Cheryl Schatz

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.