I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I need some help understanding what you all are wanting exactly from me. You have asked me to "deal with the text" many times. I want nothing more than to be able to grant you your wish, but I thought I had. I'm really doing my best. Can you please help me understand?
My method is this: As far as the wording of the English translation from the Greek, the English does justice fine. As far as the grammatical structure of the text, it is pretty clear. If you read 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, having never read any other part of the NT, or knowing nothing about the historical or cultural context of the Paul's words, then there is only one conclusion that you can reach: That all women of all places and all times are required to wear a veil, and all men are forbidden of it. Without consideration of the broad context, that is what the text says. However, that is not what the text *means*. Here we leave hermeneutics and enter exegesis. As part of prudent, conservative exegesis, we take into consideration in as many sources of reliable truth as we can, starting with other passages scripture, then to theological themes reinforced throughout scripture, and finally the history, customs, archeology, and other evidence in which we have confidence of its truth.
In light of all those other things, it becomes obvious that, in this rare case, the non-contextual grammatical reading of the text is lacking. My understanding of the exegesis, my interpretation, is this: I believe that it is sufficiently proven that Paul was here speaking to the Greeks in the understood context of their already-in-place customs. That the veil was understood as a symbol of submission, the lack of a veil the symbol of authority, and it is these principles of submission and authority that Paul is addressing, and NOT in importance of the veil in and of itself.
As Hodge points out, the Paul's "command" that it dishonors his head any man that wears a veil, is not a command at all, but an example for Paul to make his point. The Corinthians men were already in the practice of not wearing a veil -- that is women's clothing. Paul is here saying, if I may paraphrase, "You know how disgraceful it is for a man to wear a woman's veil? Well, in the same sense and for the same reason, it is disgraceful for a woman to NOT wear a veil." The fact that he is not making an issue with men not wearing veils, but taking it as a given, shows that his desire is not to reverse any standing traditions of men, not using his apostolic authority to outlaw a long standing practice of Jewish men of wearing prayer shawls. I could, but he is not doing that here, as Hodge explains. And if we accept that it was acceptable, not required, for Jewish men, outside the context of Corinthian customs, to continue to wear prayer shawls, as long as the principles of submission and authority are publicly maintained, then we must also admit that it is acceptable, not required, for at least some women, outside the context of Corinthian customs, to not wear a veil, as long the principles of submission and authority are publicly maintained.
Analogy is no base for logic, but let me take this interpretation into application into our cultural context. Pants. Pants are a symbol of authority, in a way. Do we not say of the person which is the dominant character in a couple, "That person where's the pants in that family?" Antithetically, a dress can be considered the symbol of submission. So I think you could very easily go through the entire chapter, systematically replacing the word "veil" with the word "dress" as the modern equivalent of a veil, the symbol of a woman's womanhood, and get a paraphrased translation that is completely faithful to the meaning of the passage. It is disgraceful for a man to wear a dress, this is obvious. (Unless you're in Scotland, again, always cultural differences.) For the same reason, it is disgraceful for a woman to wear pants. For any woman who wears pants in church appears to be assuming the role of a man, but she is not a man. She has a different role. She cannot do the role of a man anymore than a man can perform her role. Therefore, as a symbol of her womanhood and her recognition of the importance of her role, let the woman wear a dress, and a man wear pants. That would be an *almost* modern equivalent. Looking at the text in this way in completely compatible with the text itself, and at the same time with all those other sources of exegetical reference that I mentioned. I believe this is the most compelling interpretation of this text.
I am not so proud that I think I alone have all the answers. I could be wrong, because although Paul was infallible as he wrote this, none of us are. So if you can prove with evidence, and point out exactly where my exegesis has a fatal flaw, then I will admit that I was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. I used to believe that women should wear hats, until I studied the context more carefully and convinced myself that this is the proper interpretation. I was also raised Arminian, but then as I studied more in depth, I believed Calvinism to be the more accurate analysis of the relevant scriptures. I admitted that I was wrong for years in those cases, and I will admit it again here, if there is something that I have forgotten.
