Is there anyone who argues against women headcoverings pre-1900?
- Thread starter Romans922
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer on head-covering as cultural | Reformed Covenanter
James Durham on female head-covering as a customary practice | Reformed Covenanter
Francis Turretin, Samuel Rutherford et al argue that it is a custom-able sign; I will try to pass on the relevant quotations to you when I get round to it.
James Durham on female head-covering as a customary practice | Reformed Covenanter
Francis Turretin, Samuel Rutherford et al argue that it is a custom-able sign; I will try to pass on the relevant quotations to you when I get round to it.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Hodge believed it referred to propriety specific to culture, i.e. that the principle of showing submission and respect for authority by the woman is still in effect, but how that is done varies in each cultural context.
John Trapp (1601--1669) also seems to think that the customs vary (i.e. he mentions that the French men pray with their head covered, unlike the Corinthians).
Poole (1624--1679) also seems to think the custom should be interpreted according to culture, saying that the woman should behave in a manner consistent with submission in the culture.
Matthew Henry (1662-1714) likewise says the veil was "the common token of subjection to their husbands in that part of the world." and appears to hang this upon a general principle of cultural propriety or decency. He later says
John Trapp (1601--1669) also seems to think that the customs vary (i.e. he mentions that the French men pray with their head covered, unlike the Corinthians).
Poole (1624--1679) also seems to think the custom should be interpreted according to culture, saying that the woman should behave in a manner consistent with submission in the culture.
Matthew Henry (1662-1714) likewise says the veil was "the common token of subjection to their husbands in that part of the world." and appears to hang this upon a general principle of cultural propriety or decency. He later says
joejohnston3
Puritan Board Sophomore
Here is something that came to my mind the other day; if the Bible is to be taken as infallible and timeless and the directive is in the New Testament then why is anything given as instruction even considered debatable? If we can say that something was a custom or for a specific time then we might as well leave it out of the Bible as it is unnecessary for us to read. Since we must all agree that the Word of God is His word and infallible then it seems that we must obey and practice what is written, otherwise we are picking and choosing what makes us comfortable and disobeying God.
I would rather obey the Word of God literally and completely than to run the risk of disobedience and cause others to stumble as well.
I would rather obey the Word of God literally and completely than to run the risk of disobedience and cause others to stumble as well.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Here is something that came to my mind the other day; if the Bible is to be taken as infallible and timeless and the directive is in the New Testament then why is anything given as instruction even considered debatable? If we can say that something was a custom or for a specific time then we might as well leave it out of the Bible as it is unnecessary for us to read. Since we must all agree that the Word of God is His word and infallible then it seems that we must obey and practice what is written, otherwise we are picking and choosing what makes us comfortable and disobeying God.
I would rather obey the Word of God literally and completely than to run the risk of disobedience and cause others to stumble as well.
The OP was dealing with the historical question of whether or not anyone prior to 1900 held to the view that 1 Cor. 11 refers to a customable-sign. It did not address the question of whether that position was biblical. However, if we were to follow your argument through to its logical conclusion, then we would have to wash one another's feet and greet one another with a holy kiss. I suspect you do not do these things because, by employing biblically-informed common sense, you know that these things were merely circumstantial applications of wider biblical principles. For the time being, I will pass from the question of whether or not veiling falls into this category.
Also how do you reconcile the above argument with WCF 19.4, which tells us that various OT laws have expired so that we are only obliged to follow them as far as the general equity thereof may apply? On your suppositions, these laws would surely have to literally apply today, as any other position would be seen as undermining the "infallible and timeless" nature of the Bible.
joejohnston3
Puritan Board Sophomore
Actually, that is why I only listed the New Testament directives as I know the Old Testament laws were expired. I knew this would open a can-of-worms and did not want to hijack the thread so I will bow out.
One last thing, why would feet washing and greeting each other with a kiss not be practiced? I never knew those areas were considered cultural either. We have had foot washing practiced before as well as greeting each other with a kiss/hug but I think America is too sensitive to this and avoids practice of it. Maybe we can save it for another time/discussion but just giving food-for-thought.
One last thing, why would feet washing and greeting each other with a kiss not be practiced? I never knew those areas were considered cultural either. We have had foot washing practiced before as well as greeting each other with a kiss/hug but I think America is too sensitive to this and avoids practice of it. Maybe we can save it for another time/discussion but just giving food-for-thought.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Fair enough; thanks, brother.
joejohnston3
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thank you too, as I appreciate feedback and input as well and want to allow this thread to answer the OP's question and forgive me for the detour.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Anyone before 1600 gentlemen/ladies?
Also, I have read each of the ones listed above, and each commentator states it to be a custom and yet doesn't actually find that in the text. It seems they commit eisegesis in each case and assume Paul is referring to custom when they don't show it specifically that he is from the text itself. I'm really looking for someone who perhaps makes that argument, but uses the text itself to show that not just "Well, it was the custom of eastern people to do this, and french and turks to do this." I don't really care what other cultures do or did, I really want to find commentators (if they exist) who look at the text and show from the text that this is cultural/custom. I have yet to find any.
Also, I have read each of the ones listed above, and each commentator states it to be a custom and yet doesn't actually find that in the text. It seems they commit eisegesis in each case and assume Paul is referring to custom when they don't show it specifically that he is from the text itself. I'm really looking for someone who perhaps makes that argument, but uses the text itself to show that not just "Well, it was the custom of eastern people to do this, and french and turks to do this." I don't really care what other cultures do or did, I really want to find commentators (if they exist) who look at the text and show from the text that this is cultural/custom. I have yet to find any.
Last edited:
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Many of the commentators before 1600 wore hats when praying or prophesying themselves. Calvin: '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.' The position was more nuanced than much of what one hears on the subject now.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Here's a few more quotations, regarding men covering their heads but applicable to whether this passage is considered custom or not. I pulled these from the Reformed Presbytery in North America's site.
It also appears that it's at least possible Calvin saw this as cultural. He mentions headcoverings of women in public and then goes on to say
Perhaps, but there's a good many highly respected commentators that do that. I say that if it bothers your conscience at all or if there are any doubts, go for it. But there are a good many of the Reformed who saw it as a principle of showing submission and I do not doubt that they would have, for example, disapproved of a woman wearing pants in a culture that requires dresses, pointing to this passage.
Gillispie said:
Rutherford said:
Geneva Bible Notes said:
It also appears that it's at least possible Calvin saw this as cultural. He mentions headcoverings of women in public and then goes on to say
Perhaps, but there's a good many highly respected commentators that do that. I say that if it bothers your conscience at all or if there are any doubts, go for it. But there are a good many of the Reformed who saw it as a principle of showing submission and I do not doubt that they would have, for example, disapproved of a woman wearing pants in a culture that requires dresses, pointing to this passage.
I would agree with you in general and wouldn't automatically set aside foot washing and holy kissing (!) despite the fact that I've never known a church that practices this.
I would comment however that there are arguments used by Paul when dealing with the issue of headcoverings that aren't used for the holy kiss and foot washing, although clearly none of these are cultural. It's interesting that the argument from creation he uses is similar to the one used to argue for women not to teach in the church (1 Tim 2:12-14), from the same principal that the woman is to be in subjection to the man.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
While many respected men have done this, men err. I'm looking for a good argument from God's Word. That's all. I am not for or against headcoverings. I just want to see a good argument from Scripture via historical theology pre-1900 (pre-1600).
I'm biased of course but I don't think you're going to see a good argument from Scripture from any time period against headcoverings for women!
I know there are a number of notable theologians etc through church history who may not have held to the abiding nature of 1 Cor 11, but it always seems to come down to the cultural argument.
From reading the Scriptures you wouldn't know that it was a cultural issue, and I think the arguments that the apostle uses only prove the opposite. I know many disagree however!
Shawn Mathis
Puritan Board Sophomore
I can offer Dr. Coppes paper. It is foremost exegetical (hint: the key verb is a participle which must be related to the tense of the main verb) but includes some of the historical above. In fact, it includes cultural-historical information of the Corinthian condition relevant to the text. Email him.
There is nothing pre 1900 about this, but it is the one pro argument I'm most familiar with:
Head Coverings
Head Coverings
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I would suggest that they came to this conclusion because they read the text in light of other biblical considerations which they believed precluded one from adopting the view that Paul was referring to a universal principle. Whether they were correct to do so is another matter entirely.
I am also confused as to why you have moved the goal-posts in the middle of the thread. You asked for anyone who argued in favour of the custom-able sign position prior to 1900. This request was complied with. Why then have you moved the goal-posts back to before 1600? I don't get it; is an argument made in 1601 any less valid than an argument made in 1599?
The bottom line is that those who argue for the custom-able sign position are not arguing for anything against the Reformed confession (quite the opposite), and they should be left in peace by others who profess to hold to the same confession (Romans 12:18).
If a) the Greek word translated 'covering' in v.15 was the same as that translated 'covering' in all previous verses, and b) if this view didn't contradict v.5-6 (which would then be 'if a woman be not covered (have no hair) then let her also be shorn (have no hair)), then you might be right.
Or is that gymnastics?
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Just because a word is "translated" the same, doesn't mean it has the same meaning. Context is relevant in this matter. Also, there are many things within scripture that have a cultural context.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Oh, yes, certainly.
Paul, by the HS, is not going to change subjects w/o a transition. He's talking about something on the head through the entire portion. Her long hair is her covering. If she's going to reject that, then let her be shaved. I see confirmation bias all the time... I just refuse to buy into it. My wife would put a doily on her head the instant I asked her to, so this is not derived from any cultural predisposition for or against. In fact, if she wanted to put a doily on her head, I wouldn't protest. If there's any predisposition, it's derived from the fact that whenever I have listened to eisegetical gymnastics, trouble has arisen. I prefer to let the plain reading of the Word overrule the clamor of men, regardless of their credentials, when there is a difference. It's not safe to do otherwise.
If you disagree, then fine, grow your hair down to your ankles and wear a beanie with a propeller to worship. The Spirit said if you wanna be contentious, we have no such custom. I find contentiousness to be an easy stumbling block for myself, so I want to try to avoid it.
I stumbled across an interesting reference to uncovering/covering in my reading today, quite by accident. The work is Lewis Bayly's The Practice of Piety. The date of its first publishing is unknown, but the third edition was published in 1613. In the section "Rules to be observed in Singing of Psalms" (directed particularly to heads of household in their leading of family worship), he writes:
Most interpretations I have read of 1 Cor. 11 regard it as a reference to public worship only, however, and I am inclined to agree. Perhaps Mr. Bayly was attempting to draw an implication from public worship to family worship. Anyway, it was interesting, so I shared it.
Most interpretations I have read of 1 Cor. 11 regard it as a reference to public worship only, however, and I am inclined to agree. Perhaps Mr. Bayly was attempting to draw an implication from public worship to family worship. Anyway, it was interesting, so I shared it.
Hi Brad,
Thanks for your response.
A few questions concerning your view:
Why does Paul use a different word in v.15 if he is referring to the same 'covering'?
And do you understand Paul to be saying that long hair is the covering, or just the woman's hair itself? And then do you take it to be cultural anyway?
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
I have tried to express this position before -- largely that of Matthew Henry, combined in a few particulars with Calvin. It is both pre 1900, and makes more sense of the passage than I have seen elsewhere: 'Praying' and 'Prophesying' refer to specific public acts which are forbidden to women in the assemblies (Calvin). The Spirit was poured out in a special way, in accordance with OT prophesy, on sons and on daughters in those days (ie, the daughters of Philip). These women were not to be exercising those gifts in public assemblies. But wherever the daughters of Philip did exercise such a gift -- the custom for women in a capacity of prophetic utterance in Eastern cultures was that they be veiled. This cultural custom Paul argues to be in keeping with, not against, the created order (so he cites that women are naturally covered); and it is no 'custom' of the church to needlessly shock or offend against decent societal structures and gestures of respect. The whole passage is then an argument that even in the church, where there is neither male or female, Jew or Greek, bond or free, we still respect authority structures and cultural decencies (a theme not at all out of keeping with Paul's teaching about government and family, servants and masters, etc elsewhere): the gospel and its privileges do not give us license to be as liberated as we want to from social norms, or to be 'rebels without a cause'. It is not then (according to Matthew Henry) an argument to create our own special tokens in the church and become needlessly estranged from our society.
I wouldn't wish to convince anyone against their own conscience: this is what I understand one older view to be; and it's good food for thought, regardless, I think.
(Thinking a bit more on this -- I should clarify if I related this in such a way that it gives an impression that we observe proper forms of structure and order in the church simply because they are in society. The argument seems to be that we practice the due cultural norms relating to submission and authority, because the church has a Head. The church is where the created order finds its truest expression.)
I wouldn't wish to convince anyone against their own conscience: this is what I understand one older view to be; and it's good food for thought, regardless, I think.
(Thinking a bit more on this -- I should clarify if I related this in such a way that it gives an impression that we observe proper forms of structure and order in the church simply because they are in society. The argument seems to be that we practice the due cultural norms relating to submission and authority, because the church has a Head. The church is where the created order finds its truest expression.)
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
