Sermons and articles 3: John MacArthur on 1 Cor 11:2-16

This is part of a transcript of a sermon John MacArthur gave titled God's High Calling for Women, Part 3. Links don't seem to stay put but it should still be available at his website, Grace to You, under "Resources." I believe you can also order an audio of the message at the site. And here is a link where the message seems to still be available. (apparently it's no longer available either).

Basically he says much the same thing that both Thomas Schreiner and Alistair Begg say so I'm going to try to keep this to a bare minimum.
=====================================================

Now remember, this is Corinth. In the middle of Corinth was a temple to Aphrodite, a thousand priestess prostitutes with heads open and exposed and hair cut short flaunting their sexuality trying to lure men into sexual acts in the temple, put up on the acro of Corinth, the hilltop outside Corinth, this big temple. And these women again flaunting their liberation, flaunting their sexuality. There was a whole attitude there very much like Ephesus

Here he is repeating this idea about prostitution which has been shown by others to be false. There were indeed a thousand temple prostitutes but they didn't cut their hair or even have it uncovered. You can find pictures of temple prostitutes with a head covering. In fact it is in worship of their pagan deities that the head is most often covered by the Greeks and Romans, both men and women. Apparently there was a very low class of prostitutes who did shave their heads, though the temple prostitutes didn't.

So he says I know you obey me, I know you remember what I said, but I want to tell you this, folks, you've got to realize the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man. And the head of Christ is God. You have to get one thing straight, women are put in a place of submission to men.... It is to understand as an attitudinal objective that the man is the head of the woman.

Here he puts it in terms of attitude as do the others I've covered so far, but again I have to answer that attitude does not seem to be a concern of Paul's teaching in this passage, as it is in other parts of his writings. As I kept noting in Dr. Schreiner's essay it tends to confuse the intent of this passage to interpret it as an inner state at all, as something subjective rather than objective. It's simply about putting something on the female head because that reflects God's creation order and establishes the woman in her proper place under authority. It's an external thing.

Maybe I make too much of this but it seems to me we mustn't make an outer symbol stand for an inner state. You simply can't guarantee inner states and the last thing we want is people fussing about whether or not the head covering really does reflect a truly submissive heart. That way lies madness and hypocrisy. No, it is meant to symbolize the OBJECTIVE POSITION of the woman under male authority. Leave the heart alone -- that's for the woman herself to deal with privately before the Lord.

So, let me give you a little cultural thing. In Corinth, women as a custom covered their heads.

Here's that idea that it's about culture getting started again. It is simply not true, as I've said probably too many times by now, that women in Corinth as a rule covered their heads. In Corinth there were at least three cultures mixing together all with different customs about covering the head. Only the Jewish women were known to have their heads covered at all times.

That was how a woman identified her humility, that's how she hid herself as if to say I am not available, I belong to one man. And that was her modesty, that was her femininity. This is how she carried herself and how she clothed herself to demonstrate her womanliness, her femininity. In the Corinthian society, men were uncovered. Their heads were bare, their faces were open and that was the mark of maleness.

This is quite simply an elaborate fiction. Somehow somebody got this idea about "Corinthian culture" going and it's now just been repeated and elaborated so many times you'd think it was actual fact, but the sad thing is it's purely fiction.

This whole elaboration about how it reflected modesty or femininity is right in line with what Thomas Schreiner wrote and MacArthur probably got it from him or they both got it from some other source, but it's nothing but a tall tale. Jewish women appear to have covered their heads in all circumstances [I quote Tertullian on this in a few places.], and for them it did -- and still does -- have a connotation of modesty. But the Greek women and Roman women didn't have such a custom, and in any case Paul is not talking about modesty or femininity as such! He's talking strictly about the meaning of the head and its being covered or uncovered.

As for the male head, there is some disagreement about when Jewish men began the practice of covering their heads but some put it before this time, and we know the priests covered theirs, as described in the Old Testament. Roman men apparently did cover their heads in worship of the pagan gods. So it's not true about men either that they were always bare-headed.

Somehow in the Corinthian church these things were getting inverted. And women were praying and speaking the Word of God with their heads uncovered, actually sort of identifying with the prostitutes and the woman's liberation movement.

I guess there's no point in continuing to comment on this. It's simply false that an uncovered head had the connotation of prostitution. And it's VERY hard to imagine that a Christian woman would do anything to make herself look like a prostitute anyway!

And men, maybe from some Jewish background or something, were covering their heads and praying and people were looking at them and saying, "They're feministic."

It's a reasonable guess if you already believe there was a custom about male versus female head covering that was being violated, but there's no reason to think there was.

So he says in verse 4, look, every man who prays or prophesies having his head covered dishonors his head. What are you doing? Don't do that. Why? You say,"You mean it's a sin to put something on your head when you pray?" No...not
unless your culture perceives that as something that's feminine. And the point
there was for a man to cover himself was to be acting like a woman. Men didn't
do that. Verse 5, "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head and she might as well be like one who is totally shaved, she might as well destroy all of her femininity, look like a prostitute or some liberated person." Verse 7, "A man not to have his head covered..." See, in their society that said something.

So the fiction simply continues.

So what Paul is saying is this, now listen carefully. Look at your society and mark out the symbols. What are the symbols of femininity in our society? What are the symbols of masculinity? And identify with those. If they don't violate Scripture, if they don't violate God's design for morality, then adhere to those symbols because that says something to your society. Listen, even this society today still knows when a woman looks like a woman. There are symbols in our society for femininity. And you know as well as I do that you can look at a woman who obviously has adapted the symbols of femininity and looks like a woman, and you can look at another woman who looks like she is rebelling against everything that womanhood absolutely means. Can't you tell that difference? Of course you can because even our society has symbols. Every society does.

Our society has symbols of maleness. You can look at a man and by the way he appears and carries himself and dresses, you can say now that guy's a man. And you can look at another guy and you get the impression that this guy is really very feminine. Because he's denying the symbols of maleness and he's communicating an inverted perverted message. So that's all he's saying to the Corinthians. Look, when you behave yourself as Christians, do so in a way that adheres to the perception of your culture so they'll understand. And further on down in verse 14, even nature has provided an analogy for the symbol of headcoverings by giving faster growing hair to women as a special covering from God. So women then are to take a role of submission as the one who is under the headship of man.

And he goes on pretty much in this vein about the importance of clear sex-role distinctions, as do the others I've commented on so far. It's a valid subject in its own right, of course, and all of them have useful things to say about it, but it's just not what Paul is focusing on in this passage so I'm not going to quote more of it.

So, in verse 13 he says, "Decide for yourselves." Just decide for yourselves. Take a look at the symbol and make a decision. Is it right that a woman pray to God uncovered? And you know in your society you're going to say no. So follow the custom.

I guess this is one major place we can go wrong, if we are thinking it's all about custom. If we are going to try to answer this question ourselves today it is true that we aren't going to answer it the same way Paul clearly expected the Corinthians would, but I think we can probably safely infer that most other cultures even now across the world, and in the West up until oh maybe 150 years ago, would have answered as the Corinthians would have, so that it is just that our own culture has completely lost its bearings with respect to God's order. However, Paul isn't thinking of it as custom, or perhaps more accurately, he's thinking of the consistent and uniform customs he could see in all the cultures of his day as expressive of an intuitive sense of God's order. He goes right on to direct their attention to how hair is worn, which throughout most of history and across most cultures has been as he describes it -- long hair on women, shorter on men -- and argues that since "nature" has covered a woman's head with long hair they ought to be able to understand that this is a principle God wants to see practiced with the addition of another covering.

The sum of what he says is this, if a woman is veiled when she prays or speaks the Word of God, she attests to her womanhood, she affirms her role, she reflects her husband's protective covering over her, she protects the relationship she has with her husband, she doesn't rebel. She knows heaven is pleased. Verse 10 says even the angels are watching. She is acknowledging what verses 7 and following say that this is so important. Man is the image and glory of God and the woman is the glory of man. Boy, that is a verse that just sends the women's liberation people right up in space.

It's a very strange idea to us, especially us modern independent women, who are now not only in the West but more and more all over the world. But our sights must be on God and eternity and we must believe what He reveals in Genesis. Fussing about anything about our lives in THIS world is only going to keep us fleshly-minded. It's always best to say I'm wrong, He's right, whether we understand it or not; just keep me on track to the Kingdom of God. Put me in a dungeon if you like, make me the slave of an unspiritual husband if that's what You think I need, just don't let me get off track. I suppose we could even think of it as a special blessing in a way, since it's an opportunity for humbling that men don't have. We all need that, some of us more than others, me especially (He's working on me).

As I've said before I think it's wrong to load the symbol of the head covering with all this meaning about a woman's inner state, I think it's meant to be treated as an external sign of personal authority (symbolized by the head) subordinated to another's authority (symbolized by covering the head), in obedience to God's creation order without all the mind reading. But covering the head is what Paul is requiring and whatever you want to pack into the symbol, that IS the symbol, not the nebulous "feminine adornment" these preachers have reduced it to.

Sermons and articles 2: Alistair Begg's Sermons on the Headcovering, Part 3

Now, the major point is clear, namely, that women are to adorn themselves in a certain way.... He wants to make sure that women are adorning themselves in a way that a man is not adorning himself. That is clear.

But it's really not clear. We've now gone from the very specific head covering, for which he gave some good solid evidence, to this very vague statement that actually obscures the main point.

As to the precise nature of what the covering is, we've got to be honest enough to say that is not equally clear.

Once you've changed the very precise "covering versus uncovering the head" into the very imprecise "adorning or not adorning themselves" it is less clear that placing a piece of cloth on the head of enough length to hang down a ways would meet Paul's requirement. His own examples make it clear enough what would suffice for covering the head: Haman's pulling his garment over his head, the covering of the face and body by the wings of the Cherubim, Philo's kerchief, Plutarch's part of the toga. Anything in other words that does the actual work of covering will do, including his own suggestion of a shawl. A dish towel would do. So would a hood or some kinds of hats. There is really no lack of clarity of any importance.

So here we are at one of our fundamental principles of hermeneutics, which is what? "The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things." Now what is plain is that he wants women to be distinguishable from men and it's got something to do with what they put on their heads. So we know that.

Unfortunately what's being called plain here really isn't the plain thing but obscures the plainness already established.

And we can debate all night whether it's a shawl or whether it's their hair or whatever else it is.

But his own argument has already quite effectively shown it is not hair, and there's also no need to debate whether it's a shawl because a shawl would clearly fit the requirement well enough as would many other cloth items.

But it doesn't affect the main issue.

But what he's calling the main issue now is not at all the main issue. He's reduced the specific requirement that the head be covered to the vague idea of an adornment that distinguishes the feminine from the masculine. The main issue has in fact been lost completely by now.

Far more important is the question to which we now come.

Which of course further removes us from the real issue of the head covering.

Why does Paul want women to adorn themselves in a certain way? Why is he so concerned about this covering?

This has in fact already been answered in the discussion about Verse 3 earlier, but now he's going on with the vague idea of feminine "adornment" and has left the head covering behind.

And, anticipating our next question, is there really any use spending time thinking about it when it is so far away from Cleveland and so long ago in history. Well, I think you'll agree before we conclude, the answer is yes.

There was no need to raise this question at all. Scripture is ALL very old and far away from us and we know it's always worth our time because it's God's word.

Now, the key to answering the question as to why he's so concerned about the covering is found in Verse 3.

Which was already clear from the earlier part of the talk but now he goes on to elaborate it and reiterate that women should not see it as their worth being diminished by the headship hierarchy. He also emphatically states that the issue was very important to Paul so we need to take it seriously and it's good to get that said.

Now, so strongly does Paul feel about this it's not some average issue for him ...

It's important to say this although he gives a different reason for it than I would, in emphasizing that cutting off the hair is disgraceful for women. He also repeats the false information that shaving the head is the sign of a prostitute, "or extreme feminism" he says, which is probably a projection from our own culture.

Actually, the fact that Paul wrote fifteen verses including at least three arguments in favor of the head covering should be enough to demonstrate how seriously he takes it.

Then he discusses who is being dishonored, the self or the head over oneself, and then what Paul meant about women praying and prophesying.

...So let's understand why the head covering business is so crucial. The man does honor to his head, by declaring his independence under Christ, and the woman does honor by showing that she's under subjection. That's why the issue is important. It's not so much what goes on her head as what's going on inside her head. It's not so much the physical dimension of it as it is expressive of a whole response to a God-ordained pattern of authority.

Really there is nothing in the passage to support this conclusion. Paul is taking pains about the objective particulars involving external coverings over the head. He hasn't once used the word "submission" or any similar word for an attitude or an inner state in this context. The honor and dishonor in this context are ALL about whether one covers or does not cover the head. It's an external thing, a public thing, not an inner thing. If a man should blunder into the service with a hat on he would be told to remove it. The mere fact of having it on is what is dishonoring to Christ. What he has in his head is not the point. If ever there was a writing of Paul's that DOESN'T speak to the inner man -- or woman in this case -- this is it. ALL his references are EXTERNAL: the hierarchy of headship as established at creation, to cover or not to cover, praying and prophesying in a public context of some sort, having one's hair long or short or shaved off, the offense to watching angels and so on and so forth.

We don't even really know how many were refusing to cover their heads or why. All that is speculative. It could be fundamentally as simple as that some did cover their heads because it was their custom to do so while others didn't see why they had to learn an alien custom.

It hits at the very root of what a woman is and what a man has been programmed to be. And when a woman reacts unfavorably as they were doing in Corinth to the responsibilities expressed in her dayof making it clear before the church and before the watching world that she understood God's pattern -- God is over Christ, Christ is over man, and man is over woman, and whether she wore something on her head or not was expressive of whether she believed that and was prepared to live it out. THAT's why it's so important, and that's why he drives it home.

Again I have to point out that there was not one uniform culture in the Corinthian church with a uniform custom about covering the head, so it ISN'T about "the responsibilities expressed in her day" at all. God's pattern was not exemplified in any one culture; Paul had to teach it to them. It was something that had to be learned, not something from their own upbringing they had suddenly decided to throw aside.

Also, I really don't think this is particularly about the WOMAN's understanding God's pattern necessarily. Paul seems to be teaching the whole church and making it the church's responsibility far more than any individual's responsibility. Does he think that a man's being UNcovered ought to reflect such a serious inner sense of his responsibilities if he thinks that's what it's about for a woman? (It also needs to be pointed out somewhere, and Pastor Begg does note this at the very beginning of his sermons, that covering the woman's head is a UNIVERSAL requirement for the human race, established at Creation, not something peculiar to the church. In fact across the world and down the ages you see it still practiced among various peoples who still retain that sense of the Creator's requirement although with many distorted understandings of it.)

It's really quite astonishing how someone will make this point so strongly about how important it was to Paul and yet turn around and pull the rug right out from under what Paul wants us to do.

Then he goes on to emphasize how some have misused verses 3 to 10 to justify male domination and how that is to be avoided, and how it should also be avoided to misuse verses 11 and 12 to set aside the previous verses.

How then does this apply to our situation today?

I think what he's referring to here is what he refers to in the opening chapter of Romans in verse 26. Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts and even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. The very nature of humanity says that it is unnatural by God's created order for women to be involved as husband and wife within a same-sex relationship.

Somehow the verses about the hair mean to him the whole passage is about masculinity and femininity. He's using all the same concepts that are in Schreiner and in MacArthur.

Now he says that thinking it's about an actual head covering is ridiculous because think of the tribes in Africa where they wear hardly anything. Well, does that situation stay the same when the gospel is taken to such people? I don't think so. As a people begins to absorb the gospel and the biblical requirements, they also start to wear more clothes, and then it is not so absurd to add a head covering to the clothing. The same kind of situation would be met among the American Indians too, where the men wear their hair very long. Again, you don't start with that sort of thing, but there's no reason not to expect that over time it would become part of the life in Christ. It's only "ridiculous" if you are thinking of laying it on them before they've even learned the gospel.

So he continues the theme, which is not at all derivable from this passage that I can see, that a woman is charged with all the responsibility for behaving in a way that demonstrates her acceptance of her feminine role.

So the principle is timeless and the instinctive element within us is timeless and the cultural accretion or application will vary.

And he goes on to elaborate his idea that it's all about "upholding distinctive elements of the difference between masculinity and femininity."

Now the reason that Paul was concerned about all of this, and the reason we should be concerned tonight, is because head coverings or the absence of head coverings sent a message.

Well, there it is again, that "message," that "signal" that was supposedly "sent" in Paul's day, that John MacArthur also treats as factual, and so did Thomas Schreiner. Funny that Pastor Begg himself noted that Jewish men covered their heads, a fact all by itself that would garble any signal that would identify men as properly and by custom supposed to uncover their heads. In some Messianic congregations today the leaders still cover their heads with a prayer shawl and the men wear yarmulkes. Perhaps he didn't get far enough to note that Roman men also at least sometimes covered their heads in worship of their gods, and he already claimed that Jewish women didn't cover or "veil" their heads in that time though in fact they did, so that they were recognizable by that practice, while Greek and Roman women were not so consistent about it and it apparently didn't have any particular meaning to them as it did in the Jewish community. There is not a lot of conclusive evidence about any of this to be found in a perusal of the internet but the fact that there was no consistent pattern IS factual, so that this idea that there was some clearcut message sent by wearing or not wearing a headcovering in Paul's day is easily disproved by a few pictures you can find on the web.

But this false idea persists and is stated over and over with a tone of authority as if it were established fact.

Who originated this false idea? Was it Thomas Schreiner in that book put out by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? Since John Piper and Wayne Grudem were the editors of that book presumably they share this notion as well. Both Alistair Begg and John MacArthur probably picked up this false idea from that book, or they all picked it up from some previous so-far-unidentified source?

So you come to the congregation and here's Fred and he's got a shawl on his head. You'd say to yourself, What in the world happened to him? ...

This whole point of view is often marked by such "humorous" absurdities, which merely serve to ridicule and trivialize the idea of a head covering and obscure the fact that the argument itself is simply wrong. Actually, come to think of it, it COULD be used to demonstrate that it's wrong, because you simply are not going to find Fred with a shawl on his head. There really is NOT a problem of confusion of the sexes in churches, even now in our unisex age, and even less so in Paul's. If someone from the androgynous culture gets saved you will find that person gradually drifting into a more sex-appropriate style over time. The culture is getting more askew, yes, but I haven't seen it in the churches so much.

But what would really make the RIGHT point is thinking about how you'd react if Fred were wearing a baseball cap on his head. THAT would lead you in the right direction.

Or you come into the context and here's a lady with her hair swingin' in the breeze instead of up in the bun. Or, it's shorn to the Sinead O Connor style and she's got nothing over her head. ...

You see, the head coverings SAID something in that culture.

I wish he wouldn't mix the hair up with the head covering now but just to respond to the hair comments, they were NOT going to find a bald woman in a congregation in those days and most likely not a woman with long loose hair either. What WAS true of that culture was that women wore their hair very long and dressed up on the head in some way, sometimes with elaborate braids with jewels woven into them (which prompted that other scripture message about not overdoing the adornments).

There is no reason to think that Paul was implying that women were cutting off their hair or letting it hang loose, none whatever. His whole point about the hair was that it demonstrated a NATURAL condition that he expected them to recognize, not defy. It's because it was so consistent that he could appeal to them to recognize that it would be a disgrace to have it otherwise.

Today, what you've got on your head says precious little of anything. I mean, we wouldn't be able to deduce anything, I don't think tonight, out of what's on your head or not.

NOR COULD THE CORINTHIANS. IF I COULD KILL JUST ONE FALSE IDEA THAT HAS DUG ITSELF IN ON THIS SUBJECT IT WOULD BE THIS NOTION THAT THERE WAS A UNIFORM PRACTICE IN CORINTH THAT "SENT A MESSAGE."

Corinth was a cosmopolitan city, a crossroads of many cultures, and the Corinthian church was made up of all those cultures, and NONE of them had the same exact practices Paul was advocating. Paul is NOT advocating any merely cultural practice at all; he is teaching a brand-new practice and going to great lengths to explain it with a number of arguments because it was NOT something familiar to ANY of them. ALL his arguments are from God's creation or God-given Nature, not ONE from any human culture. If there's one thing that ought to be recognized as out of character for Paul or the word of God in general it's any idea that we can look to fallen human culture for our standards for just about anything. For anything you find in culture that mercifully preserves the image of God and His law, you can find something else that reflects merely the defiance and disorder of the Fall.

Since this whole false idea that Paul was only concerned about the sexes preserving their distinctiveness in dress and behavior is based on the false idea that Paul is advocating a merely cultural standard in the head covering, surely that can be dropped now so that some OTHER meaning to the head covering can be sought.

Such as that Paul wanted women to COVER THEIR HEADS -- to reflect, not femininity as such, but God's ordained order of headship. And that not in some isolated pocket of time frozen back in the first century but in ALL TIMES.

It's all about the HEAD, all of it. It's not about anything else. The HEAD is the natural symbol or seat of personal authority, and covering it up is the natural symbol for subordination to another's authority. THIS is in fact the "timeless" principle in the passage, not the broad distinction between masculine and faminine preferred by Schreiner, Begg and MacArthur. The meaning of the head as Paul was at pains to get it across doesn't change with cultural fads, though the style of how you cover it may change.

...So for me to say to you is you go out and buy a bunch of shawls and pull them over your head -- what in the world would be the point of that?

Obedience perhaps? Of course "a bunch of shawls" is just a way of ridiculing and trivializing the whole idea. It's true that what sort of head covering would do the job in our time and place does need discussion, but for starters a modest cloth hat that covers the head and hair should do fine and not look outrageously out of place either. A scarf should also do fine. We don't have to get into shawls. They'd do the job too of course and maybe they would become popular, who knows.

It would miss the point that the principle is timeless, the instinctive psychological element is timeless of masculinity and femininity...

Since he keeps repeating this notion of the timeless principle I've got to say again it's the meaning of the head that's actually timeless in that passage, and there's really nothing necessarily culture-bound about putting something on or over the head. It depends on how it's done. People still wear head coverings in our day, hats and scarves and hoods and so on. Covering the head is as "timeless" as the principle of dressing in a feminine or masculine way.

Let me say this in conclusion. I believe this is remarkably appropriate for our generation. First of all in relation to the whole question of role relationships between men and women. Let the whole culture say what it likes, this is what God says. ... dress children to uphold distinction link between feminininty and submission of women Masculine women do not submit readily to men.

This may be true (but I'm sure we've all known some iron-willed very feminine women), but "masculinity" in a woman is a personality trait bred in the relationships with the parents and it isn't going to matter how you dress her, that isn't going to keep any masculine characteristics from developing if the psychological conditions are there for that to happen.

Feminine men rarely if ever express adequate headship over women.

Well, we're all fallen when we come to Christ, and have to learn many things.

But all this is only his pursuit of his completely wrong understanding of what Paul is getting at in this passage, however useful his exhortations about male and female roles vis a vis the culture may be apart from that.

The women in Corinth who prophesied without coverings...

...were probably Greek or Roman. Er, no?

...were sending a signal and they knew it. "We no longer submit to male authority." That's what they were saying and that's why it was so important.

The issue was not what was on their head.

Oh yes it was.

The issue was what they were saying by leaving it off their head.

OK, I'll repeat that there would have been many women in that church who did not come from a culture that normally wore a head covering. I would doubt that any of the Jewish women in the congregation left theirs off, as it would have been too much of an ingrained habit for them to abandon it, and they would have had family at home who would not approve.

That would not have been the case with the Greek and Roman women, however. If by leaving it off they were sending a signal of defiance to authority it would only have been because Paul had already taught them they must cover their heads. Either the teaching didn't make a lot of sense to them or they thought it was "Jewish" or they believed it conflicted with the spirit of Christ, but the point is that they didn't have a custom of their own of covering the head that would make leaving it off mean something otherwise. It MIGHT have meant "we will not submit to men," maybe because they misunderstood the idea of equality in Christ, but it might simply have meant we won't submit to a teaching that doesn't make sense to us. But we do know that by Tertullian's time some hundred-plus years later the Corinthian church was a model of good practice concerning the head coverings according to him, so they did learn from Paul's concerted effort to make it clear in 1 Cor 11 why it was necessary. Their supposed rebellion did give way, so it wasn't terribly deep.

And so we speak to a culture today where the advance of women to unbiblical positions of leadership and the absence of men from true leadership simply paves the way to chaos. I don't think it's any accident that Paul addresses the issues of feminine adornment and submission to male leadership in the same passage.

So he's continuing about the sex role confusion in our culture these days, making some good points of course but all in the service of this wrong view of what Paul is asking -- which is not "feminine adornment."

The principle is timeless, the natural instinct is timeless and the cultural expression is variable.

Therefore what should we do? We should seek to insure that in our homes and in our offices and in our church the principle that is taught from all of creation should be affirmed for the glory of God, for the glory of man and for the glory of woman. There can be no glory attached to any part of that trinity except by ruthless careful obedience to the principles of this book.

This just stuns me. He's given very good proof that a literal head covering is what Paul is calling for, he's affirmed the importance of Paul's concern and the source of it all in God and not in culture, and yet at the end it all goes down the drain as the head covering itself is denied in favor of the multitudinous ways the differences between the sexes may be expressed.

This is so sad. He ends with a prayer for obedience to the word of God, for separation from the culture, and the hope that the church may yet affect the culture toward God's standards.

But oh dear, what we really are to obey has in fact been completely overturned in this talk rather than affirmed. He's piously affirming the problem itself instead of the solution, carefully avoiding the head covering itself which the passage so clearly points to, as even he says it does.

I have no doubt that the giving up of the head covering in the churches, starting over a century ago and reaching its culmination in the 60s, is one of the reasons for the church's lack of power to affect this world exactly as he is praying we might be able to do.

What is the source of the adamant hardness of this prejudice against the simple meaning of this text, that women should cover their heads? What leads these otherwise fine men of God to embrace phony "facts" and spurious reasoning in the service of avoiding the clear solid teaching of Paul in favor of a nebulous behavioral standard? There is definitely such a prejudice against the very idea of covering the head even while he affirms this is what Paul is advocating and even as he affirms and exhorts us to all the virtues of which it was meant to be the symbol, now as well as then. The prejudice is so adamant and taken for granted it isn't even considered for a moment. Why is that? What set the minds of these leaders so against this simple concept that was accepted for nearly two millennia after Paul's exhortation up until very recently?

Rejection of the head covering has been a terrible and effective snare to the church.

Sermons and articles 2: Alistair Begg's sermons on the head covering Part 2

Thirdly, in Greek, Roman and Jewish cultures long hair that was flying loose, or disheveled hair or hair that had been severely cut off and shorn was a sign that its wearer had been set off from the community. The same thing that you had in the movie "Ryan's Daughter" if you recall it, where the woman was severely shorn of her hair because of her adultery. In Greek, Roman and Jewish culture that would have been normally the case.

Yes, that's true about the shorn hair from what I've read, certainly in Jewish culture, and pictures of Greek women at that time usually show their hair arranged up on their heads with a band holding it in place, so it seems likely that long loose hair was not acceptable for those two cultures at least and probably the Roman as well. Not sure there's any evidence that having long loose hair was a sign of being cut off from any culture, however, although shorn hair could mean that if it was because of adultery. In Greek culture it could also simply mean the woman was in mourning.

And fourthly, the word which is used here for "covering" throughout, apokalupto, is related to another word that is a much more unpronounceable word, a word which is found in Numbers chapter five and verse eighteen ... talking about a woman who is being challenged in terms of her faithfulness to her husband.

16 The priest shall bring her and make her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water... He shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the remainder of the offering.

And this word for the loosening of her hair, of allowing her hair to hang down and to fall is the word which Paul uses here throughout this section.

I'm confused. I thought he earlier said that peribolaion was used "throughout." Actually, apokalupto means to UNcover (as in "reveal" or "revelation"), not cover or covering, and the word Paul uses throughout 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (except in Verse 15) is not APOkalupto but KATAkalupto, which refers to a down-hanging covering. It COULD refer to down-hanging hair but in 1 Corinthians 11:15 Paul does not use a variation of kalupto to describe the hair at all, he uses peribolaion which can ALSO be translated "covering" but implies a wrap-around sort of covering. Again, EITHER of these words COULD be translated "veil" as well as "covering" depending on what you mean by "veil." Paul seems to have chosen to use a different word for the hair to distinguish his meaning from the covering he is advocating the woman herself put upon her head. **

Now it is for those four primary reasons that some commentators would argue that what is being referred to here is hair and nothing other than hair. That's View Number One.

OK, it doesn't hang together logically that I can see, and perhaps because it isn't his own view he isn't doing the best job of representing it, but in any case he's now going on to his own view:

View Number Two, to which I personally subscribe, is that Paul is in actual fact speaking of some kind of covering other than hair. Apart from anything else, and I have four reasons under this, but apart from anything else you've got this idea of a man being uncovered or praying uncovered. If it is hair then it's kind of like he's talking about baldy men, you know -- that if the covering that is supposed to be on a woman is her hair and that's the covering that isn't supposed to be on a man is his hair, then he's essentially supposed to be kind of bald when he prays and prophesies. It just doesn't ring for me.

Now, in favor of the view that there is some kind of covering involved here, and it's not a veil, not in terms of the Islamic faith or anything like that, but some kind of covering, we might produce this as grounds for that conclusion.

1. The verb that is translated ... "covering," which comes three times in Verses 6 and 7 and elsewhere -- that verb in comparative usage most commonly refers to an actual covering of some kind. In other words, when the word for "cover" is used other places, like in Isaiah Chapter 6 where it says of the cherubim and the seraphim that they covered their faces it is referring to an actual covering, to put something over their faces. It's not referring to letting their hair hang down over their faces, because we have no indication that cherubim actually had hair in the first place. So that's the first thing. The comparative usage of the word "covering" refers to an actual covering.

[Secondly] Philo, which is contemporary with Paul, 30 BC to AD 45, uses the same terminology to refer to the removing of a kerchief by the priest. He removes the covering. And in the literature he is referring to taking something literally off the head of the individual, a kerchief that had been draped over their head.

Thirdly, in Esther Chapter 6...verse 12, we find the same expression used as in Verse 4 [in 1 Cor 11} in relationship to this covering, and in Esther Chapter 6 you will find the account of Haman whom we are told hurried home mourning and covering his head in shame. And it is not a reference to anything that was happening with his hair. He was covering his head in shame. It was an actual literal covering, in the way that a man who is ashamed may pull his jacket over his head; in the same way that when we see people being arrested and tried in the high court often when the car pulls up they will cover themselves in shame. That is the phrase that is used in Esther 6 of the same phrase that is used here in Verse 4 and following.

And fourthly, again in contemporary literature, Plutarch, using the same exact terminology as Paul, speaks of the head being covered with part of the toga.

OK?

So, on balance, in relationship to my study at least, I've concluded that what is referred to here by Paul is a head covering of some kind. Some kind of shawl or whatever it might be. There is no indication that we should think of it in terms of a veil in the way that we have become accustomed to in terms of the Middle East.

Now maybe it's clearer what he meant earlier by "veil," apparently something that covers the face. That wouldn't have occurred to me because the word is used also for something that merely covers the head, as in the quote from Tertullian in the previous post. But that doesn't make sense of the idea that supposedly peribolaion which is used to describe the hair in Verse 10 means "veil" Well, perhaps too much has been said about this already. It doesn't make much sense no matter how you look at it but it's also not his own point of view so I'll drop it here.

As for his arguments in favor of an actual covering over the head, his observation that if hair is the covering the command for men to be uncovered then means they must get rid of their hair is a very good argument against hair as the correct interpretation. Then his four arguments from Isaiah 6 and Esther 6 and Philo and Plutarch all appear to be very solid evidence indeed for that use of the word "katakalupto" to refer to an actual covering one puts over the head, which he says is his understanding of it.

Now, the major point is clear. Namely, that women are to adorn themselves in a certain way. Right? That's his major point.

Oh I wouldn't say so. I have to say that this is LESS clear than what he's just been saying. I'd say he's done a very good job of mustering the evidence here and that it's very very clear now that Paul's major point is that women are to cover their heads. Period. The four reasons just given are the evidence he's given for that, and quite good evidence. But now instead of the clear summing up we should be getting we go from clear sharp statements about an actual headcovering to the vague and fuzzy "adorn themselves in a certain way," even using "adorn," that false word of Dr. Schreiner's that implies something for the purpose of beautification, which is not at all a part of the meaning of katakalupto.

TO BE CONTINUED.

=====================

** On reading this it occurred to me for the first time that since it most likely was the case that women in Paul's day all wore their long hair up on their heads in one form or another and never let it hang down what Paul meant by "peribolaion" might refer to that. I automatically picture long loose hair to explain the idea of a covering, no doubt because that's such a common way it is worn today, while Paul was probably picturing hair put up on the head. That doesn't suggest to me that the problem he was dealing with was women's not putting their hair up, as the theory being considered here argues, since it seems highly unlikely that Christian women would ignore such an ingrained custom if to do so would tarnish their reputation. But it does suggest that when Paul used the term peribolaion to describe the way the hair is a covering he might have been picturing the hair as put up on the head or "wrapped around" the head, as very long hair would certainly do, perhaps in long braids. That could explain why he used that particular word for "covering" here, as the other word for the added covering he used, katakalupto, suggests a down-falling covering, such as a shawl or a cloth large enough to drape over the head and hang down a ways.

Sermons and articles 2: Alistair Begg's sermons on the head covering Part 1

As I did with Thomas Schreiner's chapter on the head covering, I want to continue going through some of the anti-head covering commentators in some detail. Many of these are highly reputable evangelical and Reformed leaders whose teachings I normally appreciate greatly, but this topic seems to throw them. The next I've chosen is Alistair Begg, whose two-part sermon on the subject is available at his website, Truth for Life as downloadable audio messages under the title "Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective."

His first sermon is mostly a very good argument for taking Paul seriously and taking his meaning to be that women should cover their heads in church. About 15:00 on the audio he begins to discuss Verse 3 as most important for grasping the whole passage.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Around 36:00 he concludes that discussion:

It is impossible, loved ones, if we want to be biblical, to negate the submission of woman to man without by the same logical deductive process negating the submission of man to Christ and Christ to the Father. . . . and the reason we belabor this point is because until men and women are prepared to come to grips with Verse 3 all of this stuff about what's going on the head will be seen to be absolutely subservient to what's going on in the head. The first issue is what's going on inside your heads rather than what's going on the top of your heads and a lot of people got all messed up with what they're putting on their heads when there's a lot of air within their heads....

37:13: Well, the question is, how are we going to apply the principle. Should women, then, just grow their hair long, or is there any reason for a woman to have short hair? Should women wear veils and if so what kind of veils? I mean is it sufficient just to put one of these hankies on your head or what do you have to do? The answer to this question is largely dependent on whether Paul saw long hair as a matter of divine principle as he did the headship issue -- the headship issue, the principle itself is divine in its implications -- but did he see the long hair or the veils as a matter of divine principle, or did he see that as a cultural expression of a principle which is timeless. And it is that question with which I'll be wrestling this week and which of course you will be keenly anticipating the answer to. Next Sunday. There is no reason to rush out to buy stock in any millinery companies.

Although the logic or at least the continuity of parts of this statement isn't all that clear I think we can see some of Dr. Schreiner's argument here, so I suspect he drew from that essay. He arrives at the same conclusion Dr. Schreiner came to, in his posing of the question whether Paul is arguing for covering the head as a divine principle in itself or "as a cultural expression of a principle which is timeless." When he ends with the quip about not needing to buy stock in millinery companies there is no doubt what his answer is going to be.

In his second sermon on this topic he first makes some comments about the phrase in Verse 10, "because of the angels" and the question of whose authority it is a woman is to have on her head, the man's or her own or some combination of the two, and concludes it's probably a combination. Then he goes on to the main questions.

9:00 "What then is the covering to which Paul is referring in these verses? This has perplexed thoughtful Christians in every era."

It has? I don't think this is the case at all and I'm not sure where he got this idea. The fact appears to be that after Paul cleared up the confusion in the Corinthian church there really seems to have been no doubt in the churches, all the way down to the mid-20th century, or at least the late 19th century, as to what he required.

And, as with the case of the angel question, two views have predominated.... The first view is that the covering to which Paul refers is actually a woman's hair. ... that it has nothing to do with anything other than her hair, it is only her hair.

Tertullian, writing over 100 years after Paul's letter to the Corinthians, objects to the way the women in some of the churches of his day rely on what he considers to be far too skimpy cloth coverings, which shows at least that there was no doubt at that time that some kind of cloth covering was understood to be Paul's requirement. Much later we find Calvin stating that Paul certainly did not mean that a woman's hair was sufficient covering, so apparently that idea had come up by then, but his conclusion along with all the others was that a cloth covering was what Paul had in mind. There is really no perplexity about it to speak of until our own time.

And the concern that he is expressing here is about the way in which some women within the context of the Corinthian assembly were shaking loose their hair and allowing it to hang down their backs.

Dr. Schreiner also suggests this as one reasonable interpretation of the passage but I don't see how it's possible to get this out of the passage itself at all. In any case, if that were the meaning of the passage it's got to be pointed out that most women in today's churches who do believe that long hair is the covering are in error, because most of them wear their hair long and hanging down. One lady I talked to online about this bragged about never having cut her hair at all in fulfillment of this command so that it was long enough for her to sit on, with no hint whatever that she felt any need to wear it up for church or any reason at all.

The covering was their hair and what they were doing with their hair was expressive of a disregard for God's created order. OK? And in this view, what Paul is wanting women to do here is to operate in a seemly way by piling their hair up on top of their heads. So that their hair, which is their natural glory, having been given them for a covering, is not to be swung free ..."

Again, there is just no way I can see to get this idea out of the passage itself and unfortunately Pastor Begg doesn't offer any reasoning to support the idea. In verse 15 where Paul says that the hair is a natural covering it seems to be implied that it is a covering precisely because it IS long and free which would have it actually doing the work of covering -- of head and neck as well as the top of the head. * The Greek word "peribolaion" used here to describe the long hair means something that "wraps around." The Greek word used in all the other contexts of this passage, to refer to the covering Paul is advocating be worn over the head, is some variation of "katakalupto" which has the meaning of a "down-falling (kata) thing that covers or conceals" (kalupto), ["kata" as in "cataract" or a waterfall, "kalupto" as in "apocalypse" or uncovering or Revelation, in which "apo" is the "un" in "uncovering."]

...[not to be swung free] for that is indicative of all kinds of things in that framework that he doesn't think should be happening in the church. And therefore they should wear their hair like a bun on the top of their heads. Now for those of us who have experienced environments in which those buns are largely in view, never knowing where in the world they came from, this is where they came from. And I could take you to fellowships in Scotland, certainly, where the women would not only have hats on their head but when they take their hats off their head their hair is piled up on top of their head in a bun. ... and the reason that they do so is out of obedience to their understanding of what Paul is saying here in First Corinthians Eleven.

Is this true? He offers no evidence. It is not necessary to believe that Paul himself actually advocated wearing the hair up in that passage to conclude that it should be worn up. If women understand that Paul meant that covering the head includes concealing the glory of their long hair, the only way long hair could be completely covered would be by putting the hair up in some way under the hat or other added covering. A "bun" is a way of doing that. This seems the most likely reasoning behind the practice but since Pastor Begg gives no support for his comment there's no way to know why these Scottish women do it.

Now, in favor of the bun view, 11:30 if we might refer to it in that way, we might cite the following: 1) Paul nowhere mentions veils except in Verse 15. No matter if your translation has got 'veil' written into it, it isn't in there. The only time he uses the word for 'veil' --peribolaio is in Verse 15. 'But that if a woman has long hair it is for her glory for long hair is given to her as a veil.'

I just can't follow the logic here. The fact that the word "veil" is not used except in Verse 15 is supposed to be evidence in favor of the idea that Paul was talking about wearing the hair up in a bun? In Verse 15 in the KJV at least the hair is described as a natural or God-given "covering" --"veil" is a possible translation of "peribolaion" but not the only possibility and it isn't in the King James. Also, as he himself says later, the Greek word most often translated "veil" (kalumna) is not in this passage at all.

In any case how does calling the hair a veil here mean the hair must be worn up?

That is the only time the word 'veil' is used in the whole passage. It is translated "covering" throughout, expressive of the dilemma that has been in the minds of people throughout the generations as to what Paul is actually referring to. So, number one in favor of the bun view: Paul doesn't mention veils anywhere. So for those of us who have concluded that it is about veils it's funny that he never mentioned them.

But there is a BIG problem here. The Greek word peribolaion is only used ONCE in the passage, in Verse 15, NOT "throughout" the passage. It is ONLY used to describe the kind of covering the hair is naturally, not the covering Paul wants women to PUT on the head. And "veil" is not the one and only way to translate it into English: "Mantle" and "vestment" are used in some contexts for instance [see my research post on this part of the passage]. And in the rest of the passage Paul uses a different Greek word for the covering he has been advocating throughout, not "peribolaion" but some variation of "katakalupto" or "down-falling concealer" as I point out above. There are times when this word might also be best rendered "veil" so to insist that "veil" is simply not used in this passage except in Verse 15 and go on and claim that Paul isn't talking about a veil at all is unwarranted. "Veil" is possibly not the best translation of "katakalupto" but it wouldn't be a wrong translation. The simple "covering" probably gets the meaning across best.

"2) Veiling was not practiced as a requirement in Old Testament Israel and it is doubtful if it was required by Jews at the time of Jesus, except perhaps by the wealthy in large cities.

"Doubtful?" Tertullian, writing about the year 211, says "Among the Jews, so usual is it for their women to have the head veiled, that they may thereby be recognized." -- A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David Bercot, page 668. Is it likely that the Jewish practice had changed appreciably in the less than 200 years since the time of Jesus?

This also interestingly implies that it was NOT usual for Greek or Roman women to have the head veiled/covered or the Jewish women would not have been recognizable for that practice.

I have to conclude that Dr. Begg has been misled by some source he consulted for this sermon as there is no factual basis for what he is saying here either about how Paul isn't talking about a veil, or about how Jewish women didn't practice veiling.

Since "veil" is the English word used to translate Tertullian's writing, and he wrote in both Latin and Greek, it would be helpful to know what the original word was that he used. As noted above, "veil" may be an apt enough translation but it is probably not the only English equivalent that might be chosen, and "veil" may have problems of connotation in our day that another word might avoid. For instance, Paul doesn't seem to be saying that women need to cover their faces, only the head, and the images in the catacombs don't show the faces covered, but a "veil" often suggests that to us these days.

[About the meaning of a veil as covering the face: Clement of Alexandria, one of the early Christian fathers, DID advocate women's covering the face, arguing that beauty of face can be a snare to others [they had no ugly women in those days?], and Tertullian says something similar: In regard to Paul's "because of the angels" he says,

"What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, there is great propriety in his meaning. It is right that the face which was a snare to them should wear some mark of a humble guise and veiled beauty."

[As a side point, this is an interesting reference to Genesis 6:1-2, implying that the fall at least of some of the angels was due to their attraction to "the daughters of men"? In that case, however, shouldn't it be the still-obedient angels that watch in our churches who should be protected from such a temptation? But again, if that's the case then ALL women should ALWAYS cover their heads, not merely Christian women and not merely in worship. Perhaps the total coverage of some Muslim women protects them in ways we will only find out on Judgment Day? But this does get rather far afield from the context of 1 Corinthians 11. Though I would add that after Paul wrote on the subject Christian women also covered their heads at all times, to judge from European paintings.]

In fact the early fathers in general seem to regard modesty of women as a reason for the covering, though Paul nowhere hints at that meaning that I can see. Tertullian also says:

"Arabia's pagan females will be your judges. For they cover not only the head, but the face also" [p. 668] ]

TO BE CONTINUED

=========================
* Near the end of this discussion of Alistair Begg's sermons on this topic I began to see this in a different light. Whereas I'd been thinking of the hair as long and loose as the reason to call it a covering, I now recognize that of course women in those days didn't normally wear their hair loose at all but arranged on top of the head, often in long braids wound around the head, and this was also the norm throughout the centuries in the West down to our own modern time, when not only do we no longer cover our heads but we leave our hair loose. Realizing that women generally wore their hair up and in some sense wrapped around the head gave Paul's choice of the Greek word peribolaion in this one verse more meaning than it had had for me before, as it implies a wrapper of some sort. The other term for a covering he uses in the rest of the passage, katakalupto, implies a covering that hangs down and refers to the additional covering he is advocating, for which the natural way of wearing the hair long is meant to be an argument.

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.