


----------



## NaphtaliPress

In this lecture Dr. Bacon explains why the hair has a covering and that they are not the same thing.
Paul's Discourse on the Use of Head Coverings During Public Worship.
 An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm




Romans922 said:


> Maybe this has been discussed before but as I am searching the Scriptures and looking specifically at 1 Cor. 11, I am seeing a creation ordinance or at least foundation.
> 
> But I also see this:
> 
> In fact it seems that much of the first part of 1 Cor. 11 is referring to hair, and the hair being the covering. Just what I am noticing at first glance.


----------



## satz

Hi Traci,



> All of the following reasons given from my previous post by Paul are ETERNAL. They are NOT cultural.



I don’t believe I ever said the reasons were cultural. I agree with you 100% that the reasons Paul gives are founded on creation principles. Where we differ is this: What are these creation principles reasons for? What I have been saying is that the principles Paul states are reasons why a woman should cover her head _when she prays and prophesizes_. Paul states that plainly in v4 and 5. The whole discussion is about the proper treatment of the head when praying or prophesying. 



> Are they not also good reasons (Paul thought so) for continuing the practice even if we grant you, for the sake of argument, your prophesy/close of the canon argument?



My whole point has been that ‘the practice’ is the proper treatment of the head when praying of prophesying. Hence if the canon is closed and prayer and prophecy has ceased, there is no longer occasion to utilize the practice. No where in 1 Corinthians 11 does Paul indicate the practice of headcovering (or not headcovering for a man) has any application outside ‘praying and prophesying’.

As I have been saying in this thread, the whole controversy rests on identifying what is ‘prayer and prophecy’ that Paul meant in v4 and 5. And I have written several lengthy posts addressing that. 



> Women and men still pray today in the solemn assemblies.



I already mentioned in one of my posts that my position was that ‘prayer’ by its close linkage with prophecy, inspired prayer. In other words what Paul is addressing is the use of inspired spiritual gifts that operated before the close of the Canon as the churches at that time did not yet have a complete New Testament. If not, you have the strange situation of Paul regulating 1) an inspired spiritual gift and 2) uninspired prayer. By why pick prayer out of all the things that go on in worship? What about singing, listening to preaching etc? I believe the most consistent interpretation is to see that both prayer and prophecy are inspired.



> It could be argued that singing the Psalms is prophesying and that is still done today. I find it interesting that following both of the EP scripture texts Col 3:16 and in Ephesian 5:19 that Paul reinterates submission of wives, children etc. In fact in the Ephesians passage he reinterates headship as well.



It _could_ be argued, I agree, and in my posts I acknowledged that the word ‘prophecy’ could be used to refer to an uninspired activity. However, within the context of 1 Corinthians, I believe it can be strongly argued that prophecy in that epistle refers to an inspired activity. I also made a post where I put down verses from 1 Corinthians referring to prophecy.



> Men are still the image and glory of their creator thus they should not be covered, this still stands today.
> 
> Women are still the glory of man, this still stands today.
> 
> The man was not made for women but the woman for the man THEREFORE she should have a sign of power on her head. This still stands it is a creational principle.
> 
> I heard a sermon that made the point that the women's glory is covered because she is the glory of man and only the glory of God should show forth in the assembly thus the man should go uncovered because he is the glory of God but the womans should be covered. This still stands today



As I mentioned above, these are all excellent reasons. But reasons for what? For a woman to cover (or a man to not cover) when praying or prophesying. It all comes down to the question I have been trying to address this whole thread. If the treatment of the head has any application outside of praying or prophesying, I don’t think we can see it in 1 Corinthians 11. 

I am open to the idea that public preaching or leading in prayer before the assembly by men approximates the spiritual gifts of inspired prayer and prophecy enough to require men leading in public worship today to observe the principle. I confess I have not given it much thought. However, given Paul’s general rule that women are to be silent in the church in 1 Corinthians 14 (the practice of INSPIRED spiritual gifts being an exception to that general rule, just like singing is) I don’t see how women would today perform any activity that would require the principle to be applied.

I’ve said it so many times already, but I’ll repeat again I have nothing against women who cover and have the upmost respect for them (for the ones I have seen on this board, anyway). I know it is not easy to go against both culture and the majority of the church, and I have nothing but admiration for a heart that takes the Lord’s commands seriously and refuses to compromise for the sake of comfort. But off course, I believe you are mistaken in interpreting what his command is, exactly . If a family choses to cover for whatever reason today, there is surely nothing wrong with it. But as far as saying it is a biblical command for women today to obey, at this point of time I disagree.


----------



## Augusta

satz said:


> Hi Traci,
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t believe I ever said the reasons were cultural. I agree with you 100% that the reasons Paul gives are founded on creation principles. Where we differ is this: What are these creation principles reasons for? What I have been saying is that the principles Paul states are reasons why a woman should cover her head _when she prays and prophesizes_. Paul states that plainly in v4 and 5. The whole discussion is about the proper treatment of the head when praying or prophesying.
> 
> 
> 
> My whole point has been that ‘the practice’ is the proper treatment of the head when praying of prophesying. Hence if the canon is closed and prayer and prophecy has ceased, there is no longer occasion to utilize the practice. No where in 1 Corinthians 11 does Paul indicate the practice of headcovering (or not headcovering for a man) has any application outside ‘praying and prophesying’.
> 
> As I have been saying in this thread, the whole controversy rests on identifying what is ‘prayer and prophecy’ that Paul meant in v4 and 5. And I have written several lengthy posts addressing that.
> 
> 
> 
> I already mentioned in one of my posts that my position was that ‘prayer’ by its close linkage with prophecy, inspired prayer. In other words what Paul is addressing is the use of inspired spiritual gifts that operated before the close of the Canon as the churches at that time did not yet have a complete New Testament. If not, you have the strange situation of Paul regulating 1) an inspired spiritual gift and 2) uninspired prayer. By why pick prayer out of all the things that go on in worship? What about singing, listening to preaching etc? I believe the most consistent interpretation is to see that both prayer and prophecy are inspired.
> 
> 
> 
> It _could_ be argued, I agree, and in my posts I acknowledged that the word ‘prophecy’ could be used to refer to an uninspired activity. However, within the context of 1 Corinthians, I believe it can be strongly argued that prophecy in that epistle refers to an inspired activity. I also made a post where I put down verses from 1 Corinthians referring to prophecy.
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned above, these are all excellent reasons. But reasons for what? For a woman to cover (or a man to not cover) when praying or prophesying. It all comes down to the question I have been trying to address this whole thread. If the treatment of the head has any application outside of praying or prophesying, I don’t think we can see it in 1 Corinthians 11.
> 
> I am open to the idea that public preaching or leading in prayer before the assembly by men approximates the spiritual gifts of inspired prayer and prophecy enough to require men leading in public worship today to observe the principle. I confess I have not given it much thought. However, given Paul’s general rule that women are to be silent in the church in 1 Corinthians 14 (the practice of INSPIRED spiritual gifts being an exception to that general rule, just like singing is) I don’t see how women would today perform any activity that would require the principle to be applied.
> 
> I’ve said it so many times already, but I’ll repeat again I have nothing against women who cover and have the upmost respect for them (for the ones I have seen on this board, anyway). I know it is not easy to go against both culture and the majority of the church, and I have nothing but admiration for a heart that takes the Lord’s commands seriously and refuses to compromise for the sake of comfort. But off course, I believe you are mistaken in interpreting what his command is, exactly . If a family choses to cover for whatever reason today, there is surely nothing wrong with it. But as far as saying it is a biblical command for women today to obey, at this point of time I disagree.




Mark you talk about "inspired prayer" can you expand on that. I know of prophesy being inspired teaching and forthtelling. I don't understand prayer as being inspired per se. Prayer is our human supplication to God mediated, because it is human, by our mediator. I think you are lumping them together as both charismatic when they are not. I think this is disingenuous because it helps your argument to say they have both passed away when they have not. We know that of the two, prophesy and prayer, both are still performed by at least one party (men) and the other by both (men & women). There is definitely the pastor leading the congregation in prayer. 

What of the verse 13: Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

I think it is significant that he does not include men here and he does not include prophesy here. It should not be overlooked. There is also the oneness of the body of Christ before the throne of God in corporate worship. This is where the angels both evil and good according to Matthew Henry are watching:


> 4. 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.



This subjection is also commanded in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 as I stated previously. We still worship in spirit and truth, before the throne of God, and the order of subjection, as exposited by Paul, should appear because of the angels, creational principles, and for Gods glory whether women still prophesy or not. I will also note that MH mentions above "they spoke there by inspiration" but that he along with Calvin and many others believed that the prophesy of women was manifested in other meetings besides corporate worship due to the ban on women speaking in the public assemblies, or that they waited until the end to give it to their presbyters.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

From a 1993 article on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 by James Jordan:



> 4. Every man praying or prophesying, having something on his head, shames his head.
> 
> This passage has to do with "praying or prophesying" (vv. 4-5). In 1 Corinthians 11-14, prophesying refers to the special gift of prophecy, which has ceased with the completion of the canon of Scripture. Similarly, the only other reference to prayer in this book is to praying in tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. Thus Godet and some other commentators have suggested that both praying and prophesying here refer to the temporary gifts of the first phase of the New Covenant era, which ceased in ad 70.



Later he continues:



> 3. Prophecy has ceased, and it is very likely that the praying spoken of here was praying in tongues, which has also ceased. Thus, these rules in their strict sense applied only to the interim Church.
> 
> 4. Prophecy was a Spirit-given gift. Paul is very concerned here and throughout this passage, especially in chapter 14, to affirm the orderliness of Christian worship. Why? The answer is that the Spirit works very indirectly and mysteriously, and thus is easy to counterfeit. How do we know when we are being led by the Spirit and when we are not? Paul’s answer is simple: The true Spirit leads to order, and the counterfeit spirits lead to disorder.
> 
> During this interim period, the Bible had not been completed and it was not clear what the new order in the Church was to be like. The Spirit was bringing that new order into being. It was a "chaotic" time, what ritual scholars call a "liminal" time, a time between two orders. The new position of women in the Church was being used by the counterfeit spirits to say that women no longer needed the covering of a man and that men could function independently of women. The true Spirit through Paul states that this is not the case, and enjoins upon the Church an outward sign of the continuing reciprocal relationship of men and women.
> 
> These requirements were in force only at those times when the Spirit was especially active in the congregation, during prophecy and tongues, because it was then that the distinction between the true and the false spirits needed to be affirmed clearly.



The site with this article is being worked on right now and I can no longer find it. However it is available in Cache. I linked it with "praying" and "prophesying" highlighted for quick reference to the specific sections addressing these two words.


----------



## satz

> Mark you talk about "inspired prayer" can you expand on that. I know of prophesy being inspired teaching and forthtelling. I don't understand prayer as being inspired per se. Prayer is our human supplication to God mediated, because it is human, by our mediator.



If prophecy is inspired teaching, then prayer is just that, a (public) prayer inspired directly by the spirit. Like the article Chris referenced mentioned, praying in tongues is one such example of inspired prayer (see 14:14).



> I think you are lumping them together as both charismatic when they are not. I think this is disingenuous because it helps your argument to say they have both passed away when they have not. We know that of the two, prophesy and prayer, both are still performed by at least one party (men) and the other by both (men & women). There is definitely the pastor leading the congregation in prayer.



I have said this over and over but no one has interacted with it. Prophecy can refer to uninspired teaching. But within the context of 1 Corinthians, where Paul deals extensively with spiritual gifts, I believe it is logical to assume he uses it to refer to the inspired form of the word. Since the spiritual gifts have ceased for us today (and even those who disagree will say they are much more rare) we get confused by the word prophecy. But the Corinthians, being the church that had the most spiritual gifts, would have recognized what Paul was talking about instantly. And it is not that difficult for us to do so, by looking at how Paul uses the word prophecy in that book. 

I believe prayer in 1 Corinthians 11 is inspired prayer because of its close contextual connection with prophecy. Otherwise you have Paul randomly choosing two aspects of public worship to regulate and neglecting the rest.

You ask, do men still ‘pray and prophesy’ in the 1 Corinthians 11 sense today? If we understand, as I do, prayer and prophesy to be inspired, than the answer is no, they do not. I mentioned already that I believe an argument could be made that the public work of the pastor in church assemblies is similar enough to trigger the principle, but I do not see women as doing anything today that would.



> What of the verse 13: Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
> 
> I think it is significant that he does not include men here and he does not include prophesy here. It should not be overlooked.



Could you explain why you think it is significant? Whatever praying Paul is talking about here, by the rules of context must be the same praying as is mentioned in verses 4 and 5. As to why only men are mentioned, I don’t know. Prehaps the problem at Corinth was the women refusing to cover (when praying or prophesying  ) and not the men covering when they were not supposed to. Prehaps you could explain further how this verse affects the argument.



> This subjection is also commanded in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 as I stated previously. We still worship in spirit and truth, before the throne of God, and the order of subjection, as exposited by Paul, should appear because of the angels, creational principles, and for Gods glory *whether women still prophesy or not.*


I respectfully disagree. The principles you mention are all still relevant today, but they only manifest in women needing to cover when they pray or prophesy. Paul says that explicitly in verse 5: “every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head”. If a women is not praying or prophesying, she can uncover her head with no dishonor. There is no need to speculate about when the covering is required because the Spirit tells us explicitly – when praying or prophesying. Everything comes back down to that.



> I will also note that MH mentions above "they spoke there by inspiration" but that he along with Calvin and many others believed that the prophesy of women was manifested in other meetings besides corporate worship due to the ban on women speaking in the public assemblies, or that they waited until the end to give it to their presbyters.



Calvin I know did hold to the view you are putting forward, but with respect I disagree with him. Paul is in 1 Corinthians 11 regulating the praying and prophesying of women in public assemblies. It would make no sense for him to regulate it here only to condemn it in 1 Corinthians 14. While that ban on women speaking there is a general rule, there are (and I have said this before) exceptions made to ‘keeping silent’. Singing is an obvious one, and I believe inspired prophecy or prayer is another.


----------



## Augusta

satz said:


> If prophecy is inspired teaching, then prayer is just that, a (public) prayer inspired directly by the spirit. Like the article Chris referenced mentioned, praying in tongues is one such example of inspired prayer (see 14:14).
> 
> 
> 
> I have said this over and over but no one has interacted with it. Prophecy can refer to uninspired teaching. But within the context of 1 Corinthians, where Paul deals extensively with spiritual gifts, I believe it is logical to assume he uses it to refer to the inspired form of the word. Since the spiritual gifts have ceased for us today (and even those who disagree will say they are much more rare) we get confused by the word prophecy. But the Corinthians, being the church that had the most spiritual gifts, would have recognized what Paul was talking about instantly. And it is not that difficult for us to do so, by looking at how Paul uses the word prophecy in that book.
> 
> I believe prayer in 1 Corinthians 11 is inspired prayer because of its close contextual connection with prophecy. Otherwise you have Paul randomly choosing two aspects of public worship to regulate and neglecting the rest.
> 
> You ask, do men still ‘pray and prophesy’ in the 1 Corinthians 11 sense today? If we understand, as I do, prayer and prophesy to be inspired, than the answer is no, they do not. I mentioned already that I believe an argument could be made that the public work of the pastor in church assemblies is similar enough to trigger the principle, but I do not see women as doing anything today that would.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain why you think it is significant? Whatever praying Paul is talking about here, by the rules of context must be the same praying as is mentioned in verses 4 and 5. As to why only men are mentioned, I don’t know. Prehaps the problem at Corinth was the women refusing to cover (when praying or prophesying  ) and not the men covering when they were not supposed to. Prehaps you could explain further how this verse affects the argument.
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree. The principles you mention are all still relevant today, but they only manifest in women needing to cover when they pray or prophesy. Paul says that explicitly in verse 5: “every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head”. If a women is not praying or prophesying, she can uncover her head with no dishonor. There is no need to speculate about when the covering is required because the Spirit tells us explicitly – when praying or prophesying. Everything comes back down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin I know did hold to the view you are putting forward, but with respect I disagree with him. Paul is in 1 Corinthians 11 regulating the praying and prophesying of women in public assemblies. It would make no sense for him to regulate it here only to condemn it in 1 Corinthians 14. While that ban on women speaking there is a general rule, there are (and I have said this before) exceptions made to ‘keeping silent’. Singing is an obvious one, and I believe inspired prophecy or prayer is another.



Speaking in tongues is not called prayer in the scriptures, a person who is speaking in an unknown tongue can pray in that unknown tongue but it is not the tongues themselves that are a prayer. 

Can you give a few examples of "inspired prayer." I have never heard of this anywhere except my old charismatic church that had a warped view of the gifts and practiced "prayer languages" which was a total misunderstanding of the gifts of the spirit, namely tongues speaking. 

Chris, I have never heard of James Jordan. If you guys are going to go this far astray of the historical understanding by many divines and reformers I will have to agree to disagree. With all due respect I am baffled as to how to procede to dialogue with you if you are taking this strange view of prayer.  I will have to agree to disagree. If you have any historical respected reformer that espouses this view I am all ears. Otherwise I will stay with Chrysostom, Augustine, Tertullian, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Luther, Gill and many others.


----------



## lv1nothr

Romans922 said:


> Maybe this has been discussed before but as I am searching the Scriptures and looking specifically at 1 Cor. 11, I am seeing a creation ordinance or at least foundation.
> 
> But I also see this:
> 
> In fact it seems that much of the first part of 1 Cor. 11 is referring to hair, and the hair being the covering. Just what I am noticing at first glance.



1 Corinthians 11:5 - 6 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. 6For 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. 

This is an easy one if I may: Replace the word covering with the word hair and see it would make sense. It would go something like this: If a woman has no hair on her head let her shave it off. Ok...so the covering is NOT hair. 

Hubby and I did a word study on this issue way back when, and I remember when we were done it was so easy to see that the covering is required and a regulated circumstance to use the words of our Pastor in worship. 

I hope that helps,


----------



## Romans922

ChristopherPaul said:


> From a 1993 article on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 by James Jordan:
> 
> 
> 
> Later he continues:
> 
> 
> 
> The site with this article is being worked on right now and I can no longer find it. However it is available in Cache. I linked it with "praying" and "prophesying" highlighted for quick reference to the specific sections addressing these two words.




Do you know that you just quoted James Jordan on THIS BOARD?


----------



## satz

Hi Traci,

Unfortunately, I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree.



> Speaking in tongues is not called prayer in the scriptures, a person who is speaking in an unknown tongue can pray in that unknown tongue but it is not the tongues themselves that are a prayer.
> 
> Can you give a few examples of "inspired prayer." I have never heard of this anywhere except my old charismatic church that had a warped view of the gifts and practiced "prayer languages" which was a total misunderstanding of the gifts of the spirit, namely tongues speaking.



Perhaps the term ‘inspired prayer’ was not helpful. Still, to pray in tongues is not an act of the reason and will like saying a prayer today, it is the use of a supernatural spiritual gift.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Again, I will maintain that the close connection between prayer and prophecy in verse 4 and 5 shows the inspired nature of both. And that prophecy in 1 Corinthians is by context of the rest of the epistle referring to the primary sense of inspired prophecy and not the secondary sense of teaching etc. It makes no sense for Paul to associate so closely one inspired activity and one uninspired activity. He could easily made reference to mere presence of participation in public worship, but he instead chose to pick out two activities as a general representation of inspired activity before a church. At least that is my reading of the passage at this point. 



> Chris, I have never heard of James Jordan. If you guys are going to go this far astray of the historical understanding by many divines and reformers I will have to agree to disagree. With all due respect I am baffled as to how to procede to dialogue with you if you are taking this strange view of prayer. I will have to agree to disagree. If you have any historical respected reformer that espouses this view I am all ears. Otherwise I will stay with Chrysostom, Augustine, Tertullian, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Luther, Gill and many others.



Hmm, how about this from Matthew Henry? 



> Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, *who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies,* Romans 11:5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (Romans 14:34,1Ti+2:12), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle's discourse, Romans 14:1-23. *Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. **Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly.* She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.



Nevertheless, I will say this, and I know it may sound arrogant, but that is not how I mean it. Being a puritan or reformer does not make one right on every single little point of doctrine and practice. As far as the kingdom of God goes, I may not be fit to tie the straps of their sandals, but on this issue I don’t see it in the bible.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Romans922 said:


> Do you know that you just quoted James Jordan on THIS BOARD?



Yeah, I knew this was coming  

Well, this was 1993, but regardless I am not quoting him on Justification. Doug Wilson still had/has good things to share and is still quoted on the Puritan Board from time to time - as well as John Wesley, Augustine, CS Lewis, Tozer, etc.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Augusta said:


> Chris, I have never heard of James Jordan. If you guys are going to go this far astray of the historical understanding by many divines and reformers I will have to agree to disagree. With all due respect I am baffled as to how to procede to dialogue with you if you are taking this strange view of prayer.  I will have to agree to disagree. If you have any historical respected reformer that espouses this view I am all ears. Otherwise I will stay with Chrysostom, Augustine, Tertullian, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Luther, Gill and many others.



By all means disagree Traci, we can agree to disagree.

I am presenting the interpretation that seems most plausible considering the clear text and the context of the entire letter. Scripture takes precedence and I have yet to see reason as to why prayer and prophecy is to be interpreted unlike the use of the two words throughout the epistle. 

As Chrysostom says in his homilies, this was an issue in Corinth that needed corrected but this issue was inserted as a “lighter matter.” To this day this topic is not given the same apologetic effort as the resurrection, the Lord’s Supper, and Spiritual gifts. As I said, for the sake of your conscience, cover. We do not have volumes of works dedicated to this topic like we do with the “heavier matters” Paul brings up. If I came to an interpretation regarding, say, the doctrine of the resurrection or the Lord’s Supper that disagreed with the majority of historical Christianity, then sure, that is significant considering the attention given to that doctrine. However, with 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, it has historically been treated the same as Paul treated it – as a “lighter matter”. 

I am sure you do not agree with everything Chrysostom, Augustine, Tertullian, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Luther, Gill on even some of the weighty matters. So why all of a sudden do I have to be like minded with all of them on headcovering? Plus, even though they may all agree that women should cover, they may come to this same conclusion but in different ways. Roman Catholics, Methodists, and Lutherans baptize infants, so should I recommend their exegesis to prove why we should do so? As I already stated Calvin is often quoted in support of covering, but yet he supported men covering despite the passage saying they should not. So I ask you, do you really agree with Calvin even though he comes to the same conclusion that women should cover? I still disagree with Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, and the Lutherans on the issue of baptism even though they come to the same conclusion that we should baptize our children.

James Jordan has gone the way of Doug Wilson, professes to be reformed, and yet has erred on the doctrine of Justification.

Blessings,


----------



## Augusta

ChristopherPaul said:


> James Jordan has gone the way of Doug Wilson, professes to be reformed, and yet has erred on the doctrine of Justification.
> Blessings,



I noticed that. I am not letting you off the hook. I would like to see some sound exegetical material from a reputable source who holds your view. I think it is VERY strained and strange.


----------



## Augusta

satz said:


> Hi Traci,
> 
> Unfortunately, I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.



The above is what I am talking about when I say that you can pray in an unknown tongue for the benefit of those who speak that tongue but those that don't it is unfruitful and needed interpretation. That does not make prayer=tongues speaking or vice versa. 



> Again, I will maintain that the close connection between prayer and prophecy in verse 4 and 5 shows the inspired nature of both. And that prophecy in 1 Corinthians is by context of the rest of the epistle referring to the primary sense of inspired prophecy and not the secondary sense of teaching etc. It makes no sense for Paul to associate so closely one inspired activity and one uninspired activity. He could easily made reference to mere presence of participation in public worship, but he instead chose to pick out two activities as a general representation of inspired activity before a church. At least that is my reading of the passage at this point.



They can be put together for other connections than the one you are giving. Maybe they are both mediated by Christ and that is their connection. Maybe that is why reverence an awe are necessary when doing either. They are both from and to the heavenly father through our mediator. Since women are to keep silent in the churches they shouldn't be praying aloud or prophesying aloud and that may be why both are mentioned. They both include addressing the congregation. 

Prophesy is mentioned with teaching in Romans 12:5-7 with teaching, exhorting etc. Does that make all of those things inspired and ecstatic gifts? 
Romans 12:5-7 
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.





> Hmm, how about this from Matthew Henry?
> 
> Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, Romans 11:5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (Romans 14:34,1Ti+2:12), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle's discourse, Romans 14:1-23. Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.



See above comments. I have no problem that she may have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to step out and do either of these but that does not make prayer always inspired and ecstatic. As soon as an utterance is inspired it becomes prophesy and no longer a prayer.



> Nevertheless, I will say this, and I know it may sound arrogant, but that is not how I mean it. Being a puritan or reformer does not make one right on every single little point of doctrine and practice. As far as the kingdom of God goes, I may not be fit to tie the straps of their sandals, but on this issue I don’t see it in the bible.



Maybe not but when you have a propondance of godly teachers saying the same thing over many hundreds of years I would look hard at it before coming up with my own interpretation.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Augusta said:


> I noticed that. I am not letting you off the hook. I would like to see some sound exegetical material from a reputable source who holds your view. I think it is VERY strained and strange.




Well, I don't see myself as "on the hook" to produce anything. I am basing my view on clear scriptural use of words and context and have yet to see from YOU and others how Paul is using the two words in question differently in this part of his letter than the rest. That Paul refers to Prophecy and Prayer as inspired is historically recognized. I addressed why this issue does not require historical “backup” (if you will) based on the matter being “light” and that historically the conclusions may have been the same, but not based on consistent and like minded exegesis. I have no problem calling James Jordan’s work on the issue trustworthy and reputable just as many will rely on Doug Wilson’s earlier work, prior to the justification controversy, as reliable.

But I will be happy to provide more. 

Here is an article from the *OPC* question and answer page; I will paste below the part related to our discussion:



> *Women Praying and Prophesying*
> But wait! When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that a woman should keep her head covered "while praying or prophesying," isn't he presupposing that women will be speaking in church?
> 
> Not really. In 11:5 Paul is referring to the situation where women are exercising the special spiritual gifts that chapters 11-14 focus on. Thus, the praying and prophesying in view in chapter 11 is inspired utterance, in which God is speaking through his chosen human instrument (2 Peter 1:21).
> 
> On the other hand, the speech in view in 14:33b-36 is ordinary, uninspired utterance. Clearly, rules governing ordinary speech would not necessarily apply to inspired speech. And yet, as a reminder to all that she remains in subjection as a woman, the inspired woman is to give utterance to God's word with her head veiled (11:10). It is this situation, not that in 14:33b-36, that is no longer with us.
> 
> Prophesying is always inspired speaking in the Bible, as it is in chapters 12-14. The word "praying," by itself, could refer to inspired or uninspired speech, but, when coupled with inspired "prophesying," it should be understood as inspired as well.
> 
> This is borne out in chapters 12-14, where the only praying that is mentioned, alongside prophesying, is praying "in a tongue" (14:14) and "with the Spirit" (14:15). Here the praying is equivalent to speaking in a tongue. The point of linking prayer and prophecy may be that some inspired utterance is directed toward God (prayer) and some is directed toward man (prophecy).
> 
> Since 14:33b-36 is a separate section, not a continuation of the discussion of spiritual gifts, there is no reason to think that the speaking in view in it is anything other than ordinary speech. The appeal to the Law in verse 35 also indicates that ordinary speaking is in view.
> 
> Therefore, chapter 11 is best understood as regulating the circumstances for delivering inspired speech in church, while 14:33b-36 forbids ordinary speech by women in church.



Again, I do not condemn anyone for covering, but I will not require it of anyone based on the text and context. Bless you and your house Traci for searching the scriptures.


----------

