# Head covering



## Elisabeth

I have a question regarding 1 Corinthians 11. I am sure it has been discussed in this forum somewhere already. Is it proper for a woman to wear a head covering as she prays or prophesies? It seems to me that the verse does state that this is appropriate, but I know many leaders I greatly respect disagree with this - and that is why I want to ask for some input here as well. I know we should not major on a minor, and this is not a question of merit for salvation, but simply a question on Church order. What I find interesting is that women have covered their head during Church services up until the middle of the 1900's (at least where I come from). Additionally, in my other culture the women still cover their heads during worship/church. 

Thank you!


----------



## johnny

Hello Elisabeth and welcome to the forum.

My wife and I were talking about this today.
Although this is left as a matter of conscience in our congregation,
I would like us to move towards adopting it.

There is a movement trying to bring this practice back which is endorsed 
by some theologians whom I admire like R C Sproul and Dr Joel Beeke.
(You may have come across it already)

The Head Covering Movement | 1 Corinthians 11 For Today


----------



## Free Christian

Elisabeth said:


> What I find interesting is that women have covered their head during Church services up until the middle of the 1900's (at least where I come from).


Hi Elisabeth. I was talking with my mother and sister last week about this topic and they both agreed that yes, when they were younger at church the women always wore hats. My mother especially remembers this and wondered why it changed so in such a short time. My sister wondered about the feminist movement and if that had something to do with it. A lot of church order has gone out the window these days. I personally am convinced beyond doubt that a covering should be worn. Years ago I used to read Corinthians on the issue and believed that they were not necessary, were just a custom of the time. But I was reading it wrong, I read "we have no such custom" as no custom of wearing a covering, but later realised that the "no such custom" was actually no such custom of not wearing one. I also realised that Paul was teaching to the growing church in the world and why would he establish a custom in that place then warn of following such things elsewhere. He was teaching a church order, not a custom. Some say the hair is the covering but if one reads 1 Corinthians 11 v 5 this cannot be the case. My wife too used to think they were not necessary, but she now happily wears one.
There's many better minds than myself here though and im sure they will chime in soon enough.


----------



## Romans922

Here's a good article for you: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm


----------



## SeanAnderson

I do believe that actual head covering is a symbol of the order of creation and of church order.

However, it's interesting that the practice of head covering has declined alongside women's violation of said order by usurping spiritual headship over congregations.

Perhaps head covering would indeed serve as a useful reminder of biblical complementarianism.


----------



## Elisabeth

SeanAnderson said:


> However, it's interesting that the practice of head covering has declined alongside women's violation of said order by usurping spiritual headship over congregations.
> 
> Perhaps head covering would indeed serve as a useful reminder of biblical complementarianism.



An interesting point. I believe the role of the woman in Church (and the family) has been quite distorted over the past years, and I have also found that when I do wear a head covering to Church it helps me remember the role God has given me as a woman.


----------



## aadebayo

Our church too leaves it for individual women's conscience. I lean towards women covering their hairs too. My wife does not cover hers.


----------



## Cymro

You are right Elisabeth, it has come up before. Paul is directing the Corinthians to the
truth that Christ has re-established the order of creation, which had been overthrown by
sin. And that order has special significance for the church and its government. The rise of
Feminist militancy, women having to go out to work during the last war, liberalism entering
the church, has undermined this biblical truth. So that now we have women Bishops, priests,
Ministers, elderesses, and long uncovered hair and bare shoulders. 
Paul is not advocating a cultural programme, and an article by Rev M. Watts,Salisbury disproves
this pretence. The best short article I have read on this is by Prof J. Murray, and another one is by Pink.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

See:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/no-such-custom-look-head-coverings-57705/

And the linked article therein about the oft-raised "cultural" context of head coverings:
https://oldpathspaved.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/no-such-custom/


----------



## joebonni63

the head covering is a cool thing and can be sporty I think if I was a women I would do it esp here in calif. Now what about men are we not suppose to wear something as well as we are showing reverence to God.


----------



## Elisabeth

joebonni63 said:


> Now what about men are we not suppose to wear something as well as we are showing reverence to God.


 I'm not sure if I misunderstood what you wanted to say, but Paul urges men not to cover their heads  "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." (1. Corinthians 11:7-8, KJV)


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Elisabeth,

From a voice that sees the head covering issue as cultural, here is a recent discussion that we had on this issue. Please take some time to read through this discussion.


----------



## Romans922

If it is cultural, who decided that? What stops someone from finding the next section cultural or not (The Lord's Supper)? If it is cultural how could it use arguments such as creation and 'because of the angels'? What makes this cultural and not 1 Tim. 2 which uses the same arguments? I don't buy the cultural argument and think it is an argument that is a slippery slope to the denying the entirety of the Scriptures.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Romans922 said:


> If it is cultural, who decided that? What stops someone from finding the next section cultural or not (The Lord's Supper)? If it is cultural how could it use arguments such as creation and 'because of the angels'? What makes this cultural and not 1 Tim. 2 which uses the same arguments? I don't buy the cultural argument and think it is an argument that is a slippery slope to the denying the entirety of the Scriptures.



Then I guess you would have to disagree with the ones who wrote the standards by which you hold, since it wasn't important enough to put in the chapter on worship, or to put in the Directory for Public Worship.


----------



## BGF

Andrew P.C. said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is cultural, who decided that? What stops someone from finding the next section cultural or not (The Lord's Supper)? If it is cultural how could it use arguments such as creation and 'because of the angels'? What makes this cultural and not 1 Tim. 2 which uses the same arguments? I don't buy the cultural argument and think it is an argument that is a slippery slope to the denying the entirety of the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess you would have to disagree with the ones who wrote the standards by which you hold, since it wasn't important enough to put in the chapter on worship, or to put in the Directory for Public Worship.
Click to expand...


While I'm no expert in head covering history it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the Westminster divines did not agree that the practice of head coverings was biblical. Perhaps it was such a common practice that no one thought it necessary to include something so obvious in the standards. And even if Elder Barnes was in disagreement with the divines that does not make him out of accord with the standards since, as you say, they do not speak to the issue directly.


----------



## Miss Marple

Can anyone address what is meant by prophesying? It seems to me if we are supposed to cover our heads when we pray and prophesy, we should be prophesying as well?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

BGF said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is cultural, who decided that? What stops someone from finding the next section cultural or not (The Lord's Supper)? If it is cultural how could it use arguments such as creation and 'because of the angels'? What makes this cultural and not 1 Tim. 2 which uses the same arguments? I don't buy the cultural argument and think it is an argument that is a slippery slope to the denying the entirety of the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess you would have to disagree with the ones who wrote the standards by which you hold, since it wasn't important enough to put in the chapter on worship, or to put in the Directory for Public Worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I'm no expert in head covering history it's a bit after a stretch to assume that the Westminster divines did not agree that the practice of head coverings was biblical. Perhaps it was such a common practice that no one thought it necessary to include something so obvious in the standards. And even if Elder Barnes was in disagreement with the divines that does not make him out of accord with the standards since, as you say, they do not speak to the issue directly.
Click to expand...


Brett,

It was not as unified and common as people think. I've already shown this in the discussion I provided. Also, since the chapter deals with worship then why would the Puritans leave it out of the chapter on the regulative principle? I'm not saying that the Puritans did not teach head coverings but if it was so important you think they would mention it in the standards of the church.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Andrew P.C. said:


> BGF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is cultural, who decided that? What stops someone from finding the next section cultural or not (The Lord's Supper)? If it is cultural how could it use arguments such as creation and 'because of the angels'? What makes this cultural and not 1 Tim. 2 which uses the same arguments? I don't buy the cultural argument and think it is an argument that is a slippery slope to the denying the entirety of the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess you would have to disagree with the ones who wrote the standards by which you hold, since it wasn't important enough to put in the chapter on worship, or to put in the Directory for Public Worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I'm no expert in head covering history it's a bit after a stretch to assume that the Westminster divines did not agree that the practice of head coverings was biblical. Perhaps it was such a common practice that no one thought it necessary to include something so obvious in the standards. And even if Elder Barnes was in disagreement with the divines that does not make him out of accord with the standards since, as you say, they do not speak to the issue directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brett,
> 
> It was not as unified and common as people think. I've already shown this in the discussion I provided. Also, since the chapter deals with worship then why would the Puritans leave it out of the chapter on the regulative principle? I'm not saying that the Puritans did not teach head coverings but if it was so important you think they would mention it in the standards of the church.
Click to expand...


I guess one might ask what the practice is in those contemporary churches which require strict subscription to the Westminster Standards such as the Presbyterian Reformed Church, the Free Church (Continuing), and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland...


----------



## brendanchatt

The standards reference 1 Cor. 11 on circumstances in Chapter 1 of the Confession.


----------



## Peairtach

In the FPCoS it of expected that all ladies wear a covering i.e. hat, and it is taught.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dearly Bought

Dearly Bought said:


> I guess one might ask what the practice is in those contemporary churches which require strict subscription to the Westminster Standards such as the Presbyterian Reformed Church, the Free Church (Continuing), and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland...





Peairtach said:


> In the FPCoS it of expected that all ladies wear a covering i.e. hat, and it is taught.



It's a pointed question.


----------



## BGF

Andrew P.C. said:


> BGF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is cultural, who decided that? What stops someone from finding the next section cultural or not (The Lord's Supper)? If it is cultural how could it use arguments such as creation and 'because of the angels'? What makes this cultural and not 1 Tim. 2 which uses the same arguments? I don't buy the cultural argument and think it is an argument that is a slippery slope to the denying the entirety of the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess you would have to disagree with the ones who wrote the standards by which you hold, since it wasn't important enough to put in the chapter on worship, or to put in the Directory for Public Worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I'm no expert in head covering history it's a bit after a stretch to assume that the Westminster divines did not agree that the practice of head coverings was biblical. Perhaps it was such a common practice that no one thought it necessary to include something so obvious in the standards. And even if Elder Barnes was in disagreement with the divines that does not make him out of accord with the standards since, as you say, they do not speak to the issue directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brett,
> 
> It was not as unified and common as people think. I've already shown this in the discussion I provided. Also, since the chapter deals with worship then why would the Puritans leave it out of the chapter on the regulative principle? I'm not saying that the Puritans did not teach head coverings but if it was so important you think they would mention it in the standards of the church.
Click to expand...


Most of the material I've found claims it was a common, even if not entirely ubiquitous, practice in the early church and throughout most of church history. But even if that's not the case, the universality of the practice is not the issue now, nor was it then. The WCF, although thorough and careful in its theology and language, was not exhaustive nor was it intended to be. There is a valid argument that the bible does command the continuation of head coverings. We have to recognize this even if we don't agree. My own wife does not cover (although she said she would if I found it to be continuing command for the church today) and I am not fully convinced myself of the practice. But our brothers and sisters make a convincing argument from the Bible and I am closer to being swayed than I was before. 

The point is this, our confession of faith requires us to conform our practices to the written word of God (the Regulative Principle). If the case can be made that head covering is proper biblical practice for all ages, then who are we to say otherwise? The confession also says nothing about female officers in chapter 31 (exactly where you would expect to see it!), but we make a case from the Bible that officer roles are restricted to men. Do we disagree with the authors of the confession because they did not see fit to add it? No, we conform to what the Bible teaches, just as the confession says we ought.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Moderator: *Everyone, discuss (congeally) the biblical merits pro and con. This was no more an issue in front of the Westminster Assembly than was the singing of hymns; neither were issues in their time (they did not sing hymns and the custom was to cover).


----------



## joebonni63

Yeah I just read that Paul did say that men should not cover their heads ...... Hey thanks for the post......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mushroom

The command for a covering is extant, has no cultural inference, and is long hair. The scripture is plain. All other conclusions are founded in cultural affinity, either for old or new, require injury to the text, and are therefore irrelevant.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Since it is quite obvious no one is going to the other discussion to interact with my previous posts, I'll make it convenient for this one. Here are my posts from the previous discussion that are pertinent to this one:



> Here are some things to consider. Not ALL reformers agreed on this issue, and neither can you say that the church practiced such things universally for 1800+ years.
> 
> Theodore Beza on 1 Cor. 11:4: “By this he gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God’s ordinance….It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.”
> Also to mention John Knox went around preaching in a hat.
> 
> Francis Turretin: “Certain ordinances of the Apostles (which referred to the rites and circumstances of divine worship) were variable and instituted only for a time (as the sanction of not eating blood and of such things strangled Acts 15:20); concerning the woman’s head being covered and the man’s being uncovered when they prophesy (1 Cor. 11:4-5) because there was a special cause and reason for them and (this ceasing) the institution itself ought to cease also.”
> 
> Samuel Rutherford: “Uncovering the head, seem to be little older than Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians. The learned Salmasius thinks it but a National sign of honour, no ways universally received…The Jews to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour: But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honour. If therefore the Jews being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lord’s Supper, and pray and prophesy with covered head, not out of disrespect to the ordinances of God; though Paul, having regard to National custom in Corinth, did so esteem it.”
> 
> George Gillespie: “Customable signs; and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a sign of preeminence, has through custom, become a sign of subjection…Secondly, customary signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a man coming into one of our churches in the time of public worship, if he sees the hearers covered, he knows by this customary sign that the sermon has begun.”
> 
> It seems that this was a non-issue among people like George as well, since it would be reasonable to say that it was a cultural custom.
> 
> Also, I’d like to point out that the Westminster Divines did not say anything in regard to head coverings in Chapter 21 on the Regulative Principle of Worship, nor did they say anything about coverings in the Directory for the Public Worship. If head coverings were so essential to worship (which worship is in Paul’s argumentation in Chapter 11), then why would the Divines leave such an essential thing out?



Also:



> What is the required length of hair to have in order NOT to be rebellious towards God? 20 in? 18? 34?
> 
> If you want to go that route, woman should not cut their hair, ever. If they cut their hair, according to this argumentation, then they are rebellious (I.E. they should let their hair grow their entire life).
> 
> What was eve's length? 20? 34? 18? Did she ever cut her hair? If she did, then was she rebellious? Should hair be to the shoulder? or should it be longer? What is the standard for length?
> 
> When you look at language, it is always changing BASED UPON CULTURE. We are witnessing this change to this very day. So if Paul used "common" Greek to portray hair length, what about the Samaritans? Sumerians? Chinese? Slavs? Germans? Every culture and every language describes things based UPON their cultural experience through the use of language. Yes, there is a standard that we hold to, and I'm not implying that scripture IS NOT clear, because it is very clear. What I am pointing out is that scripture also has a context.
> 
> The idea of man being head over woman is a creation order, not a Christian order. So, my question still stands: Did God create eve with a piece of cloth on her head? If not, why not? If you watch Jeremy's other videos, he argues for actual cloth on top of the head, not just the hair.
> 
> Let's look at verse 7 for a minute: "For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God". Now, if you are talking about hair as the covering, then from the man's perspective, shouldn't you shave your head, since if you have hair you are covering your head?
> 
> Three sources I want to point out here:
> 
> Vines - "hair" verse 15 "Kome is used only of 'human hair,' but not in the NT ornamental. The word is found in 1 Cor. 11:15, where the context shows that the 'covering' provided in the long 'hair' of the woman is as a veil, a sign of subjection to authority, as indicated in the headships spoken of in vv. 1-10
> 
> MacArthur - 11:3-15 "There is no distinction between men and women as far as personal worth, intellect, or spirituality are concerned (Gal. 3:28). That women function uniquely in God's order, however, submitting to men's authority, Paul affirms by several points: 1) the pattern in the Godhead; 2) the divine design of male and female; 3) the creation order; 4) the purpose of woman in regard to man; 5) the concern of angels; and 6) the characteristics of natural physiology."
> 
> 11:4 - "Lit. "having down from head," is probably a reference to men wearing a head covering, which seems to have been a local custom. Jews began wearing head coverings during the fourth century A.D., although some may already have been wearing them in NT times. Apparently, Corinthian men were doing the same, and Paul informs them that it is a disgrace. Paul is not stating a universal law from God, but acknowledging a local custom, which did reflect divine principle. In that society, a man's uncovered head was a sign of his authority over women, who were to have their heads covered. For a man to cover his head was to suggest a reversal of proper roles."
> 
> R.C. Sproul - "Separating principle from custom is hard at times. For example, Paul, in today’s passage, apparently argues in principle against men having long hair, but he does not specify what counts as long hair, probably because hair length is a custom (1 Cor. 11:1–16). Length is a measurement relative to a standard, and what might be long in one culture could be short in another. A man who has hair that is one foot long, for instance, does not have hair of excessive length if most women in his culture have hair that is three feet long. In any case, determining biblical principles is not always as easy as we might like, so let us not dictate to other believers what they can and cannot do in matters that are unclear."


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Dearly Bought said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BGF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is cultural, who decided that? What stops someone from finding the next section cultural or not (The Lord's Supper)? If it is cultural how could it use arguments such as creation and 'because of the angels'? What makes this cultural and not 1 Tim. 2 which uses the same arguments? I don't buy the cultural argument and think it is an argument that is a slippery slope to the denying the entirety of the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess you would have to disagree with the ones who wrote the standards by which you hold, since it wasn't important enough to put in the chapter on worship, or to put in the Directory for Public Worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I'm no expert in head covering history it's a bit after a stretch to assume that the Westminster divines did not agree that the practice of head coverings was biblical. Perhaps it was such a common practice that no one thought it necessary to include something so obvious in the standards. And even if Elder Barnes was in disagreement with the divines that does not make him out of accord with the standards since, as you say, they do not speak to the issue directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brett,
> 
> It was not as unified and common as people think. I've already shown this in the discussion I provided. Also, since the chapter deals with worship then why would the Puritans leave it out of the chapter on the regulative principle? I'm not saying that the Puritans did not teach head coverings but if it was so important you think they would mention it in the standards of the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess one might ask what the practice is in those contemporary churches which require strict subscription to the Westminster Standards such as the Presbyterian Reformed Church, the Free Church (Continuing), and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland...
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what the PRACTICE of churches have to do with statements made or not made within the standards.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

BGF said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BGF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is cultural, who decided that? What stops someone from finding the next section cultural or not (The Lord's Supper)? If it is cultural how could it use arguments such as creation and 'because of the angels'? What makes this cultural and not 1 Tim. 2 which uses the same arguments? I don't buy the cultural argument and think it is an argument that is a slippery slope to the denying the entirety of the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess you would have to disagree with the ones who wrote the standards by which you hold, since it wasn't important enough to put in the chapter on worship, or to put in the Directory for Public Worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I'm no expert in head covering history it's a bit after a stretch to assume that the Westminster divines did not agree that the practice of head coverings was biblical. Perhaps it was such a common practice that no one thought it necessary to include something so obvious in the standards. And even if Elder Barnes was in disagreement with the divines that does not make him out of accord with the standards since, as you say, they do not speak to the issue directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brett,
> 
> It was not as unified and common as people think. I've already shown this in the discussion I provided. Also, since the chapter deals with worship then why would the Puritans leave it out of the chapter on the regulative principle? I'm not saying that the Puritans did not teach head coverings but if it was so important you think they would mention it in the standards of the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the material I've found claims it was a common, even if not entirely ubiquitous, practice in the early church and throughout most of church history. But even if that's not the case, the universality of the practice is not the issue now, nor was it then. The WCF, although thorough and careful in its theology and language, was not exhaustive nor was it intended to be. There is a valid argument that the bible does command the continuation of head coverings. We have to recognize this even if we don't agree. My own wife does not cover (although she said she would if I found it to be continuing command for the church today) and I am not fully convinced myself of the practice. But our brothers and sisters make a convincing argument from the Bible and I am closer to being swayed than I was before.
> 
> The point is this, our confession of faith requires us to conform our practices to the written word of God (the Regulative Principle). If the case can be made that head covering is proper biblical practice for all ages, then who are we to say otherwise? The confession also says nothing about female officers in chapter 31 (exactly where you would expect to see it!), but we make a case from the Bible that officer roles are restricted to men. Do we disagree with the authors of the confession because they did not see fit to add it? No, we conform to what the Bible teaches, just as the confession says we ought.
Click to expand...


Brett,

First I want to point out that I am not saying you cannot do such things if you are convinced that head coverings should be worn. Let me make this crystal clear for my concern:

I am concerned about people putting unnecessary yokes upon other peoples necks for something that is not taught specifically anywhere else in scripture the way it is taught in 1 Cor. The burden put on by others (in my opinion, and this will get people mad) is legalistic and should be cautioned against. 

I have demonstrated from others in history (more then once) that this was not a unified practice. Therefore, it is not consistent to say that we must because EVERYONE and their mother did this for the previous 1800+.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Miss Marple said:


> Can anyone address what is meant by prophesying? It seems to me if we are supposed to cover our heads when we pray and prophesy, we should be prophesying as well?



Hey M., I believe the prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 is the same prophesying as in 1 Corinthians 14; the spiritual gift of prophecy described as a "revelation made" in the public assembly to someone with the gift, which he was then to speak (within Paul's limit of two or three prophets speaking).


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Moderator: Discuss per the OP's question whether and how 1 Cor 11 teaches women should cover their heads in public worship. If you want to discuss the history of the question, start another thread. *


----------



## Afterthought

Headcoverings being cultural doesn't necessarily do away with the obligation of the practice. See this thread for some discussion of that view: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/headcovering-women-prohibited-preaching-85306/ There are also a number of other old threads that have some discussion of this view.

(For my own part, I'm still going back and forth between the worship ordinance view and the cultural-but-applicable view.)


Edit:



Miss Marple said:


> Can anyone address what is meant by prophesying? It seems to me if we are supposed to cover our heads when we pray and prophesy, we should be prophesying as well?


I've heard a number of opinions on this.

(1) Some take "praying" to be ordinary prayer in a public assembly as we do today but prophesying to be extraordinary (as was mentioned earlier) and so there is still reason to cover; some will say that no permission is given for prophesying but rather that Paul was addressing one issue here, and waiting to deal with prophesying until chapter 14.

(2) Some take both praying and prophesying to be ordinary ("prophesying" would be "singing of psalms").

(3) Some take praying and prophesying as a synecdoche for the actions of worship; extraordinary actions having ceased, the ordinary actions are what the passage applies to; some here will thus be comfortable taking both to be extraordinary in their original context.

(4) Some take the praying and prophesying to be implicitly forbidden by 11:3 with Paul's argument being that since it would be a shame for women to uncover their heads (which they would need to do in order to pray or prophesy) in the public assembly, they should not be praying or prophesying; the explicit prohibition then comes in chapter 14.


----------



## Miss Marple

I guess my question about the prophesying is leading me to think, if I am supposed to have a physical covering on my head, I'm supposed to be prophesying, too. Which I don't think I'm doing.

It seems the two go together.

Is this a true propostion: If we are to be physically covering our head, we should also be prophesying.

If times of women prophesying in worship have passed away, so then has any physical covering of the head.


----------



## Dearly Bought

John Murray addresses the question regarding praying/prophesying here. The basic gist is provided below:



> If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already [a sign of subjection on those exercising authority]. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5,6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions – praying and prophesying – on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?”


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Dearly Bought said:


> John Murray addresses the question regarding praying/prophesying here. The basic gist is provided below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already [a sign of subjection on those exercising authority]. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5,6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions – praying and prophesying – on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?”
Click to expand...


And people say the cultural view has to jump through hoops. This doesn't even let the plain reading of the text speak for itself. It is clear that women could in fact prophesy in the Corinthian church. To what extent does the word "prophesy" mean? I'm not sure, and neither is most since the text is not clear enough on the matter. However, I can also quote people like Dr. Kim Riddlebarger who states the following in his commentary:



> Although women occupy different roles than men, the men of Corinth cannot view women as inferior as commonplace in Judaism and Greco-Roman paganism. Women were able to prophesy (v. 5) and for that they need a certain authority. By properly covering their heads with a modest hairstyle, unlike that of the emancipated female celebrities of Corinth, Christian women demonstrate that they too are under the authority of God, and that they are not submitting to other "gods," nor participating in idolatrous pagan practices and immorality....
> 
> Paul returns to the theme that much of Christian conduct is to be determined in light of what is in the best interests of others and what will keep the peace of the church, which is the body of Christ. As he writes in verse 13, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?" Paul again appeals to the Corinthians, who claim superior wisdom, to do what is right. A woman should not pray with her head uncovered, since to do so risks public identification with pagan religions and temple prostitution, and demonstrates a degree of immodesty which brings shame to men. Since a shaved head was a sign of shame for a woman in Paul's day, Christian women should never worship in shameful ways. Christian women are not to wear hairstyles (or clothing) which are identified with idolatrous practices, pagan religions, and with the rampant sexual immorality found throughout the city. The old-fashioned term for this is modesty.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Mr. Cunningham,
Prof. Murray has provided a reading of the text which harmonizes incredibly well with the Apostle's statement in the same letter, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law" (1 Cor. 14:34). It seems to actually be the least contorted interpretation of the letter's teaching as a whole, In my humble opinion.


----------



## BGF

Here are my thoughts on the passage as a layman. I am interacting only with the ESV translation and not the Greek manuscript, since I am no Greek scholar. I will rely on the expertise of the translators and trust that they were faithful in rendering. Many of the following thoughts are surely not original to me, but I wouldn’t be able to say who or what the influences were (very likely could be other PBers!).

_2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you._

I take this to mean that head coverings are part of the traditions that Paul delivered and that the Corinthians were faithfully adhering to it with some notable exceptions, therefore he offers what seems to be a mild rebuke for some who fail to adhere. Or perhaps he is explaining the rationale behind the practice that the Corinthians were faithfully following. What is interesting to me is that this section is prefaced by a commendation but the next section on the Lord’s Supper has a stern rebuke.

_3. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God._

This passage begins to set up the authoritative structure that controls the rest of the argument. The word “head” here is important in the next two verses.

_4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, _

The word “head” in this instance is used in two different ways. The first refers to the physical head. The second refers to Christ as the authoritative head. The next verse has the same distinctions: physical head and authoritative head (this time the husband).

_5. but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven._

In both verses 4 and 5 the words “prays or prophesies” is interesting because, as Bryan pointed out above, 1 Cor. 14:34 seems to not allow for the women to engage in the very act that they are supposed perform only when covered. So “prays or prophesies” would make more sense in the larger context if understood to have an alternate meaning than the usual understanding. I will disagree with Dr. Murray (respectfully, of course) in that I think this phrase may refer to the general act of worship that the assembled believers are engaged in.

_6. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. _

This is where I cannot see that covering = hair. The reading would then essentially mean this: For if a wife will not have hair on her head, then she should cut her hair short. This makes no sense. The more natural understanding would be that Paul is making a point by analogy. Just as it is disgraceful for a woman to shave her head, it is disgraceful for her to have it uncovered.

_7. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man._

I do not know why the disparity between man and woman in the practice of covering the head. I would be fascinated to know what others think of this verse.

_8. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. _

_9. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. _

These two verses ground Paul’s argument in something other than culture. In fact, it’s the only reason (other than the next verse) that is given for the command. There is not even a hint of cultural or pagan religion references.

_10. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. _

This verse is fascinating. I’ve heard that “angels” here could refer to heavenly beings or to visiting emissaries from other churches. I don’t know why or how the heavenly angels would be affected by a woman’s uncovered head but if this is the meaning then I will take it even if I don’t understand it. What is does show is that it’s not cultural. Angelic beings, I would argue, do not operate within human cultural contexts. If “angels” refer to human agents, then I suppose one could argue that they may be offended if the women were disregarding an otherwise ubiquitous practice. If, however, the head covering was a distinctly Corinthian custom, as some might argue, then I don’t see how visitors would be offended.

_11. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; _

_12. for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. _

These verses almost seem to argue against everything that precedes. But, a consistent reading would say that Paul is not contradicting himself, but he is reminding his readers that regardless of the authority structures that God has put in place, the sexes are interdependent, and ultimately fully dependent on God. This would guard against mistreatment of the “weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7) by husbands.

_13. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? _

_14. Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, _

_15. but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. _

This is interesting. Paul calls for the Corinthians to judge for themselves and then, by way of analogy again, leads them to come to the conclusion for which he just argued.

_16. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God._

Again, a consistent, natural reading would say that it’s the contentiousness that is in view here, and not the practice of head covering. But I can’t say I am certain of this interpretation.

This is how I understand the passage using only my Bible and no other sources, other than 20 years of being influenced by reading and interacting with others. As I’ve said before, we do not practice head covering in my family, nor is it practice in my church. But if this is a good and proper understanding of the text, then my only conclusion can be that head covering in worship is proper for the church in all ages. It seems I may have to have a conversation with my pastor to gain some guidance and wisdom. He is not a head covering advocate (as far as I know) but he is a discerning and godly man.


----------



## Mihai

I remember visiting a Reformed church in the Netherlands where some kind of head coverings were being passed in the church foyer for all women who did not have one, as it was a mandatory condition for a woman to be allowed to enter the church.

Regarding 1 Cor 11, there is some interesting background information that is supported by archaeological evidences from the 1st century Mediterranean world:
- Roman men were covering their head in pagan worship while Greek men were not covering their head in worship
- Women were generally covering their head in both Roman and Greek pagan worship except for some lascivious cults like the one of Dionysus
- Corinth was a Roman colony in Greek lands, meaning that the whole Corinthian society was a cultural Roman island within a sea of Greek culture. Corinth was a suburb of Rome who just happened to be in Greek land, but otherwise everything is Corinth was just like in Rome, including the rituals involved in worship

Having in mind the above 3 archaeological facts, here is the most likely scenario that was taking place in Corinth
- Roman Corinthian men were covering their head in worship as per Roman custom, and Greek men were outraged by their acting as Greek women
- If women would be to stop covering their hair, they would look like the women of the cult of Dionysus, something looked down by many respectable Roman and Greek pagan women (let's say that the women of the cult of Dionysus were doing _more _than just uncovering their head)
- Roman men are called to stop acting like Romans (i.e. covering their head in worship) because they are coming across as dressing like women to the Greeks who were not used to this, but women are called to keep wearing had coverings
- We have extra biblical writings in which pagan Greeks are mocking pagan Roman Corinthians for covering their head, i.e. this issue was not only a Christian "problem" but a general problem caused by the fact that Corinth is a cultural island

This background information helps us interpret the text in its historical context. I should also note that there is no connection between feminism and interpreting 1 Cor 11 as a cultural issue. That would be (_i think_) a post hoc propter hoc fallacy. Besides this, one can trace this interpretation to the ages of the church when feminism did not exist, yea, even in the age of High Reformed Orthodox (for example Francis Turretin follows a similar interpretation even though he did not have access to all the archaeological data we have now).

HT: Dr. S.M. Baugh

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

BGF said:


> Here are my thoughts on the passage as a layman. I am interacting only with the ESV translation and not the Greek manuscript, since I am no Greek scholar. I will rely on the expertise of the translators and trust that they were faithful in rendering. Many of the following thoughts are surely not original to me, but I wouldn’t be able to say who or what the influences were (very likely could be other PBers!).
> 
> _2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you._
> 
> I take this to mean that head coverings are part of the traditions that Paul delivered and that the Corinthians were faithfully adhering to it with some notable exceptions, therefore he offers what seems to be a mild rebuke for some who fail to adhere. Or perhaps he is explaining the rationale behind the practice that the Corinthians were faithfully following. What is interesting to me is that this section is prefaced by a commendation but the next section on the Lord’s Supper has a stern rebuke.



Brett,

I think it is important to preface this section with the previous section. In the previous section, Paul starts out by saying "“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up." He continues on to eventually get to this point: " So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." 

Then he further says this: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." 

I think that it's important to understand the commendation and the word "traditions" in light of the context of being "imitators" of Paul. What is he commending them for, who "remember [him] in everything and maintain the traditions"? What are the traditions? I do not think it would be consistent to say the tradition handed down is wearing a piece of cloth on your head (or not wearing one) but rather being "imitators" of Paul by furthering the Gospel by trying to "please everyone in everything [we] do, not seeking [our] own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." 

With this in mind, I think it is more applicable to say that wearing a head covering (or not wearing one) in worship is more of the idea of giving "no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" I.E. cultural context (for the sake of unity).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## nick

Miss Marple said:


> Can anyone address what is meant by prophesying? It seems to me if we are supposed to cover our heads when we pray and prophesy, we should be prophesying as well?



Reading and singing of Scripture.


----------



## oeco

Andrew P.C. said:


> BGF said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are my thoughts on the passage as a layman. I am interacting only with the ESV translation and not the Greek manuscript, since I am no Greek scholar. I will rely on the expertise of the translators and trust that they were faithful in rendering. Many of the following thoughts are surely not original to me, but I wouldn’t be able to say who or what the influences were (very likely could be other PBers!).
> 
> _2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you._
> 
> I take this to mean that head coverings are part of the traditions that Paul delivered and that the Corinthians were faithfully adhering to it with some notable exceptions, therefore he offers what seems to be a mild rebuke for some who fail to adhere. Or perhaps he is explaining the rationale behind the practice that the Corinthians were faithfully following. What is interesting to me is that this section is prefaced by a commendation but the next section on the Lord’s Supper has a stern rebuke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brett,
> 
> I think it is important to preface this section with the previous section. In the previous section, Paul starts out by saying "“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up." He continues on to eventually get to this point: " So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved."
> 
> Then he further says this: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you."
> 
> I think that it's important to understand the commendation and the word "traditions" in light of the context of being "imitators" of Paul. What is he commending them for, who "remember [him] in everything and maintain the traditions"? What are the traditions? I do not think it would be consistent to say the tradition handed down is wearing a piece of cloth on your head (or not wearing one) but rather being "imitators" of Paul by furthering the Gospel by trying to "please everyone in everything [we] do, not seeking [our] own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved."
> 
> With this in mind, I think it is more applicable to say that wearing a head covering (or not wearing one) in worship is more of the idea of giving "no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" I.E. cultural context (for the sake of unity).
Click to expand...


Absolutely agree that this section needs to be read in light of 1 Corinthians 10, but is there a sense in which the δέ at the start of 11:2 in the Greek is suggesting a break between the topics and, as such, separate in a way from that which has just been said?


----------



## BGF

oeco said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BGF said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are my thoughts on the passage as a layman. I am interacting only with the ESV translation and not the Greek manuscript, since I am no Greek scholar. I will rely on the expertise of the translators and trust that they were faithful in rendering. Many of the following thoughts are surely not original to me, but I wouldn’t be able to say who or what the influences were (very likely could be other PBers!).
> 
> _2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you._
> 
> I take this to mean that head coverings are part of the traditions that Paul delivered and that the Corinthians were faithfully adhering to it with some notable exceptions, therefore he offers what seems to be a mild rebuke for some who fail to adhere. Or perhaps he is explaining the rationale behind the practice that the Corinthians were faithfully following. What is interesting to me is that this section is prefaced by a commendation but the next section on the Lord’s Supper has a stern rebuke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brett,
> 
> I think it is important to preface this section with the previous section. In the previous section, Paul starts out by saying "“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up." He continues on to eventually get to this point: " So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved."
> 
> Then he further says this: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you."
> 
> I think that it's important to understand the commendation and the word "traditions" in light of the context of being "imitators" of Paul. What is he commending them for, who "remember [him] in everything and maintain the traditions"? What are the traditions? I do not think it would be consistent to say the tradition handed down is wearing a piece of cloth on your head (or not wearing one) but rather being "imitators" of Paul by furthering the Gospel by trying to "please everyone in everything [we] do, not seeking [our] own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved."
> 
> With this in mind, I think it is more applicable to say that wearing a head covering (or not wearing one) in worship is more of the idea of giving "no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" I.E. cultural context (for the sake of unity).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely agree that this section needs to be read in light of 1 Corinthians 10, but is there a sense in which the δέ at the start of 11:2 in the Greek is suggesting a break between the topics and, as such, separate in a way from that which has just been said?
Click to expand...


Andrew, 
I also agree that the greater context is important. Thanks for pointing that out. 

Craig,
Interesting. I wish I knew Greek so I could readily pick up on those things. The body of the text also seems to indicate a shift. In the prior passage Paul does appeal to cultural and religious context in order to make his case for the unity of believers. In Chapter 11 he makes is appeal based on creation and universal authority structure. Does this have a bearing on the interpretation?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

BGF said:


> oeco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BGF said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are my thoughts on the passage as a layman. I am interacting only with the ESV translation and not the Greek manuscript, since I am no Greek scholar. I will rely on the expertise of the translators and trust that they were faithful in rendering. Many of the following thoughts are surely not original to me, but I wouldn’t be able to say who or what the influences were (very likely could be other PBers!).
> 
> _2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you._
> 
> I take this to mean that head coverings are part of the traditions that Paul delivered and that the Corinthians were faithfully adhering to it with some notable exceptions, therefore he offers what seems to be a mild rebuke for some who fail to adhere. Or perhaps he is explaining the rationale behind the practice that the Corinthians were faithfully following. What is interesting to me is that this section is prefaced by a commendation but the next section on the Lord’s Supper has a stern rebuke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brett,
> 
> I think it is important to preface this section with the previous section. In the previous section, Paul starts out by saying "“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up." He continues on to eventually get to this point: " So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved."
> 
> Then he further says this: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you."
> 
> I think that it's important to understand the commendation and the word "traditions" in light of the context of being "imitators" of Paul. What is he commending them for, who "remember [him] in everything and maintain the traditions"? What are the traditions? I do not think it would be consistent to say the tradition handed down is wearing a piece of cloth on your head (or not wearing one) but rather being "imitators" of Paul by furthering the Gospel by trying to "please everyone in everything [we] do, not seeking [our] own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved."
> 
> With this in mind, I think it is more applicable to say that wearing a head covering (or not wearing one) in worship is more of the idea of giving "no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" I.E. cultural context (for the sake of unity).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely agree that this section needs to be read in light of 1 Corinthians 10, but is there a sense in which the δέ at the start of 11:2 in the Greek is suggesting a break between the topics and, as such, separate in a way from that which has just been said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> I also agree that the greater context is important. Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> Craig,
> Interesting. I wish I knew Greek so I could readily pick up on those things. The body of the text also seems to indicate a shift. In the prior passage Paul does appeal to cultural and religious context in order to make his case for the unity of believers. In Chapter 11 he makes is appeal based on creation and universal authority structure. Does this have a bearing on the interpretation?
Click to expand...


Brett,

Thank you for your response.

I need clarification on what you mean by "Universal Authority Structure". Are you saying that the passage is indicating that all men have authority over all women without distinction? 

I think it's interesting that the ESV translators use "wife" instead of "woman" in verse 3. "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." 

Here is what they say about these passages:



> 11:3 Greek gunē. This term may refer to a woman or a wife, depending on the context
> 
> 11:5 In verses 5–13, the Greek word gunē is translated wife in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a sign of being married in first-century culture



I think that "universal" is not the correct word, since I am not the head of your wife, nor are you the head of mine. This passage would be better understood in light of "wife" rather than "woman", in my opinion.


----------



## BGF

Yes, clarification is needed. By "universal" I mean that the authority structures are in place for all people at all times. God is always the head of Christ, Christ is always the head of man, the husband is always the head of the wife. I don't argue here for the universal heads hip of man over woman.


----------



## nick

You may find this series of sermons helpful as you continue to study this matter:

Please see 26-28 in this list of "Reformation Distinctives" by Rev. Ruddell (also on PB).

Side note: When my wife and I first started attending the church he pastors at, the head covering thing was a little jarring as I had never even heard of it before. We listened to these sermons and found them very informative.


----------

