The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings and more

Eleanor,

My wife has been following this one particular series of posts with great interest. She just e-mailed me and asked me to thank you for your post. She was greatly encouraged by it. Many Thanks.

The Whole Series of posts was moved from where it was originally, and thus you are looking at a dated post by Pilgrim (that is his post above was authored before this series of posts was moved to its own thread). It was Moved/Edited by Pilgrim on 12/01/03 10:27 PM, if I am not mistaken.

Oh, I didn't realize that. Thanks, Joe.

Actually, I simply renamed this thread, as is indicated in the very first post in the thread, to better reflect the actual topic/discussion.

You're a tricky one, you are.

That Spongebob Squarepants is freaky.

Let me first say that if anyone is thinking for one moment that I am denying that women must submit to their husbands and their husbands must submit to Christ, then you have grossly twisted my words. Paul's appeal to the order of creation is clear. Nor would I ever disagree with Paul's teachings; I believe him to be divinely inspired as he writes this, as with everything other part of scripture. Do not mistake me for a liberal. What I am arguing is that so many well-meaning Gentiles have lost so much of the richness of the Jewish roots of your own faith, that it leads, occasionally and in matters of small import, to misinterpretations or misconceptions. I believe this to be probably the best example of such. Nor think that just because I am standing alone on this issue in this forum, that I am some crack-pot out making my own theology. This interpretation is common knowledge to 2,000 years of Messianic Jews the world over, who practice daily the use of head-coverings for both men and women.

Although you haven't clearly stated it, I suppose that the basis for your claim that the moratorium against head coverings for men was practiced in all churches everywhere are simply the words "Every man"? You are correct that is a universal qualifier: "every." However, my point is that the context shows that its universality is limited by implied qualifications that would have been obvious to the primary audience of this letter. First of all, history teaches us that Moses and the prophets all employed the use of a prayer shawl to cover their heads. Christ Himself wore a prayer shawl as spelled out in scripture. (In both cases, scripture describes a garment with tassels. No, it doesn't spell out what the garment is for, except for remembering His commandments, but extra-biblical Jewish history, which is absolutely not in violation of those passages, shows us that the garment was used for one purpose only, and that is prayer/worship. You can go into any synagogue today and see them everywhere.) Unless you are willing to say that all these men dishonored God by doing so, then we must conclude that the universality of "every man" has at least the implied restriction of time past. There was at least a time, about 1,500 years of time prior to Paul, that this rule did not apply, and it was, in fact, NOT dishonoring to God to pray with a covered head. Therefore, the claim of "every man" is not as fiercely universal as you would take it to be out of context.

That much is known without historical doubt, that the highest degree of universality this claim can make is "every man [from this point forward]". I've never seen an OT scholar who denies that prayer shawls were used in OT times. (if you know of one, let me know) We can continue further by deduction with very high confidence, even if not direct proof. (direct proof may be out there, but not known to me) No where in Scripture, do we see an explanation along the lines of, "It may have at one time been permissible to cover your heads in prayer, but you Jewish men may no longer do that, and this is why:". Something as serious and as monumental as a reversal of law like this would surely warrant such a sermon, if anything does. Notice how thoroughly Paul treats other issues, such as unclean meat. Paul is a philosopher and theologian extraordinaire, and goes through great pains to describe God's truth and the reasoning behind it in every case, lest there be any room for doubt, such as my favorite book of Romans. What you propose, which may seem superficially to a gentile like a minor issue, would be doctrinally huge, one of the largest doctrinal issues of the new covenant, that it is now sinful to do what was at one time commanded. Paul, speaking with inspiration from God, clearly has the authority even to do this, but this is would be done carefully and deliberately, not almost in passing, as if it were obvious, as we see in Corinthians. Obviously, if this were true, it would be a tremendous stumbling block for all the Jewish Christians of the day, which made the majority of the Church at the time, yet a thorough treatment of it is conspicuously missing. In fact, it is only alluded to in this single verse! This should be a clue to us that there is something more here than just the "surface" meaning of head coverings.

I am fiercely conservative theologically, Calvinist, and always believe in the literal interpretation of scripture. My point is that a literal interpretation INCLUDES the full context. You can take single verses out of context and make the bible appear to support just about anything you want, as cult leaders have for centuries. But any accurate and literal interpretation will be 100% consistent with the context of the passage, with the context of all the rest of scripture, and with the context of history.

Scripture is timeless and unchanging and speaks to every generation. However, in order to best understand the timeless message of scripture, we must put ourselves in the place of the people to whom it was first written. I believe that in the scripture that you cite, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head," what would have been immediately obvious to first century Corinthians is that Paul is addressing something much more important than their dress code, but that he is addressing their attitudes of rebellion and pride. He is teaching them to be humble and respectful to God and to their earthly authorities in the way which makes the most obvious sense to them. (in their case, their head fashion being and indicator of their submission or authority).

There are two opposing possible interpretations of this scripture: the one that you are defending and the one that I am defending. We can't both be right. Your interpretation is certainly consistent with the wording of the passage and even the immediate context of the rest of that chapter. However, in greater context, your interpretation violates other scriptures directly (Jesus wearing the tallit) and also violates many of the basic themes throughout the NT of putting aside petty legalism, that we are free from the law, that sin is in the heart rather then in the details, and you don't have to give up your cultural identity as long as to can worship Christ alone while retaining it (Jew vs. Gentile). Even further, your interpretation is not consistent with Jewish history (admitting that history is not infallible, but can often still be very reliable). In contrast, the interpretation that I defend is consistent with history, completely upheld by the aforementioned general NT themes, is supported by other scripture referring to the garments of Jesus and those required by OT law, and is also completely consistent with the wording of the passage, if you accept that "every man" in fact implies every man [to whom this letter is addressed], which I think is not a far stretch of reason. Certainly not as far of a stretch as it is to force reinterpretations of other passages, place limits on the general teachings of Christ and the apostles, and refuse 3,500 years of history (considering that millions of Messianic Jews have universally practiced the wearing of the tallit to this day).

I want to labor a point lest anyone misunderstand me, as I think some of you have. We are all in agreement on the substance of Paul's instruction and that it is applicable for today. Our only difference is on the importance of the form of the symbol that represents that substance. I think we can all agree that covering or not covering your head is a symbol, right? God really doesn't care if your bald-spot is showing. But it is a reflection of what is in your heart. Whether you be Jew or Gentile, 1st century Greek or 21st century American, your relationship with God is based on what's in your heart, not what's on your head. Let's make that very clear lest we go the way of the Pharisees. The specific nature of the symbol that you wear to show what's in your heart is not of importance. Not changing the subject, but take another highly symbolic act that we Christians practice as an example of what I'm talking about: Communion. When Christ first broke the bread and passed it around as part of the Passover ceremony, He used a very particular type of bread called "matza," which is like a cracker in that it is unleavened, but is also prepared in very specific ways, and doesn't taste very good, frankly. I don't know too many churches that use matza for their communion services today, although most do use some type of cracker. Also, at the end of the Passover ceremony, when He passed the kiddish cup, it had wine in it, not grape juice. Again, most modern churches use grape juice as an expectable substitute. Then how is it that you can be content that you are following the example of the last supper instituted by Christ if you are not using the same types of substances that He used? The answer is because exactly what forms the symbols take is not important, so long as they convey the same meaning and intent! And that is my position on the issue of head coverings. If a man can show submission to God by taking off his hat when he prays, then he is fulfilling the words of Paul. If another man can show submission to God by putting on a garment who's name literally means "submission to God", an act which follows the example of Christ and the apostles, then he is likewise fulfilling Paul's words, at least as much as we all fulfill Christ's words when we "do this in remembrance of Me."

Saint, I personally believe that we are missing the point of the Gospel when we add "law" back into it. We were freed from the Law; it no longer condemns us. I think some people think that Paul is here reinstating a New Covenant Law of some kind, as if covering or not covering your head can be some act of righteousness in and of itself, rather than a symbol of a holy heart. That is heresy; that is Pharisaical Christianity, and is a rejection of the Gospel itself. When this sort of thing is taught on a denominational level (Boston Church of Christ, World Wide Church of God, each who teach the same as you on the issue of head coverings and consistantly legalistic on others), they are declared cults and rejected by orthodox Christianity. This can be a small thing that is fun to argue about or it can be a very big deal. Be careful how far you take this.

Marcus,

First of all, there is absolutely no need to get defensive here. No one.... especially me, has any doubt of your Calvinism nor of the fact that you embrace verbal plenary inspiration. It is true, that one of your statements could possibly open you up to that charge, but that has not been done.

What is also true is that we all here want to uphold the PRINCIPLE of submission which is perspicuously taught by Paul in the 1Cor 11 passage. And, we all can agree that the "heart" is far more important than outward observance. The issue of disagreement is in the EXPRESSION of that principle and of one's heart. It is here that I stand firm upon the inspired text. My exegesis of the passage has never ignored nor disallowed historical context. But the "history" to which I look first is Biblical History and not uninspired accounts.

What I was hoping for and remain hopeful is that you will EXEGETE the passage so that we who hold to the view that women are to adorn themselves with some sort of head covering can examine your use of the passage. It makes no difference whether Jewish men have covered their heads for 3000 years. What does matter is what Paul wrote, a Jew . . . a Pharisee of Pharisees who was meticulous about keeping the law and one who went out of his way on non-essentials to not offend his Jewish brothers according to the flesh. It is here, that I would submit to you that there is something seriously wrong with your view, which would have us interpret the passage according to an alleged practice which Paul speaks against; i.e., a man covering his head.

In regard to your comment about the "every man" and wanting to restrict its application to those men who were at Corinth and/or men who were Gentiles only, or to men who lived from that day forward . . . Paul's argument begins by taking us back to Creation; the creative order which would include "every man" and "every woman" inclusively. Secondly, he appeals to "nature itself" (vs. 14) as an observable fact which would of necessity refer to "every man and woman" without exception. And lastly, in verse 16, Paul argues from tradition, that which was universally practiced by "all" (implied) the churches extant at that time. Admittedly, because of your presuppositions concerning the history of Jewish custom, this no doubt puts you in a tenuous position when it comes to interpreting this particular passage of Scripture. It is here that I wish you to interact with the TEXT.

And finally, your example of the "matza", which you say was the actual type of bread used by Christ at the supper in the upper room is irrelevant. Why? because we would never demand that any particular type of bread be used but that any bread (perhaps any unleavened bread) is proper. Likewise, this would also apply to the wine; no particular brand or type, but wine as opposed to grape juice or "SunnyD", etc. . This is consistent with my (our) position concerning head coverings. There is no specific type of head covering enjoined in the text, but rather the principle of having "A" covering on the head is what is important to observe.

I look forward to your reply.

In His Grace,

Take a look at this (.pdf format). Might shed light on the "coiffure" that Mr. Hurley mentions. Another interesting article is here, which claims that Paul is referring to veils over the face. These are both (apparently) from a Messianic Jewish perspective. An article about the Jewish mystical meaning of hair here.