Head covering

Status
Not open for further replies.

Elisabeth

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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...
 
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
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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).
 
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
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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+.
 
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).
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top