Should women have their heads covered in worship?

[Contra Marcion]

Well, I shouldn't have said "That was for then not now" in one of my post. I was in the middle of communicating with another person when I wrote that. I shouldn't have tried doing two things at one time. It was a reflex comment which apparently still lingers in my subconscious. When I was a big John Macarthur fan it was my thinking that this text was cultural and so I can only blame "old stuff" coming out of my brain while I commented. I'm sorry for confusing people on where I stand on this. This whole chapter does still apply to all of us. A very good reformed preacher showed me how wrong my thinking was on this matter all the way from rejecting it as just culture to thinking that women had to have long hair. It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship. Also, in the OT we see no such instructions on women having to wear head coverings, but we do see headship spoken of in the OT. Seems odd to me that Paul would start a new law and only address the Corinthian church concerning the new law. A better glance at this would lead a person to understand that the Corinthian women were most likely trying to usurp the men's authority and Paul was teaching them headship. In any case, if a woman wants to wear a head covering because of her conscious, I don't see it as a sin as long as she see the real reason for this text. And if a husband demands that his wife and daughters wear a covering, then the wife needs to submit to her husband because submitting is the actual point of this text. I can tell you I will never be convinced of this and will never wear one. I find it distracting. I would constantly be thinking about the little doily sitting on my head instead of worshipping God.

I would be a little cautious with using the word never - I once said I would never baptize infants!

I'm curious, though - where, exactly is this "better glance"? Is there more in the text that I'm not seeing? Would a "better glance" have helped Calvin see it your way? It seems rather presumptuous to suggest that many of the greatest exegetes of Scripture the Lord has ever given the Church are lacking just a "better glance"!
The idea of a Corinthian "usurpation" problem makes refusing to cover one's head explainable, but does not come from anywhere in the text. In fact, this is the same type of presumption that is used to justify women in the pastorate! The text does not say "because of this rotten Corinthian culture, cover your heads. If simply says, "cover your head". You've imported the cultural part to fit your view.
And yes, women did cover in the OT (Num. 5:18, Gen. 24;64), though their participation in worship (the original context of the argument) was much more limited. In giving direction for New Testament worship, wherein there is greater freedom, Paul now gives instruction for women to cover their heads - not as a modesty issue, but as a sign of being under the "covering" of her husband.
BTW, you sound as if this topic really touches a tender spot - please don't take my response as a personal attack. I disagree with you, yes, but I don't wish to unnecessarily upset a dear sister in Christ.

 

[Galatians220]

I wonder if anyone on this board goes to a church which demands a woman wear a head covering.

I do.

Well, "demands" is rather strong. I would say that the FCC "enthusiastically encourages" women to wear headcoverings.

Long before I ever heard of the FCC, however, I was covering my head. I resisted it vociferously during the 10 years of research that I did on the subject. My arguments against it finally got clocked, at least in my own mind.

As with the always edifying TR (KJV/Old Geneva vs. CT) discussions, I don't try to convince people to see things my way. I myself was unconvinced until I convinced myself. Sometimes it takes a painstaking amount of time.

Blessings to all!

Margaret

 

[Skyler]

I wonder if anyone on this board goes to a church which demands a woman wear a head covering.

I do.

Well, "demands" is rather strong. I would say that the FCC "enthusiastically encourages" women to wear headcoverings.

Long before I ever heard of the FCC, however, I was covering my head. I resisted it vociferously during the 10 years of research that I did on the subject. My arguments against it finally got clocked, at least in my own mind.

As with the always edifying TR (KJV/Old Geneva vs. CT) discussions, I don't try to convince people to see things my way. I myself was unconvinced until I convinced myself. Sometimes it takes a painstaking amount of time.

Blessings to all!

Margaret

My mom actually started covering her head before she even realized that there were other people who also did so.

That was part of the reason we began attending the church we are at now, which *strongly encourages* the head covering.

 

[OPC'n]

Well, I shouldn't have said "That was for then not now" in one of my post. I was in the middle of communicating with another person when I wrote that. I shouldn't have tried doing two things at one time. It was a reflex comment which apparently still lingers in my subconscious. When I was a big John Macarthur fan it was my thinking that this text was cultural and so I can only blame "old stuff" coming out of my brain while I commented. I'm sorry for confusing people on where I stand on this. This whole chapter does still apply to all of us. A very good reformed preacher showed me how wrong my thinking was on this matter all the way from rejecting it as just culture to thinking that women had to have long hair. It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship. Also, in the OT we see no such instructions on women having to wear head coverings, but we do see headship spoken of in the OT. Seems odd to me that Paul would start a new law and only address the Corinthian church concerning the new law. A better glance at this would lead a person to understand that the Corinthian women were most likely trying to usurp the men's authority and Paul was teaching them headship. In any case, if a woman wants to wear a head covering because of her conscious, I don't see it as a sin as long as she see the real reason for this text. And if a husband demands that his wife and daughters wear a covering, then the wife needs to submit to her husband because submitting is the actual point of this text. I can tell you I will never be convinced of this and will never wear one. I find it distracting. I would constantly be thinking about the little doily sitting on my head instead of worshipping God.

I would be a little cautious with using the word never - I once said I would never baptize infants!

I'm curious, though - where, exactly is this "better glance"? Is there more in the text that I'm not seeing? Would a "better glance" have helped Calvin see it your way? It seems rather presumptuous to suggest that many of the greatest exegetes of Scripture the Lord has ever given the Church are lacking just a "better glance"!
The idea of a Corinthian "usurpation" problem makes refusing to cover one's head explainable, but does not come from anywhere in the text. In fact, this is the same type of presumption that is used to justify women in the pastorate! The text does not say "because of this rotten Corinthian culture, cover your heads. If simply says, "cover your head". You've imported the cultural part to fit your view.
And yes, women did cover in the OT (Num. 5:18, Gen. 24;64), though their participation in worship (the original context of the argument) was much more limited. In giving direction for New Testament worship, wherein there is greater freedom, Paul now gives instruction for women to cover their heads - not as a modesty issue, but as a sign of being under the "covering" of her husband.
BTW, you sound as if this topic really touches a tender spot - please don't take my response as a personal attack. I disagree with you, yes, but I don't wish to unnecessarily upset a dear sister in Christ.

Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards.

Seriously, Num 5:18 only states that they will unbind the woman's hair doesn't say anything about a head covering. And Gen 24:64 only states that Rebecca got off her camel.....not sure how that has anything to do with head coverings except that maybe one should wear one and a face mask too because camels stink so bad... And no I'm not mad because I don't have to wear one. I might not be happy if I did but since I don't.....

 

[Skyler]

Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards.

Seriously, Num 5:18 only states that they will unbind the woman's hair doesn't say anything about a head covering. And Gen 24:64 only states that Rebecca got off her camel.....not sure how that has anything to do with head coverings except that maybe one should wear one and a face mask too because camels stink so bad... And no I'm not mad because I don't have to wear one. I might not be happy if I did but since I don't.....

I think Genesis 24:65 may have been the verse in question here...

"...So she took her veil and covered herself. "

 

[OPC'n]

Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards.

Seriously, Num 5:18 only states that they will unbind the woman's hair doesn't say anything about a head covering. And Gen 24:64 only states that Rebecca got off her camel.....not sure how that has anything to do with head coverings except that maybe one should wear one and a face mask too because camels stink so bad... And no I'm not mad because I don't have to wear one. I might not be happy if I did but since I don't.....

I think Genesis 24:65 may have been the verse in question here...

"...So she took her veil and covered herself. "

That has nothing to do with worship service. She is covering herself before meeting up with her future husband. Nothing in this verse shows that women have to wear head coverings in church. If it does, then we are going to have to be like the Muslims and wear them whenever we are in the presence of men.

 

[he beholds]

OK, another question. If it goes back to creation, why did some men in the OT (Samson) have long hair? (I know why Samson did, but why was that possible?)
Are we sure that it was always shameful for men to have long hair? I don't think it is shameful for men to have long hair now. I might not prefer it, but I don't think it is shameful.
And lots of old ladies have short hair--I don't think that's shameful. Though again, I might prefer long hair.


I am truly stuck on this issue, so my questions aren't rhetorical. I'm not sure if you can read tone very well over the internet, but if you can, I hope you notice there is no
bull dog present in my comments on this topic

 

[Hamalas]

NOT ME! Nope never going there!

Famous last words.

Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards.

 

[kvanlaan]

I can tell you I will never be convinced of this and will neverwear one.

I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it.

I give you ten years, tops.

 

[OPC'n]

OK, another question. If it goes back to creation, why did some men in the OT (Samson) have long hair? (I know why Samson did, but why was that possible?)
Are we sure that it was always shameful for men to have long hair? I don't think it is shameful for men to have long hair now. I might not prefer it, but I don't think it is shameful.
And lots of old ladies have short hair--I don't think that's shameful. Though again, I might prefer long hair.


I am truly stuck on this issue, so my questions aren't rhetorical. I'm not sure if you can read tone very well over the internet, but if you can, I hope you notice there is no
bull dog present in my comments on this topic

Well, first no has proven that the requirement for women to wear head coverings goes back to creation. Adam and Eve didn't even wear clothes much less Eve wearing a head covering. It's the concept of submission that goes back to the garden.

 

[Theognome]

It's interesting that in America, the head covering didn't become an issue until feminism infiltrated the church in the late 19th century. It took a culture that found submission offensive to begin isogeting against its' use.

Theognome

 

[Contra Marcion]

Well, I shouldn't have said "That was for then not now" in one of my post. I was in the middle of communicating with another person when I wrote that. I shouldn't have tried doing two things at one time. It was a reflex comment which apparently still lingers in my subconscious. When I was a big John Macarthur fan it was my thinking that this text was cultural and so I can only blame "old stuff" coming out of my brain while I commented. I'm sorry for confusing people on where I stand on this. This whole chapter does still apply to all of us. A very good reformed preacher showed me how wrong my thinking was on this matter all the way from rejecting it as just culture to thinking that women had to have long hair. It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship. Also, in the OT we see no such instructions on women having to wear head coverings, but we do see headship spoken of in the OT. Seems odd to me that Paul would start a new law and only address the Corinthian church concerning the new law. A better glance at this would lead a person to understand that the Corinthian women were most likely trying to usurp the men's authority and Paul was teaching them headship. In any case, if a woman wants to wear a head covering because of her conscious, I don't see it as a sin as long as she see the real reason for this text. And if a husband demands that his wife and daughters wear a covering, then the wife needs to submit to her husband because submitting is the actual point of this text. I can tell you I will never be convinced of this and will never wear one. I find it distracting. I would constantly be thinking about the little doily sitting on my head instead of worshipping God.

I would be a little cautious with using the word never - I once said I would never baptize infants!

I'm curious, though - where, exactly is this "better glance"? Is there more in the text that I'm not seeing? Would a "better glance" have helped Calvin see it your way? It seems rather presumptuous to suggest that many of the greatest exegetes of Scripture the Lord has ever given the Church are lacking just a "better glance"!
The idea of a Corinthian "usurpation" problem makes refusing to cover one's head explainable, but does not come from anywhere in the text. In fact, this is the same type of presumption that is used to justify women in the pastorate! The text does not say "because of this rotten Corinthian culture, cover your heads. If simply says, "cover your head". You've imported the cultural part to fit your view.
And yes, women did cover in the OT (Num. 5:18, Gen. 24;64), though their participation in worship (the original context of the argument) was much more limited. In giving direction for New Testament worship, wherein there is greater freedom, Paul now gives instruction for women to cover their heads - not as a modesty issue, but as a sign of being under the "covering" of her husband.
BTW, you sound as if this topic really touches a tender spot - please don't take my response as a personal attack. I disagree with you, yes, but I don't wish to unnecessarily upset a dear sister in Christ.

Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards.

Seriously, Num 5:18 only states that they will unbind the woman's hair doesn't say anything about a head covering. And Gen 24:64 only states that Rebecca got off her camel.....not sure how that has anything to do with head coverings except that maybe one should wear one and a face mask too because camels stink so bad... And no I'm not mad because I don't have to wear one. I might not be happy if I did but since I don't.....

I meant v. 65, not 64. (Reading too fast!). The point of Numbers 5:18 is that the act of unbinding the hair is an act of humbling - ordinarily, a woman's hair was "bound", that is up and covered in some manner. Having her hair "unbound" was a demonstration of her presumed "uncleanness" (cf. Lev. 13:45).
Rebekah, also, covered her head with a veil in the presence of her "master".
The point of bringing these up is not to make a solid case that head coverings were always worn throughout the history of God's people, but to make the case that Paul is not introducing a brand new idea in 1 Cor. 11.

a bit, while the reformed world has not uniformly embraced head coverings, the OPC has embraced the Directory for Public Worship - so baseball hats backwards are probably not consistent with DPW 2.7. (I know you were kidding - I'm just being difficult!)

 

[OPC'n]

I can tell you I will never be convinced of this and will neverwear one.

I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it.

I give you ten years, tops.

Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----

a bit, while the reformed world has not uniformly embraced head coverings, the OPC has embraced the Directory for Public Worship - so baseball hats backwards are probably not consistent with DPW 2.7. (I know you were kidding - I'm just being difficult!)

Oh, I think it was the face that led you to believe I was kidding. Well, I was kidding only because I don't believe the OPC would ever be led down this path. I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules. I could wear a baseball cap to church (no one has ever said that one isn't permissible) if they ever did go down that path. So in a way if it ever did happen I would be wearing my Packers green and gold right on top of my head and thus I wouldn't be kidding.

 

[Contra Marcion]

I can tell you I will never be convinced of this and will neverwear one.

I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it.

I give you ten years, tops.

Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----

Oh, I think it was the face that led you to believe I was kidding. Well, I was kidding only because I don't believe the OPC would ever be led down this path. I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules. I could wear a baseball cap to church (no one has ever said that one isn't permissible) if they ever did go down that path. So in a way if it ever did happen I would be wearing my Packers green and gold right on top of my head and thus I wouldn't be kidding.

So are you really (again) suggesting that Calvin had "left Biblical teaching" and "clung to his own rules"? If Biblical teaching is all that's important, let me ask you again: Where, in the Biblical teaching, does one get the idea that Paul was addressing merely a cultural issue in Corinth? Does the text say that, or are you clinging to your own rule of hermeneutics?
As far as the Packers hat goes - would you really defy the standards of your church just to be defiant? Have you read the DPW?

 

[OPC'n]

I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it.

I give you ten years, tops.

Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----

So are you really (again) suggesting that Calvin had "left Biblical teaching" and "clung to his own rules"? If Biblical teaching is all that important, let me ask you again: Where, in the Biblical teaching, does one get the idea that Paul was addressing merely a cultural issue in Corinth? Does the text say that, or are you cling to your own rule of hermeneutics?
As far as the Packers hat goes - would you really defy the standards of your church just to de defiant? Have you read the DPW?

No I wouldn't defy any rules at my church and if they prohibit Packer hats then I wouldn't wear one. I'm not trying to be defiant. I just think this is a man made law which I'm not going to observe.

Yes, I think Calvin (and I love the guy and agree with most all of his teachings) was wrong in this area. Think about his culture. He was speaking in terms of when he lived. And I said I misspoke when I said it was a cultural text. I believe that it isn't because it is speaking of headship not head coverings.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 10:14:39 EST-----

Also, no one has proven that Eve wore one...so head coverings are not a creational ordinance.

 

[Theognome]

I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules.

Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.

Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.

Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?

In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.

Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.

Theognome

 

[Contra Marcion]

Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----



No I wouldn't defy any rules at my church and if they prohibit Packer hats then I wouldn't wear one. I'm not trying to be defiant. I just think this is a man made law which I'm not going to observe.

Yes, I think Calvin (and I love the guy and agree with most all of his teachings) was wrong in this area. Think about his culture. He was speaking in terms of when he lived. And I said I misspoke when I said it was a cultural text. I believe that it isn't because it is speaking of headship not head coverings.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 10:14:39 EST-----

Also, no one has proven that Eve wore one...so head coverings are not a creational ordinance.

Did Eve wear head coverings? Don't know. Seems unlikely (doilies weren't invented yet!) Then again, was she baptized? Did she partake of the Supper? Did she tithe? Also probably not. Paul's appeal to creation is NOT to prove that Eve wore one, therefore so should all women, but that Adam (as you rightly pointed out) was the head of his wife. This fact of creation is reflected (not precedented) in Paul's letter to Corinth. Eve is not the EXAMPLE for women to wear coverings, just the REASON for it. What you are doing above is arguing against a point no one is making. This is "straw-man" argumentation.

BTW - I apologize for bringing up your cultural argument twice - I had forgotten you took that one back already.

 

[Craig]

Again, you aren't observing the Greek here nor the fact that Paul is appealing to nature to make his point in other areas.

I'm sorry, but telling me I'm "ignoring" the Greek says absolutely nothing...neither does mentioning that Paul appealed to nature since you haven't elaborated on how it follows that nature teaches women ought to wear additional clothing on their heads...I'm certain you and I both agree that man's authority is not a consequence of the Fall, but is the order of creation...Eve who was quintisentially submissive prior to the Fall, wore nothing but her hair...so is Paul appealing to a piece of cloth being apparent in nature, or the glorious locks God gave women? Even post Fall many men tend to bald whereas most women do not.

I do not know Greek...but you've given me no reason to think the English does disservice to the original language. Paul, himself, says a woman's hair is her covering. Instead of simply saying I am ignoring the Greek, do share. What does the English not contain that the Greek does?

Being hard-core about Patriarchy as I am, I have a fondness for the belief that Paul is teaching women to wear an additional piece of clothing on their head...I really do. After reading the passage carefully, I have come to believe that when I wavered toward the headcovering camp in the past, I was from focusing on my own assumption that an article of clothing was being mentioned when Paul states later what the covering actually is: Hair. The context makes little sense otherwise...Paul's biting words encouraging women to shave their heads would be out of place if he's speaking of cloth covering a woman's head. These women were usurping the order of authority and were trying to take on masculine features. Having discarded longer hair for shorter, they threw away what glory they had by nature...and might as well shave it all off to show just how hideous and unnatural that was.

 

[OPC'n]

I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules.

Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.

Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.

Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?

In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.

Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.

Theognome

Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.

Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.

 

[Hamalas]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Eve wore a head covering. Am I wrong?

 

[calgal]

I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it.

I give you ten years, tops.

Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----

So are you really (again) suggesting that Calvin had "left Biblical teaching" and "clung to his own rules"? If Biblical teaching is all that's important, let me ask you again: Where, in the Biblical teaching, does one get the idea that Paul was addressing merely a cultural issue in Corinth? Does the text say that, or are you clinging to your own rule of hermeneutics?
As far as the Packers hat goes - would you really defy the standards of your church just to be defiant? Have you read the DPW?

I would leave the church in a minute if and when they mandated headcovering. I find it interesting that certain hats are "acceptable" and others are not. So a Cubs hat (the only one I would ever wear to church and that would be for a picnic) is unacceptable but a Catholic like doily is ok?

 

[OPC'n]

Did Eve wear head coverings? Don't know. Seems unlikely (doilies weren't invented yet!) Then again, was she baptized? Did she partake of the Supper? Did she tithe? Also probably not. Paul's appeal to creation is NOT to prove that Eve wore one, therefore so should all women, but that Adam (as you rightly pointed out) was the head of his wife. This fact of creation is reflected (not precedented) in Paul's letter to Corinth. Eve is not the EXAMPLE for women to wear coverings, just the REASON for it. What you are doing above is arguing against a point no one is making. This is "straw-man" argumentation.

BTW - I apologize for bringing up your cultural argument twice - I had forgotten you took that one back already.

Neither were clothes. No she wasn't baptized nor partook of the Lord's Supper, maybe she tithed. However, you all are claiming that it is a creational ordinance and yet cannot prove something in which you believe. No one said it was a creational ordinance? Well, I could be wrong in thinking that someone said that. But since now it isn't one and none of your verses show that women wore head coverings for worship, I think you're left without anything on which to stand.

 

[Craig]

Again, you aren't observing the Greek here nor the fact that Paul is appealing to nature to make his point in other areas.

I'm sorry, but telling me I'm "ignoring" the Greek says absolutely nothing...neither does mentioning that Paul appealed to nature since you haven't elaborated on how it follows that nature teaches women ought to wear additional clothing on their heads...I'm certain you and I both agree that man's authority is not a consequence of the Fall, but is the order of creation...Eve who was quintisentially submissive prior to the Fall, wore nothing but her hair...so is Paul appealing to a piece of cloth being apparent in nature, or the glorious locks God gave women? Even post Fall many men tend to bald whereas most women do not.

I do not know Greek...but you've given me no reason to think the English does disservice to the original language. Paul, himself, says a woman's hair is her covering. Instead of simply saying I am ignoring the Greek, do share. What does the English not contain that the Greek does?

Being hard-core about Patriarchy as I am, I have a fondness for the belief that Paul is teaching women to wear an additional piece of clothing on their head...I really do. After reading the passage carefully, I have come to believe that when I wavered toward the headcovering camp in the past, I was from focusing on my own assumption that an article of clothing was being mentioned when Paul states later what the covering actually is: Hair. The context makes little sense otherwise...Paul's biting words encouraging women to shave their heads would be out of place if he's speaking of cloth covering a woman's head. These women were usurping the order of authority and were trying to take on masculine features. Having discarded longer hair for shorter, they threw away what glory they had by nature...and might as well shave it all off to show just how hideous and unnatural that was.

I'm with the headcovering crowd on this principle: Women MUST have the sign of submission covering their heads...this has NOT changed. This is not a principle for Paul's time only...but NOW as well. If one camp were to err and insist on wearing additional coverings besides hair, and another insist that the principle is "out-dated"...I'm going to the side of wearing extra head coverings. The other direction seems to disregard the authority of God's Word.

 

[Beth Ellen Nagle]

I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules.

Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.

Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.

Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?

In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.

Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.

Theognome

Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.

Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.

If head coverings are not an implication of a creational ordinance then we have to argue for them only from a post-Fall context. The point is, Eve did not have such a sign on her head. Is this what you are saying?

 

[OPC'n]

Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.

Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.

Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?

In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.

Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.

Theognome

Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.

Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.

If head coverings are not an implication of a creational ordinance then we have to argue for them only from a post-Fall context. The point is, Eve did not have such a sign on her head. Is this what you are saying?

thank you, Beth! That's exactly what I'm saying

 

[Beth Ellen Nagle]

Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.

Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.

If head coverings are not an implication of a creational ordinance then we have to argue for them only from a post-Fall context. The point is, Eve did not have such a sign on her head. Is this what you are saying?

thank you, Beth! That's exactly what I'm saying

Ok, so creation teaches us that the glory of woman is her hair and not a physical covering (Eve). Paul is referring to creation and not referring Post-Fall events. So the sign was visible to angels then by virtue of her natural covering? Is this what you might mean?

 

[Theognome]

I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules.

Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.

Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.

Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?

In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.

Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.

Theognome

Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.

Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.

I won't bother making an isogetical argument, which is what you're asking me to do. Paul, in his opening statement on this issue (Vs 2-3), states that it is specifically a headship ordinance, not a creational one. So, you yourself said that the text has everything to do with headship, yet you won't obey it without a creational argument? How is this reasonable?

Theognome

 

[OPC'n]

If head coverings are not an implication of a creational ordinance then we have to argue for them only from a post-Fall context. The point is, Eve did not have such a sign on her head. Is this what you are saying?

thank you, Beth! That's exactly what I'm saying

Ok, so creation teaches us that the glory of woman is her hair and not a physical covering (Eve). Paul is referring to creation and not referring Post-Fall events. So the sign was visible to angels then by virtue of her natural covering? Is this what you might mean?

I believe that the creational reference from Paul has to do with headship and has nothing to do with head coverings....hats or hair.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 10:47:08 EST-----

Paul uses hair as an example of headship. Man over woman....hair over head. It's just an example of how headship looks not a command for women to wear hats. Headship (submitting to headship I mean) is a woman's glory just like her hair is.

 

[Beth Ellen Nagle]

Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.

Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.

Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?

In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.

Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.

Theognome

Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.

Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.

I won't bother making an isogetical argument, which is what you're asking me to do. Paul, in his opening statement on this issue (Vs 2-3), states that it is specifically a headship ordinance, not a creational one. So, you yourself said that the text has everything to do with headship, yet you won't obey it without a creational argument? How is this reasonable?

Theognome

I am puzzled by this. Isn't headship rooted in ontology? It must reflect the nature of things (God/man) and creation does that very thing.

 

[lynnie]

The only reason people are arguing is because they are speaking English.

Please look at an interlinear greek. The verb for headcoverings being handed down, and communion being handed down, is THE SAME VERB.

Hair and the sign of authority are TWO DIFFERENT NOUNS both translated as "covering", but the one is NOT the other.

We've been down this path a couple dozen times. The minute people see the Greek, they conceed. The Greek is clear. This debate is rooted in English misunderstandings.