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

Dear Joe:

In response to:

"By your posts you have demonstrated to the majority of us who normally post here:

1. that you do not understand Hodge's commentary (BTW it was not posted in your support I assure you. In fact, it supports Pilgrim's view.)

Amen to that. And........

In response to:

"Please, I for one would appreciate it if you would attempt to curb this apparent appetite of yours to degrade others and give us a straight forward exegetical study, verse by verse, of the texts in question. "

And again I say, Amen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Marcus:

Neither historical tradition, nor historical context have ever taken precident over a clear grammatical statement of scripture in any reputable course in hermeneutics, so your insistance to the contrary merely undermines your credibility. The only groups that I believe have taken the position that you have on this are the Roman Catholic Church and the Rabinical Schools, both of which are less than reliable in matters of faith and practice, to say the least.

Therefore, could you kindly deal with the text, the divinely inspired, God breathed Word of God, rather than your allegedly reliable Jewish tradition? It is easy to assert that one has a high view of scripture, but your handling of His Words so far, to me, indicates a very low view of God's inerrant Word, and fall far short of "rightly dividing" them in my estimation.

In Him,

Gerry

I thought I'd take one more peek before the weekend, so let me leave a quick P.S. to give us a good place to start on Monday.

If you and Joe represent the way that I have come across, than I owe everyone a huge apology. I must have done an incredibly poor job of communicating my intentions all around. If I have said anything to degrade others, than I am sorry. Certainly that was never my intent.

I do not say that people are PMing me as a support that my interpretation of scripture is right. I even recall mentioning that they didn't all agree with me. I simply say because I have not responded individually. And also to try and encourage them to join in. (I don't think they are regulars, or they would.) :-) Perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up.

I don't think that anything has been proved or disproved on either side yet. In debate, dismissing all evidence from your opponent because it's not consistent with your conclusion does not constitute proof -- only, at best, denial, and at worst, circular reasoning. If our respective interpretations are what in question, than we cannot use those same interpretations as evidence to support our interpretations. We must both appeal to other passages and other sources (for instance Greek grammar, systematic theology, or even history) for supportive evidence. If proof is to be reached in either direction, it still lies ahead.

If only Catholics and Jews agree with me, than why to the notable reformed commentators Matthew Henry (a 1700's Presbyterian minister) and Matthew Poole (a 1600's Calvinist theologian) state the same thing I am saying? I was surprised by their easy and plenary dismissal, and I think at least a brief explanation would be fair. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If I have completely misunderstood Hodge, then I must need a little help understanding him. Could you explain what he means by the following? This is the part I find most confusing trying to support your position:

"A costume which is proper in one country, would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress to all those usages which the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The veil in *all eastern countries* was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of modesty and subjection. For a woman, therefore, *in Corinth* to discard the veil was to renounce her claim to modesty, and to refuse to recognize her subordination to her husband. It is on the assumption of this *significancy* in the use of the veil, that the apostle's whole argument in this paragraph is founded." (emphasis added to highlight points of confusion)

I haven't heard (or at least understood) anyone saying it as such, but is the problem that you all doubt the truthfulness of the Jewish history? Do you believe it, or my account of it, to be in error? If that is the case, then I might be able to address that next week. However, can we agree that if, somehow, it can be reasonably proven to be factual that the use of head coverings for men were used in that time, would that make a difference? If not, then let's not waste our time.

If your position is that even if it was common place before this letter, Paul here reverses the practice, then we can continue to address that. Hodge makes some good points against that. I also don't think that we've exhausted by any means my argument that it would be characteristically and theologically inconsistent... how can I emphasize this... WITH SCRIPTURE!!, for Paul to make that reversal here. So we can delve into that more, if you require.

The only other thing I can think of is that we have a diametric view of absolute truth. I believe that scripture is 100% truthful, though our interpretation of it may or may not be. Since there is only one truth, an absolute truth, then an accurately interpreted scripture will always be supported by any other absolute truth, regardless of the source of that truth. Whether it be history, archeology, science, reason, logic, or a donkey, if it is TRUE, then it cannot conflict with the truth of scripture. Therefore, if there is an apparent contradiction, than the only left that can be in error is the interpretation. Does this make sense? It may seem obvious, but when questioned, the majority of modern, western evangelicals claim not to believe in absolute truth. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with my take on this, because this is one of those foundational things we must know that agree on in order to have any meaningful dialog about anything.

With that, I bid you all have a good weekend!

Marcus

Marcus,

It appears to me that your argument is essentially that Paul would have never told the men to remove their head coverings because "To a Jew, it is unthinkable, irreverent, strictly forbidden, a sin of the highest order, to come before God in prayer with an uncovered head." Well, there were many things that were "unthinkable" to the Jew (like eating with unwashed hands) that Christ and the apostles had no problem setting them straight on. I honestly can't fathom how you can read that text, given the straightforward observations Pilgrim has given you regarding Paul's polemic from nature, and claim that Paul was teaching the very opposite of what he said. What's even more amusing is that you wrote, "But I do think it would be theologically inconsistent of Paul to place such a legalistic and superficial command on the body of Christ as a particular article of clothing", while at the same time you maintain that Paul would have to respect the Jewish custom to pray to God with an uncovered head! I see, so it is okay for Jews to be enslaved to a head covering code of their own, but if Paul wants to impose the inverse practice it becomes legalistic, superficial, unthinkable? Your argument has come across as nothing but special pleading from the start, so rather than gathering to watch a great football game between two top-rated teams, it has been more like watching the cheerleading section while the other team is out waiting on the field. I do hope you intend to address the text, from the text, at some point.

Regards,

~Jason

Gerry

Although I would agree with almost everything you have said, the fact that there are some other "Reformed theologians" as well as probably the majority of Churches today that would believe similar to Marcus, would seem to me to give his understanding some credence.
I don't believe that Matthew Henry or any of the other commentators that Marcus mentioned have a low view of God's Word, whether they are right about this matter or not.
This debate kind of reminds me of the Paedo vs. Credo debate, while only one can be correct on the topic; the fact is there are many fine Christians on both sides of the issue. Calvin of course was a paedo, and Spurgeon was a credo, but both held a very high view of the Word of God.
Do you understand my point?

However that said, and this is the problem I have with Marcus, is that he has not dealt directly with the text himself.
I think the fact that Marcus believes Hodge has stated his own case quite well, shows either that he hasn't read him carefully, or he just misunderstood Hodge. The later I have to admit, I almost did myself.

Marcus
In the interest of clear debate, can you in your own words show us what the passages in question mean?
Unless you are willing to do that, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.

Tom

Tom,

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I need some help understanding what you all are wanting exactly from me. You have asked me to "deal with the text" many times. I want nothing more than to be able to grant you your wish, but I thought I had. I'm really doing my best. Can you please help me understand?

My method is this: As far as the wording of the English translation from the Greek, the English does justice fine. As far as the grammatical structure of the text, it is pretty clear. If you read 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, having never read any other part of the NT, or knowing nothing about the historical or cultural context of the Paul's words, then there is only one conclusion that you can reach: That all women of all places and all times are required to wear a veil, and all men are forbidden of it. Without consideration of the broad context, that is what the text says. However, that is not what the text *means*. Here we leave hermeneutics and enter exegesis. As part of prudent, conservative exegesis, we take into consideration in as many sources of reliable truth as we can, starting with other passages scripture, then to theological themes reinforced throughout scripture, and finally the history, customs, archeology, and other evidence in which we have confidence of its truth.

In light of all those other things, it becomes obvious that, in this rare case, the non-contextual grammatical reading of the text is lacking. My understanding of the exegesis, my interpretation, is this: I believe that it is sufficiently proven that Paul was here speaking to the Greeks in the understood context of their already-in-place customs. That the veil was understood as a symbol of submission, the lack of a veil the symbol of authority, and it is these principles of submission and authority that Paul is addressing, and NOT in importance of the veil in and of itself.

As Hodge points out, the Paul's "command" that it dishonors his head any man that wears a veil, is not a command at all, but an example for Paul to make his point. The Corinthians men were already in the practice of not wearing a veil -- that is women's clothing. Paul is here saying, if I may paraphrase, "You know how disgraceful it is for a man to wear a woman's veil? Well, in the same sense and for the same reason, it is disgraceful for a woman to NOT wear a veil." The fact that he is not making an issue with men not wearing veils, but taking it as a given, shows that his desire is not to reverse any standing traditions of men, not using his apostolic authority to outlaw a long standing practice of Jewish men of wearing prayer shawls. I could, but he is not doing that here, as Hodge explains. And if we accept that it was acceptable, not required, for Jewish men, outside the context of Corinthian customs, to continue to wear prayer shawls, as long as the principles of submission and authority are publicly maintained, then we must also admit that it is acceptable, not required, for at least some women, outside the context of Corinthian customs, to not wear a veil, as long the principles of submission and authority are publicly maintained.

Analogy is no base for logic, but let me take this interpretation into application into our cultural context. Pants. Pants are a symbol of authority, in a way. Do we not say of the person which is the dominant character in a couple, "That person where's the pants in that family?" Antithetically, a dress can be considered the symbol of submission. So I think you could very easily go through the entire chapter, systematically replacing the word "veil" with the word "dress" as the modern equivalent of a veil, the symbol of a woman's womanhood, and get a paraphrased translation that is completely faithful to the meaning of the passage. It is disgraceful for a man to wear a dress, this is obvious. (Unless you're in Scotland, again, always cultural differences.) For the same reason, it is disgraceful for a woman to wear pants. For any woman who wears pants in church appears to be assuming the role of a man, but she is not a man. She has a different role. She cannot do the role of a man anymore than a man can perform her role. Therefore, as a symbol of her womanhood and her recognition of the importance of her role, let the woman wear a dress, and a man wear pants. That would be an *almost* modern equivalent. Looking at the text in this way in completely compatible with the text itself, and at the same time with all those other sources of exegetical reference that I mentioned. I believe this is the most compelling interpretation of this text.

I am not so proud that I think I alone have all the answers. I could be wrong, because although Paul was infallible as he wrote this, none of us are. So if you can prove with evidence, and point out exactly where my exegesis has a fatal flaw, then I will admit that I was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. I used to believe that women should wear hats, until I studied the context more carefully and convinced myself that this is the proper interpretation. I was also raised Arminian, but then as I studied more in depth, I believed Calvinism to be the more accurate analysis of the relevant scriptures. I admitted that I was wrong for years in those cases, and I will admit it again here, if there is something that I have forgotten.

Look, if you want, we can drop this whole issue. But before I go, I would very much like to learn from anyone who is willing to teach me what you mean by "deal with the text." I am an M.A. Biblical Studies student and I came here originally to supplement my learning and glean information that might come in handy in papers that I write. When I write a paper on a passage, I do as I have done: Unless there is more in the Greek/Hebrew that is not apparent, I describe the context, summarize the meaning, show its theological significance, and perhaps even give an example of an application, if possible. I honestly don't know what else to do. Isn't there anyone who can teach me EXACTLY what YOU mean by "deal with the text" that I have not already done? If nothing else, consider that you are contributing to my education.

Marcus,

To most of us, it seems you haven't dealt with the "grammar" of the text, nor it's immediate context in an honest way. In fact, you have admitted on several occasions that if one were to take Paul's words as they appear in the text, non-influenced by "outside factors", then one would have to conclude that head coverings are to be the rigor de jour. But, what you have done, which so many of us here have objected to, is to bring Jewish (personal) customs into the mix, but more so, you have made THAT the standard by which the Bible is to be understood. You have also conceded the remote possibility that Paul (after assuming that the Jews would never pray without the tallit after thousands of years of tradition) could be abrogating that practice, but then rejected it as being impossible.

However, the biblical text, to which Tom and others have been asking you to "deal with" and to which I thought, along with quotes from Hodge, et al, show that the practice to which Paul says is to be followed, had already been dealt with previously by him AND it was the universal practice in ALL the churches; so says Paul. And, that anyone who would be contentious in the matter concerning the wearing of coverings by women or not wearing one by men is going against the entire Christian church.

Your "tradition" problem belongs to you ..... it is not ours! We, instead of "bending" the Scriptures to fit a historical custom/tradition, would rather find an explanation for the tradition or conclude that it was spurious or abrogated, or whatever. For the Bible is the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. Lastly, I gave you an illustration re: "Theistic Evolution", simply to illustrate how even some very good men can be led astray and into error in an attempt to "make the church look good". The pressures of the so-called "scientific evidence" for Darwinian Evolution were too much to bear, it would seem for some, and so they performed a Vulcan mind meld in an attempt to find a "middle ground" doctrine that would remove the stark contradiction that exists between biblical Creationism and Darwinian Evolution. The problem was not with the antithesis but with those who couldn't stand the heat which came from the antithesis. So, they exchanged good biblical exegesis for unbiblical eisogesis and a fractured hermeneutic in order to "marry" God's Word with ungodly and contradictory "evidence". It is my contention that you are trying to accomplish the same thing, for whatever reason you have. I've offered you a reasonably good exegesis of the passage. You have rejected it on the grounds that "Jewish custom" must determine how we read the Bible. Sorry.... I reject your proposition and thus your view. Perhaps you would have me believe that all the years I spent learning Greek and Hebrew and studying hermeneutics was really unnecessary, when all I had to do was to "become a Jewish scholar"?

In His Grace,

Dear Tom:

In reply to:

---

the fact that there are some other "Reformed theologians" as well as probably the majority of Churches today that would believe similar to Marcus, would seem to me to give his understanding some credence.

---

So, in other words, the standard for having a high view of scripture according to your logic is if "some other "Reformed Theologians" and the majority of Churches today agree with exhalting historical tradition over clear exegesis? And that further, when that clear exegesis is not an isolated statement of scripture, but rather is consistent with Paul's, indeed the entire Biblical's, teaching on the respective roles of men and women in the divine economy? I believe, Tom, that is called the "herd mentality".

In reply to:

---

I don't believe that Matthew Henry or any of the other commentators that Marcus mentioned have a low view of God's Word, whether they are right about this matter or not.

---

As far as Mathew Henry is concerned, he is not my favorite Commentator, but I do respect him as a man with a high view of scripture. Just out of curiosity, I went and looked at his commentary on this passage and I find nothing that indicates that his view is in agreement with Marcus'. Thus, I must conclude that Marcus, anxious to see what he wanted to see in this commentary, just as he was anxious to see what he wanted to see in the verse, has misinterpreted Henry's words just as he did Hodge's.

In reply to:

---

This debate kind of reminds me of the Paedo vs. Credo debate, while only one can be correct on the topic; the fact is there are many fine Christians on both sides of the issue.

---

I agree there are some similarities between this and the paedo/credo issue, but I would contend that they are minor similarities. First, I don't agree with the assertion that "only one can be correct on the topic", for as I have said before, I believe there is adequate support for both believers baptism and infant sprinkling as a sign of the covenant. The problem, to my view is when either side begins to add all sorts of inferances, such as presumptive regeneration, associated with either postion, and then begins to castigate "the other side" for not adopting their postion.

Secondly, the issue here, in head coverings, is very simply whether or not we will honor God's authority in establishing the order of relationships. In a society/culture that is actively rejecting that authority and exhaulting the woman over the man in every way imaginable, it seems important to me to take a stand against it, and that stand, in the context of the Church, as Paul states here is to be an outward sign of respect for that authority while worshiping and praying in the assembly. Were all those affected by this issue to "quit kicking against the goad", I believe they would be on the way to experiencing the peace that passes all understanding, instead of being in constant rebellion and turmoil against the created order.

Do you understand my point (s)?

In Him,

Gerry

Tom,

What Reformed theologians, might I ask, exegete this verse unto the conclusion that Paul would have never told the men to remove their head coverings because "To a Jew, it is unthinkable, irreverent, strictly forbidden, a sin of the highest order, to come before God in prayer with an uncovered head."

~Jason

When I said those things I was not advocating the "herd mentality". What I was trying to say is that because this is the practice of probably the vast majority within conservative Christianity, it shouldn't be just past over without serious consideration.
I want to try to make certain that I am not missing something within the debate, which may change my understanding of the issue.
So far I agree with Pilgrim and many others on the Highway on this issue. Why? Because it seems to be the most logically and biblical position

If I am wrong on the point about the vast majority, or the theologians in question, I am certainly open to for correction.

Tom

Jason

I am not sure I am following you.

What I said (perhaps in an unclear manner) was basically the same as what you said in another post.
For the interest of clarity, I will post the post that you wrote.



"Marcus,

It appears to me that your argument is essentially that Paul would have never told the men to remove their head coverings because "To a Jew, it is unthinkable, irreverent, strictly forbidden, a sin of the highest order, to come before God in prayer with an uncovered head." Well, there were many things that were "unthinkable" to the Jew (like eating with unwashed hands) that Christ and the apostles had no problem setting them straight on. I honestly can't fathom how you can read that text, given the straightforward observations Pilgrim has given you regarding Paul's polemic from nature, and claim that Paul was teaching the very opposite of what he said. What's even more amusing is that you wrote, "But I do think it would be theologically inconsistent of Paul to place such a legalistic and superficial command on the body of Christ as a particular article of clothing", while at the same time you maintain that Paul would have to respect the Jewish custom to pray to God with an uncovered head! I see, so it is okay for Jews to be enslaved to a head covering code of their own, but if Paul wants to impose the inverse practice it becomes legalistic, superficial, unthinkable? Your argument has come across as nothing but special pleading from the start, so rather than gathering to watch a great football game between two top-rated teams, it has been more like watching the cheerleading section while the other team is out waiting on the field. I do hope you intend to address the text, from the text, at some point."

Regards,

~Jason

I hope that clears the matter up.

Tom

My point was not that you necessarily agreed with Marcus, I was disputing the claim that other Reformed theolgians argue in the manner that Marcus does. Where have other Reformed theologians argued that Paul could only be dealing with the Gentiles because Paul would never had said such a thing to offend Jewish men who covered their heads? Perhaps I missed it, but I did not see these other Reformed exegetes making that argument. They may arrive at the same conclusion as Marcus, but for different reasons.

Hope that helps,

~Jason

Gerry, you said ;" I believe there is adequate support for both believers baptism and infant sprinkling as a sign of the covenant "

Pilgrim,

Well, I *think* I understand where you're coming from. I still think that, in your description of my position back to me, you are grossly misrepresenting my reasoning, in fact exactly reversing my logic trail, but I'm giving up trying to defend it. I suspect if we were to keep digging, we'd eventually find we have different epistemological views, which are very difficult to translate. It's ironic though that such a fundamentally different philosophy will only show itself in 1% of "issues," and even then only small ones.