Should women cover up? - Page 3

x.spasitel · #81 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Staphlobob

However, I've often thought that should our tiny church fail, I would probably like to join up with Michael Daniels at Trinity Reformed (RPCNA) in Beltsville and their head-covering practice. (Though my own wife, still something of a liberal, wouldn't join me. Heartbreaking.)

Hi...just letting you know that our church is quietly divided on the subject...some do, including my family and the pastor's family...some don't.

And Mr. Daniels (sorry, but I can't bring myself to call your thunaer

) I have a copy of Calvin's sermon that you quoted, and he speaks about 'cultural relevancy' there:

"With regard to men, he says just the opposite: 'it is a shame to them if they wear long hair'. Here St. Paul is merely speaking of the same custom that was then in vogue, especially in the countries of which he was speaking. For, at that time, as in both Germany and France today, it was not customary for men to have their heads clipped or shaved; they had a head of hair. And even if one considers antiquity, men certainly wore their hair long, even the people of God, as we see in the case of Absalom. And all the ancient histories indicate that it was not the custom of men to clip or shave their heads, any more than the women: hair was common to them all; yet St. Paul accepts the common practice here."

There's more, but I don't want to bother typing it all out (since I can't find it on the internet). It's a sermon of Calvin's, published as Men, Women, and Order in the Church, translated by Seth Skotnitsky, and published by Presbyterian Heritage Publications.

armourbearer · #82 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Ok, then answer me this one: Why is it that I Cor 11 is a culturally-based/-relevant issue, but we use the second part of the chapter almost verbatim when we perform the Lord's Supper?

(Don't mean to hijack here, but I think that it's still relevant to the argument...thanks for the well thought-out answers to the off-the cuff arguments!)

What Paul teaches in the first half of the chapter is as universally binding as what he teaches in the second half of the chapter. The question is, What does he teach. In the first half he is praising them for keeping the ordinances as he delivered them. v. 2. In the second half he cannot praise them because their coming together is not for the better, v. 17. The former half is therefore corrective of a minor point. The latter half is a stern rebuke for corrupting the worship of God. The different tone of the two halves should alert us to the fact that these problems are not of the same nature. So I will answer a question with a question: Why is it that the first part of the chapter is placed in the same category of importance as the second half of the chapter? Read the whole chapter contextually and it is as clear as day that one is minor whilst the other is a major problem.

kvanlaan · #83 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 09:42 PM

Rev Winzer, I would agree, to a point. I don't think that they are of the same gravity. However, one is no less inspired than the other; where does the one fail to be implemented (though he states clearly: 16 But if any man lust to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God) while the other is, again, preserved almost verbatim?

I think part of my argument is the (not unfounded) fear that if this

is culturally influenced and contextual then this

is culturally influenced and contextual and then this

may someday become this

and someday this

will become this:

Maybe a bit of hyperbole, but I think the concept is valid. The modern concept of "cultural context" has a nasty habit of biting one in one's own bottom after a time.

armourbearer · #84 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Maybe a bit of hyperbole, but I think the concept is valid. The modern concept of "cultural context" has a nasty habit of biting one in one's own bottom after a time.

Well presented hyperbole. It is a slippery slope we should all be very careful of. But the point is that the cultural awareness is found in Paul's teaching itself. I am not saying, That was then and this is now. My point is that Paul himself makes the issue of headcoverings a cultural issue, whilst the issue of the Lord's supper is a moral one. He is praising them for keeping the ordinances. Headcoverings, then, are not an ordinance. He uses the word "shame," which is a cultural indicator. Later (chap. 14) he says that it is both a shame and contrary to the law for a woman to speak in the churches. That indicates a moral norm. But here it is merely a "shame" for a woman to be uncovered in worship. Again, the apostle bases his instruction on the natural order. The moral is to be found in the different functions of the sexes. The headcovering is merely a cultural expression of that functionality. As for v. 16, "contention" on such matters are against the custom of the church. This actually substantiates the point that this is a cultural practice because we are duty-bound to contend for moral norms.

bookslover · #85 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Mr. Zuelch, I believe it is Jennifer Ehle, not Meryl Streep. (I think it is from the A&E production of Pride and Prejudice, one of my wife's favorites.)

I'm unfamiliar with Miss Ehle, but she looks like a Streep clone.

kvanlaan · #86 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 10:38 PM

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.

I still think it is the way to go (though we don't personally, yet - threads like this are part of my investigations into it.) More reading required, I guess...

Calvibaptist · #87 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 10:38 PM

First a comment, then a question regarding 1 Corinthians 11 and head coverings.

Comment - although this thread has focused a lot on modesty and lust, that is not the issue in 1 Corinthians 11. The issue is submission to headship. Man is the head of woman (vs. 3). Therefore, the woman has a symbol of authority on her head (vs. 10).

Question - Doesn't verse 15 say that a woman's hair is given for a covering? Would not this fulfill the biblical symbol of submission to man's authority?

Coram Deo · #88 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 11:17 PM

I have read many views of verse 16 and the best I have found that gives the most reasonable explaination of the previous 15 verse is this.....

If any man seems to be contenious We have no "OTHER" custom "that is contrary to the Doctrine of the headcovering" nor do the churches of God.

Which makes sense since Paul just wrote 15 other verses on the importance of the headcovering.... Regardless of what Mr. Poole has to say......

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

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.

I still think it is the way to go (though we don't personally, yet - threads like this are part of my investigations into it.) More reading required, I guess...

LAYMAN JOE · #89 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 11:23 PM

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

Quote:

Mr. V. Connors,
Presbytery Clerk,
Evangelical Presbyterian Church,
Australia

Dear Mr. Connors,

I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th. I very deeply appreciate your request even though I may not be able to provide any definitive advice on the questions asked. Allow me to give my judgement on the second question first.

If the Presbytery becomes convinced that a head covering for women belongs to the decorum governing the conduct of women in the worship of God, then I think Presbytery should declare accordingly. I would not suppose it necessary expressly to legislate. I think it would be enough to make a resolution for the instruction and guidance of ministers, sessions, and people. A higher judicatory has both right and duty to offer to those under its jurisdiction, guidance respecting divine obligation. This has been recognised in Reformed Churches throughout the world.

Your main question turns, of course, on the interpretation of I Corinthians 11:2-16. Permit me to offer some of my reflections in order.

1. Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (vss. 3b, vss. 7ff.), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom.

2. I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for the man (vss. 4, & 7) and enjoined for the woman (vss. 5, 6, 15). In the case of the woman the covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. In this connection it is not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair was given the woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5, 6. The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: "the hair is given to her for a covering." This is within the scope of the particular agrument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from "nature" of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (vss. 5, 6, 13) is in line with what "nature" teaches.

3. There is good reason for believing that the apostle is thinking of conduct in the public assemblies of the Church of God and of worship exercises therein in verse 17, this is clearly the case, and verse 18 is confirmatory. But there is a distinct similarity between the terms of verse 17 and of verse 2. Verse 2 begins, "Now I praise you" and verse 17, "Now in this . . . I praise you not". The virtually identical expressions, the one positive and the other negative, would suggest, if not require, that both have in view the behaviour of the saints in their assemblies, that is, that in respect of denotation the same people are in view in the same identity as worshippers. If a radical difference, that between private and public, were contemplated, it would be difficult to maintain the appropriateness of the contrast between "I praise you" and "I praise you not".

4. Beyond question it is in reference to praying and prophesying that the injuctions pertain, the absence of head covering for men and the presence for women. It might seem, therefore, that the passage has nothing to do with a head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church if they are not engaged in praying or prophesying, that is, in leading in prayer or exercising the gift of prophesying. And the implication would be that only when they performed these functions were they required to use head covering. The further implication would be that they would be at liberty to perform these functions provided they wore head gear. This view could easily be adopted if it were not so that Paul forbids such exercises on the part of women and does so in the same epistle, (I Cor. 14:33b-36): "As in all the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak" (vss. 33b-34a). It is impossible to think that Paul would, by implication, lend approval in chapter 11, to what he so expressly prohibits in chapter 14. Hence we shall have to conclude that he does not contemplate praying or prophesying on the part of women in the Church in chapter 11. The question arises: how can this be, and how can we interpret 11:5, 6, 13? It is possible to interpret the verses in chapter 11 in a way that is compatible with chapter 14:33b-36. It is as follows: —

a. In chapter 11 the decorum prescribed in 14:33b-36 is distinctly in view and Paul is showing its propriety. Praying and prophesying are functions that imply authority, the authority that belongs to the man as distinguished from the woman according to the ordinance of creation. The man in exercising this authority in praying and prophesying must not wear a head covering. Why not? The head covering is the sign of subjection, the opposite of the authority that belongs to him, exemplified in praying and prophesying, hence 11:4, 7. In a word, head covering in praying and prophesying would be a contradiction.

b. But precisely here enters the relevance of verses 5, 6, 13 as they pertain to women. If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5, 6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions — praying and prophesying — on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely, the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?"

c. This interpretation removes all discrepancy between 11:5, 6, 13 and 14:33b-36 and it seems to me feasible, and consonant with the whole drift of 11:2-16.

5. The foregoing implies that the head covering for women was understood to belong to the decorum of public worship.

6. The above line of thought would derive confirmation from I Cor. 11:10. Admittedly the reference to the angels is not immediately perspicuous. But a reasonable interpretation is that the presence of the angels with the people of God and therefore their presence in the congregations of the saints. What is being pleaded is the offence given to the holy angels when the impropriety concerned mars the sancity of God's worship. But, in any case, the obligation asserted is apparent. It is that the woman ought to have upon her head the sign of the authority to which she is subject, in other words, the sign of her subjection. But this subjection pertains throughout and not simply when in the exercise of praying and prophesying according to the supposition that such is permitted. I submit, therefore, that the verse concerned (vs. 10) enunciates a requirement that is general within the scope of the subject with which Paul is dealing, namely, the decorum of worship in the assembly of the saints.

On these grounds my judgment is that presupposed in the Apostle's words is the accepted practice of head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church, that apparently this part of decorum was recognised, and that the main point of verses 5, 6, 10, 13 was the impropriety of any interruption of the practice if women were to pray or prophesy, for, in that event, it would be necessary to remove the covering in order to signify the authority that praying and prophesying entailed, an authority not possessed by women, a non-possession signified, in turn, by the use of the covering.

If you so desire I could send you two copies of the Westminster Theological Jounal in which opposing interpretations are given, one by Noel Weeks and the other by James B. Hurley. My interpretation has been proposed by Noel Weeks and I acknowledge my debt to him. But the argument as developed is my own. If I send you these copies of the Journal they would have to be sent by surface mail and might take two months to reach you.

With my kind regards to you and the members of your Presbytery,
I am
Sincerely yours,
John Murray

I believe this to be a brief and accurate interpretation.

Coram Deo · #90 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 11:23 PM

Read the Greek.........

Verse 15 uses the word Peribolaion which is hair and yes hair is "A" covering, but not "the" covering...

But Verse 4 and 5 uses the word Katakalupto which is a Veil covering to go over the hair covering.......

Paul uses hair "a natural covering" from nature to prove that a veil covering is required..... "Does not nature itself"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

First a comment, then a question regarding 1 Corinthians 11 and head coverings.

Comment - although this thread has focused a lot on modesty and lust, that is not the issue in 1 Corinthians 11. The issue is submission to headship. Man is the head of woman (vs. 3). Therefore, the woman has a symbol of authority on her head (vs. 10).

Question - Doesn't verse 15 say that a woman's hair is given for a covering? Would not this fulfill the biblical symbol of submission to man's authority?

Coram Deo · #91 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 11:26 PM

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.

armourbearer · #92 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

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.

LAYMAN JOE · #93 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 11:28 PM

Paster Mixer,

See Murrays # 2 point.

armourbearer · #94 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAYMAN JOE

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.

Joshua · #95 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Time to go fall on my sword.

This cracked me up (and you open, I guess

)

bookslover · #96 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

armourbearer · #97 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

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 · #98 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 03:59 AM

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 · #99 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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?