Shaming The Head 3

Cheryl, Brava and kudos! Again you’ve shown what is tradition and what is emancipation. For the life of me I still cannot see what all the fuss is in the complementarian camp! Grudem in his extensive tome still can’t point to anything in the Tanach that mandates the subordination of women unless he manufactures it. Moore would have us all on the rack (or worse) to extract a confession and then off to the stake we’d go. I guess it’s all just more drama in church history huh? But you know what’s really disturbing? If Jesus’ work was not finished at Golgotha, and if the LORD is still thundering out of the thick darkness atop Sinai; we’re all in deep you know what.
Respectfully,
H.

The “picture” you drew was painful but true. I for one will never confess my “sin” of teaching the bible to men unless Grudem and Moore can show me from the bible where God calls it sin. Otherwise I would be guilty of saying that the Holy Spirit’s work in my life is evil and THAT I cannot do with a clear conscience.

I really do pray for these men that God will open their eyes and they will stop “burning us at the stake” with their words. Surely this must cause Jesus a great deal of pain to see his own body attacked. But as these men from CBMW continue to intensify the attack against egalitarians, I believe with all my heart that God will open the eyes of many complementarians to see what this is doing to the body of Jesus and they will be given God’s grace see the “spirit” of this hard-core view as opposing God’s sovereignty and God’s design of the universal priesthood of believers.

Well done Cheryl. Now I will have to go back and slowly analyze that section again.

Is this something new about Grudem and Moore that they are calling women who teach Scripture publically, to repent of sin? Can someone point me to where they say this?

Justa Berean,

I have to go to the obvious for an explanation on this verse. If the complimentarians are correct, why aren’t the women who hold that view covering right now in church?

This has never made sense to me. Does anyone know what their explanation is for that?

One out they have given themselves is that the woman is to do whatever the husband says. If he says he doesn’t want wife to veil, then she is off the hook. Thus, there is evidence that the husband interprets Scripture for the wife. Since the husband is the authority in the marriage he is responsible if he’s wrong. She is off the hook because she obeyed.

Course, they seldom if ever consider the Scripture about Annanias and Sapphira, which blows some of their teaching about male responsibility out of the water. Actually, it also crashes their teachings about Adam as responsible because he’s the male.

Ultimately, this is not complementary teaching, it is patriarchal or gender hierarchy. As one man just pointed out to me, complementary is a gentle term that is used by gender hierarchalists to cover up a much harsher agenda.

Lin,

I think I have the answer for you. Tonight I was watching a DVD that I had purchased from CBMW. It was a talk by Russell Moore and the DVD isn’t dated which year it was done. In the Q & A section Russell is asked about why Christian women don’t wear head coverings. He gave the answer that the covering of the head shows that one is in submission. However, he said that in our culture the headcovering no longer signifies that women are in submission to their husband so we have a new sign. Women are to have a visible sign that they are coming under the authority of their husband and that sign is the taking of his name.

The problem that Mr. Moore has in his answer is that there is nothing in historical sources that show that the head covering was a sign of submission. John Lightfoot in his commentary said that the head covering was a sign of modesty and a sign of shame but there is no evidence at all that it was a sign of submission. So Mr. Moore has his work cut out for him to try to prove that the head covering symbolized submission. I would like to see his evidence.

The second problem that he has is that CBMW says that this sign of authority (the head covering) is a sign from the creation of man and woman and if this is the case, then they have no legal reason for changing it merely because culture has changed. Do we change God’s ways merely because the world changes their ways? No, I don’t think so. Also Moore has a problem because the woman’s taking of the man’s name symbolizes that the two are now one not that the husband has authority over the woman. I guess this is the way they try to explain away the everlasting sign of the head covering, but I for one don’t buy it. Where in history do we find the head covering being explained that we can now do away with it because God has given us a new sign? How can we as humans change God’s everlasting sign? We really can’t no matter how Russell Moore tries to explain away God’s “sign”. It is only when we really understand what the head covering symbolized in the culture of the time of the New Testament (and it was never a sign of submission) can we truly understand why Christian women no longer wear the head covering. Paul’s words are very freeing for women and these words have been misunderstood for centuries.

Cheryl, You have nothing whatsoever to “repent” of with regards to teaching from the Bible. There will always be men who feel they cannot learn anything from a “woman”. They will always feel threatened that their patriarchal manhood and power are at an end. And that’s what this controversy is really all about;
power and control. Yours is the same struggle fought by Luther centuries ago, except this time it’s not the holy see in Rome, it’s the ecclesiastical protestant hierarchy. My how history repeats itself! As I’ve stated before, if the Pauline letters are to be taken as a new “Mosaic” code which must be followed to the letter, then we’re all in trouble. But if not, the church will be made richer by the contributions of brilliant and Godly women such as yourself.
Respectfully,
H.

It is interesting that the gender hierarchalists arguments have been claiming origination of so much of their ideas in the Garden of Eden and creation. Problem is that when the studious go back and look for it, it is not there — just like the story of the king with no clothes parading through the streets and his loyal subjects telling him how beautiful his (absent) clothes are.

And when those with their eyes open point out the absence, they then say we are arguing from silence.

???

Go figure.

“H” my friend, I had to chuckle with what you wrote. Yes, I have been told before by many that I am “special” but I never believed it because I am only “simple”. It was always amazing to me that others didn’t see the simplicity I saw until I pointed it out to them and then they got it (praise the Lord!) So while I was surprised that others didn’t naturally see all the simple things that I saw, I shrugged it off as one of life’s mysteries and perhaps that “common” sense must not always be as “common” as I supposed. So the chuckle I got, was that this “brilliant” woman had to look up the word obfuscation in dictionary.com. Ah, yes, I get your point! May I add that there are those who are “brilliant” in book knowledge but oh-so-muddled in their thinking ability to really understand beyond their traditional “security blanket” of male superiority (now called male “headship”). They seem to honestly be blinded regarding the transforming of the term “head” into “headship” (also known as taking authority over another human being to conform them to your own image) and how this takes away the ability for another human being to mature into the image of Christ that God has ordained for her to “grow up” into.

When I read Grudem’s books and I listen to CBMW’s tapes and DVDs on all the things that I am not allowed to do merely because I am a woman, it saps my strength and I see rules and regulations that keep women as “children”. I listen and read because I must see both sides in order to provide a proper defense, but I can only take so much at one time or I begin to feel like I am in prison, shackled and chained to the wall. There is nothing in their material that makes me see freedom in Christ for me to serve the body of Christ without forcing me to be prejudiced against men and that is so sad. I love my brothers in Christ and my gifts belong to them too.

1Co 11:7

For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

I had an insight, so want to put it here.  I think Paul is discussing a conflict a woman has in this verse that a man does not have.  Here Paul confirms that a man should not cover his head, this argument should also apply to a woman, except there is 1 more factor.  All women are made in the image of God and all believing women reveal the glory of God (2 Cor).  So she should not cover her head, just like a man.

However, a woman is ALSO the glory of the man, or a wife is the glory of her husband.  A wife is supposed to cover her head to indicate she is married, at least she is supposed to cover in public, with strange men around.  So she has a conflict, she should be cover and not cover in church, which was a semi-public gathering.

So my take is this is why Paul give her the choice, she can decide what is best, knowing the specific circumstances at any specific time.

Don,

Good thoughts.

The key to establish the meaning is to understand that glory should never be covered up.  If a person is God’s glory, then that person should shine forth the glory.  If a woman is the man’s glory, then she should shine forth his glory and not cover up.  This works well with the man being God’s glory, but a woman has two things to consider as you said.  Just as man from the beginning covered up because of his sin, men were conscious of their sin and wanted to show their awareness of their sin.  But if indeed man is really forgiven of his sins, then there is no need to cover up for sin, but shine for the glory of God.  Jesus said that a light is meant to shine in the darkness and not be covered up.  So man was meant to shine forth God’s glory and not cover up.

Women too have God’s glory but they were also seen as having something that only a husband should see – and that was her hair.  The husband wanted to keep that part of a woman private so that only he could see her glory with a full head of hair.  It appears to me that women originally were covered up as a sign of the shame of sin, but later it became a symbol of her special oneness or intimacy with her husband and he did not want to share that with the world.  In our culture the hair on one’s head is not seen as a thing that would produce men’s lust and thus women have the full privilege of showing themselves as being the glory of God and the glory of the man.  It is a wonderful thing when the man is proud of his wife and is proud to share her gifts and talents with the church rather than keeping her only for his own self.  Keeping her hidden away from the public speaks of his insecurity and perhaps his own pride which produces jealousy instead of the man glorying in his wife’s gifts.  If the woman is truly the glory of the man, then she must be released to be that glory.

Widows and girls did not need to cover their heads in public, altho they might; but a wife had to do it or could be accused of adultery.  Go figure, but it was a different culture.  Even today a woman is to cover more than a man when in public or semi-public settings in the West; just not to the extent expected back then.

Right again, Don!  A widow and a young unmarried girl did not have to worry about having a man make a claim on her hair as an object of lust.  She was able to do as she pleased.

It is kind of a shame that there was freedom for the unmarried and the loss of personal expression after marriage.  But…that was the culture.

Excellent questions LNE! Your questions deserve an in-depth answer that I think you will find has been well thought-out. I will get to it as soon as I can during this Christmas season.

Another note is that I am having to upgrade the WordPress on this blog and it is not compatible with the Theme that I have chosen so there may be some issues to work through. Hopefully things will not be “broke” but will go smoothly.

LNE,
In 1 Corinthians 11:6 there are two imperatives, with the second imperative functioning as a permission. Thus “let her cover her head” becomes a permission not a command. In Robertson’s Grammar the head covering is the permissive use of the imperative and is “probably hortatory” which is an encouragement.

Regarding the first instance of a woman cutting her hair, the imperative must be decided not on grammatical considerations but by hermeneutical considerations. In this instance Robertson’s Grammar takes it as a logical necessity such that one thing supposes the other.

What does being free from the custom of covering one’s head presuppose? I would think that it would necessitate full freedom. So freedom from one binding custom is illogical if you keep the parallel custom of not cutting one’s hair. Either you are free and show it or you are bound. So with Paul it is either bound to culture or freed from culture but not half in/or half out. But at the same time, the decision to be in or out of the cultural mandate is left up to the woman. It seems from Robertson’s grammar that Paul strongly encourages women to see the issue as one cultural mandate, not two.

However Paul never mandates the head covering for the woman. It is a concession, a permission, that allows her to cover, but does not demand it. This is in agreement with 1 Cor 11:10 where Paul says that the women herself has authority over her own head.

I will respond further in the next comment.

As far as why the head of a married woman was shameful but the head of an unmarried woman that was not covered was not shameful, Jewish tradition said that a married woman’s head hair was seen as a sexual part of her, not to be seen outside of her home. It was considered such a strict “law” that a woman could be immediately divorced if she was caught in pubic with her head hair uncovered. This was not God’s law, but it was a man-made law.

Also the quote from Wallace, it is only the one imperative that is stronger. The other imperative regarding head covering is not a command or a logical necessity.

LNE,
You also said:

what was shameful in the culture of Paul’s day, that the “covered” head of the man is long effeminate hair which Paul says is disgraceful for a man to have “down from the head”

This is impossible because of the Nazarite vow. God required a man who took a Nazarite vow to let his hair grow without cutting it until the vow was complete. God cannot say that a man with long hair who has taken a vow is a shameful thing and calling God’s rules as “effeminate” is a worldly attack on a man. God never calls long hair an effeminate thing nor can God sin by forcing a godly man who has taken a godly vow to do an ungodly thing. It just isn’t a Scriptural argument.

The thought that a woman’s hair must be kept wrapped up to be a “covering” doesn’t fit either with the Scriptures for nature cannot “teach” that it is an honor for a woman to have long hair and a dishonor for a man to have long hair. Nature teaches us that hair grows naturally on men and women until the hair is cut. God’s creation of the hair on one’s head is not different for a man and a woman in that one is naturally given short hair and one is naturally given long hair. Paul’s multiple levels of arguments are that it is not even nature that necessitates the length of one’s hair.

Lastly you said:

my question is still whether a woman is permitted to go without it, or is expressly told she must go all the way and have her head shaved

Check out the Greek carefully. There is no imperative of any sort about shaving the head. It is only conditional “if” the woman has shame if she has a shaved head, then she is permitted to wear the covering to cover her shaved, bald head.

Hopefully this has helped to answer your questions. Thanks for asking!

As far as why the head of a married woman was shameful but the head of an unmarried woman that was not covered was not shameful, Jewish tradition said that a married woman’s head hair was seen as a sexual part of her, not to be seen outside of her home. It was considered such a strict “law” that a woman could be immediately divorced if she was caught in pubic with her head hair uncovered. This was not God’s law, but it was a man-made law.

Also the quote from Wallace, it is only the one imperative that is stronger. The other imperative regarding head covering is not a command or a logical necessity.

As I meditate on this more, I find that using 2 principles have helped me.

1. Start from the more clear and let the more clear help me understand the less clear. 1 Cor 11 is in the form of a chiasm, with the center at 1 Cor 11:10, this is the crucial part of the teaching to get correct and unfortunately, many translations add words to try to make sense of what they (mis)understand to be Paul’s argument. However, in the Greek 1 Cor 11:10 is very clear, a woman can decide what to do with her “head thing” (whatever it is), but a man is not to do the “head thing,” at least in the 1st century culture at Corinth. But if you stray from these 2 conclusions, you make a hash of the teaching and all too many interpreters do just that.

2. Per Acts 21, Paul was a Torah-observant Jew and agreed to pay for 4 Nazirite vows. There is simply NO WAY Paul was going to say long hair was wrong on a man or a woman (as this could easily happen if the Nazirite vow was long enough) if you think Paul is saying long hair is wrong, it is time to restart the analysis and you are missing something. Unfortunately, short hair on men is considered natural in our culture, but actually long hair is natural on both genders, unless it is cut. So it is easy for many people to just read the text as if it was written to people in our 21st century Western culture and totally miss what is going on, it is so (apparently) “plain” to them, what is the problem? We are just “twisting” the “clear and plain meaning” if you bring up how the text would be read in the 1st century! But actually we are just “untwisting” it.

Don is correct in that the bottom line is the most important. Anything that comes before the bottom line cannot negate or contradict the conclusion. Whatever the logical reason that Paul had regarding the cutting of hair, it cannot contradict the fact that he gave women full freedom over their own heads. This means that a woman is free, and has full permission to cut her hair or not cut her hair. She also has freedom to shave her head or wear a head covering if she or her husband experiences shame by her unveiling.

We also can know for certainty that “nature” does not teach a law regarding the length of hair on a man or a woman. Both are equally given hair that grows unless you cut it. This equal natural expression of hair was given to both by God Himself. God is not shamed by a woman without hair (as the rule of the Nazarite vow shows) and God is not shamed by a man with long hair (as the rule of the Nazarite vows shows). Paul was not forcing a veil on a woman so Paul was not upholding a man-made law.

By the way, Merry Christmas everyone!

LNE,

You asked:

Is this excerpt saying that “let her have her hair cut” is therefore imperative, something a woman must do if she does not cover her head? It seems like the writer of Robertson’s Grammar is saying that both of these verbs are used imperatively, not permissively, even though imperative verbs can be used permissively in other places (but not here according to what I’m reading from the excerpt.). I may be reading this all wrong, hopefully you can straighten me out.

The best that I can say is that it is a logical imperative. This means that there is something that logically goes together the necessitates the cutting of the hair. Let’s take an example of a godly Christian woman who has no need to culturally wear the head covering. Her husband will not divorce her, as he is a Christian man. So she makes the move to freedom in Christ. She is not under a cultural obligation. It may very well be that the sign that one is not under the cultural obligation is that one removes the veil and cuts the hair. It is not one or the other, but both together that spells freedom.

We can be sure that the people of that day understood the logical nature of removing both the veil and cutting the hair.

We can also be sure that Paul gives women full rights to do what they want with their heads.

How do both of these statements go together. I can only surmise that taking off the veil but keeping the long, uncut hair, gives a mixed message. Paul was not one to promote mixed messages, thus the logical imperative for one thing that follows another. If Paul had wanted women to be punished for taking off their veils by forcing them to have their hair shaved off, then he could not have said that women have power over their own head.

Does this make sense?

LNE,
You also asked:

Also, are the verbs for “to have the hair cut off” (keiro) and “to be shaven” (xurao) nearly synonymous, as it seems from the lexicons I’m reading, or does one mean something significantly different than the other?

They are different. For example the Greek term for shave, means nothing else but shave. It has no alternate meanings. The Greek term for hair cut can mean to shear, but that term is used of animals, not people. With people, the rendering is to cut hair. Doing a Greek word search I could find no place in the New Testament where this Greek word is ever translated as “shave” when used for a human.

Also Paul uses the coordinating disjunctive conjunction (n) which expresses an alternative. If both were the same, there would be no need to join to synonyms with a disjunctive conjunction. Two options are needed.

You also said:

It is true that verse 6 is talking about the woman’s shame, but Paul does seem to be tying this to the shame of her “head” (her source, the man) from the previous verses, detailing that when a woman is uncovered, it is the same as being shaven, and she shames her head because of the “shaven head” for whatever reason.
It seems like if a woman shaves her head, she, as well as her husband at the same time, are shamed (in that cultural context).

It certainly may be that both are shamed at the same time, but that is not a given. The man’s shame is cultural thing related to infidelity. The shame for a woman having taken a Nazarite vow is not the shame of infidelity, but a personal shame of a head without hair – baldness.

You asked:

Are you then saying that Paul is telling women who don’t cover their heads to cut their hair, or merely recommending/permitting it?

There is something in that culture that has a logical connection that has nothing to do with shaming a godly woman. If what I propose is not logical, then I suggest that my reader’s give a suggestion that makes more sense. It makes sense to me, that Paul gives full freedom for women in Christ to be free from cultural traditions, but that they should not give mixed messages about whether they are free from the traditions or not.

Thoughts?

LNE,
You also asked:

The variant is in the Textus Receptus and it is the little “n” or “or” particle, which often heads up interrogative rhetorical questions. I don’t know how many manuscripts, and which ones exactly, contain the “n” particle before the “oude” in verse 14, but if that particle is well attested then it does make verse 14 in all likelihood a question, supporting the idea that man’s long hair is a shame (which seems to be the traditional view). I have heard that the “n” particle that is part of the Textus Receptus here is not well attested and does not appear in any Greek critical text. Maybe you know more about this?

I am not familiar with this, but any variant that makes nonsense out of the Scripture, would be rejected. After all, we are all aware that nature teaches no such thing. Paul was not influenced by the Holy Spirit to record nonsense. The sentence is true and makes perfect sense as a statement.

You also said:

I’m hoping to have this cleared up, because your interpretation is the only one I think I have ever heard that remains faithful to the words in the passage and appears to me to be totally logical.

Thank you! I am a huge proponent of paying close attention to the inspired words and the inspired grammar. I am not even so much of a verse by verse teacher, but a word by word teacher. I believe that any exegesis that is faithful to the Scripture will not disregard the words and grammar and will not make the Scripture to contradict itself. Paul is difficult at the best of times, but I believe that the depth that he brings in his writings is worth the effort to understand.

For me, my focus is on understanding what God said and meant so that I can believe God and follow Him. I don’t care for human tradition especially when it contradicts God’s word and makes God out to be confused, a respecter of persons, or a liar. I value truth above all, and I will allow myself to be corrected so that I can sharpen my view of the text even more.

Thanks for having patience with me. I am overwhelmed to say the least. I had hope to have my next video project done by now, but there have been some ministry issues that have taken more time and I am behind my own schedule. I will post here as much as I can and hope that what I say is of value to many.

from my understanding physin natural is the cultural tradition.

Sorry angie, I don’t understand your comment.

Sorry I’ve been gone so long.

I don’t know exactly how to understand the idea that Paul considered it a logical necessity for a woman to cut her hair if she didn’t wear a covering, unless he was trying to get women to understand that by having long hair, they were still wearing a head covering– just the natural one given by God. So, therefore, in order to truly uncover their heads they must also cut their long hair. I don’t see why Paul would be telling women to cut their hair as to not send mixed messages, but maybe that is what Paul is saying. I really just don’t know/don’t get it at the moment.

Regardless, I still think you are right. I’m convinced you are right in general on this because; (i) of the flow of the passage, especially the “if’s” used of a woman either covering or uncovering her head, (ii) Paul states that woman is man’s glory and because of this she should have authority over her head (also because of the angels), (iii) Paul tells the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether it is right for a woman to pray uncovered, (iv) (maybe) Paul telling the Corinthians that it is not a woman’s glory to have long hair, but her hair is a covering, and finally (v) Paul stating that if anyone desires to be contentious (presumable about the matter of head coverings), Paul and the Churches have no such custom.
All this, properly translated, leads me to believe that Paul is giving a woman options; that she can cover her head if it’s shameful for her to be uncovered, but she has the choice (the authority) to choose in the end, since there is no universal head covering custom in The Churches.

So I guess that about wraps it up on this one. Thanks for dialoguing with me.