Head Coverings

[Grant]

The question I am looking for some guidance on is this, if my wife is not praying publicly during the corporate worship service And if she is not prophesying (taking into account the New Testament examples of prophesying) then is there any need for her to wear a head covering in the corporate worship service?

I wear a head covering, so maybe that affects my view, but I don't understand why you think the praying has to be "public". I think based on 1 Cor 14, where Paul wants public prayer to be intelligible so people can say "amen" to it, that when the church is gathered together and there is a public prayer, we all pray. If I am silent while somebody else up front speaks, I am still praying. Jesus said his father's house is a house of prayer. How can you think of going to church as not including everybody praying, at least part of the time?

Your church may in addition have responsive readings where the word is spoken by all, or pray the Lords prayer or some other written prayer together. But even if they don't and your wife does not speak one word, the angels for whom we wear this see us together and know that in our minds we are unified in offering up the petition or thanksgiving, and we are all praying.

This is good insight. Thanks.

 

[Dachaser]

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.

Paul was speaking it seems of a Husband and His wife to be covered by His authority, so would not the veil be a symbol of the man having spiritual headship authority over His wife and household before God?

 

[Grant]

Paul was speaking it seems of a Husband and His wife to be covered by His authority, so would not the veil be a symbol of the man having spiritual headship authority over His wife and household before God?

Yes I do believe Paul is requiring a physical symbol (material head covering) to visualize a spiritual reality and to cover the glory of the man so that only God's glory is on display. My response was to a post where the "OPC'N" post is siding that Paul is NOT discussing a physical material head covering, which I disagree with.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

1Cor 11:6 ἀκατακαλύπτῳ: 1) disguise

Where did you get that definition? The standard definition (per Strong, Thayer, NAS Concordance) is to veil or cover.

See also, for example, Mounce:
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/katakalypto

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

We in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) usually practice headcoverings, but I do not think it is an officially stated doctrine or anything.

You might also see:
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/headship-and-worship-notes-on-1-corinthians-112-16.php

 

[Logan]

I've never seen anyone explain why though, if it is rooted in creation, we never hear about it under the Old Testament. Headship certainly is, but head covering?

Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.

I quote from Calvin above, specifically regarding the men covering their heads. Calvin is not unique in his interpretation, as I mentioned earlier. So now one has to ask the question: why isn't it a problem if the men cover their heads, but it is a problem if the women uncover theirs? Wouldn't the principle of decorum apply to both sexes?

So we're left with several choices:
The Reformers were inconsistent (not likely)
They see a difference between the strictness of application between men and women (for men it's merely suggested, but for women it's demanded)...I don't see this as likely either
They saw both as "decorum" but the decorum in their day for men differed from that of the Corinthians, while it was the same for women.

Any other options?
I've posted on this almost universal view of the Reformers and Puritans before, by the way:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/womens-covering.91616/#post-1120859

And some good quotes from further back too:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-against-women-headcoverings-pre-1900.82178/

 

[OPC'n]

Where did you get that definition? The standard definition (per Strong, Thayer, NAS Concordance) is to veil or cover.

I got it from the Greek translation online. If you can find a better and more thorough translation online that I can view, I welcome it.

 

[Afterthought]

I quote from Calvin above, specifically regarding the men covering their heads. Calvin is not unique in his interpretation, as I mentioned earlier. So now one has to ask the question: why isn't it a problem if the men cover their heads, but it is a problem if the women uncover theirs? Wouldn't the principle of decorum apply to both sexes?

If the cap is viewed as a matter of decorum or a small positive matter (instead of a moral law), then morals may trump the custom, i.e., fear of catching cold. I don't know if the "cap" is the same thing as the "cap" Rev. Winzer speaks of in his answer to a similar question you asked in the thread you posted, but if this "cap" is the same as the "hat," that is another possible explanation as to what is occurring. If a woman had some moral reason for removing her covering (or perhaps it became accidentally undone during the service; or perhaps she forgot it entirely!), she should not be viewed as being at fault, anymore than the man for wearing a "cap" to prevent catching cold, especially at a time when catching cold was likely more deadly than it is now.

I've never seen anyone explain why though, if it is rooted in creation, we never hear about it under the Old Testament. Headship certainly is, but head covering?

Perhaps it has something to do with men and women meeting together in a public assembly in Christian times, as Rev. Winzer hints in the same thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/womens-covering.91616/page-2#post-1121025


Edit: It would appear that a "moral" view of headcoverings is not consistent with what the Reformers held. A person with a "positive" view (i.e., a worship ordinance) could agree with what Calvin has said, as could those with a "customary" view of headcoverings.

 

[Grant]

I've never seen anyone explain why though, if it is rooted in creation, we never hear about it under the Old Testament. Headship certainly is, but head covering?



I quote from Calvin above, specifically regarding the men covering their heads. Calvin is not unique in his interpretation, as I mentioned earlier. So now one has to ask the question: why isn't it a problem if the men cover their heads, but it is a problem if the women uncover theirs? Wouldn't the principle of decorum apply to both sexes?

So we're left with several choices:
The Reformers were inconsistent (not likely)
They see a difference between the strictness of application between men and women (for men it's merely suggested, but for women it's demanded)...I don't see this as likely either
They saw both as "decorum" but the decorum in their day for men differed from that of the Corinthians, while it was the same for women.

Any other options?
I've posted on this almost universal view of the Reformers and Puritans before, by the way:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/womens-covering.91616/#post-1120859

And some good quotes from further back too:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-against-women-headcoverings-pre-1900.82178/

Yes those quotes from the commentaries are interesting. But ultimately in the text Paul does seem to require the physical covering (which I know you agree with), but he further ties it into creation. Just because we don’t have an elaborate text in head coverings in the OT does not negate that Paul still ties head coverings to creation.

With regards to the commentaries:
We should heavily weigh what godly men have interpreted. However ultimately my Conscience Is bound by what Paul says. Nothing in the text lends me to believe that this was temporary. Paul not only ties it to creation, but also to nature itself. If Paul commands this of the churches during that time, then when was the practiced stopped ( from scripture)?.... and why was it stopped (from scripture)? Therefore I feel it is a safer handling of the text to make physical head coverings for women in corporate worship (as defined by Paul) a binding practice.

 

[OPC'n]

See also, for example, Mounce:
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/katakalypto

This isn't working for me. I've put multiple Greek words and it comes up with "your search yielded no results". Do you have a link to a greek dictionary that works better or maybe has a large vocabulary? Right now I'm doing a word search for cover. Some didn't like the word disguise as a possible definition. I'm going to find all the Greek words for when we use the word cover. Thanks

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

They vary. Many do not, although you will find individuals here and there who do (I knew a couple of families who did).

We in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) usually practice headcoverings, but I do not think it is an officially stated doctrine or anything. The Presbyterian Reformed Church women also usually cover; as do the FPs of Scotland.

Perhaps you may find John Murray helpful on the subject: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/head-coverings-and-decorum-in-worship-a-letter.php

Dr. Richard Bacon also has an article/sermon series somewhere.

You might find some past discussion helpful: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...prohibited-from-preaching.85306/#post-1063964

User "MW," along with John Murray, advocates that the assumption of the text is that the headcovering is to be worn, and hence to remove it while praying or prophesying publicly is a great shame. Others have advocated that the "praying" and "prophesying" are parts of worship actions intended to stand for the whole. Still others have advocated that it is simpler and more practical to just leave it on, even when other actions of worship are being performed.

Thanks for sharing the John Murray article. That was very enlightening. I am a big fan of his work.

 

[OPC'n]

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.

I'm doing a more thorough word search on "cover" which will take some time. In the mean time, if you have time and are willing, I will ask you some questions which you can answer with supporting Scripture and/or Greek definitions etc.

1) Do you believe head coverings are a creational ordinance? Why or why not?
If you do:
A) Do you believe Eve wore a veil before the fall? Why or why
not?

2) Why do you believe God gave the command for head coverings?

3) Do you believe a head covering is anything on top of a woman's head or is it more like a veil? Why do you believe one over the other?

4) Why does 1Cor 11 speak of coverings while 2 Cor 3 speaks of veils? The Greek words used in 1Cor 11 is not the same used in 2 Cor. 3

3) How does a veil show submission? Is there any other place in Scripture OT/NT that supports this thought? Moses wore a veil "so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end." not to show submission. In Gen women wore a veil to disguise who they were not to show submission. In Job it is used for hiding. Isaiah 3 uses veils as garment which hid. Isaiah 47 uses it as a form of humiliation when not worn.

 

[Grant]

1)
Do you believe head coverings are a creational ordinance? Yes Why or why not? Because Paul uses creation as one of his theological arguments for the spiritual reality of headship, which he then explains should be symbolized with a physical symbol of a head covering.
If you do:
A) Do you believe Eve wore a veil before the fall? Why or why
not? No. Because the bible gives no indication.

2) Why do you believe God gave the command for head coverings? Because I believe all of scripture is God-Breathed and that it is clearly commanded in 1 Corinthians 11

3) Do you believe a head covering is anything on top of a woman's head or is it more like a veil? Both. I believe it is a veil type covering, which would cover the head. Why do you believe one over the other? N/A, since I said both.

4) Why does 1Cor 11 speak of coverings while 2 Cor 3 speaks of veils? The Greek words used in 1Cor 11 is not the same used in 2 Cor. 3 I am not sure why Paul used a different greek word. However, I do not believe 2 Corinthians 3 to be specifically related to the text in 1 Corinthians 11 (which is dealing with a physical head covering for women in public worship gathering).

3) How does a veil show submission? The head coverings symbolizes submission because the bible ( 1 corinthians 11) tells me so. Is there any other place in Scripture OT/NT that supports this thought? See below for the links. However, even if this is were the only place in scripture, it should be enough because of the clarity and logic, which Pauls uses to express the commands in 1 corinthians 11. Moses wore a veil "so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end." not to show submission. In Gen women wore a veil to disguise who they were not to show submission. In Job it is used for hiding. Isaiah 3 uses veils as garment which hid. Isaiah 47 uses it as a form of humiliation when not worn. And in 1 Corinthians 11 the women should wear a physical head covering because it "hides" or "covers" the glory of man. So that during public worship we are all focused on the Glory of Christ, which is symbolized in the man leaving his head uncovered and the women being covered. See below links, which expound.

4) How do you reconcile 1 Timothy 2:12 with 1 Cor 11? In one it says for the woman to be quiet in another it says for her to pray/prophesy. Short Version: I believe the praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 is speaking to corporate prayer, singing of songs, and responsive readings which all of the congregation participate in. I believe 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibiting women from speaking or leading out in a authoritative manner. Basically anything that may present a women as having authority over a man in the regular corporate church gathering. Also again I recommend you take the time to check out both of the below links.

Your questions can be answered in greater detail below:
I think you will have all these questions answered if you will listen to the 3-part semon series previously mentioned in this thread.
this page

or

Check out the article below Page #14 - 17
July/August 2012 Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth magazine

I think I have beat this horse to death. I hope this helps. I deeply appreciate everyones responses.

 

[OPC'n]

Your questions can be answered in greater detail below:
I think you will have all these questions answered if you will listen to the 3-part semon series previously mentioned in this thread.
this page

or

Check out the article below Page #14 - 17
July/August 2012 Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth magazine

I think I have beat this horse to death. I hope this helps. I deeply appreciate everyones responses.

I can read why others believe in head coverings. I was hoping you would support your answers with Scripture/Greek definitions etc. since this is your thread. I think the only thing I want to say is if Eve was not commanded by God to wear a physical head covering, then Paul certainly doesn't have a different meaning for God's command.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

It seems to me that it's more along the lines of Paul referenced creation precisely because Eve did not wear a head covering and did not defer to any of Adam's authority. Because Adam was not deceived, but Eve was. So the fact that she did not have a sign of Adam's Authority over her head suggests that she was rebellious against the creation order.

 

[Grant]

I can read why others believe in head coverings. I was hoping you would support your answers with Scripture/Greek definitions etc. since this is your thread. I think the only thing I want to say is if Eve was not commanded by God to wear a physical head covering, then Paul certainly doesn't have a different meaning for God's command.

I hope you see that I am supporting my argument with the Bible. I will be the first to admit that I am no Greek scholar.

I am not sure I follow your comment about Eve?

1) 1 Corinthians 11 is God speaking to his Church

2) Are we only required to be obidient to what God expressly commanded Eve (I don’t think you believe this, but that seems to be the logic exspressed) Eve was not expressly commanded to partake in th Lords Supper yet Paul dealt with this for the Church in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

 

[OPC'n]

It seems to me that it's more along the lines of Paul referenced creation precisely because Eve did not wear a head covering and did not defer to any of Adam's authority. Because Adam was not deceived, but Eve was. So the fact that she did not have a sign of Adam's Authority over her head suggests that she was rebellious against the creation order.

If it's a creational ordinance, that would place it before the fall. This would then place Eve in sinless obedience.

 

[OPC'n]

I hope you see that I am supporting my argument with the Bible. I will be the first to admit that I am no Greek scholar.

I am not sure I follow your comment about Eve?

1) 1 Corinthians 11 is God speaking to his Church

2) Are we only required to be obidient to what God expressly commanded Eve (I don’t think you believe this, but that seems to be the logic exspressed) Eve was not expressly commanded to partake in th Lords Supper yet Paul dealt with this for the Church in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

I don't see how you used Scripture to support your beliefs. I'm no Greek scholar either.

If you believe that wearing head coverings is a creational ordinance, then you have to believe that Eve was commanded to have a covering over her head. Yet, like me, you don't believe that she wore a veil/hat. Where is your Scriptural evidence that Paul changed a creational ordinance?

I'm confused. How are you tying Eve in with the Lord's Supper?

 

[Grant]

If it's a creational ordinance, that would place it before the fall. This would then place Eve in sinless obedience.

Pre-fall the head of the man was Christ and the head of the women was man. In Corinthians Paul is requiring that the church should symbolize this reality with a physical head covering.

If you believe a physical head covering was prescribed in 1 Corinthians 11. Then the questions you should need to answer if you alter that commanded practice are:

1. When did the church stop practicing a physical head covering for women (what verse)?

2. Why did the practice stop (what verse)?

I cannot answer either of those questions with scripture. This is why (among Other things) I lean towards believing women should still wear a physical covering in the worship gathering. At the end of the day I still see this as a topic brothers and sisters in Christ can maintain unity in visible membership over even if opinions differ.

 

[Grant]

I don't see how you used Scripture to support your beliefs. I'm no Greek scholar either.

If you believe that wearing head coverings is a creational ordinance, then you have to believe that Eve was commanded to have a covering over her head. Yet, like me, you don't believe that she wore a veil/hat. Where is your Scriptural evidence that Paul changed a creational ordinance?

I'm confused. How are you tying Eve in with the Lord's Supper?

Not sure I can reword it any better than i aready have.

My question to you is:

1) when did the physical cover stop after 1 Corinthians 11 (what verse)?

2) And why did it stop (what verse)?

 

[OPC'n]

Pre-fall the head of the man was Christ and the head of the women was man. In Corinthians Paul is requiring that the church should symbolize this reality with a physical head covering.

If you believe a physical head covering was prescribed in 1 Corinthians 11. Then the questions you should need to answer if you alter that commanded practice are:

1. When did the church stop practicing a physical head covering for women (what verse)?

2. Why did the practice stop (what verse)?

I cannot answer either of those questions with scripture. This is why (among Other things) I lean towards believing women should still wear a physical covering in the worship gathering. At the end of the day I still see this as a topic brothers and sisters in Christ can maintain unity in visible membership over even if opinions differ.

I don't believe a physical head covering was prescribed in 1 Cor 11, therefore, I'm altering neither it nor the creational ordinance. It is you who is altering a command....the creational ordinance. I agree with your last statement. I hold no judgment against those whose conscious dictates wearing a physical head covering. Also, if anyone could extensively show through Scripture how Paul changed a creational ordinance, then I would change my mind.

 

[OPC'n]

Not sure I can reword it any better than i aready have.

My question to you is:

1) when did the physical cover stop after 1 Corinthians 11 (what verse)?

2) And why did it stop (what verse)?

I feel like you didn't see my post #57.

 

[Grant]

I don't believe a physical head covering was prescribed in 1 Cor 11, therefore, I'm altering neither it nor the creational ordinance. It is you who is altering a command....the creational ordinance. I agree with your last statement. I hold no judgment against those whose conscious dictates wearing a physical head covering. Also, if anyone could extensively show through Scripture how Paul changed a creational ordinance, then I would change my mind.

I am not advocating that Paul changed a creation ordinance. I am not sure how you come away thinking 1 Corinthians 11 does not deal with a physical covering. The Greek words are clear that a physical covering is discussed. The links I provided do a good job of looking at the Greek words. I am not aware of any Puritan or reformer who would hold your view that a physical material cover is not discussed in 1 Corinthians 11 (if you know one please provide).

Nonetheless I am still appreciative of you sharing your view.

 

[Grant]

I feel like you didn't see my post #57.

Yes. I have read every post.
I think your Greek on “disguise” was inaccurate in my opinion.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

If it's a creational ordinance, that would place it before the fall. This would then place Eve in sinless obedience.

Exactly, and Eve disobeyed leading to the fall.

 

[OPC'n]

I am not advocating that Paul changed a creation ordinance. I am not sure how you come away thinking 1 Corinthians 11 does not deal with a physical covering. The Greek words are clear that a physical covering is discussed. The links I provided do a good job of looking at the Greek words. I am not aware of any Puritan or reformer who would hold your view that a physical material cover is not discussed in 1 Corinthians 11 (if you know one please provide).

Nonetheless I am still appreciative of you sharing your view.

I hate sounding argumentative. Really, I'm not trying to sound that way. By saying that Paul commands women to wear physical head coverings AND to say that Eve was not commanded to is indeed to say that Paul is changing a creational ordinance.

 

[OPC'n]

Exactly, and Eve disobeyed leading to the fall.

Creational ordinances have to do with pre-fall commands not post-fall commands. Eve followed this command before the fall sinlessly (not wearing a hat), then she fell and continued to follow this command (still not wearing a hat)

 

[Grant]

I hate sounding argumentative. Really, I'm not trying to sound that way. By saying that Paul commands women to wear physical head coverings AND to say that Eve was not commanded to is indeed to say that Paul is changing a creational ordinance.

Well if you are reading me that way (which I am not advocating) I am not sure what else I can say. Maybe we are playinword games.

Paul is referencing back to creation to show that his command of having women’s heads covered is shown in God’s created order. Paul is commanding a material covering (still not sure where your support is for not seeing that). Wearing a physical material covering may not be a creation ordinance (trying to avoid word games), but Paul defends the practice in the creation order and in nature.

Even the OPC website acknowledges a physical material head covering, but limits the material covering to culture.
https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=244

 

[OPC'n]

Well if you are reading me that way (which I am not advocating) I am not sure what else I can say. Maybe we are playinword games.

Paul is referencing back to creation to show that his command of having women’s heads covered is shown in God’s created order. Paul is commanding a material covering (still not sure where your support is for not seeing that). Wearing a physical material covering may not be a creation ordinance (trying to avoid word games), but Paul defends the practice in the creation order and in nature.

Even the OPC website acknowledges a physical material head covering, but limits the material covering to culture.
https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=244

"Wearing a physical material covering may not be a creation ordinance (trying to avoid word games), but Paul defends the practice in the creation order and in nature." You've said two different things here. You've said, "It's not a creational ordinance but it is.". What Paul is defending is: head coverings are a creational ordinance which is to be practiced by all generations. You feel he's saying they are physical head coverings, however, this is not supported by the creational ordinance (you've admitted that Eve did not wear a physical head covering). 1Cor 11 is such a vague Scripture (hence all the debate over it by all sorts of reformed Christians) it needs to be interpreted by other Scripture.

I know some in the OPC believe it to not be a creational ordinance thus it's a cultural command. I haven't seen their supporting proof of this.

Anyway, I'll leave you be. I did enjoy our conversation. Have a great night.

 

[Grant]

Thanks everyone for your post. I have had my questions answered for myself. I hope others learned as well. Still prayerfully considering things.