Women's Covering
- Thread starter ChananBachiyr
- Start date
- Status
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
This is what a large part of the thread has been about: does the principle in the passage require us to practice headcoverings in our culture today? Yes, I think headcoverings are for today. Man is still the head of the woman, so the woman must have power on her head when in the mixed assembly. I do not know if I agree with the cultural interpretation of the verse, but I think that even if one does take the cultural interpretation, one will end up with a headcovering practice in our Western cultures today. As has already been noted by Austin, something being cultural does not mean we do nothing. Instead of greeting each other with a holy kiss, we shake a hand or give a hug (depends on the culture). The intent of the command is observed although the cultural form has changed to suit the culture.Dachaser said:
The question seems to express the desire for an answer both convenient and definitive. And yet this is exactly the kind of question that calls for the most care, and may demand the most patience.
"Take a little wine for your stomach." 1Tim.5:23. Timeless advice? Scriptural command? Cultural admonition?
Context is crucial. Widening, concentric contexts. Language arts. Theology.
If, for some given direction it is determined by careful exegesis, with attendance on the history of the question--should we not listen to ancient wisdom as well?--we think a command is cultural, rather than normative: we should be prepared to justify that conclusion to others without painful gymnastics. And the more convoluted, the less persuasive (most likely).
But, the very next question may call for a different set of values and a markedly different equation. So, the short answer to the question is: There is no short answer.
Daniel M.
Puritan Board Freshman
Well said, Reverend.
As for my stance, I don't think Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11 as a cultural tradition for a few reasons:
1.) "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous I was for the traditions of my fathers." ~Galatians 1:14 (ESV)
Paul understood the dangers of of following "truths" propagated by men, and takes special care to contrast the gospel he received from the reckless aberrations of men. Later in this very letter, he comments on the Judaizer Crisis, which is arguably the "man" gospel he would eviscerate in his argument. Moreover, notice that he uses the words "extremely zealous" - as in, to a fault - for the traditions of his fathers. Here it is important to understand the character and thinking of Paul - that tradition could be the very enemy of truth, and that cultural relativity could taint the message he was tasked to spread purely.
2.) "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." ~ 1 Corinthians 11:2
Let me balance my first point with this text. Paul was not against tradition. He was against man's traditions. In almost every doxology, Paul firmly states his authority given him by God - that is, he understands that the words he carries have weight, and that he needs to spread a message that does not create a Pharisaic system of rituals and traditions, but one that promotes godly behavior and liberty in non-essential differences.
3.) "But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." ~ 1 Corinthians 8:9
"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him." ~ Romans 14:1-3
Note how Paul is not an all-or-nothing, dogmatic thinker in much of his writing. He understood Christ's fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, and that many ceremonial rites and regulations were shadows of the Visitation that descended and ascended back into Heaven. Now, you may be thinking - "Dan, doesn't that mean Paul likely regarded the roles of men and women as non-essentials, then?" to which I answer, Most assuredly not!
There is no doubt that Paul, after having encountered Athenian philosophers and likely having a solid understanding of Koine at the time, as well as an outstanding education as evidenced by his argumentative skills, was a logical and organized thinker. His letters do not hop from place to place. Meaning that, particularly when inspired by the Spirit of God to write these letters, they are providentially organized.
My question: Why, then, would we assume that Paul, after writing in chapter 8 that we ought to be careful with our many liberties, is being less than entirely serious when he lays down the principles for man and woman's attire and behavior in church in chapter 11? What I'm saying is this: Paul was no fool. If he considered women's head coverings to be cultural or non-essential, would he not only use it to further his earlier point that we should not let the liberties we exercise cause someone else to stumble? Instead, he uses eternal, inspired truths to back up what he says about women and men in the church.
"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." ~ 1 Corinthians 11:7
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." ~ 1 Timothy 2:12-13
In each of these instances, Paul doesn't say something like: "Well, women aren't educated, so don't let them teach," or "Women should be in the kitchen and letting men do the real work". Instead, he evokes God-given truths to drive home a sobering point: As filled with potential and intelligent as women are, and though they stand shoulder-to-shoulder to men in the sight of God, God simply did not create them to be prominent, outspoken members of our churches, nor to hold any manner of church office. We all know that God can use a woman; but is it His will to do so in the particular case of a congregational setting? Moreover, we must trust that Paul is setting an apostolic example here, as well as laying out a principle for worship - we cannot approach God any which way we want!
Here's where I may have to duck a few stones: I think the Puritans are wrong on this one. Why? Because we have it well-documented that the very reason Puritan men wore caps under their hats because of how unattractive their unruly, unwashed hair looked. As opposed to examining their own culture in this instance and conforming it to Scripture, they bent the rule slightly (I concede that, to them, leaving the cap on but no hat was being bare-headed) and let their home culture win out.
My quarrel with thinkers like John Piper on this issue is that they split the bill: head coverings are cultural, church roles are not. Exegetically, we do not have a sound basis to make the conclusion for one and not the other.
I agree with R.C. Sproul's support for the head covering movement. The nineteenth century saw women having no head covering, but keeping their hair up. By the mid-twentieth, women started going to church with their hair down; in no time in history did Middle Eastern or European culture concede that a woman's hair being down in the presence of anyone but her husband was acceptable. And now, many women are being ordained and governing the church. It is progressive degradation, and a sign that the church visible is adhering more and more to liberalism and applying cultural relativity where we haven't got a place to apply it.
Finally, with all that said: We all know that, when Christ comes, He's likely going to let us as His people know where we missed the mark in interpreting the Scriptures. And I guarantee you, we will likely fall short in many areas. But thanks be to God, brethren - this issue is not salvific. It is one of many instances in the kingdom of God where He demonstrates tremendous forbearance to His people.
So while I encourage anyone to get behind the head-covering movement, let's not put the same energy into this that we would put into a doctrinal foundation of the faith.
As for my stance, I don't think Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11 as a cultural tradition for a few reasons:
1.) "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous I was for the traditions of my fathers." ~Galatians 1:14 (ESV)
Paul understood the dangers of of following "truths" propagated by men, and takes special care to contrast the gospel he received from the reckless aberrations of men. Later in this very letter, he comments on the Judaizer Crisis, which is arguably the "man" gospel he would eviscerate in his argument. Moreover, notice that he uses the words "extremely zealous" - as in, to a fault - for the traditions of his fathers. Here it is important to understand the character and thinking of Paul - that tradition could be the very enemy of truth, and that cultural relativity could taint the message he was tasked to spread purely.
2.) "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." ~ 1 Corinthians 11:2
Let me balance my first point with this text. Paul was not against tradition. He was against man's traditions. In almost every doxology, Paul firmly states his authority given him by God - that is, he understands that the words he carries have weight, and that he needs to spread a message that does not create a Pharisaic system of rituals and traditions, but one that promotes godly behavior and liberty in non-essential differences.
3.) "But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." ~ 1 Corinthians 8:9
"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him." ~ Romans 14:1-3
Note how Paul is not an all-or-nothing, dogmatic thinker in much of his writing. He understood Christ's fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, and that many ceremonial rites and regulations were shadows of the Visitation that descended and ascended back into Heaven. Now, you may be thinking - "Dan, doesn't that mean Paul likely regarded the roles of men and women as non-essentials, then?" to which I answer, Most assuredly not!
There is no doubt that Paul, after having encountered Athenian philosophers and likely having a solid understanding of Koine at the time, as well as an outstanding education as evidenced by his argumentative skills, was a logical and organized thinker. His letters do not hop from place to place. Meaning that, particularly when inspired by the Spirit of God to write these letters, they are providentially organized.
My question: Why, then, would we assume that Paul, after writing in chapter 8 that we ought to be careful with our many liberties, is being less than entirely serious when he lays down the principles for man and woman's attire and behavior in church in chapter 11? What I'm saying is this: Paul was no fool. If he considered women's head coverings to be cultural or non-essential, would he not only use it to further his earlier point that we should not let the liberties we exercise cause someone else to stumble? Instead, he uses eternal, inspired truths to back up what he says about women and men in the church.
"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." ~ 1 Corinthians 11:7
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." ~ 1 Timothy 2:12-13
In each of these instances, Paul doesn't say something like: "Well, women aren't educated, so don't let them teach," or "Women should be in the kitchen and letting men do the real work". Instead, he evokes God-given truths to drive home a sobering point: As filled with potential and intelligent as women are, and though they stand shoulder-to-shoulder to men in the sight of God, God simply did not create them to be prominent, outspoken members of our churches, nor to hold any manner of church office. We all know that God can use a woman; but is it His will to do so in the particular case of a congregational setting? Moreover, we must trust that Paul is setting an apostolic example here, as well as laying out a principle for worship - we cannot approach God any which way we want!
Here's where I may have to duck a few stones: I think the Puritans are wrong on this one. Why? Because we have it well-documented that the very reason Puritan men wore caps under their hats because of how unattractive their unruly, unwashed hair looked. As opposed to examining their own culture in this instance and conforming it to Scripture, they bent the rule slightly (I concede that, to them, leaving the cap on but no hat was being bare-headed) and let their home culture win out.
My quarrel with thinkers like John Piper on this issue is that they split the bill: head coverings are cultural, church roles are not. Exegetically, we do not have a sound basis to make the conclusion for one and not the other.
I agree with R.C. Sproul's support for the head covering movement. The nineteenth century saw women having no head covering, but keeping their hair up. By the mid-twentieth, women started going to church with their hair down; in no time in history did Middle Eastern or European culture concede that a woman's hair being down in the presence of anyone but her husband was acceptable. And now, many women are being ordained and governing the church. It is progressive degradation, and a sign that the church visible is adhering more and more to liberalism and applying cultural relativity where we haven't got a place to apply it.
Finally, with all that said: We all know that, when Christ comes, He's likely going to let us as His people know where we missed the mark in interpreting the Scriptures. And I guarantee you, we will likely fall short in many areas. But thanks be to God, brethren - this issue is not salvific. It is one of many instances in the kingdom of God where He demonstrates tremendous forbearance to His people.
So while I encourage anyone to get behind the head-covering movement, let's not put the same energy into this that we would put into a doctrinal foundation of the faith.
Last edited:
Wouldn't the deciding factor in this be if the principle can be done by different means/ways depending upon culture, or, if it needs to be done always in the same way in every culture to meet Gods demands? In this case, head dress would seem to be more of the culture back then, no?
Last edited by a moderator:
THE W
Puritan Board Freshman
I've actually been persuaded to believe that a woman's long hair is adequate for a covering due to that greek word 'parabalion(sp?)'. women with short hair would need to use some other material to cover their head.
I don't think this passage is referring only to corporate worship as women are not allowed to speak in church per 1cor14:34-35 which is what prophesy entails.
I don't see anything in the passage that would suggest it to be cultural. Paul's reasoning comes from the created order and nature.
that would be my take on it anyway. i'm open to alternatives.
I don't think this passage is referring only to corporate worship as women are not allowed to speak in church per 1cor14:34-35 which is what prophesy entails.
I don't see anything in the passage that would suggest it to be cultural. Paul's reasoning comes from the created order and nature.
that would be my take on it anyway. i'm open to alternatives.
if this is the case we are left with mans opinion. We can not have a flexible method of interpretation.
So you are saying that vs 6 should read if a woman has short hair let her also have short hair?
THE W
Puritan Board Freshman
indeed that is what vs 6 says. it then says it is shameful for a woman to cut short or shear her head so she should instead cover her head.
vs 5 reads that if a woman is not covered she is dishonoring her head, and it would as if her head were shaved(bald).
long hair, which is the covering that God has given naturally to women to her glory(vs 15), is the symbol of authority. some woman don't have long hair so they should use an artificial covering. the symbol of authority is the covering of the head.
That is an interesting theory but I just can not see that in the text.
Where is parabalion in the text?
Last edited:
This needn't be a reason for taking 1 Cor. 11 to refer to something besides the corporate worship service, which numerous contextual markers support. I have heard two interpretations of the praying and prophesying which effectively resolve chapters 11 and 14, while maintaining based on the contextual evidence that chapter 11 pertains to the worship service.
1. My pastor, Rev. Todd Ruddell, in his 3-part sermon series on this passage, views the praying and prophesying to be legitimate acts of praying and prophesying which the entire congregation participates in, such as praying silently along with the minister, and singing Psalms. Supporting evidence for the latter would include occasions in Scripture where prophesying was associated with music, such as Micaiah's prophesying to Ahab, or Saul being among the prophets. Aside from that, he also has an interesting take on the reference to angels, which I had not heard elsewhere. It revolves around the fact that angels in Scripture are often found covering themselves (i.e., covering their glory) in the presence of the Lord (e.g., Isaiah 6, Revelation 4) so that only the Lord's glory is seen.
2. John Murray's view is that the praying and prophesying are authoritative public acts, and thus Paul is employing the matter of covering to show the impropriety of women performing these authoritative acts to a mixed assembly, whereas Paul later condemns it explicitly in chapter 14.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
