As it has been a theme of interest recently. Here is the last post in the series on Headcovering by David Silversides as he responds to a paper against headcovering by RPNA.

“Concluding Remarks

1. The RPNA Paper Misguided

The RPNA paper is peppered with the word ‘covenanted’ (e.g. ‘covenanted Genevan divines’, ‘covenanted session’ etc. because, as we noted at the outset of this series, it is clear that the RPNA are endeavouring to find something like a uniform ‘covenanted succession’ of testimony down through history to themselves. This is misguided because such uniform testimony simply does not exist. It is also misguided because, in so far as historic testimony is uniform, it is overwhelmingly in favour of the permanence of the requirement of women’s head-covering in congregational worship. It may also be questioned, regarding those occasional exceptions where concession is made to the cultural argument, whether the writers concerned would have been rather more careful if they had lived in our day and seen the lengths of abuse to which random appeal to culture, in order to avoid Biblical teaching, has been taken.

We believe Seth Skolnitsky has correctly summed up the position when he states, “The particular practices Paul addresses are (1) head-covering and (2) hair-length. In recent treatments of the passage, it has become customary to effectively collapse these two topics. That is, when the hair itself is equated with the head-covering – and the subject of hair-length is (as is often the case) not addressed in any practical way – then the whole subject of the head-covering becomes moot. That is, the net effect is to ignore the apostolic legislation, which is, of course, to disregard the law of God. The view of Calvin, while very different from the approach under discussion, was certainly not novel in his day, or unusual for long years thereafter. That it strikes us very strange is a sad but eloquent commentary on how far we have moved from the heritage of the Reformers and their Puritan disciples.” (Translator’s Preface of Men, Women and Order in the Church – Three Sermons by John Calvin, Presbyterian Heritage Publications, Dallas, 1992, pp.3f.)

It is certainly true that there has been an immense shift of opinion and practice in the last number of decades away from the once almost universal practice of women’s head-covering in public worship. Even the Church of England did not revoke the canon law requiring that women have their heads covered at Communion until 1942. Sanseri (op. cit. p.249) quotes an early unbelieving feminist called Elizabeth Cady Stanton writing in 1899 as saying, ” A veil on the head was a token of respect for superiors; hence for a woman to lay aside her veil was to affect authority over the man…The same customs prevail and are enforced by the Church, as of vital consequence; their non-observance so irreligious that it would exclude a woman from the church. It is not mere social fashion that allows men to sit in church with their heads uncovered and women with theirs covered, but a requirement of canon law of vital significance” (The Woman’s Bible, Seattle, WA: Coalition Task Force on Women and Religion, reprinted 1979, p.157).

Female head-covering was the norm in the majority of churches for centuries. The comparatively recent change of this state of affairs is, we suspect, not due to greater exegetical insight or true scholarly advance, but concession to the spirit of the age in which we live.

2. The Cultural Argument Invalid

The cultural argument is asserted repeatedly, but seldom have we ever seen even an attempt to prove it, and when the attempt is made, it is invariably entirely dependent on alleged historical sources as to the practice of Corinthian society outside the passage itself. We should not be dependent on extra-biblical sources for our interpretation of a passage of Scripture that can make good sense without any external information being imported. This is all the more true when the argument of the passage depends on the created order.

3. The Covering a Fabric One Over and Above the Hair

That the covering in view is not simply a woman’s hair is equally clear. The passage becomes unbelievably tortuous if all the apostle intended was to teach about hair length. The term rendered ‘covering’ in verses 2-13 is ‘kalumma’. This term is used elsewhere in the New Testament of the veil covering Moses’ face in 2 Cor3:13-16, while the verb form is used in Matt.8:24, Luke 8:16, 23:30 etc.

It also appears in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament from which the Apostles sometimes quote). It appears in Exodus 26:14, Num.3:25, 4:8,10,11,14 & 25 where it is rendered ‘covering’ in the AV. It is also found in Ex .27:16 & 40:5 (translated ‘hanging’) and in Ex.34:33-35 (translated ‘veil’) and in 1 Chro.17:5 (translated ‘tabernacle’). The verb form is used in Gen.9:23, 38:14-15, 2 Sam.15:30 & Isaiah 47:2. It is not difficult to see that it refers to a fabric covering to be worn specifically in congregational worship as distinct from the constant covering of the woman’s hair. This is confirmed by the fact that the apostle, when he is referring to the hair in vs. 14-15, uses a different word, ‘peribolaion’ (’something cast around’) from the kalumma to which he has referred in the previous verses.

The apostle indicates that the woman uncovering her head in worship, as with her removing her everyday covering by shaving her head, is a ’shame’ (1 Cor.11:6). The word rendered ’shame’ is ‘aischron’ as when the apostle says, “it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor.14:35) and “it is a shame even to speak of those things done of them in secret” (Eph.5:12). In the latter reference the apostle has in view the immoralities of the pagan world, not some infringements of cultural practice or custom. The former reference indicates a permanent rule for the church in all ages; the silence of women. Likewise with the head-covering – it is required now as surely as when the inspired apostle wrote these words to the church in Corinth – “Let her be covered”.

‘Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right‘ (Psalm 119:128).”

Part Nine

David Silversides

Part One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight

This is the eighth post in the series of articles by Rev David Silversides in response to the RPNA statement on headcovering. Here Mr. Silversides gives more quotations; in the next he will conclude with several remarks on the RPNA statement.

“We now give a few further quotations of general interest and then some concluding remarks.

General Quotations

John Angel James (1785-1859)

“If the veil were thrown aside, they might as well cut off their flowing hair, one of the woman’s distinctions from the man, the ornament, as well as the peculiarity of the sex. Constantly and completely Christianity is the parent of order, and the enemy of indecorum of every kind.

Why were not the women to lay aside their veils? Because it would be forgetting their subordination and dependence, and assuming an equal rank with man. This is the gist of the apostle’s reason. It was not merely indecorous, and contrary to modesty, but it was ambitious, and violating the order of heaven.”

(Female Piety, Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994, pp.67-69)

Henry Alford (1810-1871)

“1 Corinthians 11:2-16 – The law of subjection of the woman to the man (vv.2-12), and the natural decency itself (vv.13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies.

The women overstepped the bounds of their sex, in coming forward to pray and to prophesy in the assembled church with uncovered heads. Both of these the Apostle disapproved, as well as their coming forward to pray and prophesy, as their removing the veil. Here, however, he blames the latter practice only, and reserves the former till chapter 14:34.”
(Alford’s Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids,MI: Guardian Press, 1976, pp.562f.)

Robert L. Dabney (1820-1898)

“Thus he who stands up in public as the herald and representative of heaven’s King must stand with uncovered head; the honour of the Sovereign for whom he speaks demands this. But no woman can present herself in public with uncovered head without sinning against nature and her sex. Hence no woman can be a public herald of Christ…
(Discussions Evangelical and Theological, vol.2, pp.98)

…secondly, verses 5, 13, that, on the contrary, that for a woman to appear or to perform any religious function in the Christian assembly, unveiled, is a glaring impropriety, because it is contrary to the subordination of the position assigned her by her Maker, and to the modesty and reserve suitable to her sex; and even nature settles the point by giving her long hair as her natural veil. Even as good taste and a natural sense of propriety would protest against a woman’s going in public shorn of that beautiful badge and adornment of her sex, like a rough soldier or a labourer, even so clearly does nature herself sustain God’s law in requiring the woman always modestly covered in the sanctuary. The holy angels who are present as invisible spectators, hovering over the Christian assemblies, would be shocked by women professing godliness publicly throw off this appropriate badge of their position (verse 10). The woman , then, has a right to the privileges of public worship and the sacraments…but she must always do this veiled or covered.”
(Discussions Evangelical and Theological, vol.2, p.104)

A. R. Fausset (1821-1910)

“As woman’s hair is given by nature as her covering (v.15), to cut it off like a man would be palpably indecorous, therefore, to put away the head-covering like a man would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering, to show that she does of her own will that which nature teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.”
(Commentary of Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 1Cor. 11:2-16)

C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

“Do you think you and I have sufficiently considered that we are always looked upon by angels, and that they desire to learn by us the wisdom of God? The reason why our sisters appear in the House of God with their heads covered is ‘because of the angels’. The apostle says that a woman is to have a covering upon her head, because of the angels, since the angels are present in the assembly and they mark every act of indecorum, and therefore everything is to be conducted with decency and order in the presence of the angelic spirits”
(Sermon on Eph.3:10, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol.8, p.263)

Frederic Louis Godet (1812-1890)

“If the Apostle’s reasons were true then, they will be to the end:

…(if) solely a matter of time and place, so that it is possible to suppose, that if (Paul) lived now, and in the West, the apostle would express himself differently? This supposition is not admissible; for the reasons which he alleges are taken, not from contemporary usages, but from permanent facts, which will last as long as the present economy.

The physical constitution of woman (vv.13-15) is still the same as it was when Paul wrote, and will continue so till the renewing of all things. The history of creation, to which he appeals (vv.8-12), remains the principle of the social state now as in the time of the apostle, and the sublime analogies between the relations of God to Christ, Christ to man, and man to woman, have not changed to this hour, so that it must be said either that the apostle was wholly wrong in his reasoning, or that his reasons, if they were true for his time, are still so for ours, and will be so to the end.” (Commentary on First Corinthians, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Reptints, 1977, p.561)

Noel Weeks (in 1988)

“If we may set aside one teaching of Scripture that is unpopular today, then surely we may set aside other teachings….Consequently Paul turns to what such unveiling must mean for the woman. In contrast to the man, when she prays or prophesies, the unveiling of her head must be dishonourable to her…In 14:36 as in 11:16, Paul attacks the Corinthian deviation from the uniform practice of the churches. What he is dealing with is not a local rule for the Corinthian situation. It is a universal rule in the churches.

Paul makes a clear distinction between what is permissible in the church and what is permissible in the home. In her home, naturally, the wife may speak. Thus the assembly of the church is a special event, surrounded by special requirements.

Often it is argued that Paul is requiring women to conform to the Oriental custom of wearing a (face) veil. His teaching is thus asking women to conform to the normal standards of propriety in the culture.

However, Paul’s appeal is not to community standards. It is to creation. Nowhere does Paul tell women to wear (face) veils. Indeed nowhere does he even refer to the face…Corinth was a Greek city. It is highly doubtful that women in that city would have veiled their faces. Jewish women did not veil their faces…

In defence of the idea that Paul was appealing just to popular customs, some have cited his discussion about long hair in 11:14. He refers there to ‘nature’.

A consideration of the use of ‘nature’ in Paul will show that it does not mean custom (e.g., Romans 1:26; 2:14,27; 11:21,24; Galatians 4:8). It is a reference to the inherent or constituent character of a thing or person. When Paul says in Romans 2:14 that the ‘Gentiles…do by nature the things of the law’, he obviously refers to some remaining inherent sense of what is right or wrong…In 1 Corinthians 11:14…Paul appeals to an inherent sense that long hair is appropriate for women, but not for men.” (The Sufficiency of Scripture, Banner of Truth, 1988, p.127-133)

Ligonier Ministries (1996)

“Our actions must conform to the principles that God has established…Do you disregard the exterior aspects of religion, saying the heart is all that matters? If so, confess your pride before God today.

Whenever we have a lesson from both the Scriptures and from nature, we are doubly bound to obey. We also must recognize that it is a rule rooted in nature, not custom.

If it is shameful for a woman to have her head shaved, then she must realize that it is just as shameful for her to enter public worship with her head uncovered. We must not confuse Paul’s use of hair as ‘nature’s covering’ and the covering he is exhorting women to wear in public worship.

Nowhere does (Paul) give cultural reasons for his teaching, i.e. abusive practices of a pagan society that placed prostitutes with shorn heads in the temple. Paul points back to God’s established order in nature. Whenever a teaching in Scripture refers to ‘creation ordinances’, that teaching is binding for all cultures in all ages…

The ‘rules of decorum’…regarding the worship of God are established by God Himself not by the whims of culture. It is proper for a woman to have a symbol of authority on her head…The necessity of the symbol remains fixed even as the authority of the man remains fixed.”
(From ‘Table Talk’ Devotional Guide for June 17-24, 1996, pp.36-43 – quoted by Sanseri op. cit. pp.278f.)”

Part Eight

David Silversides

Part One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Nine