Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[Paul] sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, v. 16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by... It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.
Here is something that came to my mind the other day; if the Bible is to be taken as infallible and timeless and the directive is in the New Testament then why is anything given as instruction even considered debatable? If we can say that something was a custom or for a specific time then we might as well leave it out of the Bible as it is unnecessary for us to read. Since we must all agree that the Word of God is His word and infallible then it seems that we must obey and practice what is written, otherwise we are picking and choosing what makes us comfortable and disobeying God.
I would rather obey the Word of God literally and completely than to run the risk of disobedience and cause others to stumble as well.
Actually, that is why I only listed the New Testament directives as I know the Old Testament laws were expired. I knew this would open a can-of-worms and did not want to hijack the thread so I will bow out.
One last thing, why would feet washing and greeting each other with a kiss not be practiced? I never knew those areas were considered cultural either. We have had foot washing practiced before as well as greeting each other with a kiss/hug but I think America is too sensitive to this and avoids practice of it. Maybe we can save it for another time/discussion but just giving food-for-thought.
Actually, that is why I only listed the New Testament directives as I know the Old Testament laws were expired. I knew this would open a can-of-worms and did not want to hijack the thread so I will bow out.
One last thing, why would feet washing and greeting each other with a kiss not be practiced? I never knew those areas were considered cultural either. We have had foot washing practiced before as well as greeting each other with a kiss/hug but I think America is too sensitive to this and avoids practice of it. Maybe we can save it for another time/discussion but just giving food-for-thought.
Fair enough; thanks, brother.
Gillispie said:Customable Signs; and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a sign of preeminence, has, through custom, become a sign of subjection (Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies, Naphtali Press, p. 247).
Rutherford said:Uncovering the head, seemeth to be little older then Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. The learned Salmasius thinketh it but a National sign of honour, no ways universally received: but certainly is not Adoration: Though therefore we receive the supper of the Lord uncovered, no man can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements, as we shall here for all bodily worship or expression of our affection to means of graces (though these means be but creatures) is not Adoration properly either of God, or of these means, it is Lawful to tremble at the word, and for Josiah to weep before the book of the Law read, and for the Martyrs to kiss the stake as the Instrument by which they glorified God, in dying for the truth: all these things being Ojectam quo, and means by which they conveyed their worship to the true God, and natural and Lawful expressions of their affection to God: For uncovering the head, it is a sort of veneration or reverence, not adoration; and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith, 1 Cor 11:4. “Every man praying and prophesying having his head covered, dishonoreth his head”: But it is not his meaning that he dishonoreth God. The Jews to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour: But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honour. If therefore the Jews, being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lords Supper, and Pray and Prophesy with covered heads, men would judge it no dishonoring of their head, or not of disrespect of the ordinances of God: Though Paul having regard to National custom in Corinth, did so esteem it (The Divine Right of Church Government, Still Waters Revival Books, pp. 89, 90).
Geneva Bible Notes said:It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance 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
Lastly, because he [God—RPNA] has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones (Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Westminster Press, p. 1208)
Also, I have read each of the ones listed above, and each commentator states it to be a custom and yet doesn't actually find that in the text. It seems they commit eisegesis in each case and assume Paul is referring to custom when they don't show it specifically that he is from the text itself.
One last thing, why would feet washing and greeting each other with a kiss not be practiced? I never knew those areas were considered cultural either. We have had foot washing practiced before as well as greeting each other with a kiss/hug but I think America is too sensitive to this and avoids practice of it. Maybe we can save it for another time/discussion but just giving food-for-thought.
Perhaps, but there's a good many highly respected commentators that do that. I say that if it bothers your conscience at all or if there are any doubts, go for it. But there are a good many of the Reformed who saw it as a principle of showing submission and I do not doubt that they would have, for example, disapproved of a woman wearing pants in a culture that requires dresses, pointing to this passage.
While many respected men have done this, men err. I'm looking for a good argument from God's Word. That's all. I am not for or against headcoverings. I just want to see a good argument from Scripture via historical theology pre-1900 (pre-1600).
Anyone before 1600 gentlemen/ladies?
Also, I have read each of the ones listed above, and each commentator states it to be a custom and yet doesn't actually find that in the text. It seems they commit eisegesis in each case and assume Paul is referring to custom when they don't show it specifically that he is from the text itself. I'm really looking for someone who perhaps makes that argument, but uses the text itself to show that not just "Well, it was the custom of eastern people to do this, and french and turks to do this." I don't really care what other cultures do or did, I really want to find commentators (if they exist) who look at the text and show from the text that this is cultural/custom. I have yet to find any.
Emphasis added for... well... emphasis. Stated within a 3 verse spread. Nothing other than a painful confirmation bias would read verse 13 and 15 as addressing different subjects. Let the gymnastics begin!1Co 11:13-15 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Before 1600? Certainly! Right here:
Emphasis added for... well... emphasis. Stated within a 3 verse spread. Nothing other than a painful confirmation bias would read verse 13 and 15 as addressing different subjects. Let the gymnastics begin!1Co 11:13-15 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Before 1600? Certainly! Right here:
Emphasis added for... well... emphasis. Stated within a 3 verse spread. Nothing other than a painful confirmation bias would read verse 13 and 15 as addressing different subjects. Let the gymnastics begin!1Co 11:13-15 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
If a) the Greek word translated 'covering' in v.15 was the same as that translated 'covering' in all previous verses, and b) if this view didn't contradict v.5-6 (which would then be 'if a woman be not covered (have no hair) then let her also be shorn (have no hair)), then you might be right.
Or is that gymnastics?
Oh, yes, certainly.Before 1600? Certainly! Right here:
Emphasis added for... well... emphasis. Stated within a 3 verse spread. Nothing other than a painful confirmation bias would read verse 13 and 15 as addressing different subjects. Let the gymnastics begin!1Co 11:13-15 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
If a) the Greek word translated 'covering' in v.15 was the same as that translated 'covering' in all previous verses, and b) if this view didn't contradict v.5-6 (which would then be 'if a woman be not covered (have no hair) then let her also be shorn (have no hair)), then you might be right.
Or is that gymnastics?
As you sing uncover your heads (1 Cor. xi. 4), and behave yourselves in comely reverence as in the sight of God, singing to God in God’s own words; but be sure that the matter make more melody in your hearts (Eph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16) than the music in your ear; for the singing with grace in our hearts is that which the Lord is delighted withal, according to that old verse:
Non vox, sed votum; non miisica chordula, sed cor:
Non clamans, sed amana, psallit in aure Dei.
‘Tis not the voice, but vow;
Sound heart, not sounding string;
True zeal, not outward show,
That in God’s ear doth ring.
Oh, yes, certainly.
Paul, by the HS, is not going to change subjects w/o a transition. He's talking about something on the head through the entire portion. Her long hair is her covering. If she's going to reject that, then let her be shaved. I see confirmation bias all the time... I just refuse to buy into it. My wife would put a doily on her head the instant I asked her to, so this is not derived from any cultural predisposition for or against. In fact, if she wanted to put a doily on her head, I wouldn't protest. If there's any predisposition, it's derived from the fact that whenever I have listened to eisegetical gymnastics, trouble has arisen. I prefer to let the plain reading of the Word overrule the clamor of men, regardless of their credentials, when there is a difference. It's not safe to do otherwise.
If you disagree, then fine, grow your hair down to your ankles and wear a beanie with a propeller to worship. The Spirit said if you wanna be contentious, we have no such custom. I find contentiousness to be an easy stumbling block for myself, so I want to try to avoid it.