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

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,