The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings

heidi,

With all due respect, why won't you EXEGETE the passage to prove your contention that "a woman's head should be covered because it is consider an object of shame and disgrace."? I nor any commentator worth his salt can find any such nonsense. Paul would never and could never contradict himself nor would he write anything that contradicted any other biblical passage since he wrote under divine inspiration.

Those of us who hold to headcoverings for women in public worship more than understand why the practice should be done. There are two basic reasons:

1. It sets forth the demarcation between male and female as God has created them.

2. Women are to be subject to the authority of their husbands and all those men who are given authority over the Church by the appointment of the Holy Spirit, i.e., Elders.

3. And a third is because as Paul wrote, "because of the angels".

I'm also curious to know if you took the time to read through David Silversides' excellent article, "Is Headcovering Biblical?" My reason for asking is because he gives myriad quotes from reliable and conservative Reformed men from various eras which indisputably show that headcoverings were the common and accepted practice throughout the history of the Protestant Church.

Secondly, I fully agree that history should not and cannot interpret Scripture. However, Church history cannot be dismissed willy nilly since it is the Body of Christ which is guided by the ever-present Holy Spirit. Thus Scripture must be brought forth to show whether that which was practiced in the Church historically is unwarranted. Can you do this with sound EXEGESIS of the passage?

IF <--- as you say that a woman's hair is the covering which Paul is referring to (vv. 5, 6, and 15), then verse 6 makes no logical sense. Could you please explain how the text makes sense if one takes your view of that verse? Additionally, verse 16 makes no sense if it was Paul's intention to say that the churches have no such practice of allowing to have no covering, which in your view the text would then mean that women were not allowed to cover their head with long hair; a direct contradiction of the preceding version (15).

I and others look forward to your EXEGESIS of the passage.

In His grace,