Navigate / search

Why Head Coverings? Reason #1: Creation Order

Biblical Case for Head Coverings

“…the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation, not to Corinth. If anything transcends local custom it is those things that are rooted and ordered in creation. That’s why I’m very frightened to be loose with this passage.” – R.C. Sproul 1) Quoted from R.C. Sproul’s sermon ‘To Cover or Not To Cover’ available at www.ligonier.org/learn/series/hard_sayings_of_the_apostles/to-cover-or-not-to-cover/

There are four reasons for head coverings that the Apostle Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 11. The very first of these is the foundation; the deeper reality that head coverings point to. When a new believer is baptized they’re symbolizing their death to their old life & new life in Christ (Rom 6:4). When a woman prays with her head covered and a man prays with his head uncovered they too are symbolizing something greater. Let’s take a look at this foundation.

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. (1 Cor 11:3)

God has made men & women equal in value & worth. We both need each other or as the Scriptures say “in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.” (1 Cor 11:11)

But just because we’re equal does not mean that we have the same role, authority or function. 2) I am defending a view called Complementarianism. The opposing view is called Egalitarianism. Wayne Grudem has written much on this topic which I’d recommended to you for further study. Some of his relevant titles include Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth & Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism.  These differences can be seen throughout the creation, in angels & even God Himself. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God, revealed in three distinct persons: The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. Now these three persons are all fully God and fully equal but they are distinct in function, authority and person. As we have seen in the above verse “God is the head of Christ”. This submission of Jesus to the Father was not limited to his incarnation as some claim. Rather, in 1 Corinthians 15 when it speaks of after the second coming when the Kingdom is consummated, the Scriptures say:

When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:28)

Jesus is not less valuable than the Father. The Holy Spirit is not less valuable than Jesus even though His role is to not speak about Himself, but instead to glorify the Son (John 16:13).

Different roles do not have to mean different value or worth. This point can’t be stressed highly enough. Does a police officer have an authority over you given by God? (Rom 13:1) Yes! Is that police officer of more value or worth then you as a human? No! Children submit to their parents (Eph 6:1), slaves submit to their masters (Eph 6:5), wives submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22), citizens submit to their government (Rom 13:1), church members submit to their elders (Heb 13:17), Jesus submits to God (1 Cor 11:3). There’s even different ranks in the angels as Michael is called the archangel (Jude 9) meaning “chief” 3) Thayer’s Greek Definitions, G743 .

We need not be afraid of authority. There will be lousy parents, brutal masters, chauvinist husbands, power-trip pastors and ungodly governments until the end. That’s due to sin though, not because authority is bad. Let us look to the Trinity as our model example.

So the very first reason for head coverings is because of the created order. This is the foundation that Paul said “I want you to understand” (1 Cor 11:3a). This is not a cultural argument, but a transcendent argument as the Fathers headship is eternal and unchanging.

Before we examine the next verse I want to challenge my Complementarian 4) The view that men & women complement each other through their differences in role, authority and function.  friends. I know the arguments you use for male eldership & husband headship. I agree with you fully. In 1 Timothy 2 it explains why a woman cannot “teach or exercise authority”, doesn’t it?

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Tim 2:12-14)

“The reason is based in creation” you would say, “therefore it isn’t cultural”. Agreed. But now I want to challenge you to remain consistent as we examine this next verse.

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head… (1 Cor 11:7-10a)

Paul says why women must have a have a symbol of authority on their head; because of the created order.

Where do you find man being directly created in the image of God? Genesis 1.

Where do you find woman being created from man, or being the “glory of man”? Genesis 2.

Where do you find that the woman was created for man, not the other way around? Genesis 2.

And when do you find sin entering the picture? Not until Genesis 3.

So this foundation is not only based in creation, it’s based in God’s perfect creation before sin. Headship & authority was God’s original intent. It wasn’t a post-fall disaster, but a pre-fall masterpiece.

Here is a summary of why the command looks different for men and women. Why one must wear a covering and the other must not.

MEN (Uncovered)WOMEN (Covered)
Man is the head of a woman (1 Cor 11:3).Women submit to the proper male authority in their lives as head (1 Cor 11:3).
Men were created directly by God from the dust and are the “glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7-8).Women were created by God from man's rib and are the “glory of man” (1 Cor 11:7-8).
Man was not created for the woman's sake (1 Cor 11:9).Women were created for the man's sake (1 Cor 11:9).

God in his infinite wisdom has selected perfect symbols to display this difference in the created order. Our God loves symbols: He gave us the spotless lamb, the unleavened bread, the water in baptism, the bread & wine, the olive tree, marriage, the temple, the feasts and the list could go on and on.

Each symbol was chosen by God for a specific purpose to point to a greater reality. In the book of Hebrews we see this with regards to the tent that Moses was commanded to make.

For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” (Heb 8:5 ESV)

The author later points out that the tent is a symbol “of this present age” (Heb 9:9a ESV) . Now even though it was a symbol, Moses was still given very specific instructions and was told to follow them. The reason being is if you change the symbol, you no longer accurately reflect what God was using it to point to. So it is with head coverings. The man reflects the glory of God & his submission to Christ by praying and prophesying with a bare head. The woman reflects the glory of man and her submission to the proper male authority in her life by praying and prophesying with her head covered. If we change the symbol or abandon it altogether we miss out on displaying to man and angels the wisdom of God in creation. Even worse, we are disobeying the commands of our Lord, which as Paul says brings dishonor and disgrace upon our heads (1 Cor 11:4-6).


 Quoted from R.C. Sproul’s sermon ‘To Cover or Not To Cover’ available at www.ligonier.org/learn/series/hard_sayings_of_the_apostles/to-cover-or-not-to-cover/
 I am defending a view called Complementarianism. The opposing view is called Egalitarianism. Wayne Grudem has written much on this topic which I’d recommended to you for further study. Some of his relevant titles include Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth & Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism.
 Thayer’s Greek Definitions, G743
 The view that men & women complement each other through their differences in role, authority and function.

Jeremy Gardiner

Jeremy is the founder of the Head Covering Movement and the author of Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times. He is a member of Fellowship Baptist Church and a student at Moody Bible Institute. He lives in Alberta, Canada with his wife and five young children. Jeremy is also the founder and operator of Gospel eBooks, a popular website that provides alerts for free and discounted Christian e-books.

Latest posts by Jeremy Gardiner (see all)

  • Guest

    Thank you very much for that.

    • You are most welcome, thanks for taking the time to comment 🙂

  • Ashley Cozzens

    I’m enjoying this study very much so far. Our congregation is preparing to study 1 Corinthians and the timing of your blog/study could not be better. I did not grow up with this practice but began covering during worship in my current congregation as many of the women there already did. It has become less common over the last few years, though. I’m hoping to establish my beliefs regarding this more in scripture during this study. Thank you.

    • That’s so awesome to hear! Thanks for commenting @ashleycozzens:disqus.

  • Diana Johnston

    Great article!

  • Rachel

    Can’t wait to read the next one! These are great!

    • Glad you’re enjoying them @Rachel817:disqus. “Angels” is the next in the series coming on Monday June 24th.

  • Jordan

    Two questions:
    – Does the creational basis mean that Eve wore a headcovering while naked, before the Fall?
    – Why do headcoverings only seem to be taught in the New Testament, if the principle originated at creation?

    • Hi @disqus_LW6htjH73u:disqus, thanks for taking the time to read the article and comment.
      When I speak of creation as a reason, I’m referring to the roles of men and women that the symbol point to, not the actual symbol itself. Eve wouldn’t have wore a covering before the fall and I wouldn’t be surprised if she didn’t wear one after the fall. Even if the Scriptures said she did I wouldn’t use it as evidence, as the head covering mentioned in 1 Corinthians is uniquely a Christian symbol.

      As Bible commentator Leon Morris said “Jewish men always prayed with their heads covered (as they still do). Greek women, as well as their menfolk, prayed with head uncovered”. So this symbol is the complete opposite of what they were familiar with.

      While the principle has it’s root in creation, the symbolizing of it wouldn’t have been practiced until post-Acts 2 when the church is formed.

      • Jordan

        Thanks for the reply Jeremy. Any insight into how that creational principle was symbolized prior to Acts 2? If it transcends times and cultures, doesn’t it have to have an outworking in every period in history?

        • Hi @disqus_LW6htjH73u:disqus, it wasn’t symbolized prior to Acts 2. The symbol points to the transcendent creation order, but the symbol itself isn’t transcendent. The symbol is to be practiced by the church from when the command was given onwards.

        • Hi @disqus_LW6htjH73u:disqus, it wasn’t symbolized prior to Acts 2. The symbol points to the transcendent creation order and we are to practice it BECAUSE OF that order, but the symbol itself isn’t transcendent. This reason is solid because he doesn’t say we’re to practice this “in view of the present distress” (1 Cor 7:26) or for another reason that may be related to the time or culture but we’re to practice it because of the creation order which will never change. The symbol is to be practiced by the church from when the command was given onwards.

          • Mike Wood

            Jordan is hitting at the central point: if this is a creation ordinance (and therefore not a “uniquely Christian symbol”), why was it not practiced in the Old Testament? In fact, God told the Jews in Exodus 29 to place a turban on the head of the high priest. That seems strange if no-headcoverings-on-men-in-worship is a creation ordinance.

            But even today, American culture frowns on headcoverings on men in respectful situations, especially inside buildings—and especially in church. So I think culture is the implicit premise in Paul’s argument: 1) Because of the original hierarchy in creation, divine and human, and (here’s the missing premise) 2) because in first-century Greek culture, that hierarchy is honored via a headcovering, 3) women should wear headcoverings in church.

            I’d suggest, too, that calling this a “movement” invites triumphalism and pride (though I certainly can’t say that you personally, Jeremy, are guilty of these sins), whereas the purpose of the headcovering is to show submission to divinely-given hierarchy in Trinity, home, and church.

          • Jordan

            Thanks for your reply, Jeremy. I understand your position. I don’t want to derail this site with argumentation, but I will state my disagreement and you can feel free to reply or not (or even moderate the post, as you see fit). This is more for your benefit so you can consider an alternate opinion and even address some of its aspects in your posts.

            Here is an extremely brief overview of how I understand the Creational aspect of 1 Cor 11:
            – I believe that the church is “God’s People on Earth, Testifying of Him” and therefore has existed since Adam.
            – I also believe that Scripture speaks of a Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Scripture dictates how we ought to worship God.
            – Worship is a covenantal act. Worship was performed differently under the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.
            – The Covenant of Grace comprises two adminstrations (as the Westminster Confession describes it), Old and New, so while there are differences, yet there is at the same time a continuity.
            – Because of the RPW, we derive our understanding of the ordinances of worship and circumstances of worship from Scripture, both Old and New Testaments.
            – We see continuity in the ordinances of worship throughout the Covenant of Grace: Passover & Lord’s Supper, Circumcision & Baptism, Public Prayer, Public Scripture Reading, etc.
            – We also see differences: Sacrifices and cleansings passing away with the work of Christ on the Cross, Instruments passing away in the New Testament, with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, etc.

            – Behind these activities (whether continuing or differing) are underlying principles that reflect the unchanging God who we worship.
            – If Headcoverings is an ordinance of worship and there is a fundamental continuity between Old and New Testaments, then OT saints must have worn them or had some other symbol to represent that same principle. No evidence to that end has been found to my knowledge.
            – If, rather as I believe, Headcoverings is circumstanial symbol tied to underlying and enduring principles (male/female roles, headship, divine order, etc) it becomes much like foot washings, holy kisses, etc. The underlying principles are to be represented in the church based in the context that church finds itself in.

          • clarinetlaj

            did you see the newer testimony of Danica? She is also a RPW believer and might offer an insight to your questions

          • willphish4food

            There are instances on the OT where women and headcovering are mentioned. For instance, to shame a woman for sin, her head was to be uncovered, as well as her thighs.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    This is an interesting site. Just getting going, eh?
    I have done a bunch of research on this subject and archived it here, if that interests you:

    • Yes, we’re less than a week old. Keep spreading the word @vaughnohlman:disqus. Thanks for sharing the link.

  • I’m really being challenged by what everyone has been saying! I’m also thrilled to discover this movement, and looking forward to it continuing!

    • That’s so good to hear! Thanks for commenting @rhodanewton:disqus.

  • C.Groome

    The last part of 1 Corinthians 11:15 states very clearly a woman’s hair is a covering…so why do you need two? hair and cloth??

    But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” 1 Corinthians 11:15

    • It’s a good question and I understand how you’d arrive at that conclusion. I will have a full response for you to consider but it will be about 2 months before we get there. The reason being is I haven’t finished laying a foundation for “Why Head Coverings?” yet. Once the positive case has been made we will shortly after deal with objections. Thanks!

      • generation4Him

        I would love to write an entire article for your site sharing my objections. I wore a headcovering for two years of my life and it was an awful experience, and I was so glad when Jesus set me free from it.

    • Vaughn Ohlman

      The link I posted deals with this in part:

  • Zel Barribeau

    Hi guys! This movement is a blessing! Here’s the article that fully convinced me of wearing one:


    I’ve been wearing one for two and a half years now and I love when people ask me questions so I get to share and explain why! That article above of my pastor helped me tremendously. All my questions were answered. God bless you Jeremy for this website!

    • Wonderful! Thanks @zelbarribeau:disqus for the encouragement and for stopping by. Hope you stick around.

  • Ron Johnson

    Glad that a friend showed me this site. I have covered for years now, and though a few others in our church have also covered, it was temporary for them and I am alone now. Great to be in the company of other like-minded believers. This will post under my husband’s ;name as I don’t know how to change it. I am Dayle.

  • Nicole

    I didn’t grow up in a church where head coverings were encouraged, talked about, or seen unless it was Easter and the ladies wore decorative hats. But, in my teens a lady felt led to and wore them for several months. I was proud of her, though at the time I didn’t know the significance or had the thought to ask the scriptural references for it. In my own journey I have thought of it several times, but only recently have I felt that this may be what I need to do. I talked with my mom about it and she told me to do whatever I felt I needed to, and that my reasons were ones she had never thought of before. I told her that I felt that it was a form of praise, and that just because something wasn’t “required” by a denomination doesn’t mean that God doesn’t recognize the significance of it because he is the one who encouraged it to begin with. I’m not doing it for anyone but me and God. I would be excited if my daughter would like to do it with me someday.

  • Suraj Lamichhane

    What the actual fuck? Seriously? Am I reading these things?

    “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

    That is how you want people to live in this planet? What the…

  • Leah Sykes

    “Women submit to the proper male authority in their lives as head”

    How would an elderly widow practice this?

    • Great question! Two ways of answering this.

      1) The male authority that she is called to submit to are the elders (pastors) of her church (Heb 13:17). The covering that she wears would symbolize this.
      2) Though she has no male authority in her life in the family sphere, she wears a covering to show that she agrees with God’s order.

      • Kimberly Neely

        I believe it also shows submission to Christ. Even if I were not married, I would feel compelled by this passage to cover.

  • Leah Sykes

    Maybe this has been explained elsewhere, but why is it that the Catholic Pope and some other Catholic/Orthodox clergy wear mitres (the long, tall hat) and zucchettos (looks like a Jewish yarmulke) in church?

    • Kimberly Neely

      In my understanding, these traditions are based on OT liturgical practices. They are not supported by NT teachings on worship.

  • Teresa Rincon

    If this is a binding command rooted in creation, I don’t see why Christian women so convicted should not cover all the time. Is man the head of woman or woman the glory of man only during Sunday morning worship? It’s worth noting that married Orthodox Jewish women cover their hair at all times, usually with a scarf or wig.

    • Hi Teresa, we believe the context tells us that Paul only has the local church gathering in mind. We defended that here: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/where-are-head-coverings-to-practiced-in-church-or-everywhere

      A parallel would be 1 Tim 2 which says women can’t teach or exercise authority. The context there is rooted in creation but is also for the local church only. The command is not that women can’t teach outside of the church as that’s exactly what Priscilla did in Act 18:26 (along with her husband, she helped teach Apollos sound doctrine).

    • Christian Filbrun

      Teresa, with appreciation for Jeremy’s defense of his understanding of the scope of the veiling (in public worship rather than elsewhere), I would encourage you to read through all the comments in the link he shared below (even though it might take a bit), as there are considerations for both his understanding and also the thoughts of some of us that the veiling has a scope far beyond public worship. Ultimately, it is something you will have to establish for yourself before God. But again, I encourage you to read all the way through the comments under link; there iseems to be a lot of good discussion and encouragement all around.

  • Katrina Mercuri Newman

    I have a question. I also believe that I should wear a head covering. However, my husband does not want me to. He believes that it is legalistic. So, should I not wear the head covering in submission to my husband or should I wear the head covering in submission to God? My pastors believe that it was a cultural issue and therefore I do not need to wear one. I disagree. I’m finding myself between a rock and a hard place.

    • So sorry to hear of the tough situation you’re in @katrinamercurinewman:disqus. We offered some thoughts and suggestions here:

      “My husband asked me to not cover my head. What should I do?”

    • Kay

      Katrina, my approach (if my husband asked me not to cover) would be to submit to his request. But I would ask about covering at home for personal prayer (if you understand it for any prayer and teaching, not just assembly meetings) and study time. Men have a different role in the testimony of a woman who covers. It shows his leadership (may put pressure on him if he doesn’t agree with the teaching on headship). I recently had a situation where there were rumors that my husband “makes” me wear a covering, and that was quite offensive since he is basically labeled by the gossipers as controlling and domineering. He agrees with the covering, but has never requested I wear one, let alone made me. The enemy will use all kinds of avenues to discredit a woman who practices this in faith. Your husband may have concerns on how this reflects on him. Talk to him about it, pray about it, and let the Lord do the work.

  • Teresa Rincon

    I understand your argument. I would still pose the challenge to complementarians as to how your philosophy plays out in public life beyond the home and church. I’m not talking about head coverings, but the broader view of male headship in general.

  • Ally

    I believe this article says it all. Here’s just a piece of it,
    “The Apostle Paul is addressing something in the Corinthian culture that was being allowed to disrupt the church. Women in service in the pagan temples had their heads shaved. It marked them as pagan temple prostitutes. Paul says in this passage that a woman who is shorn or shaved should be covered (1 Corinthians 11:6), for a woman shorn or shaved of her hair had lost her “glory,” and she was not under the protection of a husband. A shorn head without a covering was equivalent to saying, “I refuse to submit to God’s order.” Therefore, the Apostle Paul is teaching the Corinthians that hair length or the wearing of a “covering” by the woman was an outward indication of a heart attitude of submission to God and to His established authority. This was important because the Corinthian church was to be separate from the corrupt pagan culture of Corinth (2 Corinthians 6:17).”

    Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html#ixzz2n0WPTaC1

  • Colin

    Let’s start at the very beginning. When do you think head coverings as an ordinance first came into being? It seems to me that you only have two real viable options. Either 1. At the time of the creation. Or 2, in the New Testament under the Apostles. We’ll deal with the latter first.

    If head coverings only came into being in the time of the New Testament, then it poses a quandary. Does head covering have an Old Testament counterpart? If it does, what is this Old Testament counterpart, and what is its signification? If it doesn’t have an Old Testament counterpart, then does that make it the only aspect of required New Testament worship that does not have its basis in some aspect of Old Testament worship. All other aspects of New Testament worship are derived in some way from Old Testament worship, whether directly, or as a New Testament counterpart to Old Testament type and shadow. So which is head covering? This quandary is the least of your problems with this line of argumentation, however, for if the creation order necessitated the use of the head covering, then it has always necessitated the use of the head covering. If the creation order necessitated the use of the head covering, then it became necessary the second that Eve came into existence. If you are only willing to admit that head coverings came into existence in the era of the New Testament, then you have already conceded the necessity argument and can move on to the next point.

    It seems to me though, that in order for your argument to carry its own weight (that head coverings are supported by creation itself) you would have to argue that they are a sort of creation ordinance. This becomes incredibly difficult to do, however, given the Biblical data that we have. The one time in Biblical history that we can guarantee that a woman stood before God without any head covering was in the garden. After all in Genesis 2:25 we read, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” If head coverings are necessitated by the creation order, then they are a creation ordinance. If they were a creation ordinance, then Eve first sinned by not having a cap on her head. Your options on this are twofold. You can admit that the head covering is not a creation ordinance, and thus not necessitated by the creation order and concede the point. Option two is maintain that head coverings are necessitated by the creation order, confess them to be a creation ordinance, and come up with a really good explanation for Eve’s nakedness.

    But this is not where your difficulties in the Old Testament end. After all, what is the one group of people that we are told in the Old Testament engaged in the worship of God covered? The male high preists. The male preists were expected to perform their duties with the miter upon their heads per Leviticus 8:9, “9 And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the Lord commanded Moses.” If you wish to hold that the covered head of women and the uncovered head of men is in fact necessitated by the creation order, and thus universally binding in all cultures, countries, and ages, then why is the one group of people that we can guarantee worshiped with covered head in the Old Testament men.

    It seems to me that the only way in which this section can be properly interpreted is by arguing that the moral principle behind the head covering (submission) is consistent with the creation of God, in which the woman was created to be the help and companion of the man. This is the position of the cultural interpretation, that the head covering was consistent with, but not commanded by, the creation order. If as you say the reason for the practice is based in creation, then it would always be based in creation, from the very beginning (including men being uncovered). I just don’t think we see that in the Old Testament evidence.

    • Hi Colin, I argue that it’s a new practice, unique to the New Covenant. I reject the presupposition that all NT symbols and practices must have OT counterparts. I have no problem with discontinuity in the NT.

      • Colin

        It seems to me that the strength of the head covering position is derived from the “universal and perpetual” principles from which it is derived. If your argument is that Paul’s command pertains to every woman, regardless of what age, nation, or culture she lives in, because Paul bases his arguments on things inherent in the creation, then the laws are binding on women of all ages, nations and cultures from the creation onward. Using the example that you cited in the article, women are not to have an official teaching position in the church because of the implications of the creation order, which pertains to both testaments, as women were not allowed to be priests. I guess my point is this, you would seem to argue that the reason why women should cover is because of the way God made Adam and Eve, and then in the next breath argue that Eve herself was exempted from the commandment she is the supposed basis for. Christians argue for marriage as being a creation ordinance, which means it was created by God in the beginning, and has been binding from the first man and woman onward. The reason that marriage cannot be altered to fit modernistic definitions is because God defined it at the creation, and it has been in force ever since, with no redefinition or addition.

        If you line of argumentation is that head coverings are consistent with the created order, and not mandated by the created order, that’s fine. But the force of your article is then lost. After all, a wife taking her husbands last name is consistent with the creation order, but not mandated by it. The cultural interpretation would argue quite vehemently that head coverings are consistent with the creation order, we object that they are mandated by it. It just seems to me that this line of argumentation will bear the load of my position, but fail to actually provide support for yours.

        If I’m misunderstanding you or misrepresenting you, please let me know. I have no desire to do either, it’s just that I struggle to how the argument holds weight unless its mandated by the creation.

        • If a practice is delivered with apostolic authority, that is consistent with the creation order and that connection is made by the Apostle himself, I think that’s the type of argument that cannot be seen as cultural.

          Eve was never told that she could not teach in the assembly (there was no preaching and no assembly in the Garden). Paul’s appeal in 1 Tim 2 is not that the command came from Genesis, but it’s in line with how God made us. So if you see apostolic appeals to the creation order as holding little weight, I don’t see how your reasoning doesn’t lead to the embrace of women elders as those are parallel arguments.

          • Colin

            My point is not that the apostolic appeals in the text carry no weight, it’s that they don’t support the weight you are putting on them. I believe the principle that Paul is defending in both 1 Cor. and 1 Tim. is that women are to be in subjection not in positions of authority. In 1 Tim. he is arguing that they cannot take an office that God has given specifically to men, in 1 Cor. he is arguing they should not cast off clothing that their culture has given to women. Women are not allowed to dress like men in public worship. In both circumstances I see Paul defending the creation order and all it’s implications.

            In your response you note that the practice is delivered with Apostolic authority, that it is consistent with the creation order and that connection is made by the Apostle himself. I agree with everything you said. I agree that Paul issues the command with Apostolic authority, that it is consistent with the creation order, and that Paul makes this connection. In fact my whole position is that head coverings are consistent with the creation order, just not mandated by it. In order for your argument to prove the perpetual nature of head coverings, you need to prove that the creation order requires the use of head coverings. If you can’t prove that the creation order requires head coverings, then it seems that this line of argumentation looses it’s steam. I know that this is not the only line of argument that head coverings advocates use, so the position doesn’t stand or fall with this one argument, but it just seems to me that when this argument is pressed for consistency, it just doesn’t do what it claims to do.

            Anyways, I hope that in any of these back and forth’s you don’t think I’m being hostile at all. Like I said, I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to endure ridicule the way that you guys have (quite unjustly) but still decide to obey the voice of the Lord in whatever he commands. I actually came quite close to adopting the head covering position at one point, until I was challenged on it.

            Blessings in Christ,

          • Your tone is refreshing Colin. I appreciate the cordial debate. I understand that you think it loses steam, but to me it holds the same power. Whether something actually comes from Genesis, or we do something new because of Genesis, they’re one-and-the-same if delivered from the Apostles. For Paul to enforce a cultural custom, he’d need to say it’s cultural or due to a specific situation (as he does many times on various issues, including in 1 Corinthians). Otherwise, I don’t think there’s adequate justification in separating principle from symbol and determining one part cultural.

            As mentioned, this isn’t the sole argument and it doesn’t stand or fall on this one point. I think one of the most compelling reasons that goes in tandem with the creation argument is a study of culture itself. For me, the fact that his command is unique and was not culturally practiced is compelling as well. It’s hard to call something cultural, if his culture didn’t practice it. I’d love to interact with you on some of the primary source materials regarding Roman clothing if you’re interested. I listed some here: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/is-head-covering-cultural-what-about-the-corinthian-prostitutes
            and even more here: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/should-single-women-wear-head-coverings

            On another note, I can gather from your writings that you come from the Reformed Presbyterian tradition. I’m guessing you’re part of Greg Price’s church?

            Enjoyed our conversation.

          • Colin

            Hi Jeremy! Responding to Kay on one of the other threads took a lot longer than I thought it would, so I can’t respond in full today, but I just wanted to clarify something. I am in the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, but am in no way shape or form associated with Greg Price or any of the other “Steelite” groups. I have an affectionate love for brothers and sisters in Christ from all backgrounds, and try hard to have an irenical spirit in all my encounters with other believes. One of the few thing that will really get me worked up are groups like those who so define the bounds of the visible church, be it in esse or bene esse, to those people who agree with them on every single point of doctrine or exalt one particular teaching (such as adherence to the Solemn Leage and Covenant) as a term of communion. They have much more in common with the Brownists and Seperatists, than the Puritans or Covenanters they claim to be defending.

            Anyways, please don’t think I’m angry or offended, it was really a pretty safe assumption on your part, I just wanted to clarify that I do not have anything to do with them.

            Off to spend a day with the family! Hope you have a great day!

            Blessings in Christ,

      • Kay

        I believe the covered woman typifies the Church, covered by Christ, in the same analogy of marriage; Christ and His Bride, the Church.

        However, I see nothing in Scripture to make this a mandate, or require it as a test of belief. Most men would not have to be told that It’s improper to wear a hat to worship (there are exceptions) and 50 years ago, a woman would have most likely felt out of place without a hat or covering of some kind.

        What’s missing today, is the teaching as a whole, or the inclination to just explain it away without thorough consideration *because of cultural or even political attitudes regarding it.

  • Pingback: Accepting the Head Covering as a Creation Order Biblical Mandate | The Creation Order Mandate()

  • I’m curious about something: how do you know that Paul is referring to the order of authority in pre-fall creation – are you certain he’s just not making a point of it to say something like: “Man was created first, as a beautiful shining reflection of God—that is true. But the head on a woman’s body clearly outshines in beauty the head of her “head,” her husband. The first woman came from man, true—but ever since then, every man comes from a woman! And since virtually everything comes from God anyway, let’s quit going through these “who’s first” routines.” If he is just making a point about not doing “who’s first” routines, then the whole argument about it being rooted in creation and transcending culture doesn’t hold water … in which case it would be cultural. How can you be certain that you’re not reading 1 Corinthians into the book of Genesis?

  • WoundedEgo

    It is curious that men are quick to make their wives wear doilies but they consider Paul’s rejection of denominations to be something to completely ignore.

Send this to a friend