[+Donny]

I did not at all beg the question. I quoted the passage and underlined a section wherein Paul gives the reasons for the sign of a woman having her head covered. He says, “But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 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. For (Greek: gar, meaning “because”—Paul is now giving the reason for the things he just said) man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

Let me go through this then:

3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

This serves as the foundation of what follows. The authority structure is:

God
Christ
Man
Woman

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.

Paul goes on to tie in the male headship to head covering. A man with his head covered is dishonoring his head (play on words, here, referring to Christ). A woman without her head covered also dishonors her head (again, referring to man).

6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

It seems that Paul is drawing a comparison here. If she would dishonor her head (man) by being uncovered, she should likewise dishonor her physical head and shave her hair off. I really do think the lex talionis logic seems the best way to interpret this passage, but that's not really entirely relevant to our present discussion.

Either way, right now Paul has argued this way:

There is an authority structure (God, Christ, man, woman). In order to honor that authority structure, the man must go uncovered and the woman covered, otherwise they dishonor their authorities.

7 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.

Paul continues with the same assertion, elaborating more. Man is under God in the authority structure and flows out of him, thus being His glory. Woman is under man, and is thus his glory. For some reason, this leads to the head covering concept.

8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

And now, taken in context, 8-10 is just another repeat of what Paul has been saying, approaching it from a slightly different angle. Similar to his appeal in Timothy, Paul appeals to creation. He elaborates again that just as the authority structure is God, man, woman, and glory flows the same way (woman glory of man, man glory of God), this order is kept up in creation (woman made for man, man for God). Thus, Paul is tying glory and authority structure together and showing that this inherent structure is all over the place. In all three appeals (authority, glory, and purpose of creation, though the latter two are very close), Paul goes from the order of things (God, man, woman), to head coverings.

So, what I am saying is that throughout his argument, Paul does not explain how he goes from the order of things to head coverings, but merely does. IOW, he assumes the readers simply know that a woman going unveiled would imply some sort of rebellion against the established order, and similarly with the man going veiled. The only good explanation I have heard for this has been that head coverings were worn by women in that time as a sign of submission (I have heard this in just about every commentary, with appeals to historical documents, even in ones that thought head coverings should still be worn). By not wearing one, they were implying a lack of submission to the man, implying independence and reversing the order of authority. Likewise, the man wearing a veil would imply submission to the woman, also reversing the order and dishonoring God. If we look at it this way, Paul's argument actually makes some amount of sense and we can generally follow his thinking. Why? Because the head covering in that time symbolized that. It just did. Likewise, Paul doesn't explain why a man wearing a head covering/woman not wearing a head covering implies rebellion against the established order, it just does. That seems to scream "culture" to me, something the readers at the time just plain understood.

No. It is not the case that Paul just sets up covenantal headship on his arguments from creation, nature, etc., and then bases his admonition for head coverings on that. Rather, he directly links his command for women to have their heads covered with the way God made man and woman. That is, he gives truths about God’s creation as the reasons for why women need their heads covered. (See above.)

Yes, and I apologize, I was unclear earlier in what I meant. I was saying that he doesn't simply say, "creation, therefore head covering", but "X, therefore God, man, woman, therefore head covering". That overall structure of argument is implied throughout v. 1-10, even if it isn't explicitly repeated every time.

Then I don’t really see why you brought it up.

You did, in post... 24 I think.

There simply is not nearly as much ambiguity as you seem to think there is.

Please explain Paul's argumentation, then, without appealing to culture. Go through it step by step, as he does. I have tried a number of times to understand it without an appeal to culture and just cannot do it.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

If, in fact, the ladies should not have short hair... then it stands that men should not have long hair?

It would seem that way, yes.

The "if problem" doesn't seem to be one at all, if it's only verse six that says "if", because Paul had already called a woman not having her head covered disgraceful in verse five.

1 Corinthians 11:5 (New American Standard Bible)
But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

1 Corinthians 11:5 (New King James Version)
But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

1 Corinthians 11:5 (Young's Literal Translation)
and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven

So what Paul says, even given those "if" translations, ends up looking like this:

1. If it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head (verse six in some translations).
2. It is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shaved (verse 5 in all translations).
_________________
3. Therefore, women should cover their heads.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Travis

It would seem that way, yes.

The "if problem" doesn't seem to be one at all, if it's only verse six that says "if", because Paul had already called a woman not having her head covered disgraceful in verse five.

1 Corinthians 11:5 (New American Standard Bible)
But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

1 Corinthians 11:5 (New King James Version)
But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

1 Corinthians 11:5 (Young's Literal Translation)
and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven

So what Paul says, even given those "if" translations, ends up looking like this:

1. If it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head (verse six in some translations).
2. It is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shaved (verse 5 in all translations).
_________________
3. Therefore, women should cover their heads.

My post was before you, at the same time, clearly implying superiority. Bow to the authority of my post, Travis.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Paul goes on to tie in the male headship to head covering.

Male headship is indeed tied to head covering. And since male headship is still true today, the argument would seem to still work with respect to redemptive history. You would need to show that there is something cultural about it. But of course, male headship isn’t just cultural—it is creational.

I can just concede most all of this post and not be posed any problems whatsoever. So I’ll just address the very last part, where you decided to try to introduce the relevant cultural reason for our not following this law.

Originally Posted by +Donny

So, what I am saying is that throughout his argument, Paul does not explain how he goes from the order of things to head coverings, but merely does. IOW, he assumes the readers simply know that a woman going unveiled would imply some sort of rebellion against the established order, and similarly with the man going veiled.

I’m not sure that he does assume that. He takes the time to tell them that it is disgraceful for a woman to not have her head covered, and tell them that this is based on the creational differences between men and woman.

Originally Posted by +Donny

The only good explanation I have heard for this has been that head coverings were worn by women in that time as a sign of submission (I have heard this in just about every commentary, with appeals to historical documents, even in ones that thought head coverings should still be worn). By not wearing one, they were implying a lack of submission to the man, implying independence and reversing the order of authority.

But on what basis do you believe this to only be cultural? I just do not understand how you can know that God Himself doesn’t consider it a lack of submission for a woman to have her head uncovered. The fact that their society believed this doesn’t mean that God doesn’t! That is, you’re simply giving us a non-sequitur here.

Originally Posted by +Donny

Likewise, the man wearing a veil would imply submission to the woman, also reversing the order and dishonoring God. If we look at it this way, Paul's argument actually makes some amount of sense and we can generally follow his thinking. Why? Because the head covering in that time symbolized that.

How do you know it isn’t supposed to still be symbolizing that now?

Originally Posted by +Donny

You did, in post... 24 I think.

No, I made no mention of the Greek whatsoever in post #24.

Originally Posted by +Donny

Please explain Paul's argumentation, then, without appealing to culture. Go through it step by step, as he does. I have tried a number of times to understand it without an appeal to culture and just cannot do it.

We don’t have to understand all the reasons for every command or why he said everything that he did. I may not be exactly sure why the fact that man is the head of woman requires her head to be covered, but the fact that I don’t know doesn’t mean it’s necessarily cultural and that I don’t have to follow it! It’s a very dangerous level of questioning God’s word to say that you have to understand all the reasons for a command in order for it to be applicable to you.

[+Donny]

I’m not sure that he does assume that. He takes the time to tell them that it is disgraceful for a woman to not have her head covered, and tell them that this is based on the creational differences between men and woman.

Yes, but why? There is an established order, and a woman not wearing a head covering is a rebellion against that. Why? He never says why not wearing a head covering implies a rejection of authority. It is simply implied. Yes, there is a link between male headship and head coverings, but is that link universal or cultural? Since you have offered no answer to the "why" question in terms of it being universal, and there is a valid cultural explanation, it seems that the simplest interpretation would be cultural. Otherwise we have Paul making an entirely unsupported theological claim that is never, ever spoken of in the Bible anywhere else. If it is were universal, and not proven obviously elsewhere in the Bible, it makes sense that he would have proven the premise, or at least mentioned it, instead of just implying it.

But on what basis do you believe this to only be cultural? I just do not understand how you can know that God Himself doesn’t consider it a lack of submission for a woman to have her head uncovered. The fact that their society believed this doesn’t mean that God doesn’t! That is, you’re simply giving us a non-sequitur here.

Why would God universally consider it a lack of submission for a woman to have her head uncovered? Such a thing is just not present in scripture. There is no evidence for this interpretation over and against the cultural one, so why should I believe it?
Ultimately, I never claimed that because their culture thought it, God doesn't. My argument is that the simplest, most obvious explanation for the "why?" of Paul's argument is that culture. In fact, it's the only explanation I have heard. That is established. Now, does that mean it is not universal? No, but I see no evidence at all in favor of a universal interpretation, so I ask you: why should one interpret the "why?" of Paul's argument universally in addition to culturally? What evidence have you?

How do you know it isn’t supposed to still be symbolizing that now?

I don't believe the burden of proof is on me to prove a negative in this case.

No, I made no mention of the Greek whatsoever in post #24.

You appealed to the passage. I said it was ambiguous, clarifying later that it was because of the diversity of commentaries I had read. Thus, I am saying that you shouldn't appeal to the passage in such a cut and dry manner, due to the diversity of opinions on it.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by +Donny

I don't believe the burden of proof is on me to prove a negative in this case.

Actually, I would argue that it is.

As I said previously (in an other thread, but it is quoted in the first post in this thread):

"When we have commands found in Scripture, surely we are going to have to presume that they are binding upon us unless we have reason to believe otherwise. This simply because God is the sovereign law-giver, and we do not have the right to disregard anything He has said. Now, if we are going to take something as being a particular cultural application which no longer applies to us, surely the burden of proof will be on the one making that claim."

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Travis

Actually, I would argue that it is.

As I said previously (in an other thread, but it is quoted in the first post in this thread):

"When we have commands found in Scripture, surely we are going to have to presume that they are binding upon us unless we have reason to believe otherwise. This simply because God is the sovereign law-giver, and we do not have the right to disregard anything He has said. Now, if we are going to take something as being a particular cultural application which no longer applies to us, surely the burden of proof will be on the one making that claim."

Even assuming that, I do have reason to believe it isn't binding, because the simplest explanation is the cultural one. If the command were universal, you would expect Paul to at least mention or address the "why?" question. If it were universal, you would expect it to be mentioned elsewhere in scripture, even if Paul doesn't mention it when dealing with the subject. The cultural explanation makes sense of Paul's argument and explains it fairly well. The universal explanation isn't an explanation at all; it's simply a denial. No, I cannot deductively prove that it is not universal, but given absolutely no evidence in Scripture to the contrary and the evidence for an alternative (no, not mutually exclusive, but alternative) explanation, I fail to see any reason to take it universally, and given the absense of any elaboration on the universal nature of Paul's implied premise (along with the fact that it is simply implied), I think I have evidence enough to think it is not universal.



Furthermore, I object to your burden of proof. The quote you offered merely asserts its case, it doesn't prove it. Why does God being the law given mean we should assume scriptural commands to be universal? Considering them cultural is not disregarding them, so I fail to see your argument.

[Godreignsoveral]

Concerning, if women long hair, then men short hair...

Originally Posted by Travis

It would seem that way, yes.

And this is from creation truth applicable to all times... then why does the Nazarite vow seek to have men live contrary to this all-times truth? Or what of the Lord giving Samson his strength in his long hair? Why would he do that if it's so dogmatically wrong?

Mark

[swordfish7]

Questions for the “headcoverings are optional and merely cultural” group:

• Does not Paul say that this practice of head covering for women during prayer and prophesy is uniformly practiced in all churches and in all cultures (the one and only practice regarding headcoverings -- 1 Cor. 11:16)?

• How can it be “cultural” if all cultures in all nations conformed to the practice?

• Does not Paul say he is the one who ordered all the churches to implement head coverings? (1 Cor. 11:2)

• How can it be “cultural” if Paul is the one who commanded it?

• Does not Paul say a major reason for using head coverings is for the sake of the angels--are angels merely culural? (1 Cor. 11:10)

• If it is just a “cultural” matter, why does Paul even care--he never cared about enforcing cultural norms before or since, Paul disliked imposing culture and traditions (like circumcision) on the church--so why would he care?

[+Donny]

Does not Paul say that this practice of head covering for women during prayer and prophesy is uniformly practiced in all churches and in all cultures (the one and only practice regarding headcoverings -- 1 Cor. 11:16)?

How can it be “cultural” if all cultures in all nations conformed to the practice?

Possibly, but that's how widespread the cultural implications of head coverings were back then.

Does not Paul say he is the one who ordered all the churches to implement head coverings? (1 Cor. 11:2)?

That's a stretch.

How can it be “cultural” if Paul is the one who commanded it?

Because scripture wasn't written by God in a vacuum, but by men in time, in history, and in culture.

If it is just a “cultural” matter, why does Paul even care--he never cared about enforcing cultural norms before or since, Paul disliked imposing culture and traditions (like circumcision) on the church--so why would he care?

That's not true. To the Jew, he acted like a Jew. To the Gentile, he acted like a Gentile. Paul constantly obeyed cultural norms (was it Timothy he had circumcised?) and called on others to do so. Food sacrificed to idols and other such things comes to mind, as well.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

And this is from creation truth applicable to all times... then why does the Nazarite vow seek to have men live contrary to this all-times truth? Or what of the Lord giving Samson his strength in his long hair? Why would he do that if it's so dogmatically wrong?

Ah! Nice point.

Okay, I have been arguing thus far that the command isn't cultural because I could not see a decent argument for that claim. But at this point, I think Donny's arguments, while not deductively valid, provide a fairly good abductive argument for this command being cultural. And Godreignsoveral's reductio from the Nazarite vow is pretty good. So at this point, I will concede that this command for head coverings does indeed appear cultural.

[+Donny]

I appreciate your willingness to concede and the fact that you did so well arguing the other side. You are the first person I have read that really gave a good, logical challenge to the claim that this is cultural, so forcing me to yet again look this stupid passage up was really helpful.

This was probably one of the more fruitful threads I have participated in in theology for a while. Thanks.



BTW, what does abductive mean?

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Travis

Ah! Nice point.

Okay, I have been arguing thus far that the command isn't cultural because I could not see a decent argument for that claim. But at this point, I think Donny's arguments, while not deductively valid, provide a fairly good abductive argument for this command being cultural. And Godreignsoveral's reductio from the Nazarite vow is pretty good. So at this point, I will concede that this command for head coverings does indeed appear cultural.

Here, here. As always, I completely enjoy watching and sometimes interacting with your comments in these threads. You're thorough and challenging and, though sometimes bluntly harsh, it seems you're always fair. Very clearly I see that from the end of this thread. Thanks for this. As always though, if new evidence comes to the table, I'm certainly willing to reconcider too.

PS: I know this comment probably doesn't belong in Theology, but I'm so excited. I just finished training for a new section in my work and can look forward to working less hours for more money on it! Woohoo! What a blessing, mighty blessing God we serve. Isn't it just great when He gives us little extras we don't need... just for the sake of being a Giving, Gracious God? *super grinning*

Mark

[Travis]

Originally Posted by +Donny

BTW, what does abductive mean?

To put it simplisticly, an abductive argument is an inference to the best explanation or hypothesis we can find.

[Coyoteyip]

She asks me why, I'm just a hairy guy.
I'm hairy noon and night, hair that's a fright.
I'm hairy high and low, don't ask me why, don't know.
It's not for lack of bread, like the Greadful Death.
Darlin'

Give me a head with hair, long beautiful hair.
Shining, gleaming, streaming, flaxen, waxen.
Give me down to there hair, shoulder lenght or longer
Here baby, there, momma, ev'rywhere, daddy, daddy.

hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Hair, hair, hair.Flow it, show it,long as God can grow it, my
hair.

Let it fly in the breeze and get caught in the trees,give a home
to the fleas in my hair.
A home for fleas (yeah) a hive for bees (yeah),
a nest for birds, there ain't no words for the beauty, the
splendor, the wonder of my:

Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Hair, hair, hair
Flow it, show it,long as God can grow it, my hair

I want long, straigth, curly, fuzzy, snaggy, shaggy, ratty,
matty,
oily, greasy, fleecy, shining, gleaming, streaming, flaxen,
waxen,
knotted, polka dotted, twisted, beaded, braided,
powered, flowered and confettied, bangled, tangled, spangled and
spahettied.

Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Hair, hair, hair.Flow it, show it,
long as God can grow it, my hair

They'll be ga-ga at the go-go when they see me in my toga,
my toga meade of blond, brilliantined, biblical hair.
My hair like Jesus wore it, Halleluja I adore it, Halleluja Mary
loved her son,why don't my mother love me?

Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Hair, hair, hair
Flow it, show it
long as God can grow it, my hair

Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Hair, hair, hair
Flow it, show it
long as God can grow it, my hair

[IMG]