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

Pilgrim, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. This is getting a little frustrating as I'm appealing to scripture, history, systematic theology, DeCartian logic, and anything else I can come up with, and I'm frankly feeling ignored as you chant "exegete, exegete." Do we even agree of the definition of the word "exegete?" Let's just make sure. Let me quote from one of my old college textbooks, The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns: "Biblical theology has a direct relationship to exegesis (to explain; to interpret), inasmuch as biblical theology is the result of exegesis. Exegesis calls for an analysis of the biblical text according to the literal-grammatical-historical methodology." The passage should be studied in its historical context. What were the political, social, and particularly the cultural circumstances surrounding it?" In another of my favorite broad-subject references, Millard Erickson in Christian Theology, 2nd ed., explains the steps to "doing" theology, and lists steps 5 through 7 as consultation of other cultural perspectives, identification of the essence of the doctrine, and illumination from extrabiblical sources, respectively. Thus, according to how I've been taught, all that I've been giving you, Jewish history (which is not something that is iffy or in question, but something that Jews are as confident in as you are that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492), occurrences of the tallit in OT and NT (though admittedly, not having it's use spelled out), and appeals to NT themes ARE EXEGETICAL! What more do you want?

If what you mean by "exegete" is that you wish to narrow the field of the burden of proof to 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, and Chapter 11 only, then we are not operating on the same field. Taken in isolation, yours is the only view one can reach. However, taking a verse, a chapter, or even a book of the bible out of it's FULL exegetical context of the rest of scripture as well as history and culture, is not sound theology by any orthodox measure. I'm not accusing you of being less-than-orthodox, I'm just clearing up definitions, because we are really missing each other somewhere. Yell if I hit on it. :-)

As far as my commentary on the passage, just in case that's what you mean, what is left after I exegetically disprove (even if only to myself) that the specific symbols do not matter? Easy, everything is left. The scripture is rich with meaning, if we are not distracted with women's fashion! According to the order and purpose of their creation, and even as we can observe in "extrabiblical" natural revelation, men are to act like men and women are to act like women. Women should submit to the leadership and authority of men, especially in the liturgy, and they should show honor and respect to their husbands, even as their husbands show honor and respect to Christ, publicly, tastefully, proudly, and in a uniform and conformal matter. Respect and conformity are foundational in every church. No, you can't make up your own, individual ways, it has to be something widely excepted, and women wearing hats while men do not is one excellent way of doing that, but obviously not the only way. (obvious because of the larger exegetical context)

As you can tell, I focus most of my attention on the issue of the men not being permitted to have their head covered, because this is the half of the issue that we can see difference between Jews and Gentiles. One possible explanation about his appeal to the other churches at the end would be that he was specifically speaking of the women, where it was (and is) also the Jewish practice that women wear a shawl as well as the men. So on the issue of women, there would be universality. But on the issue of men, there would not be. And if there was not, then that proves that the symbol is not important (for either sex, logically).

Aside from the fact that Jesus Himself wore a tallit, I think my strongest point is something that you've hitherto ignored as well, and that is that Paul's reversal of tradition or law or at least traditional interpretation of the law, not just exempting but forbidding an age-old Hebrew practice, stands out like a sore thumb from the theological makeup of the New Testament. The only other thing I can think of that comes close is the doctrine that animal sacrifices should no longer be performed, and that was dealt with in detail and at length and logically explained that Christ was the final sacrifice. (that's a pretty big deal) Why is there no such lengthy and logical explanation for the cessation of tallit use? Moreover, Paul is famed for teaching our freedom from the law, and rebuking the Pharisees and the legalists who would impose physical laws like circumcision or kosher butchering on Christians. For Paul to now introduce this law of dress code seems to defeat everything else he ever taught about law and grace. How do you exegete that? (use any text you like, even extrabibilical as long as it's accurate, I don't mind.)

Show me where in context an oral tradition of the Apostle Paul is heretical. You are presuming legalism where none exists.

I feel I must state again Marcus, you are presuming legalism where none exists. Perhaps this is the barrier of communication we face.

Marcus

Perhaps I am missing something here, but if indeed it was the practice for Jews to cover their heads when they prayed. What then did Paul mean when he said that man dishonored his head when he covered it?

I am trying to see it your way, but Paul's statements just don't make sense in view of what you say was the practice of the day.
Yes I know that you said that we shouldn't just take that verse or passage without the cultural surrounding. But when I put the cultural view that you say was practiced into this verse, it makes very little sense to me.

The only logical thing that my mind can come up with what you say was the cultural norm. Is that Paul was telling the people that the cultural norm was wrong.

Tom

Many thanks...from a different perspective indeed.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. </font><hr></blockquote><p>Pilgrim referred me to this exegesis earlier and thus I now refer you to it as well. Since, I was unable to find Hodge’s exegesis of I Cor 11 on-line I typed this out for your exegetical flavoring (sorry, if there are any omissions: Greek and it is long).<br><br><center>[color:blue]CHARLES HODGE’S COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS</center></font color=blue><br><br>CHAPTER 11<br><br>The impropriety of women appearing unveiled in the public assemblies, vs. 2-16. The improper manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper which prevailed in the Corinthian church, vs. 11-34. <br><br><ul>On the impropriety of women appearing in public unveiled, vs. 2-16. [/LIST] Having corrected the more private abuses which prevailed among the Corinthians, the apostle begins in this chapter to consider those which relate to the mode of conducting public worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing in public without a veil. Dress is in a great degree conventional. A costume which is proper in one country, would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress to all those usages which the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The veil in all eastern countries was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of modesty and subjection. For a woman, therefore, in Corinth to discard the veil was to renounce her claim to modesty, and to refuse to recognize her subordination to her husband. It is on the assumption of this significancy in the use of the veil, that the apostle’s whole argument in this paragraph is founded. He begins by praising the Corinthians for their obedience in general to his instructions, v. 2. He then reminds them of the divinely constituted subordination of the woman to the man, v. 3. Consequently it was disgraceful in the man to assume the symbol of subordination, and disgraceful in the woman to discard it, vs. 4, 5. If the veil were discarded as the symbol of subordination, it must also be discarded as the symbol of modesty. An unveiled woman, therefore, in Corinth proclaimed herself as not only insubordinate, but as immodest, v. 6. The man ought not to wear a veil because he represents the authority of God; but the woman is the glory of the man, v. 7. This subordination is proved by the very history of her creation. Eve was formed out of Adam, and made for him, vs. 8, 9, and, therefore, women should wear, especially in the religious assemblies where angels are present, the conventional symbol of their relation, v. 10. This subordination, however, of the woman is perfectly consistent with the essential equality and mutual dependence of the sexes. Neither is, or can be, without the other, vs. 11, 12. The apostle next appeals to their instinctive sense of propriety, which taught them that as it is disgraceful in a man to appear in the costume of a woman, so it is disgraceful in a woman to appear in the costume of a man, vs. 13-15. Finally he appeals to authority; the custom which he censured was contrary to the universal practice of Christians, v. 16. <br><br><ul>2. Now I praise, you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered (them) to you. [/LIST] Now I praise you. The particle rendered “now”, either simply indicates the transition to a new subject, or it is adversative. ‘Though I exhort you to imitate me as though you were deficient, yet I praise you that you remember me.’ The Corinthians, although backward in following the self-denial and conciliatory conduct of the apostle, were nevertheless in general mindful of the ordinances or rules which he had delivered to them. The word “tradition”, here rendered ordinance, is used not only for instructions orally transmitted from generation to generation, as in Matthew 15:2, 3, 6, but for any instruction, whether relating to faith or practice, and whether delivered orally or in writing. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6. In reference to the rule of faith it is never used in the New Testament, except for the immediate instructions of inspired men. When used in the modern sense of the word tradition, it is always in reference to what is human and untrustworthy, Galatians 1:14. Colossians 2:8, and frequently in the gospels of the traditions of the elders. <br><br><ul>3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman (is) the man; and the head of Christ (is) God. [/LIST] Though the apostle praised the Corinthians for their general obedience to his prescriptions, yet there were many things in which they were deserving of censure. Before mentioning the thing which he intended first to condemn, he states the principle on which that condemnation rested; so that, by assenting to the principle, they could not fail to assent to the conclusion to which it necessarily led. That principle is, that order and subordination pervade the whole universe, and is essential to its being. The head of the man is Christ; the head of woman is the man; the head of Christ is God. If this concatenation be disturbed in any of its parts, ruin must be the result. The head is that on which the body is dependent, and to which it is subordinate. The obvious meaning of this passage is, that the woman is subordinate to the man, the man is subordinate to Christ and Christ is subordinate to God. It is further evident, that this subordination is very different in its nature in the several cases mentioned. The subordination of the woman to the man is something entirely different from that of the man to Christ; and that again is at an infinite degree more complete than the subordination of Christ to God. And still further, as the subordination of the woman to the man is perfectly consistent with their identity as to nature, so is the subordination of Christ to God consistent with his being of the same nature with the Father. There is nothing, therefore, in this passage, at all inconsistent with the true and proper divinity of our blessed Lord. For a brief statement of the scriptural doctrine of the relation of Christ to God, see the comments on 3:23. It need here be only further remarked, that the word Christ is the designation, not of the Logos or second person of the Trinity as such, nor of the human nature of Christ as such, but of the Theanthropos, the God-man. It is the incarnate Son of God, who, in the great work of redemption, is said to be subordinate to the Father, whose will he came into the world to do. When Christ is said to be the head of every man, the meaning is of every believer; because it is the relation of Christ to the church, and not to the human family, that it is characteristically expressed by this term. He is the head of that body which is the church, Colossians 1:18. Ephesians 1:22, 23. <br><br><ul>4. Every man praying or prophesying, having (his) head covered, dishonoreth his head.[/LIST] Such being the order divinely established, (viz., that mentioned in v. 3,) both men and women should act in accordance with it; the man, by having the head uncovered, the woman by being veiled. As the apostle refers to their appearance in public assemblies, he says, Every man praying or prophesying i.e. officiating in public worship. Prophesying. In the scriptural sense of the word, a prophet is one who speaks for another, as Aaron is called the prophet, or spokesman of Moses. “Thou shalt speak unto him, and put words into his mouth,... and he shall be thy spokesman,” Exodus 4:15, 16; or, as he is called, 7:1, thy prophet. The prophets of God, therefore, were his spokesmen, into whose mouth the Lord put the words which they were to utter to the people. To prophesy, in Scripture, is accordingly, to speak under divine inspiration; not merely to predict future events, but to deliver, as the organ of the Holy Ghost, the messages of God to men, whether in the form of doctrine, exhortation, consolation, or prediction. This public function, the apostle says, should not be exercised by a man with his head covered; literally, having something on his head downward. <br><br>Among the Greeks, the priests officiated bareheaded; the Romans with the head veiled; the Jews (at least soon after the apostolic age) also wore the Tallis or covering for the head in their public services. It is not to be inferred from what is here said, that the Christian prophets (or inspired men) had introduced this custom into the church. The thing to be corrected was, women appearing in public assemblies unveiled. The apostle says, the veil is inconsistent with the position of the man, but is required by that of the women. Men are mentioned only for the sake of illustrating the principle. <br><br>Dishonoreth his head. It is doubtful whether we should read his or his own head. This is a point the ancient manuscripts do not decide, as they are not furnished with the diacritical marks. It depends on the connection. It is also doubtful whether the apostle meant to say that he dishonored Christ who is his head, or that he dishonored himself. The latter, perhaps, is to be preferred, <br><br>1. Because, in the immediately preceding clause the word is used literally, ‘If he cover his head, he dishonors his head.’ <br>2. Because, in v. 5, the woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonor her own head, i.e. as what follows shows, herself, and not her husband. <br>3. It is more obviously true that a man who acts inconsistently with his station disgraces himself, than that he disgraces him who placed him in that station. A commanding military officer, who appears at the head of his troops in the dress of a common soldier, instead of his official dress, might more properly be said to dishonor himself than his sovereign. <br><br>For a freeman to appear in the distinguishing dress of a slave, was a disgrace. So the apostle says, for a man to appear with the conventional sign of subjection on his head, disgraced himself. If the man be intended to represent the dominion of God, he must act accordingly, and not appear in the dress of a woman. <br><br><ul>5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with (her) head uncovered dishonoreth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven. [/LIST] Praying and prophesying were the two principal exercises in the public worship of the early Christians. The latter term, as above stated, included all forms of address dictated by the Holy Spirit. It was Paul’s manner to attend to one thing at a time. He is here speaking of the propriety of women speaking in public unveiled, and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public in itself. When that subject comes up, he expresses his judgment in the clearest terms, 14:34. In here disapproving of the one, says Calvin, he does not approve of the other. The veils worn by Grecian women were of different kinds. One, and perhaps the most common, was the peplum, or mantle, which in public was thrown over the head, and enveloped the whole person. The other was more in the fashion of the common eastern veil which covered the face, with the exception of the eyes. In one form or other, the custom was universal for all respectable women to appear veiled in public. — The apostle therefore says, that a woman who speaks in public with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head: her own head; not her husband, but herself. This is plain, not only from the force of the words, but from the next clause, for that is even all one as if she were shaven. This is the reason why she disgraces herself. She puts herself in the same class with women whose hair has been cut off. Cutting off the hair, which is the principal natural ornament of women, was either a sign of grief, Deuteronomy 21:12, or a disgraceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is: she is one and the same thing with one who is shaven. She assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman. <br><br><ul>6. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. [/LIST]That is, let her act consistently. If she wishes to be regarded as a reputable woman, let her conform to the established usage. But if she have no regard to her reputation, let her act as other women of her class. She must conform either to the reputable or disreputable class of her sex, for a departure from the one is conforming to the other. These imperatives are not to be taken as commands, but rather as expressing what consistency would require. Shorn or shaven, the latter is the stronger term; it properly means to cut with a razor. <br><br><ul>7. For a man indeed ought not to cover (his) head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [/LIST] The woman, and the woman only, ought to be veiled; for the man ought not to cover his head. This does not mean, he is not bound to do it, but should not do it. The reason is that he is the image and glory of God. The only sense in which the man, in distinction from the woman, is the image of God, is that he represents the authority of God. He is invested with dominion. When, in Genesis 1:26, 27, it is said God created man in his own image, the reference is as much to woman as to man; for it is immediately added, “male and female created he them.” So far, therefore, as the image of God consists in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, Eve as truly, and as much as Adam, bore the likeness of her Maker. But in the dominion with which man was invested over the earth, Adam was the representative of God. He is the glory of God, because in him the divine majesty is specially manifested. But the woman is the glory of the man. That is, the woman is in this respect subordinate to the man. She is not designed to reflect the glory of God as a ruler. She is the glory of the man. She receives and reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station; becomes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honor which may belong to her husband. <br><br><ul>8, 9. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. [/LIST] The subordination of the woman to the man is here proved from two facts recorded in the history of their creation. First, the woman was formed out of the man, and derived her origin from him. He, and not she, was created first. Secondly, she was created on his account, and not he on hers. In this way does the New Testament constantly authenticate, not merely the moral and religious truths of the Old Testament, but its historical facts; and makes those facts the grounds or proofs of great moral principles. It is impossible, therefore, for any Christian who believes in the inspiration of the apostles to doubt the divine authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, or to confine the inspiration of the ancient writers to their doctrinal and preceptive statements. The whole Bible is the word of God. <br><br><ul>10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on (her) head because of the angels. [/LIST] There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators as this. After all that has been written, it remains just as obscure as ever. The meaning which it naturally suggests to the most superficial reader, is regarded by the most laborious critics as the only true one. By, “power”, the apostle means the sign or symbol of authority; just as Diodorus Sic., 1:47, speaks of an image as “having three kingdoms on its head.” The apostle had asserted and proved that the woman is subordinate to the man, and he had assumed as granted that the veil was the conventional symbol of the man’s authority. The inference is that the woman ought to wear the ordinary symbol of the power of her husband. As it was proper in itself, and demanded by the common sense of propriety, that the woman should be veiled, it was specially proper in the worshipping assemblies, for there they were in the presence not merely of men but of angels. It was therefore, not only out of deference to public sentiment, but from reverence to those higher intelligences that the woman should conform to all the rules of decorum. This is the common and only satisfactory interpretation of the passage. Of those who dissent from this view, some propose various conjectural emendations of the text; others vainly endeavor to prove that the word “power” may be made to mean a veil; others take the word literally. And as to the last clause, instead of taking the word angels in its ordinary sense, some say it here means the angels, or presiding officers, of the church; others, that it means messengers or spies from the heathen who came to observe the mode in which the Christians worshipped, and would report any thing they observed to their disadvantage. The great majority of commentators acquiesce in the interpretation stated above, which satisfies all the demands of the context. <br><br><ul>11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. [/LIST] That is, although there is this subordination of the woman to the man, they are mutually dependent. The one cannot exist without the other. In the Lord. This does not mean that the one is not in the Lord to the exclusion of the other. The apostle is not here speaking of the spiritual equality of the sexes. In Galatians 3:28 and elsewhere he abundantly teaches that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female; that the one is as fully a partaker of all the benefits of redemption as the other. And it is also true that he teaches that this equality of Jews and Greeks, bond and free, before God is perfectly consistent with the social inequalities existing in this world. But these truths, however important, and however they distinguish the Christian doctrine of the equality and dignity of woman from all other forms of religious doctrine on the subject, are foreign to this connection. The apostle’s single object is to show the true nature and limitations of the subordination of the woman to the man. It is a real subordination, but it is consistent with their mutual dependence; the one is not without the other. And this mutual dependence is by divine appointment — according to the will of the Lord. These words are used here, as so frequently elsewhere, as an adverbial qualification, meaning religiously, after a Christian manner, or divinely, i.e. by divine appointment. The same idea is substantially expressed by those who explain the words in the Lord as tantamount to “in Christianity;” in the sense that it is a Christian doctrine that the man and the woman are thus mutually dependent. <br><ul>12. For as the woman (is) of the man, even so (is) the man also by the woman; but all things of God.[/LIST] The one is not without the other, for as the woman was originally formed out of the man, so the man is born of the woman. This is a proof, not of the admitted equality of the sexes in the kingdom of God, but of their mutual dependence in the kingdom of nature. It therefore confirms the interpretation given of the preceding verse. But all things are of God; these subordinate relations of one creature to another are merged, as it were, in the supreme causality of God. It matters little whether the man was of the woman or the woman of the man, as both alike are of God; just as he before said, it matters little whether a man were a Jew or Gentile, bond or free, since all are alike before God. <br><br><ul>13. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? [/LIST] This is an appeal to their own sense of propriety. The apostle often recognizes the intuitive judgments of the mind as authoritative. Romans 1:32; 3:8. The constitution of our nature being derived from God, the laws which he has impressed upon it, are as much a revelation from him as any other possible communication of his will. And to deny this, is to deny the possibility of all knowledge. It is comely, is it becoming or decorous? <br><br><ul>14, 15. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for (her) hair is given her for a covering.[/LIST] Doth not nature itself. The word, “nature”, sometimes means essence or substance, sometimes the laws of nature or of our natural constitution; sometimes, the instinctive feelings or judgments which are the effects of those laws. The form which feelings assume is necessarily determined in a great measure by education and habit. The instinctive sense of propriety in an eastern maiden prompts her, when surprised by strangers, to cover her face. In an European it would not produce that effect. In writing, therefore, to eastern females, it would be correct to ask whether their native sense of propriety did not prompt them to cover their heads in public. The response would infallibly be in the affrmative. It is in this sense the word nature is commonly taken here. It may, however, mean the laws or course of nature. Nature gives the man short hair and the woman long hair; and therefore nature itself teaches that long hair is a disgrace to the one and an ornament to the other; for it is disgraceful in a man to be like a woman, and in a woman to be like a man. Wearing long hair was contrary to the custom both of the Hebrews and Greeks. The Nazarites, as a distinction, allowed their hair to grow. Numbers 6:8; see also Ezekiel 44:20. It was considered so much a mark of effeminacy for men to wear long hair, that it was not only ridiculed by Juvenal, but in after times seriously censured by church councils. To a woman, however, in all ages and countries, long hair has been considered an ornament. It is given to her, Paul says, as a covering, or as a natural veil; and it is a glory to her because it is a veil. The veil itself, therefore, must be becoming and decorous in a woman. <br><br><ul>16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.[/LIST] The arguments against the custom of women appearing in public unveiled having been presented, the apostle says, if any man, notwithstanding these arguments, is disposed to dispute the matter, or appears to be contentious, we have only further to say, that we (the apostles) have no such custom, neither have the churches of God. To be contentious, i.e. disposed to dispute for the sake of disputation. With such persons all argument is useless. Authority is the only end of controversy with such disturbers of the peace. The authority here adduced is that of the apostles and of the churches. The former was decisive, because the apostles were invested with authority not only to teach the gospel, but also to organize the church, and to decide every thing relating to Christian ordinances and worship. The authority of the churches, although not coercive, was yet great. No man is justified, except on clearly scriptural grounds, and from the necessity of obeying God rather than man, to depart from the established usages of the church in matters of public concern. <br><br>Calvin, and many of the best modern commentators, give a different view of this passage. They understand the apostle to say, that if any one seems to be disputatious, neither we nor the churches are accustomed to dispute. It is not our wont to waste words with those who wish merely to make contention. The only reason assigned for this interpretation, is Paul’s saying we have no such custom; which they say cannot mean the custom of women going unveiled. But why not? The apostles and the churches constituted a whole neither the one nor the other, neither the churches nor their infallible guides, sanctioned the usage in question. Besides, no other custom is mentioned in the context than the one which he has been discussing. “If any one appear contentious,” is not a custom and suggests nothing to which the words such a custom can naturally refer.”

Marcus,

I'm not sure we have a problem in communication as much as we disagree on how to interpret the Bible, aka: hermeneutics? I certainly want to understand the "historical" context of all Scripture. But I also have to understand the "Grammatico" as well as the "Historico" of a text. You are wanting to interpret the grammatico BY the historico, whereas my approach is to consider the historico but give the grammatico more weight because God inspired the words... no, the very letters of words which were written by men moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus I have asked you repeatedly how you would interpret Paul's words: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." The grammar would appear, at least to me, to be a direct contradiction of the "historical context" which you are wanting to bring to this text. As of yet, you have not graced me with a reply that specifically answers that question. If you choose not to deal with this apparent dilemma, fine. But I would truly like to know how you handle it.

As to dramatic breaks in "cultural practice", you asked if there were any others. Well certainly..... dietary laws is one that comes immediately to mind. (Acts 10:9-14; 11:4ff). The original account in Acts 10 and Peter's rehearsal of that account in the next chapter are the only two places where this is mentioned. Indeed, it wasn't the dietary laws only that Peter had to dispense with but also that which their removal symbolized; the inclusion of Gentiles into the Kingdom, who before were considered to be "unclean". Now, there is no long and convoluted treatise to be found concerning these things, just the one event. And that even isn't written as an injunction which is to be honored by all but as a personal revelation of truth to Peter, who then preached and taught the universality of the Church of the Lord Christ, e.g., (Acts 15:7-11). Doubtless, this break with not only tradition but strict laws given by God through Moses is at least a serious thing as is one not wearing a "tallit", eh? The entire body of civil legislation might also be mentioned here as well, not to mention the sacrificial system, the Aaronic priesthood, etc., etc.... But be that as it may, again, my focus of the passage in question is the text itself.

Lastly, and I am clearly NOT making any judgments and/or accusations of you personally.... but the error of "Theistic Evolution" in all its forms, including the almost humerous "Gap Theory" and its derivatives have come to be due to an attempt to meld "culture" (in that case alleged scientific evidence which is in vogue) with the biblical text. The "cultural evidence" is given precedence and thus the creation account is screened through the mesh of "science" resulting in that which is totally foreign and contradictory to the biblical text itself. The reason I bring this up is to perhaps illustrate a similar tendency you are given to in such matters? Being a staunch defender of Messianic Judaism, it seems to me that you are going to give far more weight to Jewish secular history and custom than I would. And thus I could easily understand how you could be given to allowing the "customs" that have come down through the ages to color the glasses with which you see Scripture in certain places where there would be conflict. Perhaps this is not the case, but it is certainly understandable that it is quite possibly true.

As has been mentioned by some of the others who have participated in this discussion, I am not advocating any form of legalism: ala, works + faith = justification. What I am advocating is growing in grace unto sanctification. Again, the "type" of covering a woman should wear is a non-issue, IMHO. But the expression of heart submission by women is to be observed by having some kind of covering on their heads. And likewise men are not to cover their head as a sign of their divinely appointed authority. If this smacks against a long-standing Jewish custom, so be it. The Church is to live in the new covenant administration; not the old. While there is definite continuity, there is far more discontinuity. For with the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of the LORD Jesus Christ, much of what was practiced in the old covenant which were types and shadows have been fulfilled in Him.

In His Grace,

Tom,

Now you are beginning to understand what I'm trying to say. I can usually communicate much more clearly than this. In fact, I just practiced this same debate earlier today with a man live and in person. He goes to a church where they strictly enforce the head-coverings issue, and he felt very passionately and stubbornly in favor of it. (at least as much as Pilgrim, here) But even still, we found ourselves on common ground, agreeing with each other, after only 20 minutes! It shouldn't be this hard! :-)

One thing is I think that in the debate between Pilgrim and I has gone so much into the details of the exegetical methods, the logic, the history, the dispute over what constitutes proof, that I've buried my original point. I've tried to state is as many ways as I can but the message keeps getting lost. The only reason I bring up the historical context is to show that the interpretation of this passage as church law doesn't make any sense, as you have just concluded yourself. We're half-way there! :-) That doesn't mean the holy inspired scripture doesn't make sense, only that our fully fallible and human *interpretation* is off. So let's re-examine the passage now with a more complete context, and see if we can find a interpretation that is completely consistent with the words of the text itself and at the same time is consistent with the context.

As for what the sensible and biblical interpretation is, since I have tried and failed to explain it eloquently enough to be understood, I think the best thing I can do about that is shut-up and refer to the post by Joe (dated 12/03/03 05:07 AM) where he so heroically transcribes page after page of the work of Charles Hodge on exactly that subject. I would call special attention to his first full paragraph, which gives an overview of the passage. If you like that sort of thing, I can also furnish similar commentary that takes an identical interpretation from Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and Jamison, Faucet, and Brown (the first three commentaries on my shelf, there are a couple more but not as notable or as theologically conservative). The latter two of those even appeal to the same point of historical, Messianic Jewish tallit use as I do! :-) Doesn't make it right, but it at least gives me some company, and scholars of historical proportions at that.

I respect, by the way, your honestly trying to approach an issue with as much reason and non-bias as possible. Too often, and I'm preaching to myself here, we get so caught up what we've always believed, that we get very dogmatic about it, and refuse to accept any new piece of evidence that we had not considered years ago when we carved in stone our position on "X." I had to go through that on this very issue. Years ago, I used to believe that women should wear head coverings, isn't it sad that they don't, someone should really tell them. But then a few years ago, as I was putting on a skull cap in Hebrew service, a light bulb went off over my head. I had to run back, research it, ask questions, and hold up my beliefs to the light of truth, and ended up convincing myself that I had been wrong in my interpretation for a very long time. Now this isn't that big a deal, so it wasn't that hard. :-) But I also did the same thing with predestination, formerly calling myself an Arminian, and now standing convinced of Calvinism. It's not easy, and sometimes it takes a long time, but it begins with an honest and prayerful search for truth. So I complement you on recognizing that first step, which is the first step not only in this minor issue, but also in the major ones.

I don't know what you mean by oral tradition,... But misinterpreting the written words of Paul into saying something that he is not intending them to say CAN lead to heresy. Nevertheless, I'm not accusing you of heresy, but you did get my guard up when you called Mike's position on the minor issue of head covering paramount to standing is judgment of the Gospel. That is taking this entirely too far. That is making a mountain out of a mole-hill, a big issue out of a minor point of theology and biblical interpretation. Down that road lies legalism and heresy. The Pharisees began their order a couple of centuries before Christ as conservative reformers of a Jewish doctrine that had become intolerably liberal, and they even met with some success. But then they slowly started to get too caught up on the little things, putting an over-emphasis on adherence to Law and custom at the expense of the true message. The result we see in the NT where they are heretical, legalistic, and as Christ calls them, hypocrites. A similar thing can be said to happen to the Catholic church, and even to the Puritans. Let us be careful that we don't ourselves repeat history yet again.

Marcus

I will take a look at Joe's post that you mentioned on the subject.

I would say that I come from the opposite approach as you, because up until fairly recently I thought the reason for a head coverings was just cultural to show submission and as long as we do the "cultural relevant" thing today, we are in obedience with the Scriptures. But of late, I have had to submit to what I now see Scripture to be saying and that is that it a whole lot more than just cultural.
Believing it the way I presently do, is a lot harder for me to do because I know very few that see it this way.
So, to be honest I hope you are correct and somehow I come to see it that way.

Tom

Pilgrim,

(once more into the brink...) You're right, we do have different approaches to hermeneutics (or exegesis I think would be more accurate). I don't think that it's justifiable to throw out the historico for the sake of the grammatico, any more than you can throw out the grammatico for the sake of the historico. (Note: the latter is not my intent, but I get the feeling that you think that's what all this is about) I believe that any interpretation that is TRUE will be 100% consistent with both. (Also note I'm using the terms grammatico and historico loosely, since we are not here dealing with a matter of linguistic translation, but exegesis of the *meaning.*)

It just occurred to me that perhaps what you are asking of me to explain that verse is for me to appeal to the original Greek and find some clue in the translation? If that is the only thing you're waiting on me for, you're going to wait a long time. I already checked the Greek, and the translation is sound. :-) Understanding the words used is not the issue, the issue is in figuring out the meaning and intent that generated them. And for that, you have to broaden your scope. Exegesis 101. (you're going to make that my new favorite word, you know) :-)

I have to thank Joe for going through all the work of transcribing Hodge's commentary on this passage. Joe, you're my hero! Going to scholarly commentary is usually the last thing I do, once I have wrestled with the issue myself. But being at my wit's end about explaining this, perhaps referring you to someone like Hodge will help. Even though he and I are expressing exactly the same position on the interpretation, perhaps you will respect his reputation enough to not so flippantly ignore and dismiss his reasoning. If you do not, I can similarly quote to you from the commentaries of Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and Jamison, Faucet and Brown, as I mentioned in a post to Tom. I'm sure you're recognize them as, although not inspired, very conservative and widely respected biblical interpreters and scholars of historic proportions. Even if you ultimately disagree with them, you have to admit that they have forgotten more about exegesis than you and I will ever know. They all agree with Hodge on the cultural content and historical context of the symbol of a head covering or lack thereof. The only thing about Hodge that I would take exception with is that in his dissection of your favorite verse, he says that the use of the tallit (or tallis or sometimes tallith) only dates back to just after the apostolic age. Mathew Poole and Jamison, Faucent and Brown both specifically make the point in their translations that the tallith was in use at least by the time that Paul pens this letter. (Matthew Henry doesn't mention it) I don't know what to say, but that if I ever get to talk to Hodge in eternity, I'll ask him where he gets his information. :-) Perhaps he confuses here the prayer shawl and the skull cap. The skull cap only dates back to that time, but the shawl goes back to OT times (and is now used mainly in more formal occasions, like Sabbath).

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.

Perhaps in all the pages of text we've both produced here it got lost again, but I do remember using specifically the kosher dietary laws as an example of new covenant overriding the old. And yet in it we see that the following of kosher traditions was not forbidden to the Jews who were already practicing it, but only that it was no longer imposed. It was not the establishment of a new law, it was only the liberation from an old one. Such is the pattern of all the differences between OT and NT. Incidentally, inclusion of gentiles has never been a problem. As long as there have been Jews, there have been gentile converts to Judaism. The implication of Peter's vision is that gentiles need not make themselves "clean" according to OT law before coming to Christ, but are able to come to faith as uncircumcised gentiles. This is a concept that Paul picks up later and deals with in great detail.

See, I told you that you were going to mistake me for a liberal. You promised you wouldn't, but here you go. :-) No, I absolutely do not believe in "theistic evolution" in any form. I believe in a literal 6-day creation because the Bible says so, and there is no evidence to force other interpretation. (don't get excited yet) Hypothetically, if it were possible, perhaps with a time machine or something, to go back and prove absolutely and conclusively that evolution did occur, then we would have to re-examine our interpretation of Scripture, wouldn't we? If it doesn't seem to match fact, than either our interpretation of it is wrong, or we have to give up on the infallibility of scripture. (I would rather face the former) Why do we say that scripture is inspired? Why is that important? Because that's how we know it's true. We can trust that it represents truth if it comes from God. But not all truth has to come from scripture. I can say that the sky is blue, and that would be true. That would be just as true as scripture, even though I didn't need an apostle to tell me. Truth will always be in harmony with truth, no matter what the source, because we live in a universe of absolutes, despite what our postmodern existential culture of epistemological and ontological relativism tells us. (there's some vocabulary words for you) So if history is true, then it will agree with scripture, and if the sky is blue, than that will be consistent with a right interpretation of scripture. 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.

So be careful when you say, as you have in this thread, that you stand firmly on the infallible Word. No, you don't. We all stand on our completely fallible interpretation and understanding of the infallible Word. That's what's at question here and in all theological discussion.

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.

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,

Marcus, I've told you twice you're assuming legalism and implying I am a pharisee. Can we kindly focus on the real issues here?

You have insulted me, Pilgrim. Accusing me of theological illiteracy, "turning off the old thinking cap," using straw-man tactics, and most consternating of all, ignoring my systematic rebuttals of your every point and referring to them as irrelevant gab. I could easily address these accusations of my competence and character and make a few of my own besides, but obviously that's not what this forum is for.

I'm about to go on a hunting trip for the weekend. When I get back on Monday, I would like to continue this, because although we do understand each other's positions, we have yet to understand each other's reason and methods for defending them. But only if we can continue with mutual academic respect and Christian love. Also with logic and reason and making every honest attempt to make ourselves understood and honestly trying to understand the other when understanding is slow in coming between two very stubborn bulls. (you're not part Jewish, are you?) ;-)

I know there are a lot of people watching this discussion like you watch a football game between two top-rated teams. I've gotten a number of emails from people encouraging me that I am understood to them, even those who disagree, and to hang in there. Thank you for those, all of you. I would encourage everyone that this is not a private debate between Pilgrim and myself. If anyone else has something substantive to offer, wants their opinion known, has an answer to our questions or seeks an answer (probably at least two opposing answers) to theirs, please interject at any time. As we take this long and meandering course of logic, interpretive style and technique, and miscommunication, if any of you thinks that he/she can help Pilgrim and I understand each other's arguments, then I invite you to try. :-)

Have a good weekend all and I'll see you on Monday!

Marcus