Instructions for public worship

[ValleyofVision]

1 Corinthians 11:5 " But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head."

This got my wife and I thinking. With the law of Christ we are to obey all areas not just ones that seem relevant or convenient to our life.

So, if my wife is not wearing a head covering during service, does this mean she is sinning against the Lord?

Also, in verse 10 "For this reason, and because the Angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority." Under authority of Christ or her husband? What if she is single? Would the head covering still be required?

Does your wife wear a covering to service?

 

[Jake]

The message seems clear, and seemed clearer the more my wife and I studied it. We came to the conviction while in a church where no women headcovered, and she ended up being the first. We are now in a church where this is the practice (not "required", but taught by the elders and embraced by the majority of the congregation).

The most helpful resource we found was this threepart series by Pastor Todd Ruddell, who posts here on the PB. It made clear the meaning of the text, showed how it related to the Scripture as a whole, and was good with the practical implications and applications:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...t=series&subsetitem=Head+Coverings+in+Worship

 

[Scott Bushey]

1 Corinthians 11:5 " But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head."

This got my wife and I thinking. With the law of Christ we are to obey all areas not just ones that seem relevant or convenient to our life.

So, if my wife is not wearing a head covering during service, does this mean she is sinning against the Lord?

Also, in verse 10 "For this reason, and because the Angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority." Under authority of Christ or her husband? What if she is single? Would the head covering still be required?

Does your wife wear a covering to service?

My wife does not wear a covering-however, I am convinced she should. She is studying the issue.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/the-regulative-principle-of-worship/the-regulative-principle-of-worship-articlesindex/is-headcovering-biblical-by-d-silversides/

 

[Logan]

To bring a little balance on the other side, I'm strongly of the belief that it is the intent behind it that matters, not the covering itself. The intent is that women not usurp the men's authority. Note what Calvin says on men covering their heads from the same passage:

Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.

Later he says

Doth not even nature itself: He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom — even among the Greeks — he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn. It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome — about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned an unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed.

Likewise the Geneva Bible notes (1599) say regarding men's heads:

It appeareth that this was a politic law serving only for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection. . . This tradition was observed according to the time and place that all things might be done in comeliness and to edification. . .And in like sort he concludeth, that women which shew themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves.

I believe this passage is meant to convey a principle: show submission (or authority), even in your apparel. An analogous situation might have been when women first started wearing pants in the middle of the 20th century (which I should note I'm not necessarily against today). When that practice first started, it was very often a sign of rebellion, or throwing off authority. During that period, wearing pants in church but having a head covering would still have been disobeying this passage, wouldn't it?

And I should note that even people who wear head coverings seem to see it in some sense as a principle. For what kind of head covering? A full brimmed hat? A hood? A skullcap? A scarf? A kerchief? A doily? A veil like this probably was? We aren't told. Does the type of head covering matter, or just the principle? Then why not apply the principle more broadly? Does God usually (or anywhere) specify what articles of clothing we are to wear? Or does He give principles (i.e., modest, showing subjection)?

 

[StephenG]

Does it not say later that "her hair is her covering"?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Does it not say later that "her hair is her covering"?

Yes, v15, "given to her for a covering," however that statement does not offer hair as a correspondence to the covering Paul has in mind in vv4-5, for v6 explains, "Since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head." Clearly, Paul is adding some sort of symbol of authority to the head.

When I preached the passage, I observed (after Rev.Bacon's exposition in his BlueBanner article) that v15 first states, "If a woman has long hair, it is her glory." Which notice, in conjunction with the previous mentions of glory in the passage, show the ultimate purpose of the "covering principle." The matter of authority, while relevant to the issue, is subsidiary to the matter of glory.

There is room for only One Glory in worship. The angels understand this, v10, who cover their own glories in the presence of God, Is.6:2 (they cover their feet because they are the messengers of God, which is their glory; cf. Is.52:7; Nah.1:15; Rom.10:15). The man was designated "the image and glory of God," v7. Therefore he is commanded NOT to cover his head, because God's glory (and authority) is on maximum display in public Christian worship. ALL other glories, including "the glory of man"--namely the woman (v7)--should be veiled by some method or recognition in the worship setting.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Parakaleo]

I (along with my dear wife) wrote a pro-covering post a few weeks ago on my blog. Here's an excerpt:

I was talking to a minister friend of mine about this issue and he told me he’s heard of a few other wives of ministers switching to covering their heads after studying this passage in-depth with their husbands. “What about you?” I asked. He chuckled, “I confess, I haven’t studied it in detail, yet.”

 

[Parakaleo]

Does it not say later that "her hair is her covering"?

Also, the covering described for the woman must be removable if it is something she puts on to cover her head. This also corresponds to the instructions for the man, who should remove any covering he has when worshipping.

 

[Cymro]

Does not the passage refer to two coverings, the hair and the covering on the hair? T'is true that it is a prescription given in order to recognise submission to the glory of God. But the other intention is to re-establish the creation order, which was overthrown by the woman being the first to sin. God, man,woman and then the creature,the serpent. It reintroduces the order of subordination(not inferiority)that divine wisdom instituted.

 

[Jake]

Does it not say later that "her hair is her covering"?

Others have said it differently/better, but Schwertley helped me with that. At an initial readthrough, I remember thinking the hair was sufficient, but it doesn't make sense based on internal evidence: see pg 6 starting at first full paragraph on the page, http://www.reformedonline.com/uploads/1/5/0/3/15030584/web_head_coverings.pdf

 

[Logan]

I just finished a survey of biblical commentaries from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, courtesy of the ones listed by Travis Fentiman's list of New Testament Commentaries, Whole Bible Commentaries, and various individual book commentaries.

The results actually shocked me. I expected to find some split opinions but fully expected the vast majority of commentators to come down strongly on having women wear head coverings by perpetual commandment. The opposite was true. I found 4 commentaries where it wasn't clear to me whether this should be a continuing practice, and 11 where it was clear that the opinion was that this was a custom of the times, with the general precept that all things should be done in modesty and propriety according to the custom of nations.

I didn't even get into the 19th century commentaries, but so far it's not even a close race. I have quotations from each of these 11 commentaries but they would make too large of a post. But they are Calvin, Geneva Bible notes, Diodati, Leigh, Trapp, Poole, Baxter, Henry, Burkitt, Doddridge, Brown.

I've seen Silverside's paper before and the citations I looked at (Calvin, Gouge, and Lightfoot) were taken out of context, and was not the point the authors were trying to make (actually as far as I can tell, all three support the "custom" position).

Now this doesn't prove anything of course, except that the "custom" (or cultural) position isn't unorthodox, innovative, or odd at all. Actually it appears to have been mainstream among the Puritans and Reformers, though I also don't doubt that at the same time it wasn't as big an issue since their customs were more aligned than they are in our day.

In answer to the OP's questions, My wife does not. I don't believe your wife is sinning unless she is somehow showing she is not in subjection. The "angels" can be interpreted in various ways (elders, messengers, or angels) but even if the latter, the sense seems to be that they would be shocked at a lack of submission or impropriety (i.e., heart attitude), not the lack of something physical on the head.

 

[MW]

I've seen Silverside's paper before and the citations I looked at (Calvin, Gouge, and Lightfoot) were taken out of context, and was not the point the authors were trying to make (actually as far as I can tell, all three support the "custom" position).

If it is "the custom of all times and places," I don't see how it is taken out of context. That is the specific position being maintained. It is not required as a symbol like a sacrament, but as a custom in token of the creation order.

 

[Beezer]

My wife does not and as I think about it I can't think of a single instance where I've seen a woman cover her head at any of the PCA churches I've been at. The first and only time I've seen women do this is when I visited an OPC church in my area. At that church there were a few who did, probably less than 15% of the women.

As an interesting aside...for a while I was interacting with two Russian Orthodox priests (ROCOR) in my area and learned that head coverings are required of women in Russian Orthodox churches. When I asked these two ROCOR priests about the Greek Orthodox they both commented that the Greeks have been influenced by modernity and most women in that branch of the Orthodox church no longer cover their heads during worship. I mentioned my conversation to a Greek Orthodox coworker and he laughed and said ROCOR is full of radical fundamentalists. I found it all quite interesting.

I'm going to need to study that passage some more.

 

[Jake]

It does not seem to be the universal understanding of even the Reformation-era church that headcovering was prescriptive in all ages. I'll note that even one of the Steelite groups does not teach heavingcoverings based on their understanding of how binding it was said to be by former theologians they admire. Nonetheless, I find sound exegesis of the primary passage at hand leads to holding headcoverings, despite some mix of opinions today and before.

 

[Logan]

Nonetheless, I find sound exegesis of the primary passage at hand leads to holding headcoverings, despite some mix of opinions today and before.

To help me out with my survey, could you point me to the "sound exegesis" supporting it? I checked with Kistemaker when I got home and looked it up in Hodge, so now I'm up to 13 commentaries that support the "that was the custom of their time" view.

I'm simply not finding a "mix of opinions...before". The overwhelming majority of what I would call sound commentators, didn't see this passage as teaching head coverings itself as a precept for all time, but rather a principle applied by the use of head coverings in that specific location and time (and often to others).

 

[Zork]

J.Macarthur:

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. (11:4–6)

It is best to understand that Paul is here referring to activities of believers in ministry before the Lord and the public, where a clear testimony is essential.


In the most general senses praying is talking to God about people, including ourselves, and prophesying is talking to people about God. One is vertical (man to God) and the other is horizontal (man to man), and they represent the two primary dimensions of believers’ ministry. Admittedly, the detail of this passage related to head coverings is difficult because of the scarcity of historical data. But the content helps to clarify the principle Paul has in mind, whatever the special covering may have been. He wants the church to live according to divine standards.


When Paul said a man disgraces his head if he has something on his head while praying or prophesying, he had to be referring to local Corinthian custom. The phrase has something on his head literally means “having down from head,” and is usually taken to refer to a veil. The context here implies that in Corinth such a head covering would have been completely ridiculous for a man and completely proper for a woman. For Jews, who came to wear head coverings, the practice seems to have come in the fourth century A.D., though some may have tried it in the time of the apostles. But generally it was regarded as a disgrace for a man to worship with his head covered.


It seems, therefore, that Paul is not stating a divine universal requirement but simply acknowledging a local custom. The local Christian custom, however, reflected the divine principle. In Corinthian society a man’s praying or prophesying without a head covering was a sign of his authority over women, who were expected to have their heads covered in these ministries. Consequently, for a man to cover his head would be a disgrace, because it suggested a reversal of the proper relationships. Disgraces her head could refer to her own head literally and to her husband’s metaphorically.


In Paul’s day numerous symbols were used to signify the woman’s subordinate relationship to men, particularly of wives to husbands. Usually the symbol was in the form of a head covering, and in the Greek–Roman world of Corinth the symbol apparently was a veil of some kind. In many Near East countries today a married woman’s veil still signifies that she will not expose herself to other men, that her beauty and charms are reserved entirely for her husband, that she does not care even to be noticed by other men. Similarly, in the culture of first–century Corinth wearing a head covering while ministering or worshipping was a woman’s way of stating her devotion and submission to her husband and of demonstrating her commitment to God.


It seems, however, that some women in the Corinthian church were not covering their heads while praying or prophesying. We know from secular history that various movements of women’s liberation and feminism appeared in the Roman empire during New Testament times. Women would often take off their veils or other head coverings and cut their hair in order to look like men. Much as in our own day, some women were demanding to be treated exactly like men and they attacked marriage and the raising of children as unjust restrictions of their rights. They asserted their independence by leaving their husbands and homes, refusing to care for their children, living with other men, demanding jobs traditionally held by men, wearing men’s clothing and hairdos, and by discarding all signs of femininity. It is likely that some of the believers at Corinth were influenced by those movements and, as a sign of protest and independence, refused to cover their heads at appropriate times.


As with meat that had been offered to idols, there was nothing in the wearing or not wearing of the head covering itself that was right or wrong. It is the rebellion against God–ordained roles that is wrong, and in Corinth that rebellion was demonstrated by women praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered.
Dress is largely cultural and, unless what a person wears is immodest or sexually suggestive, it has no moral or spiritual significance. Throughout biblical times, as in many parts of the world today, both men and women wore some type of robe. But there always were some clear distinctions of dress between men and women, most often indicated by hair length and head coverings.


It is the principle of women’s subordination to men, not the particular mark or symbol of that subordination, that Paul is teaching in this passage. The apostle is not laying down a universal principle that Christian women should always worship with their heads covered.


The mention here of women’s praying or prophesying is sometimes used to prove that Paul acknowledged the right of their teaching, preaching, and leading in church worship. But he makes no mention here of the church at worship or in the time of formal teaching. Perhaps he has in view praying or prophesying in public places, rather than in the worship of the congregation. This would certainly fit with the very clear directives in 1 Corinthians (14:34) and in his first letter to Timothy (2:12). The New Testament has no restrictions on a woman’s witnessing in public to others, even to a man. Nor does it prohibit women from taking nonleadership roles of praying with believers or for unbelievers; and there is no restriction from teaching children and other women (cf. Titus 2:3–4; 1 Tim. 5:16). Women may have the gift of prophecy, as did Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9), but they are normally not to prophesy in the meetings of the church where men are present.


In other words, it is only necessary to combine the relevant passages to get the composite truth. Women may pray and prophesy within the boundaries of God’s revelation, and with a proper sense of submission. And it is critical that their deportment in so doing reflects God’s order. Certainly they must not appear rebellious against God’s will.


Paul’s point in verses 4–5 is that, whenever and wherever it is appropriate for men and women to pray or prophesy, they should do so with proper distinction between male and female. Every man should speak to or for the Lord clearly as a man, and every woman should speak to or for the Lord clearly as a woman. God does not want the distinction to be blurred.


For a Corinthian woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered disgraced or shamed her and made her the same with her whose head is shaved. If a woman took off her head covering she might as well make the symbol of her role rejection complete by taking off all of her hair, the God–given identifier of her special role as a woman. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. In that day only a prostitute or an extreme feminist would shave her head.


The Talmud indicates that a Jew considered a woman with a shaved head extremely ugly, and Chrysostom records that women guilty of adultery had their hair shaved off and were marked as prostitutes. Aristophanes even taught that the mother of unworthy children should have her hair shorn.


Paul therefore is saying, “If you are not willing to look like a prostitute or a rebellious feminist by cutting off your hair, don’t pray or prophesy with your head uncovered either.”


It is remarkable that any Christian woman would seek such an identification, until we think of how some appear today so worldly as to make the same comparison possible.