Heard from someone who argued at great length in an email that the idea of a head covering is "legalistic." He quoted numerous Bible verses all demonstrating Paul's arguments against the Law, works righteousness and so on, without ONCE quoting the passage itself that is ABOUT the head covering.
Once you recognize that Paul is indeed recommending that women cover their heads and that men should not, because his arguments are universal and not tied to custom, then calling the argument legalistic is to call Paul legalistic. The very apostle known for his teaching against legalism.
The blindness to this one little bit of scripture is sometimes breathtaking. Its being so misunderstood, misread, and in fact aggressively misread, has just got to be evidence that it is FAR more important than the vast majority are willing to allow. Sure looks to me like the devil is working overtime to obscure it -- to minimize and trivialize it for starters, then to confuse the meanings of every verse in it, and to summon all those verses about legalism against it.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Another point that ought to show the error of attributing Paul's teaching to his concern for local custom
The idea that local custom in Corinth was the basis for Paul's advocacy that women cover their heads in the assembly is wrong from many angles, but another proof of its wrongness that needs to be recognized is that Paul is ALSO telling men that they are NOT to cover their heads in the assembly. Not enough is made of this aspect of that passage it seems to me, no doubt because there wasn't any contention among the men about the apostle's teaching.
But to take Paul as basing his instruction to the women on custom and culture SHOULD also suggest the same basis for his instruction to the men. But one thing we all know is that Jewish men did and do cover their heads in prayer and worship, and Marlowe's research (link at top of page) shows that Roman men also covered their heads in their religious ceremonies.
Therefore, obviously Paul's teaching CONTRADICTS the customs of the time in relation to men. This ought to be recognized as undermining the idea that he cared one fig for custom at all, but rather was likewise contradicting the culture and customs practiced by some of the women in Corinth.
Clearly Paul was teaching a brand new "custom" which was shared among the apostles, whose authority he appeals to in verse 16, a new practice based on the Creation and God's definition of man and woman as shown in the scripture, brought out by the appearance of the Messiah in fulfillment of prophecy and exclusive to the Christian churches.
But to take Paul as basing his instruction to the women on custom and culture SHOULD also suggest the same basis for his instruction to the men. But one thing we all know is that Jewish men did and do cover their heads in prayer and worship, and Marlowe's research (link at top of page) shows that Roman men also covered their heads in their religious ceremonies.
Therefore, obviously Paul's teaching CONTRADICTS the customs of the time in relation to men. This ought to be recognized as undermining the idea that he cared one fig for custom at all, but rather was likewise contradicting the culture and customs practiced by some of the women in Corinth.
Clearly Paul was teaching a brand new "custom" which was shared among the apostles, whose authority he appeals to in verse 16, a new practice based on the Creation and God's definition of man and woman as shown in the scripture, brought out by the appearance of the Messiah in fulfillment of prophecy and exclusive to the Christian churches.
Friday, July 20, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
A report on a sad encounter with the popular views on the head covering
Just a brief report that may lead to more posts on this blog after such a long time, but I'm not sure it will.
Recently had an *experience* on a Christian forum where the head covering had been the subject of many threads and I joined in on the latest one. The dominant viewpoint was definitely against the interpretation of a cloth covering but it's hard to say beyond that what the dominant positive interpretation was -- I suppose hair as the covering.
The main thing about those discussions is that very few who were against a cloth covering referred to scripture at all. Many seemed to content themselves with psychoanalyzing those of us who did defend the cloth covering, as if our views were not based on the scripture but on our own subjectivity, saying it's just hard to break a traditional mindset and so on. Well, that hardly applies to me since I came to this subject without any tradition whatsoever. I knew individuals who had all the various interpretations, including a few who wear hats because of tradition, but I had no tradition of my own about it. And I certainly had no DESIRE to cover my head, quite the opposite.
The main theme was of course that the idea of having to cover the head is legalistic. Of course we're Pharisees to have this view. One woman went so far as to attribute it to Satan. Someone also claimed that the Holy Spirit showed him it's hair, and some argued that anyone who thought differently wasn't hearing from the Spirit. Much conjecture off the top of the head, much accusation. Chaos and confusion and the kind of "arguments" that are unanswerable for all the wrong reasons.
When I asked one participant why he kept ignoring my argument that it couldn't be hair because women throughout history always wore their hair long and Paul wouldn't have needed to exhort them to that, his answer was that I was simply wrong because Paul SAID the covering was hair. Another didn't have any problem saying that all Christians in all history could be wrong. And so on and so forth.
Well, I've tried to answer such objections on this blog already. Very little new was said, it was a pretty rancorous discussion despite attempts to keep affirming mutual love of the brethren.
Now another thread is underway on pretty much the same subject but I have no interest in joining it after my other experience. A couple who argued along with me on the first thread have left the forum as well. The usual is happening on the new thread too. The head covering is dismissed as legalistic, the actual scripture isn't addressed, in fact nobody there is arguing for a cloth covering now, what would be the point? Same here. I keep checking in but have no desire to argue when nobody will address the points of the argument anyway.
Pretty discouraging.
Recently had an *experience* on a Christian forum where the head covering had been the subject of many threads and I joined in on the latest one. The dominant viewpoint was definitely against the interpretation of a cloth covering but it's hard to say beyond that what the dominant positive interpretation was -- I suppose hair as the covering.
The main thing about those discussions is that very few who were against a cloth covering referred to scripture at all. Many seemed to content themselves with psychoanalyzing those of us who did defend the cloth covering, as if our views were not based on the scripture but on our own subjectivity, saying it's just hard to break a traditional mindset and so on. Well, that hardly applies to me since I came to this subject without any tradition whatsoever. I knew individuals who had all the various interpretations, including a few who wear hats because of tradition, but I had no tradition of my own about it. And I certainly had no DESIRE to cover my head, quite the opposite.
The main theme was of course that the idea of having to cover the head is legalistic. Of course we're Pharisees to have this view. One woman went so far as to attribute it to Satan. Someone also claimed that the Holy Spirit showed him it's hair, and some argued that anyone who thought differently wasn't hearing from the Spirit. Much conjecture off the top of the head, much accusation. Chaos and confusion and the kind of "arguments" that are unanswerable for all the wrong reasons.
When I asked one participant why he kept ignoring my argument that it couldn't be hair because women throughout history always wore their hair long and Paul wouldn't have needed to exhort them to that, his answer was that I was simply wrong because Paul SAID the covering was hair. Another didn't have any problem saying that all Christians in all history could be wrong. And so on and so forth.
Well, I've tried to answer such objections on this blog already. Very little new was said, it was a pretty rancorous discussion despite attempts to keep affirming mutual love of the brethren.
Now another thread is underway on pretty much the same subject but I have no interest in joining it after my other experience. A couple who argued along with me on the first thread have left the forum as well. The usual is happening on the new thread too. The head covering is dismissed as legalistic, the actual scripture isn't addressed, in fact nobody there is arguing for a cloth covering now, what would be the point? Same here. I keep checking in but have no desire to argue when nobody will address the points of the argument anyway.
Pretty discouraging.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Zac Poonen on the headcovering
Zac Poonen makes good points about the head covering passage:
Because so many down the centuries have insisted on women's covering their heads at all times I've been vacillating a great deal on it for myself, but the point about men's wearing hats outside the church meeting is the deciding point for me to take the solid position that it's only in the church meeting that it's required of us. But it IS required of us and a COMPLETE covering is required, not the little bit of fabric that covers the bun in the back as the Mennonites have, which he mentions above, and not a little lace doily that also shows most of the hair, and not a fashionable hat that becomes a glory in and of itself. In fact the women of India with their long scarves seem to have the right idea.
As for the long hair misreading, I'd just like to add my own favorite argument which is that there is no way in any time or place before the 20th century in the west that women would ever have willingly cut their hair as it was regarded as a NATURAL badge of femininity to have it long, just as Paul says. Since it WAS the universal practice, since all the women WOULD have had long hair, Paul could not possibly have been exhorting them to wear their hair long.
It's only in the west and in recent time -- about the time of the first world war -- that this along with other feminine expressions started to drop away. Women started trying to look like men around that time. The cloche hat of the twenties, for instance, imitated the helmets the soldiers wore, and the women also cut their hair short for the first time then, and started walking with a slouch that deemphasized their female curves, and so on. Of course it simply became a fashion habit for most women who liked the look or got used to it and had no clue as to its history and no interest at all in looking like men either. One of my aunts maintained that slouch and the "cupid's bow" lips of that era for most of the rest of her life; another aunt kept the "marcelled" hairdo of the twenties all her life. So the new fashion stuck, and by the 60s the churches too had given up on the head covering and the natural long hair that used to express femininity.
If it were ONLY a matter of fashion there wouldn't be a big problem with any of it, I suppose, but since it's commanded in scripture to cover the female head in the church assembly, and acknowledged by scripture that long hair on a woman and short hair on a man are given by nature, we can't just let fashion do the dictating.
HEADCOVERING FOR WOMENHere's the main teaching from that website:
By Zac Poonen
What does the Bible teach about head-covering for women in the church meetings?
This has become a controversial subject in churches in Western countries and among Westernized Christians in India.
Further: 99% of sisters who do cover their heads when praying and prophesying do not know WHY they do so. And 99% of brothers who keep their heads uncovered when praying and prophesying do not know WHY they do so.
A study of this subject is now available at:
http://www.cfcindia.com/web/mainpages/articles.php?display=article39 You are invited to read it and to pass it on to others.
For Christian Fellowship Church
Newton
All good points here.
Meaning of head-covering
There are at least three reasons given in the New Testament why a woman should cover her head when she prays or prophesies in the meetings of the church:
First: The Bible says, "A man should NOT cover his he..." - and the reason given is: ... because he is the image and glory of God". In contrast, we are told, "but the woman is the glory of man" (1 Cor.11:7). The glory of man must be covered in the church - and since woman is the glory of man, she testifies to this fact by covering her head. This is the plain and simple meaning of this verse.
Second: The Bible says, "A woman's long hair is her glory" (1 Cor.11:15). The glory of the woman also must be covered in the church, just like the glory of man. And so she must cover her head which has the glory of her long hair. Almost all women are conscious that their long hair is a major part of what makes them look attractive - and that is why even among those women who do put a covering on their heads, most of them cover only a part of their hair!! If a woman does not want to cover her head, then the only alternative that the New Testament offers is to remove that glory, by shaving her head completely: "If a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head" (1 Cor.11:6).
Third: TheBible says: "Man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor.11:10). The head-covering symbolizes the fact that a woman accepts her God-appointed role as having been created "for man's sake" as his helper and therefore her willingness to be submissive to male authority - whether as a wife to her husband, or as a daughter to her father, or as a sister in the church to the church-elders. It is significant that the disappearance of the head-covering from women in Western churches (on a large scale) coincided with the time that the movement for "Women's Liberation" (a phrase used in a book in 1949) began to spread in Western countries - about 60 years ago. The "angels" mentioned in this verse could refer either to the fallen angels or to the angels in heaven. So it could either be a reminder to women to bear in mind that the fallen angels fell because they were not submissive to authority. Or it could mean "A woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man's authority - a fact for all the angels (in heaven) to notice and rejoice in" (as The Living Bible paraphrases that verse).
1 Corinthians 11:16 says that every church that is a church of God, will insist on this head covering for women when they pray or prophesy. The Holy Spirit recognized that 20 centuries later this would become a controversial issue; and so He made Paul to state (in this same verse) that if anyone was going to be argumentative about this matter, he would not argue with such a person. He would just allow that person to continue on in his/her disobedience and inconsistency.
Some Questions
Some may say that the head-covering is only a symbol and therefore not so important. But baptism and the breaking of bread are also only symbols. The first half of 1 Corinthians 11 (v.1-16) explains the meaning of the symbolic head-covering for women. The second half of the same chapter (11:.20-34) explains the meaning of the symbolic breaking of bread. In the same way, Romans 6 explains the meaning of the symbol of water-baptism. Would we say that the Lord's table and baptism also are unimportant, because they are only symbols? If we insist on baptism and breaking of bread as essential for believers, then we are inconsistent if we say that head-covering for women is not essential.
Some may say that head-covering for women is mentioned only once in the New Testament. Breaking of bread also is mentioned only once in the epistles. Likewise, the truth that God loves us as much as He loved Jesus is also mentioned only once in the whole Bible (Jn.17:23). But once is enough - to know this glorious truth. If Almighty God has given a command, then even if it is given only once in Scripture, that is sufficient. The importance of a command is determined by the importance of the Person Who gave it.
In ancient Babylon, Daniel stood for a law (Dan.1:8) that had been commanded only once in the Scriptures (about food in Lev.11; and wine in Prov.23:31). In the same way, in the midst of Babylonian Christianity today, we also stand for the commands of God - whether small or big, whether mentioned once or many times.
Some say that since we are commanded to pray at all times (Lk.18:1; 1 Thess.5:17), therefore a woman should cover her head all 24 hours of the day. Scripture must always be read in its context, if we are to understand it aright. The entire section (1 Cor.11:1-34) is dealing with the meetings of the church (Verses 16 and 18 make that clear). So it is obvious that the Holy Spirit was referring to church meetings when He gave this command. If we add to that, and insist that women should cover their heads at all times, then we will be adding to the Scriptures.
And further: If those who preach a 24-hour head covering are consistent, they must also teach that men (who should also be praying at all times) should never cover their heads at any time - and therefore should never wear a cap or a hat, at any time - whether it be hot, raining, or snowing. Such teachers must also then teach that women should keep their heads covered even when sleeping or showering/bathing (=24 hours). But they do not preach that - proving that they are inconsistent in their teaching. We can safely ignore such inconsistent teachers.
I have also observed that many sisters who practice a 24-hour head covering do not cover their entire heads. They cover only the back portion of their heads or just the small part of their hair that is tied up in a bun at the back of their heads - so that the glory of their hair is still visible. A small piece of cloth at the back of the head however is only an excuse for a head-covering - and not a head-covering at all, because the head and the glory of the hair are still not covered. Such "namesake head-coverings" are worn by legalists only to ease their conscience and to appear "holy" before others. But their teachers do not object to this, because they themselves are inconsistent in their teaching.
Some say that the hair itself is called the head-covering for women in 1 Cor.11:15. If one has understood the Divine principle taught in the first 14 verses of this chapter, then this verse will not cancel out the need for a woman with long hair to still cover her head with a covering. Paul could not possibly have taken 15 verses merely to teach that a woman should have long hair! That could have been stated in just one sentence! What does not come out in the English translation of the Bible is the fact that in the original Greek language (in which Paul wrote his letters), the Holy Spirit prompted him to use a different Greek word for "covering" in verse 15 than the one He used in verse 6. The Greek word used in verse 6 is katakalupto; whereas the word used in verse 15 is peribolaion (which is translated as "mantle" in Heb. 1:12). This makes it crystal clear that the mantle of hair referred to in verse 15 is not the head-covering referred to in verse 6 or in the rest of the chapter. Another proof of this is: If hair is the "head-covering" being referred to in this section, then every man who prays or prophesies would have to have his head completely shaved, if he is to obey this Scripture that tells him not to have his head covered!! The clear teaching of the Holy Spirit in this chapter is that the "mantle of hair" that nature has given a woman as her glory must be covered with a covering, when she is praying or prophesying.
Because so many down the centuries have insisted on women's covering their heads at all times I've been vacillating a great deal on it for myself, but the point about men's wearing hats outside the church meeting is the deciding point for me to take the solid position that it's only in the church meeting that it's required of us. But it IS required of us and a COMPLETE covering is required, not the little bit of fabric that covers the bun in the back as the Mennonites have, which he mentions above, and not a little lace doily that also shows most of the hair, and not a fashionable hat that becomes a glory in and of itself. In fact the women of India with their long scarves seem to have the right idea.
As for the long hair misreading, I'd just like to add my own favorite argument which is that there is no way in any time or place before the 20th century in the west that women would ever have willingly cut their hair as it was regarded as a NATURAL badge of femininity to have it long, just as Paul says. Since it WAS the universal practice, since all the women WOULD have had long hair, Paul could not possibly have been exhorting them to wear their hair long.
It's only in the west and in recent time -- about the time of the first world war -- that this along with other feminine expressions started to drop away. Women started trying to look like men around that time. The cloche hat of the twenties, for instance, imitated the helmets the soldiers wore, and the women also cut their hair short for the first time then, and started walking with a slouch that deemphasized their female curves, and so on. Of course it simply became a fashion habit for most women who liked the look or got used to it and had no clue as to its history and no interest at all in looking like men either. One of my aunts maintained that slouch and the "cupid's bow" lips of that era for most of the rest of her life; another aunt kept the "marcelled" hairdo of the twenties all her life. So the new fashion stuck, and by the 60s the churches too had given up on the head covering and the natural long hair that used to express femininity.
If it were ONLY a matter of fashion there wouldn't be a big problem with any of it, I suppose, but since it's commanded in scripture to cover the female head in the church assembly, and acknowledged by scripture that long hair on a woman and short hair on a man are given by nature, we can't just let fashion do the dictating.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The objection from Paul as Pharisee Pt. 1
Here is a comment I made at Suzie's Blog (Apostle of Revelation 12) where she has a series of posts about Paul's supposed Pharisaism. I wasn't going to post this, just hold onto it, but her answer is such a masterpiece of presumptuously using one part of scripture against another I think I'll post it after all. (Actually, there is SO much weirdness at that blog the head covering is the least of it).
Those who oppose the head covering on supposedly scriptural grounds (hair length, culture-bound symbols for headship or femininity) aren't really any better than Suzie at respecting scripture as it takes a fair amount of twisting to arrive at their interpretations also.
One thing I could say in favor of her argument for my purposes here is that she does not dispute that the passage does require a literal cloth head covering, which she then goes on to dismiss by claiming Paul was reverting to legalism in requiring it -- requiring something physical. Of course long hair is also physical and in fact any token that might meet the cultural requirement would also have to be physical. Those who claim the covering implies an interchangeable cultural symbol -- of headship or femininity -- also don't deny that it really is a literal cloth covering Paul had in mind.
There's no end to the cleverness possible in doing away with it, but surely it ought to be clear just WHAT we're doing away with -- a literal cloth head covering.
So on to the blog exchange:
It was Paul who wrote most pointedly about the conflicts between law and grace and flesh and spirit, yet Suzie is not above accusing him of reverting to his Pharisaic past and forgetting the very teachings for which he is best known, which among other things inspired Luther and began the Protestant Reformation.
The rule that we are to submit to scripture and not judge scripture (about which she even quoted Augustine at one point) doesn't stop her from putting her own judgment of what is carnal/fleshly above Paul's. If Paul advocated a literal physical head covering, the true humble biblical interpretation is that HE did not regard it as a carnal concern contradicting grace, therefore we are also to understand it as compatible with grace.
As Watchman Nee put it,
Had Paul made such an error as Suzie suggests, the Holy Spirit would have led him to recognize it eventually and correct it, and that would have been reported in scripture just as Peter's bondage to the Old Testament food laws was reported as corrected by a vision from God. Scripture is God's word. It records human errors but it doesn't leave such errors uncorrected where they could become the basis for Christian teachings down the centuries.
========
Be alerted that I may come back and comment further on this. There are at least two more parts of this to come, which of course will simply carry on the same repetitive theme but it seems to need the airing.
Those who oppose the head covering on supposedly scriptural grounds (hair length, culture-bound symbols for headship or femininity) aren't really any better than Suzie at respecting scripture as it takes a fair amount of twisting to arrive at their interpretations also.
One thing I could say in favor of her argument for my purposes here is that she does not dispute that the passage does require a literal cloth head covering, which she then goes on to dismiss by claiming Paul was reverting to legalism in requiring it -- requiring something physical. Of course long hair is also physical and in fact any token that might meet the cultural requirement would also have to be physical. Those who claim the covering implies an interchangeable cultural symbol -- of headship or femininity -- also don't deny that it really is a literal cloth covering Paul had in mind.
There's no end to the cleverness possible in doing away with it, but surely it ought to be clear just WHAT we're doing away with -- a literal cloth head covering.
So on to the blog exchange:
Faith said...If you think only nuns ever covered their heads you are out of touch with history (not to mention that you are out of touch with Paul, scripture and the Holy Spirit if you make Paul the source of convent life).(You can read her post that I am answering at the link above). She answers:
There are drawings on the walls of the catacombs of Rome (where early Christians hid from the Roman persecutions) illustrating women praying in standing position with upraised arms with a large piece of cloth draped over their heads.
Then Tertullian in the 2nd or 3rd century or so wrote objecting to the flimsy little pieces of cloth so many women put on their heads in the various churches, saying that did not meet the requirement of 1 Cor 11:2-16, but commended the Corinthian church of his time, the church to whom Paul had addressed that teaching a century or two earlier, for their women wearing the right sort of covering, something substantial that really did cover the head.
It was taken to excess --perhaps-- when women began covering their heads at all times in the West, at least when out in public, but often at home as well -- those little lacy frilled white caps of the 18th century for instance -- which you can see in paintings down through the centuries and in many costume film productions. This WAS done in obedience to Paul's directive -- meaning that is how the churches of Christendom ALL understood that passage up until very recent times.
If you think this is merely a Catholic thing, think again. The many Bible-believing proto-Protestant groups that separated themselves from the Catholic church, such as the Waldensians who had to go into hiding in the mountains and were still hunted down and killed from time to time down through the centuries, were very strict about the head covering based on their own reading of the Bible in reaction against the Catholic suppression of the Bible. Calvin read the passage in the same way. Many Pietist groups that split off from the Protestant Reformation through genuine Spirit-led Revival required that the women be covered. The "babushka" or scarf some elderly women still wear in rural Russia derives from this Bible-based practice.
You are arguing from a very modern Western and apparently feminist point of view. But then of course perhaps you are the only one in the churches who ever gets anything right? AUGUST 2, 2011 9:31 PM
Suzie Q said...No, I didn't miss the point. By sketching out the history of its acceptance by the church through the centuries, including those who were persecuted for their faith and others obviously Spirit-led I would have expected to pre-empt such a presumption as to continue to argue that the head covering is a "natural-minded" or carnal concept, but Suzie doesn't mind accusing all Christians of this, starting with Paul who gave five arguments for it which had nothing to do with "want[ing] something physical."
Respectfully, regarding head coverings, you miss the whole point. When people are in the flesh, they see things according to the flesh and focus upon this world and the flesh. We are complete in Christ.
You see, it is natural minded to think that we need a "physical covering". The Holy Spirit is upon our heads today. When people are carnal, they want something physical.
It was Paul who wrote most pointedly about the conflicts between law and grace and flesh and spirit, yet Suzie is not above accusing him of reverting to his Pharisaic past and forgetting the very teachings for which he is best known, which among other things inspired Luther and began the Protestant Reformation.
The rule that we are to submit to scripture and not judge scripture (about which she even quoted Augustine at one point) doesn't stop her from putting her own judgment of what is carnal/fleshly above Paul's. If Paul advocated a literal physical head covering, the true humble biblical interpretation is that HE did not regard it as a carnal concern contradicting grace, therefore we are also to understand it as compatible with grace.
As Watchman Nee put it,
We must not frustrate God's government by God's grace.The head covering is a creation ordinance which applies to all of us, relating to the creation of Adam before Eve, and recognizing it is a matter of orderly government while we are on this earth, it is not part of the Mosaic Law. Paul presents it as required by the creation of man and woman with man as head over the woman, Marriage as the permanent uniting of two (of the opposite sex of course) into one flesh is another creation ordinance. This didn't cease with the New Testament.
Had Paul made such an error as Suzie suggests, the Holy Spirit would have led him to recognize it eventually and correct it, and that would have been reported in scripture just as Peter's bondage to the Old Testament food laws was reported as corrected by a vision from God. Scripture is God's word. It records human errors but it doesn't leave such errors uncorrected where they could become the basis for Christian teachings down the centuries.
Take for example the matter of circumcision. Circumcision of the foreskin is a representation of the cutting away of the sinful nature.Yes, it is, and Paul taught on that as well as the head covering. Paul saw no contradiction. You are at fault for making one up.
Christians know this, there is no need to quote it at such length. The point is that there is no contradiction here with the head covering although you insist that there is. If there were Paul would have eventually recognized it and so would the Church down the centuries, but instead we find Paul insisting upon it as apostolic practice in all the churches (1 Cor 11:16) and no other apostle objecting, while theologians down the centuries have also affirmed it. Apparently Suzie would say they are all carnal, while only she has the Holy Spirit; even Paul himself is carnal according to her although he is the one who hammered out the very concepts she is embracing. The arrogance is breathtaking really.Colossians 2:10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.In requiring circumcision, ppl were missing the whole point. We are circumcised in our hearts in Christ through the putting off of the physical body. We have been made a new creation. We are spirit not flesh.
Physical circumcision of the OT was a sign and seal of what was to come in Christ.Colossians 2:16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.Everything that pertains to the OT and pertains to the physical representations of what was to come -- is found in reality in Christ.
Just as circumcision was a shadow of things to come, the reality is found in Christ. We are complete in Christ. The sign and seal of physical circumcision was a representation of the cutting away of the physical body which is wrought in salvation in Christ.
In Christ, the body is literally put to death and we are raised with Jesus in newness of life. We are born of the Spirit and are spirit not flesh.
This is the principle of why it is wrong to require males to be circumcised. In requiring males to be circumcised, one is turning away from the spiritual reality of what has been done in Christ at the spiritual level. One is actually denying the reality of salvation having been occurred, having lost contact with the Head -- having lost sight of the spiritual reality that is in Christ in salvation... that we have become a new creation, holy, blameless in Him.NOBODY has a problem with this concept, Suzie. Luther elaborated it at great length in his study of Galatians for one thing. But Luther had no problem with the head covering. Oh, I guess he was carnal too even though he was such a great expositor of grace.
It is the same exact principle as applied to head coverings. Head coverings in the OT may have been a representation of something. However, we are complete in Christ. We have put off the body of flesh and have become spirit in Christ. We cannot go back to wearing head coverings, without turning away from the knowledge of the spiritual reality that is found in Christ.To the extent there is truth in what you are saying it applies to the world to come, but now we are still in this body and still on this earth. There is nothing carnal about the head covering, hard as you are working to make it so. Scripture is so abounding in teachings on grace such a thing would never have escaped.
There were those Christians in the day of Paul who "could not see this" in relation to male circumcision. They believed that persons would have to be circumcised -- because it was necessary in the OT. Paul proved them wrong stating correct principles. Paul also states that even Sabbaths and new moons and all of these things are not significant today. Because everything today is about what Jesus has done and who we are in Him -- this spiritual reality found in Christ in which we are a new creation. "All that matters is a new creation."All this is true but irrelevant to the head covering issue, to which you and only you are applying it. If it had any relevance to that question scripture would have addressed it. You are willing to tear apart scripture in order to elevate your own misunderstanding.
Clearly, the saints in the church who thought males must be circumcised were not spiritually minded enough to know that we are complete in Christ. They wanted to return to the old patterns. But, Paul rebuked them for this and turned them back to Christ. Were all who were thus tempted not truly born-again?? I'm quite certain there were born-again Christians who just were weak in the flesh and wanted to try to serve God by the old letter of the law rather than by the Spirit. Saints are not yet perfected in their minds and in the strength of their faith to simply look solely to Jesus and know the truth and be transformed as Paul instructs in Galatians 3.
========
Be alerted that I may come back and comment further on this. There are at least two more parts of this to come, which of course will simply carry on the same repetitive theme but it seems to need the airing.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
This objector to the head covering accuses Paul of violating his own teachings about grace versus law
The arguments against the head covering I dealt with in my research on this subject were all from within the Bible-believing church. I didn't try to deal with the feminist arguments.
But now I've heard from someone who argues what is really a feminist position although she may not see it that way; she simply thinks Paul was not qualified to be an apostle, certainly not a writer of God's word. That's a typical stance of an unbeliever, and of feminists who consider themselves to be Christians but refuse to take the Bible as God's word.
I've posted this elsewhere but I realized it belongs on this blog in full as an example of one attitude toward the head covering.
This is to my mind about the most offensive kind of argument possible, an amazing display of sophistry pitting Paul's own teachings against himself in the service of what can only be a mere personal dislike of his writings on the head covering and on women in general.
But now I've heard from someone who argues what is really a feminist position although she may not see it that way; she simply thinks Paul was not qualified to be an apostle, certainly not a writer of God's word. That's a typical stance of an unbeliever, and of feminists who consider themselves to be Christians but refuse to take the Bible as God's word.
I've posted this elsewhere but I realized it belongs on this blog in full as an example of one attitude toward the head covering.
This is to my mind about the most offensive kind of argument possible, an amazing display of sophistry pitting Paul's own teachings against himself in the service of what can only be a mere personal dislike of his writings on the head covering and on women in general.
Paul was NOT PERFECT. Paul made errors in what he said and did, that as you align them with the teaching of the Word -- they don't line up. For example, look at this.I may come back to add some comments later.
Acts 23 1And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
2And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
3Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
4And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?
5Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
Paul was speaking of the "mindset" as if the priesthood of the old covenant was still in force -- and AS IF the high priest of the OT was still the high priest. But this is not true. Jesus Christ is the High Priest of the second covenant. Paul was not completely renewed in his mind. Paul even wrote the Book of Hebrews declaring the change in priesthood, that Jesus is now the High Priest and Jesus is therefore the Ruler. Yet, in his humanity, Paul was not "in the Spirit" as he spoke giving respect and submission to the outdated priesthood and thus not giving respect and submission to Jesus Christ. It was an error because Paul was not perfect and Paul was not entirely renewed in his mind.
Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
Hebrews 7:11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
The scripture is clear that the priesthood before God CHANGED when Jesus went to the cross and the vail was rent in two, Jesus resurrected, and ascended to the right and of God the Father. The priesthood of the OT was not in effect. The priest who CLAIMED to be the high priest towards whom Paul gave respect was NOT the High Priest in the sight of God -- but rather Jesus Christ was/is the High Priest.
But, Paul, being human and having been a Pharisee of the Pharisee, was much like the Jews who left Israel and kept thinking like slaves of Egypt wanting to go back to be under Pharoah after God having sent Moses to bring them to the Promised Land.
Paul, though the scripture refutes his behavior, kept "thinking" that the high priest of the OT before whom he had appeared -- really WAS the high priest at that time. This is impossible. The high priest of the OT had LOST his place and position when Jesus Christ replaced the first covenant with the second covenant and replaced the high priest of the OT having become the High Priest of the NT in His death, burial, resurrection, ascension to the right hand of God and the sending of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.
................
Paul, basically, was not entirely renewed in his mind and gave up his dominion in Christ by submission to a high priest who had no authority before God... rather Jesus Christ did.
We all make mistakes.
Paul has a habitual "strain" of Pharisaical sin in him "showing through" in which he knows better than to believe that righteousness can be attained by the law, knows better than to believe that the law is still in effect, knows that the only righteousness there is to be gained is through Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God and the High Priest and the Temple of the New Covenant -- by His blood and death burial and resurrection and through faith alone in Jesus by grace alone -- but Paul just "can't get his mind" to think that way 100%.
So, unless you want to denounce Jesus Christ as the High Priest of the New Covenant and return to the law and replace Jesus with a current high priest of the Old Covenant -- we can see that Paul made a mistake there out of human conditioning.
The matter of head coverings is a LIKE ERROR on Paul's part -- perhaps.
Because, spiritually, in Christ, Jesus Christ Himself has become the covering of all saints by the Spirit. What was in the natural is now in the spiritual.
The law was a shadow of things to come but the reality is found in Christ.
When Paul states, "AS the law also states...!!" -- we should be able to see that the old nature of Paul is "showing through". He has not yet "left behind" the law and pressed fully into Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
This is why he states in Philippians 3 that he has not yet been made perfect, but is striving to be found fully in Christ having no righteousness that comes from the law but rather in resting fully in faith in Jesus Christ and the righteousness that comes from faith in Christ.
When Paul starts quoting the LAW in relation to women -- wanting them to come under some natural element -- you see that the church resisted him. They would not obey and instead asserted their liberty in Christ.
What Paul is saying about SPIRITUAL COVERING and being under submission to God in Christ and having the HOLY SPIRIT UPON ONE is New Testament theology.
But going back to the law -- and Paul getting so uptight because women weren't wearing natural veils -- friend, that doesn't "line up" with scripture any more than Paul's grovelling before the high priest of the OT (and him forgetting Jesus as the High Priest of the NT in that moment) lines up with scripture and spiritual Kingdom laws, principles and dynamics -- the reality of the Spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)