I haven't forgotten this blog, it's just that there's only so much you can say about the head covering unless someone comes along and has objections or questions and wants to start a dialogue about it, or I run across something newsworthy, neither of which has happened. Otherwise I think I've made the case throughout the blog and it's here for anyone to read.
Thought I might try to restate the Bottom Line at least:
Paul couldn't possibly have meant long hair by the covering he so strenuously insists on in fifteen verses, for many reasons which I cover in my research posts, but I think the main and most obvious reason is that there wouldn't have been any women in the Corinthian church who DIDN'T wear their hair long as that was the norm pretty much everywhere on earth both in Paul's day and up until the 20th century. Context, context! Paul was writing to the Corinthians to resolve some disputes, and there would have been NO dispute about the length of a woman's hair. As he says in verse 6 (see below for the text of the whole passage), they would have regarded short hair on a woman as shameful, and in verses 14 and 15, it was regarded as given by nature that a woman's hair be long and a man's short. SURELY they were NOT having a dispute over short-haired women!
As for the other main misinterpretation, that the covering Paul was advocating was merely a feminine custom that was peculiar to his time, this too flies in the face of the most likely habits of women in his day or any day. Was Paul criticizing a contentious contingent of Corinthian women for failure to present themselves in their culture's customary feminine manner? Really, how likely is that? Even in our day, when women MAY dress like men or in "unisex" styles, the overarching motivation still manages to be a desire to show off their femaleness if not exactly femininity in a certain sense. It's ridiculous to think that any significant number of women in their day or our day would want to efface their femininity and rebel against a cultural expression of it. Beyond that, in Corinth covering the head WASN'T a uniform cultural standard except for Jewish women. In any case, the covering is not about "femininity" at all, it's about God's creation ordinance oncerning the headship of the man over the woman (verse 7) which requires the covering of the woman's head as the glory of man so that the glory of Christ in the head of the man can be displayed in worship.
And there are plenty of other reasons neither of these interpretations is defensible, which I've covered in my Research posts. I'm just trying here to state the most obvious ones.
Nope, on its face it is very clear that Paul is definitely calling for a covering to be worn over the head and hair, so that there is really no excuse for its abandonment. That is how all commentators interpreted it up until the 20th century and it was also obeyed in all the churches until around the 1960s when just about all of them abandoned it. The alternative interpretations that justify its abandonment are really very flimsy, mere excuses for disobedience.
Thought I might try to restate the Bottom Line at least:
Paul couldn't possibly have meant long hair by the covering he so strenuously insists on in fifteen verses, for many reasons which I cover in my research posts, but I think the main and most obvious reason is that there wouldn't have been any women in the Corinthian church who DIDN'T wear their hair long as that was the norm pretty much everywhere on earth both in Paul's day and up until the 20th century. Context, context! Paul was writing to the Corinthians to resolve some disputes, and there would have been NO dispute about the length of a woman's hair. As he says in verse 6 (see below for the text of the whole passage), they would have regarded short hair on a woman as shameful, and in verses 14 and 15, it was regarded as given by nature that a woman's hair be long and a man's short. SURELY they were NOT having a dispute over short-haired women!
As for the other main misinterpretation, that the covering Paul was advocating was merely a feminine custom that was peculiar to his time, this too flies in the face of the most likely habits of women in his day or any day. Was Paul criticizing a contentious contingent of Corinthian women for failure to present themselves in their culture's customary feminine manner? Really, how likely is that? Even in our day, when women MAY dress like men or in "unisex" styles, the overarching motivation still manages to be a desire to show off their femaleness if not exactly femininity in a certain sense. It's ridiculous to think that any significant number of women in their day or our day would want to efface their femininity and rebel against a cultural expression of it. Beyond that, in Corinth covering the head WASN'T a uniform cultural standard except for Jewish women. In any case, the covering is not about "femininity" at all, it's about God's creation ordinance oncerning the headship of the man over the woman (verse 7) which requires the covering of the woman's head as the glory of man so that the glory of Christ in the head of the man can be displayed in worship.
And there are plenty of other reasons neither of these interpretations is defensible, which I've covered in my Research posts. I'm just trying here to state the most obvious ones.
Nope, on its face it is very clear that Paul is definitely calling for a covering to be worn over the head and hair, so that there is really no excuse for its abandonment. That is how all commentators interpreted it up until the 20th century and it was also obeyed in all the churches until around the 1960s when just about all of them abandoned it. The alternative interpretations that justify its abandonment are really very flimsy, mere excuses for disobedience.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Here's the text of 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.
Paul was NOT PERFECT. Paul made errors in what he said and did, that as you align them with the teaching of the Word -- they don't line up. For example, look at this.
ReplyDeleteActs 23
1And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
2And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
3Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
4And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?
5Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
Paul was speaking of the "mindset" as if the priesthood of the old covenant was still in force -- and AS IF the high priest of the OT was still the high priest. But this is not true. Jesus Christ is the High Priest of the second covenant. Paul was not completely renewed in his mind. Paul even wrote the Book of Hebrews declaring the change in priesthood, that Jesus is now the High Priest and Jesus is therefore the Ruler. Yet, in his humanity, Paul was not "in the Spirit" as he spoke giving respect and submission to the outdated priesthood and thus not giving respect and submission to Jesus Christ. It was an error because Paul was not perfect and Paul was not entirely renewed in his mind.
Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
Hebrews 7:11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
The scripture is clear that the priesthood before God CHANGED when Jesus went to the cross and the vail was rent in two, Jesus resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of God the Father. The priesthood of the OT was not in effect. The priest who CLAIMED to be the high priest towards whom Paul gave respect was NOT the High Priest in the sight of God -- but rather Jesus Christ was/is the High Priest.
But, Paul, being human and having been a Pharisee of the Pharisee, was much like the Jews who left Israel and kept thinking like slaves of Egypt wanting to go back to be under Pharoah after God having sent Moses to bring them to the Promised Land.
Paul, though the scripture refutes his behavior, kept "thinking" that the high priest of the OT before whom he had appeared -- really WAS the high priest at that time. This is impossible. The high priest of the OT had LOST his place and position when Jesus Christ replaced the first covenant with the second covenant and replaced the high priest of the OT having become the High Priest of the NT in His death, burial, resurrection, ascension to the right hand of God and the sending of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.
Paul, basically, was not entirely renewed in his mind and gave up his dominion in Christ by submission to a high priest who had no authority before God... rather Jesus Christ did.
ReplyDeleteWe all make mistakes.
Paul has a habitual "strain" of Pharisaical sin in him "showing through" in which he knows better than to believe that righteousness can be attained by the law, knows better than to believe that the law is still in effect, knows that the only righteousness there is to be gained is through Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God and the High Priest and the Temple of the New Covenant -- by His blood and death burial and resurrection and through faith alone in Jesus by grace alone -- but Paul just "can't get his mind" to think that way 100%.
So, unless you want to denounce Jesus Christ as the High Priest of the New Covenant and return to the law and replace Jesus with a current high priest of the Old Covenant -- we can see that Paul made a mistake there out of human conditioning.
The matter of head coverings is a LIKE ERROR on Paul's part -- perhaps.
Because, spiritually, in Christ, Jesus Christ Himself has become the covering of all saints by the Spirit. What was in the natural is now in the spiritual.
The law was a shadow of things to come but the reality is found in Christ.
When Paul states, "AS the law also states...!!" -- we should be able to see that the old nature of Paul is "showing through". He has not yet "left behind" the law and pressed fully into Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
This is why he states in Philippians 3 that he has not yet been made perfect, but is striving to be found fully in Christ having no righteousness that comes from the law but rather in resting fully in faith in Jesus Christ and the righteousness that comes from faith in Christ.
When Paul starts quoting the LAW in relation to women -- wanting them to come under some natural element -- you see that the church resisted him. They would not obey and instead asserted their liberty in Christ.
What Paul is saying about SPIRITUAL COVERING and being under submission to God in Christ and having the HOLY SPIRIT UPON ONE is New Testament theology.
But going back to the law -- and Paul getting so uptight because women weren't wearing natural veils -- friend, that doesn't "line up" with scripture any more than Paul's grovelling before the high priest of the OT (and him forgetting Jesus as the High Priest of the NT in that moment) lines up with scripture and spiritual Kingdom laws, principles and dynamics -- the reality of the Spirit.
Hello Suzie Q,
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how someone who is determined enough can make a plausible case for just about anything. That's what the feminists do against Paul and you as well. Very clever of you to make the apostle who wrote against the Judaizers into a Judaizer, the one who wrote the most on the theology of grace versus the law into a legalist, just because you don't like what he said about women. Paul IS scripture, you can't pit his own writings against him. And you can't claim to follow the Bible if you pick and choose what you personally want to follow in it.
No, he is not going back to the law. The head covering is a creation ordinance, not the Law. We're all under the creation ordinances.