The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings

Amen Dave. It is very much a tradition and clearly a misunderstanding of Scriptures. I doubt it the folks who hold to headcoverings understand the reasons they practiced it either. I read many interpretations, but nothing that is of anything sound. I think Murray does some major somersaults when interpreting this passage.

Someone here referred to a baptists discussion board in this thread that discussed the headcovering that I read close to a year ago (unfortunately the link doesn't seem to work anymore). What I found very disturbing is how there are people, without even thinking (unless they really are male chauvinist), could accept the literal interpretation. One person there even posted how he didn't understand how women take offense in this -- clearly this person lacks sensitivity. I think that person needs to reread those passages in the literal interpretation because clearly the literal interpretation marks the woman's head as an object of scorn. How could women not find that offensive?! It's not rocket science to see this. The only conclusion to that is, that those who promoted the literal interpretation are male chauvinist. I really don't know how else to see it ... unless they really don't understand what they have actually embraced. If you think about this ... how consistent is that view to the rest of Scriptures. What everyone seems to forget is that this passage is about headship. Not about an object that sits on a woman's shoulder. If God really did mean to mark the woman's head as an object of shame, then why didn't He mention it then in creation that her head was an object of shame (if the literal head in vs 5,6 is somehow related to ordered headship in creation) when He created her? But what instead did God say? When he created man and woman, the Lord said it was GOOD! Did not God create Adam and Eve perfect in the beginning? Or did God tell a white lie and finally came out clean and confessed in 1Cor11 and stated ... "well, it wasn't quite true that woman was created good ... her head is actually an object of scorn". Of course this is silly and blasphemous (to suggest that God ever lies) ... but that's how one would have to make sense of the literal interpretation with the rest of Scriptures.

I think the only person who opposed that view on that thread gave a better interpretation. She presented that the passage was speaking figuratively. That the head spoken of in vs 5-6 is not the object that sits on the woman's shoulders but is speaking about her authority over man --- that is what is an object of scorn --- not her head! She further stated that the man's authority serves to cover the woman. As vs 3 states that Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman. She's right that vs 3 sets the context of the whole passage --- ORDERED HEADSHIP. And as clearly stated in vs 13 that in creation, the Lord marked the woman's hair as this symbol of this ordered headship. Symbols need not be something that has to be removable. Just in the same way that the Lord used the rainbow as a symbol of his covenant with Noah, he used a part of his creation as that symbol. In the case of headship, it's the woman's hair.

What further saddens me is how some men will blame the woman's hair as their stumbling block. This again is an abuse of this passage and just really an excuse for their own sins. Don't they realize that Jesus teaches that sin is from within and not to what is external? It's really discouraging how men will speak like that about women that are suppose to be their sisters in Christ, just to hide their own sins.

My prayer is that folks really take a good look at what they are promoting and ask themselves if they are really doing good to the brethren (that includes their sisters in Christ). I don't believe that Paul was promoting that the woman's head is an object of shame (and so should be "covered") as the literal interpretation would have us believe. I think you'll have to look long and hard to find such an interpretation to be supported in rest of Scriptures. I think the most sound interpretation is that figurative interpretation because it's quite consistent with the rest of Scriptures if you study it.