Several weeks ago, while shopping in a grocery store, my wife was approached by a woman who appeared to be very refined -- very courteous manner. She indicated that she had a question that possibly she could answer. She and her husband had observed that some women wear coverings similar to the one that my wife was wearing. Why are they worn? Her husband's opinion was that it signifies marriage. She herself did not concur with that opinion. But why DO you wear it? That was her question. In response, my companion assured her that the wearing of the headcovering is a Biblical teaching recorded in 1 Corinthians 11. To her that was news. She seemingly was not aware that this was a Bible teaching, and with gratitude in her voice, she promised to go home and read for herself from 1 Corinthians 11.
A hundred years ago, an occurrence like that here in Lebanon county would have been unlikely. Why? Because a hundred years ago, this practice was still being observed in numerous non-Mennonite circles. The widespread loss of this practice demonstrates what can happen in no more than a hundred years. Whether that woman was a church member or not, I don't know. I do know that today, in many church circles, this teaching is either omitted, or explained away, or twisted so as to make the hair the only needed covering.
But, it's not my primary calling to condemn other church groups. Right within our own circles we have a big enough job to keep this practice alive and to keep it moving in the right direction. In order to get that job done requires giving periodic attention to this teaching. That's why I've chosen to dwell on that subject this morning. My record shows that it's been a little over 5 years ago that I devoted an entire message to this subject. That's a pretty long interval - maybe too long.
I've already named the Bible passage in which this teaching is found, so let's turn in our Bibles to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. The content of this chapter revolves around 2 items: the headcovering, and the Lord's supper. Because of their nature, we believe that they both fall in the category of an "ordinance". This is in agreement with the language of verse 2: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
The now-popular approach to this chapter throws away the first of these practices, the headcovering, but retains the second, the Lord's supper. In my opinion, there is no valid ground for that kind of selectivity. Nonetheless, it's being done. And that's one reason why there are people around us like that lady who approached my wife.
In a few moments, I'm going to be reading 1 Corinthians 11:4, 5 and 6. Those verses serve as home base for both the doctrine and the practice of the headcovering. But all of the first 16 verses relate to the subject in one way or another. All right, let's listen now to verses 4-6:
"(4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) 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. (6) 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."
Those last four words in verse 6 are my text: "Let her be covered."
That is a straightforward command. It's comparable to other commands that are stated in a similar way. "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body." "Let no man deceive you." "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." "Let your light so shine." Now the command in view here is no less binding than these other commands.
The framework for the message this morning will consist of a series of questions revolving around this command: "Let her be covered."
The first of these questions is: "To whom is this command addressed?"
Now that's a very simple question. In your opinion, perhaps, it's too elementary to even raise. Your answer might be, "Why, it's addressed, of course, to the Corinthians!
" and that's right. They were the initial recipients of it. Does that mean, then, that it was exclusively for them? Does that mean that what was enjoined upon them is not binding upon us? Have the teachings of the epistles been generally understood in that way? Among Christian people, is the Bible usually viewed as "out of date"? No! The Bible has been studied and applied because it is believed to be relevant for today.
If 1 Corinthians was intended only for the Corinthians, then we might as well close our doors and go out of business. A very few would take so radical a stand as that. The continued observance of the communion ordinance is evidence of the widespread conviction that not the Corinthians only, but we, too, are being addressed in this epistle. But, as was pointed out earlier, it's unfortunate that, in that larger group, there are those who, at certain points, draw back from that position in order to escape the reproach of Christ. And so you have this practice of teaching one part of the chapter, but not the part of the chapter that might make you unpopular.
In answer to this question, there are yet other lines of evidence that ought to be looked at. The book of Revelation, in chapters 2 and 3, records individual messages sent by the ascended Christ to seven churches. At the conclusion of each of those letters, this familiar refrain is repeated: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches" - plural. Each of those letters, in addition to being for one particular church, was to be heeded also by all the churches. "Let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches". And so it is, too, with the Corinthian epistle. It's for us, too, even though it was for them initially.
To further reinforce this fact, let's go to the very beginning of this epistle, 1 Corinthians chapter 1, and listen to verses 1 and 2 for a possible clue to this answer, for a possible answer to the question: " (1) Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, (2) unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." There you have it again. The writer, God's chosen servant, declares himself that he's addressing not only the Corinthians, but also ALL that in EVERY place call upon the Lord.
There is, however, still more that ought to be added to this answer. Remember the question is: "To whom is this command addressed?"
Was this portion of the letter for sisters only? They very much are in focus here. It surely relates to them. But, are they being addressed directly, or indirectly? Well, back again in chapter 11, I find in verses 2 and 3 a clue to that answer. "Now I praise you, BRETHREN, that YE remember me in all things and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to YOU. But I would have YOU know that the head of every man is Christ" and so on. Let's not overlook this! Obviously, brethren are to be in charge - both in the church and in the home. It's their responsibility to teach God's headship order, and to see that that order is maintained. Even though it may have been the Corinthian women who were pushing at the fence, God viewed it as a problem that rested on the shoulders of the brethren -- fathers, husbands, church leaders. I, myself, very much need to face up to this fact. And so do you, brethren. When wrong trends appear in covering styles or covering sizes, brethren, let's not blame one another. Let's work TOGETHER at correcting the problem, for this is addressed to US. Let's be willing to admit that an irregularity in relation to the headcovering is seldom a sister's problem only. It usually involves more than just the sister.
I think we're ready now to move to another question. That question, number 2, is this: "With what is this practice associated?"
Some persons make much of the fact that, among the women of that day, this was the then-existing practice. And they immediately jump to the conclusion that on that basis it's not obligatory today. But that line of reasoning ignores completely verse 3 and the obvious link between verse 3 and all that follows, for I am of the opinion that verse 3 is the KEY to the whole passage. Notice now again how verse 3 brings into focus something far more authoritative than a local practice: "I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
God wants it to be known that there is a divinely established arrangement for working relations within the divine human economy. This is otherwise known as God's headship order. Better than anyone else, God knows that in every sphere of life there needs to be leadership and respect for leadership. God wants this fact known. He wants it known that on the human level God has assigned that leadership to the man. "I would have you know that the head of the woman is the man." God wants that fact KNOWN. Wherever a church or a family departs from this arrangement, it steps outside of the will of God, and it exchanges the best arrangement for an inferior arrangement. which will inevitably lead to confusion.
We have now our answer to question number 2: "With what is this practice associated?" It's associated with God's permanently existing headship order. Those verses that I read, verses 4-6, follow immediately upon the disclosure of this headship arrangement. Those verses 4-6 outline the God-prescribed way of preserving an awareness of this God-established headship order. The fact that the women of that day and place veiled their heads is to their credit, but it's simply an incidental factor. It's by no means the foundation on which this teaching is built.
Incidentally, for the Jewish men of that day, the embracing of Christianity did require breaking their custom. It may not have required a breaking of their custom on the part of the women, but on the part of the Jewish men they had to discontinue what they had been doing. So, please don't allow anyone to ever convince you that this passage is merely a call to fit in with their culture.
I'm moving now to question number 3: "But doesn't this practice destroy the woman's equality with man in Christ? Doesn't it do that?"
It is true that, more than anything else, Christianity elevated the status of womanhood. In Christ, the Christian woman stands before God on a footing equal to that of man. That is the input of a verse like Galatians 3:28, in which it is declared that "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
In relation to salvation, man and woman are equal. It may be, however, that in Corinth especially, this newfound liberty may have been interpreted too broadly. So broadly as to obliterate the headship order. Perhaps it's in order to correct any such thinking that Paul is led to include in this passage evidence of the fact that the headship arrangement dates back, not only to the fall, but beyond the fall. It dates back to the time of the creation. That shows that it was meant to be a permanently existing thing in the earthly order.
Verses 8 and 9 speak to that point. Let's listen now to verse 8: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." That speaks of man's priority in the sequence of creation. The fact that man was created first was not simply incidental, that was by divine design. Now verse 9: "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." This brings into focus the Creator's purpose. Eve was created for the purpose of being Adam's helper.
Now, the evident purpose for the inclusion of these facts is to emphasize that redemption does not cancel out headship. Headship remains intact in the reckoning of God. And so, the answer to our question is "NO", this practice does NOT destroy woman's equality with man in Christ. In the reckoning of God, man's continuing to function as the administrative head of the race is altogether compatible with woman's spiritual equality with the man in matters pertaining to Christian experience. Both concepts need to be promoted. There is no conflict between them. The man and the woman are equal in spiritual privilege, but they are not equal in authority.
Now, let's recall again the text: "Let her be covered." That is God's decree.
All right, let who be covered? That is question number 4. "Who is to be covered?" If this is for Mennonites only, as some wrongly suppose, then it ought to read "let every Mennonite sister be covered." But the text has in it no such limitation. This is not a denominational teaching. This is a Bible teaching.
Already in verse 3 we are being prepared to think in a much broader scope, for there, where the principle is in focus, it is stated that the head of EVERY man is Christ. No exception is made. Christ is the authority figure for every man, whether or not he obeys Him, Christ is his head. And, by the same token, man remains woman's God-appointed head, whether or not she submits. And then when we come to the application, verses 4-6, again it's EVERY woman and EVERY man, indicating the widest possible application, conveying the idea that this practice is intended to be universal. There's also no reference here to marriage, which eliminates the idea that this is applicable only to women who are married. You may sometime be confronted with that idea. Really, the headship of man over woman is an aspect of God's government in this world. And, as such, it is not limited only to life in the Kingdom of God. But, since judgment begins at the house of God, Paul is here singling out an instance that would constitute a violation in the context of church life.
I'm driven to the conclusion that EVERY woman who wants to take her God-assigned place under man is duty-bound to signify that purpose of heart by being covered. "Who is to be covered?" SHE is to be covered -- the woman who recognizes and submits to her God-ordained place in God's arrangement.
Growing out of this is a fifth question: "With what shall she be covered?"
An increasing number of voices are responding to this question with this easy answer: "With her hair. Let her be covered with her hair." But this answer simply cannot survive close scrutiny. To begin with, at the time of this writing [of 1 Corinthians 11] there was practically no need in Christian circles for a plea to retain the hair covering. Long hair had been the long-accepted practice, and to my knowledge was not even being challenged.
Furthermore, those who claim that this passage has in view no other covering but the hair are knowingly discrediting about 1900 years of Christian practice and Biblical scholarship. For that long of time, the wearing of an additional covering was taught and practiced on a very wide scope. Those who argue for the hair only are thereby implying that in respect to this issue the Christian church started out wrong and has been wrong for most of her history. I'm not ready to believe that.
Verse 15 does speak of long hair as "A" covering, nature's covering, but it's not "THE" covering called for in verses 5-6. And that conclusion is substantiated by the fact that, in the Greek, the word for covering in verses 5-6 is not the same word as is used in verse 15. And this difference comes to light in a number of the more reliable modern versions. They actually use the term "veil" in verses 5-6.
But a careful reading of verse 6, even in the King James Version, should convince anyone that another covering beside the hair is in view. Let's right now take a moment to look at that verse. Verse 6: "For if the woman be not covered". Let's stop right there. If, as some claim, the hair is the only covering in view, than this clause would envision a woman whose hair has been removed, right? "For if the woman be not covered." That envisions a case where the hair has been removed, if the hair is the covering called for. Now, look at the next clause: "Let her also be shorn." Now you have a problem on your hands, for how can you remove something that has already been removed? How can there be two successive removals of the same thing? What the statement really means is this: a woman ought to wear both the hair covering and the sign covering, or none at all. If she refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace: that of being shorn.
And here is a still further consideration: If the only covering in view is the hair, the Christian man would need to remove his hair in order to comply with God's will.
Now remember the question was "With what shall she be covered?" Here are possible ways of stating the simple answer. She is to voluntarily cover her head with a material covering. It ought to be distinguishable from protection coverings. It ought to be identifiable as one that carries religious significance. To think of it only as a symbol allows for it to become too small. The terminology employed here requires that it be also a covering, that which "covers". Although it is a symbol, it must be a symbol that covers.
And now I raise question number 6: "When is she to be covered?" And in response to this, I can imagine someone saying, "Well that's an easy one, your answer's right there in the text. 'Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head'. There's your answer - she's to be covered when she prays or prophesies." As far as it goes that's an acceptable answer, but I don't think the evidence is conclusive that this practice is to be limited to such times. That would reduce it to a "devotional covering" or a "worship covering", when actually the larger context supports the view that it's primarily a "headship covering". And, since the headship of man extends to all of life, and since the world so much needs the awareness that the covering creates, isn't it logical to conclude that the wearing of the covering should be constant?
But why does Paul single out times of praying and prophesying? That is a valid question. Although we can't know for sure, it may be that those were the occasions when the Corinthian women were beginning to think that they would be justified in throwing off their veil in the name of their newfound Christian liberty. I'm simply suggesting that Paul might have received reports of violations occurring at such times. If so, that would explain why he would name these specific times.
Students of the Greek language have pointed out that the words of my text, "Let her be covered," are in the present active imperative form, so that, by grammatical structure, it really means "let her continue to be covered."
In relation to this question, I would conclude with these remarks. The veiled head does not necessarily signify that "here is a soul that is presently praying or prophesying." Rather, it signifies that "here is a woman who seeks to honor God in all of life." So, it's not really a prayer veiling, but a woman's veiling, worn to show that the wearer is in God's order. Let's think of it in those terms. Not a "devotional covering". Not a "worship covering". But a "woman's covering". A "headship covering". That, I think, is the main thrust of the passage as a whole.
Again, let's call attention to our text: "Let her be covered."
One more question: "Why?"
Well, I hope that some answers have already gotten through to you. To all that, I would add this: Wear the headcovering because you know God wants you to! I cannot supply you with a more valid reason for the performance of any deed than simply to know that God wants you to do it. Can you? Can you think of a more valid reason to motivate any action? For every pliable saint, what God has written right here should be enough to settle the matter.
It is here made apparent that God wants to preserve an awareness of His divinely established order. That is urgently needed in today's society. Furthermore, he wants YOU to have a part in that, not only the sisters, but also the brethren. He wants both Christian men and Christian women to give visible evidence of their pledge to abide by that order. For the man, that visible witness is given by the non-wearing of a religiously significant covering. For the woman that witness is given by the wearing of a religiously significant covering. The God-supplied long hair will not suffice for this because it is not a personally supplied witness. It doesn't necessarily reflect a personal endorsement of God's arrangement. It doesn't convey the clear signal that "I'm voluntarily submitting to man's leadership." The humanly supplied covering should be worn to convey that signal. To all who see it, it proclaims this message: "I will not attempt to dominate, I will not attempt to manipulate my head. I submit to God's plan."
Now, to all of this, the response of the critic might be: "So what? There is no salvation in it!" That is as much beside the point as to say that there's no salvation in baptism or in any other of the ordinances. We don't keep the ordinances to become saved, rather being saved we gladly keep those commandments. "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me."
It's very obvious that some portions of this passage have not been touched on in this message. Perhaps they can be touched on some other occasion.
Before I close, I wish to add some remarks bearing on the more practical side of this practice. We as church leaders try to monitor changes in covering styles and covering sizes, but changes can be made so gradually that we may not always be abreast of what is happening. Little by little, you can make your covering smaller and smaller, and you may suppose that no one else notices it, but God knows it, and you know it, and very likely more people take notice of that than you realize. You may never know. If you take that course, you may never know how many other sisters are influenced to do likewise. Now you may take that course if you choose, but that will not build the kind of church life that I think you want. It will not build the kind of church life that you want for your children.
I'm glad for the healthy signs among us. It's a healthy sign when daughters appear with coverings as large as their mother's. That's something to rejoice over and thank God for. Really, anything less than that will lead in the wrong direction. If, in successive generations, the daughter's covering every time is just a little smaller than the mother's, it will only be a few generations until the covering is lost. I don't think you want that to happen here, so I plead with you to help to keep it from happening.
If a young lady wishes to marry one day the man she always dreamed of, she might be willing to change the way she dresses in order to keep herself pure for him (Proverbs 31:12).
If a young lady has chosen to save herself for one man on the whole earth, he must be the sort of man who is honorable, able to be fully trusted, one you could pour your whole heart out to and know your secrets won’t ever leave him. This sort of man would have made a covenant with his eyes not to look on a woman to lust after her beauty. He would be a man who would be keeping himself pure for the one whom he would some day meet and marry for life. He would be looking for a young woman who does not give every man who sees her hope for a relationship with her (Proverbs 11:22;Ecclesiastes 7:25-29; Proverbs 31:30).
You see, the way a girl dresses speaks of what is in her heart. If she loves her Savior, Jesus, she will dress to please Him. How does she know what clothes Jesus likes? By knowing Jesus and in careful study of His words we can know what He desires for us. The Holy Spirit will make us feel uneasy about wearing clothes that are too revealing.
A young woman who desires to please her Savior will wear clothing that would draw a person’s eyes to her face, where shines the beauty of her heart (Matthew 6:22-23).
You can tell a lot from looking at a person’s eyes.
The face of one who lives in the presence of God shines with the glory of God (Exodus 34:29, Ecclesiastes 8:1; Matthew 17:2).
A life of sin wears a face of shame and darkness is in the eyes.
Our choice is will we trust the Lord Jesus to choose our husband for us, or will we continue to try our best to allure men by the way we dress, that we are humans, prone to sin, might find the honorable mate?
A man who is looking for a mate who is pure in her heart and serving God with her life would be drawn to one who dresses with modesty in mind. Her clothes would not draw attention to her chest or her buttocks or her legs, because the young woman who chooses clothes to please the Lord wants to direct others to Jesus and His love. Our faces are to be the focal point in what we wear. Some have found scarves to be great tools for drawing attention to the face. They allow you to use lots of creativity in the choice of colors and the way you tie them around the neck.
Of course, scarves would not be appropriate for every occasion. A short necklace can also be the perfect piece to complete an outfit. There is an array of broaches and pins for sale today, which can be used with a dressy outfit or a casual one. You would wear these pieces near your face. If they, or any other eye-catching accessory, is worn some place other than near the face, it will cause people’s eyes to be drawn away from your face. Keeping this in mind, you can see how patterned hose, or excessive decorations on shoes can be distracting to the eyes. Even wearing clothing that is too loose or too tight will work against the testimony a young woman can have among the people around her.
So, now check out your wardrobe at home. Does it reflect that of one who has dedicated herself to a life of purity to Christ? Adjust some outfits to make them modest. Throw away others, which cannot be made better. Add those garments, which would help build a more Christ-like testimony to your wardrobe. Ask the Lord to guide you and provide clothes that would honor Him. He will bless your efforts.
We pray the Lord will bless your visit here with us. It is our wish that you will find the modest clothing styles and veilings you are seeking. If you have a special request, please don't hesitate to contact us! May The Lord Bless Your Journey to Follow Him!
