Head Coverings

Should a physical Head Covering still be worn by women in the corporate worship of the saints?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 66.7%

  • No

    Votes: 9 33.3%
  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dachaser said:
Wasn't that the way the male authority/headship would be displayed? Would be like in certain cultures today, women would show husband respect by walking behind them.
It was the way to reflect the truth in their culture, but do not see how that command would be carried as mandatory for all cultures and all times going forward.
Click to expand...
When you read the text do you not get the impression that Paul is explaining a pratic that is not mandatory for the Church (I think not)?

I recommended the article posted above (http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/sermons/distinctives/)

Read pages 14-17. It is a great read. If you pass over this text by saying “this is no longer mandatory because of culture”, then what prevents you from doing that with the symbols used in the Lord’s Supper. At some point we will be guilty of letting the culture dictate what symbols Christians should use to depict spiritual realities instead of what the Bible cleary describes as the correct symbol. Paul is expressing this as a church practice, so where did this practice stop and why did t stop ( scripture never commands the practice to stop)?
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I would think the article would have done more justice to Calvin's views by considering his fuller treatment in his commentary on 1 Cor 11:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xviii.i.html

I am not finding any notions that what Calvin exposited therein to be a matter of cultural relevance or tradition.

See also a direct response to your linked RPNA item by Silversides:
https://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Silversides.html
Click to expand...
Calvin himself wore a hat during the corporate worship service as well right?
This also leads me to believe that Calvin differed.
 
I looked at all the cited materials Silversides used in his article a while back. The sources he chooses are very unimpressive and in some cases perplexing if you look at the original context.

I also did a survey of Reformed commentaries from the 16th and 17th centuries (about 20 of them) and all but two indicated that the man's not wearing a covering was "custom", since in their day keeping one's hat on was a sign of superiority, Calvin's commentary for example. What would seem odd is if someone could come away from that passage saying that for a man it is custom, but for the woman it is perpetually binding.

Not a word either way was said on the women's covering but given that the practice during that period was for a woman to be covered all the time, it's not surprising that it wouldn't have been an issue so I'm not sure what conclusions to draw.

My personal view is that what is being taught is a binding, universal principle (show submission to your husband) but can be exemplified in different ways in different cultures. Nowhere else under the New Covenant is our clothing regulated except in general terms (be modest). Now whether you argue our culture should still practice headcoverings is an entirely different matter.
 
Logan said:
I looked at all the cited materials Silversides used in his article a while back. The sources he chooses are very unimpressive and in some cases perplexing if you look at the original context.

I also did a survey of Reformed commentaries from the 16th and 17th centuries (about 20 of them) and all but two indicated that the man's not wearing a covering was "custom", since in their day keeping one's hat on was a sign of superiority, Calvin's commentary for example. What would seem odd is if someone could come away from that passage saying that for a man it is custom, but for the woman it is perpetually binding.

Not a word either way was said on the women's covering but given that the practice during that period was for a woman to be covered all the time, it's not surprising that it wouldn't have been an issue so I'm not sure what conclusions to draw.

My personal view is that what is being taught is a binding, universal principle (show submission to your husband) but can be exemplified in different ways in different cultures. Nowhere else under the New Covenant is our clothing regulated except in general terms (be modest). Now whether you argue our culture should still practice headcoverings is an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I agree that the universal principle is still binding and of upmost importance. I am still wrestling with the sign. Today at least I lean more towards the sign still being binding today. But I am still wrestling and trying to be careful not to be dogmatic about the sign in my own household. The Lord has blessed me with a submissive wife who loves the Lord. I am slowly walking through this head covering text with my family. Regardless I do not believe this is an issue to divide over. No matter how biblical we think our worship is, we still need intercession and mediation.
 
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
From what I've read, most reformed commentators no longer see a need for head coverings. R.C. Sproul made a good argument that you could find.
Click to expand...
As written this appears to mean Sproul no longer saw a need for coverings, contra:
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul deals with head coverings for women in the church. How does this apply to the Christian church today?

During my high school years, when I went to church on Sunday morning, I never saw a woman in that church (this was a mainline Presbyterian church) whose head wasn’t covered with a hat or veil. That is one of those customs that has simply disappeared for the most part from Christian culture. If you go to my Presbyterian church this Sunday, you’ll see two women wearing hats. One is a woman from Holland who is dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and the other one is my wife because we are persuaded that that biblical mandate is still in effect.

We know that in the New Testament certain rules are dictated by custom and others are dictated by principle. For example, when Jesus sent out the seventy disciples on a mission of evangelism, he told them to take no shoes with them. That does not mean that all preaching and all evangelism for all times and all places has to be done in bare feet. Billy Graham is not sinning by wearing shoes when he preaches the gospel. But there are many questions like that that are not so obvious. In that whole context of the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, women are called to cover their heads with a veil as a sign of their willingness to submit to the leadership or headship of their husbands. There are three elements here: the submission of the wife to the husband as the head of the home, the covering of the head, and the covering of the head by a veil. How much is principle and how much is custom?

Many Christians believe that we should no longer tell women to submit to the headship of their husbands. Therefore, women don’t have to cover their heads. Others say that the headship principle still stands in the home, but the covering of the head was a cultural custom that does not carry over into our day, and therefore the veil would be insignificant as well.

The third view of this passage is that it is describing a principle, and that women must cover their heads and use veils to do so.

I am convinced that when Paul says the women are to cover their heads, he is basing that action on how God created male and female. It would seem to me, using a principle of interpretation of what we call hermeneutics, that if there’s ever an indication of a perpetual ordinance in the church, it is that which is based on an appeal to Creation. I’m persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect because it was built into creation. And even though it’s not culturally accepted anymore in our society, I still believe it’s principle. I don’t think it matters one bit whether it’s a babushka, a veil, or a hat, but I think that the symbol should remain intact as a sign of our obedience to God.

Perhaps I misunderstood and your second sentence quoted above was not meant to carry forward the first sentence. If so, apologies in advance for my confusion.

See also Isbell on the topic:
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/headship-and-worship-notes-on-1-corinthians-112-16.php

Former Westminster prof:
https://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Murray.html

Whether one sees the issue as cultural or literal, how exactly does a woman show her recognition of male headship when in corporate worship with men? I am failing to see how coverings are no longer normative.
 
Grant.Jones said:
Calvin himself wore a hat during the corporate worship service as well right?
This also leads me to believe that Calvin differed.
Click to expand...
I have no idea whether Calvin did or not wear at hat during corporate worship, or—if it can be definitively shown he did—whether it was some form of vestments at the time.
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Whether one sees the issue as cultural or literal, how exactly does a woman show her recognition of male headship when in corporate worship with men? I am failing to see how coverings are no longer normative.
Click to expand...

There’s no command for me to be submissive to every man in church. I’m not to have authority over men by being a pastor, elder, deacon, or any other office (being silent and having no authority over any man). I’m not to hand out the Lord's Supper, or baptize others, or take up tithe. If you like to think of this as me being submissive to every man in church, then perhaps this can fulfill your need for that show of women being submissive to you. I wouldn’t suggest that you run with that, however. No where in Scripture does it require all the women in church to be submissive to all the men church. That would create chaos and would subvert their husbands' authority over their own wives. Women are to be submissive to their husbands not to their husbands and also to every other man in church. Men and women are equally to be submissive to the governance of the church. The church is submissive to Christ. Therefore, there is no need for me to wear a hat to show my submissiveness to all the men in church.
 
Last edited:
Head coverings are a creational command given to Adam and Eve by God. This isn’t a cultural command that Paul was enforcing for that generation. It is command for every generation. Eve’s head was covered when she and Adam worshipped God. This she did pre and post-fall.

The problem comes in with the definition of head covering. One person says it’s a physical, material type of covering. Another person says it’s a woman’s long hair. But neither of these definitions can be correct.

Adam and Eve had no clothing pre-fall in order for her to wear a hat, and yet she was able to fulfill this command.

There were some men who took oaths to not cut their hair. If hair was the symbol of submission, then these men would have been breaking God’s command.

Eve’s covering was clearly her husband’s authority over her. My covering is my church’s governance over me not a silly old hat.
 
OPC'n said:
Head coverings are a creational command given to Adam and Eve by God. This isn’t a cultural command that Paul was enforcing for that generation. It is command for every generation. Eve’s head was covered when she and Adam worshipped God. This she did pre and post-fall.

The problem comes in with the definition of head covering. One person says it’s a physical, material type of covering. Another person says it’s a woman’s long hair. But neither of these definitions can be correct.

Adam and Eve had no clothing pre-fall in order for her to wear a hat, and yet she was able to fulfill this command.

There were some men who took oaths to not cut their hair. If hair was the symbol of submission, then these men would have been breaking God’s command.

Eve’s covering was clearly her husband’s authority over her. My covering is my church’s governance over me not a silly old hat.
Click to expand...
I think you are saying some good things. However the problem is Paul uses two different Greek words for coverings in the text in 1 Corinthians, this shows that Paul does distinguish hair from a physical covering (veil). Paul is clearly asking women to have som form of a physics covering (veil) during a public worship gathering. Also I do NOT think this physical covering was silly. According to the text if men wore the physical covering this dishonored Christ! If women did not have the physical cover this dishonored her head (her husband).

I would recommend you take some time to listen to the below 3 part sermon seri es. The pastor takes the time to discuss the original greek words.http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/sermons/distinctives/
 
Logan said:
I looked at all the cited materials Silversides used in his article a while back. The sources he chooses are very unimpressive and in some cases perplexing if you look at the original context.

I also did a survey of Reformed commentaries from the 16th and 17th centuries (about 20 of them) and all but two indicated that the man's not wearing a covering was "custom", since in their day keeping one's hat on was a sign of superiority, Calvin's commentary for example. What would seem odd is if someone could come away from that passage saying that for a man it is custom, but for the woman it is perpetually binding.

Not a word either way was said on the women's covering but given that the practice during that period was for a woman to be covered all the time, it's not surprising that it wouldn't have been an issue so I'm not sure what conclusions to draw.

My personal view is that what is being taught is a binding, universal principle (show submission to your husband) but can be exemplified in different ways in different cultures. Nowhere else under the New Covenant is our clothing regulated except in general terms (be modest). Now whether you argue our culture should still practice headcoverings is an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...
You have explained my own personal view here, as I do hold that while the principle Paul is addressing here is always to remain, as in male headship/authority within the local assembly, that can be shown bu different ways. Some would see it expressed as head coverings, but others might display that in a difdferent fashion.
 
Grant.Jones said:
I think you are saying some good things. However the problem is Paul uses two different Greek words for coverings in the text in 1 Corinthians, this shows that Paul does distinguish hair from a physical covering (veil). Paul is clearly asking women to have som form of a physics covering (veil) during a public worship gathering. Also I do NOT think this physical covering was silly. According to the text if men wore the physical covering this dishonored Christ! If women did not have the physical cover this dishonored her head (her husband).

I would recommend you take some time to listen to the below 3 part sermon seri es. The pastor takes the time to discuss the original greek words.http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/sermons/distinctives/
Click to expand...
Is this much more customary among Presbyterians, as have never encountered this being practiced in various baptist churches?
 
OPC'n said:
Head coverings are a creational command given to Adam and Eve by God. This isn’t a cultural command that Paul was enforcing for that generation. It is command for every generation. Eve’s head was covered when she and Adam worshipped God. This she did pre and post-fall.

The problem comes in with the definition of head covering. One person says it’s a physical, material type of covering. Another person says it’s a woman’s long hair. But neither of these definitions can be correct.

Adam and Eve had no clothing pre-fall in order for her to wear a hat, and yet she was able to fulfill this command.

There were some men who took oaths to not cut their hair. If hair was the symbol of submission, then these men would have been breaking God’s command.

Eve’s covering was clearly her husband’s authority over her. My covering is my church’s governance over me not a silly old hat.
Click to expand...
Are you saying here that the covering would be not a physical kind, but of a spiritual one that comes from the husband over his wife?
 
Dachaser said:
Is this much more customary among Presbyterians, as have never encountered this being practiced in various baptist churches?
Click to expand...
I am probably not the best one to answer this question as in my area it is not prominent, though I am convicted it should be.
 
No where in Scripture does it require all the women in church to be submissive to all the men church. That would create chaos and would subvert their husbands' authority over their own wives. Women are to be submissive to their husbands not to their husbands and also to every other man in church. Men and women are equally to be submissive to the governance of the church. The church is submissive to Christ. Therefore, there is no need for me to wear a hat to show my submissiveness to all the men in church.

I agree with this. I've been wearing a head covering for over 35 years but I do it as a wife in submission to a husband. The Greek word there can be translated as wife or woman, and in the context of the passage it seems to be obviously a command to wives.

I am probably in the minority of those who practice this, but I think it is legalistic to require it of single women or young girls. When Paul says the wife was made for her husband, that does not mean I was made for any other man. In a sense I think it cheapens head coverings for non wives to wear them, and takes away something that is about the special relationship of one man and one woman in marriage.
 
I could be way off base here, but it seems to me that there is a symbolism in Christian worship that is often ignored with respect to the head covering:

1 Corinthians 11:7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.​

In a worship service, when the men uncover their heads while the women uncover their heads, we symbolize in part that in a worship service, God alone should be glorified and not man in any way. That is why the symbol, be it a hat, veil, etc., would be enduring and not changeable depending on culture.

This also ties in with women preaching, which would symbolize rebellion against God's order and also that in worship, man rather than God speaks to man from the pulpit. I don't have a lot of quotes I can post on this but here are a couple:

Richard Bacon:

“The answer is obviously “covered.” She should be covered. Why ought a man not to have his head covered? What is the reason that Paul gave? Because he is the image and glory of God. God’s glory is to be uncovered in worship. This is so important that the entire passage is going to be brought together at the end on this very basis: God’s glory alone is to be seen in the public worship service. The reason he “ought not to have his head covered” is that he “is the image and glory of God.” It follows that anything that brings glory to anything or anybody other than to God ought to be covered! “But the woman is the glory of man.” Therefore we cover the glory of man. This passage implicitly commands us to cover the glory of man and to uncover the glory of God! Consider the brilliance of this argument! Paul argued in these verses that this involves more than just a relationship of man to woman. It certainly involves that, but the matter also involves the relationship that our worship has toward God. God’s glory is to be uncovered and man’s glory is to be covered in public worship.”

Read more (pdf): http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner7-5.pdf

The Sound of an Alarm on 1 Corinthians 11 and the symbolism in Christian worship:

“It is the glory of God which must be seen in the house of God. The house of God is not place for giving glory to anyone or anything else. The man is deemed to be the image and glory of God, v7. He is not therefore to cover his head. But the woman who is described as the glory of the man is to cover her head so that in God’s house, in public worship, God may have all the glory.”

Source and read more about the theology of head covering in public worship: http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2017/08/headcovering-for-women.html

The logic of the headcovering passage often seems to be connected with the prohibition on women preaching. Most churches outside the Reformed world have concluded that the prohibition on women preachers is cultural and so is the requirement of headcovering. Once one adopts the cultural view of one passage, it is hard to reject it in relation to the other. Anyway, that's just my two cents. For me, it's hard to parse this passage but the above is what I've come across in my readings.
 
OPC'n said:
No where in Scripture does it require all the women in church to be submissive to all the men church.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I could have been more clear. My comment to which you are responding takes into consideration Paul's speaking of women in general being subject to men in general (clearly in a restricted sense) and what I believe to be its applicability when men and women assemble for corporate worship together, with coverings by women as a normative practice recognizing the same.

For more on the matter of the "in general" comments above, I would point you to:
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/9601a.html
 
lynnie said:
I agree with this. I've been wearing a head covering for over 35 years but I do it as a wife in submission to a husband. The Greek word there can be translated as wife or woman, and in the context of the passage it seems to be obviously a command to wives.
Click to expand...
There is disagreement of what I consider an unfortunate rendering in the ESV and a few other translations to specifically point to wives. But the whole topic is fodder for separate threads.

I am probably in the minority of those who practice this, but I think it is legalistic to require it of single women or young girls.
Click to expand...
I think such a restriction to wives only would have the unfortunate result of making the identification of single women quite easy at corporate assembly. That said, I suspect not a few unmarried men would welcome such a restriction despite its unnecessary distraction of the purpose of corporate assembly. ;)
 
Megs said:
I could be way off base here, but it seems to me that there is a symbolism in Christian worship that is often ignored with respect to the head covering:

1 Corinthians 11:7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.​

In a worship service, when the men uncover their heads while the women uncover their heads, we symbolize in part that in a worship service, God alone should be glorified and not man in any way. That is why the symbol, be it a hat, veil, etc., would be enduring and not changeable depending on culture.

This also ties in with women preaching, which would symbolize rebellion against God's order and also that in worship, man rather than God speaks to man from the pulpit. I don't have a lot of quotes I can post on this but here are a couple:

Richard Bacon:

“The answer is obviously “covered.” She should be covered. Why ought a man not to have his head covered? What is the reason that Paul gave? Because he is the image and glory of God. God’s glory is to be uncovered in worship. This is so important that the entire passage is going to be brought together at the end on this very basis: God’s glory alone is to be seen in the public worship service. The reason he “ought not to have his head covered” is that he “is the image and glory of God.” It follows that anything that brings glory to anything or anybody other than to God ought to be covered! “But the woman is the glory of man.” Therefore we cover the glory of man. This passage implicitly commands us to cover the glory of man and to uncover the glory of God! Consider the brilliance of this argument! Paul argued in these verses that this involves more than just a relationship of man to woman. It certainly involves that, but the matter also involves the relationship that our worship has toward God. God’s glory is to be uncovered and man’s glory is to be covered in public worship.”

Read more (pdf): http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner7-5.pdf

The Sound of an Alarm on 1 Corinthians 11 and the symbolism in Christian worship:

“It is the glory of God which must be seen in the house of God. The house of God is not place for giving glory to anyone or anything else. The man is deemed to be the image and glory of God, v7. He is not therefore to cover his head. But the woman who is described as the glory of the man is to cover her head so that in God’s house, in public worship, God may have all the glory.”

Source and read more about the theology of head covering in public worship: http://soundofanalarm.blogspot.ca/2017/08/headcovering-for-women.html

The logic of the headcovering passage often seems to be connected with the prohibition on women preaching. Most churches outside the Reformed world have concluded that the prohibition on women preachers is cultural and so is the requirement of headcovering. Once one adopts the cultural view of one passage, it is hard to reject it in relation to the other. Anyway, that's just my two cents. For me, it's hard to parse this passage but the above is what I've come across in my readings.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the good info.
 
Grant.Jones said:
I think you are saying some good things. However the problem is Paul uses two different Greek words for coverings in the text in 1 Corinthians, this shows that Paul does distinguish hair from a physical covering (veil). Paul is clearly asking women to have som form of a physics covering (veil) during a public worship gathering. Also I do NOT think this physical covering was silly. According to the text if men wore the physical covering this dishonored Christ! If women did not have the physical cover this dishonored her head (her husband)./
Click to expand...

First, let me apologize for the saying of "silly old hat". I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.

I also said head coverings have nothing to do with hair, so we agree on this point.

1Cor 11:6 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.

1Cor 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

1Cor 11:6 ἀκατακαλύπτῳ: 1) disguise

1Cor 11:15 περιβολαίου :1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper 1a) a mantle 1b) a veil

As you can see, the Greek word for covering in verse 11 means disguise and the Greek word for covering (her hair) in verse 15 means veil etc. Paul is stating that in some way a woman should be covered. We all agree on this.

Verse 6 tells us how to thoroughly cover a woman. She is to be disguised. The English definition of disguised is to "give (someone or oneself) a different appearance in order to conceal one's identity." Verse 15 tells us that a woman's hair is her covering or veil. Now we know that hair does not disguise a woman. Her hair could be considered as effective of a covering as a veil would be (verse 15). But verse 6 tells us women are to be disguised while praying. It's not sufficient to use hair (which is also considered a veil in the Greek) or a material veil for a covering for neither of these two disguise a woman.

Now we have to ask why God would command a woman to be disguised when both He and the angels (frankly so would the congregation) know who the woman is no matter what type of disguise she wore? I think we need to find the answer in a clearer Scripture.

1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Both Scriptures are speaking to order and authority. This is the principle subject of both Scriptures. 1 Timothy, however, is a clearer Scripture.

1 Timothy instructs women to never teach or have authority over men and then adds the more strict command of being silent or quiet. Yet in 1 Cor 11 he instructs women to pray with their heads covered. It's like he's bipolar and is saying two different things. "Paul, am I to be quiet or am I to pray? Make up your mind!" one could say. But he isn't saying two different things. He is in fact saying the same thing only in a different manner.

1 Tim is showing the clear instruction that women are to never have authority over men via teaching, preaching, etc. If I were to preach to you, then I would actually have authority over you which we all agree is wrong and disorderly. But God extends his command unto the point of women being silent in corporate worship. For what reason? For the sake of order before God and the angels.

Now we have the command in 1Cor for women to pray. Praying is not a silent act. We know that God can hear the silent prayers of a women when she prays along with the pastor. How can praying be considered silence then? It is deemed qualified silence because her prayers are disguised/covered by the authority of her husband (for married women) or by the authority of the pastor (for single/widows). In essence, women pray through men (their husbands or the pastor) in corporate worship. Thus their prayers are being disguised/covered or in other words the women is in fact being silent because their prayers are offered to God through the man.

When women pray in church they pray under the authority of their husbands or if they are single under the authority of the pastor. How we worship God in corporate worship is still as important as how they worshipped God in the OT. God is still as holy as he ever was. Therefore, there needs to be order and order comes through authority. It's authority that is the true covering which God gave to men. The authority of a husband over his wife is the covering or disguise between herself and God/the angels while praying during corporate worship. Man is to have the authority in church. His wife comes under him and is thus hidden (covered/disguised) in him. Single/widowed women come under the authority of the pastor and are thus hidden (covered/disguised) in him.
 
Last edited:
lynnie said:
No where in Scripture does it require all the women in church to be submissive to all the men church. That would create chaos and would subvert their husbands' authority over their own wives. Women are to be submissive to their husbands not to their husbands and also to every other man in church. Men and women are equally to be submissive to the governance of the church. The church is submissive to Christ. Therefore, there is no need for me to wear a hat to show my submissiveness to all the men in church.

I agree with this. I've been wearing a head covering for over 35 years but I do it as a wife in submission to a husband. The Greek word there can be translated as wife or woman, and in the context of the passage it seems to be obviously a command to wives.

I am probably in the minority of those who practice this, but I think it is legalistic to require it of single women or young girls. When Paul says the wife was made for her husband, that does not mean I was made for any other man. In a sense I think it cheapens head coverings for non wives to wear them, and takes away something that is about the special relationship of one man and one woman in marriage.
Click to expand...

All the Greek words that I found show there is no distinction between married and single/widowed women in this text.
 
OPC'n said:
First, let me apologize for the saying of "silly old hat". I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.

I also said head coverings have nothing to do with hair, so we agree on this point.

1Cor 11:6 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.

1Cor 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

1Cor 11:6 ἀκατακαλύπτῳ: 1) disguise

1Cor 11:15 περιβολαίου :1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper 1a) a mantle 1b) a veil

As you can see, the Greek word for covering in verse 11 means disguise and the Greek word for covering (her hair) in verse 15 means veil etc. Paul is stating that in some way a woman should be covered. We all agree on this.

Verse 6 tells us how to thoroughly cover a woman. She is to be disguised. The English definition of disguised is to "give (someone or oneself) a different appearance in order to conceal one's identity." Verse 15 tells us that a woman's hair is her covering or veil. Now we know that hair does not disguise a woman. Her hair could be considered as effective of a covering as a veil would be (verse 15). But verse 6 tells us women are to be disguised while praying. It's not sufficient to use hair (which is also considered a veil in the Greek) or a material veil for a covering for neither of these two disguise a woman.

Now we have to ask why God would command a woman to be disguised when both He and the angels (frankly so would the congregation) know who the woman is no matter what type of disguise she wore? I think we need to find the answer in a clearer Scripture.

1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Both Scriptures are speaking to order and authority. This is the principle subject of both Scriptures. 1 Timothy, however, is a clearer Scripture.

1 Timothy instructs women to never teach or have authority over men and then adds the more strict command of being silent or quiet. Yet in 1 Cor 11 he instructs women to pray with their heads covered. It's like he's bipolar and is saying two different things. "Paul, am I to be quiet or am I to pray? Make up your mind!" one could say. But he isn't saying two different things. He is in fact saying the same thing only in a different manner.

1 Tim is showing the clear instruction that women are to never have authority over men via teaching, preaching, etc. If I were to preach to you, then I would actually have authority over you which we all agree is wrong and disorderly. But God extends his command unto the point of women being silent in corporate worship. For what reason? For the sake of order before God and the angels.

Now we have the command in 1Cor for women to pray. Praying is not a silent act. We know that God can hear the silent prayers of a women when she prays along with the pastor. How can praying be considered silence then? It is deemed qualified silence because her prayers are disguised/covered by the authority of her husband (for married women) or by the authority of the pastor (for single/widows). In essence, women pray through men (their husbands or the pastor) in corporate worship. Thus their prayers are being disguised/covered or in other words the women is in fact being silent because their prayers are offered to God through the man.

When women pray in church they pray under the authority of their husbands or if they are single under the authority of the pastor. How we worship God in corporate worship is still as important as how they worshipped God in the OT. God is still as holy as he ever was. Therefore, there needs to be order and order comes through authority. It's authority that is the true covering which God gave to men. The authority of a husband over his wife is the covering or disguise between herself and God/the angels while praying during corporate worship. Man is to have the authority in church. His wife comes under him and is thus hidden (covered/disguised) in him. Single/widowed women come under the authority of the pastor and are thus hidden (covered/disguised) in him.
Click to expand...

I just will have to disagree with your rendering of the text. Paul is crystal clear that he is discussing both a physical head covering (other than hair) representing the realities of our corporate worship. I am not sure how you conclude otherwise. I agree with the primary issue being headship (God-Christ-Man-Woman). I agree that it should be clear that women to not have authority over men. However, I am not sure you are seeing that Paul is requiring a physical cover (such as a veil-type cover).

There are also different Greek words used for "head", which indicate both our literal head and then our federal headship (spiritual head). With your understanding of the text, Paul's' message to the Church in Greek would have made no sense. Paul is being very clear with showing that our physical heads (covered or uncovered) symbolize spiritual realities. I think Paul is being clear and literal in this text as he is in the entire letter.

Your view seems to believe Paul is not requiring a physical cover, which I believe to be inaccurate. I am fairly certain that I have never read a reformed commentator, who would claim that Paul is NOT dealing with a physical type cover (even if they believe it was only cultural). Have you?

No matter if one thinks women should where a physical cover or not today is a moot point with your understanding, which causes your interpretation to stick out alone since you do not believe Paul is talking about a physical material cover.

Just seems like an odd interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Simply_Nikki
  • Locked
Head Coverings and Corporate Worship
Replies
16
Views
4K
Simply_Nikki
Simply_Nikki
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
John Collinges on head-coverings
Replies
6
Views
2K
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Travis Fentiman
  • Locked
Thoughts on Head-Coverings?
5 6 7
Replies
187
Views
31K
Ryan&Amber2013
Ryan&Amber2013
Kevin
  • Locked
Head covering in worship
Replies
10
Views
4K
lv1nothr
lv1nothr
JOwen
  • Locked
No Such Custom- A Look at Head Coverings
2
Replies
58
Views
31K
MW
M
Back
Top