Thread: A simple explanation of headcovering

Hello;

Could I hear a simple explanation of headcovering.

I have always held to the "cultural argument".

Also, if I had my wife cover up, I have always held that her covering would only happen when she publicly prays or prophesieth (which she doesn't do regularly)


This is not an attempt to trap anyone or argue back. I just need some answers without rhetoric (on my own part as well).

From one of my blogs:

I Corinthians 11
Why Should One Cover?

My husband and I were introduced to the concept of the covering through friends of ours. We knew a couple of people who covered. So we decided to study it. We came to the conclusion that it was what the Lord would have us to do…indeed that it was commanded that we do it. We have seen the blessings ever since. My personal testamony on it comes out inadequate every time. Instead, scriptural, historical, and exegetical references do it so much better…I offer that here for you to study it for yourselves along with your husbands. I want you to see it for yourselves…I want the UNDERSTANDING to be in yourr hearts…not just stick something on your head believing that that is what makes one holy. My headcovering is NOT essential to salvation. It IS between God, my husband, and myself. It is simply an act of obedience and (if you will) a reminder to my husband and myself (of his duties to me and my submission to him).

So many people want to make excuses for it,

Let’s start with I Corinthians 11. Paul starts out…

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

He is stating here that he is giving ordinances.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Showing order of headship authority. Man’s position, woman’s position, Christ’s position, God’s position.

1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

As we know this is different from the tradition of Jewish men covering their heads. The first is his physical head that sits upon his shoulders. The second is his authority over him. Also to this day (Christian) men uncover their heads when in a church, at a funeral, and when praying. To do otherwise would be dishonoring to Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

We know that a woman’s hair is her glory…therefore we know that it would be shameful for her to shave it. The two “head”s mentions here are two separate types of heads…two different meanings. The first is her physical head that sits upon her shoulders. The second is her authority over her. Just as her husband would be shamed if she were to shave her hair off.

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

This is carrying on the example of the physical to understanding the need for the symbolic. Covered here is katakalypto meaning to cover (the head), to cover wholly, to hide.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1 Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Again showing positional roles.

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Here we will refer to differences between man in the presence of God and the angels in the presence of God.
Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Ezekiel 1:11 Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.

Notice that even the angels covered themselves in the presence of God…only man does not. The angels observe us.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Showing a spiritual equality even though not positional equal.

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Here again the natural is being used as an example for the need of the symbolic.

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Here it is letting us know that they are not being legalistic. That this is not cultural (custom). Personally I think this also shows that this is to be a matter of the heart. It is a command, but if you are contentious about it then there is no point.

And then Paul goes on to the other ordinance mentioned in this passage-Communion.

1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Funny, isn’t it…that ppl see one ordinance as cultural, but the other as a command never to be broken?

You can find much more beneath my own explanation at http://apuritanlady.wordpress.com/i-corinthians-11/ I pull from Sproul, Calvin, McGee, Knox, A week's worth of devotionals (with permission) from TableTalk, and a list of historical church figures that spoke on the topic.

From my blog:

Corinthians 11:2-16

2)Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

3) But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

4) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

5) but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

6) For if a woman will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

7) For a man 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 was not made from woman, but woman from man.

9) Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

10) That is why a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

11) Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

12) for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

13) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14) Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,

15) but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

16) If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

The Principle of Headship (v.3)
God is the head of
Christ, who is the head of
Man, who is the head of
Woman

The Application of Headship (v. 3-6)

Men should have their head uncovered when praying or prophesying.
Women should have their head covered with praying or prophesying.

The Argument of God’s Glory in headship (v. 7)

When praying or prophesying (proclaiming about God), man uncovers his head because he is the image and glory of God. This honors his Head, Christ. Woman covers her head because she is the image of man. This honors her head, man. More specifically, woman covers her glory (her hair, vs. 15).

Thus, woman’s glory is covered (her hair), man’s glory is covered (the covered woman), and only God’s glory is exposed (the uncovered man).

The Argument of Headship in Creation (v. 8-9)

Man was created before woman. And God created woman from the man and for man. Therefore the man has headship over the woman.

The Argument of Angelic Beings (v. 10)

A women needs a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. Evidently, a woman needs either a symbol on her head that grants her authority to pray and prophesy, or she needs a symbol on her head that declares that she is under authority.

Why does she need this symbol? Because of the angels. The Bible does not explain why the angels need the symbol, but does it have to? Ephesians 3:10 says that “through the church, the manifold wisdom of God” is made known to the “rulers and authorities in heavenly places.” Perhaps the symbol helps them understand why women are allowed to pray and prophesy, or helps them understand submission. God knows, and he says “Wear the symbol for the angels’ sake.”

A Clarification of Headship (vs. 11-12)

I love this little parenthetical statement. In case any woman is feeling inferior or second-class, Paul inserts a little clarification. Although woman is under man in headship, both are interdependent and equal in the Lord.

The Argument of Nature (vs. 13-15)

Paul’s question “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” causes some to say, “In our culture, yes, it is proper.” But I don’t think that can be the answer. Paul has spent the previous ten verses explaining how improper it would be for a woman to ignore headship by praying uncovered. Then he asks this rhetorical question which must be answered “NO, Paul, according to what you’ve told us already, it is NOT proper.” He then answers his own question with the argument of nature.

Nature teachs that long hair is a disgrace for man. Whether “nature” means that his hair does not naturally grow long and beautiful, or whether he means that most cultures’ natural decision is that men have short hair, the statement is clear. Long hair is a disgrace on a man.

For a woman, her long hair is a glorious covering. It should be noted that this word “covering” is a different Greek word than all the other instances of “covering” in this passage. In this instance alone, he describes the long hair as a “wrap” that nature has given her. He is saying, “Look, woman, your long hair is a beautiful wrap, a glorious covering that nature gave you. If even nature thinks you should be covered, HOW MUCH MORE should you cover yourself when you come before God?”

People who still insist that the “covering” of verses 4-7 is hair must deal with the illogical statements this creates. “Men must pray uncovered” becomes “men must pray without hair.” Time to get out the shears! And “If a woman will not cover, let her be shorn” becomes, “if a woman doesn’t have hair (or doesn’t have long hair), cut her hair.” Both of these make no sense.

(An irony worth noting is that many women who say “the covering is hair” have their hair cut shorter than many men.)

The Argument of Unity (v. 16)

Paul recognizes that some people may be contentious about this issue, but reminds them that ALL the churches of God were unanimous in the wearing of head coverings. To pray uncovered was not the practice for any of the churches.

Some people say this verse means that Paul didn’t want this to be a big deal: “If you want to be contentious, just don’t wear the headcovering.” Then why did Paul spend fifteen verses prior explaining from creation and nature why a women should be covered?

------------------------

Many people say that this passage is merely cultural. I think this is a very precarious position. Paul does not present the view from a cultural perspective. He does not say, “Women, don’t dress like the pagan prostitutes” (which is a no-brainer anyway) or “Men, only unbelieving Jews wear head coverings.” Instead, he issues a declaration: “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head (Christ).” His supporting arguments? Creation, angelic beings, and nature. These don’t sound cultural to me.

What is cultural? I believe that the style of the head covering is cultural. As long as it “covers,” I don’t see why a hat is any different than a veil, scarf, or bonnet.

My blog:

Delinquent!

You guys!!!

boys!

Do you wear the covering only when you pray (publicly? or privately too?) and prophesy or do you need to wear it all the time. Covering seems connected with praying and prophesying.

It comes down to what it means that a woman should have her head covered. Does that refer to hair or to some other kind of covering (hat or otherwise). Some people say it is about hair because of Paul's discussion in vs 15.

But think about it this way. Did woman back in the days of the NT have hats? The answer is no. Likely if a woman did cover her head it would part of her robe/cloak or some kind of 'shawl'. So the issue of hats is not really relevant but cultural.

Then there is the issue of 'timing': that is when ought the covering to be worn? Is it only when women are praying and prophesying (vs. 5)? Most if not all churches that practice head (not hat) covering have the ladies wear their hats during the whole service whereas Paul indicates it is necessary at only certain times of a worship service. Women do not pray and prophesy in public meetings anymore even if they did at one time. It seems then that now (in our time and in Reformed churches) it is a moot point. (btw in case you are wondering Paul doesn't actually want women to pray or prophesying in church - he addresses this in 1 Corinthians 14:34. It appears that women were doing this in Corinth but Paul does not legitimize it but merely addresses it first as a fact not a teaching or rule to be followed).

Besides the general principle in 1 Corinthians 11 is about headship not head coverings as is clear from vs. 3. Paul is concerned with wives showing public contempt for their husbands because they are not covering their heads which seemed to be a cultural issue for the time. I say the latter because of Paul's statement in vs. 16. A custom is something that a society does because it finds certain practices offensive. These customs are often practiced by Christians but are not necessarily valid for all time and all places (for another example see 1 Corinthians 8:7. Some could eat meat offered to idols and others could not).

In essence I believe it is a stretch to make this passage mandate head coverings for woman today.

I wear mine almost all the time. Prophesying has also translated by some as testifying or to give testamony. Some will say that because prayer and giving testimony can happen at any point and place in time a woman should always be covered, if she is not asleep, or keep one about her shoulders. Some will carry one with them. These people will also hold to the "because of the angels" and "modesty" portions of covering as well. Others will only for service because of taking 1 Corinthians alone and it's context of assembly.

I agree with Rev Kok, however, if a woman has any doubt at all she should just go ahead and cover.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

Originally Posted by Poimen

But think about it this way. Did woman back in the days of the NT have hats? The answer is no. Likely if a woman did cover her head it would part of her robe/cloak or some kind of 'shawl'. So the issue of hats is not really relevant but cultural.

The issue is submission to the divine order of creation. The covering needn't be a hang up, it just confuses the issue. It says in the text that she should have a 'sign' of power on her head. These leaves some discretion as to what it should be. It should be a covering and it should be on her head.

Some good sermons on the issue:

Dr. Michael Barrett part 1

Dr. Michael Barrett parts 2 and 3

Rev. John Greer intro

John Greer Q & A

Pastor Schwertley

Hi-new here......

If you google the subject you'll find that almost every great (dead) Reformed theologian taught that at the very least, wives should wear a covering in the service.

In the Greek it becomes obvious. The word tradition/ordinance in verse 2 is the same Greek as verse 23 where Paul speaks of communion being handed down. Same Greek. A tradition is not a custom like the Mummers parade or turkey on Thanksgiving- limited to a city or nation-it was handed down for all Christians. The same exact wording is used by Paul for both headcoverings and communion- dare we not include them both? He praises the Thessalonians for keeping the traditions handed down to them. The real problem is that in English the word tradition means a cultural custom. For Paul, it was a command handed down.

Regarding hair, again the Greek is clear. All along Paul uses the word katakalupsis (rough translation). But her long hair is given to her as a peribolian ( real rough). Paul is careful not to say the hair is the symbol of authority he is speaking about.

Sign to the angels.....well, have the angels changed? Some folks think the angels were just looking at Corinth. That is up to them but the point is it wasn't for the culture, it was for angels.

I joke that we have to switch to a church that teaches baptismal regeneration. If the outer symbol of an inward reality means the inward reality really and truly happened with the outer symbol, then all I'd have to do is slap this doiley thingey on my head and instantly I will be a perfectly submitted wife!! Hub would love that!

I thought this was good:

Hair and Worship by Bill Mouser.

What is the OT support for headcoverings?

If my wife does not pray or prophesy in church, if there any need for her to cover? It seems not to be a modesty thing but a headship thing during service.

Perg, she prays corporately. It also is her submissive posture before God in worship whether she speaks or not. And if you sing psalms she is prophesying scripture.

But this is not the intent of Paul; those that were praying and prophesying publickly were doing so as leaders in this - they did not seem to be mere silent followers.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

But this is not the intent of Paul; those that were praying and prophesying publickly were doing so as leaders in this - they did not seem to be mere silent followers.

That's a presumption.

There's a lot of presumptions at work here.

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Originally Posted by Pergamum

But this is not the intent of Paul; those that were praying and prophesying publickly were doing so as leaders in this - they did not seem to be mere silent followers.

That's a presumption.

But how can someone prophesy as a "silent follower"?

I meant with prayer. Also, giving testimony is not necessarily a "leading" event.

I don't see that Corinthians require women at home praying in private to cover their heads - it seems to be an assembly thing.

It seems to be something that happens for those that pray and prophesy in the assembled congregation.

Therefore, a head covering would be a "part-time practice" of maybe a few moments a week at the most.



Anyone with insights on "praying and prophesying?"

Originally Posted by Augusta

Originally Posted by Poimen

But think about it this way. Did woman back in the days of the NT have hats? The answer is no. Likely if a woman did cover her head it would part of her robe/cloak or some kind of 'shawl'. So the issue of hats is not really relevant but cultural.

The issue is submission to the divine order of creation. The covering needn't be a hang up, it just confuses the issue. It says in the text that she should have a 'sign' of power on her head. These leaves some discretion as to what it should be. It should be a covering and it should be on her head.

I agree that it needn't be but it often is which is why I mentioned it. It also indicates to us the cultural bias that some of those who wear head coverings read into the text.

As I noted in my former post the issue is submission, particularly that of wives to their husbands. The cultural issue/application of the universal principle is head coverings for woman at certain times during the worship service.

But no one can make a rule out of vs. 5 without saying more than it says. It only applies to the time when women prophesy and pray which doesn't happen in our Reformed churches. It is a moot point.

Do you wear the covering only when you pray (publicly? or privately too?) and prophesy or do you need to wear it all the time. Covering seems connected with praying and prophesying.

I would like to hear some answers to this as well. As a woman in submission to her husband and elders in the church I don't believe that I am in sin by not wearing an official covering in church. My husband is my covering, if he is not there, the elders would be my covering. If I am to be silent in church, which I am, how can I be praying and prophesying? I guess silent prayers would be the answer? I can think of many times when I am awakened from sleep and spend time in prayer before the Lord, would I then be in sin by not getting out of bed and putting a covering on? Does it hinder my prayers by not wearing a covering? I studied this with a dear friend years ago and neither of us was convinced that we needed to wear a covering. Our husbands weren't convinced either. If someone were to show me biblically why I need to do this I would gladly repent and change my ways. I am not trying to be a "pot stirrer" here, I just don't understand the idea of wearing the covering.

Long hair is the covering.

14) Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,

15) but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

If you put long hair in the sections talking about the covering it all fits
Not HAIR, but LONG HAIR

Here is John Gill's commentary on 1 Cor. 11:5:

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth…
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 Corinthians 14:34,35) (1 Timothy 2:12) 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, as we have seen, the word prophesying signifies

If John Gill is correct, then it would be proper for women to cover their heads in corporate worship as a means of symbolizing that only God is to be glorified in worship.

The question of whether or not women should cover in family or private worship would be a question of the RPW's purview which I have yet to figure out myself: by what authority are we allowed to remove elements from private or family worship which are normally present in corporate worship, and that without switching to a normative principle? As a result of this unanswered question, I cannot say what my views are regarding head coverings outside of corporate worship, but I can say that they ought be worn in corporate worship. Head coverings are an ordinance, just like the Lord's Supper in the latter part of the chapter; both are symbolic of important things.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I don't see that Corinthians require women at home praying in private to cover their heads - it seems to be an assembly thing.

It seems to be something that happens for those that pray and prophesy in the assembled congregation.

Therefore, a head covering would be a "part-time practice" of maybe a few moments a week at the most.



Anyone with insights on "praying and prophesying?"

And the angels watch us only a few moments a week?
-----Added 11/28/2008 at 09:32:38 EST-----

Originally Posted by Mindaboo

Do you wear the covering only when you pray (publicly? or privately too?) and prophesy or do you need to wear it all the time. Covering seems connected with praying and prophesying.

I would like to hear some answers to this as well. As a woman in submission to her husband and elders in the church I don't believe that I am in sin by not wearing an official covering in church. My husband is my covering, if he is not there, the elders would be my covering. If I am to be silent in church, which I am, how can I be praying and prophesying? I guess silent prayers would be the answer? I can think of many times when I am awakened from sleep and spend time in prayer before the Lord, would I then be in sin by not getting out of bed and putting a covering on? Does it hinder my prayers by not wearing a covering? I studied this with a dear friend years ago and neither of us was convinced that we needed to wear a covering. Our husbands weren't convinced either. If someone were to show me biblically why I need to do this I would gladly repent and change my ways. I am not trying to be a "pot stirrer" here, I just don't understand the idea of wearing the covering.

It's already been shown. Also, using extremism does not default the case. Nowhere does it say in Scripture that one's prayers are hindered or helped by covering. Merely that we are to do so. And yes, I've known women that have a sleep covering or keep one under their pillow. BTW, I pray in the shower. I don't believe that my prayers are unheard. There is a reason I am uncovered at the moment. The covering isn't some sort of talisman. It's a simple command. And those that choose to obey it beyond services do so in accordance with the other two issues: because of the angels and modesty. Also, they see it as their witness (prophesying) and prayer as continuous events...not a few moments on the Lord's Day.

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

And the angels watch us only a few moments a week?

LF,

I believe v5 shows us that Paul's whole point in 1 Cor 11 is to regulate the covering of women when praying or prohesying. Angels do watch us more than a few moments a week, but Paul's purpose in mentioning the angels is to give another reason why women must cover when praying or prophesying. The context does not allow that reference to be pushed beyond that.

Or, put another way, I think Paul is saying God wants women to cover when praying and prophesying, hence women should be conscious that angels are watching and must cover at the appropriate time.

Originally Posted by satz

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

And the angels watch us only a few moments a week?

LF,

I believe v5 shows us that Paul's whole point in 1 Cor 11 is to regulate the covering of women when praying or prohesying. Angels do watch us more than a few moments a week, but Paul's purpose in mentioning the angels is to give another reason why women must cover when praying or prophesying. The context does not allow that reference to be pushed beyond that.

Or, put another way, I think Paul is saying God wants women to cover when praying and prophesying, hence women should be conscious that angels are watching and must cover at the appropriate time.

There's been debates over this particular issue...and I disagree that that is why the angels are mentioned.

I guess when I follow Paul’s logic I just see it this way:

v3: There is an order between men and women. Well, ok, but how does that affect us practically?

Paul goes on to tell us in v4-5 that this order results in different treatment of the head during prayer and prophesying.

He then goes on to give additional arguments why this should be so. Verse 10 regarding the angels is another argument of his to back up his initial point from v4-5 – covering when praying or prophesying

I would like to back up to the definitions of "praying" and "prophesying" - who dos this and is this done by all, or only those who are leading the praying and the prophesying?

If women do not pray and prophesy in church, then therre is no need for a headcovering is there?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I would like to back up to the definitions of "praying" and "prophesying" - who dos this and is this done by all, or only those who are leading the praying and the prophesying?

If women do not pray and prophesy in church, then therre is no need for a headcovering is there?

There have been a few headcovering posts of late, so I cannot quite recall where I said it, but as I posted before, I believe "praying" and "prophesying", in the context of 1 Corinthians, refers to the spiritual gift of inspired prophecy.

From what I currently believe, this gift operated in the apostolic era for various reasons, but particularly because the churches at that time did not yet have a complete New Testament. It would, for instance, be impossible for a uninspired Corinthian pastor to preach on anything from 2 Corinthians before Paul had written it. As a result, the Holy Spirit would move inspired prophets to speak during the assembly and to teach the congregation as necessary.

When you look at Paul’s use of the word “prophecy” in 1 Corinthians, I think it is clear that in the context of 1 Corinthians, “prophecy” is the inspired gift of prophecy, not anything else. Look at 1 Cor 12:28, where Paul lists the gifts in order. Prophets are a class of teacher in between apostles and teachers. They did not have the power or office of an apostle like Paul or Peter, but unlike ordinary teachers, they were inspired.

1 Corinthians 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 Corinthians 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 Corinthians 13:2 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 Corinthians 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 Corinthians 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 Corinthians 14:22-25 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: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

1 Corinthians 14:29-32 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.

I think once that is established, then from the close connection of prayer and prophecy in 1 Cor 11:4-5, we can tell that prayer is another form of inspired revelation. As I said in another post, it would make no sense for Paul to choose to regulate one inspired activity, and one normal, corporate activity. Rather, it makes better sense that both are different forms of the same activity – inspired teaching of the church during the assembly.

Here is another verse that seems to hint at inspired prayer:

1 Corinthians 14:14-17 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

So that is how, at the moment, I believe 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 should be interpreted.

So, if that is the case, there is no more need for headcovering unless

(1) these inspired gifts returned,

and

(2) God distributed these gifts to women

(which he seems to have done in the NT era, and these women seem to have used these gifts publickly in front of the church and in front of men...)

Originally Posted by Pergamum

So, if that is the case, there is no more need for headcovering unless

(1) these inspired gifts returned,

and

(2) God distributed these gifts to women

(which he seems to have done in the NT era, and these women seem to have used these gifts publickly in front of the church and in front of men...)

While also acknowledging that no major reformed commentator that I know of holds to this view, I would say that I would, at the moment, agree with this.

I believe that God did distribute the gift of prophecy to women in NT times (Acts 2:17-18) and they did indeed exercise their gift in the church assembly and in front of men. This was not usurping authority because (1) inspired teaching is really the Holy Spirit speaking - how can it be usurping the authority of men? (2) 1 Cor 14:34 says "as also saith the law". And the law allowed inspired prophetesses to teach, command or speak in the presence of men, as we see in Miriam, Deborah, Huldah and Anna.

It may be said that those were exceptions, but my point is the situation Paul was addressing in 1 Cor 11 is basically an exception too. God gave the gift of prophecy for a very short time at the infancy of the church. After the apostles had completed writing the NT, that gift went away, along with many of the other supernatural gifts.

So this was an exceptional circumstance. Because of this, in acknowledgment that what they were doing was out of the ordinary, NT prophetesses prophesying in the assembly had to wear a covering as a sign of submission to the normal church order.

Again, for the time being, that what I believe to be the correct explanation for the first half of 1 Cor 11.

Wow, interesting - I would like to weigh this view a little more.


It makes a lot of sense, and yet is suspect because of its lack of endorsement by those who came before us.


Can you look for some others who might hold this?

Prayer doesn't mean praying out loud or leading. Simply being there and quietly praying and worshiping is included.
G4336
προσεύχομαι
proseuchomai
pros-yoo'-khom-ahee
From G4314 and G2172; to pray to God, that is, supplicate, worship: - pray (X earnestly, for), make prayer.

There are some questions that are hard to answer if this covering talked about is something physical that is to be put on the head. One of the most difficult for me to answer is that since Paul is making the argument from creation (the order that God set up) and you would expect then that the command would not just be for the New Covenant times but also the Old, why were priests commanded to put a covering on their heads? (see Exodus 28, 29, 39 and Lev. 8 and 16). Aren't men supposed to have their heads uncovered?

The only time a physical covering is mentioned in the passage seems to be in reference to a woman's hair. Verse 10 talks about having "authority" or "power" on her head, not a physical object. Paul's main point seems to be maintaining God ordained authority in the worship service.

As was noted earlier, why does Paul permit a woman to pray and prophesy as long as she covers her head and then a few chapters later forbid women altogether from speaking? Why take the time to build an argument here for women to pray and prophesy in worship and then in one verse in chapter 14 silence them altogether?

This seems to me to be a passage that would fall under the more difficult to understand and therefore should not be the starting point for a doctrine of head coverings.

That being said, I have no problem with women wearing head coverings.

This thread inspired me to try to learn more about headcoverings. I do not wear one.
I listened to this sermon by a Richard Bacon on headcoverings, and he brought up some great points.

One that I recall was about prophesying: According to him, prophesying is reading aloud God's word. If women are singing Psalms or even hymns with scripture, then they would be prophesying.

The most convincing point, which I can now wrestle with, was about the glory aspect.
1) God's glory is man, so if a man covers his head while praying, he is covering God's glory.
2) Man's glory is the woman, so when she covers her head, man's glory is being covered before God.
3) Woman's glory is her hair, so again, when her head is covered, so is her own glory.

In this way, man and woman's glory is hidden, and God's is not.

I think, though, that to make an argument for all the time covering would be the same as saying that a man can never wear a hat or have his head covered...

Jessica makes a good point. I don't cover all the time but only in corporate worship since the text makes plain that my normal covering by the light of nature is my hair. I only need the second covering in worship for the reasons given. So any covering outside of worship is going to be cultural, and I would honor that if I lived in a culture where it was unseemly for me to not be covered.

However, our culture is not like that at all anymore. Now a days it doesn't mean anything to cover. It used to be that matrons (married ladies) covered and it was apparent who was married and who was not. I kind of wish that was still the case but it's not.

Originally Posted by he beholds

One that I recall was about prophesying: According to him, prophesying is reading aloud God's word. If women are singing Psalms or even hymns with scripture, then they would be prophesying.

Hi Jessica,

Can I ask what was Dr Bacon’s reasoning for defining “prophecy” he way he did? I have tried in post #34 to explain why I do not believe that is the correct definition of prophecy in 1 Cor 11. Can prophecy be defined that way? Yes. Does the bible sometimes use the word prophecy in that way? Again, yes. But I would say that the context of 1 Corinthians as a book would require a narrower definition.

The most convincing point, which I can now wrestle with, was about the glory aspect.
1) God's glory is man, so if a man covers his head while praying, he is covering God's glory.
2) Man's glory is the woman, so when she covers her head, man's glory is being covered before God.
3) Woman's glory is her hair, so again, when her head is covered, so is her own glory.

In this way, man and woman's glory is hidden, and God's is not.

I think, though, that to make an argument for all the time covering would be the same as saying that a man can never wear a hat or have his head covered...

I would also add that this cannot be an argument for “all the time” covering. The key to understanding 1 Cor 11 is, from what I currently believe, to identify the “pray and prophecy” in verses 4 to 5. Because all of Paul’s arguments are meant to support the point he specifically tells us - the treatment of the head by the two sexes during prayer and prophecy. While Paul’s arguments can teach us principles, they cannot, as far as headcoverings go, be forced beyond what Paul intended them to teach, whether that is covering outside of worship, or even within worship when not “praying and prophesying”.