This is Part 1: Introduction
==========================
1 Corinthians 11:2-16:
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not be covered, then let her be shorn! But since it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For indeed a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason the woman should have authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 In any case, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman, in the Lord; 12 for as woman is [created] from man, so man is now [born] through woman. And all things are from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Greek Text of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16:
2 Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καὶ, καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε. 3 Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός. 4 πᾶς ἀνὴρ προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ. 5 πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ προσευχομένη ἢ προφητεύουσα ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς· ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ. 6 εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, καὶ κειράσθω· εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι, κατακαλυπτέσθω.WHAT IS THE HEADCOVERING FOR WOMEN THAT PAUL REQUIRES OF US IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16?
7 Ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων· ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν. 8 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικός ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός· 9 καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα ἀλλὰ γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα. 10 διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. 11 πλὴν οὔτε γυνὴ χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνὴρ χωρὶς γυναικὸς ἐν κυρίῳ· 12 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ γυνὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός, οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ διὰ τῆς γυναικός· τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.
13 Ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς κρίνατε· πρέπον ἐστὶν γυναῖκα ἀκατακάλυπτον τῷ θεῷ προσεύχεσθαι; 14 οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν, 15 γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται [αὐτῇ]. 16 Εἰ δέ τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι, ἡμεῖς τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν οὐδὲ αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ.
I have been wearing a headcovering in church for most of this year now (2007) because I have been persuaded that wearing something on the head is what is required of women by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. I’ve also continued to study this passage of scripture, because there are so many opinions on it and almost every verse of it is surrounded by controversy, making it hard to explain to people. I never wanted to get this deeply into the debate about the woman’s headcovering, but the confusion surrounding the topic unfortunately requires it if I hope to communicate my view clearly. I also have no natural liking for wearing something on my head, to put it mildly, so a solid exegesis that showed it isn’t necessary would be very welcome to me, but in my investigations I’ve only confirmed the opposite conclusion. I simply became convinced that covering the head is what God would have of us.
I have listened to many sermons on the topic on the internet, read online articles and book chapters, and used my own reference books as well; I've read most of the Bible commentaries at Crosswalk.com and Blue Letter Bible; I’ve familiarized myself with the views of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and other evangelical authorities; I’ve learned a few Greek words, and I did some of my own online research into ancient customs of dress, since that has become a big part of the discussion -- all of which is to say that before offering my opinion I’ve been doing my homework. It’s rudimentary research, however, confined pretty much to the internet and older material on the subject, since I don’t have access to more recent writings, so I’m sure there is a lot I’ve overlooked. But I have prayed for understanding and believe He has given it, perhaps even given some new perspective on the problem.
* * * * * * *
Although some may regard paying so much attention to this passage to be “majoring in the minors” because it is the only place in scripture the headcovering is mentioned, and think it of little consequence whether we get it right or not, considering how hard it is to understand and how many different opinions attach to it, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion: that its being so embattled suggests that it’s a lot more important than we allow.
At the very least, of course, if it is the word of God, ignoring it or misreading it has to have consequences. If God wants women to be covering our heads as a sign of his governmental order, and we aren’t doing it because we have convinced ourselves he meant something else, then we are insulting his governmental order even if doing it in ignorance. We may expect His grace to cover such an error individually, and most Christians are innocent of error themselves, not having heard any teaching on this passage at all, and many others are simply following what they’ve been taught, but the leaders who have led us away from the truth, however unintentionally, may have something to answer for in the apparent powerlessness of the church in today’s world. Paul didn’t treat his teaching on this matter as trivial, he spent some effort explaining it to us, so if we are getting it wrong, and especially if that’s because of fear of man, or because it seems inconvenient for us or a little hard on our self-esteem, God will certainly judge His church for it.
There is one way that a few popular teachers deal with this passage that particularly trivializes it, and that is to interpret the last verse of it as Paul’s taking back his entire exhortation. Verse 16 says “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” As one expositor reads it, “If this causes problems, causes contention, it’s not worth the controversy, getting uptight, getting legalistic.” Granted, as with so much of the rest of the passage, verse 16 is somewhat ambiguous, but it just makes no sense that Paul would write fourteen verses giving at least three reasons why women should wear a covering, only to turn around and dismiss it as unimportant because some people are complaining about it. The reason he is writing about it at all is apparently because there is some controversy about it in the Corinthian congregation and the church leaders sought his guidance to resolve it. Surely he wouldn’t have argued for a head covering at such length, giving so many reasons why it is necessary, but simply said in a sentence or two that it is a matter each woman is free to decide for herself, if that is what he meant. But the very opposite is more in keeping with Paul’s careful treatment of the question: “We have no such custom” is a flat declaration of apostolic authority to enforce the use of the headcovering (whatever that covering might be), in order to silence the contention, and most expositors I’ve read interpret it this way, including those who don’t believe a literal fabric headcovering is for today.
However we are to understand the nature of the headcovering, Paul does consider it important, and therefore so should we.
* * * * * * *
There is no doubt that the passage is confusing, and has been to some extent through the centuries, but until very recently, even if Paul’s reasoning is hard to follow, even if there is a discouraging variety of opinions on just about every point of his argument, and even if some of his meaning remains obscure after our best efforts to grasp it, nevertheless his basic intention was never considered hard to understand until fairly recently: that is, he was always understood to require a fabric headcovering for women in the churches, and this was in fact practiced in all the churches well into the 20th century. Even acknowledging this historical fact, however, Chuck Smith dismisses the earlier churches’ interpretation as unnecessary, on the ground that in verse 16 Paul says it’s not important anyway, which only we in the modern age are apparently able to comprehend. For the last half century or more, such dismissive attitudes and other interpretations have overthrown the requirement and added tremendously to the confusion.
What I want to do in this research report is give the outlines of the currently most popular interpretations of the nature of the headcovering Paul is talking about, and the best answers to them I know of, trying to avoid the many side issues of the argument because they too easily obscure the main point of just what Paul is asking of us.
Some of those side issues are the meaning of the word “traditions” in verse 2, the meaning of “kephale” or “head” in following verses, the cultural implications of cutting the hair or shaving the female head in verse 5, how man is the image and glory of Christ in verse 7 but woman the glory of man, the meaning of “authority” or “power” and the reference to angels in verse 10. These are all related to important arguments Paul makes for the headcovering, but it isn’t necessary to resolve all the contention about them in order to understand what he means by the covering itself that he is requiring of us. So I want to stick closely to the question of just what the covering is.
* * * * * * *
Since it is a sensitive issue, often misused along with other passages of scripture to label women as inferior, it always needs to be said up front that the requirement for a head covering in no way returns us to the fallen versions of male dominance. It changes nothing concerning the equality of women and men in the Kingdom of God. As Watchman Nee put it so succinctly, in his own argument for the headcovering among the Chinese Christians, “We must not frustrate God’s government with God’s grace.” That is, we are living under the rules of both God’s government and God’s grace, which exist in a certain tension although they are not contradictory, and living under grace does not free us from our obligation to honor God’s government. Paul himself makes this clear in the passage, in verses 11 and 12, where he is careful to head off any crass male chauvinist response by affirming that “in the Lord” there is mutual interdependence between the sexes. Women are equal with men in Christ, though subordinate in role in this world, just as Jesus Christ is equal to God, though subordinate to the Father in His role as the Redeemer Son of Man. So, the head covering for women is strictly a matter of God’s government in this world, the government which places the man over the woman in various functions of life, such as in the exclusively male eldership of the church among other things, but does not affect our equality in the Kingdom of God.
On to PART TWO
No comments:
Post a Comment