Should women have their heads covered in worship?
- Thread starter Jon 316
- Start date
- Status
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
rescuedbyLove
Puritan Board Junior
Hey, I don't think I ever posted on page seven of a thread before.
Yeah, this is neat!
....And interesting.
Dr. Bob Gonzales
Puritan Board Junior
Has anyone referenced James Hurley's view? Namely, that the so-called "head covering" is referring to a woman's long hair "put up" or "done up" (in contrast to her hair being "unloosed" and "let down." I provides evidence that women in the first century wore their hair up in braids or a bun when in public. They didn't "let their hair down" unless in the privacy of their home or when mourning, argues Hurley. A possible indirect support for Hurley's view is the fact that Paul has to warn women against adorning their hairdo with gaudy jewelry so that they won't be a distraction in public worship. If the real custom entailed a shawl or piece of clothing that covered the hairdo, then why does Paul bother to exhort them to avoid ostentatiously adorning their hairdo since the shawl would presumably cover such adornment making his exhortation unnecessary.
Your servant,
Your servant,
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
hair vs covering
yes earlier in the thread this was addressed. There is definitely a reference to long hair and also to a head covering that can not possibly be the same thing. An example of how it can't be simply by replacing the word in the text makes this abundantly clear.
As for the jewels in the hair, it obviously is a separate issue about adornment and modesty etc. having nothing to do with covering in public worship while praying or participating in the preaching.
Remember many women did usually cover their hair all day, but Paul says it is for sure to be done by all while praying or prophesying in church.
Should a women choose to cover her head all day then obviously she would not be the one out showing off the jewels in her hair or her fancy hairdo. That would be addressed to women who were not covered in other places.
Many of the liberal Greeks and other Gentiles did not cover their heads all day and they were worldly and wore jewels and hairdos to show off.
These would be the ones addressed.
Just as the wealthy were warned not to bring massive amounts of food in front of their brothers at the Lord's Supper.
Paul was attempting to teach something new. How all people of differing races and background should live and get along together in the Lord.
Before it had been only Jews and so all followed the Jewish customs. But now new rules had to be established for a conduct in the Lords house and also for a minimal guideline for living in the world addressing the weaknesses of all cultures.
That which is not spoken to specifically we have some liberty to determine for ourselves, just following the guidelines, dress modestly, think on things pure and lovely, putting others ahead of yourself etc. We have to be clear in our conscience before God.
Whereas some were specific no braided hair, no busy bodying, to work and not be lazy and provide for your family, etc.
We have no liberty of conscience in what is clearly commanded, only in what is just in principle.
So can we watch TV? We should ask ourselves, is it perfectly pure and lovely and are we thinking on and violating a principle. Must it be perfectly pure or would have to go out of the world to not see some evil. But I have to walk down the street I do not have to watch TV. etc. Well I will watch only shows with no violence and sin in them. Then am I tempted to violate my conscience and watch something unedifying as I sit there or do I have control. etc.
Well these are things to discuss on this board and with our church members, to sharpen as iron sharpens iron. But we are not bound and should not set up rules in our churches or these or make it a test of faith.
But if a church would say, we know it is no requirement of God that our ministers abstain from alcohol, but we all agree to give up this freedom willingly to serve more effectively and avoid offense they are free to bind themselves with this vow for God's glory. But to tell others they should or must would be wrong.
I also think it would be wrong to divide denominations over such a desire also. The abstainers could do this as individuals in a drinking denomination.
There is no need to keep separate over this issue. It is not a Confessional issue and if we hold to the Confession then it is our test of fellowship and only a violation of it should divide.
In His Service,
yes earlier in the thread this was addressed. There is definitely a reference to long hair and also to a head covering that can not possibly be the same thing. An example of how it can't be simply by replacing the word in the text makes this abundantly clear.
As for the jewels in the hair, it obviously is a separate issue about adornment and modesty etc. having nothing to do with covering in public worship while praying or participating in the preaching.
Remember many women did usually cover their hair all day, but Paul says it is for sure to be done by all while praying or prophesying in church.
Should a women choose to cover her head all day then obviously she would not be the one out showing off the jewels in her hair or her fancy hairdo. That would be addressed to women who were not covered in other places.
Many of the liberal Greeks and other Gentiles did not cover their heads all day and they were worldly and wore jewels and hairdos to show off.
These would be the ones addressed.
Just as the wealthy were warned not to bring massive amounts of food in front of their brothers at the Lord's Supper.
Paul was attempting to teach something new. How all people of differing races and background should live and get along together in the Lord.
Before it had been only Jews and so all followed the Jewish customs. But now new rules had to be established for a conduct in the Lords house and also for a minimal guideline for living in the world addressing the weaknesses of all cultures.
That which is not spoken to specifically we have some liberty to determine for ourselves, just following the guidelines, dress modestly, think on things pure and lovely, putting others ahead of yourself etc. We have to be clear in our conscience before God.
Whereas some were specific no braided hair, no busy bodying, to work and not be lazy and provide for your family, etc.
We have no liberty of conscience in what is clearly commanded, only in what is just in principle.
So can we watch TV? We should ask ourselves, is it perfectly pure and lovely and are we thinking on and violating a principle. Must it be perfectly pure or would have to go out of the world to not see some evil. But I have to walk down the street I do not have to watch TV. etc. Well I will watch only shows with no violence and sin in them. Then am I tempted to violate my conscience and watch something unedifying as I sit there or do I have control. etc.
Well these are things to discuss on this board and with our church members, to sharpen as iron sharpens iron. But we are not bound and should not set up rules in our churches or these or make it a test of faith.
But if a church would say, we know it is no requirement of God that our ministers abstain from alcohol, but we all agree to give up this freedom willingly to serve more effectively and avoid offense they are free to bind themselves with this vow for God's glory. But to tell others they should or must would be wrong.
I also think it would be wrong to divide denominations over such a desire also. The abstainers could do this as individuals in a drinking denomination.
There is no need to keep separate over this issue. It is not a Confessional issue and if we hold to the Confession then it is our test of fellowship and only a violation of it should divide.
In His Service,
Last edited:
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
Regardless of your view on this issue, the fact that this thread is now approaching 300 posts on a Reformed board indicates it may not be as clear cut as you think...
Dr. Bob Gonzales
Puritan Board Junior
CNJ
Puritan Board Senior
One lady in our church covers her head. The last time I wore a hat was on Easter and she forgot her covering that day. Maybe I will wear a hat on Easter, just depends.
I have heard of a church where the ladies keep their fancy hats at church to wear on Sunday. For me this calls attention to myself which I would rather not do. It smacks of Judiasm. The Orthodox Jewish women I saw in Miami Beach wear wigs or fancy hats to cover their heads. None of this seems modest to me. I remember in the 60s when women wearing pants suits to church was an issue.
You know, though, I don't just pray at church. Would I need to then cover my head every time I pray? The attitude I believe is to show submission to my husband. My pastor, when I asked him about head covering, feels I show submission to my husband.
The issue is not one of contention in our church. I say let's contend for the faith and sharing our faith with others.
- Status
