Cheryl Schatz

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.