12/24/03
CONVERSATION REGARDING HEADCOVERINGS AND ADDITIONAL
NOTES
A party
which rejects the abiding duty for women to wear headcoverings in public
worship argued as follows:
Ø
For example, Paul says, "Every man praying or
prophesying, having
>
> [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head."
>
>
>
>How could it be moral if the Scriptures
command otherwise
>
> in both theory and practice?
Ø
I responded:
You are seeking to interpret I Cor
11 in light of other
scripture, which is certainly
valid.
There is **nothing** in I Cor 11
itself that says "this is just a
cultural custom in Corinth".
Rather, you are inferring that from
what the rest of scripture says or
does not say.
So let's consider other scripture
on the matter of headcoverings.
For instance, what can or should be
inferred from Gen 24:65?
"For she [had] said unto the servant,
What man [is] this that walketh
in the field to meet us? And the
servant [had] said, It [is] my
master: therefore she took a vail,
and covered herself."
I would infer 2 things:
1. Godly women did not always wear
headcoverings, for she did
not have it on before the master
approached, yet other people were
around.
2. Godly women can show respect to
men on special occasions by
placing a headcovering on
themselves.
Would you agree or disagree with
these inferences?
A party which rejects the abiding duty for women to wear
headcoverings in the public assemblies replied:
>I guess I would ask the same,
how can you infer from them an
>
> unalterable moral and Biblical
ordinance agreeable and not
>
> contradictory to the other
commands and practices in Scripture in
>
> regards to covering one's head
in worship.
>
> (e.g., case of High Priest wearing head piece in OT worship)
I responded:
I think you are limiting the
choices to choose from. Here are
the choices I think we should
consider:
1. unalterable moral and Biblical
ordinance, having no exceptions
2. unalterable moral and Biblical
ordinance, having exceptions
(similar to the way the prohibition
on divorce has exceptions)
3. mere custom in Corinth
Given the above choices, I think 2.
can be deduced from scripture,
while the others can be eliminated.
1. is contrary to scriptural
evidence, because as you noted, the high
priest wore a headcovering in the
Temple.
3. is contrary to what is implied
by I Cor 11 and Genesis 24:65, that
such a use of headcoverings is
naturally revealed.
3. is also contrary to historical
evidence:
"McKnight notes that William
Ramsay, who was an expert on the Greek
culture of Paul's day, concurs. He
writes:
Historically, it was a covering
commonly worn in public by women of
Jewish origin but not by the Greek
women. The covering used by Jewish
women is thought by many
commentators to have been a large piece of
cloth which was a common article of
clothing such a shawl or cape.
The cloth would serve as a head covering
at any time it was
appropriate. Concerning the
difference in Greek and Jewish custom, we
find that Dion Chrysostom (writing
in 110 A. D.) recognized nothing
that was "Greek" about
the Tarsians (of the Greek city of Paul); but
he did find one thing worthy of
praise. He was very pleased with the
extremely modest dress of the
Tarsian women, who were always deeply
veiled when they went abroad. And
this was in spite of the fact that
it was utterly different from the
Greek customs. (The Cities of St.
Paul, William Ramsay, p. 202). In
other words, a covering was not the
custom in other cities and
especially Greek cities."
See http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Headcoverings%
20in%20Public%20Worship2.htm .
From my reading of church history,
until the modern era, it was the
**general** practice in the
Christian churches for women to wear
headcoverings in public worship.
That is true of the reformed
churches as well as the others.
That would correspond to this
interpretation:
2. unalterable moral and Biblical
ordinance, having exceptions
(similar to the way the prohibition
on divorce has exceptions)
How
do you know what the prevailing custom was in Corinth in the
Apostolic Era with regards to headcoverings?
Additional
Notes:
One
question that arises is whether women should wear headcoverings not just in
public worship, but in public in general.
The website http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/Headcoverings/headcoverings.htm
makes that argument. The argument rests
on such verses as Isaiah 47:2-3: “…uncover thy locks, make bare the leg,
uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.
Thy nakedness shall be uncovered…”
Whether
one agrees or disagrees with this position, there is certainly reason to be
concerned with the amount of time Western women are spending on their hair, in
the absence of such headcoverings:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=402793&in_page_id=1770
-
Last updated at 22:17pm on 29th August 2006
Talk about going back to your roots...
The average British woman spends an astonishing £36,903.75 on her hair in a lifetime, according to new research.
She will spend the equivalent of just under two YEARS of her life washing, styling, cutting, colouring, crimping and straightening her locks in salons or at home.
A whopping 650 days will be dedicated solely to creating a 'salon look' in her own bathroom. The average woman splashes out a monthly average of £10.08 on shampoos and conditioners, £14.03 on home styling products and £301.14 a year on haircuts and colouring.
She spends the equivalent of 41 minutes at home every day
washing, styling and restyling. A third of women say their hair is the most
important part of their appearance, and they spend more time styling their hair
than doing their make-up…