Clarification About Coverings

Status
Not open for further replies.

David073

Puritan Board Freshman
For those who hold to the conviction that women in the church should wear a covering on their heads per 1 Corinthians 11, I have a question regarding their use.

It seems quite clear that women are to cover their heads in the corporate worship of God, but my confusion is when it comes to verses concerning dress codes in worship. In these verses we see:

1 Peter 3:3-4

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious

1 Timothy 2:9-10

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

My questions are as follows: if women are to cover their heads during public worship, then why did both Peter and Paul refer to the woman’s hair and how it is not to be adorned? If a covering literally covers the head, then wouldn’t their hair not be visible? So why refer to their hair in this manner? Furthermore, what exactly is the covering? How is the covering to be worn for that matter?

Thank you and I look forward to your answers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1Pet.3:3-4 is not addressing 1C corporate worship and its decorum.
In 1Tim.2:9-10, while one may easily apply what is said to the corporate worship setting, I think Paul's instruction at v8, "pray everywhere," makes it clear that Paul is thinking well beyond that single setting. Therefore, meeting up to pray, formally or informally, might easily happen in various circumstances; and in most of them the head-covering wouldn't be an issue.

Also note: both instructions are negative, so if one assumed that covering was standard (but not consistently enforced) the counsel to modesty given could be interpreted as further encouragement to set aside all extravagent adornment.

We don't know precisely how the ancient headcovering looked. Perhaps it was a full veil, or maybe it was something a bit less obvious. Was it something that all women wore alike, or was there acceptable variety in the mode? If we're too legalistic, this could be a thing that the people with the rulers get them out to measure....

Paul's warning to the men strikes me as something that qualifies as addressing "typical male" sins, which could easily mar worship or a prayer meeting: wrath and disputing (I've heard some angry/self-righteous prayers before, and it's ugly). Paul addresses the women in a similar fashion: a typical failure on her part (something to mar a God-oriented meeting) might be some deliberate attention-seeking, or even some careless attendance that is distracting to others (women or men--it isn't always some guy who is thinking "she's hot;" it can just as easily be another woman needlessly provoked).

To the point, neither our prayer meeting nor our worship is fit for any of us to get on our soapbox, or get ourselves noticed, and we should keep this in mind when we attend to those things.
 
1Pet.3:3-4 is not addressing 1C corporate worship and its decorum.
In 1Tim.2:9-10, while one may easily apply what is said to the corporate worship setting, I think Paul's instruction at v8, "pray everywhere," makes it clear that Paul is thinking well beyond that single setting. Therefore, meeting up to pray, formally or informally, might easily happen in various circumstances; and in most of them the head-covering wouldn't be an issue.

Also note: both instructions are negative, so if one assumed that covering was standard (but not consistently enforced) the counsel to modesty given could be interpreted as further encouragement to set aside all extravagent adornment.

We don't know precisely how the ancient headcovering looked. Perhaps it was a full veil, or maybe it was something a bit less obvious. Was it something that all women wore alike, or was there acceptable variety in the mode? If we're too legalistic, this could be a thing that the people with the rulers get them out to measure....

Paul's warning to the men strikes me as something that qualifies as addressing "typical male" sins, which could easily mar worship or a prayer meeting: wrath and disputing (I've heard some angry/self-righteous prayers before, and it's ugly). Paul addresses the women in a similar fashion: a typical failure on her part (something to mar a God-oriented meeting) might be some deliberate attention-seeking, or even some careless attendance that is distracting to others (women or men--it isn't always some guy who is thinking "she's hot;" it can just as easily be another woman needlessly provoked).

To the point, neither our prayer meeting nor our worship is fit for any of us to get on our soapbox, or get ourselves noticed, and we should keep this in mind when we attend to those things.

Thank you very much for the detailed reply. I can see your point in 1 Timothy 2 with verse 8 seeming to imply that this isn’t speaking of corporate worship, but wouldn’t verses 11-12, “let a woman learn in silence with all obedience. I do not permit a woman to usurp authority over a man, but to be silent” seem to imply that the context of the passage is corporate worship? If not, why would Paul stress to wives in 1 Corinthians 14:35 to ask their husbands if they had any questions since it is improper for a woman to speak in church? Or is the apostle in 1 Timothy 2 moving from outside the local gathering of the church to corporate worship in his letter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I would say that the ‘broided hair’ fits in seemlessly with the admonishment about the rest of the woman’s garb. Maybe the women put on their veils after arriving at public worship and removed them before leaving, so that their hair could be noticed; or even if they remained covered coming and going from public worship, a too-elaborate or vain attention to their hair would be immodest on their part.
 
Thank you very much for the detailed reply. I can see your point in 1 Timothy 2 with verse 8 seeming to imply that this isn’t speaking of corporate worship, but wouldn’t verses 11-12, “let a woman learn in silence with all obedience. I do not permit a woman to usurp authority over a man, but to be silent” seem to imply that the context of the passage is corporate worship? If not, why would Paul stress to wives in 1 Corinthians 14:35 to ask their husbands if they had any questions since it is improper for a woman to speak in church? Or is the apostle in 1 Timothy 2 moving from outside the local gathering of the church to corporate worship in his letter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's my studied opinion--and if others may come to alternate conclusions, so be it--that Paul writes to Timothy with special attention to church order; and there is more to the church institution than public, corporate worship though it be of primary concern. For example, Timothy is to be concerned with the teaching of the church (ch.1): who is doing the teaching, do they know what they're talking about, the duty of the ministry to courageously police that department. Concern is to be had for the filling of offices, ch.3; no congregation will long survive bad men installed; and what sort of watch should a Christian minister have over his own heart?

And also, the ministry oversees the united prayers of the church; Timothy is to have concern for the church's prayer meeting, ch.2. First Paul writes about suitable topics; then he covers decorum. I interpret this passage to teach that men and women are summoned to pray--so I understand the dangling expression, "likewise the women" (v.9, I connect to the original exhortation to prayer, v.1 then v.8); which is followed by the remarks about a potential predilection of that sex (thus, in parallel with similar remarks about the men).

Why then does Paul reiterate his plain and unequivocal teaching first presented in writing in 1Cor.14, that there is a time and place for the "golden silence" of the women of faith--which silence, if it go missing, robs the whole church of a certain edifying example? Because it is the tendency of people to make unwarranted inferences from a particular encouragement to a general idea simply if it suits them. "If Paul encourages women to pray alongside men in a prayer meeting, well then... I guess we can dispense with that limitation someone taught us previously about male-only ordination, and the silence of women in public worship."

And so they would try to pit Paul vs. Paul, in favor of their pet project. Something like that had already occurred in Corinth, where the argument went: "God gave some women the gift of prophecy; ergo, women must be authorized to speak in public worship." This one is just as much a non sequitur fallacy as the supposed inference in 1Tim.2, and the elders in Corinth were actually commended (1Cor.11:2) for maintaining apostolic discipline in the matter.

To forestall the suggestion that he might be introducing this idea, a new concept, for public worship, Paul restates the apostolic tradition for emphasis, from 1Tim.2:11ff. Women may, women should pray with and for the church, even to opening their mouths and crying out to God right beside the men of the church. But what is propriety in a prayer meeting, or less than that in an informal family or gathering of believing-friends, is not license to disturb a very different setting for the public worship of God by an unapostolic intrusion.

Public worship is to be led by office-bearers, and qualifications (including sex-specification) for them are found in the NT data. Paul expounds briefly on this doctrine for the sake of that good order and discipline in public corporate worship which Timothy's office also oversees.
 
My questions are as follows: if women are to cover their heads during public worship, then why did both Peter and Paul refer to the woman’s hair and how it is not to be adorned? If a covering literally covers the head, then wouldn’t their hair not be visible? So why refer to their hair in this manner? Furthermore, what exactly is the covering? How is the covering to be worn for that matter?
Why would a woman adorn herself just to cover it up? It must have been visible.

The covering itself was whatever that culture used. The point was a "symbol of authority."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top