nd
John Chrysostom
(345-407AD) was a great Baptistic preacher of Antioch. He has been often
quoted by various commentators since for his clear exposition on this
particular subject. The following excerpts are taken from
Homily XXVI.
Chrysostom
identifies the problem Paul addresses in
1Corinthians 11:2-16 as: "Their women used
to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare." Especially to the
point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair
(cf. 1Co 11:15)
is the following remark: "' And if it be given her for a covering,' say you,
'wherefore need she add another covering?' That not nature only, but also
her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that
thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law.
Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert
the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not
only with us, but with nature also."
A disciple of the far-reaching
Chrysostom
about 600 years later, Theophylact of
Bulgaria (1050-1126) wrote concerning
vs.10 that the word translated “power” in our English version (Greek:
exousia) refers to: “the symbol of being under power, that is, a veil, or
covering”.
We will come back
to some of the other ancient writers, for our next points, but to continue
the generational continuity of the teaching of Two Headcoverings, which
INSISTS on an additional, artificial covering for Baptist women in the
worship services, please join Peter
Martyr (1500-1562), an expert of the
Age of Exploration and Christopher
Columbus, where the like Italian-Spaniard
writes: “A woman ought seeing her hair is given her of God, to follow this
His institution, and to imitate her
Maker,
and cover her head;
which if
she will not do,
as much as is in her, she throws off the natural veil”. Obviously, this 16th
Century Christian knew that the Veil of
1Corinthians 11 was something that the
woman did to herself (in vs.5-13), imitating what God did in (vs.15).
Moving into the next century,
William Gouge
(1575-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly adds his wisdom to the
matter, mingled with a quote from the aforementioned
John Chrysostom.
“[Heading 3. ‘Of Domestical Duties’]-
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) 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).
The young Scottish Puritan
James Durham
(1622-1658) gave his view on the Artificial covering: “It (the veil) hath a
threefold use, 1) For decoration, as in
Isaiah 3:23. 2) For a sign of modesty,
pleaded for by the Apostle, 1Cor.11:6.
3) And mainly a sign of women’s subjection to their own husbands...” (Song
of Solomon Commentary).
Benjamin Keach
(1640-1704), a
forerunner of Charles Spurgeon,
was a Particular Baptist pastor in London. He wrote: “The thing signified is
sometimes put for the sign materially...
1Cor.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.”
Andrew R.
Fausset (1821-1910), the English one
of the three collaborators of the familiar
Commentary of Jamieson, Fausset & Brown
wrote the following while commenting on: “1Corinthians
11:10-
power on her head--the
kerchief: French couvre chef,
head-covering, the emblem of "power on her
head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated
authority under him.
…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.”
Full well into the
20th
century we come to the American-loving Englishman,
Arthur W Pink
(1886-1952). This prolific author says:
“Because the woman has not been given rule and headship her head must be
covered, and covered with a double covering: first, the long hair that God
has given her by nature, so that even when she is outside the church that
covering shall indicate that she is not her own head, but that she is under
the dominion of the head of her household: secondly, that when she comes
into the house of God there must be the additional cover of the hat because
she is also in subjection to her spiritual brethren to whom God has
appointed rule.” This is an important emphasis
Bro. Pink
makes. Not just her husband, but also the woman to the man, must show
subjection. We will note in our next point that
Tertullian
already centuries ago clearly stated; not just wives, but women as a gender
must wear the Baptist Headcovering, because it is God’s Order which must be
upheld also in the Church, as well as the Family.
One of the more
eloquent Baptists of the most recent generation is
E.G. Cook
(1898-1986). His pointed lecture on
English and Greek grammar is as invaluable today as when he first noted it:
“Another problem for me, if the hair (PERI BOLIAN) is all the covering she
needs, why the different voice in the two verses? In verse 6 we have the
middle voice, but in verse 15 we have the passive voice. I will try, as best
I can, to explain the difference between these two. In our study of grammar
we have what is called active voice, passive voice, and middle voice. In the
sentence, 'John killed the rabbit', John is the subject, and he is the doer
of the action. So this makes it active voice. If we turn the sentence around
and say, 'the rabbit was killed by John', that makes rabbit the subject. And
since the rabbit is the receiver of the action, that makes this sentence
passive voice. But if we say that 'John shot himself', that makes John the
doer and also the receiver of the action. That makes this sentence the
middle voice. I am not trying to teach a lesson in Grammar, rather I am
trying to show the difference between verse 6 and verse 15. Verse 6 is
middle voice, which means that the KATA KALUPTO covering is something the
woman puts on herself. She puts this covering on just as she does her dress
and shoes. No one else plays any part in this transaction. But if you
notice, verse 15 is passive voice. She just receives the hair the Lord puts
on her head. She plays no part in it. She may spend a lot of time pampering,
and changing it to make it look more to her liking. She may even change the
color of it, but it is still the hair the Lord put on her head.
“I hope I
am making myself clear. In verse 15 the woman has absolutely nothing to do
with putting this covering on her head. In verse 6 she has to do it all.
There is just no way one of these coverings can be substituted for the other
one.” He certainly made it clear to me! Wow! Just read the Bible and see
what God has to say… Two coverings…! For Baptists, anyway…
As a last witness
on this first point (for time’s sake ONLY!), we call the trustworthy
Thomas W. Ross
(1959-) to the Beloved Reader’s attention, as he comments on
1Corinthians 11:
“The
reader will notice that there is no mention whatsoever of hair in this verse
(4). That is because it is wrong for a man to pray or prophesy in the church
with a hat, a veil, or a turban on his head. His head is not to be
artificially covered in the assembly of the saints. …This prohibition
extends to all men in the congregation, not just those who speak publicly.
It also includes those who hear prayer and preaching in the church and go
along in their heart.
“Long
hair, as well as the veil, are to be symbols of the woman’s submission and
true womanliness. Her long hair, which is her glory, teaches her that she
must be veiled in public worship as a symbol of her submission to God’s
ordained headship, the man. If she refuses to wear a covering on her head
she might as well shave her head according to the teaching of this verse
(5).
“The
teaching of verse 5 is reinforced (in vs.6), either a woman is to have her
head covered or veiled when she comes to the house of God, or she should be
shorn or shaven. The Greek word for covering in verse 6 is
katakaluptetai.
It is a covering or veil that can be voluntarily put on or taken off at
will, which is not true of hair. Kata
is intensive which implies action. This word for the artificial covering or
veil is distinguished from the Greek word
peribolaion which means something cast
around, referring to the natural covering of the hair in verse 15. The word
“also”, which means in addition to, is very important to the interpretation
of this verse… …Notice also that the hair in verse 15 is said to be given to
the woman by God which is not true of the covering mentioned in verses 5 and
6 which can be taken on and off at will.
“Good
angels are present in the services in the Lord’s churches… because elect
angels observe our worship services the woman is to have her head covered or
veiled. Would Paul tell a woman she ought to have hair on her head because
of the angels? I doubt it, since long hair on women has always been the
accepted norm in almost every society to distinguish them from men. He is
plainly saying that a woman should have the symbol of submission, the
artificial head covering on her head because of the angels. When the Word of
God plainly states that you ought to wear a head covering, you ought to do
it even if it goes against your grain.” What a clarion call for obedience to
the Bible, as God’s Holy Word!
Headcoverings have
ALWAYS been a Standard Practice in Baptist Churches
The next point,
I’d like to make with my host of Historical Baptistic witnesses, is that the
Woman’s Headcovering has been such a Standard Practice in Baptist churches,
that the foregoing saints didn’t consider it under attack! There had NOT
been a departure from this Truth in their lifetimes, and so they typically
didn’t take up their pens to Defend it… They were busy defending
Predestination, Baptism, Particular Redemption and other Precious Bible
Truths and had no idea that some day, Liberal women and their Americanized
pastors would begin discarding the “sign of Authority” and Submission upon
the Baptist ladies’ heads… As you’ll notice, most of the writings on the
Headcovering that we’ve been able to find come from two primary sources: 1)
Commentaries on 1Corinthians or 2) Sermons on Angels. We will talk about the
latter further into the article, but as these authors go through the Bible
verse by verse, writing their commentaries, they record the
obvious
conclusions regarding this passage, both from a simple reading and from
extensive
Hermeneutics.
But, seriously, it would not have occurred to them that the passage needed
defending! It was universally known, recognized and practiced! All they did
was verify the Practiced Truth. “Just look around you!” they wrote… Even as
the Apostle Paul did:
1Cor.11:13-16-
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a
woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that,
if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long
hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if
any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches
of God.” But I’ll let the Giants of the
past do the teaching…
The first witness to the Standard Practice of the
Christian (Baptist) Headcovering is visual. When I preached this sermon at
Big Creek Baptist Church, Bro. Bill
Morrison gave me a clipping he had and I
posted a Huntington, WV newspaper picture of a 1915 Methodist church
service, where the ladies gathered for a picture after the service.
Yep! You guessed it!
Even at this late historical date, and even in this denominational branch,
the Truth of the Woman’s Headcovering still existed enough that of the fifty
or so ladies pictured, not ONE of them was without her Headcovering! As you
search visually through the centuries and millennia, you will find it
Universal and Uncontested: the Man is to worship with head uncovered and the
Woman is to worship with an Artificial Veil upon her beautiful, long hair…!
For this first
photo snapshot, let us go back to The
Catacombs (100-300 AD).
Philip Schaff,
the religious historian is quoted: "Most of the catacombs were constructed
during the first three centuries, a few may be traced almost to the
apostolic age.
…The name of the catacombs is of uncertain
origin, but is equivalent to subterranean cemeteries or resting-places for
the dead. First used of the Christian cemeteries in the neighborhood of
Rome, it was afterwards applied to those of Naples, Malta, Sicily,
Alexandra, Paris, and other cities. …In their catacombs the Christians could
assemble for worship and take refuge in times of persecution. Very rarely
were they pursued in these silent retreats. …The catacombs carved in the
substrata rock beneath the city of Rome extend to an almost unbelievable 550
miles, are often six levels deep, and contain the room for the interment of
over six million bodies. . . . Herein is the first Christian art." Even as a
tourist, we modern Americans can visit the early century worship sanctuaries
and see that the many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that
the uniform dress of women in worship
was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.
Quintus
Septimius Florens Tertullian (150-225
AD) in these same days of the 2nd
Century wrote prolifically and authored an entire booklet on the necessity
of the Headcovering extending beyond the husband-wife submission, to the
Virgins (and singled ladies). Tertullian addresses the unseemly practice of
virgins (young girls) of the church not being required to be veiled. His
whole line of argument presupposes that it was the practice of his
contemporaries to require those who were betrothed or married to be veiled,
yet Tertullian
argues very persuasively that there is no biblical reason to require one
class of females (betrothed or married) to be veiled while not requiring
another class of females (virgins) to be veiled. He thusly wrote: "But that
point which is promiscuously observed
throughout the churches, whether
virgins ought to be veiled or no, must be treated of. For they who allow to
virgins immunity from headcovering, appear to rest on this; that the apostle
has not defined 'virgins' by name, but 'women,' as 'to be veiled;' nor the
sex generally, so as to say 'females,' but a class of the sex, by saying
'women:' for if he had named the sex by saying 'females,' he would have made
his limit absolute for every woman; but while he names one class of the sex,
he separates another class by being silent. For, they say, he might either
have named 'virgins' specially; or generally, by a compendious term,
'females.'"
In commenting on
1 Corinthians 11:4,5,
Tertullian
notes, "Behold two diverse names, Man and Woman 'every one' in each case:
two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the
other (a law) of baring. …Accordingly, since the apostle is treating of Man
and Woman--- why the latter ought to be veiled, but the former not… So, too,
did the Corinthians themselves understand him.
In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil
their virgins. What the apostle
taught, their disciples approve… Christ is He who bids the espoused and
wives of others to veil themselves… For it is they which must be subjected,
for the sake of which ‘power’ ought to be ‘had on the head:’ the veil is
their yoke.” [Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.
IV.]
I took the liberty
of underlining the two statements of
Tertullian that most particularly fits our
point of Standard Baptist Practice of the Headcovering. Just as the Apostle
Paul told the Corinthians to look around at other existing Baptist churches
(perhaps Ephesus and Thessalonica) to see if they had any contrary customs
or private interpretations of God’s Order, so too does
Tertullian!
“…promiscuously observed throughout the churches”! “Is
it comely…? I praise you not…!” …echoes
the Apostle’s writings in the passage! Sometimes I’d like to take folk that
just don’t seem to understand the Importance of the Headcovering back in
time to see how the ancient churches did it… Well, now you can! Take them to
Tertullian!
In our time, the First Baptist Church of Corinth is long gone… but NOT IN
TERTULLIAN’S
TIME! The argument he uses in the 2nd
century is: “Buy a ticket to Corinth and GO SEE WHAT THEY’RE DOING!” The
Corinthian Baptist Church still yet existed in Tertullian’s day…! “In fact,
at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins…!” It’s obvious!
Even as we span the centuries, God’s ministers
are still able to point to the Uniform Obedience of God’s Baptist Churches
as in Submission to the Apostle Paul’s rendition of Holy Scripture in
1Corinthians 11. John Cotton
(1585-1652), a Puritan who came to America twelve years after the Mayflower
knew what God’s churches were to look like on the inside… “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 custom of the churches…”
Such a Universal
Obedience is not contingent upon some Corinthian Societal Customs, as some
say today. Listen to the wisdom of conservative Swiss Bible professor
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)
A Defense of the
Baptist Headcovering would not be complete without the oratory of
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
(1834-1892) being referenced. The Prince of Preachers is not topically
speaking on the Headcovering in this sermon, but rather the Angels are what
brings his attention to the multitude of Covered Women in his congregation!
Incidentally, this is the 2nd
major source of quotes regarding the Woman’s Headcovering in historical
writings. If they’re not from a specific commentary on 1Corinthians 11,
then, like Spurgeon’s
quote here, it comes as they write and speak about the Angels mentioned in
vs.10 of the studied chapter… And thusly,
Spurgeon preached: “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).
It is just so obvious, isn’t it! “For this
cause ought the woman to have power on her head…!”
Not because you’re a Corinthian prostitute! Not because it makes a
difference between saved, Baptist women and lost, worldly women… But because
God’s ORDER is Glorified by the Woman’s submission to His Word in the Public
Arena of worship…!
Let’s continue
further in the 19th
Century… Harvey Boyce Taylor
(1870-1932) is our witness from that century that women (and men) were in
obedience to the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. He wrote: “Women are
prohibited from having any place in the work of our churches that puts them
in authority over their brethren. So important is this that Paul in
1Cor.11:3-10
says that whenever a woman comes into church assembly she ought to have a
veil or covering of some kind on her head as a sign that she is under
authority, not in authority.” I’m sure that by this time the Female
Liberation Movement was causing an Apostate rebellion among many American
women and their pastors. How dangerous to be in a denomination where a
pastor can lead his flock and precious, unquestioning womenfolk away from
God’s Order, simply by refraining from teaching and preaching what these
forerunners testified of. Bro. H .B.
Taylor was bold and tenacious in taking up
the Good Fight and he Kept
the Faith!
One more witness
to this point comes from a familiar source to my little flock here at Big
Creek Baptist Church in the hills of Wayne, WV. Her former pastor
William Doyal Thomas
(1932-) spoke profoundly on the subject of
Headship and the Covering that symbolizes it: “The praying or prophesying of
women in the Lord’s assembly will always be done in silence, and never,
under any circumstances be otherwise. Scripture demands it
(1Cor.14:34-35; 1Tim.2:11).
The fact that women must be silent in the church does not mean that they are
taking no part in the worship, and are therefore relieved of the requirement
of having their own head covered. They are participating in the worship, in
the role that God has assigned them. They are praying (silently, to be
sure), and they are prophesying in that they are telling forth the Word of
God by their submission to the teachings of the Word.
“Those
who teach and practice that long hair for godly women is the correct symbol
for representing the Lord’s churches in subjection to Him are contending for
another way. The apostles taught no other way, and the early churches
practiced no other way. It was error that led the churches to substitute
long hair for the veil… It has been primarily within the past two
generations that the subject has been so neglected. If we examine the
teachings and the practices of those who have preceded us, we will find that
until recent years, it was unthinkable for a Baptist woman to go into a
Baptist assembly having her head uncovered.” Oh, how I yearn for those days
when it will once again be “unthinkable”…! By God’s Grace, the opportunity
is HERE for the Baptists of our generation to be Faithful to the Faith ONCE
Delivered, as well! May God help us!
The Woman’s
Headcovering is for Public Worship
A recent argument
attempts to tie the teaching of the Apostle Paul to the previous chapters in
1Corinthians. To make the Headcovering a private matter or a regional matter
of custom doesn’t jive with either Scripture or History. A long list of
veteran Bible scholars are a witness to the necessity of the Man REMOVING
any coverings when entering worship and the Woman ADDING a covering over her
naturally long and glorious hair.
Enter
Heinrich Bullinger
(1504-1575), the Swiss Reformer.
“But the apostle Paul biddeth the woman to
pray, or to come into the congregation to hear a sermon, with her head
covered, for none other cause, but for that she is not in her own power, but
subject to another, that is to her husband”.
Thomas Manton
(1620-1677) was an English Nonconformist
whom Spurgeon
loved to read after. He wrote: “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.]
As so many of the writers of old emphasize, the
Angels are present in the Worship services of Baptist churches. The passage
is indubitably speaking about public worship if verse 10 is taken into
contextual consideration. Thus says
Christopher Love (1618-1651), before
the Welsh martyr gave his life for his stand for the Truth of God’s Word:
“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 1Cor.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.]
Ezekiel Hopkins
(1633-1690) is another witness of this passage being pertinent to the
Worship Service of Baptist churches. He wrote: “The apostle tells us
(1Cor.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.”
Matthew Henry’s
(1662-1714) Concise Commentary contains the Welsh Non-conformist’s views on
the Woman’s Headcovering in the Public Worship services. NOT regarding the
previous traditions, etc, of the previous chapters, but that Chapter 11
begins “particulars respecting the public assemblies” (…that’s what he
says!): “1Cor.11:2-16-
Here begin
particulars respecting the public
assemblies… We should, even in our
dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was
made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should
do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being
equal. She ought to have "power," that is, a veil, on her head, because of
the angels. …It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in
public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that
they should do so.”
The prolific English author
John Gill
(1697-1771) was of the same belief. Just a short excerpt of his writing:
“Vs.5-7- for that is even all one as if
she were shaven; to be without a veil, or
some sort of covering on her head, according to the custom of the country,
is the same thing as if her head was shaved; and everyone knows how
dishonourable and scandalous it is for a woman to have her head shaved; and
if this is the same, then it is dishonourable and scandalous to her to be
without covering in public worship. …but
if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven: …then let her be
covered; with a veil, or any sort of
covering in common use. …but the woman is
the glory of the man; …but why is she to
be covered for this reason, when the man is to be uncovered? it is to be
observed, that it is in the presence and worship of God that the one is to
be uncovered, and the other covered; the one being the glory of God, and
therefore to be uncovered before him; and the other the glory of man, and
therefore to be covered before God…
“Vs.15-
for her hair is given her for a covering;
not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so
that she needs no other… nor was the hair given to women for a covering in
this sense, nor used by them as such, unless by Eve before the fall; but is
rather an indication that they want another covering for their head, it not
being so decent that their long hair should be seen. The Jewish women used
to esteem it an immodest thing for their hair to be seen, and therefore they
took care, as much as possible, to hide it under another covering;”
The expert Greek translator
Johann Albrecht Bengel
(1687-1752) had no difficulty understanding the Apostle Paul’s propositions.
Knowing that he was referring to both Public Worship and also an Artificial
Covering, he wrote his “Critical English
Testament”, which includes the following
observations: “1Cor.11:4-
praying or prophesying-
especially in the church (vs.16) and the assembly (vs.17). Vs.13-
a woman…unto God-
By rejecting the emblem of subjection (the head-covering), she passes at one
leap in praying publicly beyond both the
man and
angels. Vs.15-
her hair…for a covering-
Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she
ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with
nature.”
Henry Alford
(1810-1871) is very explicit also in that the venue of the Headcovering is
the Public Worship service: “1 Cor.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)
Continuing into
the 19th
Century, we bring forward Robert L.
Dabney (1820-1898), General
“Stonewall” Jackson’s Presbyterian chaplain and chief of staff. He wrote:
“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... ...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 & Theological)
From the pages of
“Systematic Theology”
Augustus Hopkins Strong
(1836-1921) notes:
“1Cor.11:10-
‘for this cause ought women to have a sign
of authority (i.e., a veil)
on her head, because of the angels.’“…and
Paul cautioned Christian women to have their heads covered when they prayed
or prophesied in public (1Cor.11:5)…”
Nothing like a
straitforward approach to the subject at hand. And that’s what we get from
Henry Allan Ironside
(1876-1951), a Fundamental Brethren preacher of the 20th
Century… “…I come into the presence of God and Christ and of the angels who
are learning the wisdom of God in the Church, and I remove my hat. For the
same reason when a woman comes into the Church, she keeps her hat on… This
is right because it is commanded. God
has spoken and it is very often in little things like this that we test our
state, whether there is self-will
working or whether one is ready to be subject to the Word of God.” If so
many of the modern so-called Baptists would subject themselves to every
precept of God’s Word, instead of picking and choosing what they want to
subject themselves unto, it would be a better world! I agree with
Ironside, that
it’s the LITTLE things, which God notices…
Thomas Treadwell Eaton
(1845-1907) is not hesitant to align himself with Worship and the
Headcovering! He wrote: “Here the Apostle mentions women’s praying and
prophesying in the church, simply condemning the uncovering….Similarly in
1Corinthians 11:5,
the Apostle is talking about decorum, and showing that women ought to have
their heads covered.”
Certainly, no article would be complete without
referencing the common sense of Baptist pastor,
Thomas Paul Simmons
(1898-1969). His concisely written “Systematic
Theology” is unparalleled in recent times
for busy pastors and church members. He wrote: “See
1Cor.11:3-10.
It is quite evident that this refers to public worship. It may be said that
inasmuch as women are not allowed to prophesy, that this does not apply when
women keep their places. But praying is mentioned also. And, although women
are not to lead in public prayer, yet they should pray silently and thus
participate in the worship. This passage by no means intimates that if a
woman has long hair, this is all the covering she needs. Paul simply states
that the fact that it is natural for women to have long hair is only an
indication of the need of an additional covering. This covering is to be
worn in public worship as a sign of the woman’s subjection to her husband,
or to man in general if the woman is unmarried.”
Bro. Simmons
covers quite a bit, in just a few words, doesn’t he!
We Have No Custom in Baptist Churches of
Contention
In
verse 16 of our chapter, we have one of the most misunderstood verses in the
passage (or Bible!). The Apostle Paul is validating his preaching thus far
and says “if any
(woman- man is supplied in the KJV text and woman seems to fit the context
better, continuing from vs.15) seem to be
contentious”, or in disagreement with him,
there is no custom, or precedent for each woman in the church going their
own way. This idea of each woman doing what she wants to do is causing the
divisions in the church mentioned in vs.18. The Apostle Peter says the same
thing in 2Pet.1:20-21-
“Knowing this first, that
no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation. For the prophecy
came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Paul further validates his position in
1Cor.14:33-38- “For
God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,
as in all churches of the saints.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto
them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith
the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at
home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
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.”
Reading that last phrase, the Apostle Paul, much like Bro. Roy
Mason in our introduction, pulls no
punches…
But, again, let
the past speak for this point also…
Starting in the 4th
century we call to witness the translator of the Bible into Latin-
Eusebius Jerome
(345-419AD). The Latin church father in all probability was no longer a
Baptist, but was still Baptistic enough to know the Original Truth and
churches, and he still recognized much doctrine. In
Letter CXLVII,
he tells how the virgins and widows of his day wore coverings: “…not that
afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostle’s
command, for they wear a closefitting cap and a veil.” Obviously, Jerome did
not consider the Apostle’s writings as anything less than a Direct
Commandment from God to him and HIS GENERATION ALSO…
Photios of Constantinople
(810-893) an Armenian Byzantine, later become a Patriarch of the Greek
church, explains the headcovering thus: “to wear a veil on the head is a
symbol of subjection.” It is certainly a visible sign of obedience to God’s
Order in the churches…!
David Dickson
(1583-1663), a 16th
Century Scotsman points out nine
judgments by the Apostle of Jesus
Christ, of which we examine two: “It
is apparent that the Corinthians did not sufficiently observe this order,
because their women in the public Assemblies (after the manner of Heathens)
laid aside their veils, and the men covered their heads and faces; (they are
said to pray and Prophesise, who met publicly, and consented to promote this
public Worship of God.) This uncomeliness he reproves both in the men and
women, by nine Arguments.
…It
is dishonourable to the Female Sex to lay aside her veil, and against the
dignity, as well of her natural head, as of her metaphorical head, to wit,
the man to whom she owes subjection for the honour of the Masculine Sex; the
reason whereof he gives, because it was not less unseemly for the woman to
be without her veil, than to be shorn: Here therefore the woman is reproved
for indecency, which she ought to amend.
…If
any perhaps should not be moved by these Arguments, but should contend, the
Apostle opposeth to their contentious Apologies, the received and
established custom of the Jews, and the rest of the Churches: Other Churches
have no such custom, that women should be present at public assemblies, with
their heads uncovered, and the man with his head covered: Therefore your
custom not agreeing with decency, either according to natural use, or of the
Churches, is altogether unseemly.”
John Angell James
(1785-1859), another forerunner and great influence on
Charles Spurgeon,
in his book Female Piety
wrote: “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.”
James M. Gray
(1851-1935), in Gray’s Concise Bible
Commentary states quite clearly that the
neglect of the Woman’s Headcovering is “without precedent” both in the
Apostle’s generation, and so should it be now. He wrote: “…The apostle
balances the whole subject as between man and woman in verses 11-12, and
sums up so far as the latter is concerned by a couple of questions, the
bearing of which is that the absence of a veil is uncomely (vv. 13-15). If
however, they continue to be contentious in the matter despite his rebuke,
he would have them know that their conduct is without precedent (v. 16).”
This further validates that the contention of vs.16 is primarily from the
“uncovered ladies”.
C.D. Cole
(1885-1968), the Kentucky Baptist, also makes the point that the veiled head
is a matter of submission to the men in “religious matters”… “The truth of
the subordination of the woman to the man has a divinely appointed symbol.
This truth is to be symbolized by the woman wearing long hair, and when in
church, an additional covering. This covering is a sign by which the wife
acknowledges the authority of her husband, who is her natural head; and a
hat or veil as an additional covering, when in church, to acknowledge the
authority of man in religious matters.”
As we come into
the 20th
Century, we turn to the World War I veteran, Scottish
John Murray
(1898-1975). He wrote: “1. Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (vss.
3b, vss. 7ff.), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view
and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of
creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the
implications for conduct arising there from.
2. I am convinced
that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for the man (vss. 4, &
7) and enjoined for the woman (vss. 5, 6, 15). In the case of the woman the
covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense
of verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering
she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force
whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. In this connection it is
not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair was given the
woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5, 6. The
Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in
the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: “the hair is given to
her for a covering.” This is within the scope of the particular argument of
verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional
covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a
consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined
earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words,
the long hair is an indication from “nature” of the differentiation between
men and women, and so the head covering required (vss. 5, 6, 13) is in line
with what “nature” teaches.
3. There is good
reason for believing that the apostle is thinking of conduct in the public
assemblies of the Church of God and of worship exercises therein in verse
17, this is clearly the case, and verse 18 is confirmatory. But there is a
distinct similarity between the terms of verse 17 and of verse 2. Verse 2
begins, “Now I praise you” and verse 17, “Now in this . . . I praise you
not”. The virtually identical expressions, the one positive and the other
negative, would suggest, if not require, that both have in view the
behaviour of the saints in their assemblies, that is, that in respect of
denotation the same people are in view in the same identity as worshippers.
If a radical difference, that between private and public, were contemplated,
it would be difficult to maintain the appropriateness of the contrast
between “I praise you” and “I praise you not”.”
Lastly on this
point we turn to the straightforward
Milburn R. Cockrell (1941-2002). This
prolific scholar points out the inescapable contention of any woman that
rejects the Bible teaching of a Headcovering:
“If a woman puts
off the artificial covering, let her be consistent and take the next step,
putting off the natural covering of the hair, which is intended for the same
purpose. The veil and the long hair are on the same side, and the unveiling
and the short hair are on the same side. So if a woman refuses to wear a hat
to church she should cut her hair close like a man, or shave her head like a
man shaves his face… The covering in verse 6 is not the hair, for if the
hair is short you cannot cut it short…
“1Corinthians
11 makes it plain that a woman should wear
a covering to public worship. When a Christian woman refuses to wear her
hat, she comes in the door in rebellion to God and His Word. How can a
bareheaded woman worship God when in her very dress she has rejected his
teaching on the symbol of Divine order in the church? If one cannot worship
God if there is ought between another Christian and herself
(Matt.5:23-24),
how can she worship Him if there is ought between her and God? In Truth, it
cannot be done!”
It’s a Gender Issue
of Headship; Nothing to do with the World
The last point that
we’d like to dismiss, is the idea that the Corinthian Headcovering was
merely a social demonstration of the difference between Baptist women and
worldly women (prostitutes, et al). The Apostle Paul’s arguments are NOWHERE
in the passage related to comparing Saved women with Lost women. The
contrast is ALWAYS between Men and Women and the underlying issues and
arguments are Headship, Submission and Gender Relationships! Let us go again
to the Historical Baptist position via our Heavenly-departed Witnesses…
Reaching into the
4th
and 5th
Century AD, we quote Augustine of Hippo
(354-430 a.d.) This North African writer translates
1Corinthians 11:4,7
with regard to men as follows: "'Every man praying or prophesying with
veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, for
so much as he is the image and glory of God.'"
Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the
opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head. And he thusly
warns the woman to do just that, in the next quotation… "We ought not
therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme Trinity,
that is, in the image of God, as that same image should be understood to be
in three human beings; especially when the apostle says that the man is the
image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head,
which he warns the woman to use,
speaking thus: '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.'"
As the Woman is contrasted with the Man, she is
paralleled to the Angel, as William
Greenhill (1581-1671), a member of the
Westminster Assembly remarks: “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.6 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]
Many other writers of the intervening centuries
have already made this point also, but let’s let another member of the
Westminster Assembly, John Lightfoot
(1602-1675) give his exposition: “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]
The famous author of “Pilgrim’s
Progress”,
John Bunyan
(1628-1688), wrote the following short,
but to the point, testimony: “For this cause ought the woman to have power”,
that is a covering, “on her head, because of the angels” -1
Cor. 11:10. ...Methinks, holy and beloved
sisters, you should be content to wear this power or badge...”
Coming to a Landmark, American Baptist,
James Madison Pendleton
(1811-1891) makes this observation as clear as can be made: “…the context
shows that to wear a covering on the head indicates subjection. To avoid
this appearance of subjection, man must be seen in unveiled dignity, that he
may not dishonor his head. …the thing proper in the man is improper in the
woman. This is because the woman occupies the place of subjection.”
Ezra Palmer Gould
(1841-1900) follows up with: “The long hair and the veil were both intended
as a covering of the head, and as a sign of true womanliness, and of the
right relation of woman to man; and hence the absence of one had the same
significance as that of the other.”
Many of the Commentators could be quoted.
Arno C. Gaebelein
(1861-1945) seemed to be aware of the apostasy of his generation, as he
expected the sneers of his contemporaries. Yet being True to the Bible of
his God, he wrote in his “Annotated Bible”:
“The purpose of the declaration of this order of the ways of God in creation
was to set them right on a matter which in our days is often sneered at. Man
praying or prophesying is not to cover his head. Woman praying and
prophesying is to have a covering on her head. The man who covereth his head
in praying dishonoreth his head. Woman uncovered dishonoreth her head. A
covering on the head is the outward sign of being in the place of
subjection. An uncovered head signifies the opposite. The order which God
has instituted as to the place of man and woman,
His people are bound to respect.
It may appear a little thing,
yet if disobeyed, as it was in Corinth (where women seemed to be puffed up
and refused to follow this order), it
becomes a stepping stone towards more serious evil.
Woman is to testify to her place of subjection by covering her head in
praying and testifying. Man similarly engaged does not cover his head, for
the authority is vested in man "for as much as he is the image and glory of
God, but the woman is the glory of man."”
Lastly, making a
very strong case for logic, reason and Scripture, we finish up with another
20th
Century pastor that has written much on this subject.
Paul R. Stepp
(1967-) writes thusly:
“…The word kalupto,
as it appears in the New Testament, is variously translated as covered (see
Mt. 8:24; 10:26);
covereth (see Lk 8 :16); cover (Lk. 23:30);
hid (twice in 2Cor. 4:3);
shall hide (Jas.
5:20);
shall cover (1Pet. 4:8).
What is interesting to notice as we compare these Greek words from which
akatakaluptos
is derived, it should be noted that in not one
use of the word kalupto
is the word used to describe something that the object already had. In other
words, nothing is covered by something that it already has, but rather,
every object is Covered by something outside itself (such as an artificial
covering).
“…Now,
most folks who do not want to admit to the need that a woman has to wear a
head covering, will use this verse (15) to simply teach that the Hair of the
woman –especially the long hair of a woman – is given to her
for a covering.
But, what I want us to notice in this verse is that the long hair of a woman
is a glory to her.
…If the hair of the woman is the glory of the woman, as
1Cor. 11:15
tells us; and if the woman is the glory of
the man, as 1Cor. 11:7
tells us; then shouldn’t the woman cover up that Glorious Natural Covering,
which can only Glorify Man, when she is in the Public Worship services of
her God and Creator?
“…I
think that we would all agree that the overall teaching that Paul is
presenting in this Passage, is that of Headship. …So, if Headship is the
principle that is being taught; and if the Head Covering is important to
this issue; then we must understand that the Head Covering is symbolic in
the representation of our understanding of the Headship.
“And,
we might add, if all are covered, where is the order? How can the
distinction be made Public and Known to all, if the covering is worn by all,
or no covering is worn by any? Since there is a Headship; and since there is
an Order of Worship; isn’t the use and disuse of the Head Covering a very
plain, simple and pointed way of demonstrating the Headship in Creation and
Worship?”
I hope that the
array of Historical Witnesses to the Perpetuity of the Correct Teaching of
the Headcovering throughout the Centuries, even Millennia, will cause (at
least) some of the dissenters to stop and reconsider their position- those
that LOVE the Bible and her Precious Truths… The scholarship inherent in
this article is unmatched in the world! We have no excuse for ignorance of
what our Forefathers believed and taught and to go against what these men
held forth as the True,
Biblical
position is somewhere I’d not want to go! If we make it a matter of prayer,
and discern the Discord and Disorder of doing away with the Woman’s
Headcovering in Baptist Worship services, I truly believe that the Holy
Spirit will bless our churches again as being the Pillar and Ground of this
vital Truth…!
Selah! Think about it!
God bless us all!