Sandra,
Welcome to my blog!

It is unfortunate that many attribute the faithfulness of women who desire to use what God has given to them as an issue of rebellion. When God’s purpose for His gifts is for the common good of the body of Christ and we deny God the opportunity to have fruit from those gifts through us, we are the ones who will stand before God and give an account of what He gave to us. When it is others who stand in the way of women using God’s gifts to them and deny God fruit from His own gifts, it is not an issue of beauty but is a rebellion on their We part towards God’s Spirit working through women. We choose to let God decide on who He wants to use. We believe that it is a fearful to hold back God’s hand and set up a human authority that stops God’s purpose through the vessels that He chooses to use.

Minister Jacky,
Welcome to my blog and I feel honored that you are following the blog! I also hope you feel welcome and comfortable here.

Kip,
I should add that people spend time discussing these things because precious Christian women have accepted blame for their own abuse by pastors who have been educated in these matters by John Piper and others who speak with authority. If one woman finds some help here and understands that she is not the source of his problem, then all of us drops in the ocean have made a small pool of comfort for one woman. I think that is worthwhile enough for the benefit of just one.

Kip,
Thanks for dropping by my “drop in the ocean”. I hope you feel very welcome here!

Lastly for tonight, I had wanted to take Mark through the issue of the head covering as a symbol of honor and ask him why if the head covering honored the man when the wife wore it, then why doesn’t it honor Christ when the man wears it? If it is a consistent symbol of honor, then one would think that wearing the “sign” that one is under the authority of their head (which is what comps have taught) then for the man to wear the symbol that he is under the authority of his head (Christ), you would think that Christ would be honored by that. But the fact is that Paul very specifically says that the man wearing the the head covering during spiritual service to God or man shames Christ. That should tell us right there that there is a huge problem with making the head covering as a sign of honor since it clearly does not honor Christ. So what does the symbol mean during spiritual service? Push comps to answer this. They must answer because the glory of Christ and shaming Christ are key to understanding the passage.

I believe that Paul is one who consistently answers his own hard passages. He has given us the answer in the second letter to the Corinthians. Our purpose is to reflect Christ. We are not to follow human traditions that distort God’s purposes. The fact is that the woman was also made to reflect Christ and so her spiritual service is not restricted but she is to fully reflect Christ in service to God and service to man. When we hold women back from using their God-given gifts and refuse to let them serve in full reflection of their glory obtained from Christ, we are forcing the head covering of shame on the ones who have been bought by Christ, cleansed of shame by Christ and empowered to fulfill their calling to reflect Christ by His work in them and His gifting them for the common good. A godly husbandly head will allow his wife to shine forth God’s glory with her God-given gifts and calling and he will not hold her back as if she belongs solely to him. She was also created for spiritual service to Christ’s spiritual body and this honors Christ.

The other issue that I was pushing Mark on was the question of whether the head covering for the woman was a symbol of honor towards the man or only shame based.

I brought out the fact that even in our day and age, the head covering for the woman is still shame based and is required to be worn so as not to expose the head hair which is considered a shame to the woman’s husband if seen in public. The head covering has no historical meaning to honor. So when Mark was trying to say that the woman wearing the head covering was honoring her husband, this has no basis in reality.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let’s say that a wife has a bad day and she is grumpy with her husband all day. Let’s say that at the end of the day she tells him that her actions have still shown him honor. He questions her in what way she has shown him honor. She says that she put on clothes that day before she went to work.

Is the wife putting on clothes a symbol of honor? It isn’t and her husband would look at her with amazement that she would even claim such a thing. The fact is that his wife appearing in public without clothes would shame him, but her wearing clothes in public is not considered an act of honor. The history of the covering is not honor based but shame based.

So while I kept on pushing Mark to answer about Christ’s shame, he kept avoiding the issue and only focused on the husband’s shame as if Christ’s shame is not important to understand. I contend that if we truly understand what shames Christ about the head covering, then we will be in a position to understand what Paul is getting at.

Paul’s point is that we want to honor our head, not shame our head. While the cultural issue of the day brought shame onto a husband if his wife’s hair was seen in public, this cultural shame has largely been discarded in “Christianized” countries. So how does a woman honor her husband in Paul’s mind? She reflects his glory. When a woman is using her gifts and serving God in prayer and serving the body in prophesying, she reflects the man’s glory as a full complement to him. What she does in ministry should be seen as a source of pride to him, not a source of shame, as she reflects her unity in humanity with the man.

I am going to go through Mark’s comments on this post and responding to them even though Mark apparently is not wanting to keep to the blog rules, I still believe that his challenges/comments deserve to be answered.

In post #177 Mark quoted me and said:

“We can’t agree here at all because my point is that the “cultural practice” of the head covering is an ungodly practice and Paul states so by saying that it shames Christ.”

Yes, for the male. Not so however for the female. The opposite is true…

Mark is here claiming that wearing the head covering for the woman does not shame Christ. This is an unwarranted assumption. The issue of shaming Christ is akin to the issue of the glory of God found in verse 7.

1 Corinthians 11:7 (NAS)
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

For the first 16 verses of 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is referencing cultural issues of shame and glory and he also lists one issue of spiritual shame and glory. Paul keys in on shame and glory for the relationship between man and Christ as well as wife and husband. His purpose is to discuss two related issues but not to set up a pattern of exclusion. For example although Paul only mentions that the man is the image and glory of God, this does not exclude the woman as being in the image and having the glory of God. We know for sure in the book of Genesis that the woman was also made in the image of God so Paul’s failure to mention this does not mean that Paul is teaching that the woman is not in the image of God. Paul’s failure to write that the woman is the glory of Christ is also not to be taken as if she is not the glory of Christ because Paul himself writes in 2 Cor. 3:18 that we are all to reflect Christ’s glory.

So what about the issue of shaming Christ? Just because Paul does not write that the woman wearing the head covering while ministering before God (praying) and ministering before the assembly (prophesying) is shaming Christ by wearing the head covering, it does not mean that there is no shame to Christ just as there is shame when the man wears this symbol. Just as we cannot assume the other things about God’s glory and God’s image, we need to be open to the fact that a woman could be shaming Christ if she wears the covering. How will we know?

The only way that we can know for sure is to investigate the cultural and/or spiritual meaning of the head covering. Once we know what this sign meant if worn during service to God or service to man, we will know whether the woman wearing her head covering during spiritual service shames Christ.

This is why I kept pushing Mark to answer the question regarding how the head covering shames Christ. Until we know why wearing a piece of cloth shames Christ, the passage is not going to be understood.

In my DVD in the section on 1 Corinthians 11, I document the meaning for the head covering during spiritual service. The meaning is humility before God because of the shame of our sin and an unworthiness to come before God with an unveiled face because of that sin. How does that shame Christ? Paul writes in 2 Corinthians that our purpose is to reflect Christ and as we come boldly before the throne of grace, we will be changed from glory to glory as we communicate with our Lord and we reflect His glory. We are able to do this because Christ has died for our sin and shame and taken that upon Himself. But if we come before God with the symbol of shame still upon us, we are acting as if Christ’s work did not fully cleanse us or make us worthy to be heirs of God and come into His presence with full confidence. The symbol of shame on our head shames Christ because it puts the shame of sin back on us instead of remaining on Christ the true shame bearer.

With this understanding of the symbol during worship that shamed Christ, can you see that the woman’s head covering which was also a symbol of her shame if worn during service to God or service to the assembly would also shame Christ? Since both men and women have had their shame born by Christ, the covering symbolizing our unworthiness and our shame must be given the same spiritual meaning.

So with my questioning of Mark, I have asked him why the head covering worn by the man shames Christ. If I would have received an answer from him, I could have tested that answer to see if the sign that shamed Christ because of the man would have also shamed Christ because of the woman. But Mark has consistently refused to answer. Why would that be? I believe it is because he has not answer. There is no other spiritual answer to the shame of Christ other than the fact that Christ wants us to reflect His glory rather than once again bear our shame when He has born our shame once and for all.

60 Kay,

You said:

Also if reading it without comp glasses on you might point out to your friend that the person aspiring to be an elder/bishop/deacon is told to manage their household and children, BUT NOT their wife/spouse.

Excellent point, Kay. A godly leader is never told to rule over or manage their lives. In fact a male leader who did that would not be a mature or godly leader as his challenge is to sacrifice for his wife’s needs and best interest not take over as her manager.

57 Craig, you asked:

So do you think 1 Tim 3 is a passage that clearly shows comps to be wrong, or one that just shows that egals could have a valid interpretation that is worth investigating.
I hope the question is clear. Thanks.

I think that 1 Timothy 3 shows clearly that complementarians have a rubber ruler as many of them have no problem with women deacons. For those who don’t accept women deacons either, they cannot explain how a prohibition for a godly work fits in the context. Paul qualified people before he every gave Timothy guidelines for looking for mature Christian leaders. Paul gave hope that all of us can desire to use our spiritual gifts to protect and nurture the congregation and that desire is not denied on the basis of gender but on the basis of immaturity and ungodly living. It would be an incentive to become mature and to live a godly life.

56 Craig,

Boy it has been a long time since I have been going through an trying to pick up comments that I need to answer on my blog. I don’t have a lot of time these days but I am mostly in doors and that is giving me the opportunity to take breaks during the day.

You said:

Craig: You may be correct, but I think the normal way of understanding “anyone” includes both men and women. The context would have to clearly indicate otherwise, and it doesn’t. I’ll check on the blog and see if there are any other arguments just from 1 Tim 3 that really favor an egal interpretation.
Thanks again everyone.

The normal interpretation would be that “anyone” refers to men or women unless there is a strong indication otherwise. And in this case it would have to be a strong indication because you can’t say that women are forbidden from desiring to be an overseer and then use a general term allowing anyone to desire that work. If there is going to be a prohibition the prohibition must be clear because disregarding God’s prohibition is a sin. Since God is very interested in exposing sin and making us fully aware what is to be avoided as a sin, then we would expect that if 1 Timothy 3:1 was the start of a universal prohibition for women, then specific language would occur that would not only disqualify women but also forbid them. The fact that there is no prohibition against women desiring to be overseers is a huge hole in comp arguments.

The next hole in the comp argument is that “women” are to be qualified too and in their qualification which is an addition, there is also a confirmation that Deacons are to be the “husband of one wife”. If Deacons have the qualification and there was listed a woman Deacon (specifically using the male grammar) then whatever “husband of one wife” should be seen to mean, it cannot mean that Paul is excluding women for if one work is qualified with the exact same qualification as another work and women are qualified to do the work of Deacon, then no one can disqualify them from desiring to do the work of an overseer.

I believe that 1 Timothy 3 greatly enhances the egalitarian argument because deacons and overseers are similarly qualified and no Scripture forbids women from doing the work of a Deacon and thus being the “husband of one wife” or faithfulness to one spouse in marriage.

Mark,
The answer to your accusations on your recent comment that is on moderation has been sent to you by email. Please check your hotmail account for my response.

Thank you Kay for that word of support. I really appreciate it.

Mark,
Concerning your second post on moderation, you are continuing to ignore my question and reinterpret it. I have asked you how the head covering shames Christ. Why did Paul insist that the man is not allowed to wear the head covering when he prays or prophesies because wearing the head covering during these activities shames Christ? I have very carefully given my exegesis and understanding of the shame of Christ. I think it has been quite clear by my answers and if anyone doesn’t understand this I am very willing to answer questions on this. But you sir have not answered the question about Christ’s shame? Why is that?

Mark,
I have you on moderation for a reason. You may not continue attacking my language as 16th century, attack my view as pig wash, characterize my right to defend my viewpoint as rhetoric and polemics and you are not allowed to misrepresent what I have said about you not engaging an argument. The only thing you got right in the last post that is on moderation is that I have concluded after asking you multiple times to give your understanding of what shames Christ about the head covering, is that you must have no answer since you continue to refuse to give an answer. Until you actually answer my questions you are proving your own inability to answer by skirting the issue and deliberately failing to answer while mocking my own exegesis which is based on both the passage and historical evidence. If you have no idea why Paul spoke about shaming Christ and you are ignorant in this matter then you need to admit that.

I also have no need to search for quotes from scholars who agree with me since the test for truth is not how many scholars are on one side or another. I am a very busy person and my time is valuable. I do not need to look for a truth test, when I believe the only truth test for an argument is whether it fits with the inspired words of Scripture. If your truth test is what scholar has written his/her view exactly as I have written it, you have the wrong test of truth.

Since you have given me no argument, I have nothing to test your view by. You have also given no reason why my view does not fit with the shame based head covering that Paul forbids and you have given not a single historical argument to back up your claim that the head covering for the woman has its roots in honor rather than shame.

I recommend that you read the rules for my blog if you would like to continue to post here. You are no longer allowed to use inflammatory words to attack my view and my personal literary style. I would also recommend that you actually read what I have written about you rather than reinterpret my words. I would like a good discussion with honest interaction where both sides give their view and defend it. You have not even tried to defend your view because you have not even tried to answer my questions and give your view.

If you follow the rules here for respectful dialog and stop with the personal attacks, I will let your future posts go through. You must also agree to either give your answer to my questions or admit that you do not have any answers. Beating around the bush and attacking my style of communication on your way around the bush is not acceptable. Is this fair enough?

Hi Mark,

Thank you for clarifying your question. Now i can see what it is you are asking.

Well, I am glad that you are roundabout admitting that you were the one that was not understanding, but will you be answering my question?

And please stop with your rhetorical hogwash, you sound like you’ve just stepped out of the 16th Century.

This is another on the list for those who use a smoke screen to try to hide the fact that they don’t have any answers but refuse to admit it. It is called Ad Hominem or against the man. It generally involves name calling and personal attacks.

Now you claim ANY head covering shames Christ, correct? Male or female it shames Christ since you base this assumption on palestianian judaism correct?

My answer is for those reading these comments because I don’t think that Mark asked this question to actually learn my answer. The head covering that is required for religious purposes for coming before God in prayer or in prophesy has the meaning of the shame of sin, humility before God for the unworthiness because of our sin. The head covering for both the man and the woman means the same thing. The fact that Paul doesn’t mention that the woman’s head covering shames Christ doesn’t mean that it doesn’t. In fact Paul is listing the honor/shame situation between the man and Christ and between the wife and her husband, not to show that the woman is less than the man as if she couldn’t shame Christ in the same way that he does, but that the woman has an option for decision making that the man does not.

The man only has one head and so removing the object of shame has no dire consequences for him. Christ comes first and since He is the Savior, the man must honor his spiritual head and thus must remove what shames Christ so that Christ gets the honor from the man’s unveiled face reflecting the glory of his spiritual head (Christ).

The woman is also the glory of God because she too is human and she too has Christ as her spiritual head. These things are understood by Christians even though Paul does not mention that Christ is her head in this passage. Every member of the Body of Christ has Christ as his/her head.

But the woman’s position is more complicated since the issue of shame pits one head (her spiritual head – Christ) against the other head (her one flesh union head – her husband). Each is shamed by the opposite thing. Christ is shamed if she wears a symbol of the shame of her sin since He died to take away that shame. But in the culture of that day if she removes her head covering, an unbelieving husband who is not understanding of the freedom that we have in Christ may divorce her for shaming him by exposing the hair of her head which was considered a shameful act.

So Paul doesn’t tell a woman in this situation what to do. He gives her freedom to make her own decision for she must also consider her husband’s feelings so that he will not divorce her. Paul doesn’t demand she cover or uncover. He makes conditional statements saying “if”… I recommend a study on this issue for those who would like to learn more about the head coverings and the issue of Christ’s shame. The 4 volume work by John Lightfoot is quite helpful in understanding the culture of that day especially surrounding the cultural meaning of the head covering in spiritual worship and service. His work was originally published in 1859 and is called “Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica”. It is still available today.

Well as i said earlier and as i quoted NT scholar David Garland, i do not think this is the case. Primarily because the text in question does not say so and it seems much more likely that given the context of Corinth, a greco-roman custom is in view.

This doesn’t answer the question at all about why the had covering shames Christ. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 11 are clear. The man must not wear the head covering when he prays or prophesies because this shames Christ. Why did Paul say that? What is it about the head covering that shames Christ. Remember that in verse 3 Paul has listed Christ as the head of the man, then Paul talks about how a man can shame his head. Go ahead, Mark, please answer the question.

Don’t forget, Mark, you were also asked to provide the historical material to prove your claim that the meaning of the woman’s head covering was one of honor rather than dishonor. I am still waiting.

So Paul says a man will shame Christ by covering his head. However shall a woman uncover her head, she will shame her husband.

Once again you are just repeating the question but not answering it. Why does Paul insist that if a man covers his head while he prays or prophecies that he will shame Christ? What is the meaning for the head covering that causes a shame to Christ? What is your answer?

You claim that a woman covering her head shames Christ, yet this puts Paul in a pickle since he affirms that not to cover shames her husband.

It doesn’t put Paul into a pickle at all. My claim is that the very same reason why Christ is shamed by the man wearing the head covering while praying or prophesying is the exact same reason why a woman wearing the head covering will shame Christ. I have given the meaning of the head covering and it is shame based. It is about our unworthiness before God and for the shame of our sin.

Paul only lists the additional shame that a woman can bring to her husband through the cultural shame related to marriage. Paul lists the additional shame because only the woman has two heads. The man only has one so he has no cultural obligation that would harm him if he ditched the head covering.

So is Paul really saying to cover to honour the husband, but yet not cover to honour Christ?

No, Paul isn’t saying that at all. He tells the congregation that the woman should be allowed to cover if there is a shame based cultural reason for her to cover. But he gives the woman the right to make the decision since a woman with a marital head who would be shamed causes a problem for a woman who wants to be free in Christ to reflect the glory of the Lord. Paul said in 2 Cor. 3:18 that we all are to be with unveiled faces, reflecting the glory of the Lord as we are transformed into his image.

2 Corinthians 3:18 (NAS)
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

But of course you already knew that didn’t you Mark if you read the links I gave. We have been down this road before and yet you still seem to feign ignorance on what I teach. Why is that Mark? Is it easier to attack and run rather than to give an answer for your own understanding of the shame issue involved with the head covering?

I could hardly think so, thus why i want you to show me other people who agree with you to help clarify your position.

My position doesn’t need to be clarified. I have gone over this many times with you and my DVDs are there to be examined for more information. In fact I put this portion up free of charge you youtube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C33wUR9zcBg

This is another smoke screen, Mark, and it is quite clear that you are never going to answer my questions are you? The answer that I have provided from the historical record and which is clearly seen in John Lightfoot’s work is that a symbol of the shame of our sin is what shames Christ. It is logical and well attested to in the historical record that lists no meaning of honor for the head covering.

I would rather understand the head covering from the greco-roman viewpoint rather than the palestianian judaistic standpoint. The text makes much more sense from within it’s own historical context rather than asserting palestinian understandings.

This adds nothing to the discussion since you provide no answer here at all. What is your answer?

One can go to the current meaning of the head covering for Muslims and see the issue of modesty/shame still exists. It isn’t rocket science. Women are not to uncover their hair because the hair represents a shameful exposing of something that is private. It is still today shame based.

Now i know we disagree, but can you now provide me with some links for your exegetical position. Thanks

I am sure you will have lots of fun reading John Lightfoot’s classical work. But you still have not answered my questions. Lots of words but no answers at all.

P.S Don’t forget that Paul told us not to get involved in useless quarrels as well. I’d rather listen to that than misapply 1 Peter 3:15 in the way you have.

More excuses why you will not answer the questions. Quite interesting how you use the Scripture this way to try to cover up the fact that you can’t answer my questions. Also interesting how I have been the one giving the answers while you give out insults. I told my husband I am certain you will never even try to answer my questions and you are going to take off soon, likely with a parting shot, calling more names and insults as you leave. That is because unless you are going to be honest and actually discuss these issues by giving answers instead of insults, the only thing you have left to do is leave. It should be very obvious to all reading this dialog that you have no answers, but you would never accept a logical and historical answer from an egalitarian because learning from a woman, especially on this blog, appears to be beneath you.

I do think that the “useless quarrels” issue is a good one to allow you to leave with some dignity. If you come back with more insults, I will just have to put you on moderation and then only I will get to read your rants and I don’t think that is what you want. I am convinced that your way of doing business with these texts is to hit with a personal attack and run and I am very concerned for this pattern that I see in you. If you are going to be any kind of a spiritual leader you will have to change your ways because Christ is not honored by insulting the flock.

Mark,

Finally, your 1 Peter 3 text if you look in the context is telling Peter’s readers (who are being persecuted and suffering) to be ready to give an answer to their hope. That is, their hope during suffering may give an opportunity to express their hope- they should be prepared for that. Unless you think i am persecuted and suffering i fail to see why you quote that at me. That’s an aside anyway.

So the moral of the 1 Peter 3 text is only give an answer to those who ask you when we are asked because of persecution and suffering? I think not. No answer is ever going to come from you is it? You run away from your obligation to provide answers for the hope that is within you to everyone (not just persecutors) who ask you for your reasons. You fail the test.

And the thing that really makes me wonder is that you are studying to become a pastor or missionary aren’t you? Are you going to take this attitude into the congregation or mission field where you go? If so, you need to think about your inability to answer and to change your ways and follow the mandate of Scripture. Who are you really trying to please? Your own agenda or your precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Mark,
You said:

Your asking me to answer or prove something i never claimed. I never claimed the head covering (of the woman) shames Christ.

I am not asking you to prove that the head covering (of the woman) shames Christ. I am asking you the reason why the head covering (of the man) shames Christ. Stop stalling and answer.

I am the one that claims that the head covering of the woman shames Christ. And how do I know that? Because I have explained what the head covering means and the head covering for the woman in the area of spirituality and sin means the EXACT same thing as the meaning for the man. It is the shame of sin. Therefore what applies to the man and his shaming his spiritual head MUST also apply to the woman shaming her spiritual head by coming before God in prayer and before the people in prophesying (representing God) that keeps a symbol of our shame. Christ died to take away our shame and our keeping a symbol of that shame, shames our shame bearer.

Now once again I ask that you provide the reason why the head covering shames Christ. Deal with the man for when we all see your reason we will know whether it also applies to the woman or not. Go ahead, my friend. Your stall tactics are so obvious that all can see. I answer questions. You do not. The question is why not? Is it because you know you have no answers and your position here is one of a mocker and not one of a truth lover? If you are a truth lover, then provide truth. Answer the question.

Mark,
You quoted me and then replied:

“So are you going to even try to answer my challenge to show why the head covering shamed Christ?”

This is incredible Cheryl. I asked the same thing in #177. Here is what i said…
“Where does he say that the WOMAN covering her head shames Christ?”

Still not answering the questions and challenges eh, Mark?

The answer to your question is that it doesn’t directly say that the woman covering her head shames Christ. The answer I have already given (if you read my links) is that the woman is the only one with TWO heads and so while Paul forbids men from wearing the covering because it shames their head (and the woman has the same head!), he moves on to the dilemma of her head covering which also shames her husband who is also her head. Paul does not need to repeat the issue about shaming her spiritual head and those who received this letter understood why the head covering shamed Christ. It is us who needs to figure that one out.

Once again, I asked you to provide the reason why the head covering shamed Christ. You seem to have a multitude of ways to avoid answering my questions. I can only assume it is because you do not want to admit that you have no answers at all.

Another misreading Cheryl, and another charge of me saying the opposite of what i actually said. Again i’ll simply assume it was another misreading of yours, but maybe not after a third time! You have one chance left 🙂

MY questions to you is a misreading of yours? That is quite novel, Mark. You should get a prize for novel ways to avoid answering my questions. Once again I ask you how the head covering shames the spiritual head (Christ). Paul said that a man who wears the head covering shame his head (Christ). Please provide your answer to why wearing a covering would possibly shame the Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyway, i’ve read through your attached links to this topic and your above comments and i’m still a little perplexed. Can you please give me a link to a commentator/paper/essay or whatever of someone who agrees in essence with your position to help me understand it better before i comment further. I need some other clarification. Thanks.

More novel ways of avoiding the questions. So now you demand to know who else agrees with my position before you will answer a Biblical challenge? Do you always avoid answering everyone in these novel ways?

1 Peter 3:15 (NAS) but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

Should we rewrite the Scripture so that there is no defense required unless the person asking you for your position can quote page number and scholars who agree with their opposing position? I have already on this blog given the names of those who support my view and it changes nothing for you. Until you can show me from the Scripture how such a challenge enables you to continue to refuse to answer questions, it would be a waste of my time.

You just are not going to answer are you? You aren’t here to answer questions as it appears you are here to attack me personally and charge me with paying too much attention to the actual inspired words of the Scriptural text. How anyone can pay too much attention to God’s word really mystifies me. I only wish you were like me and we could have a solid debate without smoke and mirrors and novel reasons for refusing to answer.

I really, really LOVE the people on my blog who have demonstrated that they love truth more than they love tradition. I encourage all to keep struggling through these difficult texts because truth is worthy of the work it takes to understand it.

2 Timothy 2:15 (NAS)
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Mark,
I am continually amazed at how you refuse to engage the challenge and yet you come back as if you can find another source of accusation against me now charging me with being “selective” in the method of exegesis. Sorry my Australian cobber, but you are still shooting blanks as is your habit.

So let’s see…you didn’t answer the challenge about how the head covering shames Christ. You also previously charged me with paying too much attention to the inspired words of Scripture. Let’s see how you model the way to follow the text. You said:

1. There are two direct imperatives in these 16 verses. One in verse 13 and one in verse 6, “Let her cover herself”. This is a command of Paul that the women SHOULD cover herself.

You not only misread the imperative but you completely bypassed a very important inspired word of Scripture. Let’s see what you missed.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (NAS) But I want you to understand …

In 1 Corinthians 11:3 who is the “you” that Paul is talking to? Let’s go back a bit further to find out.

1 Corinthians 10:14, 15 (NAS) Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.

Paul is talking to the congregation that is expected will be able to apply Biblical practices and judgment to disputable matters. Then in verse 6 Paul says:

1 Corinthians 11:6 (NAS) For if a woman does not cover her head…but if it is disgraceful for a woman…

Notice the two occurences of “if”? Both are subordinating conditional conjunctions. It may be a very small word in Greek (ei) but it is a very important word because it makes the command conditional.

Secondly who is the command made to? The woman who does not cover her head? No. It is made to the “you” that Paul is talking to. The woman is third person, the one who is going to receive something. The congregation is to pay attention to the command of Paul’s for they are not commanded to force the woman to obey their own freedom, but they are to allow her to make a decision.

1 Corinthians 11:6 (NAS) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

Paul is giving a command to the congregation. When a woman is free from the cultural practice of covering her head, she should also be free to make a decision on whether she cuts her hair short or leave it long. Paul then repeats the command giving the congregation the command to free her to continue to wear the head covering if her conscience brings her disgrace. Paul says “but if” (note again the conditional subordinating conjunction), but if she is in a position of being disgraced by the freedom to cut her hair, then she should not be bugged by your freedom. Let her cover her head until her conscience is also freed. The principle goes back to chapter 10 where our freedom is not to be used to force someone to go against their conscience. She is to be free in Christ to reflect Christ’ glory just as the men are free, but for conscience sake (her’s or her husbands) she is to be allowed to make her decision regarding her own head by taking in to consideration her own conscience and the conscience of her husband.

In 1 Cor 11:10 it literally says that she is to have authority to make her own decision, but Paul qualifies that with verse 11 that she is not independent of the man so that her actions are not to without the Christian obligation to consider one another with her decision to also consider her husband’s conscience.

So the imperative is to the congregation to allow her to make her own decision whether to wear or not to wear the head covering. It is vital that we look at the inspired words and see that Paul is commanding the congregation, not the woman. We must also see that Paul makes the command conditional. It is not a command to women to cover up. We must be fair in rightly dividing the Word of Truth and not force fit our interpretation into the text. A conditional command to the congregation simply cannot be force fit to make it a command for women to cover up.

You also said:

2. NT scholar David Garland saids the following…”Paul is not imposing Palestinian customs on the Corinthians” (1 Corinthians BECNT, 520)

I couldn’t agree more. Paul is not forcing the head covering on the Corinthians and to make the text say that requires a twisting of the Scripture.

1 Jospehus informs us that a shaved head for a woman was an acceptable practice as part of a vow service.

We don’t even need to go to Josephus for that because God had already set up a vow system where both men and women were allowed to pledge a vow to him and when the vow was complete both men and women were required by God to shave off their hair. Completing a vow is not a shameful act, but a joyful service to God.

Paul, however in these verses saids that a shaved head would be shameful for a woman. Clearly Paul does not have Palestinian Jewish customs in view.

This cannot be true. Paul is not saying that it is a shame for a woman to have a shaved head (verse 6). He is saying if if is a shame for her in this situation, then she is to be allowed to cover her head. If you continue to ignore the inspired words and don’t pay attention to them, you are certainly going to miss Paul’s point.

Also, there are no contextual markers in 1 Cor 11 to assume that Palestinian Jewsih customs are somehow involved in this Pagan gentile city under Roman rule. This is a biased assumption made on the text unwarranted. The text itself does not lead this way.

You accuse me of being biased, but your own bias appears to be coming through. Paul had just told the Corinthian congregation that thy are not to give any offense to the Jews…

1 Corinthians 10:31, 32 (NAS) Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God;

It is without a doubt that even in the pagan city of Corinth, there were Jews and since his practice was to go to the Jews first, there is no reason to believe that Jewish converts were not in the church at Corinth. Paul mentions that a woman may have her head shaved and she may be disgraced by her shaved head. The woman who would be disgraced by a shaved head and one who would need to cover her shaved head would surely be a Jewish woman who had taken a vow and then completed her vow. The disgrace of Christ by the symbol of the shame of our sin through the head covering and the shaving of the head by a woman for the purpose of a vow were related to the Jews. There is absolutely no doubt that there were Jews in this city and Paul makes mention of issues relating to the Jews. In chapter 14 Paul deals with the reference to the Jewish oral law that forbade women to speak in th assembly. With these references to the Jewish traditions, we can confidently say that Paul was having to deal with Jewish issues regarding traditions.

Therefore, it seems apparent that you Cheryl are being selective in which ‘Jewish’ texts you select to lay your foundation. I have shown that this foundation is not right, therefore what are we to make of your exegesis?

It isn’t the “Jewish texts” that are my foundation. The Scripture is my foundation. I have shown you time and time again that you disregard the inspired text and you skip over the inspired words that would contradict your view point. Why do you do that? Why do you accuse me of paying too much attention to the inspired words of Scripture and then skip over the inspired words so as to shoe horn in your own view? Once again you have been corrected.

So are you going to even try to answer my challenge to show why the head covering shamed Christ? Or are you only here to stir the waters and not learn anything yourself? I would hope that you would realize the truth of the words of God through Paul:

1 Corinthians 11:11 (NAS) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

Men also need women and you too need the gifts that God has given through even lowly women.

They are the only points i wanted to make on this subject

That does seem to be the case. You do not answer questions and you won’t allow yourself to be challenged to produce an interpretation on these hard passages of Scripture on which you know very little. Perhaps you will change your ways and actually try next time. I do hope so. It is a blessing to be challenged to give a reason for the hope that is within me. I am always willing to bow to the inspired Scriptures and will not allow any to accuse me of sin by charging me with paying too much attention to the inspired words. I think that it is a shame to even utter such an accusation.

Till next time, Mark. I am sure we will meet here again.

Thanks pinklight. I appreciate your thoughts and prayers. I believe that the prayers of God’s people have really been helping me. There is much more of a peace inside.

I may need to let others pick this up because I am back to busyness again. I can’t believe that I took a day off today. That is completely unheard of for me. But it does show that I have been listening to a special set of friends who have emailed me and encouraged me to try not to push myself too hard. Thanks guys!

Break done for now. Back to work tomorrow.

Mark,
I forgot to comment on this one:

Paul says that a woman should cover her head when she prays/prophesies.

Not true. Paul never says that she should. He allows her to stay covered under certain conditions.

To NOT do this would be shameful according to Paul, yet you wish to make us believe the opposite of what Paul states.

You have misread Paul again. Paul never said that it IS shameful for a woman to not be covered. He said IF. Do you not see the difference between the little word IF and read IS instead? It appears to me that you want us to believe the opposite of what Paul states. Also it is NEVER stated that a woman praying and prophesying without her head covering shames Christ. Never once does he say that. He said that IF it shames her husband…..but he never said that it DOES shame Christ for her to NOT wear the head covering. When you add this into the text you are twisting it. Why do you do that?

Speak soon

I am sure we will.

Mark,
You said:

You say Paul says it shameful…Paul says the opposite that a woman should wear it…

You better have another look at the inspired words, because Paul doesn’t say she “should” wear it. He says that if it is a shame, then “let her” wear it. The language is never demanding that she cover, but an allowance if there is an issue of shame involved to the wife or to the husband. Notice very carefully that Paul said “IF”… It is conditional and with an allowance.

If we cannot agree on the simple reading of the texts that i provided then we will never agree.

Then why can’t you just see the simple reading of the text instead of making Paul say that women “should” wear the veil? Why would you rush past the “if” conditional statement and change Paul’s allowance into an unconditional command for all women to veil? If you can’t see that you have missed some of the inspired text that changes the meaning when it is missed, then how will we ever have a serious debate?

Paul never saids that the head covering represents a shameful picture of sin, this is your hypothesis or historical revisionism of jewish texts.

Paul didn’t need to say it because they knew the reason for the requirement for the head covering in prayer and worship. We are the ones who need to search out the historical meaning for the head covering. How could I be guilty of revisionism of Jewish texts? The issue of the shame based meaning of the covering is not only clear in their tradition, but it is clear in Paul’s comments since he clearly states that the head covering shames Christ. He didn’t say that the head covering honors Christ. Now how are you going to explain how the head covering shames Christ? Where in the Jewish texts are you going to find a meaning for the head covering that shames Christ other than the historical one that I provided? Go ahead. I would love to see you do that.

I find it quite interesting that you are willing to ignore the historical meaning of the head covering and accuse me of noodling with history when you have no historical evidence on your side at all. You make the head covering to be honored based when it is spoken of in Jewish historical sources as shame based. Where can you find the history of the head covering as honor based? What text will you take us to? The problem as I see it is that you wish it to be honor based because it fits your interpretation. But no where do we find that as a real fact.

Think back to the garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned what did they do when God came? They covered over their shame. It was God who truly covered their shame through the blood of the animal sacrifice shed on their behalf. If they took off the animal skin that God provided for them and threw it away and put back on their human effort sewn-together fig leafs would that have shamed the one who is the symbol of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world? Our human covering symbolizes shame. There is only one covering for our shame and that is Christ. Wearing any other covering because of the shame of our sin shames Him who IS our sin and shame bearer.

I’ll sitck with the inspired scripture thanks.

It would be better if you did. You have changed the symbol of shame into a symbol of honor when the Scriptures never make it a symbol of honor. Has not your own tradition of male supremacy been exchanged for the real truth of God’s Word? It sure appears that is has to me.

One other thing, Mark. If you read through the Jewish historical literature on the issue of the woman’s head covering, you will find that her wearing the head covering is not an issue of honoring her husband. It is an issue of not dishonoring or shaming him by going without it. The head covering did not produce honor. It covered her shame. It was a fully shame based item and not in the category of honor.

What is the Christian way of honoring the head? Honor comes by reflecting the glory of the head. The woman is the glory of the husband and she is free to shine forth that glory without a symbol of shame. In the same way the Christian woman is also the glory of God and she is to shine forth that glory. We are to shine forth, not cover up.

For those reading this, here are several articles that I have written regarding the sign of shame:

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/06/17/shaming-the-head-1/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/04/paul-refutes-a-faulty-tradition/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/12/shaming-the-head-2/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/21/shaming-the-head-3/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/28/interdependence-in-the-lord/

Mark,

“We can’t agree here at all because my point is that the “cultural practice” of the head covering is an ungodly practice and Paul states so by saying that it shames Christ.”

Yes, for the male. Not so however for the female. The opposite is true…

Not true at all. The meaning of the head covering was the same. It symbolized shame of sin and humility or modesty before God (with the addition of modesty before man for the woman). It was an equally ungodly humanistic cultural practice. It was never, ever mandated for women in the Jewish congregation through a command by God. That is where I challenged you to show that it was.

“but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head UNCOVERED dishonours her head” verse 5
“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.” verse 7

Therefore the head covering of the woman is a cultural way of showing her respect for her husband.

You are forgetting something. The woman had two heads and each head is dishonored in a different way. Christ is dishonored when she covers because of shame and her husband is dishonored if she doesn’t cover. Paul never says that the woman has only one head. She has two heads that have opposing issues of shame if her one head is an unbeliever. When both were believers there shouldn’t be an issue. The Corinthian women were ones who showed their hair and showed their braids and they did not cover because they were freed from the cultural issue of shame. It was not an issue for most but just for some married women whose husbands were not enlightened to God’s freedom in Christ.

I agree, but where does Paul say it is shameful for the WOMAN to cover her head?

He doesn’t have to say that to them since they knew the culture. We are the ones who need to be enlightened as to the culture of that day. The Jewish writings of their traditions reveals their humanistic traditions.

Where does he say that the WOMAN covering her head shames Christ?

The covering of the head for the shame of sin shames Christ. This was the tradition that was being knocked down by Paul and Paul did not need to repeat the issue of the shame based head covering. The same issue that shames Christ with the man, is the exact same cause of shame for a woman. We are to come boldly before the throne, not cover up in shame as unworthy servants. Christ has made us worthy by His precious blood.

My point all along has been that the head covering of the woman is a culturally appropriate way (and indeed encouraged) of showing her respect to her head, her husband.

But her other head (Christ) deserves respect and her fleshly head needs to come to an understanding that humanistic traditions that are not based on God’s principles are fighting against the gospel that includes the one who took our sin and became our shame bearer. It is an ungodly principle to force a woman to place her fleshly head above her spiritual head by making her wear the sign of her shame.

This whole ‘practical’ concept is grounded on a theological OT principle in the creational order.

This is boldly stated by you but has no basis whatsoever in the creation account nor does wearing a head covering have anything to do with creation order. It is a shame based symbol, not a creation order based principle. There is not a single document that you can point to that makes a woman wearing a head covering as a sign that she was created second. It is shame based. Shame. Not honor.

This principle remains, where as the practice may change depending on the culture.

Women are told to honor their husbands but women are NEVER told in the Scriptures that they must show this honor by wearing a badge of shame. While they were not forbidden to wear the badge of shame because of the weakness of their husband’s ego, they were never, ever told that God requires them to wear this sign.

Do you in your congregation now stop men from entering your church with a baseball cap on?

Do you? Do you know if the baseball cap is the same thing as a shame based head covering?

Mark,
You said:

We probably actually agree that we need to distinguish between biblical priciples and cultural practices which implement the principle.

We can’t agree here at all because my point is that the “cultural practice” of the head covering is an ungodly practice and Paul states so by saying that it shames Christ. The practice of Sunday School is not ungodly nor does it shame Christ. A practice that shames Christ (an ungodly practice) cannot be implemented in the congregation to demonstrate the implementation of a godly principle.

Especially when you come out blazing in a polemical attacking mode.

You can call a challenge a “polemical attacking mode” if you want, but if you had the truth, it would seem like you would jump at the chance to prove that the head covering models a godly principle.

Mark,
You said,

It may be helpful for you to go back over the discussion before making comments which are obviously wrong. Here is what i said in #162, apparently the comment of mine you read and had to respond to…

“So to clear things up, i am not saying the head covering is the principle”

Pardon me. I did misstate that. I should have said that you are claiming that the head covering demonstrates the principle, not that it IS the principle.

But since it demonstrates the principle, it is also a requirement so that the principle is applied. How does Paul do that with the head covering? How can something that isn’t of God show a principle of God?

Mark,
The last thing you said was:

Ok i’m out…

I just don’t understand you Mark. Every time you are challenged to prove your point and you are challenged to answer the questions, you take off. Why is that? Were you thinking that you can just make a claim and not have to support it? That wouldn’t be a healthy assumption here. I think most of us are very interested in truth and supported truth claims. I for one don’t accept a claim that is unsupported and a claim that can’t take a challenge. I had hoped that you would come around to loving the challenge because it is the challenge that makes this a “serious dialog”.

Mark,
You asked:

Cheryl, do you/your church pray standing? Sitting? Eyes open? Eyes Shut? Bowing? Prostrating?

What has that got to do with the price of rice in China?

Are you/ your church a product of your culture? Does your culture define some of your ‘practice’?

It is “cultural” to have Sunday School, but it follows God’s mandate for all to be allowed to teach one another and to speak in the assembly. Not all cultural things are wrong. But when God forbids them – then they are wrong indeed! What is your point? It is you, is it not, who is making the claim the God has set out a principle of head covering. I didn’t make that claim, you did.

Like it or not, practices change from culture to culture. The issue is maintaining the principle in focus.

This is a category error. A practice is not the same thing as a principle.

A head covering in Corinth was an appropriate way to display the Biblical principle Paul lays down.

If that was so, then why did Paul forbid men to wear the head covering? If the cultural practice was the correct practice that God ordained, then why is there not an acceptance of the practice rather than Paul stating that the practice shames Christ? If this practice shamed Christ, then can it be a good “principle”? Or is it a humanistic cultural tradition that was not to come into the church?