What Biblical Modesty Is—and Is Not

 

These questions will show up again at the bottom of the post:

 Before asking, Is this outfit allowed? perhaps we should first ask:

What am I hoping my appearance will communicate?

Do my choices reflect humility, self-control, and consideration for others?

Am I using modesty to honor God—or to measure myself against other women?

When Christians discuss modesty, the conversation often begins—and ends—with clothing. How short is too short? How low is too low? Are pants acceptable? Must shoulders, knees, or collarbones be covered?

Those questions may have a place, but the Bible approaches modesty more broadly.

Paul writes:

“Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.”
—1 Timothy 2:9–10

The contrast is not simply between revealing and non-revealing clothing. Paul contrasts conspicuous outward display with the good works appropriate to a woman who professes faith in God. In that setting, elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, and expensive clothing could advertise wealth and social position.

Peter makes a similar point:

“Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart.”
—1 Peter 3:3–4

Neither passage means that women may never braid their hair, wear jewelry, or own attractive clothing. If Peter were issuing an absolute prohibition, “the clothing you wear” would prohibit clothing itself. The point is one of emphasis: outward appearance must not become the source of our identity, value, or glory.

Biblical modesty begins with the heart.

It includes humility rather than self-display, self-control rather than excess, and concern for others rather than a constant desire to be noticed. It asks not only, How much of my body is showing? but also:

• Am I dressing to advertise wealth or status?
• Am I trying to provoke envy or sexual attention?
• Am I consumed with being admired?
• Does my appearance fit my profession of godliness?
• Am I exercising wisdom and self-control?

Modesty certainly has implications for how much of the body we reveal. Scripture treats nakedness and sexual exposure seriously. But biblical modesty cannot be reduced to measuring hemlines with a ruler. A woman can be completely covered and still dress for pride, status, or attention. She can also wear something attractive, feminine, and flattering without being immodest.

What Modesty Is Not

Modesty is not a command to make ourselves unattractive. God created beauty, color, craftsmanship, and variety. The Proverbs 31 woman dresses in “fine linen and purple,” and the bride in the Song of Solomon is described as beautiful.

Modesty is not a requirement that every Christian woman dress alike. Scripture does not prescribe one fabric, skirt length, sleeve length, or approved style for every woman in every culture and circumstance.

Modesty is not a system by which we prove that we are more spiritual than other women. Rules can help us apply a principle wisely, but our personal rules must not quietly become additions to Scripture.

Modesty also does not make women responsible for every thought a man may have. Men are responsible before God for their own eyes, thoughts, and conduct. At the same time, Christian love means that neither men nor women should deliberately use their bodies to invite sexual attention outside its proper place.

Finally, modesty is not merely a women’s issue. Men, too, can dress to display wealth, sexuality, power, or physical superiority. The biblical call to humility and self-control belongs to every believer.

The modest woman is not necessarily the woman wearing the longest skirt or the plainest clothing. She is the woman whose outward choices are governed by an inward desire to honor God. Her clothing does not need to erase her personality or hide every trace of beauty. It should simply agree with what she professes: that Christ, rather than her body, wealth, or social standing, is her greatest treasure.

Before asking, Is this outfit allowed? perhaps we should first ask:

What am I hoping my appearance will communicate?

Do my choices reflect humility, self-control, and consideration for others?

Am I using modesty to honor God—or to measure myself against other women?

What if My Husband Doesn't Agree?

 

 

What If My Husband Doesn’t Agree With Head Covering?

What if you become convinced that you should cover, but your husband disagrees?

This involves more than interpreting 1 Corinthians 11. It touches marriage, conscience, submission, and obedience to God. It deserves more than a quick “Obey your husband” or “Obey God rather than man.”

First, disagreement is not the same as conflict.

Your husband may believe head covering was cultural, that a woman’s hair is her covering, or that the passage does not apply today. He may worry about legalism or simply think a covering will look strange. That does not necessarily mean he will forbid you to wear one.

If Your Husband Is Not a Believer

Scripture recognizes the difficulty of this situation:

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.
—1 Peter 3:1

Your conduct—more than your arguments—may be what God uses to bring your husband to Himself. If your husband does not attend church, putting on your covering after you arrive may allow you to honor your conviction without creating unnecessary friction at home.

If Your Husband Is a Believer

Begin with prayer. Ask what he believes, explain how you reached your conclusion, and invite him to study the passage with you.

Remember that you may have spent months considering this question. He may have had only a few minutes. Give him room to catch up.

Ask whether he can support your decision as a matter of conscience even if he remains unconvinced. A husband can disagree and still protect and support his wife.

If He Actively Opposes Covering

Explain calmly that ignoring the instruction would violate your conscience—if that is truly your conviction. Then look for a peaceful way forward. Would he accept a modest hat or another less conspicuous covering?

If he will not accept even that, I am not going to counsel you to defy your husband. Continue praying for understanding without turning prayer into nagging.

Let him see that your study has produced greater humility, patience, and love—not contention or self-righteousness. You may be right about the covering and wrong in how you treat your husband over it.

Both matter.

You do not have to resolve everything immediately. Pursue obedience to God and peace in your marriage, trusting the Lord to work in both your conscience and your relationship.

A question for reflection:
Am I pursuing both obedience to God and a posture of humility, respect, and peace within my marriage?

 

 

Is a Woman's Hair Her Cover?

 

This post is adapted from Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering.

One common interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 is that a woman’s long hair is the only covering Paul requires. Verse 15 says that her hair is “given to her for a covering,” so the argument seems simple: if God has given a woman long hair, nothing more is necessary.

Until I studied the passage more carefully, this was the view I held.

Long hair certainly matters in Paul’s argument. It reflects the good distinctions God created between men and women, and Scripture calls a woman’s long hair her glory.

But that raises an important question: If her hair is her glory, can it also be the thing that covers her glory?

Hair does not conceal her glory—it displays it. In gathered worship, our purpose is not to display personal glory, however lovely or God-given it may be, but to direct attention toward God.

The wording of the passage also distinguishes hair from the covering. Paul writes:

“For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short.”
—1 Corinthians 11:6

Paul treats refusing to cover and cutting off the hair as two separate actions. If the hair were the only covering in view, his reasoning would become redundant: if she will not have hair, she should cut off her hair.

Paul also uses different Greek words. In verses 5–6, he uses forms of katakalyptō, meaning to cover or veil. In verse 15, he calls the hair a peribolaion—a wrap or mantle. This suggests analogy rather than equivalence.

The most natural reading is that long hair illustrates the principle of covering; it does not replace the covering. God has woven visible distinctions between men and women into creation. In worship, the removable covering honors those distinctions and responds deliberately to the order God established.

If Paul calls a woman’s long hair her glory, how does that shape your understanding of whether hair itself can fulfill the instruction to cover?

For a fuller examination of this passage and other common interpretations, see Recovering Covering on Amazon.

 

Product Review: Scarf Bar

 

This bandana is from Scarf Bar.

I wear more formal covers to Lord's Day Service and other more...well...formal events.

 I attend a women's Bible study that is very informal and I wore this bandana yesterday. 

I like everything about it!

• sustainable cotton/viscose fabric
• perfect size for a bandana
• very lightweight - great for high desert summers.
• the fabric is loosely woven 
• ...and the fabric is very soft and drapes really well
• Because the fabric is so loosely woven, I had no problem with it sliding off my head.
• price point is very doable.

(and I'm off to buy a couple more from this company) 

What If the Topic Comes Up At Church?

 

Our church has a women's Bible study that I've attended (I took some time off to care for my mother-in-law with dementia, who recently passed, so I'm able to attend,)

 Since I've attended in the past, it's not like "oh, they're going to 1 Corinthians, I should go!"

 And they are going through 1 Corinthians.

We had made a commitment to our pastors that we would not "proselytize" but if it comes up organically I can openly make my position known and I can defend it.

Interestingly, the group leaders have side-stepped a bit and gave out an outline with chapter 11 titled "headship."  Yes, headship is there, but so is the application.

My book will be out in all three formats before then, I won't advertise in the group and I won't give out the books, but I'm sure Phil will put it out of Facebook so folks at church will know it's there.

 It will be interesting 

 For the record, I've had only positive comments (except for one) in conversations at church. The men my husband rubs shoulders with...seem to agree with us. One friend told me that she really liked the way I am intentional about what I wear. 

 

 

 

What Does “Women Should Keep Silent” Mean?

 

At first glance, Paul’s command that women “keep silent in the churches” can sound like an all-inclusive prohibition against speaking. But is that what silent means in the immediate context?

Paul uses the same Greek verb three times in 1 Corinthians 14.

A person speaking in tongues must be silent when there is no interpreter:

But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church.
—1 Corinthians 14:28

A prophet must become silent when another receives a revelation:

If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.
—1 Corinthians 14:30

Then women are told to be silent:

The women should keep silent in the churches.
—1 Corinthians 14:34

The Greek verb in all three places is σιγάω (sigaō): to be silent, stop speaking, or refrain from speaking. In verses 28 and 30, Paul uses σιγάτω—“let him be silent.” In verse 34, he uses the plural form, σιγάτωσαν—“let them be silent.”

That is the only difference. Paul changes the number because he moves from one person to multiple women. He does not change the meaning of the verb.

“Be silent,” “keep silent,” and “remain silent” are English translation choices. There is no separate Greek word for keep or remain in verse 34.

This matters.

We know that sigaō cannot mean “never speak in church” because the tongue-speaker and the prophet are not permanently prohibited from speaking. They must be silent under particular circumstances so that the gathering remains orderly.

The immediate context helps us understand the restriction placed on women. Prophets speak while others weigh—or judge—what has been said (verse 29). Women must not assume authority over men by publicly judging the prophecies of male speakers.

They must also remain silent while someone else is speaking rather than interrupting with questions directed to their husbands. If they desire to learn something, Paul tells them to “ask their husbands at home” (verse 35).

The foundation is creation order and headship. What does that foundation look like when it is applied? Women must not teach or exercise authority over men.

Yet Paul also gives instructions for women who pray or prophesy:

Every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.
—1 Corinthians 11:5

How can women be told to pray or prophesy with covered heads in chapter 11 and then be told to remain silent in chapter 14?

The two chapters do not contradict each other; they explain each other.

Chapter 11 tells us how women may pray and prophesy while visibly honoring headship: they must do so with covered heads. Chapter 14 tells us when they must remain silent: when speaking would interrupt worship or exercise authority over men.

The tongue-speaker, the prophet, and the women are all told to sigaō—to refrain from speaking under the circumstances Paul describes. The difference is not in the meaning of silent, but in who must be silent and when.

To be clear, in the church where we are members, women do not lead prayer or proclaim the Word during Lord’s Day services. Women do pray aloud during our Wednesday evening prayer gathering, and I am happy with the way our church orders these gatherings.

Recognizing that Paul’s command is not an absolute ban on every word spoken by a woman does not mean that every church must include every biblically permissible form of participation in its Lord’s Day worship. It means that we should allow chapters 11 and 14 to stand together—each helping us understand the other.

Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering

 Why This And Why Me.

On Amazon  

 

 

 

What if a passage of Scripture you had always dismissed as cultural turned out to be more enduring than you expected?

Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering invites Christian women to take a fresh and careful look at 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Written from the perspective of a woman who never expected to embrace head covering herself, this book combines biblical study, Christian history, personal reflection, and practical guidance in a thoughtful, conversational format.

Ellen Nicholas began studying the passage while preparing with her husband for a small-group discussion of 1 Corinthians. She expected to confirm what she had always heard: that head covering belonged to ancient Corinth and had no continuing relevance for Christians today. Instead, the more she studied, the more questions she encountered.

Why does Paul call the practice an apostolic tradition?
What does headship have to do with worship?
Why does he appeal to creation order, the glory of God, nature, the angels, and the practice of the churches?
And why did Christian women cover their heads in worship for most of church history?

Rather than treating head covering as an isolated rule, Recovering Covering places it within the larger biblical themes of authority, worship, conscience, obedience, and the glory of God.

Inside, readers will explore:

• the historical practice of head covering in the Christian church
• the cultural changes that contributed to its disappearance
• Paul’s teaching on headship and apostolic tradition
• the significance of creation order
• the meaning of “because of the angels”
• the relationship between a woman’s hair, her glory, and a physical covering
• common objections and alternative interpretations
• the difference between biblical command and Christian liberty
• practical questions about when, where, and how to cover
• how to respond graciously when other Christians disagree

Nicholas also writes candidly about the personal side of conviction: the discomfort of standing out, the fear of being misunderstood, conversations within marriage and church, and the challenge of obeying Scripture when a practice feels unfamiliar.

This is not a book written from a place of certainty untouched by questions. It is written from the middle of the struggle—by one woman speaking to another.

Readers are not asked to follow tradition blindly or adopt a practice merely because someone else has. Instead, they are encouraged to examine Scripture, consider the witness of Christian history, pray for wisdom, and act with a clear conscience before God.

A complete study guide is included for individual reflection, women’s groups, or small-group discussion. The questions are designed to help readers examine their assumptions, test interpretations, consider cultural influences, and think carefully about what faithful obedience may require.

Whether you are curious, skeptical, newly convinced, or simply trying to understand why some Christian women still cover their heads in worship, Recovering Covering offers a gracious and substantial place to begin.

Come with an open Bible, an honest conscience, and a willingness to follow Scripture wherever it leads.

 

Does it Have to LOOK Religious (is it a Head Covering?)

When modern Christians discuss head covering, one question often follows:

Must a woman cover every strand of her hair?

First Corinthians 11 repeatedly speaks about a woman having her head covered. It does not provide dimensions for the covering, describe a required style, or say how much hair may remain visible.

Ancient artwork offers a helpful—not conclusive—illustration.

Consider two images of veiled women from the Roman world. One is the Donna Velata, a veiled woman depicted in early Christian funerary art. The other is a non-Christian Roman marble portrait. Their settings and meanings differ, but their coverings look remarkably similar.

In both images, fabric is clearly draped over the head. Yet in both, the woman’s hair remains visible around the forehead and sides of the face.

No ancient viewer would likely have looked at either woman and concluded that her head was uncovered merely because some hair could still be seen. The veil rested visibly upon her head, even though it did not conceal every strand.

This does not prove that the Donna Velata depicts a woman applying 1 Corinthians 11 during an ordinary church service. Artwork cannot tell us precisely why she covered or what the artist intended. Nor can these two images establish the only permissible covering style.

They do, however, help us distinguish between two ideas that are often treated as identical:

• covering the head
• concealing all the hair

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Paul says that a woman’s long hair is her glory, and he instructs her to worship with her head covered. But he never gives us a percentage of hair that must disappear. He does not tell us to inspect hairlines, count exposed strands, or decide whether another woman’s covering reaches far enough down her back.

A woman may choose to cover all her hair. That can be a sincere and beautiful application of the passage. Another woman may wear a veil, scarf, bandana, or hat that unmistakably covers her head while leaving some hair visible. Scripture does not give us sufficient grounds to declare the second woman uncovered.

The covering should be substantial enough to function as a recognizable covering—not merely an invisible technicality. But once we insist that every strand must be hidden, we have moved beyond Paul’s wording and created an additional rule.

These ancient images remind us that, in the world surrounding the early church, a woman could be plainly and recognizably covered without being completely concealed.

The question, then, is not, “Can any of her hair be seen?”

The better question is:

Is her head meaningfully covered in a way that honors the instruction Paul gave?

What Happened?

 

What Happened to Head Covering?

Most Christian women today have never seriously considered wearing a head covering in worship. I certainly hadn’t. If the subject arose at all, it was usually dismissed as a cultural custom from ancient Corinth.

Sometimes the covering was treated as the temporary expression of a timeless principle: headship remains, but the symbol may change. Yet few people could explain what replaced the covering—or why Christians stopped using the symbol Paul actually described.

The Erosion of a Symbol

The practice did not disappear overnight. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Western expectations surrounding clothing, hairstyles, modesty, and distinctions between the sexes gradually changed. Hats became less common in everyday life, and women’s uncovered heads became culturally unremarkable.

By the late 1960s, however, the change was no longer merely about fashion. Some feminist organizations explicitly opposed head coverings because they understood them as symbols of women’s subjection.

In 1968, the National Organization for Women adopted the following resolution:

RESOLUTION ON HEAD COVERINGS

1968

“WHEREAS, the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a custom in many churches and whereas it is a symbol of subjection within these churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a ‘national unveiling’ by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman immediately. At the Spring meeting of the Task force on Women in Religion, these veils will then publicly be burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches.”

—NOW Issues Policy Manual, “Resolution on Head Coverings,” PDF p. 86

The resolution is historically significant because NOW did not describe the covering as a meaningless fashion accessory. It identified it as “a symbol of subjection” and called for its public rejection.

The following Easter, fifteen women participated in what became known as the “Easter Bonnet Rebellion” at a Milwaukee Catholic church. Wearing deliberately oversized hats, they approached the communion rail, removed their hats, and received communion bareheaded as a demonstration for women’s rights. Contemporary reporting described the protest as part of a broader challenge to the Church’s treatment of women. (Catholic Advocate, April 17, 1969)

A Change Recorded in Catholic Sources

Roman Catholic documents provide a particularly clear record of this transition. The 1917 Code of Canon Law required women to cover during worship:

“Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed … women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”

—1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1262 §2, English translation, p. 380

By 1976, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith described that requirement very differently:

“But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2–16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”

—Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter Insigniores (1976)

The 1983 Code did not include the former head-covering requirement. Instead, canon 6 stated:

“When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.”

—1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 6 §1

These Catholic documents do not settle how Protestants should interpret 1 Corinthians 11. They do, however, provide a dated record of how a longstanding Christian practice went from being formally required to being described as nonnormative and then omitted from canon law.

It would be too simple to say that feminism alone caused Christian women to abandon head coverings. Changes in fashion, church culture, biblical interpretation, and attitudes toward authority all played a part. Nevertheless, feminist opposition was one identifiable influence—and one that explicitly recognized and rejected the symbolism of the covering.

Within a remarkably short period, a practice familiar to generations of Christian women became strange. Eventually, what felt unfamiliar began to feel unbiblical, even though the words of 1 Corinthians 11 had not changed.

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” —Romans 12:2

In what ways have cultural movements shaped what feels normal—or abnormal—to you in worship?

When evaluating a Christian practice, are you beginning with Scripture or with the customs you inherited?

 

This post is an excerpt from 

Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering

On Jewelry

What About Jewelry?

Most people who tell you to take off the jewelry will fall back on 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3. More on those in a minute.

The first question to ask (remember, the Bible is about God)—would God portray Himself as tempting His bride to sin?

Obviously not.

Read this passage about God making Israel His bride:

    I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. (Ezekiel 16:8b-13a)

Not only did God’s bride have bracelets, necklaces, earrings, a nose ring, and a crown, adorned with gold and silver … she was also adorned in fine linen, silk, and embroidered cloth.

How does that square up with 1 Timothy 2:9?

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire. (ESV)

The Lord God put a crown on her head, but we can’t wear braids? The Lord God adorned His bride with gold and silver, but jewelry is a sin? The Lord God provided Israel with fine linen, silk, and embroidered cloth, but we may not have “costly attire” (whatever that means)?

How do we justify God providing what some would call “sin”?

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church puts it this way:

    Paul and Peter are both saying that women are to be marked, first and foremost, by their good works, not their good shoes, or their good looks; by their godliness and not their gaudiness. To this end, John Stott said, "The church is to be a veritable beauty parlor because it encourages women members to adorn themselves with good deeds. Women need to remember that if nature made them plain, grace can make them beautiful, and if nature has made them beautiful, good deeds can add to their beauty."

As you can see, the Bible warns us against an idolatrous view of outward beauty and adornment, while approving of the right use of both.[1]

The “prohibitions” are contrasts, not prohibitions. Don’t find your worth in the things you put on; your value is in Christ, and your inner beauty is what will last.

[1] https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=469

Praying or Prophesying: When Scripture Says More Than It Names

 Metonymy and Synecdoche — When Scripture Says More Than It Names

After this book came back from the second editor, I listened to a podcast about head coverings and learned two new words: metonymy and synecdoche. I had already come to an understanding early on in my study that “prayer or prophesy” referred to a larger reality of the gathering of the saints – a view held by many of the men I listened to and read on this topic, and the one that made the most sense to me.

I was not convicted that “pray without ceasing” literally means “cover without ceasing.”

The pairing of “praying or prophesying” to mean worshiping together made sense to me, even without having a clear grammatical reason.

We know that Scripture is God-breathed and does not waste words. God speaks in poetry, parables, and songs. He uses metaphors and similes, symbolism and allegory.

And God uses metonymy and synecdoche.

Metonymy names one thing that represents a larger reality.  We recognize that “Moses” means the Law. “The altar” stands in for the larger sacrificial system. When Jesus prays, “Let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39), He wasn’t talking about the object in His hand; He was speaking of the suffering and humiliation that awaited Him.

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul wrote, “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” The word “table” doesn’t mean furniture – it signifies participation, alignment, a sharing of what that table represents.

Synecdoche names a part to represent the whole. When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, “bread” didn’t only refer to a loaf, it pointed to the whole of daily sustenance. 

Faith and love are not a checklist – they are named parts of the whole of Christ-like living. Life and death are not two moments in time; they speak of the entirety of a life lived.

The visible act (eating the bread) reflects a deeper reality of participation. The specific example of meat sacrificed to idols expands into a call to care for the conscience of others. The warning of idolatry is a named part of the larger whole of misplaced worship.

This matters when we come to 1 Corinthians 11.

When Paul writes, “every man who prays or prophesies… every woman who prays or prophesies…,” we need to look back to earlier in the letter (chapter 10.)

We need to ask if Paul is really writing about two specific and isolated practices, or if he is naming two parts of a larger, weightier whole.

Prayer is our speech directed to God. Prophesying is God’s Word directed toward us.

Together, these two named, visible acts reflect a larger reality of participation, forming a fullness – a way of speaking about the whole range of worship, without naming each act.

If we read 1 Corinthians 11 as speaking of two isolated activities, we risk missing the larger reality.

If we read “praying or prophesying” as a synecdoche, we listen for the larger reality behind the words, not just the words themselves. We look at not merely what is happening in those moments, but what they represent; lives visibly oriented toward God; His people engaging with Him in ways that reflect His honor and glory.

A woman worshipping with a covered head is not tied to a checklist of two acts as if the passage depends on what she is doing at any given moment. She is situated within the larger reality of something profound – the honoring of God’s created order in the presence of angels, the perfected saints and Christ Himself.

What is named is not all that is meant. And what is meant is not less, but more.

 

 

Words of the Day: Metonymy and Synecdoche

 

Appendix: Metonymy and Synecdoche — When Scripture Says More Than It Names

After this book came back from the second editor, I listened to a podcast about head coverings and learned two new words: metonymy and synecdoche. I had already come to an understanding early on in my study that “prayer or prophesy” referred to a larger reality of the gathering of the saints – a view held by many of the men I listened to and read on this topic, and the one that made the most sense to me.

I was not convicted that “pray without ceasing” literally means “cover without ceasing.”

The pairing of “praying or prophesying” to mean worshiping together made sense to me, even without having a clear grammatical reason.

We know that Scripture is God-breathed and does not waste words. God speaks in poetry, parables, and songs. He uses metaphors and similes, symbolism and allegory.

And God uses metonymy and synecdoche.

Metonymy names one thing that represents a larger reality.  We recognize that “Moses” means the Law. “The altar” stands in for the larger sacrificial system. When Jesus prays, “Let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39), He wasn’t talking about the object in His hand; He was speaking of the suffering and humiliation that awaited Him.

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul wrote, “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” The word “table” doesn’t mean furniture – it signifies participation, alignment, a sharing of what that table represents.

Synecdoche names a part to represent the whole. When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, “bread” didn’t only refer to a loaf, it pointed to the whole of daily sustenance. In Romans 13:4, “sword” refers to the whole of the government’s responsibility to have authority over its people.

Faith and love are not a checklist – they are named parts of the whole of Christ-like living. Life and death are not two moments in time; they speak of the entirety of a life lived.

The visible act (eating the bread) reflects a deeper reality of participation. The specific example of meat sacrificed to idols expands into a call to care for the conscience of others. The warning of idolatry is a named part of the larger whole of misplaced worship.

This matters when we come to 1 Corinthians 11.

When Paul writes, “every man who prays or prophesies… every woman who prays or prophesies…,” we need to look back to earlier in the letter (chapter 10.)

We need to ask if Paul is really writing about two specific and isolated practices, or if he is naming two parts of a larger, weightier whole.

Prayer is our speech directed to God. Prophesying is God’s Word directed toward us.

Together, these two named, visible acts reflect a larger reality of participation, forming a fullness – a way of speaking about the whole range of worship, without naming each act.

If we read 1 Corinthians 11 as speaking of two isolated activities, we risk missing the larger reality.

If we read “prayer or prophesying” as a synecdoche, we listen for the larger reality behind the words, not just the words themselves. We look at not merely what is happening in those moments, but what they represent; lives visibly oriented toward God; His people engaging with Him in ways that reflect His honor and glory.

A woman worshipping with a covered head is not tied to a checklist of two acts as if the passage depends on what she is doing at any given moment. She is situated within the larger reality of something profound – the honoring of God’s created order in the presence of angels, the perfected saints and Christ Himself.

What is named is not all that is meant. And what is meant is not less, but more.