The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings

It would be of great interest to me and doubtless to others here if you could give a reason why you don't agree with Murray.

I think we are all in agreement on this, i.e., it is not a matter concerning one's justification. But rather, it is a matter of sanctification. We all would hopefully desire to be more and more conformed to Christ and to follow all that God desires of us according to His revealed will, both in our everyday lives but especially in how we conduct ourselves in the corporate worship of God as the body of Christ.


1. This is without doubt a hermeneutical issue. How are we to interpret Scripture rightly? Hopefully, we would first of all agree that the understanding of Scripture is not a matter of "one's own private interpretation" (2Pet 1:20). Our hermeneutics are to be derived from Scripture itself, aka; the Analogy of Faith, comparing Scripture with Scripture. Thus we develop our hermeneutical principles based upon how the writers of Scripture interpreted the inspired texts. With that in mind and the principle applied:

2. Let's see if your interpretation (hermeneutical principle) works out when applied to other places in Scripture which are similar in kind. You mentioned "Baptism and Communion", so let's simply move on down the chapter (1Cor 11:23-27) to where Paul immediately (still discussing how believers are to conduct themselves when they are gathered together for corporate worship) changes the subject to "communion", the Lord's Supper. Hoping I have grasped your argument as held by you, I believe it would go something like this:

a) The concession - the principle that an ordinance commemorating the death of Christ in a meal is to be observed is permanent.

b) The assumption - bread and wine were the normal elements of food and drink in the 1st Century AD (undoubtedly true) and can be assumed were only used in the Lord’s supper for cultural reasons.

c) The conclusion - We are to remember Christ’s death by communal partaking of food and drink, but the precise elements will depend on the culture of time and place (tea and biscuits or coke and crisps etc.).

Without question, this doesn't work for me. And, I could give a couple more examples where the "cultural argument" falls short and/or goes too far.

Let's consider next Paul's prohibition of women speaking, teaching and prophesying in the public assemblies but rather they should be in subjection. (1Cor 14:34) Paul bases this prohibition of speaking and of the woman's subjection upon the "law". I would like to suggest that he is referring to Genesis 3:16. And notice, that Paul also brings in the matter of church "tradition", v. 33 which he likewise mentions in the passage under discussion, 1Cor 11:18f. Are we then to conclude that the matter of women speaking in church and their subjection to their husbands was cultural and thus women should be allowed to speak because silence was cultural in Paul's day but is not recognized as a matter of subjection today?

Okay, one last example of trying to apply the "principle is universal but the expression is cultural" hermeneutic. Let's jump over to 1Tim 2:9-15 and Paul's application of that passage to what immediately follows in 3:1-13. In vv. 9-15, once again Paul uses the creation ordinance as he did in 1Cor 11:1-16 as the basis for teaching about the role (subjection) of women to men. And immediately he applies this principle to the matter of office bearers in the Church; elders and deacons. Clearly, Paul writes that men only are qualified to serve as elders and deacons, e.g. they must be the "husband of one wife" and a "man who knows how to rule his household well", and all the places where men are implied through the use of the pronoun "he". Are we therefore to conclude that women's subjection to men is the universal principle but the prohibition of women to serve as elder or deacon in the church is "cultural" and thus not to be practiced today but rather women should be universally allowed to serve in those offices?

3. Lastly, there are these words that preface Paul's discussion of headcoverings:

1 Corinthians 11:1-2 (ASV) "Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you."

It would seem that Paul is stating that what he is about to write concerning the demarcation of male and female and how men and women are to conduct themselves in public corporate worship in regard to 'decorum' is something which was already the practice of the Church in other places outside the culture of Corinth. It was the accepted practice in the churches at large for women to wear some kind of covering on their heads during public worship and to which Paul says the Corinthian churches are to imitate for two reasons: 1) It is the manner in which Paul conducted himself which was fashioned after that of Christ Himself. 2) And, it was the a tradition which they were to 'hold fast' exactly as they were written. Paul emphasizes this even more at the end of his teaching by saying:

1 Corinthians 11:16 (ASV) "But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

The warning is quite clear, is it not? For those who would be 'contentious', i.e., disagree that women should enter the worship covered, "we" the Apostles, nor "the churches" [universal] have no such "custom" [practice]. It was a unanimous understanding and teaching among all of the Apostles and a universal practice among all of the churches everywhere in which there were various cultural practices that women should wear a covering in the assemblies.

It is upon what I believe to be sound biblical hermeneutics and thus these brief observations and more that I personally have to conclude that the Bible teaches that women are to wear a headcovering in public worship; today and until the Lord returns.

In His grace,