BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

Some Quotations On The Biblical View Of Headcovering

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature…Further, we know that the world takes everything to its own advantage. So, if one has liberty in lesser things, why not do the same with this the same way as with that? And in making such comparisons they will make such a mess that there will be utter chaos. So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, `Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead for something else; `Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also bare this and bare that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard" (John Calvin - 1509-1564)

------

Meaning of head-covering
There are at least three reasons given in the New Testament why a woman should cover her head when she prays or prophesies in the meetings of the church:

First: The Bible says, "A man should NOT cover his he..." - and the reason given is: ... because he is the image and glory of God". In contrast, we are told, "but the woman is the glory of man" (1 Cor.11:7). The glory of man must be covered in the church - and since woman is the glory of man, she testifies to this fact by covering her head. This is the plain and simple meaning of this verse.

Second: The Bible says, "A woman's long hair is her glory" (1 Cor.11:15). The glory of the woman also must be covered in the church, just like the glory of man. And so she must cover her head which has the glory of her long hair. Almost all women are conscious that their long hair is a major part of what makes them look attractive - and that is why even among those women who do put a covering on their heads, most of them cover only a part of their hair!! If a woman does not want to cover her head, then the only alternative that the New Testament offers is to remove that glory, by shaving her head completely: "If a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head" (1 Cor.11:6).

Third: TheBible says: "Man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor.11:10). The head-covering symbolizes the fact that a woman accepts her God-appointed role as having been created "for man's sake" as his helper and therefore her willingness to be submissive to male authority - whether as a wife to her husband, or as a daughter to her father, or as a sister in the church to the church-elders. It is significant that the disappearance of the head-covering from women in Western churches (on a large scale) coincided with the time that the movement for "Women's Liberation" (a phrase used in a book in 1949) began to spread in Western countries - about 60 years ago. The "angels" mentioned in this verse could refer either to the fallen angels or to the angels in heaven. So it could either be a reminder to women to bear in mind that the fallen angels fell because they were not submissive to authority. Or it could mean "A woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man's authority - a fact for all the angels (in heaven) to notice and rejoice in" (as The Living Bible paraphrases that verse).

1 Corinthians 11:16 says that every church that is a church of God, will insist on this head covering for women when they pray or prophesy. The Holy Spirit recognized that 20 centuries later this would become a controversial issue; and so He made Paul to state (in this same verse) that if anyone was going to be argumentative about this matter, he would not argue with such a person. He would just allow that person to continue on in his/her disobedience and inconsistency.

-Zac Pooonen


-----------


Today we live in the world to maintain His testimony. The Lord has shown us three kinds of heads: God is the Head, Christ is the Head, and man is the head. This is altogether not an issue between the brothers and the sisters. It is basically a matter of government, not a matter of grace. Grace calls us brothers and sisters, but God has another arrangement which has to do with His government. This is God’s will, His unique heart’s desire. God ordains that He would be the Head, and that Christ would be the One under Him. He also ordains that Christ would be the Head and that everyone would submit to Christ. Now He further ordains that man would be the head and that the woman should have the sign of submission (Headcovering).

Please bear in mind that, in practice, only the woman is required to cover her head. In reality, Christ’s head is covered before God, and every man’s head is covered before Christ. But in practice God requires only that the woman cover her head before the man. This is a marvelous thing! It expresses a profound principle. The whole matter is not trivial by any means.

Sometimes I feel that I do not have the liberty to speak to some saints about the matter of head covering because they have no idea about God’s government. You must first understand what God’s government is before you can understand head covering. Since Christ has His head covered before God, I also have my head covered before Him. I have covered my head; it is no longer exposed. God is now my Head. Actually, God wants every man to cover his head. Christ is our only Head. Our head should not be exposed; it must be removed from sight.

Here, I will say a word to Christian women: God has ordained the man to be the head of the woman. In this day of ignorance concerning God’s authority, God only requires the church to observe this. The matter of head covering now becomes a question of whether or not one is a Christian. In the church God requires every Christian to acknowledge His ordained system of government.

- Watchman Nee

-------


William Greenhill (1581-1671): “They (the angels) reverence the greatness and majesty of Christ. Though they be high and glorious, yet they see so vast a distance between Christ and themselves, that they cover their faces, Isa. vi. And their bodies, here; they come not into his presence rudely, but with great respect and reverence. As God is to be had in reverence of all that are about him, Psalm 89:7, so Christ is reverenced of all the angels that are about him. Women are to be veiled in the assemblies, because of the angels, 1 Cor. 11:10, to show their reverence and subjection to them being present; and angels are covered, to show their reverence and subjection to Christ. It is an honour to the angels, that in reverence to them the women are to be veiled; and it is a great honour to Christ, that angels reverence and adore him.” Commentary on Ezekiel (Ch. 1:23), by William Greenhill, member of the Westminster Assembly.


-----


William Gouge (1575-1653): “Heading 3. – Of an husbands superioritie over a wife, to be acknowledged by a wife. ….6. The very attire which nature and custome of all times and places have taught women to put on, confirmeth the same: as long haire, vailes, and other coverings over the head: and the former argument doth the Apostle himself use to this very purpose, 1 Cor. 11:7 & c. …’And if it (i.e. the hair – DS) be given her for a covering (vail), say you, wherefore need she add another covering (vail)? That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgement of her subjection’ (Chrysostom). ‘Of Domestical Duties’ by William Gouge, member of the Westminster Assembly.

-----

John Lightfoot (1602-1675): “Therefore the Apostle requires the vailing of women in Religious worship, by the same notion and reason, as men veiled themselves, namely for reverence towards God. But certainly it may be required, whether he so much urgeth the vailing of women, as reproves the vailing of men. However, by this most fit argument, he well chastiseth the contrary custom, and foolishness of the men: as though he had said, do ye not consider, that the man is doxa theou the glory of God, but the woman is only doxa andros, the glory of the man; that the woman was made for man; that man is the head of the woman: and how ridiculous is it, that men should use a vail, when they pray, out of reverence and shame before God, and women not use it, whose glory is less?” Commentary on First Corinthians (ch. 11:5), by John Lightfoot, member of the Westminster Assembly.

-------

Thomas Manton (1620-1677): “In the assembly you meet with angels and devils; angels observe your garb and carriage and devils tempt you. Therefore, be covered because of the angels. The practice of women (who come hither with a shameless impudence into the presence of God, men and angels) neither suits with modesty nor conveniency…(Such boldness) feeds your own pride, and provokes …others of your rank to imitate your vanity. Now we should rather please God than men; better never please men than offend God” Sermons on Titus 2:11-14, Complete Works, vol. 16, p. 138 of Thomas Manton.


------

Christopher Love (1618-1651): “Eighth, the angels are present with us, beholding us in our church assemblies when we come to worship before God. When you are in the worship and service of God, the angels are with you, beholding you, though you see them not. This is hinted at in 1 Cor. 11:10 ‘For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels.” Some refer these words to ministers, who are elsewhere called angels, but we may understand it of the angels themselves because they delight in the things of the gospel. Here the apostle speaks of women not coming into church without covering. Why? Because of the angels, not the ministers. It is meant of the angels of heaven, and therein the women are to take heed how they come into the church, because the angels are spectators and behold how you behave yourselves, they being fellow-worshippers of God with you in church assemblies. And this should make you take heed of your carriage; for although they do not know your hearts, yet they behold your carriage as you come into the presence of God.” A Treatise of the Angels by Christopher Love.


-------

John Bunyan (1628-1688): “For this cause ought the woman to have power”, that is a covering, “on her head, because of the angels” 1 Corinthians 11:10…Methinks, holy and beloved sisters, you should be content to wear this power or badge…”

-----


John Cotton (1585-1652): “How is the public worship of God to be ordered and administered in the church? All the members of the church being met together as one man (i) in the sight of God (ii) are to join together in holy duties with one accord (iii) the men with their heads uncovered, the women covered.”

“For a woman to cover her head in time of public prayer, or prophesying, and for a man to uncover his head, the Apostle warranteth from both the light of nature, and the custome of the churches, 1 Cor. 11:4 to 16.”


------

Ezekiel Hopkins (1633-1690): “The apostle tells us (1 Corinthians 11:10) that the woman was ‘to have power on her head, because of the angels’. Which place, especially the latter clause of it, is diversely interpreted. But I think all agree in this, that this power which they were to have on their heads was a vail or covering, which at other times, but most especially in the congregation, women ought to wear on their heads…But the men were uncovered in their assemblies, as the apostle tells us (v. 4) to signify that they had nothing over them, but were superior to all visible creatures, and subject only to God.”

-----


Benjamen Keach (1640-1704): “The thing signified is sometimes put for the sign materially…1 Corinthians 11:10, ‘A woman ought to have power on her head,’ that is a garment signifying that she was under the power of her husband.”

------


sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

Very good quotes that actually address the scriptures. I wonder if you'll get the same flack I did for posting on this subject and for wanting to talk about the Word. I was even told by one member on this forum that it was against forum rules to post on this topic. Thankfully that doesn't seem to be the case.

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012


This issue is biblical but must not be made a major issue in our fellowships. Each member of the body of Christ must have allowance for personal liberty on this issue. But it is good for the teaching of this doctrine to be given out to the body and for those who are growing and sensitive to the Spirit of God and submission to the church and huband as a place to grow and understand this teaching.

I would ask that these discussions about headcovering not be 'you are right and I am wrong.' but rather something we are all growing to understand and I appreciate the sister that is not covering her head as much as the sister that is.

May we focus on Christ in us the hope of glory as our basis of unity. Judging and critizing others is not biblical nor the Spirit of our Lord.

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

"Each member of the body of Christ must have allowance for personal liberty on this issue. But it is good for the teaching of this doctrine to be given out to the body and for those who are growing and sensitive to the Spirit of God and submission to the church and huband as a place to grow and understand this teaching."

I agree. It should never be force on anyone. Each member must be convinced in their own heart by the scriptures.

I would be great to be able to have a discussion about this issue, on this forum, without people calling you a legalist, or Islamic, and where people actually are willing to talk about the scriptures. Could be edifying.

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

I posted a head coverings article on my personal blog, and someone commented to the effect:

"One final thought: there is a difference between following a specific, identified command of the Lord [like head coverings] and returning to the law."

I thought that was a good distinction. Legalism is usually the first word to be thrown out when this discussion comes up. But there is a real difference between legalism and simply obeying a command of the Lord.

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

Sorry but arent we beating the theological horse to smithereens here?

Krispy

R
roadsign Feb 8, 2012

"One final thought: there is a difference between following a specific, identified command of the Lord [like head coverings] and returning to the law."

Really, only the Lord knows the heart on this matter. We cannot even know our heart apart from God revealing it over the course of our lives. So how can we judge another’s true motive for their traditional habits – or how God is working in that person’s lives?

This same principle works for any outward church tradition. Consider the practice of ecclesial robes. That too has been condemned as being legalist/popish. It may be so. But it may also be a way of holding the place of preaching the word in high esteem. There are many godly, Spirit led, grace-centered clergy who wear gowns every Sunday… and even light candles…

Being one who has visited and served in various church affiliations, I have come to learn the value of accepting their own traditions as having meaning to those people – even if they may not have relevance to me. Also, traditions can serve as powerful visual aids for biblical truths (as the head covering). And even if the people have forgotten their meaning, those truths can be brought back to light through preaching. I have found it a great way to re-root the Word of God in the historic tradition of that church congregation and move God’s promises forward into the contemporary setting.

“Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Phil. 2:4

Diane

S
Solomon101 Feb 8, 2012

@ Greg-

Do you think that much of the lack of agreement on this issue may be because in Paul's culture the head covering was seen as a sign of submission (he actually said that very thing) but in or culture (at least the one I live in) head coverings are not at all understood or seen as a sign of submission?

In essence the issue may simply be one of submission not necessarily the symbol of it. If head coverings are seen to represent that submission in an area then it means something to those people. However, if head coverings are seen as nothing more that a form of hat then the symbolism is lost on that group. Perhaps another symbol might play that role in their culture and could be used instead.

Just a few thoughts but I wonder if we are possibly looking at the specific symbol in Paul's world and at times we may, or may not, be able to use the exact same emblem in ours.

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

I agree with Solomon, I think he sums up the issue quite well.

Krispy

P
pilgrim777 Feb 8, 2012

Solomon,

I think you hit it square on the head (excuse the pun). Best post I have read on this subject, bar none.

Head covering means nothing in our culture. However, it means Roman Catholic Church to many of us.

Pilgrim

M
myfirstLove Feb 8, 2012

I agree, it would be great to have a discussion about this issue. But with certain attitudes, it makes it very difficult to have a mature discussion on certain topics. People who want to enter in, let us do it for the glory of God, because we want to know Him and make His way known in every way, with great love and mercy. If there are people who do not want to enter in, they have a choice not to, and no need to leave any comment that does not edify the brethren and help encourage them to keep seeking.

S.I. was the one that God used to help my heart to desire and seek to understand about head coverings. I read a lot of head covering discussions in the past and it helped me a great deal. So remember, though some may not see it important, there are others who do not join the forum, but are reading and want to learn. There's nothing wrong with talking about topics that's been talked about before, because people are in different walks.

Thanks Greg for those past head covering articles that you've posted. God used it to help me!

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

"This same principle works for any outward church tradition. Consider the practice of ecclesial robes. That too has been condemned as being legalist/popish. It may be so."

We are not exhorted to wear Popish robes in the scripture. However, women are exhorted to wear coverings. It's not the same issue.

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

"Head covering means nothing in our culture. However, it means Roman Catholic Church to many of us."

I can't see how culture is relevant. Can point to a scripture in Pauls writings on Head Coverings that says it's a cultural issue? I can't find one. One the contrary, I can find reasons that relate to Christ submission to God, for the Angles, for Mans glory, and practice in all the churches.

If this whole thing is cultural, then to be fair to the text, I must assume that Christ submission to God is cultural, that Angles are cultural, and that Mans glory is cultural. Do you agree that these things are cultural? Because that's what Paul bases his reasoning on.

By the way, if we can just start dictating that certain passages of scripture are cultural, even with no biblical proof, why stop at head coverings? Why not say women can teach men? Why not say everyone can pray in tongues at the same time? Why not say we can appoint novices as elders? Can we regulate these things to culture as well? What makes it acceptable to regulate one teaching to culture and another teaching not to culture, when the scriptures give no reasons that any of the above are cultural at all?

If you're gonna regulate certain scriptures as cultural that scripture doesn't say is cultural, then let give everyone the freedom to say whatever scripture they chose is cultural as well. Let's be consistent.

P
pilgrim777 Feb 8, 2012

Large Chinese groups of Christians do not wear headcoverings. Why? It is not part of their culture.

Who does? Chinese groups connected to the Brethren and Quaker movement.

Large groups of Africans and Indonesians and Filipinos along with many other races do not wear headcoverings because it was never an issue or customary part of their culture.

This is really quite silly. I thought we had agreed to disagree and pray for one another. But then comes more threads. For what purpose when you know that there is at least 50-50 consensus on SI?

Lord help us all.

Pilgrim

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

"In essence the issue may simply be one of submission not necessarily the symbol of it. If head coverings are seen to represent that submission in an area then it means something to those people. However, if head coverings are seen as nothing more that a form of hat then the symbolism is lost on that group. Perhaps another symbol might play that role in their culture and could be used instead."

WOW! Talk about bringing peace to a subject. I am speechless, I agree. Praise God for this truth.

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

"Large Chinese groups of Christians do not wear headcoverings. Why? It is not part of their culture.

Who does? Chinese groups connected to the Brethren and Quaker movement.

Large groups of Africans and Indonesians and Filipinos along with many other races do not wear headcoverings because it was never an issue or customary part of their culture."

Who cares? What does the scriptures say?

If I go by culture, what happens if a culture, say some african tribe is run by women, decides it ok for all the elders to be women? What if a tribe practices men having multiple wives? Can they say it's ok because of culture even though the bible says different?

For those who don't believe in Head Coverings because they see it cultural, they should at least be honest and just say: "I believe it's cultural, even though nothing in the word of God says it is. I just chose to believe it because I want to, not because God's word says it's that way."

If that's an incorrect statement, then someone please correct me and show me from the scriptures where this practice is cultural. thanks.

sermonindex Feb 8, 2012

"However, if head coverings are seen as nothing more that a form of hat then the symbolism is lost on that group. Perhaps another symbol might play that role in their culture and could be used instead."

Actually, head coverings will be seen as just a form of hat until someone reads the word of God. But it's like that with a lot of truth. We don't see things right until we read God's word. But once we do, we can understand the meaning of things. Culture is not our guide, God and His word are.

M
MaryJane Feb 8, 2012

Solomon,

I posted my experience with this topic of head coverings on the other thread. Not sure what more there is to be said for me personally but wanted to say that I thought your post was really great Solomon. I do think this goes way beyond a cloth covering that a person wears. It is about submission and I think there are many ways a wife can demonstrate that to her husband within their own family.

Its interesting some of the traditions and teachings that God uses in the lives of differing believers. What an awesome GOD we all serve that HE so carefully leads each of us in HIS good and perfect timing to know HIS will and plan for us.

God Bless
mary

H
hoohoou Feb 8, 2012

"So remember, though some may not see it important, there are others who do not join the forum, but are reading and want to learn."

Now that's a big statement. We get so preoccupied with "our" view that we forget how many people are reading who do not comment. These may be lost, searching, wanting to come back, or just trying to learn.

We've got to be careful how we discuss these things.

Personally, I don't believe head coverings to be a big deal. I think intent is more important than physical practice.

I didn't really like the tone set in the other threads and know how I can get as well so I stayed out of it.

If the heart isn't right it doesn't matter what we do to the outside of this bag of bones. Conversely, I believe a right heart is going to look like just about anything.

P
pilgrim777 Feb 8, 2012

"In essence the issue may simply be one of submission not necessarily the symbol of it. If head coverings are seen to represent that submission in an area then it means something to those people. However, if head coverings are seen as nothing more that a form of hat then the symbolism is lost on that group. Perhaps another symbol might play that role in their culture and could be used instead."

WOW! Talk about bringing peace to a subject. I am speechless, I agree. Praise God for this truth.


Can we just please be at peace with one another? Please?

Pilgrim

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 181 posts