The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings

Amen Dave. It is very much a tradition and clearly a misunderstanding of Scriptures. I doubt it the folks who hold to headcoverings understand the reasons they practiced it either. I read many interpretations, but nothing that is of anything sound. I think Murray does some major somersaults when interpreting this passage.

Someone here referred to a baptists discussion board in this thread that discussed the headcovering that I read close to a year ago (unfortunately the link doesn't seem to work anymore). What I found very disturbing is how there are people, without even thinking (unless they really are male chauvinist), could accept the literal interpretation. One person there even posted how he didn't understand how women take offense in this -- clearly this person lacks sensitivity. I think that person needs to reread those passages in the literal interpretation because clearly the literal interpretation marks the woman's head as an object of scorn. How could women not find that offensive?! It's not rocket science to see this. The only conclusion to that is, that those who promoted the literal interpretation are male chauvinist. I really don't know how else to see it ... unless they really don't understand what they have actually embraced. If you think about this ... how consistent is that view to the rest of Scriptures. What everyone seems to forget is that this passage is about headship. Not about an object that sits on a woman's shoulder. If God really did mean to mark the woman's head as an object of shame, then why didn't He mention it then in creation that her head was an object of shame (if the literal head in vs 5,6 is somehow related to ordered headship in creation) when He created her? But what instead did God say? When he created man and woman, the Lord said it was GOOD! Did not God create Adam and Eve perfect in the beginning? Or did God tell a white lie and finally came out clean and confessed in 1Cor11 and stated ... "well, it wasn't quite true that woman was created good ... her head is actually an object of scorn". Of course this is silly and blasphemous (to suggest that God ever lies) ... but that's how one would have to make sense of the literal interpretation with the rest of Scriptures.

I think the only person who opposed that view on that thread gave a better interpretation. She presented that the passage was speaking figuratively. That the head spoken of in vs 5-6 is not the object that sits on the woman's shoulders but is speaking about her authority over man --- that is what is an object of scorn --- not her head! She further stated that the man's authority serves to cover the woman. As vs 3 states that Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman. She's right that vs 3 sets the context of the whole passage --- ORDERED HEADSHIP. And as clearly stated in vs 13 that in creation, the Lord marked the woman's hair as this symbol of this ordered headship. Symbols need not be something that has to be removable. Just in the same way that the Lord used the rainbow as a symbol of his covenant with Noah, he used a part of his creation as that symbol. In the case of headship, it's the woman's hair.

What further saddens me is how some men will blame the woman's hair as their stumbling block. This again is an abuse of this passage and just really an excuse for their own sins. Don't they realize that Jesus teaches that sin is from within and not to what is external? It's really discouraging how men will speak like that about women that are suppose to be their sisters in Christ, just to hide their own sins.

My prayer is that folks really take a good look at what they are promoting and ask themselves if they are really doing good to the brethren (that includes their sisters in Christ). I don't believe that Paul was promoting that the woman's head is an object of shame (and so should be "covered") as the literal interpretation would have us believe. I think you'll have to look long and hard to find such an interpretation to be supported in rest of Scriptures. I think the most sound interpretation is that figurative interpretation because it's quite consistent with the rest of Scriptures if you study it.

heidi,

Your response has lots of philosophical rhetoric as well as some pretty nifty strawmen but what I don't see is EXEGESIS of the passage itself. Few of any here have probably read those things you have read, aside from Murray, who is rarely if ever accused of doing "major somersaults".

Until recently in the history of the Church, the vast majority of churches practiced headcoverings... did you know this? The feminist movement has made unfortunate inroads in virtually every area not excluding the modern churches. May I recommend a more recent article that presents a formidable defense of headcovering for women in public worship via exegetical and historical arguments.

You can read this article by pastor David Silversides here: Is Headcovering Biblical?.



BTW, there is nothing inherently wrong with "tradition". I'm sure your church does many things which have become a tradition. Headcovering for women in public worship was already a 'tradition' during Paul's day, cf. 1Cor 11:16. The question is: Are those practiced traditions biblical?

In His grace,

With all due respect Pilgrim, the literal interpretation of the passage is what brings in this insistence of putting a cover over a woman's head. Clearly the literal interpretation marks the woman's head as an object of scorn. There's no ambiguity in the literal interpretation. The "head" is the object that sits on the woman's shoulder and it's being associated with the words of shame and disgrace (clearly this is what "literal" means). If "head" is no longer that, then that passage is no longer taken literally and when you do that then you can no longer find justification from the passage that a woman should cover her head by some cloth (since supposedly this cloth covers what is shameful and disgraceful, as the literal interpretation points out). The literal interpretation teaches that a woman's head should be covered because it is consider an object of shame and disgrace. This is what the headcovering teaches and promotes.

I find this in contradictory to the rest of Scriptures. When God created man and woman, He said it was GOOD. There is nothing external about the woman that should be marked as an object of scorn (which is what head covering teaches) and hence should be covered. One should not be teaching such views of women, which brings harm and persecution to women. I find the figurative interpretation more consistent to what headship is and the rest of scriptures. The woman "uncovered" is the woman who has no authoritative headship over her (as what the context of the passage is all about!). This is why the man serves as her cover. And as Scripture clearly notes, the woman's hair serves as that symbol for what God intended since He created her. So it's quite fitting that the symbol is what the Lord naturally gave to woman --- her hair, because her place under the authority of man is also the natural role the Lord designed her for. Since her hair is that symbol of the man's headship over her, Paul associates her hair with "her glory". When she complies to the ordered headship, she is playing out the role God designed her for --- this becomes her glory.

I agree with Dave that those who promote the headcoverings really do not understand why they practice it. They can't make sense of it because they misunderstood the passage. The figurative interpretation really gives the clearest understanding of that passage on ordered headship.

No such proof. I know many biblical, sound Christians and also experts of the history of the church and they no make such claims that it was always practiced and that the practice has only stopped because of some feminist movement. Someone who is under Dr. Masters' preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, said that Dr. Masters once noted in response to issues of this headcovering, that the puritan men wore wigs during service. A very telling point! I guess the men then didn't have so much trouble "covering" their heads!

As a side note, history should not be used to interpret Scriptures. Scriptures should ONLY interpret Scriptures. For many years the RCC has misinterpreted Scriptures; no one should accept it because of the longevity of the practice. Similarly, the folks who practice headcoverings are not immune to mis-interpretions of Scriptures. They just needed a bit more reforming and a better understanding of Scriptures.

heidi,

With all due respect, why won't you EXEGETE the passage to prove your contention that "a woman's head should be covered because it is consider an object of shame and disgrace."? I nor any commentator worth his salt can find any such nonsense. Paul would never and could never contradict himself nor would he write anything that contradicted any other biblical passage since he wrote under divine inspiration.

Those of us who hold to headcoverings for women in public worship more than understand why the practice should be done. There are two basic reasons:

1. It sets forth the demarcation between male and female as God has created them.

2. Women are to be subject to the authority of their husbands and all those men who are given authority over the Church by the appointment of the Holy Spirit, i.e., Elders.

3. And a third is because as Paul wrote, "because of the angels".

I'm also curious to know if you took the time to read through David Silversides' excellent article, "Is Headcovering Biblical?" My reason for asking is because he gives myriad quotes from reliable and conservative Reformed men from various eras which indisputably show that headcoverings were the common and accepted practice throughout the history of the Protestant Church.

Secondly, I fully agree that history should not and cannot interpret Scripture. However, Church history cannot be dismissed willy nilly since it is the Body of Christ which is guided by the ever-present Holy Spirit. Thus Scripture must be brought forth to show whether that which was practiced in the Church historically is unwarranted. Can you do this with sound EXEGESIS of the passage?

IF <--- as you say that a woman's hair is the covering which Paul is referring to (vv. 5, 6, and 15), then verse 6 makes no logical sense. Could you please explain how the text makes sense if one takes your view of that verse? Additionally, verse 16 makes no sense if it was Paul's intention to say that the churches have no such practice of allowing to have no covering, which in your view the text would then mean that women were not allowed to cover their head with long hair; a direct contradiction of the preceding version (15).

I and others look forward to your EXEGESIS of the passage.

In His grace,

Ahhh, I have EXEGETE it both in the literal (as what the headcovering promotes to taking the passage literally!) and the figurative interpretation. Where have you been? I have shown you how the literal interpretation is inconsistent to the rest of Scriptures. Which part of the literal interpretation don't you understand? Apparently you feel that the "head" in verses 5-6 is the object that sits on the woman's shoulder, otherwise you wouldn't go insisting that she covers it, now would you? But you seem to ignore the fact that what those verses also states is that she has to cover her head because it's considered shameful and disgraceful. Read the passage literally and see what the "cover" serves to do and why; you can't ignore it. It clearly associates the head with shame and disgrace. Maybe you should try to EXEGETE how you can get from those verses that one should covers one's head without taking the verse literally rather than just referring me to some link I've already read. But logically if you don't take those verses literally then you cannot take out from that passage the justification to insist that a woman should cover her physical head.

Of course I disagree with this nonsense NOT because it marks the woman's head simply as an object of shame but God in his Word has said that when He made woman, He said it was GOOD. There is nothing in Genesis to indicate that God has marked the woman's head in creation as an object of shame and disgrace (and hence should be covered). And when God presented Eve to Adam, even as the heavenly host watched, did Scriptures indicate that she had a cloth over her head?! NO. So I know this isn't what He means and that passage shouldn't be taken literally (e.g. insisting that the woman's head should be covered), otherwise it would contradict the account in Genesis. And if you really follow through with the figurative interpretation, as I have already explained before, it flows very well with the rest of Scriptures and why Paul calls the woman's hair (the symbol of this authority headship over her) as "her glory". After reading what that woman wrote and how she explained the figurative interpretation, that passage just clicked! No somersaults needed as I've read in other interpretations.

All those 3 points you've pointed out, that's clearly seen in the figurative interpretation as I've noted in previous posts and above. But if you take the literal interpretation, there's nothing in that passage that connects such a practice to your points. From all that I see of such a view, it demeans the view of women; it marks the woman's head as an object of scorn, as vs 5-6 CLEARLY notes.

It's alright if you don't agree. You're entitled to your views. I just thought what that woman wrote gave me some insights that seemed to just click. It was balanced and sound.

Pilgrim

Thank you for dealing with Heidi's quote "a woman's head should be covered because it is consider an object of shame and disgrace."
When I read that, I almost couldn't believe she said such a thing. This would logically mean (correct me if I am wrong) that God made women's head an object of shame and disgrace.
Which I find hard to understand why God would do such a thing. If that was the case, shouldn't a woman cover her head at all times?

Tom

Which part don't you understand in the literal interpretation of verses of 5-6:

READ IT LITERALLY. Clearly the word disgrace is there. Ask yourself, what does the passage indicates what the "cover" serves to do ... to hide what is shameful and disgraceful. This is very apparent from the verses above.

Of course God wouldn't do such a thing, that's why the figurative interpretation makes sense (read what that is in my previous posts)! It's what's consistent to the rest of Scriptures! And no, it's not insisting at all times ... as the literal interpretation states that when she prays or prophesies. Read the passage. It is when those times that her head is marked as an object of scorn. That's the literal interpretation, which of course I object to as I've explained above.

If the woman's head can be dishonored, that can only be because it has honor to be "dissed." It is honored with a gloried crown of hair which represents the woman's honored role in God's order. Covered means sheltered, protected as a precious treasure kept from exposure to the elements and from looters. Womanhood is a particularly honorable and precious treasure to be highly valued, respected, and covered so as to preserve and protect it, not to hide it from view as something shameful!

heidi,

1) You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word EXEGETE. The word simply means an "interpretation of a passage", along with the method used to arrive at that explanation, e.g., grammar, original language, etc. The long-standing hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is the "Grammatico-Historico" (grammatical-historical) method which takes into account the grammar the inspired writer used along with the historical setting. There is also the necessity of using the "Analogy of Faith", i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture since the Bible is fully inspired and its various books are inseparable.

2) I now see I did make an error from the beginning when I asked you to exegete the passage to show how you arrived at your conclusion, vs. simply basing your view on what some other woman has written. What I should have asked from at the start was for you to show some respect to us here. Your demeanor is quite arrogant and combative. Scripture prescribes that you exhibit some humility and respect toward your elders in the faith as well as those who have been students of the Word for many years, both here and those who have gone before. Whether you were aware of it or not, most everyone here is very conservative and holds to what is known as The Reformed Faith. Quite a number are pastors/elders, teachers, and missionaries who have served Christ for many years; some 50+ years. And, there are many others who are very knowledgeable laymen who likewise have been students of the Bible for myriad years. I do believe some respect is due them.

3) So, I ask again if you would please EXEGETE the passage and/or those specific verses which your view is based upon. And secondly, in regard to the historic practice of headcovering in the Church, which you have stated there is no such history, I would once again point you to the article by David Silversides Is Headcovering Biblical? in which Rev. Silversides provides a detailed list of men, churches and denominations who did practice headcovering for women in public worship. The record is indisputable.

In His grace,

Hi, Pilgrim,

I am kind of new to this forum(haven't posted much), but i have been following this thread with avid interest. My church does not require headcoverings. Nevertheless, I have grown quite interested in the debates/discussions over this topic.
I would like to find out the truth though as God so reveals it to me, so I have some questions:





Can you give me some passages/contexts that have to do with headcovering other than I Cor. 11?

Thank you very much!

--RoadOfLife

I believe the passage itself answers your question about other references to head coverings, which I will show you after I give you a quote from John Calvin, taken from his commentary on Corinthians:

3. But I would have you know. It is an old proverb: "Evil manners beget good laws." As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.

My reason for including the above quote from Calvin is because he gives a reason why this matter of headcoverings for women in public worship doesn't appear previously in the New Testament... i.e., it was never disputed and thus no mention of it seemed necessary. Most of the Epistles of Paul, Peter and John are 'apologetic' in nature, i.e., they address problems in doctrine and practice that plagued or would plague the Church.

Okay, so where in the passage does the answer appear that addresses your question? Here:

What Paul concluded his teaching on headcovering with was a statement of the universal practice among ALL of the churches. Thus this practice was not simply introduced into Corinth, i.e., a "cultural phenomena" unique to Corinth. In fact, not only was headcovering practiced, he even goes so far as to say that no one anywhere is argumentative (contentious) about it. In short, all of the NT churches at the time of Paul's writing this letter practiced headcovering and it was a universally accepted practice which no one even disputed until the practice was questioned and/or stopped in Corinth.

If I may once again point to David Silversides' article here: Is Headcovering Biblical? because it contains not only several excellent examples of sound exegesis of the passage itself, e.g., David Dickson and John Murray, but it also shows that the practice of headcovering was widely taught and practiced for centuries until recently among the Reformed Churches. Although it is possible that they were all wrong on this matter, is it likely that they ALL were in error?

Food for thought!

In His grace,