Should women have their heads covered in worship?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jon 316

Puritan Board Sophomore
1 Corinthians 11
1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.

Head Coverings

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

So... head coverings, yes or no?

If no, why not?

Does verse 16 not imply that this was not a cultural practice but it was binding for all the churches of God?:detective:
 
:popcorn:

This might get fun.

For what it's worth, I respect those women who cover and the husbands who deem it necessary for their wives to do so. But, I see it as pretty clear from the passage that he is talking about hair, not hats. I know that is seen as a liberal view from many in the Reformed camp. But, that is what I see.
 
Optional.:)

That was for then not now.

So what part of 'we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God' indicate it was a) optional b) only for that 'time'? And what is to stop us taking that approach with various other N.T commands i.e baptism, Holiness, etc

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
 
:popcorn:

This might get fun.

For what it's worth, I respect those women who cover and the husbands who deem it necessary for their wives to do so. But, I see it as pretty clear from the passage that he is talking about hair, not hats. I know that is seen as a liberal view from many in the Reformed camp. But, that is what I see.

So, why would Paul go to all the bother of arguing for a head covering and the need for it if all along it is talking about hair? :think:

Another interesting note, for almost 2000 years of church history women have had a head covering in worship. It is only in recent years it has been abandoned... :gpl:
 
Yes. Not only does Paul seem to view it as a display of submission, but also of modesty, since a woman's hair is her glory. Therefore, if she does not want to cover it, it should be cut off.
 
Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?
 
Last edited:
:popcorn:

This might get fun.

For what it's worth, I respect those women who cover and the husbands who deem it necessary for their wives to do so. But, I see it as pretty clear from the passage that he is talking about hair, not hats. I know that is seen as a liberal view from many in the Reformed camp. But, that is what I see.

So, why would Paul go to all the bother of arguing for a head covering and the need for it if all along it is talking about hair? :think:

Another interesting note, for almost 2000 years of church history women have had a head covering in worship. It is only in recent years it has been abandoned... :gpl:

Fair enough. I should have said, 'In our culture it would be hair rather than hats.' We do not denote authority in our culture with whether or not a woman covers her head in the presence of other men. (Well the Muslims do but that is a different story.) We do however view the way a woman wears her hair as being respectful of her feminine nature and her role in the family. Even this varies from place to place. There are hairstyles in Phoenix that would never fly in Mobile. If women wear them here they are seen as loose and rebellious.

Told you my views were different than a lot in the Reformed camp.
 
Head Coverings for then and not now? Why? Who says?


That was for then not now. I'll unpack it when I get more time...if you want

Some say this was cultural but the text says it was not cultural. It clearly says it is obvious from Creation. And he alludes to the angels, 1 Cor 11:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. NKJV nothing cultural here!:detective:

2nd he relates it to the headship, which is not cultural and we still hold to
3rd if it was cultural then so are the rest of the things in the rest of the book. We can throw it all out, women not speaking in the church, marriage, etc. we have to keep it all in context.
So where would you say the context changes back and forth from this applying to culture and others not?

He does appeal to nature, but not that alone. And nature would mean to me that women have always covered their heads in many cultures until the corrupt 20th century with its worldly lewdness and freedom, fleshly sensual culture that began to abandon it.

Let me just ask, with such a clear strong teaching on it, why would a woman not want her head covered? What would be wrong with it? Is a scarf to uncomfortable or limiting? I mean why would they not want to wear it occasionally if it is optional? Why do so many protest so vehemently against it and refuse to wear it, while other godly women as sited above, have no problem doing it? Hmmm. :detective: Or is it that rebellious part of Eve's nature still in them not wanting to show they are in submission.

Then some say the long hair God gave her and she should not cut short, is her covering. But this speaks clearly of both. To remove one would be as bad as removing the other. Both are necessary. 1 Cor 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. NKJV
Jer 10:2 Thus says the LORD: "Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; NKJV

So what is culture? It is the way, the way of the heathen, or Gentiles. We are, as Israel was, not to learn and adopt their ways when they go against God's. We don't do naked baptisms, or wear loin cloths only.

Interesting to note as the head coverings left, women started speaking and teaching and leading in professing Christian churches. Their excuse often, not enough men willing to take responsibility and do it. This is the same as saying, we have no ordained minister so lets just have the elders preach or lets have a non-ordained man preach or be our pastor or one with no seminary training. After all where does it say in scripture you have to have a 3-4 year post grad degree to be ordained to the ministry. Many of the puritan ministers would have been dead before they were allowed to begin preaching by these rules.

As for the no such custom remark about allowing men to have long hair, except he take a Nazarite vow. The meaning is clearly, should a man want to have long hair, we have no custom that would allow for this. Men dress as men, women dress as women, we keep the roles distinct and clear. Nothing has changed in the new covenant unless we are specifically told it has. Thus we are still presbyterians like the synagogue and examples in Acts. etc. unless is twas distinctly part of ceremonial law or civil which is done away with the nation except for the Gen Equity of them. They were examples for us whom the ends of the world have come.

We all need to Start thinking harder :think: and seeking less to get all we can out of this world as if it had good things God was depriving us from; rather than full of deceptions He is protecting us from; as He tried with the fruit Eve thought was so acceptable and safe. After all, it is such a small thing right? God won't keep me from being saved because of small sins? There is grace and forgiveness right? :think:
In His Service,
 
:popcorn:

This might get fun.

For what it's worth, I respect those women who cover and the husbands who deem it necessary for their wives to do so. But, I see it as pretty clear from the passage that he is talking about hair, not hats. I know that is seen as a liberal view from many in the Reformed camp. But, that is what I see.

So, why would Paul go to all the bother of arguing for a head covering and the need for it if all along it is talking about hair? :think:

Another interesting note, for almost 2000 years of church history women have had a head covering in worship. It is only in recent years it has been abandoned... :gpl:


The jury is still out for me on this one, but as I've been thinking about it, a few things have been brought to my attention.

1) It has not been done universally for 2000 years--Calvin, a man, wore a hat (his head was covered, and in that culture, it would have been disrespectful to not have his head covered).

2)The Scots also had the men wearing the head coverings, ie: hats.

3) Paul would not introduce a new law, and we do not see this as a law in the OT, though we may see some instances of a woman wearing a covering.

4) In the OT, high priests wore coverings.

5) People say it was a creation ordinance, however, when Adam and Eve were naked, do they think she had her head covered? If so, why is this not mentioned? And what was it? Fig leaves?



But, the one thing that I get stuck on is I cannot see Paul binding women's consciences to a cultural norm. And if I was in Corinth and heard this letter, I most certainly would have felt obligated to wear a covering.


Unless, in the Corinthian culture the only way to signify publicly that you were under your husband's authority was to have your head covered. Paul could want the women to acknowledge before the world that they are under the authority of their husbands. So, I think the principle would apply today and a woman would be required biblically to be visibly under her husband's authority, and use a means to display that, if there were such a visible custom. To clarify, I think if today the culture somehow agreed that a submissive woman would do X, a Christian woman would be prudent to also do X.
 
Told you my views were different than a lot in the Reformed camp

Reformed and Liberal aside brother. Is your view a faithful interpretation of scripture? That is the important issue. Are you as careful in your exegesis here as you are in other places? Or does personal preference or social pressure have some input in your interpretation? :detective:
 
The simple answer is a resounding "Yes!"

Beware if you should request the long form though...my response is copy and paste ready ;)
 
Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?

Because Paul, quite explicitly, makes it about hair in verse 14. No where are men commanded to shave their heads, but it is obvious that if a man has long hair, like a woman, that is shameful. Therefore, it is proper for a woman to have long hair and a man to have shorter hair.
 
Told you my views were different than a lot in the Reformed camp

Reformed and Liberal aside brother. Is your view a faithful interpretation of scripture? That is the important issue. Are you as careful in your exegesis here as you are in other places? Or does personal preference or social pressure have some input in your interpretation? :detective:

I believe that my exegesis is carefully done or I wouldn't hold it. I know that the Church is divided on this issue. But, there is good exegesis on both sides. It is legitimate exegesis to note that women covering their head in that day denoted that they were married. In America today that would be the equivalent of wearing a wedding ring.

And, please don't assume that it is personal preference or cultural pressure leads me to the position that I hold. You don't know what my cultural pressures are :)
 
Told you my views were different than a lot in the Reformed camp

Reformed and Liberal aside brother. Is your view a faithful interpretation of scripture? That is the important issue. Are you as careful in your exegesis here as you are in other places? Or does personal preference or social pressure have some input in your interpretation? :detective:

I believe that my exegesis is carefully done or I wouldn't hold it. I know that the Church is divided on this issue. But, there is good exegesis on both sides. It is legitimate exegesis to note that women covering their head in that day denoted that they were married. In America today that would be the equivalent of wearing a wedding ring.

And, please don't assume that it is personal preference or cultural pressure leads me to the position that I hold. You don't know what my cultural pressures are :)


It's amazing how some people believe they know better than nearly 2000 years worth of history...:gpl:

On not knowing what your cultural pressures are? Those of us that cover know all too well the cultural pressures.
 
2,000 years? I don't know that we can assume that the church has held to head covering consistently since Acts. I've seen this mentioned for years and have never seen historical evidence that held up. I'd like to. Really, I would.

I sure hope y'all don't think I'm badgering or coming off high handed because that is not my intention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top