Our Daughter Is Now Covered

[OPC'n]

In any case, this is a mute subject for me bc I believe it speaking of a woman's hair being her covering.

Sorry, but this is incorrect; the Greek does not support it. There are a number of arguments against covering, but this one doesn't hold any water.

ok, well now that you confirmed that it's all settled you're right! I don't need any evidence that my study on this was all wrong... your word is good enough for me

 

[Skyler]

Can you name for me some prominent Reformed teachers/theologians who hold to the idea of head-coverings for women in the church?

Thanks

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary ( 1871 )
(Faussett was a clergyman in the Church of England, Jamieson and Brown were Presbyterians. )
“Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature.”


Adam Clarke (1762-1832)
“If she will not wear a veil in the public assemblies, let her be shorn-let her carry a public badge of infamy: but if it be a shame-if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered-let her by all means wear a veil.”


John Gill (1697-1771)
(English Baptist)
“to be without a veil, or some sort of covering on her head, according to the custom of the country, is the same thing as if her head was shaved; and everyone knows how dishonourable and scandalous it is for a woman to have her head shaved; and if this is the same, then it is dishonourable and scandalous to her to be without covering in public worship.”


Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
“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.”


John Calvin (1509-1564)
(reformer)
“Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it.”


Augustine (354-430)
“Of which sacred import the Apostle speaks when he says, that the man ought not to be veiled, the women ought.”
“It is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands the women to keep their heads covered.”

 

[kvanlaan]

ok, well now that you confirmed that it's all settled you're right! I don't need any evidence that my study on this was all wrong... your word is good enough for me

Glad that's settled then.

Actually, I would never be such a fool as to make such a statement on the merits of my own study (that is to say that I am of the opinion that there are those much more erudite than I). I am leaning more on the scholarship of those who read and understand the original language that the passage was written in. Hair as the covering is simply invalid; there is an excellent sermon by Dr Richard Bacon on this topic (he is thorough to the Nth degree; be warned!)

This from our own luminaries here:

1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

1 Corinthians 11:6 - 'covering' is from the word κατακαλύπτω (katakalupto)

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1 Corinthians 11:15 - 'covering' is from the word περιβόλαιον (peribolaion)

I believe others will point you to some threads where the entire topic of headcovering has been discussed at great length. I would just point out, respectfully, that I do not think the explanation that the "covering" is nothing more than a full head of hair is at all a tenable interpretation of this passage.

If the covering meant only hair, why would Paul need to be exhorting women to be covered while "praying and prophesying"? Presumably women would already generally have a full head of hair, and wouldn't need exhorting for that . . . and if for some strange reason a woman did not have a full head of hair, presumably she would not be able to put on a head of hair just for times of praying and prophesying.

And the statement "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn" would surely mean little if hair itself were the covering, for if the woman already did not have the covering of hair, what is there to be shorn? Perhaps you think being "not covered" here is referring only to having short hair as opposed to a shaved head, and that Paul is saying if a woman does not have long hair she might as well shave her head completely? This would be quite a stretch, and contradictory to other parts of the passage. And it would be strange for him to be focusing the command on specific occassions (praying and prophesying), if the command were really about the proper length of hair, which presumably could not change based on the occassion.

And if a full head of hair is the covering, what does it mean when Paul commands men NOT to pray or prophesy with a covering?

Finally, do you remove your hat during times of prayer (outdoors at a picnic, for example)? If so, what is that but an application of this passage as it applies to men, recognising that the covering is a head garment. Women covering their heads with cloth coverings during prayer/worship is simply the corresponding application of the feminine side of this passage.

Another article (again, thorough in the extreme):
Headcoverings in Public Worship

Oh, found a link for Pastor Bacon:
Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed

Sorry for the overkill, but it simply cannot be the hair. Scripture does not support it.

 

[Grace Alone]

Hmmm, I am wondering since Sproul, Calvin, and Augustine promote head covering for women, exactly how much of church history did women have their heads covered??? Did it suddenly stop when feminism and liberalism came into play? I've never been to a church where the women covered their heads, but it seems to me we threw out a lot of long-standing customs (such as psalm singing) in the 20th century.

 

[Skyler]

Hmmm, I am wondering since Sproul, Calvin, and Augustine promote head covering for women, exactly how much of church history did women have their heads covered??? Did it suddenly stop when feminism and liberalism came into play? I've never been to a church where the women covered their heads, but it seems to me we threw out a lot of long-standing customs (such as psalm singing) in the 20th century.

My understanding is that it was common practice in most of the church until the 20th century.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Hmmm, I am wondering since Sproul, Calvin, and Augustine promote head covering for women, exactly how much of church history did women have their heads covered??? Did it suddenly stop when feminism and liberalism came into play? I've never been to a church where the women covered their heads, but it seems to me we threw out a lot of long-standing customs (such as psalm singing) in the 20th century.

My understanding is that it was common practice in most of the church until the 20th century.

Worth noting even in the RC Church and the EO.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

And we believe the passage refers only to public worship, not to all of life. I can't speak for why others do not hold the convictions I hold. From my interaction with others on the subject, I have found that many have not read the passage, or have simply been told all their lives that "it was cultural," without having studied the subject at all.

If this is an ordinance of the Church and part of public worship, then it is to be regulated by the elders of the Church, not according to personal preference. It is your elders who are to explain and implement in the congregation whatever is prescribed in 1 Cor. 11. Making it a matter of personal preference can only lead to disorder and division in the congregation, the very things Paul is trying to avoid.

Interesting and valid point. However there may be cases where the elders, or perhaps just some of the elders and the pastor, have come to the position of head coverings yet they refrain from making it a matter of discipline out of wisdom and concern for the unity of the church. There is something to be said for stating the doctrine from Scripture and letting the word do its work over time, while having some women set the example, i. e. those whose husbands are convicted about headcoverings.

 

[he beholds]

And we believe the passage refers only to public worship, not to all of life. I can't speak for why others do not hold the convictions I hold. From my interaction with others on the subject, I have found that many have not read the passage, or have simply been told all their lives that "it was cultural," without having studied the subject at all.

If this is an ordinance of the Church and part of public worship, then it is to be regulated by the elders of the Church, not according to personal preference. It is your elders who are to explain and implement in the congregation whatever is prescribed in 1 Cor. 11. Making it a matter of personal preference can only lead to disorder and division in the congregation, the very things Paul is trying to avoid.

Interesting and valid point. However there may be cases where the elders, or perhaps just some of the elders and the pastor, have come to the position of head coverings yet they refrain from making it a matter of discipline out of wisdom and concern for the unity of the church. There is something to be said for stating the doctrine from Scripture and letting the word do its work over time, while having some women set the example, i. e. those whose husbands are convicted about headcoverings.

I hear what you are saying, but I feel like the session should tell us if we are sinning, even if it disrupts unity.

As a non-covered woman in church where only a few women cover, I could see the wisdom in having it regulated as a church ordinance rather than as a personal preference thing, but our culture does not do well with ordinances, I think. We do not like being told what to do, even if it would be liberating.

 

[Skyler]

And we believe the passage refers only to public worship, not to all of life. I can't speak for why others do not hold the convictions I hold. From my interaction with others on the subject, I have found that many have not read the passage, or have simply been told all their lives that "it was cultural," without having studied the subject at all.

If this is an ordinance of the Church and part of public worship, then it is to be regulated by the elders of the Church, not according to personal preference. It is your elders who are to explain and implement in the congregation whatever is prescribed in 1 Cor. 11. Making it a matter of personal preference can only lead to disorder and division in the congregation, the very things Paul is trying to avoid.

Interesting and valid point. However there may be cases where the elders, or perhaps just some of the elders and the pastor, have come to the position of head coverings yet they refrain from making it a matter of discipline out of wisdom and concern for the unity of the church. There is something to be said for stating the doctrine from Scripture and letting the word do its work over time, while having some women set the example, i. e. those whose husbands are convicted about headcoverings.

I hear what you are saying, but I feel like the session should tell us if we are sinning, even if it disrupts unity.

As a non-covered woman in church where only a few women cover, I could see the wisdom in having it regulated as a church ordinance rather than as a personal preference thing, but our culture does not do well with ordinances, I think. We do not like being told what to do, even if it would be liberating.

There is something to be said for waiting to act upon such a change in conviction. After all, it's entirely possible that someone could present them with a Scriptural argument that changes their position--if they've already committed the whole church to it, it would be much harder to acquiesce to the testimony of Scripture. So I think there's something to be said for taking time to meditate on it and allow for (or better yet, request) comments and criticisms of their new conviction.