Headcoverings

[LadyFlynt]

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

Really? Is that in the CPIV?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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

You know what I mean.

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

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

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

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Really? Is that in the CPIV?

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

 

[Redaimie]

Thank you both for the welcome.

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

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

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

 

[satz]

Hi Colleen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kevin]

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

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

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

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[lv1nothr]

To Mark and Kevin

Hi gentlemen,

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Kevin]

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

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

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

 

[Casey]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Redaimie]

Hi Casey


I hope you had a great trip.

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

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

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

 

[Casey]

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

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

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

 

[Augusta]

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

Before we consider the apostle’s argument from shame there are a number of things to consider in this passage. (a) There is a need to define the apostle’s reference to praying and prophesying in public worship. Many commentators consider the reference to women praying and prophesying in public worship problematic because in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 women are commanded not to speak during the worship service. Since it is impossible for Scripture to contradict itself, and since it would be especially absurd for the apostle to blatantly contradict himself within the same epistle, scholars have offered a number of different yet possible interpretations that answer this alleged difficulty. Calvin argues that Paul’s discussion of women praying and prophesying during public worship is merely hypothetical because he later forbids the practice altogether.[5] Another possibility is that the apostle regards women setting forth direct revelation from God to be an exception to regular speaking (e.g., the uninspired exposition of scripture). In other words, since prophecy is God Himself speaking without human exposition, a woman prophesying is not herself exercising authority over a man (see Matthew Henry's commentary on this passage).[6]

Probably the best interpretation is that the acts of prayer and prophecy mentioned by Paul represent congregational participation in public worship. (Scholars refer to a description of a part [in this case a part of public worship] for the whole as a synecdoche). The commentator John Gill gives an excellent explanation of this passage. He writes: “Not that a woman was allowed to pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to preach or explain the word, for these things were not permitted them: see 1 Cor. xiv.34, 35. 1 Tim. ii.12. But it designs any woman that joins in public worship with the minister in prayer, and attends on the hearing of the word preached, or sings the praises of God with the congregation.”[7] While it is true that women do not teach in the public assemblies or lead in prayer they do pray liturgically (i.e. in unison with the whole assembly, e.g., the Lord’s prayer) and they do sing inspired songs that are prophetic scripture when they sing the Psalms.

The reason it is important to properly understand the meaning of prayer and prophecy is that if coverings were only required during the specific act of

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

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

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

 

[CDM]

 

[lv1nothr]

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

 

[satz]

Ahh..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Traci,

Thanks for the reply.

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

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

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

He does say:

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

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

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


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

 

[satz]

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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





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

Thanks for the article Traci.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Romans922]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lv1nothr]

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

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

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

 

[Casey]

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

 

[lv1nothr]

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

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

 

[non dignus]

Was John Calvin uncovered while preaching in winter?

I think not.

 

[Augusta]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Casey]

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

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

 

[satz]

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

Would that be in worship or generally?

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

 

[satz]

Thanks, Colleen.