Controversy ahead. Not full-blown conspiracy stuff (another time, perhaps), just something that people tend to disagree on. My purpose is not to convict you or judge you in your present state, whatever that may be; I'm just documenting my own journey at my husband's request. Glean what you will.
In my last post, I explained how my husband Brett and I came to an understanding that the prohibition for women to speak in church is not confined to Corinthian culture 2,000 years ago. In the course of studying that admonition, we were compelled to wrestle through the idea of head coverings for women. Again, we had always viewed this as a cultural phenomenon. We had a conversation with our pastor about this some years ago, which ended with the affirmation that my hair serves as a covering. I remember saying to Brett, "If you ever decide that I should wear a head covering, I'd be willing to do that." He said, "I'll let you know." But honestly, I never saw it coming.
Consider the sentiments of the devil's advocate, in response to 1 Corinthians 11 (all verses are from the ESV). Since I began this journey already having embraced the biblical idea of a wife submitting to her husband's leadership, I'll start from that vantage point. If you're not there, just read this as someone else's story.
Verse 3:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.I can accept that.
Verse 4:
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,Sure, okay. This is the basis of the long-standing tradition we still observe today that men should remove their hats in church. It's just a matter of respect, right? Because "the head of every man is Christ" (verse 3).
Verse 5:
but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.Really?
Verse 6:
For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.So men can't wear hats in church but women have to? And short hair is bad? Must be a fashion thing. That's so first century, though.1
Verses 7–10:
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.Hold up. So men shouldn't cover their heads because they are the glory or image of God, but women SHOULD cover their heads because they're the glory of man, and because of the ANGELS? What does that even mean? And how can I explain all of this away so that it only applies to women in the first century? It couldn't possibly apply to me! I don't even own a kerchief or whatever you call it!
Some have tried to say that head coverings weren't even necessary in the first century, because verse 15 says:
...if a woman has long hair, it is her glory...her hair is given to her for a covering.
This is the position I held previously: that a woman's long hair was a sufficient covering (short hair notwithstanding, in my previous view). In light of Paul's fairly detailed explanation of the matter, he is using verse 15 to anticipate a potential argument against his point. He does this a lot in his letters. He addresses this with his counterpoint in verse 16:
If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
In other words, the authorities in the churches of God in the first century, including Paul himself, did not consider a woman's hair to be a sufficient head covering; she also needed to wear "a symbol of authority on her head" (verse 10). How do we know that this is what Paul meant, and not that a woman's hair was sufficient? Because he just spent the previous 12 verses making the case that women DO need to wear head coverings. Ben Witherington explains it succinctly: "Since woman is the glory of man and her hair is her own glory (vv. 8, 15), she must cover her head so that only God’s glory is reflected in Christian worship."2
Further, Paul used reasons that were not specific to Corinthian culture: the timeless principles of the relationship between a woman and a man (Eve was created for Adam, not the other way around), and something to do with angels. Our culture does tend to ignore biblical roles, including hair length, and we probably don't see angels everyday, but Paul's reasons for head coverings are not confined to the first century; they spill over into the Information Age (or is it the MIS-Information Age?).
Addressing the issue of angels, John Peter Lange finds it most likely that these "are regarded as being invisibly present with Christ in the assemblies of the church," and that their "displeasure would be awakened by the violation of decency" which a woman's uncovered head would constitute.3
To be clear, it's not just a wife who should have a symbol of authority on her head - a head covering - a bandana, a scarf, a hat, a bonnet, whatever. (No, not a burqa. This isn't about covering everything but your eyeballs.) Any woman, single or married, who is submitted to the Lord Jesus Christ and acknowledges her biblical role in society may wear a symbol of that authority on her head. The word often translated wife in these passages can simply be rendered woman, depending on the context.
But all the time? Remember, verse 5 specifies when "she prays or prophesies." Prayer is probably pretty straightforward; prophesying might require a definition.
Some would take the view that since we should "pray without ceasing" (1 Thes. 5:17), a woman should have her head covered at all times. Others understand this to refer to when she is praying out loud, no matter where she is. Our family has adopted the view that prayer refers to any time a formal prayer is offered, whether offered by the woman herself (spoken or otherwise) or spoken by another in her presence.
Prophesying, as John Calvin defines it, refers to "declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers,"4 and could therefore refer to something as simple as quoting Scripture. We understand prophesying to be any verbal interaction with the word of God: speaking it (as the Old Testament prophets did), quoting it, translating it, exegeting it, teaching it, or as I'm doing now with my head covered, writing about it.
By the way, the point of all of this is not to be legalistic, but to err on the side of caution if there is, in fact, an error to be made when interpreting and applying the Scripture. And the point is also not so that I can look down my nose at you, friend, if you don't happen to have your head covered. I was saved for 27 years before embracing this principle, and I hope no one thought less of me for not having done so.
Romans 14:4 says,
If sharing my testimony about this issue has been of value to you, please let me know in the comments.
1 "According to Paul, for a woman to throw off the covering was an act not of liberation but of degradation. She might as well shave her head, a sign of disgrace (Aristophanes Thesmophoriazysae 837). In doing so, she dishonors herself and her spiritual head, the man." (David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 [Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985], 529).
2 Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 237.
3 John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 Corinthians (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 226; Lowery notes, "Other (but less acceptable) explanations have been suggested for the words because of the “angels”: (a) evil angels lusted after the women in the Corinthian congregation; (b) angels are messengers, that is, pastors; (c) good angels learn from women; (d) good angels are an example of subordination; (e) good angels would be tempted by a woman’s insubordination. (David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” 529).
4 John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 355.
Further, Paul used reasons that were not specific to Corinthian culture: the timeless principles of the relationship between a woman and a man (Eve was created for Adam, not the other way around), and something to do with angels. Our culture does tend to ignore biblical roles, including hair length, and we probably don't see angels everyday, but Paul's reasons for head coverings are not confined to the first century; they spill over into the Information Age (or is it the MIS-Information Age?).
Addressing the issue of angels, John Peter Lange finds it most likely that these "are regarded as being invisibly present with Christ in the assemblies of the church," and that their "displeasure would be awakened by the violation of decency" which a woman's uncovered head would constitute.3
To be clear, it's not just a wife who should have a symbol of authority on her head - a head covering - a bandana, a scarf, a hat, a bonnet, whatever. (No, not a burqa. This isn't about covering everything but your eyeballs.) Any woman, single or married, who is submitted to the Lord Jesus Christ and acknowledges her biblical role in society may wear a symbol of that authority on her head. The word often translated wife in these passages can simply be rendered woman, depending on the context.
But all the time? Remember, verse 5 specifies when "she prays or prophesies." Prayer is probably pretty straightforward; prophesying might require a definition.
Some would take the view that since we should "pray without ceasing" (1 Thes. 5:17), a woman should have her head covered at all times. Others understand this to refer to when she is praying out loud, no matter where she is. Our family has adopted the view that prayer refers to any time a formal prayer is offered, whether offered by the woman herself (spoken or otherwise) or spoken by another in her presence.
Prophesying, as John Calvin defines it, refers to "declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers,"4 and could therefore refer to something as simple as quoting Scripture. We understand prophesying to be any verbal interaction with the word of God: speaking it (as the Old Testament prophets did), quoting it, translating it, exegeting it, teaching it, or as I'm doing now with my head covered, writing about it.
By the way, the point of all of this is not to be legalistic, but to err on the side of caution if there is, in fact, an error to be made when interpreting and applying the Scripture. And the point is also not so that I can look down my nose at you, friend, if you don't happen to have your head covered. I was saved for 27 years before embracing this principle, and I hope no one thought less of me for not having done so.
Romans 14:4 says,
Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.Or her, as the case may be.
If sharing my testimony about this issue has been of value to you, please let me know in the comments.
1 "According to Paul, for a woman to throw off the covering was an act not of liberation but of degradation. She might as well shave her head, a sign of disgrace (Aristophanes Thesmophoriazysae 837). In doing so, she dishonors herself and her spiritual head, the man." (David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 [Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985], 529).
2 Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 237.
3 John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 Corinthians (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 226; Lowery notes, "Other (but less acceptable) explanations have been suggested for the words because of the “angels”: (a) evil angels lusted after the women in the Corinthian congregation; (b) angels are messengers, that is, pastors; (c) good angels learn from women; (d) good angels are an example of subordination; (e) good angels would be tempted by a woman’s insubordination. (David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” 529).
4 John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 355.
Comments
Post a Comment