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

Marcus,

I must grant you this: you have the "gift of gab". Out of all you wrote, I will only address a few items which I think are relevant to this discussion.

In reply to:

---

If even this is not yet what you are demanding for an interpretation of that verse, then I don't know what to do. I have interpreted that verse until I am blue in the face! Please help me out, here! Tell me exactly what you are looking for. Phrase it differently. Give me a specific example, a model to follow. Explain what standard of proof I must meet for you and what tools I am permitted to use to do it. If it's possible within your guidelines, I'm willing to try. And please refrain from using the terms that have cause us confusion in the past like exegesis and hermeneutics, because I don't think we're using the same dictionary or something.

---

Now, here I was thinking that my plea for you to interpret vs. 4 on three separate occasions, in light of your Jewish history, was plain enough?? It seems to me and to a number of others that there is a problem which needs to be addressed. If Paul, being a devout Jew, a Pharisee of Pharisees, to use his own words, believed that men should cover their heads when entering into an assembly and praying, etc., then why.. HOW can he then strongly forbid that men cover their heads?? Yes, I give more weight to the Grammatico in this particular case as there is nothing in biblical history that I can find where men, in general, were commanded of God to cover their heads when entering into the Tabernacle, Temple or just simply praying. But, even if there could be found a direct command of God that men cover their heads, Paul, speaking for Christ as His divinely authorized spokesman, writes that a man who enters into the assembly and prays with a covering on his head, "dishonors his head"; i.e., it is shameful to do so. Personally, I have no problems whatsoever here with what Paul is saying because it takes precedence over anything that was formerly commanded and/or practiced. Hermeneutics 101: The New Testament interprets the Old Testament. Or as Augustine succinctly put it, "The New is in the Old contained. The Old is in the New explained."

Oh, just to finish up on this hermeneutic/exegesis thing. If I somehow spoke over your head, I apologize. I simply assumed that you were theologically literate. To me, if I have to err, I would rather be guilty of speaking over someone's head rather than insult a person's intelligence. And as a side note, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and Jamison, Faucet and Brown are the last commentators I would consult. Yes, I have them in my library and I have read them from time to time. And at the risk of repeating my faux pas, what I am accusing you of is actually eisogesis; and such a nice word too, isn't it?

In reply to:

---

See, I told you that you were going to mistake me for a liberal. You promised you wouldn't, but here you go. :-)

---

This is a totally unwarranted comment, as I have never implied any such thing. I have already spoken to this matter of your theological conservatism, high regard for Scripture, etc. Why you insist on creating a strawman, where you want to appear as one being attacked and accused of being some schlep weirdo, I haven't a clue. Unless, of course, this is how you respond when challenged to defend something you believe? No matter. . . the point is, I do NOT consider you to be a "Liberal" to any degree. So, relax Marcus!!

In reply to:

---

Evolution has nothing to do with culture or mixing extra-biblical truth with scripture. Evolution isn't true, period. It can't even make a scientifically sound argument for itself; it's full of wholes any way you look at it. Evolution is the philosophy of dedicated atheists who have to have some way to explain existence if they begin with the assumption that there is no God. So, strictly speaking, evolution is not science, it is faith, a false religion. That's my thought on it.

---

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Evolution. What that has to do with head coverings I couldn't even guess. Perhaps the fault is mine in that I used Evolution as an example when I tried to show how some men, some very notable and otherwise conservative men, have tried to meld what is currently "culturally acceptable", i.e., blindly accept the theory of Evolution as sound scientific fact, with the biblical Creation record. The specific point was that there are some who allow the pressures society, popularity, culture and of the "scientific community" to interpret the Bible so that there is no apparent contradiction. But of course, there is a blatant contradiction, as you have pointed out, between the biblical Creation and modern Evolutionary theory. And thus, taking what is purported to be "scientific", i.e., the "history of the world" and making the Bible "fit" into that mould is in error. That was my attempt at a real example of how it is possible to allow the "historico" to wrongly influence the "grammatico".

I admit, that in my training, it was required of me to spend countless and grueling hours wrestling with language and grammar of biblical texts. That is not to say that I didn't enjoy studying biblical history as well and even doing research in secular history. Yes, I do appreciate Alfred Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah and Old Testament Bible History and such books as Josephus by Whiston, and so on .... and they are valuable sources to help one understand customs, etc. But when there is appears to be a clean contradiction between secular history/custom and a biblical teaching, I believe the biblical text takes precedence.

In reply to:

---

So read over Charles Hodge there and tell me what you think of his interpretation, since he and I seem to have the same opinion. And if you'd like to compare, I'll be happy to transcribe with those others I mentioned, if you don't already have them handy. But that will wait for another day, because it's late.

---

Mr. Hodge has been consulted and read dozens of times on this passage, I can assure you. In fact, I was the one who recommended Hodge to Joe as a good source on this passage. I think Hodge does a marvelous job exegeting (there's that word again!!) the text. What I am assuming is that when you read where Hodge mentions "culture" in his prefacing remarks, you immediately turned off the old thinking cap and jumped to the conclusion that he considered the entire matter of head coverings as cultural?? But in fact, Hodge simply states that the "FORM OF EXPRESSION" is cultural but the mandate for men to be uncovered and women covered is to be observed. In fact, Hodge is very good in bringing out the importance of the word, paradosis Tradition, in that what Paul was going to write had already been established previously by him and is to be taken as that which is to be observed. What we read in 1Cor 11:1ff in regard to head coverings is not the first time that subject was addressed. Not only does Paul say that it is something he had taught to the Corinthians at a previous time, but in verse 16, it is clear that at the time Paul wrote this epistle, the practice was universally practiced in all the churches. Since these epistles were encyclical, it must be assumed that this injunction was not meant to be restricted to Corinth alone. But rather, this was something to be received and obeyed by all the churches everywhere.

Now..... in the tradition I was trained in and which I have obviously embraced and try to practice, I would refer you to a letter the late Prof. John Murray wrote in regard to head coverings. I do think that he has captured the intent and application of this disputed text near perfection. You can read it here, if you haven't already: Dr. John Murray on "head coverings".

In His Grace,