Cheryl Schatz

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.