At the end of his discussion of the meaning of the word "kephale" or "head," where I've already agreed with his conclusions he has a paragraph I also agree with that I want to note:
I think Paul added the headship of God over Christ right after asserting the headship of man over woman in order to teach that the authority of man over woman does not imply the inferiority of women or the superiority of men. Some Corinthians may have concluded that the headship of man over woman diminished woman’s worth. Paul anticipates this objection and adds that God is the head over Christ. And even though God (i.e., the Father) is the head over Christ, He is not essentially greater than Christ. So too, even though women are under men’s authority, they are not essentially inferior. Paul follows this same pattern in 11:7-12. In 11:7-10, he says women were created for man’s glory and sake. But in 11:11-12, he shows that this does not involve the inferiority of women.I agree completely.
Now he goes on to the following verses which he thinks depend heavily on the meaning of "head" which he has just disussed, although I don't think it's that crucial myself.
The Relation of 11:4-6 to 11:3This simply is not true. The evidence from that time is that Jewish men always covered their heads in worship -- and still do -- and Roman men likewise often did so when worshiping their various gods. A head covering simply is NOT "what women wore" while men did not. Greek women did NOT normally cover their heads; they might or they might not and if they did it was for fashion not conscience. Greek men did not cover their heads. Jewish men AND women both covered their heads in worship. There was less of a clearcut custom among Romans and Greeks, so that you couldn't make a standard out of their practice.
We have spent considerable time on 11:3 because it is fundamental to the whole passage. Verses 4-6 flow from the theological principle enunciated in 11:3. Since Christ is the authority over men, and since men are the authority over women, it follows that no man should wear a head covering when he prays and prophesies, while a woman should. Paul objects to men wearing head coverings in verse 4 because such adornment would be disgraceful. Why? Because that is what women wore (11:5-6), and thus a man who wore such a head covering would be shamefully depicting himself as a woman. Conversely, if women do not wear head coverings, their failure to be adorned properly would be shameful (11:5) because they would be dressing like men. [my bolding]
Clearly Paul was teaching them all something new. What he said contradicted at least something in all the cultures though it may have supported some practices as well, just not all the practices of any of the cultures. He was giving a brand-new apostolically authoritative command.
That the shame involved is due to appearing like a man is confirmed by Paul’s explanation in 11:5b-6. A woman’s failure to wear a head covering is analogous to her having her hair cut short or shaved. Every woman in the culture of that day would have been ashamed of appearing in public with her head shaved or herThere is no evidence for such a flat-out statement: Dr. Schreiner doesn't offer any and there really isn't any. Looking like a man may be part of the shame if a woman's hair is cut but there is nothing explicit to say so, certainly not with the air of certainty expressed here. Research done by some on this passage has shown that there was a custom in some cultures for women to have their hair cut in mourning, which many women resisted despite its being a custom [references pending]. It was also done to women caught in adultery in some cases. This seems just as likely a source of the shame. But it also seems likely that women simply regarded their hair as an attractive feminine feature and to lose it would make them feel less attractive and at odds with the culture. In other words, just as Paul implies in verse 15 perhaps people in those days really did judge a woman's long hair to be her peculiar and essential glory and it's only in our time that we've lost this sense of things. In any case, Dr. Schreiner really has no basis for his absolute assertion that it was a shame so strictly because it made a woman look like a man. There are too many other elements involved to justify such a hard and fast singular declaration.
hair cut short, because then she would have looked like a man.
Paul is of course making an analogy between the shorn head and the failure to cover, however, as Dr. Schreiner affirms. But looking like a man isn't the point or at least not the central point (and I've already pointed out that either wearing or not wearing a covering did not make a man or woman look more or less like the opposite sex if you are judging by the customs of the time). The main point throughout the passage is the hierarchy of authority or headship. If a woman will not cover her head it's the same thing as shaving her head because her long hair should teach her that she needs an additional covering, and if she refuses it she might as well also remove her natural covering. Paul clearly expects them all to recognize the shame in cutting the women's hair, so it makes a basis for teaching them the shame they did NOT feel in not wearing an additional covering. The verses about the length of hair are there as one of the arguments for the covering.
Paul explicitly says in 11:15 that a woman’s “long hair” is her “glory.” And if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him (11:14). If we compare verse 14 with verse 15, it is clear that for a man to wear long hair is a dishonor to him because such long hair is the particular glory of a woman, i.e., because if a man wears long hair, he looks like a woman.Here it is more defensible to say that looking like a woman is the source of the dishonor to a man in having long hair, but again this interpretation is given an emphasis not clearly derived from the passage itself but rather imposed on it. When you put it together with the emphasis on the hierarchy of headship that IS Paul's concern, the dishonor simply appears too superficial when presented as simply "looking like a woman." (Actually, men with long hair hardly ever look like women -- just my own observation).
If we examine verses 5 and 6 in light of verses 14-15, we see that for a woman to wear her hair short or to shave her hair is contrary to what brings her glory, namely, long hair. Indeed, to keep her hair short is to wear it the way a man does (cf. 11:14). Thus, we can conclude that Paul wants women to wear head coverings while praying and 123 prophesying because to do otherwise would be to confuse the sexes and give the shameful impression that women are behaving like men.Just the addition of a little word makes all the difference here. Paul does not say that her long hair "brings her glory," he said it IS her glory. He then goes on as if to say that what MAKES it her glory is that it is given her for a covering ("peribolaion" -- a different sense than the covering he's been advocating -- "katakalupto"). "But if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her, for *(her) hair is given to her for a covering." The shame then that Paul is offering as another argument is again the shame of being covered if you are a man who is the glory of Christ and of being uncovered if you are a woman who is the glory of man.
Then follows a discussion of whether the "head" mentioned refers to the person's own head or to the authority over that person, man over the woman, Christ over the man and so on but I won't go into that. I agree with Dr. Schreiner that it means both. Both are true: what dishonors one's authoritative head also dishonors one's own head or oneself.
The woman who fails to wear a head covering brings dishonor on her head, man. Three arguments support this interpretation.I agree but then note again that "adorn" is a tendentious and false word to use in this context, an imposition on the text. I'm also not quite sure "role relationship" expresses the point Paul is trying to make. I see his point as relating all of it more directly to God and God's Creation order than to the relations between the sexes, although of course that is always in the picture. He's talking about them all as positions on a hierarchical ladder and not discussing how they are to relate to each other. The man IS the glory of Christ and His glory is to be displayed in worship; therefore the man is not to cover his head so that Christ may be shown forth. But the woman is the glory of man, having been created out of his body, and the man's glory is to be hidden so that Christ's glory alone may shine.
(1) Verses 4-6 are an inference or conclusion drawn from the fundamental proposition in verse 3. Why does Paul want women to wear head coverings? Because such head coverings reflect the role relationship intended between man and woman. Since man is the head of woman, woman ought to adorn herself with a head covering. Failure to do so is to bring shame on one’s head, namely, man. Such an understanding of head accords well with the intended connection between verse 3 and verses 4-6.
(2) If Paul only wanted to say that one was disgracing oneself, he could have used a reflexive pronoun in verses 4 and 5. By using the word head in an obviously metaphorical way, Paul suggests a connection with the metaphorical use of that word in verse 3.I agree with this main point that the dishonor is to both self and the authority.
But again I have to point out the unwarranted use of "adorn," which somewhat suggests that the head covering is something less than a simple literal covering, making it instead into a decoration which subtly implies choice. Although of course he wouldn't argue that Paul saw women as having such a choice, when he comes to the end of this article we will find him arguing that we today have a choice they didn't have, and then the insistence on the head covering as an "adornment" supports that conclusion. He's going to argue at the end that we need to be adorned in a feminine way, and that covering the head was only the way THEY adorned themselves to show femininity in THEIR day. This conclusion is more defensible if Paul is only talking about a custom we can regard as an optional adornment and not explicitly a command to cover the literal head. If you look at the paintings of women in prayer drawn on the walls of the catacombs in Rome during the times of the early Roman persecutions, you will see that they have a piece of cloth simply pulled over their heads. This is clearly intended as a functional covering and not an "adornment." When Jewish men covered their heads they used a prayer shawl, or pulled some part of their robe over their head, as Haman did in the Book of Esther. That is also how the Greeks and Romans did it if they covered their heads.
I'm jumping the gun here but I must go on: With all the emphasis on the literal head in this passage, even the ambiguity about the word "head" which serves to emphasize that we ARE talking about the head, also continued in the discussion about the length of the hair and the honor or dishonor attached to it, and the covering or uncovering of the head and the honor or dishonor attached to it, all backed up with arguments concerning HEADship, man over woman, Christ over man, God over Christ, from the Creation and from Nature, to conclude that Paul is only talking about a culturally relative custom of his own day that distinguishes the feminine from the masculine makes no sense. He's clearly arguing for a principle involving the literal head that he has to explain to the Corinthians in great detail and with many examples because it isn't part of their culture so he doesn't expect them to reocgnize it.
(3) Paul says in verse 7 that “woman is the glory of man.” He probably means by glory that the woman is intended to bring honor to the man. She should honor him because he is the head, i.e., the authority (11:3). This suggests that a woman disgraces her head, i.e., man, by not wearing a head covering (11:5), and man disgraces his head, Christ, by wearing a head covering (11:4).But Paul did not say the woman "brings honor" to the man, that idea is added on here; Paul said she IS his glory. There is no "should" implied. She simply IS his glory, and I believe the idea is that since she was taken out of his side and not directly created from the dust as was Adam she is Adam’s glory while Adam is God’s glory. Therefore when she covers her own head she is covering HIS glory! She is suppressing the MAN's glory which would otherwise compete with the glory of Christ in worship, while the man's bare head shows forth Christ's glory as he IS the glory of Christ. Yes she SHOULD honor the man, but especially honor Christ by covering her head, and he SHOULD honor Christ by uncovering his but to emphasize only this factor would neglect the more fundamental point that he IS the glory of Christ and she IS the glory of man.
Paul might have intended both senses here. They are not mutually exclusive. A woman who does not wear a head covering both disgraces herself and brings dishonor on her authority, who is man. A man who wears a head covering dishonors himself and his authority, Jesus Christ. If one does not conform to the role God intended, one brings dishonor on oneself and on one’s authority. A child who rebels against a parent brings grief on himself and his parents (Proverbs 10:1; 17:25). We can conclude, then, that if a woman failed to wear a head covering and so dressed like a man, she brought shame both on herself and-because her behavior was a symbol of her rebellion against the created order, i.e., the intended relation between man and woman-on the man. Her failure to wear a head covering communicated rebellion and independence to everyone present in worship.19Well, I agree with his general point that both meanings of "head" are apparently intended in the passage, and his general point about honoring the authority over us, but it needs to be remembered that none of this was reflected in the cultural practices of the day, though Dr. Schreiner seems to take it for granted that culture is Paul's frame of reference. Again, not all the cultures represented in the Corinthian church required a woman to cover her head and at least the Jewish culture and to some extent the Roman did require a man to cover his head in worship. It was not regarded as shameful.
Paul's teaching simply is not about the customs of the day. There is a problem here with imputing a cultural frame of reference to Paul which is far from warranted by his own presentation, and assuming all the Corinthians shared in the view of the head covering Paul seems to be describing. The evidence is that some did not share in that view, and in fact not one of the cultures represented consistently had the customs Paul is teaching. What he is teaching is COUNTERCULTURAL and specific to the Christian Church. Paul is giving the church a command from apostolic authority to do something NONE of the cultures represented did in any consistent way: to uncover men's heads in worship and to cover women's. It's a new thing. It's a Christian thing. It was born of apostolic tradition, led by the Holy Spirit.
--------------
In prayer and prophesying.
Dr. Schreiner goes on to argue that Paul accepts that women should pray and prophesy in the public meeting because he links the head covering to this activity. My own working impression from my study of this is that Paul does NOT allow women to do this in any sense at least of taking a leadership role in it, but it's not crucial to the command that a woman cover the head in a worship service and it's so vexed a subject I'm just going to let it go.
TO BE CONTINUED.
No comments:
Post a Comment