To cover or not to cover... that is the question

What is your interpretation of 1 Cor 11?

  • Literal covering

    Votes: 34 53.1%
  • Hair

    Votes: 8 12.5%
  • Cultural

    Votes: 14 21.9%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 8 12.5%

  • Total voters
    64
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.

Kevin,
You are a very sensitive husband, regarding the feelings and issues that may be going on in your wife. To me, you exemplify the command in the NT to husbands to dwell with their wives in according to knowledge and you show in your struggle a concern for what is going on in your wife, being sensitive to her. I do not know you or your wife, however, you seem to be a servant leader in this.
although I do not know all the cultural issues surrounding Abraham and Sarah, it is told to us wives in the bible by Peter to obey her husband like Sarah did calling Abraham lord. Considering the story and context of Sarah obeying Abraham in going to that King.

One thing for me that has been helpful in the process of learning what obedience as a Christian wife is in realizing what it means when it says, "submit as is fit in the Lord"
as I have progressed in walking with the Lord, I have grown to be able to discern what is fit in the Lord and what may be not fit in the Lord. The question to the woman is "Does this leading from my husband fit in with the Lord?"
 
I would like to also add in that authentic authority and headship is that such which KNOWS what or who they have authority of. i.e. one cannot have authority over anything unless one knows, understands and 'gets' the other. This is why authoritarian/dictatorship cult rule cannot be biblical, for they do know 'dwell with their wives in knowledge' but merely bark out their selfish way of life and demand wife and children to be cookie cutter images of their own self. Truly blessed is the wife and family whose husbands really knows them and gets to know them and understands them and from this depth of understanding of them, knows what is best for them and as is fit in Christ Jesus
 
Just to add my $.02, my introduction to this topic, that lead to further research and eventual conviction that this teaching still applies for believer's today was R.C. Sproul's excellent work "Now that's a Good Question!" that addresses this and affirms that it still applies today, as it's an instruction tied to the creation order.
 
Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.

I would fall into this category as well. I've gone back and forth, but I've never been convinced of the practice. I am submitting to my husband in practice, because he believes my hair is my covering. I've told him if he's ever convinced otherwise, all he has to do is say the word. I'd cover my head. I'd be one of the only women in the church that did, but I'm a woman who submits to my husband, although not perfectly.
 
Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.

Obedience/submission is not always a matter of personal conviction. What I mean is; if a person’s submission (to the one making the request) is sincere then the performing of something (in this case head covering) is an act of true and meaningful obedience/service to Christ whether the one following the command counts it (head covering) necessary or not.
 
This might could lead to problems in some areas of life. What if ones husband was in an extremist cult? or an emotionally abusive and spiritually manipulative church? And he asked his wife to attend with him?
There surely must be levels of discrimination of what is fit in the Lord and what is not fit in the Lord. Headcoverings are within biblical grounds, however, what if your wife had been set free from an extremist cult that enforced headcoverings? How far can you stretch it outside of what is fit in the Lord?
I am very interested in hearing feedback from some of the senior members of the board here on what I am saying.
 
What is the headcovering supposed to cover? Hair, face or both?

As for the purpose of the headcovering, could it be to distract men from natural attraction during the worship when all our focus should be towards God?
 
This might could lead to problems in some areas of life. What if ones husband was in an extremist cult? or an emotionally abusive and spiritually manipulative church? And he asked his wife to attend with him?
There surely must be levels of discrimination of what is fit in the Lord and what is not fit in the Lord. Headcoverings are within biblical grounds, however, what if your wife had been set free from an extremist cult that enforced headcoverings? How far can you stretch it outside of what is fit in the Lord?
I am very interested in hearing feedback from some of the senior members of the board here on what I am saying.

The ‘what if’s’ can only really be answered by those whom God is directly leading within a certain situation.
 
Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.

I don't think it will be empty ritual for her because she is acting in love by submitting to her husband. I can't tell you how loved I feel by my wife when she trusts me even though she may not understand or feel fully convinced as I do on certain subjects.
 
What is the headcovering supposed to cover? Hair, face or both?

As for the purpose of the headcovering, could it be to distract men from natural attraction during the worship when all our focus should be towards God?

It's suppose to be a covering for her hair. Now how much is supposed to be covered is debatable.

The covering is mostly symbolic of headship Husband/wife - Christ/Church
 
The covering is mostly symbolic of headship Husband/wife - Christ/Church

It is not relative to husband/wife, but to man/woman, as is clear from 1 Cor. 11:3. It has to do with men and women meeting together in assembly. If it were relative to husband/wife it would have to apply outside of assembly.
 
It is not relative to husband/wife, but to man/woman, as is clear from 1 Cor. 11:3. It has to do with men and women meeting together in assembly. If it were relative to husband/wife it would have to apply outside of assembly.

This truth has been obfuscated by the ESV's translation of γυνή as "wife" instead of "woman." In this, the ESV differs where ALL of the major translations are agreed. All of them agree that the best translation is "woman." And with the Reformed world drifting into an ESVOnly mentality, the ESV's translation choices exert a great deal of influence. But I digress.
 
It is not relative to husband/wife, but to man/woman, as is clear from 1 Cor. 11:3. It has to do with men and women meeting together in assembly. If it were relative to husband/wife it would have to apply outside of assembly.

This truth has been obfuscated by the ESV's translation of γυνή as "wife" instead of "woman." In this, the ESV differs where ALL of the major translations are agreed. All of them agree that the best translation is "woman." And with the Reformed world drifting into an ESVOnly mentality, the ESV's translation choices exert a great deal of influence. But I digress.

The general translation rule that is typically employed is to translate γυνή as "woman" when it is not coupled with a possessive pronoun, and "wife" when it is. Not sure why the ESV deviates from that in this instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top