The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum first corinthians11: 1-16

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]On the other hand, I don't believe that the covering spoken about here is required today in worship, simply because the context in which the covering was required no longer exists.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I see an inconsistency here as well as a contextual faux pas. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] Let's consider what Paul says after he specifically speaks about a woman praying and prophesying (it is assumed we are in agreement of the context being considered is corporate worship).<blockquote>1 Corinthians 11:7-10 (ASV) "For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have [a sign of] authority on her head, because of the angels."</blockquote>Perhaps it would be prudent to freely admit that the phrase "because of the angels" is more than a difficult one to comprehend. Yet, I think we could also agree that there are few renderings of this phrase which would negatively impact upon one coming to a right understanding of the meat of the passage.<br><br>As I read this portion of the passage, which you also agreed that a woman should have long hair as it is part of God's original design in her creation, it is just because of this fact, that a woman is to have her head covered. The word "covering" can be translated as a "veil", however, a study of the original word will show that this is not necessarily an absolute. Further, it is doubtful that a case can be made that Paul is restricting this "covering" to a particular type, e.g., a Middle Eastern "veil". I will here agree with John_C that in this matter, a principle is being established and not necessarily the "mode" of fulfilling the principle, e.g., by a "veil". Besides, Paul is concerned with the covering of the head and not the face, which is the reason behind the practice of wearing a veil in Middle Eastern culture. Lastly, there is really no sure way of knowing what the actually "covering" which Paul refers to was.<br><br>So, back to the specific issue, the mandate for women wearing a head covering. Paul says, "for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: <span style="background-color:yellow;">for this cause</span> ought the woman to have [a sign of] authority on her head . . .". I find it inescapable to see Paul's teaching any other way than because of the creation order, women are to be subordinate to men, and to exemplify this immutable truth, women are to cover their heads with something other than their hair. The argument, which you partially endorse, that to bring in an argument of "Cultural Boundness", is impossible to prove that the covering is no longer mandated. I have often argued with some who are wanting to use an argument from "culture", that if we take culture as the standard, then women are no longer restricted to monogamous relationships nor to heterosexual relationships due to the shift of these things from the former culture which we are experiencing today. Thus, I believe, that the Holy Spirit was quite explicit in this passage to establish that the "cause" (reason) why women should cover their heads is established upon the creative order and not a cultural norm.<br><br>Lastly, Paul establishes the fact that this issue was not restricted to the church at Corinth, but was universally practiced by all the churches that were currently existent at that time:<blockquote>1 Corinthians 11:16 (ASV) "But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."</blockquote>Thus, it would appear that Corinth was the exemption to the rule, in that they were allowing women to come into the worship of God with their heads uncovered. And to this Paul caps his argument by saying that no such "custom" (practice) exists in any other church.<br><br>Perhaps I should add just a couple more comments here in the hopes of shedding a little more light, assuming that any light at all has shone through from what I have written. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]<br><br>This is particularly addressed to brother John_C who wants to have this passage teach only a principle without any specific application. The problem with that argument, IMHO, is that the "principle" established is that the Creative Order determines the practice, which is vice versa of what has been suggested. Because of the Creative Order, therefore a woman is to cover her head. Thus what we have in this passage is: Principle established: a woman was made for man > application of the principle: exemplified in the covering of a woman's head. <br><br>Secondly, Paul uses a very similar argument in 1Tim 2:11-14, i.e., the Creative Order, to show that a woman is not to teach or to have authority over men. The "principle" is the same but with a different application (practice) being established upon it. Both are grounded in God's eternal decree, purpose and recognized by the church universal.<br><br>In His Grace,