Head Covering

"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. 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." 1 Corinthians 11:5, 6

The question I would like to address here is not so much whether or not Christian women today should cover their heads in public worship. I would like to look at the hermeneutical question. If we decide that this practice is or is not obligatory today, the question is, Why or why not? What is the basis for that decision?

This question is important because it impacts how we understand the rest of Scripture. The fundamental question is, Do the instructions given to Christians in the first century apply to us? Or is there some basis for an exemption, such as the fact that we live in a different culture today? Upon what basis could we conclude that Christian women may worship God uncovered? Let's try a few suggested approaches.

1. A common explanation is that a woman's hair fulfills the requirement. "For her hair is given her for a covering." Verse 15. Is this explanation sound?

In verse 5 Paul says that for a woman to pray or prophesy without the required covering "is even all one as if she were shaven." The problem in Corinth was not that women were going around bald. The problem was that they were not wearing anything on their heads, which was as bad "as if" they were shaven. In verse 6 Paul says that "if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn." So it is clear that the hair is not the required covering.

It has always been the practice among the Christians with whom I have associated, that gentlemen take off their hats when they pray. The best explanation for this practice is 1 Corinthians 11:4. If hair is the covering Paul is talking about, then verse 4 would require a man to take off his hair when he prays. Nobody interprets the verse that way. The word "covered" is not in the Greek here. It could be translated, "Every man praying or prophesying, having anything on his head, puts to shame his head." If hair is even included in the definition of covering, then a man would have to be totally bald. So it is clear that the covering Paul is talking about does not include the hair.

The misunderstanding on this point is only a problem in the English language, which uses the same word in verses 5 and 6 as it does in verse 15. Hence some have concluded that a woman's hair fulfills the requirement of verses 5 and 6. The matter is immediately solved when one realizes that they are not the same original words. The word used in verses 5 and 6 is katakalupto, which means "to cover wholly, to veil, to hide." The word Paul used for covering in verse 15 is peribolaion, which is simply "something thrown around." Whereas katakalupto denotes a full covering with the intent of hiding that which is being covered, the emphasis of peribolaion is not so much on how much it covers, but on the fact that it is being worn. The requirement as stated in verses 5 and 6 is for a veil that adequately covers the head. The word used in verse 15 does not meet that requirement.

In verses 13-15 Paul uses an illustration from nature itself (hair) to make his point that we ought to know by nature that it is not proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered.

Certainly the Corinthian women did not believe that Paul wrote fifteen verses to them in such detail, using so many lines of argument, only to tell them that they ought to have hair on their heads when they pray. Neither have women around the world ever since then interpreted Paul's words in that way. It has been mostly in Western cultures and primarily during the last century or so that women have so commonly gone around with their heads uncovered. A direct correlation can be seen between the change of customs on this point and the general shift in people's views regarding the role of women.

I will close this point by quoting from the SDA Bible Commentary. "Paul does not mean that the women with long hair may dispense with the veil. Verse 6 shows clearly that the uncovered woman still has long hair, which Paul declares may as well be cut if she desires to dispense with the veil. He seems to contend that the long hair itself argues for the propriety of the veil."

2. A more common approach to this passage is to look for a principle that may be applied today in such a way as to free us from following the original instruction. Thus, the specific manner in which the principle was to be practiced in Paul's day does not necessarily carry over to Christians today. Let's think about this approach.

Are we sure we want to adopt this method of understanding of the Bible? If we do, what is to stop us from dismissing in this manner any instruction in the Bible?

When we examine the passage, we see that Paul gives several lines of supporting evidence for his instruction. Looking at the reasons he gives, we have to admit that not one of them is limited to the first century. He uses universal reasons, applicable to all humanity. If his arguments are still true today, would not his point continue to be valid?

A practice becoming prevalent is that of weighing the Word of God in the scales of popular social custom. The argument goes something like this: Paul told those women to cover their heads because it was the custom to do so back then. Customs are different today, so we can ignore this particular counsel. The hermeneutic here is: When God's Word says to do something, first find out if it is a currently popular thing to do, and if it is not, then you don't have to do it.

But nowhere does the Bible tell us to observe the customs and practices of the world. And certainly not when those customs go contrary to the teachings of the Bible. Obedience to God's Word is still necessary.

"Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen. . . . For the customs of the people are vain." Jeremiah 10:2, 3. In Leviticus 18:30 God calls the world's customs abominable. Jesus spoke out against "making the word of God of none effect through your tradition." Mark 7:13. The popular custom of the day has never been a rule for determining whether or not to obey God's Word.

Those who employ this method of interpreting our passage at hand do so under the assumption that it was a custom in Corinth for women to cover their heads. But we don't really have any evidence of that. The SDA Bible Commentary says, "Ancient sources fail to give us unequivocal testimony as to the custom in headdress in Corinth or elsewhere" (Vol. 6, p. 754). From the force of Paul's argument it seems evident that he was telling his readers to do something that was not the popular thing to do. That's why he needed to use so many lines of evidence to convince them.

Those who try to limit Paul's instructions to a geographical area have overlooked the fact that Paul addressed his epistle, not just to the Corinthians, but to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." 1 Corinthians 1:2.

3. So, let's see if we can approach this passage another way. We need to stay consistent with sound methods of Bible study while attempting to explain the apparent non-issue that this practice seems to be today.

I'd like to suggest that Paul's instruction for women to cover their heads was not limited to the culture to which he was writing at the time. Yet, considering the fact that sincere Christians are so at ease with our current practice, it seems that this is not an issue that the Holy Spirit has been urgently pressing upon the church at large. Most people don't appear to be struggling against conviction on this point. So, if our current practice is at all acceptable, it is probably best to understand it as a concession on God's part to us.

Why would God concede on this point?

a. Because there are weightier matters that first demand our attention. The more emphasis the Bible gives to something, the more important it is. This duty is found in only one place in the New Testament. It, along with the holy kiss, ranks low on the priority list. We have been counseled against letting the dress question fill the mind (3SM 254). We have a lot more important issues, primarily spiritual matters, to come to grips with before we can deal with this one. Rashly imposing a head covering on women could contradict the whole spiritual experience that the covering was intended to represent.

b. Perhaps for the same reason God conceded several points to ancient Israel. When they craved flesh food in the wilderness, "He gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul" (Psalm 106:15). Their desire for a king was not in their best interest, but God granted their wishes (1 Samuel 8:22). The provision for divorce for any reason was made because of the hardness of their hearts (Matthew 19:8). When God's people resent His protecting wall of wise statutes, He removes it (Isaiah 5:5). It was largely for this reason that, after some time of unsuccessful promotion of the "reform dress" to Adventist women, God finally withdrew that requirement (4T 636-640). "Because that which was given as a blessing was turned into a curse, the burden of advocating the reform dress was removed" (EGW MS 167, 1897).

c. Simple coverings began to morph into extravagant Victorian hats that ministered to pride and vanity, losing the whole biblical purpose of the covering. "Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and . . . the bonnets, and . . . the hoods, and the vails . . ." (Isaiah 3:16ff).

In summary, women's head covering does not appear to be a pressing issue today. Not because culture and custom have changed so as to allow a different application of the principle. Not because we are free to interpret New Testament instruction according to our own rules and assumptions. But most likely because of a concession on God's part to us. His truth never changes. Yet at times He winks (Acts 17:30) at some minor points because we "cannot bear them now" (John 16:12).

Countdown to the Cross

Events in the week leading up to the crucifixion.

Sabbath

• Simon's Feast (John 12:1-11)

Sunday

• Triumphal Entry (John 12:12-19)

Monday

• Fig Tree Cursed (Mark 11:12-14)
• Temple Cleansed (Mark 11:15-19)

Tuesday

• Withered Fig Tree Noticed (Mark 11:20-26)
• Confrontation in the Temple (Matthew 21:23–22:46)
• Woes on the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23)
• Widow's Mites (Mark 12:41-44)
• Visit of the Greeks (John 12:20-50)
• On the Mount of Olives (Matthew 24, 25)

Wednesday

• No Public Appearance

Thursday

• The Last Supper (Luke 22:7-38; John 13, 14)
• Instruction and Prayer for His Disciples (John 15–17)
• Gethsemane (Mark 14:26-42)
• Arrest (John 18:2-12)

Friday

• Trial (Matthew 26:57–27:31; Mark 14:53–15:20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:13–19:16)
• Crucifixion (Matthew 27:32-56; Mark 15:21-41; Luke 23:26-49; John 19:17-37)
• Burial (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42)

Sabbath

• Soldiers Stationed at the Tomb (Matthew 27:62-66)

Sunday

• Resurrection (Matthew 28:1-15; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18)
• Walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32)
• Appearance in the Upper Room (Luke 24:33-49)

The West in Daniel 11

Note:
Since writing this post, I have been able to learn more about the transition to Rome in Daniel 11. The relevant impact of that information shows up in two of my more recent posts:
Daniel 11:16 (September 17, 2018)
Testing Daniel 11:16-22 (August 30, 2018).
For the entire chapter laid out with the pronouns identified, you may be interested in the book, Daniel and Revelation Bound Together, available at BibleProphecyCentral.com.

---

Bible prophecy is history foretold. In no chapter of the Bible is more history detailed than in Daniel 11, written around 535 B.C.

There has been over the years a lot of interest in identifying the kings of the north and south in Daniel 11. But much of the chapter, though not explicitly labeled as such, actually focuses on a third compass point: the West. The spotlight of prophecy moves to the west in 64 B.C. when Syria becomes a province of Rome. And not until the time of the end does the chapter shift its attention back to the kings of the north and south.

The section on the West is reproduced below with my attempt at identifying the players. I've replaced pronouns with the names (in bold) of those most likely referenced, and I've added a few bracketed comments.

16   But Pompey, that cometh against Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.

17   Julius Caesar shall also set his face to enter with the strength of Alexander’s whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall Caesar do: and he shall give him the daughter of women [Cleopatra], corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

18   After this shall Caesar turn his face unto the isles [Pontus, North Africa, and Hispania], and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.

19   Then Caesar shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

20   Then shall stand up in Caesar’s estate a raiser of taxes [Augustus] in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

21   And in Augustus’ estate shall stand up a vile person [Tiberius], to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

22   And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant [Jesus].

[This literary climax mirrors Gabriel’s earlier commentaries that culminated with “the Prince of princes” in Chapter 8 and “the Messiah the Prince” in Chapter 9. At this juncture, before continuing with the narrative, the angel backs up to give us a little more background.]

23   And after the [161 B.C. Jewish] league made with the Roman Senate, the Republic shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

24   He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and the emperor shall forecast his devices against [or from] the strong holds [Rome], even for a time [that is, one prophetic "year" of 360 prophetic "days" (literal years) extending from the decisive battle of Actium in 31 B.C. (verse 25) to the founding of Constantinople in A.D. 330 (verse 29)].

25   And Octavian shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south [Mark Antony] with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.

26   Yea, they that feed of the portion of Mark Antony’s meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.

27   And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

28   Then shall Octavian return into his land with great riches; and Nero’s heart shall be against the holy covenant; and Vespasian, and his son Titus, shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

29   At the time appointed Constantine shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

30   For the ships of Chittim [suggestive of the Vandal naval attacks, a reference to the barbarian invasions as a whole, the first major blow being the Gothic victory over the Romans at Adrianople] shall come against Valens: therefore Theodosius shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant [the pure gospel]: so shall Theodosius do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with the bishops that forsake the holy covenant.

[After the fall of the Roman Empire in the west, the prophetic narrative continues with the leading western rulers.]

31   And arms shall stand on Clovis’ part, and his army shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

32   And such [the pontiffs] as do wickedly against the covenant shall Pepin, Charlemagne, and their successors corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

33   And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

34   Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

35   And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

36   And the king [Louis XIV] shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

37   Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

38   But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

39   Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

Venturing Beyond Scripture

Sometimes I come across a document that expresses what I want to say better than I myself can say it. Such is the case with the article excerpt linked below in regard to the subject of hermeneutics. Written by Edwin E. Reynolds and Clinton Wahlen in the "Minority Report" of the NAD Theology of Ordination Study Committee Report, November 2013, this section addresses an underlying reason for conflicting opinions in the church in regard to belief and practice. The implications of this fundamental difference in approaching Scripture extend beyond the limited context of ordination addressed in the larger document. I've taken the liberty to highlight portions of the text for emphasis. I cannot express how important this matter is, and how a failure to understand it leaves us susceptible to many a deceptive error.

Differing Approaches to Biblical Interpretation

Date of the Crucifixion

To determine the date of Christ's crucifixion, we need to find a Passover Day that fell on a Friday, and we'd like it to be in the year AD 31 because that is the year indicated by the seventy-week prophecy of Daniel 9. (For information on the seventy-week prophecy, see on the 2300 days.)

Passover was always on the 14th day of Nisan, also known as Abib, the first month of the Jewish religious calendar. The months always began with the first sighting of a crescent moon following the new moon. (I'm using the term "new moon" to refer to when the moon was first unable to be seen.) According to astronomical records, there was a new moon on March 12 (our calendar) in the year AD 31, and the full moon came on March 27. Depending on when the crescent was first observed, the 14th day of the Jewish month would have landed sometime around March 28. I don't think we could stretch it to Friday the 30th. So this month doesn't seem to fit what we're looking for. Furthermore, it is doubtful that Passover in those days was ever observed that early in the year. They needed ripe barley for the wave sheaf offering, and according to the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture, barley is not usually ripe in Israel until later in April. So it looks like this month wouldn't qualify as the first month of the year anyway. They often had to add a thirteenth month to keep the calendar lined up correctly with the seasons.

The next new moon fell on April 10 of that year. If the new crescent was first observed in the evening of what we call April 13, the first day of Nisan would have been counted from sunset on April 13 until sunset on April 14 of our Gregorian calendar. The fourteenth day of that first month, Passover Day, would have been celebrated from sundown on Thursday, April 26, until sundown on Friday, April 27. That makes Friday, April 27, AD 31, the most likely date for Jesus' crucifixion. And Sunday, April 29, would have been the day of His resurrection.

Tests of Fellowship

"The Lord does not require that any tests of human inventions shall be brought in to divert the minds of the people or create controversy in any line." GCB January 1, 1900 par. 11

"Very many will get up some test that is not given in the word of God. We have our test in the Bible, – the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 'Here are they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.' This is the true test." GCB April 16, 1901 par. 8

"Do not present theories or tests that Christ has never mentioned and that have no foundation in the Bible. We have grand, solemn truths to present. 'It is written' is the test that must be brought home to every soul." CCh 327

"Satan will lead men to manufacture false tests, and thus seek to obscure the value of, and make of none effect, the message of truth. The commandment of God that has been almost universally made void, is the testing truth for this time.... But all man-made tests will divert the mind from the great and important doctrines that constitute present truth." Ev 212

"Some had been bringing in false tests, and had made their own ideas and notions a criterion, magnifying matters of little importance into tests of Christian fellowship, and binding heavy burdens upon others." Ev 215

"They quibbled about matters of no special importance, not given by the Lord as tests, till these matters became as mountains, separating them from Christ and from one another." 7BC 958

"In the commission to His disciples, Christ not only outlined their work, but gave them their message. Teach the people, He said, ‘to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’ The disciples were to teach what Christ had taught. That which He had spoken, not only in person, but through all the prophets and teachers of the Old Testament, is here included. Human teaching is shut out. There is no place for tradition, for man’s theories and conclusions, or for church legislation. No laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority are included in the commission. None of these are Christ’s servants to teach.” DA 826

Jesus Knows

"Jesus knows the circumstances of every soul. You may say, I am sinful, very sinful. You may be; but the worse you are, the more you need Jesus. He turns no weeping, contrite one away. He does not tell to any all that He might reveal, but He bids every trembling soul take courage. Freely will He pardon all who come to Him for forgiveness and restoration.

"Christ might commission the angels of heaven to pour out the vials of His wrath on our world, to destroy those who are filled with hatred of God. He might wipe this dark spot from His universe. But He does not do this. He is today standing at the altar of incense, presenting before God the prayers of those who desire His help."

–The Desire of Ages, p. 568