What did Paul mean to say about head coverings to those in Corinth?

[A. believer]

I certainly want to grapple with arguments that are contrary to what I have said A.believer. For sure. While I claim to have the correct interpretation of head coverings based on what I know so far, I certainly do not claim to be infallible. Nor do I claim to know all about this issue such that new information might not still change my mind.

One of the benefits of an internet discussion is that one comes into contact with all kinds of ideas and interpretations that one must evaluate in deciding what a verse or group of verses is saying.

I have read the paper at the link you gave. May I say off the top that the author builds a case for his argument in part on various speculations about what the Corinthians said in a previous letter to Paul that did not survive beyond the first century. As well as various other speculations pointing to his interpretation as being correct. I think it is safe to say that we should not rely on speculations to interpret these or any passages of Scripture.

Among his points he believes that the head covering is a woman's hair but he fails to address a vital point that undermines completely such an interpretation.

If the head covering being spoken of in the verses in question is the hair and not something worn over the hair (i.e. a cloth, kerchief, or other similar covering), then given the fact that Paul told the men to not be covered when praying or prophesying, it would in effect make Paul out to be telling the men, all the men, to shave their heads and go around bald!

In other words women should wear a head covering (in line with the authors argument, their hair). Men should not and should therefore shave their heads (if the author is correct and it is the hair) !

That is just one, albeit a very significant problem, with the head covering = hair interpretation (a point the author of said article seems to hold and use in supporting his interpretation).

Another is this...

Take the following verse (1 Corinthians 11:6-7)

Let's replace every reference to covering with what would presumably be the hair and see what we get...

Right off the bat one must explain, if hair is the covering, how in the world a woman who has no hair can shave it off at the same time??

Secondly one must explain how in the world a poor woman who has no hair can follow the command to be covered with hair in order to pray or prophesy. Must she not pray or prophesy until she has grown her hair back?

Lastly, and this is just dealing with two of the verses mind you, how are we to take the instruction to men that the covering, being presumably the hair, should not be on their heads???!

I do not believe the idea that the head covering is the hair is a correct interpretation at all. In fact I would go so far as to say that it makes the verses in question to become nonsensical. That is it makes Paul out to be talking in circles and speaking nonsense.

You're neglecting the fact that Paul is referring not just to hair, in general, but to "long hair."

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.​

Although "long" is a relative term, it's a given that in virtually every culture, women wear their hair longer than men do, and I don't think it's insignificant that a symbol of the rebellion and anarchy of the 1960s was men wearing very long hair.

So in regard to your refutation, keep this in mind. Paul isn't just referring to hair, per se, but to the longer hair which is the glory of the woman.

I would like to address one other point you brought up A.believer which ties in to finding a correct interpretation to the issue of head coverings or any other issue for that matter. I hope I do not make too much of your comment below...please bear in mind that your comment has given me opportunity to address something I have seen in general and that my comments below are addressed, not to you personally or indeed even to your comment only, but to that general thing I have seen in Christian discussions.

You said...

In so far as others have arguments which point to weaknesses or problems with my interpretation...for sure. But what exactly is a better trained theologian than ourselves?

In the various discussions I have had with Christians in various places I have seen WAY too much reliance on the word of man, albeit highly educated theologians, who in the eyes of God are really no better at interpreting the Bible as a whole than you or I who have the Spirit of the living God living in us.

Which is better? A "theologian" who has studied the Greek and knows letters or a humble Christian who relies on God to show Him what the Word says through the Spirit?

Why do you consider the two mutually exclusive? Why the presumption that someone who's studied the relevant subject areas must necessarily fail the test of humility while the uneducated one is, by definition, humble. I don't find this to be the case. I run across countless boastful, braggarts who glory in their anti-intellectualism. I also encounter many scholars who are the epitome of Christian humility.

May I point out that the Pharisees and Jews marveled at Peter and John in that they were unschooled men?

Indeed. Formal accredited education is certainly not a prerequisite to godliness, and it can, in many cases, lead to intellectual pride. But bear in mind that Peter and John were not really "unschooled." They were personally discipled by the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, for three full years. And following that, they were uniquely schooled by the Holy Spirit to be the teachers of the new doctrines to the whole church. They were just unschooled by the standards of the Pharisees. When Peter and John had questions, they asked the Lord, and He spoke to them in their own language and in the context of their own culture. When we have questions, we ask the Lord, as well, but He speaks to us through the written Word that was originally written in another language and culture. Scholarly study gives us greater access to that language and culture which helps us apply it to our own.

Much of your understanding of Scripture, whether you acknowledge it or not, comes from what you've learned, directly or indirectly, from scholars. If it weren't for scholars, for example, you wouldn't understand the full force of the parable of the Good Samaritan. You wouldn't understand how much Jews hated Samaritans--how they considered them unclean and how they avoided them at all costs. And if you didn't understand that cultural idea, you wouldn't understand how amazing it was when the fellow Jews ignored the injured man and left him for dead while the Samaritan went way above and beyond in showiing him compassion and saving his life. This is just one example of how scholars help to deepen our understanding of what God is imparting to us through His written Word. But, of course, the original audience didn't need scholars to tell them that. It was part of the culture in which they lived and breathed.

It does not take one becoming a "theologian" to understand what God says in His Word. It does take a willing and humble heart such that one is willing to do whatever the Word says to do out of a desire to please God. If you and I have that, then with the additional help of several good study aids which anyone can learn to use, and most importantly a reliance on God through the Holy Spirit to open our minds to understand what is written, we too can speak up and give our views of what is written in the Scriptures.

There are a lot of resources (provided by scholars, incidentally) that we can use to teach ourselves.) And, of course, a willing and humble heart is a prerequisite for true godly obedience. And even without much of an education, we can understand the heart of the gospel and respond in obedience. But for a deeper understanding of many of the particulars, the more we know about the culture and language, etc., the more refined of an understanding we can have. But of course, again, we can have encyclopedic knowledge of the intended meaning of Scripture and still walk in rebellion. That doesn't mean that we should avoid learning, though.

The world says that we need lots and lots of head knowledge and a multitude of degree initials following our name to be considered credible in being able to speak authoritatively about an issue. God says we need humble hearts and the Holy Spirit. As members of His Body let's not give any particular theologians argument overly too much weight just because of their theological training. Let's give due consideration to anyone's argument who sticks to what is written and whose heart is desirious of honoring God by doing things His way.

Carlos

Or better yet, let's guard our own hearts while attempting to learn what we can from wherever we can.

PS. Incidentally I think it might be instructive to point out that the "better trained theologian" in question believes that women should not teach or have authority over men, if the inclusion of his name along with articles by others is to be taken as indicative of what he believes. The article on women not teaching and having authority over men can be found at http://www.elseroad.com/topics/house_church/tahct/tahct.htm (a link to it is in the right hand column of article links).

If we do not agree with that premise, that women cannot teach or have authority over men, what are we to do with Erik Svendsen's "theology" in an area that he apparently believes. We are left with a learned theologian that supports an interpretation of Scripture that some of us might deem credible (in head coverings) and who doesn't support what some of us might deem credible in another (that women should be able to teach and have authority over men). Do we then go around trying to find another learned theologian who supports what we deem credible in the Bible better than the one we are discussing here until that theologian in turn falls short in supporting something else we don't believe?

The presumption that those who dispute us are just looking for theologians to support what we already want to believe is offensive. I constantly hear it from Roman Catholics who are convinced that all "honest inquirers" will end up in the bosom of the Catholic Church as well as from the most "fundamentalist" believers and followers of every tradition in between. This presumption of bad faith leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes dialogue extremely unpleasant.

In the end we are right back to square one. Namely that each of us must take into account any and every credible argument for an interpretation from anyone making a credible argument, theologian or not, bring such arguments before the Lord, trust Him through His Spirit to open our minds, use the best study aids we have, and then come to a place of personal conviction.

I agree with this.

 

[carlos123]

Hi A.believer,

Thanks so much for taking the time to share your further thoughts. I really appreciate that (I am not just saying that to be nice). One of the things that I really like about an internet discussion, when it remains civil, is that the Lord can teach me through others, such as yourself, various perspectives that I have not thought about. Leading me hopefully to a better understanding in a given issue. It's a great learning tool!

You're neglecting the fact that Paul is referring not just to hair, in general, but to "long hair."

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.​

Although "long" is a relative term, it's a given that in virtually every culture, women wear their hair longer than men do, and I don't think it's insignificant that a symbol of the rebellion and anarchy of the 1960s was men wearing very long hair.

So in regard to your refutation, keep this in mind. Paul isn't just referring to hair, per se, but to the longer hair which is the glory of the woman.

Excellent point A.believer. It was there under my nose and I did not even see it! Thanks for that.

Why do you consider the two mutually exclusive? Why the presumption that someone who's studied the relevant subject areas must necessarily fail the test of humility while the uneducated one is, by definition, humble. I don't find this to be the case. I run across countless boastful, braggarts who glory in their anti-intellectualism. I also encounter many scholars who are the epitome of Christian humility.

To be sure I have had the very opposite experience A.believer. I have encountered seemingly countless Bible school graduates who think that because they sat in classrooms and were taught by professors and have some letters after their name, that they automatically have a better handle on what the Scriptures say when compared to someone like me, a window cleaner . The last one that I ran into thought me unspiritual and immature because...well...because I did not know the name of one of Abraham's wives or some such (I can't even remember the name of the man much less the woman he was referring to).

I think your point is correct though. We must not be unduly prejudiced against Bible scholarship nor against "unschooled" persons like myself.

I guess I am not sure what you meant to say when you encouraged me to weigh more heavily the arguments of those with more theological training, like the author of the article you linked to. Did I misunderstand you?

Indeed. Formal accredited education is certainly not a prerequisite to godliness, and it can, in many cases, lead to intellectual pride. But bear in mind that Peter and John were not really "unschooled." They were personally discipled by the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, for three full years. And following that, they were uniquely schooled by the Holy Spirit to be the teachers of the new doctrines to the whole church. They were just unschooled by the standards of the Pharisees. When Peter and John had questions, they asked the Lord, and He spoke to them in their own language and in the context of their own culture. When we have questions, we ask the Lord, as well, but He speaks to us through the written Word that was originally written in another language and culture. Scholarly study gives us greater access to that language and culture which helps us apply it to our own.

I agree with all that you said above A.believer. As long as we don't elevate Bible degrees and the like in such a way that those of us who don't have them are deemed unable to arrive at a true and proper understanding of what is in the Word.

We ALL should engage in scholarly study of the Scriptures and we ALL should rely on the Holy Spirit to open our minds to understand what is written.

Much of your understanding of Scripture, whether you acknowledge it or not, comes from what you've learned, directly or indirectly, from scholars.

Hmm...in my case A.believer I do not believe that what you say is true of me. For years I have not read a great deal put out by various scholars but have rather focused on reading the Word alongside of two Greek concordances that I use when I want to uncover the meaning of a word. The concordances do not give comments, just verses where particular Greek words are found. To be sure the Greek concordances were put out by biblical scholars but since they have no commentary, what I believe is not a product of any such scholarly commentary. I am not saying that to imply that my understanding is better or worse. Only to say that my beliefs are not a byproduct of what this or that biblical scholar has said.

It seems to me that many Christians, especially baby Christians, have a tendency to elevate the word of this or that biblical scholar or renowned pastor above that which would be prudent to do.

If it weren't for scholars, for example, you wouldn't understand the full force of the parable of the Good Samaritan. You wouldn't understand how much Jews hated Samaritans--how they considered them unclean and how they avoided them at all costs. And if you didn't understand that cultural idea, you wouldn't understand how amazing it was when the fellow Jews ignored the injured man and left him for dead while the Samaritan went way above and beyond in showiing him compassion and saving his life. This is just one example of how scholars help to deepen our understanding of what God is imparting to us through His written Word. But, of course, the original audience didn't need scholars to tell them that. It was part of the culture in which they lived and breathed.

Hmm...on second thought perhaps some of my beliefs have come indirectly through scholars who have given to the Christian world a greater understanding of various parables and the like. Which I have heard at various times in my life and have incorporated into my beliefs.

There are a lot of resources (provided by scholars, incidentally) that we can use to teach ourselves.) And, of course, a willing and humble heart is a prerequisite for true godly obedience. And even without much of an education, we can understand the heart of the gospel and respond in obedience. But for a deeper understanding of many of the particulars, the more we know about the culture and language, etc., the more refined of an understanding we can have.

To a degree yes but...without dismissing what you say...the problem as I see it A.believer is that we Christians do not need a greater understanding of the many particulars as much as we need a greater willingness to do that which is particularly clear.

But of course, again, we can have encyclopedic knowledge of the intended meaning of Scripture and still walk in rebellion. That doesn't mean that we should avoid learning, though.

I completely agree!

Or better yet, let's guard our own hearts while attempting to learn what we can from wherever we can.

I absolutely agree with that too!

The presumption that those who dispute us are just looking for theologians to support what we already want to believe is offensive. I constantly hear it from Roman Catholics who are convinced that all "honest inquirers" will end up in the bosom of the Catholic Church as well as from the most "fundamentalist" believers and followers of every tradition in between. This presumption of bad faith leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes dialogue extremely unpleasant.

I understand the bad taste left by such a presumption A.believer and if I have made such a presumption of others in the past such that I had no grounds for making that assumption I wholeheartedly apologize!

If I have come accross as making that assumption of you in particular A.believer I very heartedly apologize! For in truth, you have said nothing either on this thread or otherwise to give ground to such an assumption in your case.

I have trouble not drawing a conclusion of bad faith when; no matter what is said and no matter how many verses speak to a subject and point to a person's view as not holding any water; a person sticks to their belief like a sinking man hangs on to a life raft. No matter what. And especially when said person seems more interested in arguing than in seeking to understand what God is saying.

Carlos

 

[A. believer]

Hi A.believer,

Thanks so much for taking the time to share your further thoughts. I really appreciate that (I am not just saying that to be nice). One of the things that I really like about an internet discussion, when it remains civil, is that the Lord can teach me through others, such as yourself, various perspectives that I have not thought about. Leading me hopefully to a better understanding in a given issue. It's a great learning tool!

I have to admit that I'm pleasantly surprised at the attitude you're showing in the discussion. I've also come to expect a more "warring" posture in these kinds of discussions.

Excellent point A.believer. It was there under my nose and I did not even see it! Thanks for that.

You're welcome.

To be sure I have had the very opposite experience A.believer. I have encountered seemingly countless Bible school graduates who think that because they sat in classrooms and were taught by professors and have some letters after their name, that they automatically have a better handle on what the Scriptures say when compared to someone like me, a window cleaner . The last one that I ran into thought me unspiritual and immature because...well...because I did not know the name of one of Abraham's wives or some such (I can't even remember the name of the man much less the woman he was referring to).

To be sure, the converse of what I said is sometimes true, too, but those cases are the stereotype, and I was disputing them as normative.

I think your point is correct though. We must not be unduly prejudiced against Bible scholarship nor against "unschooled" persons like myself.

I guess I am not sure what you meant to say when you encouraged me to weigh more heavily the arguments of those with more theological training, like the author of the article you linked to. Did I misunderstand you?

My point was that we on this board can spout off our opinions till the cows come home, but if our opinions are rooted in ignorance of important cultural and/or linguistic points that can't be gleaned by the text alone, then they're not of much value. Scholars disagree with one another, as well, for various reasons, so I'm not suggesting that being a scholar makes ones opinion authoritative. But it's irresponsible to form firm opinions on things by just ignoring pertinent information from people who are in a position to know things we don't.

I agree with all that you said above A.believer. As long as we don't elevate Bible degrees and the like in such a way that those of us who don't have them are deemed unable to arrive at a true and proper understanding of what is in the Word.

I agree, but over the past seven years or so, as I've learned more and more, I've been humbled (and sometimes confounded) to find that the more I know, the more I realize that I don't know. But scholars, I realize, are in the same position. They have more information, but their opinions are no more "objective" than anyone else's.

We ALL should engage in scholarly study of the Scriptures and we ALL should rely on the Holy Spirit to open our minds to understand what is written.

I agree that we should employ the tools we've been given in accordance with the gifts and inclinations we've been given. I no longer feel, though, that every Christian has a sacred responsibility to become a self-taught Bible scholar. That's simply outside the reach of the majority of Christians from the beginning of the church age even until today. And, besides, many who do take on that task do so with such a lack of humility that they end up worse off than before they got their Strong's.

Hmm...in my case A.believer I do not believe that what you say is true of me. For years I have not read a great deal put out by various scholars but have rather focused on reading the Word alongside of two Greek concordances that I use when I want to uncover the meaning of a word. The concordances do not give comments, just verses where particular Greek words are found. To be sure the Greek concordances were put out by biblical scholars but since they have no commentary, what I believe is not a product of any such scholarly commentary. I am not saying that to imply that my understanding is better or worse. Only to say that my beliefs are not a byproduct of what this or that biblical scholar has said.

It seems to me that many Christians, especially baby Christians, have a tendency to elevate the word of this or that biblical scholar or renowned pastor above that which would be prudent to do.

Hmm...on second thought perhaps some of my beliefs have come indirectly through scholars who have given to the Christian world a greater understanding of various parables and the like. Which I have heard at various times in my life and have incorporated into my beliefs.

That's what I meant.

To a degree yes but...without dismissing what you say...the problem as I see it A.believer is that we Christians do not need a greater understanding of the many particulars as much as we need a greater willingness to do that which is particularly clear.

No argument there. But in this particular case, I'm not certain that this is as clear as it would seem to be on it's face. I don't have any problem with the idea of erring on the side of caution on this, except that, to do so as individuals, I believe, misses the spirit of the command (if, indeed, Paul is commanding a covering other than the hair.) This whole issue is a corporate issue having to do with an appropriate worship environment. Unless it's practiced corporately, it loses its intended effect.

I completely agree!

I absolutely agree with that too!

Agreement is nice.

I understand the bad taste left by such a presumption A.believer and if I have made such a presumption of others in the past such that I had no grounds for making that assumption I wholeheartedly apologize!

If I have come accross as making that assumption of you in particular A.believer I very heartedly apologize! For in truth, you have said nothing either on this thread or otherwise to give ground to such an assumption in your case.

I wasn't sure that you weren't making it of everyone who disputes you (which is something I so often encounter), but I trust, now, that you weren't, and, therefore, I beg your pardon.

I have trouble not drawing a conclusion of bad faith when; no matter what is said and no matter how many verses speak to a subject and point to a person's view as not holding any water; a person sticks to their belief like a sinking man hangs on to a life raft. No matter what. And especially when said person seems more interested in arguing than in seeking to understand what God is saying.

I know that people are often inclined to just outright refuse to allow their thinking and their behavior to be informed by the Word of God, so I know what you're talking about. But it's also often the case that this accusation is thrown around by those who are so bound up in certain unexamined assumptions of their own that they simply can't entertain the notion that the lens through which they interpret the faith might just have its foggy spots just like everyone else's.

 

[carlos123]

Hi A.believer,

I have to admit that I'm pleasantly surprised at the attitude you're showing in the discussion. I've also come to expect a more "warring" posture in these kinds of discussions.

Yes...I know what you mean. I've gotten into several threads that have degraded into arguments or otherwise being rude with each other. I am not entirely innocent of partaking of that either but with this thread I am trying to act in line with the prayer at the beginning of it where I asked God to watch over this thread. In view of that prayer I don't want to be a hypocrite and to be responsible for derailing it and having it go in a direction that the Lord would not be pleased with.

My point was that we on this board can spout off our opinions till the cows come home, but if our opinions are rooted in ignorance of important cultural and/or linguistic points that can't be gleaned by the text alone, then they're not of much value. Scholars disagree with one another, as well, for various reasons, so I'm not suggesting that being a scholar makes ones opinion authoritative. But it's irresponsible to form firm opinions on things by just ignoring pertinent information from people who are in a position to know things we don't.

I totally agree with you about the irresponsibility you mention A.believer. For sure.

The thing is though that despite the various links I have been given either through this thread or elsewhere I have yet to see a single case of a biblical scholar bringing to bear knowledge that is not generally available from non-scholars such that without the scholars particular knowledge one would not be able to properly interpret what Paul said about head coverings.

I guess what I am saying A.believer is that it is my opinion that one does not need scholarly knowledge about the verses on head coverings to understand them. In fact I would go so far as to say that most scholars that I have read subscribe to beliefs that I would label as almost if not entirely speculative (i.e. that Paul was talking to bald-headed prostitutes, leading women, and so forth). That's a problem because many Christians take what these scholars say and simply parrot their thoughts all around the Christian world as if what they have said must be so. When it in fact is not so!

I have seen many scholars and non-scholars alike attach far too much significance to speculations and the like. With all due respect to the author of the article you gave me a link to, I think he is basing much of his conviction about head coverings on various speculations or ideas that ignore or otherwise negate what Paul wrote. He seems pretty right on regarding other issues so I am a bit surprised at his take on head coverings.

Many times I can't even tell who is a Biblical scholar and who isn't, for most scholars don't generally boast about their scholarly attainments. Nor do most non-scholars boast of their lack of such.

Thus I prefer to just take whatever someone says on it's own merit without consideration as to whether they are a biblical scholar or not.

I agree, but over the past seven years or so, as I've learned more and more, I've been humbled (and sometimes confounded) to find that the more I know, the more I realize that I don't know. But scholars, I realize, are in the same position. They have more information, but their opinions are no more "objective" than anyone else's.

All of which ties in to what I have been saying A.believer. That we in general need to put less emphasis on whether scholars support a position or not or what their positions are and more emphasis on what is said by whoever says it, scholar or not.

I agree that we should employ the tools we've been given in accordance with the gifts and inclinations we've been given. I no longer feel, though, that every Christian has a sacred responsibility to become a self-taught Bible scholar. That's simply outside the reach of the majority of Christians from the beginning of the church age even until today. And, besides, many who do take on that task do so with such a lack of humility that they end up worse off than before they got their Strong's.

I think this may be the proverbial us talking about the same thing but describing it in ways that make us seem to be saying something different. I think some terminology is mixed in there too where I think a word means so and so and you might view that word meaning something else.

If by biblical scholar you mean someone who is Bible school trained or has attained the equivalent of whatever they teach in Bible school then I would agree with you. That not everyone can or even should attain such.

But by my definition of biblical scholarship everyone should become a biblical scholar. Everyone should understand that the underlying Greek words in the New Testament may sometimes say something different than one gains by reading the English translation. Everyone should apply a disciplined approach to studying the Word and thus gain solid convictions instead of just winging it resulting in convictions that don't endure. Everyone should be able to use the most fundamental of study tools such as a Greek concordance.

Not everyone will of course but in my opinion they should.

No argument there. But in this particular case, I'm not certain that this is as clear as it would seem to be on it's face.

If you don't mind me asking A.believer what is not clear to you on the issue of head coverings in terms of what Paul meant to say to those in Corinth? There undoubtedly are still things that are not clear about this issue (such as what effect it has on angels, etc.) but I am curious as to what is not clear to you A.believer and would like to know, if you feel comfortable sharing that.

I don't have any problem with the idea of erring on the side of caution on this, except that, to do so as individuals, I believe, misses the spirit of the command (if, indeed, Paul is commanding a covering other than the hair.) This whole issue is a corporate issue having to do with an appropriate worship environment. Unless it's practiced corporately, it loses its intended effect.

I am not sure about the corporate nature of head coverings A.believer that you speak of. Among other things I think angels are watching whether we are praying or prophesying corporatively or among just a few of us like in a family or household.

I was re-reading the passages in question the other day and it struck me that the command to wear a head covering for women and not on the men seems to have been said in a general sort of way. As in whenever you pray or prophesy...wear a head covering or not depending on whether you are male or female. Not sure about that but it seems that this is the case. I need to think about that some more.

I wasn't sure that you weren't making it of everyone who disputes you (which is something I so often encounter), but I trust, now, that you weren't, and, therefore, I beg your pardon.

I do appreciate your bringing the proverbial elephant in the closet out into the open if you know what I mean A.believer. The elephant being that I might have been assuming bad faith on the part of anyone disagreeing with me. I did at one point start to think that your heart was hardened because of what seemed like a disagreement on your part with what was written in the Word. But I have since been reminded by you and by the Lord that just because you or others disagree with what I perceive to be written does not mean that your all's hearts are hard.

It is unfortunate, but I have discussed some things with some ladies on the Christian Forum who have jumped all over me in a most decidedly ungodly, lacking in the fruit of the Spirit, way and I have noticed myself starting to assume that a women who disagrees with me about any aspect of women's roles is an "evangelical feminist". In other words a feminist by any other name so to speak.

I have to watch that and not draw those kinds of conclusions unless they are indeed warranted.

In your case I assure you that I do not view you like that at this point, having gotten to know more of what you think. You seem to be a mature believer who has been around some and I think you help bring balance to this discussion along with sharing some good points

I am thus thankful for your participation in this discussion A.believer. For sure!

I know that people are often inclined to just outright refuse to allow their thinking and their behavior to be informed by the Word of God, so I know what you're talking about.

You can say that again!!

But it's also often the case that this accusation is thrown around by those who are so bound up in certain unexamined assumptions of their own that they simply can't entertain the notion that the lens through which they interpret the faith might just have its foggy spots just like everyone else's.

I have to be very careful A.believe for I do have a tendency to be judgmental. That is one of my flaws if you will.

One thing Internet discussions are teaching me is that not everyone who disagrees with me on head coverings or women's roles as a whole has a bad heart.

I need to be reminded of that constantly lest I jump to a wrong conclusion.

A good pastor friend of mine just emailed me and a bunch of others a paper he wrote on women's roles. A paper I strongly disagree with. My experience here on the forum in discussing issues with others and the mistakes I have made, has been a great help in preparing me to look at him as having a good heart, albeit wrong in his conclusions. It wasn't too long ago that I would have just labeled him as deceived and hard-hearted. He may still end up revealing himself to be so but until and if that happens I must believe the best. That his heart is in the right place and that he simply does not see what I see about head coverings or women's roles in the church. Of course I am making myself available to straighten...I mean to discuss these issues with him

Carlos

 

[A. believer]

Hi,

In the interest of saving time and space, I won't respond to everything you said (some of the agreement parts), but I do want to acknowledge that I appreciate whatever agreements we can come to.

The thing is though that despite the various links I have been given either through this thread or elsewhere I have yet to see a single case of a biblical scholar bringing to bear knowledge that is not generally available from non-scholars such that without the scholars particular knowledge one would not be able to properly interpret what Paul said about head coverings.

I guess what I am saying A.believer is that it is my opinion that one does not need scholarly knowledge about the verses on head coverings to understand them. In fact I would go so far as to say that most scholars that I have read subscribe to beliefs that I would label as almost if not entirely speculative (i.e. that Paul was talking to bald-headed prostitutes, leading women, and so forth). That's a problem because many Christians take what these scholars say and simply parrot their thoughts all around the Christian world as if what they have said must be so. When it in fact is not so!

I admit the common tendency some have to latch onto any argument at all if it gets them off the hook, regardless of it's complete lack of substance. One must, indeed, consider all arguments, whether from scholars non-scholars, based on their merits.

I have seen many scholars and non-scholars alike attach far too much significance to speculations and the like. With all due respect to the author of the article you gave me a link to, I think he is basing much of his conviction about head coverings on various speculations or ideas that ignore or otherwise negate what Paul wrote. He seems pretty right on regarding other issues so I am a bit surprised at his take on head coverings.

But, as he said, Dr. Svendsen previously took the same position you do now, and he had no reason or incentive to change his position except that he was persuaded otherwise by a close study of the text. I can assure you that he's a conservative Evangelical scholar with no liberal or feminist leanings.


And you do seem to be dismissing the argument as mere "speculation" without considering it at all. You consider it speculation regarding the letter the Corinthians wrote to Paul which is referred to in 7:1 where Paul writes,

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me..."​

The fact that Paul is responding to concerns they raised in a letter is, therefore, I would think, undisputed. Svendsen establishes that point to show put some context into the statement about those who would be "contentious" about the issue. This isn't just a bunch of wild, unfounded speculations, but part of the normal process of interpretation. Determining what position the contentious ones are taking is essential to the interpretation of this passage, and the text provides a clue. You also take a position on which "such custom" the contentious ones are advocating based on what you consider textual evidence. You're in no different a position than he is in doing that. But his argument hinges on the "Nevertheless" that begins verse 11. He's accounting for that shift in emphasis in a way that you're not. You choose to ignore it as insignificant while he provides a rationale for it.

Many times I can't even tell who is a Biblical scholar and who isn't, for most scholars don't generally boast about their scholarly attainments. Nor do most non-scholars boast of their lack of such.

And I only know of his credentials because of my extensive interaction with him on the internet over the past 7 or so years and because I have a couple of his books. But I'm not posting his argument because of his credentials, and I've disagreed with him on certain points in the past "to his face" (so to speak), and there are some other things I disagree with him on that I've never discussed with him. I just think he presents a very plausible and compelling argument on this, although one that I wouldn't have thought of myself, simply because it wouldn't have occurred to me to notice certain things he notices.

Thus I prefer to just take whatever someone says on it's own merit without consideration as to whether they are a biblical scholar or not.

No argument there, in principle.

If by biblical scholar you mean someone who is Bible school trained or has attained the equivalent of whatever they teach in Bible school then I would agree with you. That not everyone can or even should attain such.

But by my definition of biblical scholarship everyone should become a biblical scholar. Everyone should understand that the underlying Greek words in the New Testament may sometimes say something different than one gains by reading the English translation. Everyone should apply a disciplined approach to studying the Word and thus gain solid convictions instead of just winging it resulting in convictions that don't endure. Everyone should be able to use the most fundamental of study tools such as a Greek concordance.

Not everyone will of course but in my opinion they should.

The printing press, widespread literacy, the channeling of electricity, labor-saving devices, smaller families, shorter workweeks, affluence, etc. are all factors that have made personal Bible scholarship far more accessible to far more people than they once were. But there are still a majority of Christians all over the world who aren't in a position to take advantage of all these things, and therefore, I can't believe that a precondition of mature spirituality is the time one spends in personal Bible study. And I point this out just to show how you, like the rest of us, wear cultural lenses that can cloud your vision.

If you don't mind me asking A.believer what is not clear to you on the issue of head coverings in terms of what Paul meant to say to those in Corinth? There undoubtedly are still things that are not clear about this issue (such as what effect it has on angels, etc.) but I am curious as to what is not clear to you A.believer and would like to know, if you feel comfortable sharing that.

No problem.

a) I don't believe it's clear who the contentious ones are, and therefore, it isn't clear which position Paul is advocating--wearing head coverings (in addition to the hair) or not wearing them.

b) I think there's some question as to whether the wearing of head coverings might be a cultural expression of a timeless principle--namely, the headship of the husband. (I saw this in India, and to throw off that custom in the church, there, would be a declaration of rebellion in a way that it just isn't here because the head covering has no significance to us.) If this is so, and if our culture does not recognize the symbol (a covered head for a woman), then I don't know that this would necessarily be the proper expression of the principle for our culture. I know the part about the angels presents a difficulty to this view, but I would suppose that the angels would be offended by the rebellion, itself, that would be symbolized by the throwing off of the head coverings in this case, and not necessarily the lack of head coverings per se.

In fact, I think that our culture has a much deeper problem where we really are rebelling against the created order in regard to gender roles and, therefore, I consider this fact the "camel" (to which I referred in my PM) and the head coverings the "gnat."

I am not sure about the corporate nature of head coverings A.believer that you speak of. Among other things I think angels are watching whether we are praying or prophesying corporatively or among just a few of us like in a family or household.

But this whole portion of the epistle is about public worship. That's what Paul is referring to when he talks about "such custom" in "the churches of God."

I do appreciate your bringing the proverbial elephant in the closet out into the open if you know what I mean A.believer. The elephant being that I might have been assuming bad faith on the part of anyone disagreeing with me. I did at one point start to think that your heart was hardened because of what seemed like a disagreement on your part with what was written in the Word. But I have since been reminded by you and by the Lord that just because you or others disagree with what I perceive to be written does not mean that your all's hearts are hard.

It is unfortunate, but I have discussed some things with some ladies on the Christian Forum who have jumped all over me in a most decidedly ungodly, lacking in the fruit of the Spirit, way and I have noticed myself starting to assume that a women who disagrees with me about any aspect of women's roles is an "evangelical feminist". In other words a feminist by any other name so to speak.

I have to watch that and not draw those kinds of conclusions unless they are indeed warranted.

In your case I assure you that I do not view you like that at this point, having gotten to know more of what you think. You seem to be a mature believer who has been around some and I think you help bring balance to this discussion along with sharing some good points

Thank you.

I am thus thankful for your participation in this discussion A.believer. For sure!

You can say that again!!

I have to be very careful A.believe for I do have a tendency to be judgmental. That is one of my flaws if you will.

One thing Internet discussions are teaching me is that not everyone who disagrees with me on head coverings or women's roles as a whole has a bad heart.

I need to be reminded of that constantly lest I jump to a wrong conclusion.

A good pastor friend of mine just emailed me and a bunch of others a paper he wrote on women's roles. A paper I strongly disagree with. My experience here on the forum in discussing issues with others and the mistakes I have made, has been a great help in preparing me to look at him as having a good heart, albeit wrong in his conclusions. It wasn't too long ago that I would have just labeled him as deceived and hard-hearted. He may still end up revealing himself to be so but until and if that happens I must believe the best. That his heart is in the right place and that he simply does not see what I see about head coverings or women's roles in the church. Of course I am making myself available to straighten...I mean to discuss these issues with him

LOL Good luck on that one. I do think that the whole issue of "gender roles" (in its many manifestations) is going to become more and more a source of contention and spiritual drift in the church in the coming years.

 

[carlos123]

Hi again A.believer

This is kinda unusual I think. For the last few posts it's been just you and I. Kinda like we are having a private conversation in public . Oh well...at least you seem to be a more peaceful sort to discuss things with than many I have encountered in other threads. And like I said you do bring up some thoughts that make me think.

I've split my responses between two posts. By the way feel free to not respond or address every point I make A.believer. Unlike many, I am self-employed and can make time to do that which I believe to be important (this). I understand if others, such as yourself, cannot do that. Besides I want to have the last word anyway

Just a few comments following some of yours if I might once again comment on what you said.

But, as he said, Dr. Svendsen previously took the same position you do now, and he had no reason or incentive to change his position except that he was persuaded otherwise by a close study of the text. I can assure you that he's a conservative Evangelical scholar with no liberal or feminist leanings.

The main thing that caused him to change his thinking, as far as I understood what he was saying, is the absence of the word "other" in the Greek in the phrase "we have no other custom".

I have not looked at whether that word is absent in the Greek but I think it's a fair bet that it is. I have heard that in various places.

But there is a problem with the view of Paul saying that the churches have no custom of the kind he was instructing the Corinthians to practice. Such a view does not explain how Paul could so strongly and clearly make a point of women wearing a head covering and men not and then turn around and basically say "Oh...by the way...we don't have any such custom as what I have been telling you...so if anyone wants to argue with me about it...well...feel free to ignore it...since we really don't have any such custom anyway!".

It also does not explain how it is that the churches both in the New Testament and throughout the centuries until relatively recently practiced the very custom that Paul supposedly said they had no custom of. How did such a custom come to be if not based on what Paul taught about it?

Even in the catacombs of Rome we see historical evidence for the wearing of a head covering on women worshippers in various paintings on the walls.

But it goes even deeper than that. Head coverings for women and not for men are two aspects of the practice Paul was advocating that stand or fall together. If head coverings is the hair then a covering as hair is also applicable to the men. If head coverings is not the hair then a head covering on the men is also something extra over the hair. And so forth. The two go hand in hand.

Now what I find interesting and even more devastating to the belief that "no such custom" was Paul referring to the very thing he had been advocating is this...

Regarding the covering for men...Paul says that for a man to wear a covering on his head dishonors his head, namely Christ. Well...if the custom was in part what he had been advocating for men then Paul would in effect have been saying that the churches of God at the time had no such custom of honoring Christ as head through the practice of no head covering on the men! For if indeed the "no such custom" referred to what Paul was advocating then it stands to reason that a man could go ahead and cover his head if he wanted to. Since Paul would have thus given liberty for such an opposite practice than the one he had been teaching on and advocating!

I daresay that Paul would have never, ever condoned a practice opposite from the one he was advocating that would have dishonored Christ as a man's head! He would have never, ever given liberty for such an opposite custom.

I would be curious to know what Svendsen would think of what I have said but rather than engage with a discussion with him at this point, I want to first write a paper on what I have said thus far and put it together in a cohesive and unified form.

And you do seem to be dismissing the argument as mere "speculation" without considering it at all.

I did not say that everything he said was speculation A.believer. Only that much of his argument is based on speculation.

You consider it speculation regarding the letter the Corinthians wrote to Paul which is referred to in 7:1 where Paul writes,

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me..."​

The fact that Paul is responding to concerns they raised in a letter is, therefore, I would think, undisputed.

That was not the speculation that I was referring to at all A.believer for as you say, the fact that there was another letter - lost to us today, is indisputable.

One of the speculations that I was referring to is the speculation regarding the contents of that other letter. We simply don't know what Paul wrote previously or what was written to him. We can speculate. We can deduce and hope that our deduction is somewhat accurate but there is no way to know with certainty what was in that previous letter. To base one's conviction about what Paul is saying about head coverings based in part on what a previous letter, that we simply do not have access to, says is to base one's interpretation of the passages on head coverings, at least in part, on speculation. That's not good.

Svendsen establishes that point to show put some context into the statement about those who would be "contentious" about the issue.

That's what I mean A.believer. The context is one created by Svendsen based on what he thinks might have been in the previous letter. But since he can't know what that letter said for sure...well...it's just speculation. His "context" supports a view that basically renders the context found in the text of what we do have, mute. It takes a context that is speculation and substitutes it for the context that is written.

This isn't just a bunch of wild, unfounded speculations, but part of the normal process of interpretation.

I think you are making too much of what I said A.believer. Just as I can't assume bad faith on your part please don't assume that I said or think something I did not. I never said his views or anyone else's for that matter is a "bunch of wild, unfounded speculations". What I did say is that his views, and that of many others, is based in part (not in whole) on mere speculation. I still believe that.

We need to get back to what is written and only to what is written without giving undue considerations to speculations that diminish, negate, or allow us to ignore what is written.

Determining what position the contentious ones are taking is essential to the interpretation of this passage, and the text provides a clue.

I think what is essential is understanding what Paul said in the other verses so that the one on "no such custom" can be understood in the proper context of what Paul was saying. If we hinge everything on an understanding of what position the contentious one's were taking and evaluate everything else based on that understanding then we might miss the truth. Seeing as how the text says nothing explicitly about what position the contentious one's had. The only way to tell with any degree of accuracy is to to look at the context of what Paul said in the other verses to see if our understanding of "no such custom" lines up with that.

As I said there are some serious problems, that I have not read or heard anyone address anywhere, with the view that Paul was basically doing an about turn and saying that the Corinthians and all other churches could practice the very opposite of what he had been teaching on.

You also take a position on which "such custom" the contentious ones are advocating based on what you consider textual evidence. You're in no different a position than he is in doing that. But his argument hinges on the "Nevertheless" that begins verse 11. He's accounting for that shift in emphasis in a way that you're not. You choose to ignore it as insignificant while he provides a rationale for it.

Again A.believer, please do not assume things about my view such as that I am ignoring verse 11 or think it insignificant. In fact I am doing neither.

I have not ignored what verse 11 says nor do I think it is insignificant. I think that Paul is not doing an about face at all or that everything Paul is saying hinges on verse 11's "Nevertheless". I think Paul is basically adding balance to what he had been advocating such that men might have become big headed about their role and seeming importance in the order of things. Paul brings in the thoughts in verse 11 and 12 to add some balance to what he has been saying. In verse 13 he gets right back on track bringing in nature's lesson to support what he has been saying previous to verses 11 and 12.

I see no hinge there A.believer. No turn around. Only a clarification to balance out what may have been taken by the men as an indication of superiority or some such. A temporary clarification at that, lasting only for two verses before Paul gets right back into his train of thought.

And I only know of his credentials because of my extensive interaction with him on the internet over the past 7 or so years and because I have a couple of his books. But I'm not posting his argument because of his credentials, and I've disagreed with him on certain points in the past "to his face" (so to speak), and there are some other things I disagree with him on that I've never discussed with him. I just think he presents a very plausible and compelling argument on this, although one that I wouldn't have thought of myself, simply because it wouldn't have occurred to me to notice certain things he notices.

I still don't understand why you said I should take into account arguments advanced by those with greater theological scholarship credentials than either one of us. You seem to be saying something different above. That you advanced his argument not because of his greater theological credentials and training but because it had merit (something that I wholeheartedly agree with by the way - in terms of advancing arguments based on their merit alone).

Part two follows next...

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Part Two of my response to A.believer...

The printing press, widespread literacy, the channeling of electricity, labor-saving devices, smaller families, shorter workweeks, affluence, etc. are all factors that have made personal Bible scholarship far more accessible to far more people than they once were. But there are still a majority of Christians all over the world who aren't in a position to take advantage of all these things, and therefore, I can't believe that a precondition of mature spirituality is the time one spends in personal Bible study. And I point this out just to show how you, like the rest of us, wear cultural lenses that can cloud your vision.

Again A.believer please do not assume that I am saying something I am not (it seems that you are). I never said that a precondition to mature spiritually is the need to do some biblical scholarship. I just said that everyone should do some to better understand what is written. But I have never said, nor do I believe, that understanding everything that is written through such scholarship is a precondition to spiritual maturity. I view spiritual maturity as having very little to do with head knowledge and far more to do with a willingness to apply, believe, and be obedient to what one does know (however limited that knowledge might be).

a) I don't believe it's clear who the contentious ones are, and therefore, it isn't clear which position Paul is advocating--wearing head coverings (in addition to the hair) or not wearing them.

Well...as for who they are...it does say "any man" so presumably the who would be anyone who wants to be contentious.

The real question then becomes what the contention Paul is referring to, is.

Why would anyone be contentious in regard to a custom that Paul said no church had? Where is the contention in that? Whoever read 1 Corinthians would have read the "no such custom" verse before they even would have had a chance to be contentious and would, if the understanding of the custom being what Paul taught about head coverings is correct, have been left with nothing to be contentious about as soon as 1 Corinthians was read to them.

Does it not make more sense in the context that the contention was regarding what Paul had been teaching on?

Such a contention would have remained long after the letter of 1 Corinthians was read and Paul's admonishment to them that all the other churches followed his teaching on head coverings would have served it's purpose in hopefully quieting any such contention.

b) I think there's some question as to whether the wearing of head coverings might be a cultural expression of a timeless principle--namely, the headship of the husband.

What about the headship of Christ over the man?

Leaving aside any present application A.believer, are we at least agreed that in Corinth and the churches that Paul referred to, a head covering was a symbol of the timeless principles that Paul gave for why women should wear one and men not?

(I saw this in India, and to throw off that custom in the church, there, would be a declaration of rebellion in a way that it just isn't here because the head covering has no significance to us.) If this is so, and if our culture does not recognize the symbol (a covered head for a woman), then I don't know that this would necessarily be the proper expression of the principle for our culture.

A problem I see with that is that Paul's teaching ran contrary to what the Corinthians were apparently used to seeing. Otherwise there would have been no need for Paul to advocate what he did as a way of correcting the opposite behaviour in the Corinthians.

So...and here I myself am going off topic just a tad...any lack of recognition today of such a symbol would not be a valid reason to not wear it since it is decidedly a Christian view embodied in that symbol that Paul was advocating. Something very different and dare I say unrecognizable to anyone other than Christians.

I know the part about the angels presents a difficulty to this view, but I would suppose that the angels would be offended by the rebellion, itself, that would be symbolized by the throwing off of the head coverings in this case, and not necessarily the lack of head coverings per se.

Yet the angels would have known presumably that this symbol represented timeless principles of God being displayed as such through this symbol or not on the heads of the women and men respectably. They saw the symbol and it acknowledged and honored God's timeless principles or not as the case may be.

To say that the underlying rebellion displayed by not following Paul's instructions is now the issue seen by the angels is to miss the fact that God chose to use the head covering as a symbol then based on timeless principles that have not changed. Such that, barring any instructions from God to use a different symbol and the telling of that to the angels, that the same symbol should be used today. A symbol the angels still recognize for the same reasons Paul gave then.

God saw fit then to use the head covering as a symbol. Even though it ran, in many cases, against the practice of the cultures in some of the various churches involved.

In fact, I think that our culture has a much deeper problem where we really are rebelling against the created order in regard to gender roles and, therefore, I consider this fact the "camel" (to which I referred in my PM) and the head coverings the "gnat."

Ahh...but this gnat has become the proverbial canary in the mineshaft. Seemingly insignicant by itself but highly revealing of spiritual rotteness underneath when the gas of rebellion seeks to kill it (this is not at all reference to you A.believer - I do not see rebellion in you regarding this issue - just uncertainty and some disagreement).

LOL Good luck on that one. I do think that the whole issue of "gender roles" (in its many manifestations) is going to become more and more a source of contention and spiritual drift in the church in the coming years.

Sad to say so but I must unfortunately agree that it looks that way.

I actually had one pastor tell me once that although he saw what the Scriptures taught on the differences in roles for men and women in the church that he chose to ignore them because..well...because it would cause stress with his wife who was exerting a more and more prominent role in the church. He gave way to his wife and set aside what he himself acknowledged the Scriptures to say! Totally aside from any potential disagreement on the issue itself I ceased going to his church forthwith. He was in known rebellion to God - a judgment based on his own words!

Carlos

 

[Floatingaxe]

I actually had one pastor tell me once that although he saw what the Scriptures taught on the differences in roles for men and women in the church that he chose to ignore them because..well...because it would cause stress with his wife who was exerting a more and more prominent role in the church. He gave way to his wife and set aside what he himself acknowledged the Scriptures to say! Totally aside from any potential disagreement on the issue itself I ceased going to his church forthwith. He was in known rebellion to God - a judgment based on his own words!

Is this now an extrapolation of a view as to how the head covering passage should be applied in today's Church?

Should all women now cover their heads or be considered rebellious, and the churches that allow them to do so?

Does the church you belong to now enforce such a "law"? It would be interesting to know if such a church exists in a mainstream denomination, Carlos.

 

[carlos123]

I guess that this thread has pretty much run it's course unless anyone has anything new to share about what Paul meant to say to the Corinthians about head coverings and unless you want to respond to any points or questions I brought up in my last posts A.believer.

If it has run it's course I want to thank everyone who participated. It was on the whole a very civil discussion and I am so very grateful for that. I have learned a lot about head coverings and am now in a much better position to write up a worthwhile paper on this subject (one of my goals from the beginning).

This thread has been very unusual I think, in terms of how civilly the discussion was conducted. At least when compared to how forum discussions usually go .

I think in the future I might seek out individuals who have posted their thoughts on web sites (like the one you gave us a link to A.believer) rather than discussing things on a forum. Too many seem to come out of the woodwork in more typical forum threads to cause misunderstandings and problems. And given the way this forum in particular seems to let people say all kinds of things that are rude or divisive, seeking out individuals might be a better way to engage in civil discussions in the future for me. I may not go that route but it seems that such an approach might be better.

Anyway thanks again. I will keep watching this thread for a while longer in case anyone has anything else they would like to share.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Is this now an extrapolation of a view as to how the head covering passage should be applied in today's Church?

Should all women now cover their heads or be considered rebellious, and the churches that allow them to do so?

Does the church you belong to now enforce such a "law"? It would be interesting to know if such a church exists in a mainstream denomination, Carlos.

Sorry about my going off topic Flo. Thanks for pointing that out. The thread had pretty much become a conversation between me and A.believer so I took some liberty in the discussion. My apologies.

Carlos

 

[Floatingaxe]

Just how productive is it to continually seek out those who would agree with you?

Such a pattern of behaviour serves to perpetuate untruth, and even compound it, deeply engraining it in people's minds.

Proverbs 27:17

Just as iron sharpens iron,
friends sharpen the minds of each other.

 

[A. believer]

Anyway thanks again. I will keep watching this thread for a while longer in case anyone has anything else they would like to share.

Carlos

I'm still intending to post a response which will, I hope, clarify some things, but I'm unlikely to get to it before Monday.

 

[A. believer]

Hi again A.believer

This is kinda unusual I think. For the last few posts it's been just you and I. Kinda like we are having a private conversation in public .

Really? You find that unusual? For some reason, I continually seem to find myself in those kinds of discussions. It often seems to me that, when I start piping in, everyone just gets bored and disperses, except for one poor person who, I guess, just can't seem to figure out a way to make a graceful exit, and so gets stuck in a discussion he may wish he never started. I should probably take a hint, but I'm a slow learner, I guess. LOL

Besides I want to have the last word anyway

Ah, so, that's what it is. It's not excessive politeness, but excessive stubbornness that keeps that one person hanging on. Now I remember the pattern. (It's been a while since I've been regularly posting on discussion boards, so I'd forgotten.)

But there is a problem with the view of Paul saying that the churches have no custom of the kind he was instructing the Corinthians to practice. Such a view does not explain how Paul could so strongly and clearly make a point of women wearing a head covering and men not and then turn around and basically say "Oh...by the way...we don't have any such custom as what I have been telling you...so if anyone wants to argue with me about it...well...feel free to ignore it...since we really don't have any such custom anyway!".

I think you're misunderstanding the argument. THis is what's being asserted. We have Paul responding to the Corinthians to a letter they'd written him asking him about some issues that were raised by some unknown teachers. Paul praises them for keeping the traditions he's already taught them, and then he goes on to address their issues. (All this, I think, you don't dispute.) According to Dr. Svendsen's view, it seems that these people were introducing a custom of having women cover their heads during the assembly. As justification for this, they give the reason that the man is head of the woman, that the man is greater than the woman, etc.

Now Paul responds to these arguments in the first part of his argument. He concedes many of their points about men and women. He then goes onto balance what these men have been saying with the second part of his argument, beginning with the word "Nevertheless." Here is where he introduces a Christian perspective. (Remember that the dominant culture already had a much higher view of men than women, and the OT Scriptures could certainly be cherry-picked to support the view of the superiority of man over woman by those who are already inclined to think that way.)

At this point, Paul drives home what was, to that culture, a novel concept--the interdependence of men and women. This view doesn't deny male headship in the home (and even affirms it as typology for Christ and the church), but it does a lot to deflate male pride and custom which puts women into a fully subservient position to men, in general. It's a radical redefinition of male/female roles.

Paul acknowledges the principle of women's heads being covered as a symbol of the headship of the husband, but then he goes on to explain that God has already given them a covering, their glory, which is their long hair. In all this, he's responded to the men the Corinthian church has been learning from and interacting with their arguments. But then, to make things absolutely clear, he says straight out that the church has no such custom of women being veiled, and therefore, they are not to introduce the custom. What he would be doing, presuming this is a correct reading of the text, would be first using the opportunity to teach and clarify Christian doctrine in contrast to their prior assumptions and beliefs, and then secondly, just asserting his authority in defining the customs. It's kind of how I respond to my kids sometimes when they introduce their reasons why they feel things should be done some other way than what I deem best. I respond to their arguments, and then I just tell them straight out, "This is how it's going to be done."

I'm not trying to force you to accept this view, but I do think you should understand it.

It also does not explain how it is that the churches both in the New Testament and throughout the centuries until relatively recently practiced the very custom that Paul supposedly said they had no custom of. How did such a custom come to be if not based on what Paul taught about it?

If Dr. Svendsen's interpretation is correct, I'd have to presume that the reason it's been practiced otherwise is based on a wrong understanding of Scripture. I know that, for a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believer, this would seem like an outlandish idea, that the church could get it so wrong. But for us Protestants, we presume that the early church got lots of things wrong, so it isn't particularly difficult to imagine.

Even in the catacombs of Rome we see historical evidence for the wearing of a head covering on women worshippers in various paintings on the walls.

I don't know about that, but that's the same argument that RCs and EOs use for a number of their doctrines that we reject.

But it goes even deeper than that. Head coverings for women and not for men are two aspects of the practice Paul was advocating that stand or fall together. If head coverings is the hair then a covering as hair is also applicable to the men. If head coverings is not the hair then a head covering on the men is also something extra over the hair. And so forth. The two go hand in hand.

Right, and hence the argument from nature that Paul uses that women wear long hair (as a covering) and men don't.

Now what I find interesting and even more devastating to the belief that "no such custom" was Paul referring to the very thing he had been advocating is this...

Regarding the covering for men...Paul says that for a man to wear a covering on his head dishonors his head, namely Christ. Well...if the custom was in part what he had been advocating for men then Paul would in effect have been saying that the churches of God at the time had no such custom of honoring Christ as head through the practice of no head covering on the men! For if indeed the "no such custom" referred to what Paul was advocating then it stands to reason that a man could go ahead and cover his head if he wanted to. Since Paul would have thus given liberty for such an opposite practice than the one he had been teaching on and advocating!

I daresay that Paul would have never, ever condoned a practice opposite from the one he was advocating that would have dishonored Christ as a man's head! He would have never, ever given liberty for such an opposite custom.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Paul would be saying that women do have a head covering (long hair) and men don't (short hair) and that reflects the created order. Additional coverings are unnecessary.

I did not say that everything he said was speculation A.believer. Only that much of his argument is based on speculation.

And I disagree.

That was not the speculation that I was referring to at all A.believer for as you say, the fact that there was another letter - lost to us today, is indisputable.

One of the speculations that I was referring to is the speculation regarding the contents of that other letter. We simply don't know what Paul wrote previously or what was written to him. We can speculate. We can deduce and hope that our deduction is somewhat accurate but there is no way to know with certainty what was in that previous letter. To base one's conviction about what Paul is saying about head coverings based in part on what a previous letter, that we simply do not have access to, says is to base one's interpretation of the passages on head coverings, at least in part, on speculation. That's not good.

It's a necessary part of interpretation since we aren't the original audience.

That's what I mean A.believer. The context is one created by Svendsen based on what he thinks might have been in the previous letter. But since he can't know what that letter said for sure...well...it's just speculation. His "context" supports a view that basically renders the context found in the text of what we do have, mute. It takes a context that is speculation and substitutes it for the context that is written.

The "speculation" as you call it is based on clues from the text. The opposite assumption--that the Corinthians are being pressured to remove head coverings from the women is equally speculative. It's either one or the other, and ES gives his reasons why he thinks it is what it is.

I think you are making too much of what I said A.believer. Just as I can't assume bad faith on your part please don't assume that I said or think something I did not. I never said his views or anyone else's for that matter is a "bunch of wild, unfounded speculations". What I did say is that his views, and that of many others, is based in part (not in whole) on mere speculation. I still believe that.

Sorry, but I reiterate the point that speculation is necessary of the part of any reader. That's why I considered your accusation against him to imply that his speculations are wild and unfounded as opposed to yours, which you, apparently, consider self-evident.

We need to get back to what is written and only to what is written without giving undue considerations to speculations that diminish, negate, or allow us to ignore what is written.

Sorry you think that's what's being done.

I think what is essential is understanding what Paul said in the other verses so that the one on "no such custom" can be understood in the proper context of what Paul was saying. If we hinge everything on an understanding of what position the contentious one's were taking and evaluate everything else based on that understanding then we might miss the truth. Seeing as how the text says nothing explicitly about what position the contentious one's had. The only way to tell with any degree of accuracy is to to look at the context of what Paul said in the other verses to see if our understanding of "no such custom" lines up with that.

And perhaps you now see better that that's exactly what Svendsen is attempting to do.

As I said there are some serious problems, that I have not read or heard anyone address anywhere, with the view that Paul was basically doing an about turn and saying that the Corinthians and all other churches could practice the very opposite of what he had been teaching on.

No one's contending this.

I still don't understand why you said I should take into account arguments advanced by those with greater theological scholarship credentials than either one of us. You seem to be saying something different above. That you advanced his argument not because of his greater theological credentials and training but because it had merit (something that I wholeheartedly agree with by the way - in terms of advancing arguments based on their merit alone).

I actually lost my entire last response and had to rewrite it, so I think I lost some of my explanation in my rewrite. My point is that we know much of what we know because of scholarship, and you've been the beneficiary of a great deal of scholarship that you've simply absorbed throughout your Christian life. Because of what you've been the beneficiary of, you're able to study and draw many conclusions yourself, and therefore, you ought not lightly dismiss "scholarship" and "scholars" as if they're dirty words, and dismiss their arguments without considering that they may have more substance than you realize. You do seem to be quite eager to dismiss Dr. Svendsen's argument, even though it's clear you haven't given it enough consideration to even properly understand it.

 

[A. believer]

Part Two of my response to A.believer...

Again A.believer please do not assume that I am saying something I am not (it seems that you are). I never said that a precondition to mature spiritually is the need to do some biblical scholarship. I just said that everyone should do some to better understand what is written. But I have never said, nor do I believe, that understanding everything that is written through such scholarship is a precondition to spiritual maturity. I view spiritual maturity as having very little to do with head knowledge and far more to do with a willingness to apply, believe, and be obedient to what one does know (however limited that knowledge might be).

Good.

Well...as for who they are...it does say "any man" so presumably the who would be anyone who wants to be contentious.

Of course, but the presumption that anyone would be contentious would be based upon the fact that some people have already expressed some disagreement. Therefore, we would want to know, what was their position?

The real question then becomes what the contention Paul is referring to, is.

Why would anyone be contentious in regard to a custom that Paul said no church had? Where is the contention in that? Whoever read 1 Corinthians would have read the "no such custom" verse before they even would have had a chance to be contentious and would, if the understanding of the custom being what Paul taught about head coverings is correct, have been left with nothing to be contentious about as soon as 1 Corinthians was read to them.

Except that, again, Paul was responding to issues the Corinthians asked him about. What would have caused them to even ask about it (or why would Paul have even addressed it in this letter) if there weren't some question about it?

Does it not make more sense in the context that the contention was regarding what Paul had been teaching on?

Obviously, that's what's in dispute, and I've explained the reasons why that wouldn't, apparently, "make more sense."

What about the headship of Christ over the man?

Leaving aside any present application A.believer, are we at least agreed that in Corinth and the churches that Paul referred to, a head covering was a symbol of the timeless principles that Paul gave for why women should wear one and men not?

We're agreed on that, but we're not necessarily agreed on what constitutes a head covering. (Is it the God-given long hair of a woman or is it something in addition to that?)

A problem I see with that is that Paul's teaching ran contrary to what the Corinthians were apparently used to seeing. Otherwise there would have been no need for Paul to advocate what he did as a way of correcting the opposite behaviour in the Corinthians.

Not necessarily. Think of the letter to the Galatians, for example. Paul had already taught them that circumcision was not a requirement for the New Covenant. That's what they were "used to seeing." But then, after the apostle was gone, the Judaizers came along and started telling them otherwise, and they were confused. So Paul wrote to them to reinforce what he'd already taught them. The difference between that and this is that the error of the Judaizers was way more serious and threatened the gospel, itself, while the issue of head coverings had no such import. But the principle would be the same. An apostles teaches the church, then leaves. After he leaves, others come in and attempt to change the teaching. An apostle (usually Paul) then writes to the church to tell them to stick with the traditions the apostles taught. (Hence the signficance of Paul praising the Corinthians for sticking to the teachings he'd already given them.)

So...and here I myself am going off topic just a tad...any lack of recognition today of such a symbol would not be a valid reason to not wear it since it is decidedly a Christian view embodied in that symbol that Paul was advocating. Something very different and dare I say unrecognizable to anyone other than Christians.

In the current culture, it's distinctly Christian, but in ancient cultures (including the Indian culture, even today) the head covering for the woman is still a symbol of her subservience. That's why, I think, these people were telling the Corinthians that they needed to observe this custom--because it was part of the culture at large in Corinth. Paul then used the occasion to reinforce the radical Trinitarian notion that men and women are interdependent, and even though men are the heads of household, God has provided the symbol in the woman's hair.

Yet the angels would have known presumably that this symbol represented timeless principles of God being displayed as such through this symbol or not on the heads of the women and men respectably. They saw the symbol and it acknowledged and honored God's timeless principles or not as the case may be.

To say that the underlying rebellion displayed by not following Paul's instructions is now the issue seen by the angels is to miss the fact that God chose to use the head covering as a symbol then based on timeless principles that have not changed. Such that, barring any instructions from God to use a different symbol and the telling of that to the angels, that the same symbol should be used today. A symbol the angels still recognize for the same reasons Paul gave then.

Of course, if God has provided the head covering--the long hair--then this is moot. But if that's not correct, and Paul really was advocating the use of head coverings, then my dispute with you here is the idea that this is a distinctly Christian symbol. It isn't. So if the church chose to follow this tradition because they agreed with what it symbolized to the culture at large, the fact that it doesn't symbolize this to the culture at large today would make a difference. I don't remember if I posted this point or if I just said it in the post that I lost, but when I worship in India, I wear a sari, as the women there do, and I cover my head with the tail of the sari, as the women there do, because this covering of the head has that significance in their culture (among all the different religions, not just the Christians.) Here, though, it seems out of place precisely because it has no significance outside of the church.

God saw fit then to use the head covering as a symbol. Even though it ran, in many cases, against the practice of the cultures in some of the various churches involved.

This is what's in dispute.

Ahh...but this gnat has become the proverbial canary in the mineshaft. Seemingly insignicant by itself but highly revealing of spiritual rotteness underneath when the gas of rebellion seeks to kill it (this is not at all reference to you A.believer - I do not see rebellion in you regarding this issue - just uncertainty and some disagreement).

And in spite of everything I've said, I also consider the possibility that this is a correct summation of the problem. I still believe, though, that if it's to be changed, it needs to be changed corporately, and not individually.

 

[carlos123]

Just how productive is it to continually seek out those who would agree with you?

Such a pattern of behaviour serves to perpetuate untruth, and even compound it, deeply engraining it in people's minds.

Proverbs 27:17

Just as iron sharpens iron,
friends sharpen the minds of each other.

In the interests of not allowing myself to get slandered by Floatingaxe without having the truth be known, let me make clear to anyone reading this thread that I have absolutely no intention to seek out those that agree with me. Rather I relish disagreement from those that have valid Scriptural support for their disagreement. That I might be able ultimately to discern what the Lord wants me to believe about a given issue more clearly.

That is why I start threads on a forum such as this one. A medium that makes it all but impossible to have only those that agree with me join me in discussing an issue!

I am open to hearing from anyone that disagrees with me and especially from those whose disagreements are backed up by the written Word.

If anyone has questions about what I have said please feel free to PM me as I do not want this thread to become about me per se but rather about the issue we are discussing. Namely what did Paul mean to say to those in Corinth.

Carlos

 

[judahsgem]

Alrighty then...moving right along...here is the next set of verses in the section on head coverings.

1 Corinthians 11:4-6



My take on this is as follows...

In the above verses there are instructions for men and for women when they are engaged in praying or prophesying. The men must have their head uncovered. The women must have their head covered.

If a woman does not have her head covered while praying or prophesying then it is the same as having her head shorn (or shaved). If a woman wants to pray or prophesy without her head covered then she should have her head shaved but if that is shameful she should then cover her hair.

I do not believe that the head covering referred to here refers to a man or woman's physical hair. If it did it would make no sense that a woman with head uncovered is the same as a woman whose head is shaved for she would have her covering, if it was her hair, already on her head.

So far so good? Any other thoughts on the above verses?

Carlos

PS. To whoever is reading this...please bear in mind that we are discussing what Paul meant to say to the Corinthians Christians without consideration of whether it is applicable to today or not.

Being a woman and having read the thread thus far, I am in agreement with what you have come to, regarding these verses. Indeed, it would not make sense, that her hair is her only cover here. It must be something that keeps the hair from sight or the whole statement would not make sense, as you said.
I too am praying for this thread, as I believe this is something that is puzzling to many but many want to figure out. I've noticed, in the last few years, many many women, who never even thought of it before, wondering about this very passage, so it is a good thing to be discussing it. Not just for women, but for all believers.

 

[judahsgem]

To cover the glory of the woman (her hair). Note in 1 corinthians that there are three glories (God's, Man's and Woman's) and two coverings (hair and veil). Now in public worship all glory is to be given to God hence the glory of the man (woman) is covered by her long hair; the glory of the woman (her hair) is covered by a veil; the glory of God then is uncontested.

1Co 11:7 "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."
1Co 11:15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

wow...never heard it put quite like that.
That's truly something to think about. Thank you for putting it in that light for us.
I think I'll be making a note of your comment, so I can keep that in thought, when studying this further, for current day, as we are not discussing that aspect in this thread (which is fine btw )

 

[carlos123]

Hi A.believer,

Just wanted you to know that I will be thinking about what you said and will get back to you shortly (in a few days at most). I just don't have any time to think about, much less respond to your further comments just now (it's 12:30 AM and I got's to get to bed - big day tomorrow).

I accidentally messed up my computer such that I was able to reinstall my OS and get myself going on the Internet again just tonight.

Incidentally A.believer I want you to know that I value your input. I say that with absolute sincerity. I enjoy interacting with you on this issue and in no way, shape, or form, am I trying to get out of any further discussion with you. What I said in a previous post about this thread potentially ending was because I had not heard from anyone, including you, in what I remember being a couple of days. Not because I wanted to stop the discussion per se.

If you are willing to continue I think the Lord might yet want to teach me something through our further discussion. Even through our disagreement.

I would just ask that you be patient with me and think the best about me and I will do the same with you. Maybe the Lord will yet bring us to agree on this issue Don't know but I am definitely curious as to whether he will.

For anyone else "listening", please don't feel that you can't pipe up and contribute to the discussion. It's just that at this point it seems like the discussion has become one between me and A.believer .

Carlos

PS. Welcome to the discussion judahsgem!! Great to have you. Just wanted you to know that I wrote and posted the above before I had seen your posts. If you have any further thoughts feel free to share them with us. We may not all agree with you or with one another but perhaps we can learn something together as we continue to discuss this issue. Thanks so much for praying for this thread! We need more such prayer!!!

 

[judahsgem]

http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/headcovering.html
http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/heads.html
http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/hgmheadcovering.htm
http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/hc.htm

Thank you for the links. This should be some good study reading for me.

 

[judahsgem]

i disagree. i think Paul meant it for all times, and not just for the Corinths. if it was just to the Corinths.. why didn't He write to the Europeans, the Chinese, and others!

I would have to agree. I'm sure there must've been ex-priestesses,etc.. but when looking at the passage, we must look at the whole of the book and I believe the op stated the verse which mentions it being for all the body.
At the same time, I do not believe the headcover was just an issue of culture, as mentioned in a prior post also.
(To cover the glory of the woman (her hair). Note in 1
corinthians that there are three glories (God's, Man's
and Woman's) and two coverings (hair and veil).
Now in public worship all glory is to be given to God
hence the glory of the man (woman) is covered by her long
hair; the glory of the woman (her hair) is covered by a
veil; the glory of God then is uncontested.)

I believe the headcover, according to the passage stated, was an issue of distraction in the worship setting. All focus of the believer should be on God's glory and no one else's. It shouldn't be about man's glory or woman's glory and them noticing each other's 'glory', which can happen and distract one from the true focus of worship. It's to take all that away, making us all truly equal (no male or female) while together, so that our focus can be totally on the glory of our God.
While today is not the purpose of this discussion, I think the relevance of this is for all eras, including in Corinth.