Headcoverings, or The Veil, Part 2

A Sermon,

Preached on the Second Day

In

SANTA ANNA

March 12, 2008

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (1Co 11:4-10)

We have shown in the previous part that it was the almost universal practice of women of every culture represented in Corinth when this epistle was written, to cover their heads in some manner. And we have made a point of showing that Paul's intent was NOT that women would cover themselves during prayer or worship – as if it were acceptable (or even a common practice) for them to go uncovered at other times. Neither the context, nor a thorough review of the history, society, and culture allows that interpretation (though I have heard it many, many times from modernist preachers). Rather, Paul was making the point that a woman ought not to uncover herself during prayer and public worship, as was being done by some who had adopted that practice from the pagans. This point, I believe, is where the greatest misunderstandings and deceptions occur in relation to this verse. Please make note of that, and pray about it in your own study of the issue. Out of ignorance of the context, the writing style, and the prevailing culture, many have come to the conclusion that Paul was making a sociological argument – or a cultural one, even though in his introduction to this chapter, Paul places this discourse in the arena of absolute ordinances that he expects the people to obey and keep. Further, he raises the bar even further by making the argument that a woman ought to have “power” (or the veil, or covering) on her head “because of the angels”. We will discuss more about what this statement means particularly in the proper place, but we need to note that Paul nowhere appeals to the culture or to the practice of the surrounding peoples. Had he done so, the liberals (on this issue) would still fail in proving their point, since it is evident by a thorough study of the time, that the Greek women, the Roman women, and the Hebrew women all (with very few exceptions) wore headcoverings, and, as we showed in the first part, this convention was practiced by all Biblical cultures even into our very day. It has been abandoned quite recently, and we did discuss how this abandonment came about. Instead, however, Paul based his argument on universal truths, such as spiritual order, authority, and on nature – all things that are not changed, altered, abolished, or affected by time, place, practice, or culture. It would be quite a ridiculous argument for the liberal to state that at one point angels (either good or bad) might be affected by the woman being uncovered, but that now “Angel-culture” has developed to the point that a woman being uncovered no longer has the same affect. In any case, as we have said, Paul does not rest his argument on such silly and changeable ground. He builds his argument on a much more permanent foundation – that a woman ought to be veiled:

• Because by wearing the veil she shows forth the proper relationship between Christ and man, man and woman, and Christ and the Church.

• Because the woman is a type, and in order for the type to be properly portrayed, the woman ought to be covered.

• Because the woman is created for the man, and the cover is a constant reminder to her, and to the society, of her proper position.

• Because it is “uncomely”, which in this context means “unsuitable, or improper”, for a woman to pray to God uncovered.

• Because just as God has given a woman long hair to distinguish her from a man, in the same way, she is to be distinguished in her submission by the covering of her head.

• Because there is no tradition or custom in the Churches of God of the woman going uncovered, or being permitted to uncover herself during prayer or public worship.

• Because a woman's veil is necessary – on a account of the angels.

So Paul makes his argument on many grounds, and nowhere claims that he is only giving his own opinion, or that local customs or generational practices ought to trump these very sound and transcendent arguments.

In this part I intend to answer the most common objections to the womans headcovering. We should note that the theological liberal is willing to stand on the flimsiest of arguments, and some of them make no appeal at all to the scripture or even to the arguments made in scripture. Many arguments against the woman's veil are based completely and utterly on things outside of The Bible or anything God might have to say on the subject. The primary objections to the woman's headcovering are those that appeal only to “feelings”, “emotions”, or are those which have worldliness and syncretism as their root. A man called me on the phone many years ago (many years before the truth of this subject was made clearer to me). He was shocked because he had just returned home from a meeting where the women (GASP!) wore headcoverings! This man was nearly in tears. He said, “Michael... Oh, Michael! Those people have their women in BONDAGE!!!”. I remember laughing at the time, because I could not imagine at all how a woman choosing to wear a headcovering in order to obey the Bible, honor God, and her husband was “bondage”. I told the man that, although we (at that time) did not practice headcoverings for women, I sure believed it to be a sign of honor and reverence, and could not for a moment believe that it was bondage – any more than requiring a woman to wear modest clothing (or any clothing at all for that matter) would be bondage. For several years I would always go back to that call in my mind when I was thinking about what had gone wrong in the professing “church”. The so-called “church” had slipped so far from any semblance of Biblical truth, that comfort and freedom had become idols, and libertinism had become synonymous with heroism. By that I mean that men like the man who had called me actually considered themselves to be heroic because they were “freeing” women to operate by their baser fallen instincts. A year or so ago I got into a discussion with a young man who had pointed out to his pastor that the women in the Church were dressing more and more like whores. He told the pastor that the women were dressing like they were going to a nightclub to pick up men, and not like they were going to spend a time of worship and fellowship with God's children. The young man told me that his pastor claimed that to restrict their free expression would be “bondage”, and that he did not want to be so legalistic. You'll note that “legalism” has become a weapon that is to be used against obedience. It is considered a trump card that can be played any time someone makes an argument based on propriety, modesty, etc. All of Paul's arguments in support of the headcovering would be called “legalistic” if they were made today. I will list here a few more arguments that are along the same lines, or which are based on the same type of logic:

• The headcovering makes the woman a gazingstock, and a spectacle, and exposes her to ridicule.

• The headcovering makes the woman (and the group or church) look “cultish”.

• The headcovering demeans the woman, and makes men think she is less than a person, and that she is not to be respected.

• The headcovering makes the woman “unattractive”.

Now, you will notice that none of these arguments are based on the Bible. Most are not even based on morality or right and wrong. In fact, all four of these arguments are baed on “psychology” on not on Christianity. All four are ridiculous, and are easily refuted, but we do want to point out their faulty basis first. Here are my quick refutations of these four arguments (and the principles in my refutations can be applied to any such psychological or sociological arguments):

• That a woman is made into a spectacle by wearing a headcovering. I would argue that a woman who dresses modestly, who behaves in accordance with scripture, who honors her husband (or head), and who attempts to live Godly in Christ Jesus, etc., will already be a gazingstock and a spectacle. I would further argue that all Christians (both men and women) who do so obey the scripture that they ignore the hatred of the world, will be a spectacle to those around them, and that this is to be expected, and is in fact prophesied to be the case: Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution (2Tim. 3:12). But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used. (Heb 10:32-33).

• That the practice of women wearing headcoverings makes the woman (and the group) like “cultish”. First I would point out that what people mean when they say “cultish” is that the group or practice does not match up to worldly norms. In other words, since the practice makes a woman or group look “unworldly”, that it should be considered “cultish”. Now, the largest cult in the world is the cult of modernism, fad, and idolatry that we call “the culture”, and it is evident that Christ called us to be different, to look different, and to act differently than the world culture. So here, again, we have just another argument for syncretism and worldliness. Whatever the world decides is “cultish” is to be avoided, and whatever the world decides is acceptable is to be embraced. Can you think of any argument in all of the world that is more unbiblical than that? I tell you that this is the reason that most women, even most professing Christian women, will not obey God in this area. It comes down to either this argument, that to wear a headcovering makes them look like they are in a cult – or it is the argument from vanity (which we will discuss more in a moment) that stops women from obeying God concerning the covering of the head.

• That the practice of wearing a headcovering demeans the woman. I can tell you that this is only true in the eyes of the world, and the worldling. Only a worldly God-hater would think that a modestly dressed woman, who is doing her best to obey God and honor her husband, is demeaned by doing so. Only someone so infected by the depravity that has come upon man from rebellion against a Holy and Righteous God, could ever conceive of a woman being “lessened” or demeaned by covering herself. In fact, it is a commentary on society and on individuals, that they believe this to be the case. In a rational, reasonable, Biblically sound culture – we would look at a woman who is emphasizing her body as demeaning herself. We would consider a woman who is selling sexuality in public, who is attempting to draw men to herself by means of that over which she has no control (her sexual attractiveness), and which least exhibits her truth and value, as demeaning herself. And contrariwise, we would look at a woman who attempted to go around modestly, and to emphasize her morality and her superior culture, as opposed to her baser and more fleeting charms, as being superior. What kind of society is it, and what kind of person is it, that could possibly conclude that a woman is being demeaned by being covered? It is plain that human depravity is responsible for such a notion.

• That a headcovering makes a woman unattractive. The subtle argument here is that men want to hide the beauty of women in order to mitigate or lessen their power. By making this argument, the claimant logically must believe that a woman's true value and her authority and claim on power is based on her ability to make men want to have sex with her. This, again, is a commentary on our corrupt and wicked society. Unhappily, it is true that most women today traffic in this kind of wickedness. When we use the word “attractive”, we ought to know what that word signifies. To “attract” means to “draw by a physical force”, or to “draw by means of the emotions, or by the senses”. This then puts “attraction” in opposition to reason and the mind. When the worldling says a woman is “attractive”, he means that she is able to draw others (and thereby utilize power) because of carnal things that are easily manipulated. She may use surgery, makeup, and other tactics (all forms of lies) to “attract”, but in every case she is utilizing those things which are contrary or irrespective of the mind. So, if it is claimed that a man wants to keep a woman “unattractive” by having her wear a headcover, then we can say that the results of his actions would be both Biblical and sensible. If it were true (and it is not in any case I know or have heard of) that a woman is prevented from manipulating and lying by use of the headcover, then it must be said that she is being done a great service by the requirement. However, we cannot agree at all that a woman is made less beautiful (if that is what is intended) by the headcovering. Since the Bible claims that a woman is the type of the true Church, and that the true Church exists for the purpose of glorifying Jesus Christ, then any woman who desires to properly fulfill the role for which she was created, would wear a headcovering. And any person who is motivated by God's Spirit, knowing what glory God receives by such obedience, would find nothing at all more beautiful than such a simple expression of obedience to God's will. As we are transformed by God's power, and as we become more aligned with God's will and mind, we find our proclivities and desires changed. We find beautiful what the world rejects, and we find glorious what the world finds repellent. We must remember that the kingdom of this world has redefined (and continues to always redefine) what is “beauty”. Christianity is not supposed to change with the times, or to define itself by the definitions of the world.

Ok, the next few objections, which we have already refuted quite handily (though we will quickly mention them again here) are those which are based on false cultural or sociological assumptions. We usually call these the “time” or “culture” arguments. They generally follow or are likened unto these:

• Paul was only speaking to the Corinthians. He was dealing with a particular situation in Corinth alone, and his commandment is in no way binding on anyone else.

• Paul was only speaking to the people of that time. He was teaching in a time when it was common for women to wear headcoverings; and since women no longer wear headcoverings, the commandment no longer applies.

• In addition to the above arguments, Paul was only speaking about “while praying or prophesying”, so he only meant “in church”.

Answers:

• Paul clearly was not only speaking to the Corinthians. He had every intention that the principles involved would apply to every Church in all time. Paul also, in this very book, makes a point of delineating between that which he speaks by way of commandment, and those times when he is giving his own opinion. Paul gives this commandment under the topic of “ordinances” which were given to the Churches, that Paul expected the Christians to obey. We also note that, as we mentioned in the first part, Paul makes his argument for headcoverings and AGAINST the pagan cultural practice of the woman uncovering during prayer and worship. And again, his arguments are made on transcendent and spiritual grounds, and not on temporal and cultural ones. We also note that the commandment was kept as the practice of the Church throughout the generations until our very own day. We also will offer a quote towards the end of this sermon, from Tertullian, which proves that even unto the 2^nd Century the Corinthian Church still required the veiling of all women.

• Paul was clearly not speaking only to the people of that time. It would be a frail and weak argument and ordinance indeed that relied on acceptable norms based on “time” in order to make a statement of propriety or “comeliness” (suitableness). This argument is identical to that made by small children: “Well, everyone else is doing it!”. Can you imagine teaching your children that it is inappropriate to run around naked merely because it is unacceptable today? Would you tell your children that they can take off their clothes in public so long as everyone else is doing it? Does something wrong become right merely by the passing of time? If Paul makes an argument based on the condition and position of Angels, is it safe or even logical to then state that his argument was a time-based one?

• Paul was not limiting the commandment to “prayer and prophesying”. I do understand where people get this argument, and in fact I have used it myself, though I must now admit it was out of ignorance. Paul was not saying that woman ought to cover herself only in prayer and public worship. To make that argument one would have to assert that it was a common or acceptable practice for a woman at that time to go uncovered at other times in public. Well, history shows that it was not. It was not the practice of the Romans, the Hebrews, or the Greeks – for their women to go around uncovered. We can discern, then, from the context of the argument, and from a study of the history and culture of the time, that Paul was dealing with a practice that had infected the Church from the paganistic practices of the time – particularly from the Diana cult which was prominent in the area at the time. The practice Paul was rejecting was the practice of the woman uncovering herself during prayer and worship. So this is not an argument that it is acceptable for a woman to be uncovered when she is not in prayer and worship.

Now we proceed to that argument that seems to be the most prominent. It is said by some that Paul, after making numerous heavy arguments in favor of the veil and of the covering of the head, now reverses himself and eliminates all of his own arguments by claiming in verse 15 that a woman's hair is sufficient for a headcovering:

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (1Co 11:15)

So it is the practice of some (or most, we might say) to take this one verse as an “out” or a exception to all that has come before. This conclusion can only be reached by stripping this verse from its context and by the apparent meaning of the author. As we have shown, Paul has built a lock-solid case in the preceding 12 verses that God, nature, practice, and moral necessity all require a woman to cover her head. Here, then, the argument is made that Paul turns all of that context upside down, erasing any purpose or reason behind all of his previous comments, and that he now permits a woman to pray and prophesy uncovered. Remember that it was not the practice of any of the prevalent cultures in Corinth for the women to go around unveiled. Nor did it become the practice of those claiming to be the Churches of God for another 1900 years. If this verse was designed as permission for a woman to go around unveiled, it is a curiosity that almost no Biblical culture took advantage of that permission until the 20^th century. Why do paintings and drawings of social life for the next many centuries all portray the woman (in public) as covered? What kind of sense would it make to overturn all of the great arguments Paul makes, with this one refutation of them? In fact, if this verse is looked at in the context of the overall argument made by Paul, it makes complete sense, and it is not contradictory at all. Let's look at it:

Verse 4: Every man who prays or prophesies with his head uncovered dishonors his head, which is a type of Christ, who is his spiritual head.

Verse 5: But since a man is the head of the woman, a woman who uncovers her head to pray or prophesy, dishonors her head, which is her husband. This is as if she had her head shaved!

We should note here that it was a great scandal for a woman to have her head shaved, or even if her hair was short. Paul here introduces the parallelism that the hair is to the head in the natural, what the cover is to the head in the spiritual.

Verse 6: For if a woman is not covered, it is the same as if she were shaven and bald – which is to say it would be just as scandalous and ignominious a thing for a woman to be uncovered, as it is for her to be bald. If however, as any reasonable or sensible person must conclude, that it is heinous and scandalous for a woman to be bald, then in like manner she ought to wear a headcovering.

Verse 7: For a man indeed ought NOT to wear a cover on his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory and honor of the man which means that she ought to have a cover on her head.

Verse 8: Because, you see, the man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man – because the woman came out of Adam's side.

Verse 9: All of this shows that the woman was made for man, and this is represented by her submission to him.

Verse 10: For this cause, and along this line of logic, we see that a woman ought to be covered because of the angels. Angels attend the divine worship, and they see things that are ordained of God along with the antitype they represent. The good angels are offended by that which wrongly represents God, or when the types and antitypes are destroyed by the whim and wish of men. Likewise, if evil angels are meant, the woman ought to cover herself that she be not the cause of lust in the spiritual realms.

Verse 11: Now, that said, we should note that mankind in worship to God – or the Church in worship to God – is not complete without the man and the woman represented together. The two types are both necessary to properly show forth the glory and wisdom of God.

Verse 12: Just as the woman was taken out of the man, when the rib was separated from Adam, the man is taken from woman in his birth. We should know that all of these pictures are given us from God, who would have us do all things appropriately.

Verse 13: Now, you all judge for yourself. Is it appropriate and seemly that a woman would uncover her head before praying to God who created all these types and shadows to glorify Himself?

Verse 14: Does not even nature teach you that if a man has long hair it is a shameful thing to him? He looks womanish and ought to be ridiculed for it.

Verse 15: But if a woman has long hair, which is only natural and expected, it is a glory to her! Don't you see how nature is showing us the proper way? Her hair is given her to represent a covering. It is given that she won't be bald, which, as we have shown, would be a shameful thing for her. Just as nature covered her head so that she would not be bald, she ought to cover her head so that she properly represents God and honors his authority and order structure.

Verse 16: Now, if all of these arguments don't convince someone. If they still seem contentious after all these numerous truths and evidences. If they still want to argue and disagree with it, then they aren't worth arguing with. Tell them that we (the Church) have no such custom of a woman uncovering her head in prayer and worship, and therefore that alone will suffice to shut his mouth. We don't allow it, and if reason will not convince him, then our practice and ordinances ought to.

So, as you can see, Paul was not eradicating his own argument in verse 15. He was continuing the point that a woman ought to be covered at all times in public, and ought not to uncover herself in prayer and worship. Her hair is given as an instruction, to teach her that she is different than a man, and that just because a man uncovers himself in worship and prayer, a woman is not permitted to do so.

Now, after all of these arguments, Paul concedes that some men will remain contentious. All the proofs will not convince them. All of the evidence will not convert them. To these we are merely to say, “It is not the practice or an ordinance of the Church to allow a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered”. They will be judged for their actions, but we ought not to let them defile the congregation or the society just because they are contentious about something that Paul considers to be reasonable and obvious. We know that the human mind is capable of rationalizing any behavior, and that the natural man can explain away any disobedience at all. We also know that no one who is not motivated and operated by the Spirit of God will want to obey Him if there are any social or cultural consequences. We confess that obedience to this command today is difficult in the flesh, because all of those things that are at variance with God – namely the world, the flesh, and the devil – do not accept Godly or spiritual things. Ask yourself this, who is glorified by the uncovered woman? God or the Devil. Whose work is done by the modernist woman and her painted, plaited, curled, and blow-dried hair? Ask if God's kingdom is advanced by the uncovered woman, or is the cause of lust, concupiscence, pride, and disorder advanced? Does the world hate headcoverings, or does it hate obedience? Think on these things.

If the reader were to acquaint himself with the writings of the first and second century, he would find how appalled the early Christians would be that we are even entertaining the thought of women going around in public uncovered. Clement of Alexandria wrote exhaustively on the subject, and I will quote from Tertullian who wrote an entire book opposing the African practice of allowing young girls (virgins) to remain without headcoverings.

First, I will quote what Tertullian had to say about how the Corinthians themselves understood Paul. Remember, that the practice of the African Christians was that the older women had to be veiled and covered, but they were somewhat licentiously allowing the younger women (virgins) to be uncovered. He appeals to the 2^nd century Corinthian Church, who even then still required all women, even virgins, to remain veiled:

So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins (virgines suas Corinthii velant). What the apostles taught, their disciples approve. ("On the Veiling of Virgins" chap. 8, page 33- taken from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4).

So you see, the Corinthians certainly understood what Paul was teaching, and the Apostle's disciples continued with that teaching.

I want to close here by making a statement that Paul himself makes as he approaches the closing of this letter to the Corinthians. I believe that the prevailing idea that “modern is better” and that the Church ought to model whatever the culture is doing, comes from an abandonment of the commandments of God. Some will argue that Paul was just giving his opinion, or that he was only talking to the Corinthians. But here is what he had to say to the Corinthians in this very book:

“What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” (1Co 14:34-38).

I would mention that this forceful statement is made within the commandment that women ought to remain silent in the Churches... But that is a sermon for another day.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

 
DISAGREE? Discuss or Debate this: Forum