Daniel Wallace's Rejection of the Literal Head Covering

Daniel Wallace, who is best known for his textual criticism of the Bible, has also written on the subject of the woman's head covering.  I don't want to discuss his whole article but some parts of it stand out.  He makes a good point about the long hair interpretation as the covering:

To argue, then, that long hair is the woman’s head covering seems to miss the very point of the function of the head covering and of the long hair: one shows her submission while the other shows her glory. Both of these are contrasted with an uncovered head while praying or prophesying, or a shaved head at any time: such would speak of the woman’s humiliation and shame.

I'd only object that I don't think the covering can show an inner subjective state such as submission, so I'd put it differently:  "one shows her subordinate position in the Creation order of headship while the other shows her glory"  ---  it is a shame to her to be without the added head covering as well as to be without her long hair.   

Now he goes on to support very well the view I advocate here, the real head covering.  

Real Head Covering, Applicable Today

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it. Essentially, this view assumes three things: (1) that a real head covering is in view;4 (2) that Paul’s argument has a greater foundation than mere convention; and (3) that the head covering itself is an essential part of his viewpoint. Note the following arguments in support of this.

• ◦Verse 2 (paradivdwmi, paradovsi") indicates that Paul’s instruction is part of the traditional package of doctrine that he was passing on to the Church (see discussion above, under ‘no applicability view’). But Paul here does not give any details of the instruction. That is picked up in the rest of the passage.
• ◦Verses 3-9 base this instruction on a theological hierarchy and on creation. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the woman. It is important to note that Paul is in no way arguing for the ontological inferiority of the woman to the man, for he roots his convictions in the Godhead. Christ is only functionally subordinate to the Father, not ontologically subordinate.5 The wife, too, is functionally subordinate to the husband, but in no way ontologically inferior (vv 11-12).
• ◦Verse 10 bases the woman’s symbol of subordination on a fine point of angelology (one that escapes us today, though conjectures abound).
• ◦Verses 13-15 roughly constitute an argument from nature.
• ◦Verse 16 is an argument from the collective wisdom of the church universal, for Christians elsewhere have no other practice.

Thus, the argument is a general theological conviction (as opposed to a mere sociological convention), though growing out of several key doctrines: (1) Nascent trinitarianism, (2) creation, (3) angelology, (4) general revelation, and (5) church practice. Thus, for Paul, disobedience to his instructions about the head covering smacked of a deficient angelology, defective anthropology and and ecclesiology, and a destructive trinitarianism, and ran aground on the rocks of general revelation. Further, to focus on v 16 as the sole basis (as the ‘no applicability’ view does) is to slide right through the heart of this pericope without observing anything.

This is a good argument for the actual head covering overall.

However, to say that this is "the easiest view to defend exegetically" is pretty much to say that it is the correct view and yet he no longer accepts it.   But on what grounds?  He's quite right that this position is hard to swallow practically, that it's quite unpopular -- it's clear he'd rather not have to defend it, but could he let himself abandon it for such reasons?

One thing remains: a critique of the real head covering as the normative symbol today.

The Meaningful Symbol View

This view adopts the exegesis of the real head-covering view with one exception. It does not regard a real head covering as essential to the view. This is the view that I currently adopt. In essence, it is based on an understanding of the role of head coverings in the ancient world vs. the modern world. In the ancient world head coverings were apparently in vogue in some parts of the Graeco-Roman empire. Some groups expected the men to wear head coverings; others expected women to wear them. Still others felt that such were optional for both men and women. It is not important to determine which group did what. The important thing to note is that the early church adopted a convention already in use in society and gave it a distinctively Christian hue. That Paul could say that no other churches had any other practice may well indicate how easily such a practice could be adopted. This finds parallels with baptism in Israel. The Pharisees did not ask John, “What are you doing?” Instead, they asked, “Why are you doing this?” They understood baptism (even though John’s baptism was apparently the first to be other-baptism rather than self-baptism); what they didn’t understand was John’s authority and what his baptism symbolized. In a similar way, the early church practice of requiring the women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying6 would not have been viewed as an unusual request. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere. When a woman wore one in the church, she was showing her subordination to her husband, but was not out of place with society. One could easily imagine a woman walking down the street to the worship service with a head covering on without being noticed.

 But if this were the case there wouldn't have been the problem with contentiousness in the church that there apparently was, which led Paul to provide such a lengthy argument for the covering giving so many different reasons for it.   This is just another of the many reasons the local customs of Corinth had nothing to do with Paul's teaching.  In essence Wallace has merely abandoned the unpopular literal head covering for the currently popular wishy-washy view I think was first espoused by Thomas Schreiner and picked up by so many in the Reformed camp, the idea that it was merely a culturally established symbol that could be exchanged for another in other cultural contexts.

Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering7 would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women--even biblically submissive wives--resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.

But the humiliation that is felt today is most likely the result of the feminist impulse that took away the head covering in the first place by defining it as a humiliating thing.   To make this the reason not to require a covering today is simply to give in to that same feminist mental set.   

Two questions remain. First, how can we justify a different symbol of authority on a woman’s head if the head covering is now a symbol of humiliation?

Of course if it is a symbol of humiliation because of the feminist climate of our time and place then this is a highly spurious concern.  In fact there is every reason to believe that the contentiousness in the early church that Paul was at such pains to answer concerned this very SAME humiliation, the humiliation of being made subordinate to the male sex.  We ALL feel this, all women in all times feel this.  It's part of our heritage from the Fall to feel this.   Christ gives an unprecedented freedom and respect to women that lifts the curse of the Fall, and after receiving such grace through Him it is especially hard to accept anything that seems to take us back to that curse, and this is most likely what some of the women in the Corinthian church were protesting.  The fact is, and Paul is trying hard to get this across, the head covering is not about the curse of the Fall, it's about the CREATED ORDER; not the essence of womanhood but the assigned role.  This may not make it more palatable for all of us, but it's not the same thing as being treated as an inferior.  In any case, I think Wallace has succumbed to his dislike of the literal head covering, its unpopularity, and allowed himself to accept a false understanding of this passage, and in so doing has capitulated to the feminist impulse that took away the head covering in the first place.  

Second, what symbol should we use?

First, the justification comes from several angles. (1) It is in keeping with the spirit of 1 Cor 11 and explicitly with two of Paul’s arguments (nature, convention). If forced to make a choice, it is wiser to take a view that is in keeping with the spirit of the text rather than the letter. (2) The broader spirit of Christianity is clearly against symbols for symbols’ sake. The NT writers do not seem to push ritual and symbol, but reality and substance. (3) The reason, I suspect, that head covering was implemented in the early church was simply that it was an already established societal convention that could be ‘baptized,’ so to speak.

But this is to impose on Paul something he does not express at all in his lengthy argument, and again, it does not take into account the contentiousness that had been raised in the church over the requirement.

That the symbol of head covering fit into Paul’s argument about the headship of God, Christ, and husband, is what seems to have suggested this particular symbol.   But even if the symbol loses some of its symbolism, the point needs to remain the same. (That is, whatever symbol a woman is to wear should indicate her submission to her husband and/or [if not married] the male leadership of the church.8)

Wallace seems here to be speaking rather slightingly of what is really the most important of Paul's arguments for the covering, which makes the head the focus of the whole instruction.  And he is also substituting a principle that is not in the passage itself, that he is making more important than the headship argument:   the woman's submission to her husband or other male authority.  Here is he doing what many do with this passage, requiring the subjective attitude of submissiveness on the woman's part.  But the passage speaks in objective rather than subjective terms, of woman's position in the Creation order, in the hierarchy of authority.  Other passages ask a submissive attitude, this one doesn't.  No, the objective order of headship is clearly the important thing in Paul's mind, and it makes sense that a visible token would better express an objective condition than a subjective one, because you can't guarantee an inner state with such certainty as the covering would then imply.

(4) An analogy with the Lord’s Table might help. It is appropriate because there is much that is symbolic in the Eucharist and this celebration is also one of those traditions that Paul handed down (1 Cor 11:17ff.). The symbols of the wine and unleavened bread are taken directly from the Passover. In the first century the Passover involved the use of four mandatory cups of wine, lamb, bitter herbs, unleavened bread. The part of the meal that Jesus turned into the first Lord’s Supper was apparently the third cup of the Passover and the unleavened bread. The lack of leaven was an important symbol, for it represented Christ’s sinlessness. And, of course, real wine was used. Is it necessary for us today to use unleavened bread and real wine? Some churches make this a mandatory practice, others an optional one. Still others would be horrified if real wine were used. Few today have unleavened bread (saltine crackers do have some yeast in them). Should we pronounce an anathema on these folks because they have broken from the tradition--a tradition which has both historical and biblical antecedents? If the implementation of such an important tradition as the Lord’s Supper can be varied, then should not the much less important tradition of the specific role (and garb) of women be allowed some flexibility, too?

 This strikes me as a rather spurious comparison.  Removing the essential focus on the head is not the same thing as having different kinds of bread and wine.   It's more like substituting fruit and cheese for bread and wine.

And I have to protest the idea that the head covering is a "much less important" tradition.  We've MADE it less important, we've relegated it to complete obscurity as a matter of fact, but is that what Paul is doing when he writes fifteen verses and at least four arguments in favor of it and defines it as deriving from God's Creation Order? 

And again, it's about the head.  You can cover the head in a great variety of ways, there's no lack of flexibility in that regard, within the limit of playing down the glory of the female head, but just as it must be bread in some form and wine in some form at the Lord's supper it does have to be the female head that is covered.

Second, if the actual symbol used is not the issue, but what it represents is, what symbol should we use today? There can be no universal answer, simply because the ‘meaningful symbol’ approach is a recognition that conventions change. If we were to canonize one symbol--especially one not mentioned in the Bible--then we would be in danger of elevating oral tradition to the level of Scripture and of externalizing and trivializing the gospel. Having said that, each church needs to wrestle with an appropriate symbol for the present time. Quite frankly, if you (and your church) think that what I’ve suggested in this paper has validity, then the leadership of the church should probably do some creative brain-storming. I would like very much to hear from you!

But there simply is no symbol that could take the place of the head covering and that ought to be a clue that this is the wrong understanding of the text.   The others who take this same approach end up with a very vague recommendation of Whatever Seems Feminine.  Wallace goes on to compare it to the symbolism of wearing a ring and the wearing of modest dress.  

Seems to me it needs to be faced that this whole effort is toward wiggling out from under the clear meaning of the text, which he's pretty much affirmed above, that women are to cover our heads in church.   It's unpopular, we don't like it, but honesty compels us to recognize that it is what Paul meant.

 

R. C. Sproul Advocates the Head Covering

Thanks to the website The Head Covering Movement, which I linked in the previous post, I found out that R. C. Sproul has a sermon on this subject, To Cover or Not to Cover in which he advocates that women wear a head covering in church.  The talk is available in MP3 for $2.00 and I couldn't find it anywhere else.  I didn't see a date on it so I don't know how recent it is. 

Sproul's taking this position ought to have an effect on some Christians who haven't found other advocates of the head covering convincing enough or authoritative enough.  Other preachers in the Reformed camp, such as John MacArthur and Alistair Begg, following Thomas Schreiner, have preached that Paul was merely supporting a local custom so that we are free to make use of whatever our own custom dictates, and these popular preachers would naturally have a lot of influence among Reformed Christians.  

Sproul answers this interpretation succinctly by pointing out that this is imposing an explanation on Paul that Paul himself didn't give, that Paul's main reason for the head covering is derived from Creation.

I'm sorry I didn't know about this talk until now.  I hope it might become well known and bring many to rethink this Biblical passage.

Bad Hermeneutics: Culture and Custom in Corinth

Because of my ongoing dealings about the book The Harbinger I've begun listening to an audio series on Reformed hermeneutics to be sure I'm not missing something. I've heard only the introductory lecture so far.

The reason I'm mentioning it here is that anong other principles of interpretation the speaker refers to the need to understand the cultural context in order to properly interpret some parts of the Bible, and two instances are mentioned, the Book of Ruth and the passage about the head covering in First Corinthians.

That's all that was said. Clearly the speaker accepts the interpretation of that passage by Thomas Schreiner, which is also accepted by John MacArthur and Alister Begg and others. Perhaps it will come up again in the course of the study but meanwhile I felt like responding briefly.

The Book of Ruth describes some customs that were practiced in Israel over three thousand years ago, concerning inheritance, kinship rights and proposal of marriage. To understand fully what is happening between Ruth and Naomi, Ruth and Boaz, and Boaz and other kinsmen to Ruth, it is good (but not essential to the significance of the story) to know something about these customs. We can understand the point of the story without knowing about the customs, we can get instruction in faithfulness for one thing, and we can understand that by marrying Boaz the Moabitess Ruth became one of the progenitors of Jesus Christ, which is the essential reason for the story's being included in the canon, all this without knowing anything about the customs. If we DO know something about them, however, then our understanding of the Messiah's kinship with the believer may be deepened.

But what does a knowledge of customs in Corinth some thousand-plus years later contribute to understanding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16? Supposedly it sheds light on Paul's exhortations that women are to cover their heads when praying and prophesying.

Unlike the Book of Ruth which describes certain customs of the time, no custom is identified in the head covering passage itself as a Corinthian custom. This is a notion that is imposed on it from completely extrabiblical sources.

But the idea that there is an identifiable Corinthian custom of head covering is false anyway (See page at top of this blog for a discussion of ancient dress customs by Michael Marlowe, or go to his site: The Bible Researcher)The interpretation about custom is a lot of mental conjuring really, not anything that deserves to be regarded as a valid hermeneutical approach. There simply was no consistent custom of head covering in Corinth among the Greeks or the Romans. Yet this completely made-up scheme is how the idea of the woman's covering the head became understood as a mere expression of the custom of the time and is supposed to be the basis of Paul's exhortation to cover the head. So because of this notion we get vague recommendations that women are merely to appear "feminine" according to our own customs, which in practical terms means nobody really takes Paul's teaching seriously at all. If all this nonsense derived from Thomas Schreiner's article/chapter on the subject, he's sadly guilty of misleading the churches.

(Just in case: When I find fault with some Christian leader's thinking on a particular subject I NEVER intend to imply anything against the man himself or his Christian character in relation to that topic. I have no reason to doubt that Dr. Schreiner is an excellent gospel teacher and a godly man. I'm only talking about this one article of his where things went very wrong. On this subject of the head covering I kept being amazed at how many of the best and best-known Christian teachers were getting it wrong, and yet that observation was never intended to cast doubt on them personally.)

I also find it interesting that this completely made-up tale about the meaning of the head covering may be preached in a church today in which many of the women, having come out of other churches, are practicing the other common misinterpretation of the passage, that long hair is the head covering, yet neither false idea is given up for the other.

Sermons and articles 1: Thomas Schreiner on 1 Cor. 11:2-16, Part 5

Dr.Schreiner continues:

Significance of This Text for Today's World
The significance of this text for the twentieth century must be examined briefly. Am I suggesting that women return to wearing coverings or veils? No. *

It should be hard to justify this conclusion by now, since Dr. Schreiner himself has even proved that Paul is asking for women to cover their heads. Surely we are to obey Paul even 2000 years after his time.

We must distinguish between the fundamental principle that underlies a text and the application of that principle in a specific culture. The fundamental principle is that the sexes, although equal, are also different. God has ordained that men have the responsibility to lead, while women have a complementary and supportive role. More specifically, if women pray and prophesy in church, they should do so under the authority of male headship.

The statements here are true enough but are based on other parts of the Bible than 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. This is simply not "the fundamental principle" of Paul's exhortation about the head covering. That the sexes are different, that men are to lead and women support is all quite true but not Paul's point in this passage. The fundamental principle is the hierarchy of headship as ordained by God and the meaning of the literal head in that connection. The hierarchy of headship includes Christ to God and man to Christ (verse 3) which eliminates the idea that it's strictly about sex roles, and in fact it's not about roles, behavior, attitudes, at all.

Now, in the first century, failure to wear a covering sent a signal to the congregation that a woman was rejecting the authority of male leadership. Paul was concerned about head coverings only because of the message they sent to people in that culture.

This is simply not so. No such "signal" or "message" was sent because there was no single "culture" in the church, and no uniform meaning to covering or uncovering the head among the various cultures represented. It had nothing to do with masculine and feminine appearance or roles because both men and women covered and uncovered their heads for different reasons in different cultural contexts. Paul was concerned about head coverings because they represent the hierarchy of authority established by God Himself, authority being represented by the literal head of the person. The man's head is to be uncovered because he is the glory of Christ, and Christ's glory is to be displayed in the worship service, while the man's glory (the woman) is to be concealed so as not to compete with Christ's glory. It may take reading the passage over and over but then it should be clear that this is what Paul is saying.

Again, Paul nowhere mentions or even implies that any existing custom has anything to do with his requirement of the head covering, and again, as a matter of fact there IS no existing custom that represents exactly what he is requiring. He speaks always and only from the point of view of God's own requirements, including the God-given sense from "nature" that women's hair should be long and a man's short or shorter (which apparently in some cultures and certainly in our own day has been lost to our conscience), and that this God-given sense of the woman's long hair as a natural covering shows the need for the action of adding a covering over the head.

Paul is teaching the church something given by the Holy Spirit to the apostles that is a brand-new concept in the world, given to God's people alone.

Today, except in certain religious groups, if a woman fails to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying, no one thinks she is in rebellion. Lack of head coverings sends no message at all in our culture.

Again, it ALSO "sent no message" in Paul's time.

And again, what anyone "thinks" is irrelevant, and no "message is sent" because we've lost the ability to read any such message. We are to learn something new from Paul, not depend on our fallible sense of what's right and wrong about this.

Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership.

Again, while submission to male leadership is not completely irrelevant, it is not what the passage is about. It's about acknowledging God's order of authority established for His Creation, and this acknowledgment is also required so that the watching angels will not be offended, as they most certainly must be offended now at the cavalier way God's order is ignored. It's a simple external demonstration that this hierarchy is recognized and honored. While there's plenty in the Bible to teach us that submission to authority as a matter of the heart and demeanor is also required, in this passage that is not the point, the point is only that the head of the woman MUST be covered in order to honor God's ordinances, and the head of the man MUST be uncovered.

There is no need for a deep searching of the conscience about this. There is no need for delicately leaving it to a woman's spiritual intuition to accept or reject it. It is something that was taught by Paul and should be taught now by the leaders of the churches as an ordinance binding upon all who attend worship. The better they teach it the better it will be understood and the more likely that conscience will be engaged, but just as we don't require a man to understand all the spiritual reasoning behind the baring of his head in worship, and just as we don't require a deep understanding of most of the commands in scripture for that matter before we are to obey them, there is also no need to require that we fully understand this commandment either. Of course, given the fact that there has been such confusion and contention about it for so long, it would be only prudent for there to be a protracted period of preaching and studying the passage by a congregation before the practice is enforced by the church leadership. But the point is that this particular teaching is much more about external order than about heart obedience.

Clearly the attitude and the demeanor with which a woman prays and prophesies will be one indication of whether she is humble and submissive. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.

As I say above, this is not the point of the teaching here. Demeanor and attitude are not Paul's topic. Humility and submission are not Paul's topic. He covers all that elsewhere but not in this context and to keep introducing it here is to confuse Paul's meaning. (As evidenced by this very article). And there is not a variety of ways Paul's requirement can be obeyed, there is only one way and that is by covering the female head and uncovering the male head.

Moreover, both men and women today should dress so that they do not look like the opposite sex. Confusion of the sexes is contrary to the God-given sense that the sexes are distinct. For example, it would be wrong for a twentieth-century American male to wear a dress in public. It would violate his masculinity. Everything within a man would cry out against doing this because it would violate his appropriate sense of what it means to be a man. The point is not that women should not wear jeans or pants, but that in every culture there are certain kinds of adornment which become culturally acceptable norms of dress for men and women.

Again, this is not what the passage is about. Paul is not concerned about culture and he's not talking about masculinity and femininity per se, and there is not the shadow of a hint that the Corinthian congregation suffered in any way from the sexes failing to dress in a way that was appropriate to their sex. Nor is that really a problem in today's churches either if you think about it. The whole idea is a nonissue, a red herring. Problems with dress in today's churches are generally about immodesty, or you might even say a little TOO much display of the differences between the sexes so to speak. In any case Paul would have had no reason to dwell at such length on such a nonissue. He took so much time and gave so many arguments because he was trying to teach something people did not then and do not now intuitively understand -- that the human head represents personal authority and must be either concealed or displayed according to God's order.

Finally, we should note that there is a connection forged in this passage between femininity and the proper submission of women to men. The women in Corinth, by prophesying without a head covering, were sending a signal that they were no longer submitting to male authority.

I know I'm belaboring the point but it does come up in response to what Dr. Schreiner is saying, and I do have the feeling that it needs repeating even if it's tedious.

Again, there was nothing in the cultures of the time to determine this supposed "signal" but the rebellion would have been first of all against Paul and the apostles, since Paul had apparently already given the requirement before and they clearly weren't all obeying it and some were apparently contentious about it. Some of it may simply have been that they didn't understand it. This may be why Paul spends so much time mustering the reasoning for it, so that they would understand it. Perhaps some of the rebellion had a feminist motive, perhaps based on a misplaced notion of the equality of the sexes before God, or perhaps in reaction against some heavyhanded male chauvinism of the sort that needed the care Paul took to show that feminine inferiority was not implied. But it is known that a couple centuries later Tertullian could commend the Corinthian church above all the other churches for the way the women there obeyed this directive about covering the head in his time.

Paul sees this problem as severe because the arrogation of male leadership roles by women ultimately dissolves the distinction between men and women.

This is probably true but it has nothing to do with the passage about the head covering.

Thus, this text speaks volumes to our culture today, because one of the problems with women taking full leadership is that it inevitably involves a collapsing of the distinctions between the sexes.

Unfortunately if the text relates to this current problem at all it may far more likely be due to the fact that nobody requires women to cover their heads in church! If Dr. Schreiner thinks it is about women's not dressing in a feminine enough way, why is it that he gives no examples of this as a general fault in today's churches? Well, he can't because it is NOT a general fault in today's churches. What IS a fault in today's churches is that women -- all women or most women -- don't cover their heads!

And this is bound to have repercussions on the general spiritual health of the churches.

It is hardly surprising, as the example of the Evangelical Woman’s Caucus demonstrates, that one of the next steps is to accept lesbianism.

Well, by giving a wrong interpretation of this text and not requiring women to cover their heads in worship, ironically you are feeding a root of the very kind of disorder that is being lamented here. It's not about feminine dress as such (and some lesbians dress in a very feminine way too), it's about honoring God's order by covering the female head. If God's order of authority is not honored in the covering of the woman's head and her glorious hair, that may very well open the door for the dishonoring of God's authority in other ways, even ultimately to the reversal of the sex roles and the acceptance of sexual perversion. Sin begets sin. Sin is judgment for sin.

The text is not about feminine dress and to make that mistake is only to perpetuate the REAL flouting of God's order in rejecting the head covering, that is very likely to be one of the spiritual roots of sexual disorder in general.

Paul rightly saw, as he shows in this text, that there is a direct link between women appropriating leadership and the loss of femininity.

Once you get off on a wrong interpretation it just snowballs. Paul is not talking about women "appropriating leadership" in this text, and he is not talking about "the loss of femininity" in this text. Granted the first has been a big problem in the churches for a century or so now, though the second if you're talking about feminine appearance is NOT so clearly a problem. But again, the text is about COVERING THE FEMALE HEAD AND UNCOVERING THE MALE HEAD, PERIOD.

There are always spiritual laws and spiritual forces involved in any matter of obedience. If disobedience reigns in one area of Christian life, that gives an entrance to the flesh, not to mention the evil powers and principalities, to encourage further disobedience. This is a principle of the individual spiritual life and it is most likely therefore also a principle of the corporate spiritual life. What if the devil has succeeded in getting the churches to disregard an essential requirement of God's order, and now is getting even church leadership that is concerned about these very encroachments on God's order to contribute to the very problem they want to correct?

In fact I have a suspicion that IF church leadership of an appreciable number of churches suddenly "got it" and enforced it and women were required to cover their heads in worship, just as men are required to uncover theirs, THEN we might very well start to see some reversal of the other problems involving feminism and sexual deviance encroaching on the churches.
We might even see revival and other evidences of wonderful spiritual growth! (or at least we might see the beginning of a serious soul searching in the fear of God that could uncover other ways the churches have been unwittingly in disobedience, and THEN we'd see a new spiritual light dawning).

It is no accident that Paul addresses the issues of feminine adornment and submission to male leadership in the same passage. In conclusion, we should affirm the participation of women in prayer and prophecy in the church. Their contribution should not be slighted or ignored. Nevertheless, women should participate in these activities with hearts that are submissive to male leadership, and they should dress so that they retain their femininity.

Alas, it seems to make sense but unfortunately it doesn't because he's all wrong about what Paul is teaching. Again, it is not about "feminine adornment," and it is not about female "submission to male leadership" and it's not even about the woman's "heart" AT ALL. I'm not even sure women's "participation in prayer and prophecy" SHOULD be affirmed as Dr. Schreiner understands it. If Paul's clear teaching about covering the head is so easily misconstrued and denied, there's no reason to think this part of the passage is rightly understood either.

It may be that in his concern to set the feminists straight he has unwittingly given strength to the very root of the problem he wants to correct.

* [Dr. Schreiner gives this as a footnote here]:

30. The failure to distinguish adequately between what speaks to the first-century
situation and today’s church leads some to the conclusion that women should wear
coverings in church today. Cf. Bruce Waltke, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation,”Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (1978): 46-57; S. T. Foh, “A Male Leadership View: The Head of the Woman Is the Man,” Women in Ministry: Four Views, ed. B. Clouse and R. G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), pp. 86-87. R. D. Culver, in “Traditional View: Let the Women Keep Silence,” in Clouse and Clouse, pp. 29-32, 48, seems to prefer the wearing of head coverings as well, although he allows some liberty on the question.

Unfortunately Dr. Schreiner has given no basis on which to "distinguish adequately between what speaks to the first-century situation and today's church" and not even a fair justification for thinking in terms of "what speaks to" either situation to begin with. The conclusion that Paul was advocating women's covering their heads is simply the most natural obvious reading of the passage -- and in fact he doesn't deny that, he simply adds the idea that such a covering was culturally conditioned and therefore limited to Paul's time. This is an assumption, an addition to the text. There is absolutely nothing that justifies this idea, certainly not in the text itself, but even in the notions of customary practices of the time he brings to bear on it which are simply not factual. Again, there were at least three cultures represented in the Corinthian church, whose customs differed from the others, therefore there WAS no uniform cultural practice and therefore no uniform meaning to covering the head or not covering it among the members of the Corinthian church. Again, culture and custom are simply irrelevant; Paul is teaching a brand-new practice revealed to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit. I'd also add that Mary Kassian, whose book Women, Creation and the Fall is also published at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website, as is the book in which Dr. Schreiner's chapter appears, is one who concludes that Paul would have it that even today women should cover the head, though she doesn't strongly advocate this nevertheless.

Sermons and articles 1: Thomas Schreiner on 1 Cor. 11: 2-16, Part 4

The Function of 11:7-10 in the Argument

In the next section Dr. Schreiner discusses what it means that woman is the glory of man and I don't have a serious probem with anything he says in this passage so I'll skip over it. Then he discusses the meaning of verse 10, what it means that the woman should have "authority" on her head, and who the "angels" are for whose benefit this should be done. His answers are speculative as are most writers' on the subject, and I'm not going to comment on them because they really don't affect the central point, which is that they are additional arguments in favor of women's covering their heads, and even if we don't quite grasp what Paul has in mind here, that much is not in doubt.

The Qualification in 11:11-12First Corinthians 11:3-10 is a sustained argument in favor of male headship and female submission . . .

Here I have to point out that "female submission" is not anywhere in this passage Paul's subject. It's not that I have anything against the concept, and I'm well aware it is taught by Paul elsewhere so that it is always part of the overarching context, BUT the fact of the matter is that it is NOT what Paul is teaching here. If you read the passage carefully you will see that Paul is taking us step by step through a hierarchy of authority that, while such a hierarchy of course implies submission from lower to higher, in this case is purely objectively descriptive of God's ordering of the sexes and the EXTERNAL signs he wishes Christians to adopt for the purpose of honoring this order. There is no language of interpersonal submission in this passage. Again, of course it is implied, but it is not the point and Paul's meaning is again being muddied up by the imposition of a concept he is not using, same as when Dr. Schreiner simply labels the head covering as a "custom" and as an "adornment." These labelings impose a meaning on the passage that misrepresents what Paul is actually saying.

So, no, this passage is NOT "a sustained argument in favor of male headship and female submission..."
It is a sustained argument FROM God's hierarchy of headship and authority IN FAVOR OF the covering of a woman's head.

...yet with full participation in worship for women (something
Christians today need to remember more often). Verses 11-12 function as a qualification so that the Corinthians will not misunderstand Paul’s argument. Woman and man stand in interdependence in the Lord (11:11). Paul proves this statement in verse 12. Man is the source of woman, but all men ever since Adam have come into the world through women. Paul anticipates the problem that could arise if one stressed his argument in verses 3-10 too rigidly. Male and female could almost be construed as different species,and men as more valuable than women. That is not Paul’s point at all. There is a profound interdependence and mutuality present in the male-female relationship, and neither sex can boast over the other because the sexes are interdependent. Ultimately “everything comes from God.”

Again, I'm not yet sure myself what level of participation in worship Paul had in mind for women, though my own impression is that he is probably not advocating a leadership role in the "prayer and prophesying" for which we are to cover our heads. I haven't yet studied all Paul's teachings on the role of women in the church so I don't have a solid point of view about it. All I can give is this impression for now. But of course Dr. Schreiner is right about Paul's concern to be sure he isn't giving carte blanche to a raw male chauvinism in his advocacy of the head covering.

Since Dr. Schreiner's main impetus for writing his chapter is to answer some feminist arguments, which is the same as the reason for the book itself in which the chapter appears, he goes on in this vein, but since it is not my own concern I will pass over the rest of his statements along these lines. (My concern is simply to establish what Paul is commanding in this passage, which I'm overwhelmingly convinced is for men to have bare heads and women to have a covering over their heads when we are in church.)

The Concluding Argument for Head Coverings in 11:13-16Paul returns in the final paragraph (verses 13-16) to the main burden of the text: women’s wearing head coverings. This is another indication that verses 11-12 do not cancel out the commands given in verses 4-9. Here Paul appeals to the Corinthians’ own judgment (11:13), confident that “the very nature of things” will instruct them with respect to what is fitting or proper. What is the content of the instruction given by nature? Nature teaches that “if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,” while “if a woman has long hair, it is her glory.”

What is the meaning of the word nature (physis) here? Is Paul simply saying that human tradition and customs have made a distinction between the hair length of men and women? The use of the word practice (sune¯theia) in 11:16 could support this
interpretation. But Paul’s use of nature elsewhere and the use of teach suggest that he is referring to the natural and instinctive sense of right and wrong that God has planted in us, especially with respect to sexuality. This sense of what is appropriate or fitting has been implanted in human beings from creation.28 Romans 1:26-27 is an illuminating parallel because the same word is used. Women and men involved in a homosexual relationship have exchanged the natural function of sexuality for what is contrary to nature, i.e., they have violated the God-given created order and natural instinct, and therefore are engaging in sexual relations with others of the same sex.

I agree with Dr. Schreiner here and think he's said it in an illuminating way.

Nature teaches, then, in the sense that the natural instincts and psychological perceptions of masculinity and femininity are manifested in particular cultural situations. Thus, a male instinctively and naturally shrinks away from doing anything that his culture labels as feminine. So, too, females have a natural inclination to dress like women rather than men. Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. Of course, what constitutes long hair is often debated-what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary widely from culture to culture.

(Just as a side note, I suspect the norm across the world is for women to have long hair and men's hair at least shorter than the women's, whatever else they do with it as far as styling goes, but that would need more research. In Paul's day in the cultures that surrounded him ALL women wore their hair long and men wore theirs shorter except under unusual circumstances.)

The function of verses 13-15 in the argument is to show that the wearing of a head covering by a woman is in accord with the God-given sense that women and men are different. For a woman to dress like a man is inappropriate because it violates the distinction God has ordained between the sexes. And, according to Paul, if a woman prophesies in church without wearing the symbol of being under male authority-i.e., if she prophesies while dressed like a man-she is in effect negating the distinction between men and women that God has ordained from creation.

Dr. Schreiner has here reduced Paul's concern to requiring the sexes to dress so as not to appear like the opposite sex, but really, what justification does he have for this? Very little it seems to me, and what he has is not derived from the text but is his own invention.

The entire context of the passage is not "dress" at all, nor masculinity and femininity, it's God's hierarchy of order. This hierarchy isn't confined to the two sexes, it includes the relation of man to Christ and Christ to God (verse 3).

The headcovering isn't a mere item of clothing or dress, either, it's a functional piece of equipment as it were, with the purpose of concealing "the glory of man" (which would include the woman's own glory in her hair) so that Christ's glory may be displayed as He is the object of worship.

And again, as I've pointed out a number of times, and this can be verified by any number of studies of this passage, there was no one culture represented in Paul's day which had the exact practice Paul is requiring of the churches -- of men's uncovering their heads and women's covering theirs in worship. There was a mixture of customs, some cultures not requiring women to cover at all, some requiring that men cover in worship and so on. So whether one covered the head or not had NO meaning in terms of masculine or feminine appearance.

This idea is Dr. Schreiner's own invention being imposed on the text, just as his calling covering the head a "custom" and an "adornment" is imposed on the text, as well as the idea that the discussion of headship is about female submission. The whole point of the text is the head covering, nothing else. It is what all Paul's arguments are for, to expain why a head covering is needed. In not one of those arguments does he say a word about female submission, about custom or adornment, about feminine or masculine appearance or the like. All this may be incidentally related to his points but is completely inessential to them. It is the head that must be covered or uncovered because it represents personal authority. Nothing else will do. No other item of dress could qualify. It is all about the head.

In verse 16, Paul concludes his argument by saying, “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” Now, some have said that Paul actually rejects the wearing of head coverings by women with these words because the Greek literally says “we have no such practice” (toiaute¯n sune¯theian), and thus they conclude that the practice of wearing head coverings is renounced here by Paul. But such an understanding is surely wrong. Paul in this verse is addressing the contentious, who, the previous context makes clear, do not want to wear a head covering.

The practice of certain Corinthian women who refuse to wear a head covering is what Paul refers to when he says “we have no such practice.” Thus, he says to the contentious that both the apostolic circle (“we”) and the rest of the churches adhere to the custom of head coverings. The instructions Paul has given reflect his own view of the matter and the practice of the other churches. Those who see this advice as limited only to the Corinthian situation have failed to take this verse seriously enough. Paul perceives his instructions here as binding for all churches in the Greco-Roman world. Indeed, the other churches already adhere to the practice Paul recommends here.

Yes. Clearly Paul is affirming the wearing of head coverings in this as in every other statement of this passage, and is here asserting the authority of the apostles to determine practice in the churches.

Such a universal word at the conclusion of the text is a strong indication that the principle that underlies this passage cannot simply be dismissed as cultural.

Yes, but despite Dr. Schreiner's very strong assertion of Paul's requirement of the head covering, here he goes on to undermine it with that phrase "the principle that underlies this passage." To Dr. Schreiner that principle is that the sexes are to dress to distinguish themselves as clearly masculine or feminine, which I've already answered. No, he is quite right that "such a universal word at the conclusion of the text" means we cannot dismiss Paul's requirement as merely cultural, and yet this is exactly what Dr. Schreiner does by inventing a "principle" which supposedly "underlies" the passage which denies that Paul's requirement and the whole tenor of the passage is about covering the head and nothing else.

This will become even clearer in the last part of this discussion.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Thomas Schreiner on 1 Cor. 11: 2-6, Part 3

I want to say again that this article by Thomas Schreiner is terribly hard to read. I want to try to point out where I have this problem but it's even hard to do that. Sometimes what he says seems to me to be right on the money, exactly correct, but then he'll make a completely unwarranted leap to a conclusion that leaves me reeling. Well, I'll try to pin all this down as I go.

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 11:3
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]

This 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.
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 her
hair cut short, because then she would have looked like a man.

There 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.

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.

(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.

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.

(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.19

Well, 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.

Thomas Schreiner on 1 Cor. 11:2-16 Part 2

What is the Adornment for Women in this Passage?

A better, less tendentious question would be "What sort of covering is Paul asking women to use?" "Covering" is the best English translation of the Greek word; the term "adornment" is Dr. Schreiner's own interpretation of the covering and he is imposing it on the text, as there is no reason whatever from the text itself for us to conclude that the covering is anything but a covering, something meant to cover, conceal or hide, rather than a decorative item, which can suggest something inessential, even something that doesn't have to cover anything really.

One of the perplexing questions in this passage is this: What custom regarding adornment is referred to here?

As I point out above, we don't have to think in terms of a "custom" at all, nor in terms of "adornment" at all, if in fact the apostles are requiring something entirely new of the churches, and if what they are requiring is simply intended to cover or to conceal, which is the practical function of clothing in general, and certainly implied in Paul's whole discussion of the covering he advocates.

We cannot treat this complex question in detail,...

What makes the question "complex?" Shouldn't that be explained even if not "in detail" before going on to speculate on a couple of answers? Isn't this chapter aimed at getting to the root of the meaning of this passage? Then you can't leave the reader hanging like this. But on we go nevertheless.

. . . but the two most probable suggestions can be set forth: (1) The custom Paul recommends is for women to wear shawls. (2) Paul objects to long, loose hair that falls down the back; he wants women to follow the usual custom of piling their hair up on top of their heads.

Why are these the only two? Are we to be favored with an explanation of what makes these two possibilities the "most probable"? The idea that long loose hair was Paul's complaint strikes me as extremely IMprobable. In fact this is one of those unwarranted leaps to a conclusion I said earlier that Dr. Schreiner sometimes suddenly springs out of the blue, a breathtaking non sequitur. And calling these selections the "most probable" leaves the reader wondering what other possibilities are being left out.

Well, now I want to see if he gives any explanation for this choice.

He's going to address the second of the two "most probable suggestions" first:

In favor of the view that Paul is speaking against women wearing their hair loose and falling down the back are the following arguments:2

Don't you first need to give an explanation why anyone would think hair is what Paul is talking about at all? The suggestion comes as a jarring non sequitur it seems to me. Paul is saying we are to cover our heads, so how is this is about hair which ALREADY covers our heads without our doing anything?

(1) There is no extant evidence that full veiling, familiar in Islam, was current in Paul’s time. Therefore, the custom described cannot be veiling.

It can't? I don't see the connection. Pardon my incredulity but I'm trying to keep careful track of the confusing logic here as it could easily bulldoze me into confused silence if I don't. I don't understand how this article managed to get published in this condition. Where was the editorial staff?

This seems to be another non sequitur just pulled out of a hat. Where are these ideas coming from?
1). Why is "full veiling" the only kind of veiling we are being invited to consider? "Veiling" can also refer to merely covering the head or hair, not the face.
2) How would "full veiling" answer the idea that hair is the meaning of the covering? Those who argue for a woman's hair as the covering Paul has in mind don't refer to Islamic veiling in anything I've read.
3) Just as a matter of fact there is evidence that full veiling of the Islamic kind was current at least within a hundred and fifty years of Paul's time: Tertullian (c.207) wrote at some length about the head covering, much of it objecting to what he considered to be inadequate coverage of the head in most churches of his day, and at one point comments: "Arabia's pagan females will be your judges. For they cover not only the head, but the face also." So here is some reason to question Dr. Schreiner's statement that full Islamic type veiling was not known in Paul's time. Also, some of the other church fathers of the early centuries advocated covering not only the head and hair but also the face, Clement of Alexandria for one. [This is all from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs edited by David Bercot].
4) Why is any custom being taken as the standard here at all? Paul refers to NO extant custom whatever. What he is recommending does not necessarily rest on custom at all and there is nothing in the passage to suggest it does. This is an assumption often imposed on the text completely without justification.

(2) The same Greek word that describes the practice of the Corinthian women in 11:5 (akatakalyptos ) [“unveiled,” according to rsv] is used in Leviticus 13:45 (LXX)3 about a leper’s hair, which is to hang unloosed. The problem with the Corinthian women, then, is that they were wearing their hair loose and flowing down their backs.

Apparently Dr. Schreiner is paraphrasing an argument he himself doesn't accept. I don't know whether the original argument makes any more sense, but it doesn't make much sense as he is presenting it. The fact that the same Greek word is used elsewhere in scripture to describe loose flowing hair is considered to qualify as evidence that hair is therefore what Paul is talking about? Am I not following this? This argument is so utterly nonsensical, so utterly lacking in any recognition of the flexibility of language or the context of the passage under discussion words almost fail me. I think I'll let them fail me. What is there to say really? This article is embarrassingly bad even for a novice let alone a well known scholar.

3) The word apokalypto¯ , which is somewhat related to akatakalyptos, is used in Numbers 5:18, where a woman suspected of adultery had to unbind her hair and wear it loosely. The wearing of long, loose hair by an adulteress would support the idea that wearing one’s hair loose was considered shameful.

Yes, but this isn't the subject here. The subject is what is the covering Paul is recommending. So far nothing has been offered to defend the claim that this covering is hair at all. Attitudes toward how the hair is to be worn are another subject altogether.

(4) Respectable women in Paul’s time did not appear in public with their hair long and flowing down their backs. They wore their hair piled up on their heads in a bun. Paul wants the Corinthian women to adhere to this custom.

It may be so as far as hair goes, but again, NOTHING has been offered to show that Paul is referring to the hair as the covering in this passage. These supposed evidences aren't evidences for that.

None of this makes any sense. I don't know why it is included at all. He is going to go on and argue that Paul had a shawl in mind for a covering.

Despite these arguments in favor of the view that Paul is commanding the wearing of hair on top of the head by women, it is probable that Paul is speaking of wearing a head covering of some kind, such as a shawl.

Another startling non sequitur just pulled out of a hat. "Despite" these arguments? We're not going to get something "in answer to" these arguments, only something in spite of them? The mind reels. So we get a lengthy but incoherent consideration of the hair as the covering only to see it flatly dismissed in favor of something merely called "probable" for which no evidence or argument is given at all for preferring it to the previous suggestion. What makes the shawl more "probable"? Apparently we are not to expect an explanation in order to try to think it through for ourselves, we are simply told it's more probable and that's that.

4 That a shawl rather than a full veil is in Paul’s mind is indicated by the word covering (peribolaios) in 11:15, which is not the usual word for veil but probably refers to a wrap-around. The evidence in favor of this position is as follows:

OK, so this is apparently intended as sort of an explanation. But the term peribolaion is used in verse 15 specifically to refer to a woman's natural long HAIR, while katakaluptos is the word exclusively used in the rest of the passage to designate the covering Paul is arguing for. To apply this term to a "veil" at this point is to completely muddy the argument Paul is making.
Paul is using the kind of covering the natural hair forms (peribolaion) as a REASON for an additional covering (katakalupto).

(1) The verb translated as “cover” in the niv (katakalypto¯ ) occurs three times in verses 6-7, and related cognate words occur in verses 5 and 13. These words most often refer to a covering of some kind. For example, the angels who saw the glory of Yahweh in the temple covered their faces (Isaiah 6:2). Judah thought Tamar, his daughter-in-law, was a harlot because she covered her face (Genesis 38:15). Since the word almost universally means “to cover” or “to hide,” the text is probably referring to a hair covering of some kind.5

(2) Philo (30 b.c. - a.d. 45) uses the same words Paul does in 1 Corinthians 11:5,
“head uncovered” (akatakalypto¯ te¯ kephale¯ ), and it is clear that Philo is speaking of a head covering being removed because the priest had just removed her kerchief (Special Laws, 3:60). Akatakalyptos also means “uncovered” in Philo, Allegorical Interpretation II,29, and in Polybius 15,27.2 (second century b.c.). Moreover, it is simply a negative adjective based on the verb katakalypto¯ , which commonly means “cover, veil.”

(3) 119 Esther 6:12 (LXX) employs the same expression found in verse four, kata kephale¯s, of Haman, who hurried home mourning, covering his head in shame. He probably used part of his garment to do this.

(4) A similar expression occurs in Plutarch (46-120 a.d.), where it is specifically stated that the head is covered with part of the toga (himation).6

Now he's on track by my lights, though there's no rhyme or reason to how he arrived here. Yes, Paul is talking about something that covers or hides. We could have done without all the previous windup, even the speculation that a shawl is what Paul had in mind. It could be part of the garment and not necessarily a shawl or separate piece of cloth at all. It MIGHT have been a shawl but if it was then you need evidence to support your suggestion which has not yet been given (and isn't going to be given either).

Verse 15 seems to create a difficulty if Paul is speaking of a head covering. Verse 15 says that her “long hair is given to her for a covering.” But if her hair is given to her for a covering, then a woman would not need to wear another covering over her hair. However, it is improbable that the only covering that Paul requires is a woman’s hair, for we have already seen that the words for covering that Paul uses in verses 4-6 and verse 13 point to a veil or a shawl. Indeed, if all Paul has been requiring is long hair, then his explanation of the situation in verses 4-6 is awkward and even misleading.

Can't argue with this conclusion although it isn't clear how it rests on the previous evidence given.

Verse 15 can be explained in such a way that Paul is not rejecting his earlier call for a shawl. The word for (anti) in verse 15 probably indicates not substitution but equivalence.7

Yes, but again nothing has been said to justify this claim that Paul was talking specifically about a "shawl." Also, the meaning of "anti" as "not substitution but equivalence" usually gets more discussion in studies of this passage, which it needs if you are serious about answering the people who claim the covering is hair. But of course I agree this is how the verse should be read even if evidence is lacking for it.

In other words, Paul is not saying that a woman has been given long hair instead of a covering. Rather, he is saying that a woman has been given long hair as a covering. His point seems to be that a woman’s long hair is an indication that she needs to wear a covering.8

I agree, but again, unfortunately the supporting remarks don't really support it.

To sum up: the custom recommended here is a head covering of some kind, probably a shawl. The importance of identifying this custom can be exaggerated, unless one believes that the custom of the day should be applied to our culture. The major point of the text is clear: women are to adorn themselves in a certain way. The precise kind of head covering Paul had in mind is no longer clear. What is more important, and we turn to this next, is: Why does Paul want the women to adorn themselves in a certain way?

Yes, of course Paul is recommending a head covering of some kind. I'm so glad Dr. Schreiner finally arrived at this conclusion (although, again, it is hard to see how he got here).
But although he sees that Paul really is talking about a head covering he takes it away in the next breath: "The importance of identifying this custom can be exaggerated..."
"...unless one believes that the custom of the day should be applied to our culture."

Oh dear.

He's got it right that Paul is definitely recommending "a head covering of some kind" and a shawl would probably qualify though he's pulled that out of a hat along with so much else he's said. But then without giving any reason why we shouldn't obey Paul's apostolically authoritative command he simply blandly affirms that we don't believe it applies to us any more as if that constitutes an argument against it. Throughout the chapter he's CALLED this covering a CUSTOM and an ADORNMENT, without any warrant from the text itself, but now his own mischoice of terms permits him to dismiss Paul's requirement as MERELY a custom and an adornment. I saw this coming, did you?

Just to repeat:

There is no evidence whatever that Paul had any particular custom in mind that existed in his time.

The fact is that there WAS no universal custom of the time he COULD have been affirming as they all differed from each other and what he is recommending does not reflect any of them fully.
Paul's arguments are not from custom at all, but from universals, the Creation order, the hierarchy of headship established by God, "nature."

It would be just plain out of character for Paul to be affirming a mere cultural standard, unless one happened to exist that perfectly reflected God's standard. It's always God's standard that concerns Paul.
And since it is God's standards to which Paul appeals, rather than any mere human custom, there is no excuse for us in our time not to obey his directive.
Again, Paul is not talking about ADORNMENT either, same as he is not talking about CUSTOM.

But we're not through with this article yet.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Thomas Schreiner on the Head Covering Part 1

I thought it might be a good idea to take up particular arguments about the head covering that couldn't be covered in detail in my research discussions. I'm going to start with Thomas Schreiner's chapter in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

I want to say up front that of all the material I read when I was researching the head covering, this particular article by Thomas Schreiner was the hardest to get through, almost impossible to read. I find it to be a confusing piece of writing that imposes his own views on the text so that it's almost impossible to keep track of a logical thread that actually relates to the Biblical text itself. I think people who read this without difficulty are uncritically accepting his terminology without recognizing that it misrepresents the Biblical text. The main ways he does this are, first, by the use of the term "custom" to describe Paul's frame of reference for the head covering although Paul himself nowhere uses the term or says anything that justifies Schreiner's use of it; and, second, by the use of the term "adornment" to describe the head covering. I will discuss this below.

Chapter 5
HEAD COVERINGS, PROPHECIES AND THE TRINITY

1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16
Thomas R. Schreiner
Introduction

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. 3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God.
First Corinthians 11:2-16 has some features that make it one of the most difficult and controversial passages in the Bible. 1 For instance: How does verse 2 relate to verses 3-16? What does Paul mean by the word head in verse 3? Can we identify the custom regarding the adornment of women in the passage? In what sense is woman the glory of man (verse 7)? What does Paul mean when he says that the woman is to have authority on her head (verse 10)? Can we comprehend the reason why a woman is to have authority on her head, namely, because of the angels (verse 10)? And finally, what does the word nature mean in verse 14?

Dr. Schreiner goes on to answer his first question in a way most agree with: That is, Paul is complimenting the Corinthian church on their conscientiousness in obeying the traditions insofar as they have done so, before going on to criticize them for certain failures of obedience, in this particular passage concerning the head covering and the Lord's supper.

He discusses his third question about the "adornment" for some reason before he discusses the meaning of "head" but to respond first to what he says about the head, he is apparently answering a feminist contention that the Greek term for "head" means "source" rather than "authority," and I agree with him and those who say it means "authority," and I believe this meaning is clear from the context without getting into the Greek background. So on these two subjects there is no disagreement, he makes the case.

As for his third question,

Can we identify the custom regarding the adornment of women in the passage?

I have to comment that here he seriously begs the question of the meaning of the whole passage, by calling the head covering an "adornment" and referring to it as a "custom," since neither term appears in the passage and his use of them here imposes a conclusion of his own on the passage for which he has given no justification.

We do not know as we read the passage whether Paul is talking about a custom or not, or if he is, which culture's custom, since there were three or four cultures intersecting in the Corinthian church, or whether custom has anything at all to do with his recommendation for the head covering. It is possible that it is not a custom he has in mind at all but an entirely new practice the apostles are requiring of the churches, and since this is the conclusion I and others have come to, we must object that this use of "custom" leaves no room for our conclusion while forcing Dr. Schreiner's on us.

And is the head covering an "adornment?" That term is not used in the passage about the head covering either, though it may be implied in describing the woman's long hair, which is called her "glory," but it is not part of the description of the head covering itself. To adorn is to beautify or decorate. Are shoes an "adornment?" In fact is clothing in itself an "adornment?" As I read the Biblical passage, the head covering is a covering, as clothes are a covering, a utilitarian functional piece of cloth for covering the head as clothes cover the body. Clothes are not in themselves an "adornment," they are a necessity for covering the body. And that is also the way the head covering is presented in this passage.

To start off in this way by using terms that beg the question is unfortunately likely to prejudice the entire discussion and I think that is probably what has happened by the time we get to the end of it.

The difficulties with this text could lead one to say that it should not be used to establish any doctrine or teaching on the role relationship of men and women. Indeed, one might claim that only clear passages should be used to form a doctrine, and this passage is too obscure.

In my own study of this passage I finally came to the conclusion that the difficulties we encounter in it at first are mostly caused by our own expectations and prejudices and not really difficulties in the passage itself. It takes determined study and continual prayer to clear our minds of these preconceptions.

But another major reason for the difficulty is that it is very easy to get caught up in secondary elements of the argument, things we don't really need to know in order to understand what Paul wants us to do. These are very interesting concepts in themselves it would be good for us to understand, and I would say they reflect Paul's deeper spiritual understanding of the things of God than most of us have. This implies that perhaps we should aim to spend more time with the Lord so that they might become clear to us too; nevertheless I don't think we have to understand them in order to grasp what Paul wants of us.

For instance, we don't really need to know what it means to say that the woman is the glory of the man; we can understand what Paul wants us to do even if we don't quite understand that particular reason for it. We also don't really need to understand what Paul means by having authority on the head in order to understand that a cloth covering is the way this is to be expressed. We also don't need to understand what is meant that we are to do this "because of the angels," as long as we are clear WHAT we are to do because of them, and I think it is really not so hard to understand that what we are to do is cover our heads. We don't even really need to know what Paul meant by "nature" in verse 14 to understand that he is saying that women everywhere generally wear their hair longer than men do, and that since nature covers our heads this is a further reason he's giving that we should cover our heads as well. This parallels his point about men that since men's hair is shorter by nature -- and scantier by nature as well if you think of natural male balding -- this is a reason why they SHOULDN'T cover their heads. In fact the way Paul argues for men's NOT covering their heads with an additional covering is probably the strongest clue that he means that women ARE to cover ours.

So I would eliminate all these questions from Dr. Schreiner's list of difficulties with the passage as it is not necessary that we answer them in order to understand the practical point of Paul's exhortation.

No one, or at least few people, would argue that women should be adorned with veils today, leading some to say that this passage is culturally bound and no longer viable in the twentieth century.

This is apparently an error in logic that should have been caught by an editor. It is very confusing as it stands, as if to say: Since few would argue for wearing a head covering today, therefore the passage is culturally bound. It should at least be reversed to say that Since the passage is considered by most to be culturally bound, therefore it is regarded as no longer viable in our day, and therefore few would argue that women should cover their heads, and this is quite true: the passage IS considered by a majority to be culturally bound and therefore not applicable to our day, and therefore we have the situation in which the majority of commentators deny that we are to cover our heads.

Dr. Schreiner goes on to say he disagrees with this position:

In contrast to this position, I will argue that the central thrust of the passage is clear. There are difficulties, but some of the key issues are not as difficult as it has been claimed, and the issues that remain obscure do not affect the central teaching of the passage. Also, while wearing head coverings no longer speaks to our culture, there is an abiding principle in this text that is applicable to the twentieth century.

Although he disagrees with it, he agrees with it to the extent that he accepts the judgment that "wearing head coverings no longer speaks to our culture." He does, however, find an abiding principle in Paul's intention, a principle that transcends any particular culture and applies to all, which will be his solution to all the problems of the passage at the end of his discusion.

Of course I'm still stuck back on "no longer speaks to our culture." Here is the question-begging in full swing. He's simply assumed that speaking to our culture is the main thing about this teaching, that the head covering was merely a cultural custom. He hasn't said one word to try to prove this, he merely assumes it, despite all the reasons Paul gives for it in the text that have nothing whatever to do with culture.

From this point he then goes on to take for granted that the head covering Paul is talking about is an "adornment," which I've answered above, but I'm going to respond to his whole argument here piece by piece because if I don't it's easy to get tripped up by it, not realizing that he's simply following out an idea of his own that he's imposing on the passage which is not in the passage itself.

I'm going to end this post and take up the rest in a separate post as I'm finding it too difficult to keep juggling the code with all the quotations involved.

TO BE CONTINUED.