Head Coverings

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This isn't working for me. I've put multiple Greek words and it comes up with "your search yielded no results". Do you have a link to a greek dictionary that works better or maybe has a large vocabulary? Right now I'm doing a word search for cover. Some didn't like the word disguise as a possible definition. I'm going to find all the Greek words for when we use the word cover. Thanks

I am not quite clear on exactly what you are trying to do, but here are a couple of starting points:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?s=references&q=cover&rc=
The page above also has lexicons for searching. As the results for the link above show, you will have quite a bit of work to do if you are seeking all the Greek variations for the word "cover". For example, the words cover, covering, covers, coverer appear about 243 times in the KJV translation (238 for the ESV).

Similarly, plenty of dictionaries and lexicons available here:
http://classic.studylight.org/

You might start with a complete concordance for the Bible translation you are using. Then examine these verses in their contexts in concert with an interlinear and lexicon.

For 1 Cor. 11:6 KJV you will likely be looking for:

Spoiler: Covered

Then again, if you have Logos, see:
https://blog.logos.com/2018/06/bible-word-study-english-easy-way/

I hope this helps.

 

[Grant]

Below is also a helpful article that takes time to explain the tradition (or ordinance) of Head Coverings. Hopefully this will be informative for some of you.
https://oldpathspaved.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/no-such-custom/

The article is Pro- Physical Material Head Coverings.

 

[Dachaser]

Thanks everyone for your post. I have had my questions answered for myself. I hope others learned as well. Still prayerfully considering things.

It seems that this discussion is much more among Presbyterians, as I think based upon the postings here, that a head covering is the main position, but not so much among others such as Baptists. Some Reformed Baptists probably still view the covering as mandatory for today.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

seems that this discussion is mucj more among Presbartayrns, as I think based uypon the postings here, that a head covering is the main position, but no so much among others such as Baptists. Some reformed Baptists probably still view the covering as mandatory for today.

Interest and concern for what’s required will be greater where the Psalms are sung and it’s understood that one is singing prophetically. The question of what God commands in worship (we must only worship God as he has commanded) will be more pressing.

 

[Cedarbay]

Would someone please post an example of what would be considered an appropriate head covering...thanks.

 

[Afterthought]

There are different styles, and what is or is not appropriate is an intramural "issue" as to how much of the hair should be covered and whether a hat is appropriate (I put "issue" in quotation marks because I'm not aware of anyone actively debating this; I think we all understand ourselves to be trying to please the Lord and that this is a relatively small matter.).

Here is a picture from our family conference. Some of the ladies still have their covering on for the photo. You can see some of the covering styles there (although it seems to be more of the "veiling" or "scarf" sort of style): http://www.westminsterconfession.org/regions/family-conference/payment.php (Enlarged photo)

If you catch Greenville Presbyterian church live streaming or look at the beginning or end of some of its video recordings, you can see some more examples, including those wearing "hats:" GPC Youtube Channel

Some sort of hat seems to be the style among some of the older folk/those with a UK background, whereas the "veil" or "scarf" tends to be more popular among Americans (at least in my experience of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in America). There is another style that I cannot find a picture of off the top of my head that looks more like a headband, which I have sometimes seen on children (probably to make it easier to take on and off because they are young).

Some more hats (these are examples of the kinds of hats I've seen, so the ladies must have left them on despite it not being worship; see also the picture of everyone towards the end): http://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/publications/magazines/witness/item/witness-july-august-2016


Edit: With regards to the earlier conversation on Eve, it is kind of irrelevant (although I see the point Sarah was making). The Scriptures say nothing about whether she wore a covering or not, so speculating on the matter does not help interpret 1 Cor. 11. The only thing it might do is hinder someone from holding the covering itself being something moral or a creation ordinance (like the Sabbath or marriage). It does nothing to hinder the arguments that it is a positive requirement (or practice of mere decorum) to symbolize the creation reality in the NT assembly.

 

[TylerRay]

Here is a picture from our family conference.

Hey, I'm in that picture! I hadn't seen it before.

Actually, there are a few PBers in there.

 

[Cedarbay]

Would a more decorative scarf typically worn around the neck be suitable? I noticed one woman putting her scarf over her head before prayer. Do most leave it on for the entire service?

I used to wear a beautiful, lace mantilla to mass. It was a joy at the time.

 

[Grant]

Would a more decorative scarf typically worn around the neck be suitable? I noticed one woman putting her scarf over her head before prayer. Does one then remove it from the head several times during the service?

Great Questions. I would recommend you check out the below website:

https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/

If you are convinced that a physical material head covering should be worn by women in corporate worship, then the above site has many good articles and videos for someone who is new to the practice (myself included.... or rather my wife included).

 

[Cedarbay]

Oh my, another movement, Grant. It will be a pleasure to check out later today. Thanks much.

 

[Afterthought]

Would a more decorative scarf typically worn around the neck be suitable? I noticed one woman putting her scarf over her head before prayer. Do most leave it on for the entire service?

So long as the scarf is put over the head in some manner (I think I know what kind you are referring to; a scarf around the neck that can be pulled over the head from the back of the neck), I have seen that style before.

(I looked at pictures of lace mantillas, and I can say that I have seen that kind of style before too.)

Most leave on their headcovering (whatever headcovering it is) for the entirety of a worship service. I do not recall ever seeing any who take it off and on several times during the service.

A few things to note, so far as what you might see in the videos. (1) The video recordings of GPC's prayer meetings come in the middle of their worship service, while their Lord's day services are usually recorded from right before the service starts. (2) I've noticed that the scarf sort of headcovering has a tendency to come off, so women either re-adjust it during the service in a minor fashion (like men re-adjust their shirts tucked into their pants) or simply take it off and put it back on again properly. Also, it may sometimes just be a nervous habit; or something may have happened that caused it to fall off (e.g., children pulling on it). (3) Those with a "bulkier" sort of headcovering (like a scarf) will sometimes remove it when they have to leave the worship service for some reason (e.g, bathroom, crying children, helping with crying children, and so forth) and then put it back on when they return to their seat for the service. (4) There are a small number of people I know (although they might not be at GPC) who believe headcoverings should be worn by women all the time, and during worship, they will wear the scarf sort of headcovering over the headcovering that they wear all the time. For those who hold this view, I have not seen any consistent practice with the use of the scarf so far as removing it or putting it on again during worship, so I'm not sure what their views may be.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I think it’s worth mentioning that even in the Free Church, women who aren’t convinced from Scripture of covering their heads are free not to do so. I imagine the way that’s handled depends on what an unconvinced wife’s husband thinks?- but what I’ve understood is that there’s a recognition that the issue of headcovering not being so easily discerned, and not addressed by our confession of faith, it seems there is patience and an unwillingness to bind someone’s conscience about it. Again others can speak to this better than I.

Though I don’t currently/yet cover my head during worship, I’m happy to when visiting a congregation where it’s the majority practice. I also find myself being inched along closer to thinking that will require me to begin wearing something each Lord’s day.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Hey, I'm in that picture! I hadn't seen it before.

Actually, there are a few PBers in there.

Someone should circle and identify all the PBers in the enlarged photo.

 

[Parakaleo]

I would recommend this sermon by Pastor Michael Ives, of the Presbyterian Reformed Church in Rhode Island, on the positive apostolic tradition of women wearing head coverings for worship. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=318181691110

there’s a recognition that the issue of headcovering not being so easily discerned

I'd like to speak to this briefly, if I may. I don't think the officers of the FCC or the PRC would say head covering is a murky issue and that's why women are not disciplined for non-compliance. Rather, I think the acknowledgment is that head covering a personal matter that wouldn't mean much if it was simply mandated under threat of discipline. The aim is for women to willingly cover as a symbol of submission and modesty in the heart.

 

[OPC'n]

Edit: With regards to the earlier conversation on Eve, it is kind of irrelevant (although I see the point Sarah was making). The Scriptures say nothing about whether she wore a covering or not, so speculating on the matter does not help interpret 1 Cor. 11. The only thing it might do is hinder someone from holding the covering itself being something moral or a creation ordinance (like the Sabbath or marriage). It does nothing to hinder the arguments that it is a positive requirement (or practice of mere decorum) to symbolize the creation reality in the NT assembly.

The Scriptures do say she didn't wear a hat in the fact that it says both her and Adam were naked before their fall. They in fact had no clothing. After the fall they tried to make clothing out of leaves (further evidence they had no clothing) to cover themselves and they couldn't get that right. God had to give them clothing (further evidence they had no clothing). You will find no one who believes Eve had a physical head covering (this would be an article of clothing which they didn't have) before the fall.

Also, I find it interesting that in 1Tim 2 he gives this command, 2:9 "...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...". Back in this day wealthy women would braid their hair and twist it around their head weaving in strands of gold and place pearls in their hair. I believe Paul gives this command in order to teach others not to flaunt their wealth and show restraint on how much you are spending on jewels and flashy clothing. But he also mentions braiding of hair. Here is a quote about all the work that women put into braiding their hair.

"In the first century, many women were plaiting elaborate hair designs that would take hours to “construct” and weave. One writer, in describing such first-century hair designs, wrote:

Talk about high maintenance! During the late first century, the Flavian style of Julia, daughter of Titus fashioned the court with curls arranged on crescent-shaped wire frames. The back hair was divided into sections, braided, then curled. Sometimes the hair was coiled without braiding (see Roman…, 2002).

Apparently, some women were turning the worship assemblies into fashion shows, attempting to “one-up” their contemporaries with flashy, expensive clothes and costly gold jewelry. Instead of this gaudiness, Paul instructed the women to adorn themselves in that “which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”

Given that knowledge, it would seem silly to go to all that work if they knew they would have to wear a head covering. For me, this is further evidence that the covering of which Paul speaks is the covering of authority.

 

[Grant]

The Scriptures do say she didn't wear a hat in the fact that it says both her and Adam were naked before their fall. They in fact had no clothing. After the fall they tried to make clothing out of leaves (further evidence they had no clothing) to cover themselves and they couldn't get that right. God had to give them clothing (further evidence they had no clothing). You will find no one who believes Eve had a physical head covering (this would be an article of clothing which they didn't have) before the fall.

Also, I find it interesting that in 1Tim 2 he gives this command, 2:9 "...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...". Back in this day wealthy women would braid their hair and twist it around their head weaving in strands of gold and place pearls in their hair. I believe Paul gives this command in order to teach others not to flaunt their wealth and show restraint on how much you are spending on jewels and flashy clothing. But he also mentions braiding of hair. Here is a quote about all the work that women put into braiding their hair.

"In the first century, many women were plaiting elaborate hair designs that would take hours to “construct” and weave. One writer, in describing such first-century hair designs, wrote:

Talk about high maintenance! During the late first century, the Flavian style of Julia, daughter of Titus fashioned the court with curls arranged on crescent-shaped wire frames. The back hair was divided into sections, braided, then curled. Sometimes the hair was coiled without braiding (see Roman…, 2002).

Apparently, some women were turning the worship assemblies into fashion shows, attempting to “one-up” their contemporaries with flashy, expensive clothes and costly gold jewelry. Instead of this gaudiness, Paul instructed the women to adorn themselves in that “which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”

Given that knowledge, it would seem silly to go to all that work if they knew they would have to wear a head covering. For me, this is further evidence that the covering of which Paul speaks is the covering of authority.

It may seem silly to you that Paul would ask for the physical covering, but I think that overlooks the clarity Paul uses not only in our English translations, but also in the Greek. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul does use the Greek word for covering that implies a physical material covering, which would be a symbol of the authority of which you speak of. For my own curiosity, do you know of any reformers who have held your view of the text NOT dealing with a physical material over? I fear your interpretation may be a flattening of the text (i know this is not your intent) because Paul uses clear language (the perspicuity of Scripture) to explain a physical material symbol representing the spiritual realities of our corporate worship. If Paul were trying to simply explain spiritual covering of authority with no physical sign, then he would have left out v6-7. Some of the women in Corinth may have thought a physical covering was silly as well, which would help use understand why Paul needed to address it in the first place.

Below is a quote from an article which I will give a link to below:

"***In the last 100 years, a 2000 year old doctrine, has been all but removed from most Reformed churches, by a single controlling element- culture. The doctrine abandoned was the use of head coverings in public worship.

The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship.***"
https://oldpathspaved.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/no-such-custom/

 

[OPC'n]

It may seem silly to you that Paul would ask for the physical covering, but I think that overlooks the clarity Paul uses not only in our English translations, but also in the Greek. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul does use the Greek word for covering that implies a physical material covering, which would be a symbol of the authority of which you speak of. For my own curiosity, do you know of any reformers who have held your view of the text NOT dealing with a physical material over? I fear your interpretation may be a flattening of the text (i know this is not your intent) because Paul uses clear language (the perspicuity of Scripture) to explain a physical material symbol representing the spiritual realities of our corporate worship. If Paul were trying to simply explain spiritual covering of authority with no physical sign, then he would have left out v6-7. Some of the women in Corinth may have thought a physical covering was silly as well, which would help use understand why Paul needed to address it in the first place.

Below is a quote from an article which I will give a link to below:

"***In the last 100 years, a 2000 year old doctrine, has been all but removed from most Reformed churches, by a single controlling element- culture. The doctrine abandoned was the use of head coverings in public worship.

The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship.***"
https://oldpathspaved.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/no-such-custom/

You placed "silly" on the wrong topic of which I was speaking. I didn't say I think Paul was silly for commanding physical head coverings since I don't believe that is what he is saying. I said it would be silly to go through all the work of doing elaborate braiding of the hair when they knew they would just have to cover up all their hard work. There would be absolutely no point in braiding their hair in this fashion.

After people here disagreed with one of the Greek definitions of "cover" being "disguise", I went on youtube to see if there were any teachings on this subject. I did find a pastor who taught a very good lecture on this but the lecture needed more info. Much of what he had to say was interesting and began to lead to what I believe Paul is saying. He used historical facts, Greek definitions etc. However, at the very end when I felt he was going to give good solid evidence he cut it short because of time restraint and ended it with "in short the covering is authority and not a physical covering". He does believe that it is a creational ordinance. I'll go look for it again if you want to watch it. But in my opinion, I would want more proof from him in order for me to hold him up as someone to point others to.

As far as this being a "a 2000 year old doctrine", the furtherest I can go back for evidence of this practice is with Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria around 150 AD. Although that sounds super close to when the Apostles were around, in the reality of church purity it's pretty far away. Many teachings can and did go corrupt within 150 years. Take for example the book of Revelations which was written in 95AD. Many of those churches had gone astray in some of their actions and teachings.

Now, is it correct to discard church tradition without thorough study. I don't believe it is. Look at the ongoing dispute over baptism. Thankfully, I can point to church tradition on this point and say, "Not only does Scripture confirm paedobaptism, but it was also practiced by our spiritual forefathers.". Does that mean I just jumped on the paedobaptism bandwagon because our spiritual forefathers practiced paedobaptism? No. I had to be convinced by Scripture and more Scripture and more Scripture. Same thing with the Sabbath. I whole heartedly disagreed with Sabbath keeping and fought against it for a few years. But in the end with hard work and studying I now agree it's a Command. So you see, there might be salvation for me yet on this subject, but I want Scripture upon Scripture proof for either how I believe which is where I feel I am at right now or for your position or for the "it's only culture" position!

 

[Afterthought]

The Scriptures do say she didn't wear a hat in the fact that it says both her and Adam were naked before their fall. They in fact had no clothing. After the fall they tried to make clothing out of leaves (further evidence they had no clothing) to cover themselves and they couldn't get that right. God had to give them clothing (further evidence they had no clothing). You will find no one who believes Eve had a physical head covering (this would be an article of clothing which they didn't have) before the fall.

No one is arguing Eve had a physical covering before the fall. I was merely pointing out one cannot determine one way or another. Although your point is fair enough about clothing after the fall, there is still not enough information to decide the point: among other things, we don't even know if a pre-fall worship service took place (they may have fallen day 6), and we do not know if some other headgear would have sufficed pre-fall. Anyway, this is still irrelevant to the argument, and that is my main point. As I know you know: be careful not to take down a weaker version of the pro-headcovering argument (which probably not many even hold; certainly none on this thread have intentionally argued that way) when a stronger version exists.

Given that knowledge, it would seem silly to go to all that work if they knew they would have to wear a head covering. For me, this is further evidence that the covering of which Paul speaks is the covering of authority.

A lot of assumptions are being made here that cannot be determined from the text: either from this text or 1 Cor. 11. Do you really think women that wished to dress in such a way would not try to dress in a vain manner if they had to wear a headcovering during the worship service (how would you even know that?)? And who says that these women were in fact wearing a headcovering? Perhaps they wished to flaunt these braids as they attempted to pray or prophesy. Or perhaps they simply ignored wearing the headcovering entirely. Or perhaps they could flaunt these braids before and after the assembly when the headcovering had been removed. Or perhaps their headcoverings did not cover all the braids. Vain people can behave in a silly manner.

It's better to focus on 1 Cor. 11 and the reasons Paul gave than trying to argue from these other places and assumptions upon assumptions (or trying to find reasons in a supposed cultural context at the time; I have seen some argue "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6 means temple prostitutes based on an investigation of cultural context and assumptions; not quite the same interpretive method is being done here, but something to be wary of.). Anyway, if we were talking in person, I might continue to dialog, but as it is, I'll have to leave you to your own conclusions (unless another interesting something is posted that I feel like responding to).

 

[OPC'n]

No one is arguing Eve had a physical covering before the fall. I was merely pointing out one cannot determine one way or another. Although your point is fair enough about clothing after the fall, there is still not enough information to decide the point:

There is enough information because it's in the text. If they had clothing, God wouldn't have had to give them clothing.

among other things, we don't even know if a pre-fall worship service took place (they may have fallen day 6), and we do not know if some other headgear would have sufficed pre-fall.

I don't see how you can say this is a creational ordinance if you feel Adam and Eve never worshipped God before the fall.

Anyway, this is still irrelevant to the argument, and that is my main point.

It should be relevant to your argument if you don't want to fall into the notion of this command being a cultural command. Creational ordinances carry authoritative weight. No one is allowed to discard them.

As I know you know: be careful not to take down a weaker version of the pro-headcovering argument (which probably not many even hold; certainly none on this thread have intentionally argued that way) when a stronger version exists.

I have yet to see anyone here or elsewhere show that God through Paul changed a creational ordinance by commanding the usage of physical coverings which were not commanded in the Garden.

A lot of assumptions are being made here that cannot be determined from the text: either from this text or 1 Cor. 11. Do you really think women that wished to dress in such a way would not try to dress in a vain manner if they had to wear a headcovering during the worship service (how would you even know that?)?

I can't know with absolute certainty, but as a woman I would not bother to go through this much work (simple braiding is enough work much less this elaborate braiding) just to cover it up.

And who says that these women were in fact wearing a headcovering?

My point exactly. I don't believe they were.

Perhaps they wished to flaunt these braids as they attempted to pray or prophesy. Or perhaps they simply ignored wearing the headcovering entirely. Or perhaps they could flaunt these braids before and after the assembly when the headcovering had been removed. Or perhaps their headcoverings did not cover all the braids. Vain people can behave in a silly manner.

Or the more logical reason was that they just were not commanded to wear a physical head covering.

It's better to focus on 1 Cor. 11 and the reasons Paul gave than trying to argue from these other places and assumptions upon assumptions (or trying to find reasons in a supposed cultural context at the time;

I always find it more safe to interpret a vague Scripture (you can't deny it's not vague since even many of the reformed do not agree that women have to wear head coverings) with a more clear Scripture.

 

[OPC'n]

among other things, we don't even know if a pre-fall worship service took place (they may have fallen day 6), and we do not know if some other headgear would have sufficed pre-fall.

I didn't catch this until after I posted. You are saying there's a possibility that Adam and Eve fell before God rested on the seventh day? That's not possible at all. And since it's not possible, Adam and Eve did have their first worship on the seventh day when God rested. So there's the proof for no hat for Eve who kept this command sinlessly.

 

[lynnie]

Maybe this has been mentioned, but in verse 2 when Paul speaks of this being handed down or delivered, it is the same Greek word for the Lord's supper being delivered down in verse 23. That is what the translation means when it says tradition- it was handed down.

I don't think anybody can make a case that the Lord's Supper was handed down from the Lord and head coverings are not. The flow of the writing presents them both the same way. If it came from Paul, I think he would have said " I, not the Lord". I think the only conclusion here that does justice to the flow of the chapter and the way both symbols- headcoverings and communion- are presented in an identical way as being handed down, is that the command came straight from Jesus Christ.

 

[Grant]

There is enough information because it's in the text. If they had clothing, God wouldn't have had to give them clothing.

I don't see how you can say this is a creational ordinance if you feel Adam and Eve never worshipped God before the fall.

It should be relevant to your argument if you don't want to fall into the notion of this command being a cultural command. Creational ordinances carry authoritative weight. No one is allowed to discard them.

I have yet to see anyone here or elsewhere show that God through Paul changed a creational ordinance by commanding the usage of physical coverings which were not commanded in the Garden.


I can't know with absolute certainty, but as a woman I would not bother to go through this much work (simple braiding is enough work much less this elaborate braiding) just to cover it up.

My point exactly. I don't believe they were.

Or the more logical reason was that they just were not commanded to wear a physical head covering.

I always find it more safe to interpret a vague Scripture (you can't deny it's not vague since even many of the reformed do not agree that women have to wear head coverings) with a more clear Scripture.

Again which reformed writer do you know of who does not believe 1 Cortinthians 11 is discussing a literal physical covering? If you look at the Greek you cannot get around that. No one in the thread is saying that Paul is changing a creation ordinance (could we please move on from that). Paul is saying that the physical material head covering should be worn in the corporate worship gathering. As a part of his justification for requiring this, he references a creation ordinance which is spiritual authority (God-Christ-Man-Women). The actual physical material head covering is not in the creation ordinance, the thing that the head covering symbolizes is in acreation ordinance.
So let’s move on from the creation ordinance discussion because I believe we have beat it to death.
There are things especially in the New Testament that we as Christians obey that are not found to be commanded pre-fall, examples: Baptism and Lords Supper. Physical material head coverings are an ordinance that Paul is requiring. His logic:
1. It glorifies Christ
2. It symbolizes one of the creation ordinances (spiritual authority)
3. Nature also attest to the Logic of his command for a literal head cover
4. The angels (good for another thread maybe)

Now I am not going to type out any more detailed explanation on your view because :

1. I do not think you have read the articles people have recommend. I truly believe they would help you see the plainness in Greek, which would show the scripture proof you need. (I could be wrong, you may have)
2. I don’t know a single person dead or alive that holds to your view that 1 Corinthians 11 is not discussing a literal material head covering, even if they believe it to be cultural. (Please share a reformed confessional source dead or alive.)
3. I respect you holding to your Conscience. You can only strive for obedience in what you believe to be biblical.
4. I am trying to finish cutting my grass, gotta get back to it.

 

[bookslover]

I have no idea whether Calvin did or not wear at hat during corporate worship, or—if it can be definitively shown he did—whether it was some form of vestments at the time.

Calvin wore a Humphrey Bogart-style fedora. Trust me.

 

[OPC'n]

Again which reformed writer do you know of who does not believe 1 Cortinthians 11 is discussing a literal physical covering?

Al Mohler doesn't believe that it's a physical head covering. https://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=02EEJJNU. Now, I completely disagree on what Al Mohler and his wife believe. I think they are leaving out the single/windows and so their reasoning doesn't make sense. BUT I did find a reformed pastor who believes it's not a physical head covering.

If you look at the Greek you cannot get around that. No one in the thread is saying that Paul is changing a creation ordinance (could we please move on from that).

Change which ever one of these statements you feel is wrong:

1) Head coverings are a creational ordinance
2) There has never been a creational ordinance that the OT/NT changed
3) Adam and Eve partook in this creational ordinance
4) Adam and Eve kept this creational ordinance according to God's command and did so sinlessly.
5) Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden

Paul is saying that the physical material head covering should be worn in the corporate worship gathering. As a part of his justification for requiring this, he references a creation ordinance which is spiritual authority (God-Christ-Man-Women). The actual physical material head covering is not in the creation ordinance, the thing that the head covering symbolizes is in acreation ordinance.

Refer to your answer in #2 and #5.

So let’s move on from the creation ordinance discussion because I believe we have beat it to death.

I told you in a previous post that I would leave you be, but you decided to answer my post that was directed to someone else. If you prefer to not beat this horse any longer that is ok with me.

There are things especially in the New Testament that we as Christians obey that are not found to be commanded pre-fall, examples: Baptism and Lords Supper.

These are not creational ordinances that's why you won't find them in creation.

Physical material head coverings are an ordinance that Paul is requiring. His logic:
1. It glorifies Christ
2. It symbolizes one of the creation ordinances (spiritual authority)
3. Nature also attest to the Logic of his command for a literal head cover
4. The angels (good for another thread maybe)

You haven't proven that you can change a creational ordinance, or you haven't proven that Eve had a physical head covering, or you haven't proven that physical coverings were not apart of this creational ordinance and therefore can be changed. You would have to prove one of those in order to say, "Paul change this according to such and such Scripture or Paul continued what Eve did before the fall.".

Now I am not going to type out any more detailed explanation on your view because :

1. I do not think you have read the articles people have recommend. I truly believe they would help you see the plainness in Greek, which would show the scripture proof you need. (I could be wrong, you may have)

I, in fact, did read one of your links.

2. I don’t know a single person dead or alive that holds to your view that 1 Corinthians 11 is not discussing a literal material head covering, even if they believe it to be cultural. (Please share a reformed confessional source dead or alive.)

Please refer to the link I gave at the beginning of the post

3. I respect you holding to your Conscience. You can only strive for obedience in what you believe to be biblical.

and I you.

4. I am trying to finish cutting my grass, gotta get back to it.

I hope it didn't rain on you like it did me when I had to mow.

 

[Grant]

Al Mohler doesn't believe that it's a physical head covering. https://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=02EEJJNU. Now, I completely disagree on what Al Mohler and his wife believe. I think they are leaving out the single/windows and so their reasoning doesn't make sense. BUT I did find a reformed pastor who believes it's not a physical head covering.



Change which ever one of these statements you feel is wrong:

1) Head coverings are a creational ordinance
2) There has never been a creational ordinance that the OT/NT changed
3) Adam and Eve partook in this creational ordinance
4) Adam and Eve kept this creational ordinance according to God's command and did so sinlessly.
5) Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden

Refer to your answer in #2 and #5.

I told you in a previous post that I would leave you be, but you decided to answer my post that was directed to someone else. If you prefer to not beat this horse any longer that is ok with me.

These are not creational ordinances that's why you won't find them in creation.

You haven't proven that you can change a creational ordinance, or you haven't proven that Eve had a physical head covering, or you haven't proven that physical coverings were not apart of this creational ordinance and therefore can be changed. You would have to prove one of those in order to say, "Paul change this according to such and such Scripture or Paul continued what Eve did before the fall.".

I, in fact, did read one of your links.

Please refer to the link I gave at the beginning of the post

and I you.

I hope it didn't rain on you like it did me when I had to mow.

I think continuing the conversation with you is adding confusion to the thread.

I watched the Mary Mohler video. She doesn’t seem to share your view. It would seem from the video that she takes the cultural argument and maintains that the spiritual reality must still be true and that the physical sign changed with culture.

Let’s go back and simply look at the text 1 Corinthians 11. I do not need to prove that Paul is changing a creation Ordinace because I do not believe he is commanding the church to symbolize the creation ordinance and remember it not to change it.

What I am trying to show is that 1 Corinthians 11 is requiring a physical material covering( which I believe should still be practiced today). If you give a literal reading of the text that is clear in English and greek.

You may want to start a new thread of your own since I believe your view is outside the pointed nature of this thread (which was to discover if people believed the physical material head covering is still applicable today as it was in Paul’s day). You may find information that is more pointed to your view if you were also to start a new thread for your interpretation that Paul is not discussing a material head covering. Of course you are welcome to still post on this thread(please don’t hear me saying “get out”, I have enjoyed the discussion with you). I just think you may find more pointed information about your view if you posted a separate thread regarding your interpretation. Just a thought as I thInk even the Mohler video does not support your view, but rather the cultural argument.

In an attempt to avoid seeming anymore argumentative than I may have already, this will be my last reply to you on this thread. Please don’t take offense, I just feel you and I have exhuasted each other’s views and i see no end in sight.

Hopefully we can keep getting more insight on the original purpose of the thread. Again Thanks for sharing your opinions.

 

[OPC'n]

I think continuing the conversation with you is adding confusion to the thread.

I watched the Mary Mohler video. She doesn’t seem to share your view. It would seem from the video that she takes the cultural argument and maintains that the spiritual reality must still be true and that the physical sign changed with culture.

Let’s go back and simply look at the text 1 Corinthians 11. I do not need to prove that Paul is changing a creation Ordinace because I do not believe he is commanding the church to symbolize the creation ordinance and remember it not to change it.

What I am trying to show is that 1 Corinthians 11 is requiring a physical material covering( which I believe should still be practiced today). If you give a literal reading of the text that is clear in English and greek.

You may want to start a new thread of your own since I believe your view is outside the pointed nature of this thread (which was to discover if people believed the physical material head covering is still applicable today as it was in Paul’s day). You may find information that is more pointed to your view if you were also to start a new thread for your interpretation that Paul is not discussing a material head covering. Of course you are welcome to still post on this thread(please don’t hear me saying “get out”, I have enjoyed the discussion with you). I just think you may find more pointed information about your view if you posted a separate thread regarding your interpretation. Just a thought as I thInk even the Mohler video does not support your view, but rather the cultural argument.

In an attempt to avoid seeming anymore argumentative than I may have already, this will be my last reply to you on this thread. Please don’t take offense, I just feel you and I have exhuasted each other’s views and i see no end in sight.

Hopefully we can keep getting more insight on the original purpose of the thread. Again Thanks for sharing your opinions.

You miss understood her [nb: Mary Mohler]. First she said egalitarians are the ones who like to push this off as cultural. Second she isn't dismissing 1Cor 11 as not being valid because it's just a cultural command. If she did, she would have said it was cultural and that she didn't need to wear a hat. Instead, she states that she is fulfilling this command by taking her husband's name. Her covering symbol is her husband's name. Thus, she believes in the command but doesn't believe the covering is a physical material covering, but instead is her husband's name.

So I did find a reformed pastor (her husband) who believes this is still a command but the head covering isn't a physical hat. You seem unwilling to concede to anything that I present even this video of Al's wife. You clearly listened with your mind made up that it wasn't what I said it was or you weren't really paying attention (something you have done to me when you misspoke things that I said).


Of course I don't take offend that you don't want to continue this conversation. I will agree that continuing this conversation with you is adding to the confusion of this thread. I had suggested that a few posts back when I said I won't bother you anymore it was your choice to continue our conversation.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I didn't catch this until after I posted. You are saying there's a possibility that Adam and Eve fell before God rested on the seventh day? That's not possible at all. And since it's not possible, Adam and Eve did have their first worship on the seventh day when God rested. So there's the proof for no hat for Eve who kept this command sinlessly.

You might want to consult Watson's Body of Divinity, Question 15, to note that your emphatic statement would be, and has been, disputed. I only note this to point out that there is disagreement. For example, à Brakel (TCRS, Ch. 13, v. 1) would be in your court of support, arguing that at least one week would have taken place before the fall.

 

[OPC'n]

You might want to consult Watson's Body of Divinity, Question 15, to note that your emphatic statement would be disputed.

Which part of my statement? That Adam and Eve couldn't have sinned on the 6th day? or That they had their first worship to God on the seventh day? or Proof of no hat for Eve when she worshipped on the seventh day of creation? or all of it? I actually have this book. I'll try finding it.

 

[OPC'n]

You might want to consult Watson's Body of Divinity, Question 15, to note that your emphatic statement would be, and has been, disputed. I only note this to point out that there is disagreement. For example, a Brakel would be in your court of support, arguing that at least one week would have taken place before the fall.

I found my book but I don't see a question 15 in any of the sections. Can you tell me a page number?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I found my book but I don't see a question 15 in any of the sections. Can you tell me a page number?

In my version it would be on page 122. Better to search for: 2. Adam's Sin, or Question 15 (Question 15: What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?) in the version of your book, or see:

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/watson/divinity.vii.ii.html