Head Covering

[Steve Owen]

Hi J-H,
You wrote:-

If a command is given in Scripture, what right do we have, based on our own judgment outside of Scripture, to decide that the purposes behind it can be applied just as well in another fashion in our own culture, and that we do not need to follow the command as written?

I can sympathize with your sentiments here, but may I refer you to John 13:13-15 which I quoted before? Does your church practise foot-washing? If not, how do you justify not obeying what appears to be a clear command from the Lord?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I can sympatize with your sentiments here, but may I refer you to John 13:13-15 which I quoted before? Does your church practise foot-washing? If not, how do you justify not obeying what appears to be a clear command from the Lord?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

I am afraid I do not have the time to respond fully to this at the moment. But I will say I do believe the passages in question are different. In 1 Corinthians, Paul's statements regarding headcovering were clearly addressed to all the churches of God, and laid down that headcovering was required of women during times of worship. It quite directly lays down a practise for Christian churches.

Whereas in John 13, the setting had nothing to do with corporate worship, and the Lord was speaking specifically to His disciples, and it is not apparent to me that he has given a command of practise for the Christian churches.

I know this question deserves a more thorough answer than that, but this is all I can say for now.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

 

[pastorway]

In 1 Corinthians, Paul's statements regarding headcovering were clearly addressed to all the churches of God, and laid down that headcovering was required of women during times of worship. It quite directly lays down a practise for Christian churches.

It lays down a principle that is to be applied culturally wherever we are. Think about it this way, how would you apply these verses in a culture that said that a woman who covered her head was hiding her glory and dishonoring her husband. Would you instruct women in that culture to cover their heads? I should hope not. Or what about a culture in which if a man takes off his hat he is being effeminate and showing others that his wife is dominant?

We preach obedience to apply the principle - men should lead in their homes and their families and women should be submissive, covered under proper authority, whatever the outward manifestation of this may be!

To apply the cultural standard of Paul's day based on the Biblical principle he was teaching is to confuse what Paul was instructing the church at Corinth. The cultural standard is no longer applicable, but the principle is eternal!

Phillip

[Edited on 12-2-05 by pastorway]

 

[non dignus]

If a command is universal, and supported by natural law etc. then wouldn't we find it somewhere in the OT?

Foot washing is an excellant example of a particular act for a general concept.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
Finally, do you remove your hat during times of prayer (outdoors at a picnic, for example)? If so, what is that but an application of this passage as it applies to men, recognising that the covering is a head garment. Women covering their heads with cloth coverings during prayer/worship is simply the corresponding application of the feminine side of this passage.

I find Calvin's comments on men wearing hats in church quite humorous. I didn´t think of it, but every time anyone sees a picture of Calvin he is wearing that ski hat.

Check out what he says:

Prophesying I take here to mean "” declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14,) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people "” which is the part of the public teacher, 624 for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public. Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this "” that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το Ï€Ïέπον "” decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by pastorway

In 1 Corinthians, Paul's statements regarding headcovering were clearly addressed to all the churches of God, and laid down that headcovering was required of women during times of worship. It quite directly lays down a practise for Christian churches.

It lays down a principle that is to be applied culturally wherever we are. Think about it this way, how would you apply these verses in a culture that said that a woman who covered her head was hiding her glory and dishonoring her husband. Would you instruct women in that culture to cover their heads? I should hope not. Or what about a culture in which if a man takes off his hat he is being effeminate and showing others that his wife is dominant?

We preach obedience to apply the principle - men should lead in their homes and their families and women should be submissive, covered under proper authority, whatever the outward manifestation of this may be!

To apply the cultural standard of Paul's day based on the Biblical principle he was teaching is to confuse what Paul was instructing the church at Corinth. The cultural standard is no longer applicable, but the principle is eternal!

Phillip

[Edited on 12-2-05 by pastorway]

With all due respect to Pastor Way,
I think this post highlights some of the problems with using a "cultural hermeneutic". In Culture X, modesty (as we understand it, is non-existent, an alien concept. Women do the "Janet Jackson Superbowl thing" and that practice equals modesty. "Overdressing" indicates homosexuality. So, do we allow that this is basically just a cultural thing? One could cite "degree" (an arbitrary concept) as part of his argument, but the basic problem remains.

One cannot argue "culture" without proving the cultural point he is trying to make in that particular context. In other words, every "cultural argument" regarding a Scripture practice must be made independent of every other culture argument, and should rest principally upon the text of Scripture itself, although it may be buttressed by evidence from alongside Scripture.

Scripture and the Christian Faith is transformative. This is not to say that every culture ends up looking exactly the same by virtue of the Bible's influence, but it does mean that cultural habits that violate Scripture norms are to be smashed, like so many idols. So, before we condone practices that are markedly different from what we are told was the biblical norm, simply because we can't see an advantage in challenging it, we need to decide the question independently of our current attitudes.

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Jumping in. Please see this thread. It answers the "cultural only" issue (please look throughout history and various cultures...the headcovering has literally stood the test of time). It also addresses other issues. Much of the offerings are of prominent church leaders, both past and present.

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9794#pid195390

On a personal note...I have never had anyone be offended by my covering that wasn't already offended by my being a Christian before I started covering. Most actually find it interesting, disagree, or open themselves up to a discussion on it. Some have come to cover themselves.

I know many ppl that practice the holy kiss and footwashing. I avoid the kiss unless it's on the cheek...I know of too much illness passed around due to this practice. On the footwashing note, I would not be against the practice, however it is not part of the churches we attend. I do not criticize those that don't cover, but I do encourage and inform. I have a variety of lovely coverings (that completely cover, not the "doily" as one of you pointed out either to be snide or because that is the only kind you have seen...I'll hope it was the latter). A covering doesn't have to be an ugly, stiff, or prescribed thing. You will find on the link plenty of links to places that offer a variety of similar to what I have. If you go to my blog and backtrack a couple of pages you will find a recent picture of me in a covering.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

I find Calvin's comments on men wearing hats in church quite humorous.

I find his most famous comment on women (not) covering to be humourous (and sadly true looking at society around us) as well.

"When women stop covering their heads, they shall start revealing their breasts" John Calvin

 

[wsw201]

I see you found it!!

 

[LadyFlynt]

yep! and I've missed being here.

 

[py3ak]

Colleen,

Do you know where that Calvin quote comes from? I thought it was great, and would like to see the whole discussion.

 

[LadyFlynt]

(It was from his sermons...here's the exact quote I was able to find...this is posted in the other thread as well as his commentary on the passage itself)

John Calvin (1509-1564)

The great theologian of the Reformation preached three sermons from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 from which the following excerpts are taken.

"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature"¦.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability "” that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not"¦" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

 

[LadyFlynt]

BTW, the other thread also addresses the OT precedent as well. Women having their head covered (or rather removing their covering for a test of fidelity) is mentioned in Leviticus.

 

[LadyFlynt]

No problem for me...I've already been in a church that practiced it (men kissed men and women kissed women)...just make certain it lands on the cheek (I'm freakish about passing colds and such). I also used to be greeted every Sunday morning by a frenchman at an old church of mine by a kiss on the cheek as well. I was one of the few ladies that didn't misunderstand this old man's intent and fully accepted it just as if he was shaking my hand on the way by.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by LadyFlynt]

 

[LadyFlynt]

It says to give a holy kiss...it doesn't say where or how. The face is the typical place. I don't read in scripture where it states on the lips. LOL!

(goes to pull out the bowl and towel...figures it can't be worse than clipping hubby's ugly toenails)

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by LadyFlynt]

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
"......men kissed men and women kissed women)...just make certain it lands on the cheek (I'm freakish about passing colds and such)..."


What about Sola Scriptura?


You have added to Scripture by putting these extra-Biblical commands upon the practice!



We are also told to wash the feet of the saints......


My toes are getting awful dirty, too!

These sorts of arguments have never been the least bit persuasive to me.

Each of these issues is distinct, and should each be examined on their own, sola scriptura. The contexts of the "footwashing" passage and the "headcovering" passage, for example, are completely different, and to lump them together without examining the differences in the contexts and what is actually said in each passage does nothing to advance our understanding of any of these things, as fun as comparing them may be for you rhetorically.

I have yet to see anyone put forward a logical, persuasive argument, truly based on the principle of sola scriptura, as to why the command of headcovering in worship is not binding today.

If you believe that the sola scriptura principle would require footwashing with the same force that it requires headcovering (I am not granting that is true, but this seems to be what you are implying), then why would you not be arguing that both should be practised rather than making sport of them?

 

[Romans922]

Does anyone here interpret the scripture references by Paul on headcoverings as a woman's hair?

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Romans922]

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by Romans922
Does anyone here interpret the scripture references by Paul on headcoverings as a woman's hair?

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Romans922]

If you look back to the beginning of this thread, that was the question which was first addressed.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Also, again...I not only appeal to scripture...I also appeal to history. Headcovering has proven to not be a cultural thing.

My basic point in the last few posts though were that he was throwing those arguements at the wrong person. The context may have been different, I'm not totally certain. I believe there is a thread where we have argued the footwashing before. However the headcovering is the issue that I have most studied along this line (as I obviously cover and have had to defend my position).

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by LadyFlynt]

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Stay away from things strangled...and blood.

As a matter of fact I do stay away from eating blood (and strangled animals as well, though that issue does not often come up) . . . as do almost all Christians I know in Asia, where eating pig blood is actually very common. We are clearly commanded not to eat blood in both the Old and New Testaments.

The eternal principles of Scripture vary cross-culturally sometimes...especially so in outward external practices.

"From the outset it should be noted that Paul does not wish to set in concrete a rule about specific practices for all places and regarding head coverings. (When he does state a universal and permanent rule for practice he often refers to a direct command from God, as in 1 Cor. 14:37, or to the teaching or practice "in every church" or "in all the churches," as in 1 Cor. 4:17: 7:17; 14:33).

We find the following statements in the 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 passage on headcovering:

"Now I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." v.2

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." v.9-10

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do the churches of God." v.16

Paul certainly has said that headcovering was the practise of all the churches in v.16, so it is quite cheeky of the author you quoted to ignore this verse. All of the verses above work against the idea that the headcovering command was meant as just a local application of a general principle of modesty. When Paul gives the reason for headcovering in v. 9-10 he ties it to the creation and the mother and father of all mankind, Adam and Eve. He did not say "For this cause, women ought to dress modestly, which in your particular culture means you ought to wear headcoverings". He said "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

There is absolutely nothing in the context which gives any support to the notion that the specific command was only a local cultural application and was not meant to binding in later times. Just the opposite. That is what I meant when I said it was impossible to arrive at that position sola scriptura.

The argument you quoted I have heard and seen many times before, and I suppose it seems logical enough to many who have a prediliction against covering in the first place . . . but it certainly does not do justice to the Cortinthians 11 passage. It seems little else but an extrabiblical rationalisation of a modernistic preference to do away with headcoverings; it cannot actually offer a verse-by-verse interpretation and explanation of this passage to support the view, because many of Paul's statements in the passage are at complete variance with it.

To really convince me that the headcovering command is not binding, you would have to show me evidence from the Bible that the headcovering practice was only meant as a non-binding local cultural example of a larger principle. Which verse of Scripture do you offer in support of this view?

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli


[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Jie-Huli]

 

[non dignus]

To really convince me that the headcovering command is not binding, you would have to show me evidence from the Bible that the headcovering practice was only meant as a non-binding local cultural example of a larger principle. Which verse of Scripture do you offer in support of this view?

"If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances,
21. Handle not, nor taste, nor touch
22. (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men? "
Col 2

 

[non dignus]

Dear Jie-Huli,

I appreciate your knowledge of the scriptures and your zeal. You make a very good argument here. I believe the head-covering issue is a local custom for a universal principle based on sola-scriptura. I'm sure you know Sola Scripture does not negate tradition but rather 'trumps' it. There is much historical tradition contrary to this Corinthian tradition.

Commands in scripture once ordained by God but now nullified, when practiced today, would qualify as commandments of men. Similarly the Colossian admonition I cite from Paul would apply to a custom once normal but now out of fashion. The churches of which Paul speaks were in their infancy and ought not be imitated in matters of conscience.

I don't mean to be flippant here but we do not ordinarily worship God while hanging upside down. The reason we don't is that the principle of hanging upside down is absent from scripture. I say this because an argument from silence applies here. Paul was speaking to a church(es) in real time. There seems to be something left out here that is already known to the listeners. This is a good assumption because the passage doesn't give enough information to completely understand the issue. Because it isn't thoroughly explained it's reasonable to assume Paul is specifying to the Corinthians only. Had head-coverings been discussed in even one other passage, and had there been sufficient cross-cultural information given, the practice might be warranted.

Paul also discusses vicarious baptism for the dead. Here too, there is much left out of the passage which assumes the listeners understand what Paul is addressing. This is why we don't baptize for the dead because the scripture just doesn't communicate it to us as law. However, the ban on eating blood is addressed in Genesis and Acts and is a good example of a precept being mentioned in different contexts.

Another argument from Sola Scriptura: This ordinance is dischordant with the whole tenor of the new covenant. It is certainly 'the odd man out' with little in common with other NT practices. Rather, it has more in common with the laws of legalistic religions such as Islam and Hinduism. It is no wonder that head-covering is found more often in legalistic Christian sects. Traditions in various churches speak volumes on what the Holy Spirit is or is not doing. When I see glossolalia, spoken of highly by Paul, in Arminian and other works-oriented Churches I can be confident it is not from the proper spirit.

Common sense tells us that if our cultural standards here and now diametrically oppose the Corinthian head-covering standard, we would be needlessly imposing a stumbling block to the gospel if the alien standard were enforced. This again is contrary to Paul's attitude of being all things to all men.

Scripture alone is ABLE to unambiguously illuminate our path. If the path is murky then it's safe to remain comfortably agnostic.

 

[Steve Owen]

David wrote:-

Another argument from Sola Scriptura: This ordinance is discordant with the whole tenor of the new covenant. It is certainly 'the odd man out' with little in common with other NT practices. Rather, it has more in common with the laws of legalistic religions such as Islam and Hinduism.

Martin

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by non dignus
Commands in scripture once ordained by God but now nullified, when practiced today, would qualify as commandments of men. Similarly the Colossian admonition I cite from Paul would apply to a custom once normal but now out of fashion. The churches of which Paul speaks were in their infancy and ought not be imitated in matters of conscience.

I don't mean to be flippant here but we do not ordinarily worship God while hanging upside down. The reason we don't is that the principle of hanging upside down is absent from scripture. I say this because an argument from silence applies here. Paul was speaking to a church(es) in real time. There seems to be something left out here that is already known to the listeners. This is a good assumption because the passage doesn't give enough information to completely understand the issue. Because it isn't thoroughly explained it's reasonable to assume Paul is specifying to the Corinthians only. Had head-coverings been discussed in even one other passage, and had there been sufficient cross-cultural information given, the practice might be warranted.

Paul also discusses vicarious baptism for the dead. Here too, there is much left out of the passage which assumes the listeners understand what Paul is addressing. This is why we don't baptize for the dead because the scripture just doesn't communicate it to us as law. However, the ban on eating blood is addressed in Genesis and Acts and is a good example of a precept being mentioned in different contexts.

Another argument from Sola Scriptura: This ordinance is dischordant with the whole tenor of the new covenant. It is certainly 'the odd man out' with little in common with other NT practices. Rather, it has more in common with the laws of legalistic religions such as Islam and Hinduism. It is no wonder that head-covering is found more often in legalistic Christian sects. Traditions in various churches speak volumes on what the Holy Spirit is or is not doing. When I see glossolalia, spoken of highly by Paul, in Arminian and other works-oriented Churches I can be confident it is not from the proper spirit.

Common sense tells us that if our cultural standards here and now diametrically oppose the Corinthian head-covering standard, we would be needlessly imposing a stumbling block to the gospel if the alien standard were enforced. This again is contrary to Paul's attitude of being all things to all men.

Scripture alone is ABLE to unambiguously illuminate our path. If the path is murky then it's safe to remain comfortably agnostic.

Non-dignus,

I am fully willing to believe that you (and others here) are arguing against headcovering, not because of a personal distaste for the practise, but because you really believe it to be a distraction from the spiritual focus of the Gospel age and an unnecessary and possibly divisive burden to God's people. I believe your motives are sincere and good.

And yet I just cannot agree that this is the proper way to approach the issue. For me, it really boils down to this:

1) Paul's own statements in the 1 Corinthians 11 headcovering passage clearly and directly refute the idea that this is a local custom (as he ties the practise itself to creation and the nature of man and woman, and says that all the churches of God have no other custom). Again, not only do his statements not hint at the command being merely to a specific church, they say just the opposite. And no amount of reasoning can negate the plain words of Scripture. Given that Paul clearly was writing as if it was a universal command, it seems especially haughty for us to believe we have more light than Paul had, that we can understand that it was only a local command even though Paul clearly believed it was a universal command when he was writing it.

2) I do not believe that a Scriptural command is any less binding just because it is mentioned in one place only. While I am certainly not saying that headcovering is a central tenet of the Christian faith, there is no justification at all for the idea that a command must be mentioned in more than one place to be binding. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness. The headcovering passage is very different from the obscure reference to "baptism for the dead" that has been mentioned. The headcovering passage is 15 verses long altogether, and certainly enough information is given for the command to be clear.

3) There is fundamentally no difference between the cultural argument against headcovering and the cultural argument against forbidding women from preaching. The same exact points that are made against headcovering are also made by "feminists" against the prohibition of women preaching . . . they say that the prohibition was because in that local culture it would have brought reproach on the Christians if the women took positions of leadership, and that it would not be binding once the culture changed such that the public at large would accept such things. And they say as well that such a prohibition is at odds with the rest of the "tenor of the new covenant", which establishes the equality of all those who are in Christ, both male and female. Now how is this the slightest bit different from the cultural argument against headcovering? How can one accept the cultural argument against headcovering, and still have a leg to stand on in arguing against women preaching? It is true that the prohibition of women preaching is mentioned in more than one place (2 places I believe, as far as the direct prohibition goes), but is this really a strong basis for distinction? After all, the idea that a command must be repeated in more than one place to prove it was not just a local cultural command is a rather arbitrary one, so people can say that even if the command appears in two passages, both the passages were written about the same time in the same culture so both of them were merely local cultural commands.

I do not mean to be contentious, but when it comes to headcovering, I see a clear command of New Testament Scripture which has nowhere been abrogated, and I do not believe the "cultural argument" against continuing the practise deals at all with the reality of what Paul is actually saying in the passage. I feel like those who argue against it make a nice coherent and pragmatic argument, but it just does not fit at all what is actually written in the Scriptures. Really, sometimes when I read this cultural argument I think people must be looking at a different version of 1 Corinthians than what I have in front of me, because I cannot imagine how they can fit the argument with what is written there.

While this may seem like a small and unimportant issue to some, I would say (1) it was important enough for the Holy Spirit to inspire half a chapter in the Bible about it, and (2) besides the immediate issue of headcovering, I believe the allowances which are made for a Biblical command changing in different cultural contexts opens the door to a great many more serious problems (the issue of women preaching being just one of them). While I trust that no one here goes down those paths, I think it is a lot harder for you to fight against them consistently once you have accepted this method of interpretation in regard to headcovering.

[Edited on 12-11-2005 by Jie-Huli]

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by non dignus
To really convince me that the headcovering command is not binding, you would have to show me evidence from the Bible that the headcovering practice was only meant as a non-binding local cultural example of a larger principle. Which verse of Scripture do you offer in support of this view?

"If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances,
21. Handle not, nor taste, nor touch
22. (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men? "
Col 2

I cannot see how this verse could be applicable to headcovering, as headcovering is a precept given directly in the New Testament Scriptures by Paul the apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That clearly does not fall within the "precepts and doctrines of men", which is surely referring to extrabiblical religious rules. Why would Paul write so strongly and absolutely about the issue of headcoverings in 1 Corinthians if that were one of the "precepts and doctrines of men" to which he did not want Christians to be subjected?

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Jie-Huli

Originally posted by non dignus
To really convince me that the headcovering command is not binding, you would have to show me evidence from the Bible that the headcovering practice was only meant as a non-binding local cultural example of a larger principle. Which verse of Scripture do you offer in support of this view?

"If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances,
21. Handle not, nor taste, nor touch
22. (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men? "
Col 2

I cannot see how this verse could be applicable to headcovering, as headcovering is a precept given directly in the New Testament Scriptures by Paul the apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That clearly does not fall within the "precepts and doctrines of men", which is surely referring to extrabiblical religious rules. Why would Paul write so strongly and absolutely about the issue of headcoverings in 1 Corinthians if that were one of the "precepts and doctrines of men" to which he did not want Christians to be subjected?

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli

That is a good question, and all retorts should be made with the utmost caution.

In Acts 15:20 the gentiles are commanded to abstain from strangled animals. Is that still in force today? I don't believe so. I believe those four prohibitions were in consideration of born again Jews in order to cement fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. Granted three of the four are probably binding. (however it's possible sins were not being spoken of here but rather Levitical technicalities)

If someone were to command that I not eat strangled flesh, that would be a 'precept and doctrine of men' that had originally been put forth under inspiration.

Paul wrote forcefully on this because it was a real issue in the churches at that time. And it's also interesting that he packs so much in so few verses leaving us with a multitude of unanswered questions. For instance, what is "....power on her head because of the angels..." ?

To answer that, the best theological minds can only quess.

Dave

 

[bond-servant]

1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.
1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
ESV

To take this and apply it to our culture,
Questions arise for me that I don't remember being addressed in either of the threads:

V4-5, Does this mean that men and women still prophesy? Personally? Corporately? Wouldn't we have to believe this to translate this to our day?

v13: The context here is that the woman should not pray or prophecy corporately uncovered. Culturally then, women were to be covered all the time. If we are to say that we are not to take these Scriptures as culturally only, and apply them to our day, then women cannot pray to God without being covered.So, she would have to be covered 24/7 to NOT adversely effect her prayer life. Wouldn't this be a hinderance to prayer life and minute-minute communion with God? Bedtime prayers?
If we do take this corporately, that women should not pray or prophecy without a head covering, this implies women are then ALLOWED to pray and prophecy in the church. Didn't Paul tell women to be quiet in church and ask thier husbands at home?

v14: Men and long hair: what about the Nazerite vow where they let thier hair grow long until the vow was performed. Scripture suggests that Paul may have done this. Samson of course too...

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature"¦.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability "” that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not"¦" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

I don't say this lightly - but the above is not a scriptuiral argument for head coverings, though it may be a very good argument for chastity. However, head covereings do not belong to that category. They belong in conjunction with pagan temple worship and temple prostitutes (of which I have heard nothing in this or any other thread just yet) verses how Christian worship is to be conducted.

Murray makes this mistake as well and incorrectly says, " This is within the scope of the particular agrument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. " This is simply not the case, since, as would have behooved him, to take into consideration why coverings at all were needeful in light of temple prostitution, and how that carried over into Christian worship.

Some thoughts to ponder - 1) What did temple prostitutes look like, and what was their role, and 2) how would this have affected their conversion and interaction int he social climate of the Jewish Christian synagogue?

Don't argue about practice under you undergird the theology behind it.

 

[Steve Owen]

There is a new book out on the subject of dress codes for women in NT times.
Roman Wives, Roman Widows, the appearance of new women and the Pauline communities by Bruce W. Winter (Eerdmans. ISBN 0 802 849 717 ).

I haven't read it, but there is an extract in current issue of the English mag, Evangelicals Now, which looks very helpful. You might try going to their website,
www.e-n.org.uk

Martin

[Edited on 12-11-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[non dignus]

Jie-Huli, you make very persuasive arguments.

Women were not permitted by Paul to speak in church back then. How does that principle work out today? Since we hold many things in common with our forebears we work it out by not permitting women to speak in church.

Paul appeals to creation for his reasons for headcoverings, yes. However, he doesn't appeal to an example of Eve or Sarah wearing a covering. I do recall reading Sarah calling Abraham 'lord'. Perhaps THAT was the sign then of the universal principle of submission in that context.