The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings and more

In reply to:

---

As for the case about coverings, one question we could ask ourselves, couldn't a woman wear a covering but still not be subject to her husband? If they can, then the purpose of the covering is defeated, and even made worse by entering into worship falsely.

---

To press your line of reasoning, we could also say that the purpose of baptism is also defeated when an unbeliever is baptized, eh? Fortunately, the argument is without merit for the "head covering", like baptism, is a sign of an immutable truth. In the case of the "head covering" it is a sign of the truth that women are to be subject; i.e., under the authority of their immediate head, their husbands. This truth Paul establishes clearly when he uses the order of creation in that section.


My reasons for embracing "head coverings" is upon exegetical grounds; nothing more nor anything less. I came upon the Murray article long after I had studied the much debated topic and come to a decision on my own. One can appreciate Murray's words, I would hope, even if there exists a disagreement on the topic.

In His Grace,

In reply to:

---

I didn't see anywhere where our Lord established the rule about head coverings.

---

I surely do not want to belabour this discussion, at least here, as I do believe it is worthy of discussion, but in its own thread. But this remark is unfortunate as it bifurcates the unity of the inspired Scriptures, although I feel comfortable assuming that is not your intent. When we give more importance and/or authority to the recorded words of the Lord Christ over those of His authorized and inspired apostles, we commit a grievous error. Although I have nothing against "red-letter Bibles" in principle, there are some individuals who have fallen into the error of believing that those "red letters" are to be given precedence over the "black letters". And in doing so, destroy the Scriptures' own hermeneutical principles, e.g., the Epistles interpret the Gospels, etc.

Again.... I understand that you consider Paul's teaching in 1Cor. 11:2-16 under the idea of "cultural boundness", which is very popular today. However, I would argue that a careful reading and exegesis of the passage in question does not allow the matter of head coverings to be one of culture but of creation and of God's original design, at least during the interim before Christ returns. It is true that Paul begins this section (vs. 2) speaking of "traditions", i.e., those things which were beforehand established and continued to be recognized and upheld. And it is also true that his last remark mentions "custom", which I take as being synonymous with those "traditions" from vs. 2. Here, in this last statement, Paul uses the established tradition of women wearing a head covering, showing their place of submission to men to express their acceptance of their place in God's creative order, to make the point that among the Apostles nor in any other church is the argument against this practice entertained.

Again, if you care to further this discussion on "head coverings", you are certainly welcome to do so, but in a new thread. By the way, if you do a search on this topic, you will find that it has been previously discussed. Perhaps you can find something of interest to you in them too?

In His Grace,

In reply to:

---

We enter into the mindset of the Taliban when we press our women to do something that is contrary to our culture and has nothing to do with the SPIRIT of worship. As for Pilgrim's mention about Baptism, that is an ordinance established by our Lord, as is the Lord's supper. I didn't see anywhere where our Lord established the rule about head coverings.

---

Culture is not a happenstance situation, it is prepared by God. Cultural does play a significant part here in the decision. We must also be ever mindful that there is a culture of the world and a culture of the church. Your cultural/Taliban switch and bait does not comb out very well.

James Hurley has an interesting interpretation of the veil and covering of women (Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective). His interpretation goes like this: there is insufficient evidence that the women in this culture (Jewish or Graeco-Roman) would have worn head coverings. This fact, coupled with the actual language of the text, is better interpreted to mean coiffure. The wearing of the hair "up" was a sign of honoring one's husband. For a woman to let her hair flow down her back was a sign of repudiation and such a woman should shave her hair off which would dishonor her. This is important because it demonstrates truly what is cultural here, the prevailing hairstyles and their significance, versus that which is timeless, the honoring of the husband. This passage does not only refer to the man's headship in the home, but in the church as well.

As William Rodgers points out, one final issue here is the issue of Paul's foundation for the timeless principle; the Creation. Feminists argue that Paul is arguing from the Fall and so this "curse" has been lifted by Christ's redemption. But, Paul is not arguing from the Fall here, but from Creation which has not been negated.

In reply to:

---

James Hurley has an interesting interpretation of the veil and covering of women (Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective). His interpretation goes like this: there is insufficient evidence that the women in this culture (Jewish or Graeco-Roman) would have worn head coverings. This fact, coupled with the actual language of the text, is better interpreted to mean coiffure.

---

Unfortunately, Hurley's interpretation that suggests that the "covering" was nothing more than the way women fixed their hair is indefensible according to the text. If you haven't already done so, read Charles Hodge's excellent interpretation of this passage (exegetically sound) in his commentary, I & II Corinthians, part of the Banner of Truth's "Geneva Series".

I do agree, however, that the church has "culture", i.e., traditions which are to be followed as they are based upon sound biblical teaching. For an interesting article on tradition, see John Murray's Tradition: Romish and Protestant.

In His Grace,

In reply to:

---

Unfortunately, Hurley's interpretation that suggests that the "covering" was nothing more than the way women fixed their hair is indefensible according to the text.

---

This is not the way I understood him (in context, if I am reading him right). Coiffure for him meant for the hair to be prepared in a special way, with a veil (headdress, a definition of Coiffure).... for revealing she was under submission to her husband.

In reply to:

---

Coiffure for him meant for the hair to be prepared in a special way, with a veil (headdress, a definition of Coiffure)....

---

Coiffure: (kwa fyur) The arrangement of the hair (especially a woman's hair).

Not having read what he wrote, I can only take your word for it, i.e., that he believes that there was some form of covering on the woman's head. However, IF he thinks that the definition of "coiffure" includes something other than the manipulation of the hair, he is sadly mistaken. Thanks for the clarification.

In His Grace,