Should women cover up?

[Coram Deo]

Again on verse 16..

Taken from The Significance of the Christian Woman's Veiling

There remains yet one verse, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (verse 16). In effect, Paul is saying, "It would be strange indeed for anyone to challenge a practice that is being observed universally." The fact that this practice is not mentioned in letters to other churches is very understandable in the light of this verse. Apparently, it was faithfully being observed as verse 16 would suggest. The exception was here at Corinth, where possibly there was the threat of a departure. Whatever the situation, it called forth this teaching.

 

[MW]

Well, you got me there. I checked my Poole's Commentary, expecting him to come down on those who did not cover. Instead, he interprets v 16 as "we have no such custom of contending for these little frivolous things."

Time to go fall on my sword.

You've been poolarised.

 

[Croghanite]

Paster Mixer,

See Murrays # 2 point.

 

[MW]

Head Coverings and Decorum in Worship
A letter by Professor John Murray


I believe this to be a brief and accurate interpretation.

I agree, except that in point 1 Prof. Murray has not shown his usual attention to detail. He should have noted that the distinct roles of men and women are in view in the appeal to creation. This is being brought in to buttress the point that women ought not to shame their head, not to provide an unalterable sign of subjection.

 

[bookslover]

The English language has a convention for addressing God with respect in the forms of "thee" and "thou;" ergo, we should utilise these forms in praying to God.

Let me try this again. A convention is not the same as a command, not even by implication. Bible characters had a convention of riding donkeys, too. That doesn't require us to do so.

 

[MW]

Let me try this again. A convention is not the same as a command, not even by implication. Bible characters had a convention of riding donkeys, too. That doesn't require us to do so.

Richard, that is why I called your appeal to the pronominal system of the Bible irrelevant. They addressed God according to the conventions which showed most respect in their language. And we should use utilise the conventions which show most respect in our language.

 

[AV1611]

In brief my understanding is this:

A. There are three glories:
1. The glory of God
2. The glory of man
3. The glory of woman

B. The glory of God should be the only glory in public worship and so the glory of man and the glory of woman must be covered.

C. This means:

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

1 Corinthians 11:7b "but the woman is the glory of the man" and therefore ought be covered. What does this? Well to the woman "her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:15).

1 Corinthians 11:15a "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her" and this needs to be covered with a veil.

I trust this is clear

 

[Calvibaptist]

In brief my understanding is this:

A. There are three glories:
1. The glory of God
2. The glory of man
3. The glory of woman

B. The glory of God should be the only glory in public worship and so the glory of man and the glory of woman must be covered.

C. This means:

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

1 Corinthians 11:7b "but the woman is the glory of the man" and therefore ought be covered. What does this? Well to the woman "her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:15).

1 Corinthians 11:15a "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her" and this needs to be covered with a veil.

I trust this is clear

So, are you suggesting that if a woman has short hair, then she has already limited her glory in public and doesn't have to cover? Only women with long hair?

 

[Iconoclast]

youngs literal translation

14doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

15and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;

 

[Coram Deo]

Thats not the literal greek..... The translation you used makes no sense at all with the preceeding verses....

Think of it this way..

1. If hair is the covering
2. And the Woman in Corinth was not covering
3. The punishment was the woman would be shaved or shorn

Then How does a woman who is not covering because either she cut off all her hair or she cut it short (Shorn) how then can she be shaved or shorn by removing the hair a second time.

Or think of it again this way..

1. If hair is the covering
2. Then Men are required to remove their hair during prayer


It makes no sense to say that the hair is "The" covering.. By all means it is "A" covering but not "The" covering that is required over the hair covering.....

14doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

15and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

In today's culture I wonder if a hat would ironically prove more distracting than a bare head.

Big hats would turn my head from the central focus of fellowship with the saints and worship of the Father quicker than a beautiful 20 something woman my age with locks of gold....perhaps.

 

[kvanlaan]

Michael, this one I have looked at from several different sources, and been convinced that it is as you've laid it out. 'The covering' is not the hair itself, I think that much is indisputable.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Since this has been established as not morally binding(from what I read), and it's more customary, then why all the fuss? The point of this passage isn't about "head coverings" but about Christian Order. I see that there are good arguments, but the passage would be taken out of context if you are stuck on the head coverings and totally miss the point Paul is making.


And I just thought about this... even though it might have been answered: Since it is more customary, would you consider this a Christian Custom?

 

[Coram Deo]

Not in my eyes has it been established........

I did and still do see it as morally binding.....

Since this has been established as not morally binding(from what I read), and it's more customary, then why all the fuss? The point of this passage isn't about "head coverings" but about Christian Order. I see that there are good arguments, but the passage would be taken out of context if you are stuck on the head coverings and totally miss the point Paul is making.


And I just thought about this... even though it might have been answered: Since it is more customary, would you consider this a Christian Custom?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Not in my eyes has it been established........

I did and still do see it as morally binding.....

If it is morally binding, could you give a passage in scripture saying so? I'm not doing this in a condescending(I think i spelt that right) way, I'm just curious as how you get this.

 

[Kaalvenist]

If it is morally binding, could you give a passage in scripture saying so? I'm not doing this in a condescending(I think i spelt that right) way, I'm just curious as how you get this.

We are to keep this ordinance, as delivered by the apostle (v. 2).

It is a shame, and uncomely, for a woman to pray unto God uncovered (vv. 6, 13).

This is to be done "because of the angels" (v. 10); it therefore cannot be merely cultural.

The universal practice of the church bore assent to this practice, toward which we ought not to be contentious (v. 16).

 

[JohnOwen007]

For those who are interested in the cultural background that appears to be stand behind 1 Cor. 11, I recommend Bruce Winter's book Roman Wives, Roman Widows. He looks at the "new woman" movement (something like a 1st century feminist movement) that seems provide the context for understanding 1 Cor. 11. It was a rebellion against extra rights that men had in marriage.

Married women didn't wear wedding rings in 1st century Roman Culture, they pulled their toga over their head, and the "new woman" responded to the supposed injustice of marital rights by pulling off her head covering. To pull it off in public worship was tantamount to renouncing one's marital status.

For those who want a summary of Winter's observations one can read or listen to his address "You were what you wore" here.

 

[Davidius]

Funny. With all that talk about creation and angels I totally missed the fact that the issue was cultural. What a big misunderstanding!

 

[turmeric]

Funny. With all that talk about creation and angels I totally missed the fact that the issue was cultural. What a big misunderstanding!

Yeah, I think he got that "saved through childbearing" bit wrong. He might be right about the veils, though. And Winter's interpretation ironically makes it more relevant than ever to our time.

Once, an elder at our church asked me to remove my hat...true story!

 

[MW]

Once, an elder at our church asked me to remove my hat...true story!

Perhaps it was an ugly hat.

 

[turmeric]

Once, an elder at our church asked me to remove my hat...true story!

Perhaps it was an ugly hat.

Evidently he thought so!

 

[Croghanite]

What did you do?

Once, an elder at our church asked me to remove my hat...true story!

 

[Augusta]

Head Coverings and Decorum in Worship
A letter by Professor John Murray


I believe this to be a brief and accurate interpretation.

I agree, except that in point 1 Prof. Murray has not shown his usual attention to detail. He should have noted that the distinct roles of men and women are in view in the appeal to creation. This is being brought in to buttress the point that women ought not to shame their head, not to provide an unalterable sign of subjection.

I need a little clarification if you would Rev. Winzer. It seems some (including me) may be misunderstanding you to be arguing against a requirement for a covering in worship and not merely arguing against an all the time covering. Is this what you are saying when you say the passage is cultural? I am confused because you agreed with Professor Murray excepting what you said above.

 

[etexas]

yes she should for worship and for modesty outside of worship.......

What he said.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Funny. With all that talk about creation and angels I totally missed the fact that the issue was cultural. What a big misunderstanding!

Well for a start, the Greek word for "angel" is also the word for "messenger" (any type of messenger), so we need to determine which way to translate it (in context etc.). There were "messengers" who would visit early gatherings of Christians ... so have a listen to Bruce Winter ...

 

[Iconoclast]

long hair/ not just hair

Thats not the literal greek..... The translation you used makes no sense at all with the preceeding verses....

Think of it this way..

1. If hair is the covering
2. And the Woman in Corinth was not covering
3. The punishment was the woman would be shaved or shorn

Then How does a woman who is not covering because either she cut off all her hair or she cut it short (Shorn) how then can she be shaved or shorn by removing the hair a second time.

Or think of it again this way..

1. If hair is the covering
2. Then Men are required to remove their hair during prayer


It makes no sense to say that the hair is "The" covering.. By all means it is "A" covering but not "The" covering that is required over the hair covering.....

14doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

15and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;

Michael, it is not just hair, it is long hair. Sam Waldren preached a good message on it dealing with the greek word's. A man should not have long hair. Long hair is given her for a covering. I am not sure how accurate Youngs Literal translation is, but most of the time a pastor gives the greek translation ,Youngs seems to hold up fairly well.
It has been awhile since I listened to the message,but I remember he said it was long hair neatly done up.

 

[MW]

I need a little clarification if you would Rev. Winzer. It seems some (including me) may be misunderstanding you to be arguing against a requirement for a covering in worship and not merely arguing against an all the time covering. Is this what you are saying when you say the passage is cultural? I am confused because you agreed with Professor Murray excepting what you said above.

I maintain the headcovering is an alterable sign. I imagine many of our ladies think the same, otherwise they wouldn't wear hats but something a little more middle eastern.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Is there any way to see how everybody voted on this topic?

 

[Augusta]

I need a little clarification if you would Rev. Winzer. It seems some (including me) may be misunderstanding you to be arguing against a requirement for a covering in worship and not merely arguing against an all the time covering. Is this what you are saying when you say the passage is cultural? I am confused because you agreed with Professor Murray excepting what you said above.

I maintain the headcovering is an alterable sign. I imagine many of our ladies think the same, otherwise they wouldn't wear hats but something a little more middle eastern.

Got it. Thank you very much. That is how I understood the "sign of power on her head" to be taken also. Not any one thing in particular but some "sign." In America today I personally think a hat does that very well without being attention drawing. I sometimes wear scarves also.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I need a little clarification if you would Rev. Winzer. It seems some (including me) may be misunderstanding you to be arguing against a requirement for a covering in worship and not merely arguing against an all the time covering. Is this what you are saying when you say the passage is cultural? I am confused because you agreed with Professor Murray excepting what you said above.

I maintain the headcovering is an alterable sign. I imagine many of our ladies think the same, otherwise they wouldn't wear hats but something a little more middle eastern.

Exactly why I do not wear a hat. I see a hat as "outside gear". Historically women would wear a covering and then a hat over that if "going out". I also have a friend that does this.

However, I will state that I would rather see hats than nothing at all....the hat thing is just my own personal convictions.