# Greek and Head Coverings



## CharlieJ (Feb 27, 2009)

lynnie said:


> The only reason people are arguing is because they are speaking English.
> 
> Please look at an interlinear greek. The verb for headcoverings being handed down, and communion being handed down, is THE SAME VERB.
> 
> ...



I copied this here to avoid further broadening the other thread. Since few Christians really know Greek well, it is important that misconceptions of Greek are challenged. Lynnie, I do not know if you read Greek, but your statement is erroneous. I'm not saying your theology is wrong, only your argument from the Greek text. Please allow me to explain below.

First, a bit of a resume from me, since it is reasonable for someone to be skeptical of my assertion. I minored in Greek in college, pushing myself beyond the program. By the time I finished undergrad, I had 15 credits of graduate level advanced Greek. I could have stayed on at the University teaching beginning Greek, but I chose not to. During my studies, I had a class in which I translated and exegeted the entire book of 1 Corinthians. I have discussed this particular passage at length with the Greek departments of several different schools. I have continued to teach myself Greek, reading several Greek grammars cover to cover and translating around 2 chapters per day. I also tutor Greek for ministerial students. I have branched out some to study the Greek of the Apostolic Fathers and early Christian writings, as well as the morphology and pronunciation of the Koine period. 

If you will excuse that digression, I'll address the issue you raised, then add a little bit of my own analysis. You spoke about two nouns in the passage. I will examine those. The first is εξουσιαν, translated "power" (KJV) in v. 10. The word generally means authority or ruling power, and whatever it means here must be determined by context. There is no parallel usage of this word for comparison. It does not mean "hat" or "shawl" or "hair" or any particular object. So, in brief, this cannot possibly tell us what the covering is, only that it is related to authority.

The second word is περιβολαιου, translated "covering" in v.15. What is interesting about this word is that it usually refers to a piece of clothing, like a cloak (LXX - Ex. 22:7; Deut. 22:12; Ps.102:26). Since περιβολαιου is the object of the preposition αντι, often meaning "instead of" or "in the place of", those who assert that hair is the equivalent of a cloth covering are doing so by making an exegetical argument from the passage. They are not simply ignoring the text or ignorant of Greek. 

There is actually a third term for the covering. It is the prepositional phrase κατα κεφαλης in v.4, literally "down from the head." This verse is rendered quite loosely into English (for good reason), but literally would read, "Every man praying or prophesying having down from the head dishonors his head." The object of "having" is unstated, but "down from the head" describes where it is. This does not bode well for hats, which usually sit on top of (επι) the head. 

The verbs used for "cover" throughout the passage are various inflected forms of κατακαλυπτω. This verb is well translated by "cover" and is used in various contexts. Some have no reference to clothing, such as fat covering organs (Ex. 29:22) or the waters covering the sea (Is. 11:9). However, in the two passages in the Septuagint where a piece of clothing is in view, it is in both cases a veil (Gen 38:15; Susanna 32) covering the face. The Greek lexicon BAGD also indicates that in the middle voice (the form in which the 1 Cor. 11 verbs occur), the prevalent secular usage meant to put on a veil which covered the whole face. In other words, a "hat" is not in view. It is the top and front of the head, the face, that is covered. 

The adjective translated "uncovered" is ακατακαλυπτος. This is a very rare word, but its single use in the Septuagint of Lev. 13:45 is extremely enlightening. The ESV reads "let the hair of his head hang loose." However, the Greek text would read, if woodenly translated, "His head [will be] uncovered (ακατακαλυπτος)." Here, the word head is used to mean hair of the head. Hebrew does this too, and the Greek is actually following the Hebrew literally. So, the phrase "head uncovered" can actually mean "having the hair unkempt" or something very similar. 

------------------------
It seems to me, reading with my Greek eyes, that there are two possible interpretations of the covering. First, if it is an actual piece of cloth, it is NOT a hat. It is a veil, and the purpose is to cover the face. For some reason, in English, we associate "head" more with the back then the front, but the usage of the verb in the Koine and earlier periods unambiguously points to the face. 

Or, it is possible to see the covering as decently ordered hair and the uncovering as indecently exposed or inappropriate hair. Just to give a cultural reference, in the movie _Loving Leah_, the Orthodox Jewess has beautiful long, red hair. However, she puts it up into something like a bun and wears a wig that is barely shoulder length. She explains that only her husband should see and desire the beauty of her hair. 

And, as a confession, I did not always hold this opinion. I was pro hats in college and argued with several Greek professors about it. I didn't change my mind until studying the issue again after college.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 27, 2009)

Thank you for the tone of the OP! It was easy to read _and_ respectful.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 27, 2009)

Great exegesis, Charlie. There nothing I could add sitting here at work. Now, when I get home . . . nah, good job.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 27, 2009)

Charlie, you told LadyFlynt she was incorrect, but you quoted Lynnie. Did you mean Lynnie?


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 27, 2009)

turmeric said:


> Charlie, you told LadyFlynt she was incorrect, but you quoted Lynnie. Did you mean Lynnie?



Great apologies. I will edit. Somewhere between my lexicons I got the name wrong. Duh! Way to keep me humble


----------



## Scottish Lass (Feb 27, 2009)

Not quibbling with the Greek at all, but I don't know any current women who cover who wear hats. Most of us wear some version of a scarf, and many cover their hair completely.


----------



## Knoxienne (Feb 27, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> Not quibbling with the Greek at all, but I don't know any current women who cover who wear hats. Most of us wear some version of a scarf, and many cover their hair completely.



I wear my hair in a bun with a snood and a hat over that. That way it's all covered for services.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 27, 2009)

> Not quibbling with the Greek at all, but I don't know any current women who cover who wear hats. Most of us wear some version of a scarf, and many cover their hair completely.



Most in the Dutch tradition wear hats.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Feb 27, 2009)

Knoxienne,
And I have no problem with that. Charlie's treatment seemed to address only hats, however.


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 27, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> Knoxienne,
> And I have no problem with that. Charlie's treatment seemed to address only hats, however.



According to my reading of the passage, if the covering is some kind of clothing, it is designed to cover the top of the head and the face. In other words, a hair covering is not the intention of the passage. All the biblical usages (Septuagint) and the prevailing secular usage points to that. There may be other evidence that I don't have access to, and if that is the case, I would revise my statement.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 27, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> According to my reading of the passage, if the covering is some kind of clothing, it is designed to cover the top of the head and the face. In other words, a hair covering is not the intention of the passage.



However, church history and practice has never backed this view (covering the face).


----------



## Kevin (Feb 27, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> Not quibbling with the Greek at all, but I don't know any current women who cover who wear hats. Most of us wear some version of a scarf, and many cover their hair completely.



I have only ever seen the hat version. I saw one lady at an ARP church with a scarf on & assumed that she was a muslim seeker.


----------



## Augusta (Feb 27, 2009)

Charlie, doesn't the "sign of power" on her head give the impression that it is the sign that is important and not what it is? Many times in scripture it is the thing signified which is important, and not so much what is used. Like for instance baptism, it is a washing, but can be pouring, dunking, or sprinkling. The water, however, must be present. Or with communion, you must have bread, not really a specific kind, and there must be wine, but not necessarily a Merlot, and even grape juice is allowable according to some.

I can see veiling possibly being necessary, I think of the seraphim in Isa. 6 who covered their face. Also, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries women wore veils coming down from their hats. In light of your stating that it is the top of the head and face that seem to be important from the text, this does not rule out hats per se. Just because back then most covering were with cloth does not mean that a cloth hat is out of bounds. Hats are wool cloth and even rattan is a shaped cloth though not the same type.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 27, 2009)

CharlieJ, I found your post interesting. Perhaps I'm being dim, but I'm not sure what you are concluding. Based on your analysis, the proper modern application of this passage should be ....


----------



## Knoxienne (Feb 27, 2009)

Kevin said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > Not quibbling with the Greek at all, but I don't know any current women who cover who wear hats. Most of us wear some version of a scarf, and many cover their hair completely.
> ...



Another reason for my many hats!


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 27, 2009)

Augusta said:


> Charlie, doesn't the "sign of power" on her head give the impression that it is the sign that is important and not what it is?



Well, the word "sign" isn't in there. The text literally reads that the woman should have "authority" on her head. Translations beyond that are conjectures as to the intention, as even the BAGD Greek lexicon admits. For what it's worth, I think "sign of authority" is as good a guess as any other. I'm not sure how that affects the broader interpretation.



> I can see veiling possibly being necessary, I think of the seraphim in Isa. 6 who covered their face.



I think this passage, along with Moses' veil (Ex. 34; 2 Cor. 3) lend credence to the idea that God is concerned about the front, not the back, of the head. I am not aware of any place in Scripture where a woman covers the back of her head (though it may be in there; its a big book).



> Also, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries women wore veils coming down from their hats. In light of your stating that it is the top of the head and face that seem to be important from the text, this does not rule out hats per se. Just because back then most covering were with cloth does not mean that a cloth hat is out of bounds. Hats are wool cloth and even rattan is a shaped cloth though not the same type.



Yes, you're right. I should have spoken more carefully. A hat with a front veil would be considered a "down from the head." A hat which just sits on top would not.

-----Added 2/27/2009 at 01:53:03 EST-----



jwithnell said:


> CharlieJ, I found your post interesting. Perhaps I'm being dim, but I'm not sure what you are concluding. Based on your analysis, the proper modern application of this passage should be ....



I'm not entirely sure. My purpose was to show that the Greek is not a magic bullet that solves the exegesis of the passage. It is important to give weight to both grammatical and historical features. Also, several people have raised broader theological concerns (creation, OT law, etc.) that are relevant. There are really multiple views and subviews on the teaching of this verse. So, I'm not willing to specify any more than in my original post. This is, after all, the languages forum.


----------



## Augusta (Feb 27, 2009)

Thank you Charlie, I am out of thank you's.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 27, 2009)

Thank you for your time and imput, I really do appreciate it. 

I did not refer to the noun you mentioned in paragraph 3.

You said "The second word is περιβολαιου, translated "covering" in v.15. What is interesting about this word is that it usually refers to a piece of clothing, like a cloak (LXX - Ex. 22:7; Deut. 22:12; Ps.102:26). Since περιβολαιου is the object of the preposition αντι, often meaning "instead of" or "in the place of", those who assert that hair is the equivalent of a cloth covering are doing so by making an exegetical argument from the passage. They are not simply ignoring the text or ignorant of Greek."

Piper/Grudems's Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Ch 5 ( Thomas Schreiner) pages 126-137, long exegesis on 1 Cor 11 with Greek.

Page 126: Indeed if all Paul has been requiring is long hair, then his explanation of the situation in verses 4-6 is awkward and even misleading. Verse 15 can be explained in such a way that Paul is not rejecting his earlier call for a shawl. The word _for _( _anti_) in verse 15 probably indicates not substitution but equivalence. In other words, Paul is not saying that a woman has been given long hair _instead_ of a covering. Rather he is saying that a woman has been given long hair _as_ a covering. His point seems to be that a woman's long hair is an indication that she needs to wear a covering" ( italics in text).

This is only one little snip from a much longer treatment loaded with Greek in Piper/Grudem's book. I include it to show that not all Greek scholars treat the preposition and passage the same way you do. I DO appreciate you taking time to write your post, but I am not convinced. 

I take it we all looked at our interlinears, that Paul uses the exact same verb in verses 2 & 23 for handing down headcoverings and communion? So whatever that headcovering is, it is given to the church the same way communion is?

Thanks again for your time and imput.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 27, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > According to my reading of the passage, if the covering is some kind of clothing, it is designed to cover the top of the head and the face. In other words, a hair covering is not the intention of the passage.
> ...



You're forgetting that Moses is a part of our history


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 27, 2009)

Archlute said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > CharlieJ said:
> ...



If you read the passage, you will find that he covered his face because of the glow from being "face to face" with Gd. He covered his face from the people. Entirely different scenario.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 27, 2009)

That was really wonderful! I use to believe that it was the hair past the neck of which Paul spoke, before turning to the thinking that he was using it as an example. However, I could be persuaded with more discussion to once again think it is the hair which would come down past the neck. I am glad to see a well thought out and accurately interpreted account of this text. Thanks for your work!


----------



## Skyler (Feb 27, 2009)

Again... if it's hair he's talking about, why does he recommend shearing short hair rather than allowing it to grow back?


----------



## Archlute (Feb 27, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > LadyFlynt said:
> ...




It's interesting that in 2 Cor. 3 Paul makes the connection between Moses and believers regarding their being transformed from glory unto glory, which seems to him not to have been an entirely different scenario, although a biblicistic reading of those two seemingly separate texts might find a way to rule that out . You should have noticed by the smiley that I was making a statement in a chiding and friendly manner, and not attempting an argument. 

However, since you would argue, I should note that what I always find more interesting here is that some of the women who become so adamant on this issue seem to miss the point being made altogether. The veil (which for other good linguistic reasons not yet mentioned here I take to be the dear lady's hair) is a sign of submission and humility not merely to the husband, but also before the church and the holy angels, and yet here on the PB we regularly have women who would seek to hammer the issue, lecturing and usurping other men of the church! How ironic is that?!? Or, how inconsistent, rather. I should think that they should go home and discuss these things with their husbands, rather than make a scene of themselves on the internet. Pronouncements do not seem to me to be very fitting from you in light of the seriousness by which you would seek to take the scriptures.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 27, 2009)

''yet here on the PB we regularly have women who would seek to hammer the issue, lecturing and usurping other men of the church!.......make a scene of themselves on the internet."

"Pronouncements do not seem to me to be very fitting from you in light of the seriousness by which you would seek to take the scriptures." 


This criticism of LF's heart and motivations is enough to make me sick 

I thank God for women like Lady Flynt who want to encourage other women to obey the word, study the Word, and let their thoughts be full of God's Word. 

Guess what...there are some women out there who are actually smarter in theology than many men. Submission is not about brains or ability, it is about God's created order. And last time I looked the internet was neither a church or a marriage. It is a place where brothers and sisters as family interact to challenge and edify one another. Thank God for women like Lady Flynt who are not watching the latest Beth Moore DVD, but trying to dig deep into Reformed doctrine.


----------



## MW (Feb 27, 2009)

lynnie said:


> And last time I looked the internet was neither a church or a marriage.



That is worthwhile remembering. If men interact on a board where women are freely permitted to discuss matters then they really shouldn't ask them to learn at home as if they are not welcome in the discussion. But the daughters of Sarah should also seek to reflect the created order which exists in marriage and the church when they are participating in discussions on the internet, and exhibit the same meek and quiet spirit which is in the sight of God of great price.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 27, 2009)

Deleted.

Thank you to the others that responded on my behalf.


On the question of my integrity, as I've stated before, my husband is fully aware of everything I participate in, encouraged my joining of the PB years ago, and we discuss the threads here.


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 27, 2009)




----------



## Mark Hettler (Feb 27, 2009)

Archlute said:


> However, since you would argue, I should note that what I always find more interesting here is that some of the women who become so adamant on this issue seem to miss the point being made altogether. The veil (which for other good linguistic reasons not yet mentioned here I take to be the dear lady's hair) is a sign of submission and humility not merely to the husband, but also before the church and the holy angels, and yet here on the PB we regularly have women who would seek to hammer the issue, lecturing and usurping other men of the church! How ironic is that?!? Or, how inconsistent, rather. I should think that they should go home and discuss these things with their husbands, rather than make a scene of themselves on the internet. Pronouncements do not seem to me to be very fitting from you in light of the seriousness by which you would seek to take the scriptures.



I am Lynnie's husband. I want to say that the first thing she did, years ago, when she began considering what the Bible has to say on this subject, was to "go home and discuss these things with her husband." And I consider the insuation that she did anything contrary to that to be slander. I can also assure you that she is not here to "lecture" anyone but simply participate in intelligent discussion of what the Bible says.

Most of her insights on what the Greek says on this subject, we worked through together. I am not a Greek scholar either, but having an M.Div. from Westminster, I think it's fair to say I know good Greek scholarship when I see it. When the subject first came up in our home, I went to the Westminster Seminary library and read every commentary on 1 Corinthians 11 that they had there at the time, from Calvin to International Critical, and I am satisfied that our understanding of the Greek in this passage, while not unanimously held, is unquestionably a credible one.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 27, 2009)

If I may interject something here--

These diversions to discuss the character of the debaters are ad hominems which will serve no useful purpose either to discovery of the truth or to bringing unity to the body of Christ. Rather, this kind of argumentation--if it can be called that--serves only to inflame emotions and cause strife and divisions. In the interests of brotherly love and kind discussion, please think about what you're about to post before you do so. How would you feel if your post was by someone else, directed towards you?


----------



## Archlute (Feb 27, 2009)

Mark Hettler said:


> [I am Lynnie's husband. I want to say that the first thing she did, years ago, when she began considering what the Bible has to say on this subject, was to "go home and discuss these things with her husband." And I consider the insuation that she did anything contrary to that to be slander. I can also assure you that she is not here to "lecture" anyone but simply participate in intelligent discussion of what the Bible says.
> 
> Most of her insights on what the Greek says on this subject, we worked through together. I am not a Greek scholar either, but having an M.Div. from Westminster, I think it's fair to say I know good Greek scholarship when I see it. When the subject first came up in our home, I went to the Westminster Seminary library and read every commentary on 1 Corinthians 11 that they had there at the time, from Calvin to International Critical, and I am satisfied that our understanding of the Greek in this passage, while not unanimously held, is unquestionably a credible one.



Dear Mark,

I am speaking about current application of the doctrine of that text to the discussions on this board. I said nothing as to whether or not the issue was discussed with you in the past or not, and to be honest, that point is really irrelevant. If I found that my wife was making corrections of other men on an internet forum, theological or otherwise, I would make some corrections of my own, and would assist her in finding a more productive use of her time. 

The church, being the body of Christ, is not limited in its interaction to the four walls of the building during formal worship services, and I expect of my family that they will abide by Christian principles whether inside or outside that setting, when it comes to relational structures. If you go back and reread her remark, you may be able to understand how it comes off not as simple and intelligent discussion, but rather as a dogmatic statement that I find does not fit the mold in which you are attempting to have it placed. 

The same could be said of any number of threads that have come up on the PB regarding this issue that I can remember from years back. It seems that it has become a greater fixation that is right or healthy, and that more often than not the "simple discussion" has turned into a defensive lecture that does not well adorn the very doctrine taught by the apostles on this matter. This issue should not become the point of identity that it seems to have become with some on this board. I would rather see Gospel, Christ, and good works be a much greater part of our identity here than argumentation over fine points of Greek, which I might say are not being grasped as much as would be hoped.

We've already had a number of threads like this, and I think that it may be more profitable to step off of our hobby horses, and move into some other waters that would be of greater benefit to our minds, seeing how most minds have been made up on this point, on this board, for some time now. When that is the case, these threads move from helpful discussion to unseemly shield-beating.


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 27, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Piper/Grudems's Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Ch 5 ( Thomas Schreiner) pages 126-137, long exegesis on 1 Cor 11 with Greek.



Thank you for reminding me of this. Schreiner has a very thorough treatment of the passage available http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/RBMW_5.pdf.

Schreiner does think that the covering is a physical shawl. However, his arguments against the hair position are not, in my opinion, very strong. Also, I question some of his linguistic methodology in deciding between a face veil and a back shawl. However, he is an excellent scholar and the treatment is very valuable.

Concerning the preposition, Schreiner reaches his conclusion after having rejected hair as the covering for other reasons. That's fine. I am inclined to agree with him. The context is determinative. However, substitution is one of the primary meanings of that preposition and it (I think) makes sense in the context. People who think that αντι signifies substitution are well within the bounds of the preposition and can argue a good case. 

Notice that Schreiner readily concedes that this is an extremely difficult passage. He is committed to doing the best exegesis he can, as am I. *The point that I intended to make with my post is that different views on this passage have arisen from a careful study of the Greek text, not through ignorance or prejudice.*

-----Added 2/27/2009 at 08:40:24 EST-----



Skyler said:


> Again... if it's hair he's talking about, why does he recommend shearing short hair rather than allowing it to grow back?



According to the hair position, the flow of thought would run something like this. "If you will keep your hair uncovered (hanging out loose in an unkempt and socially shocking fashion), then why not do something really shocking and shave it! But if it's shameful to have your head shaved, keep your hair decently and in order." 

In other words, it is not long hair vs. short hair, as the debate is sometimes framed. I myself probably lean toward the physical covering view, but the hair view is not without its merits.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 27, 2009)

Until there was a complaint made, most of my posts were quotes of Church Fathers and other Ministers. A good portion more were made towards women. I did not make a dogmatic statement. I made a statement of how I had been taught about that Scripture and am ALWAYS willing to hear out another's point of view on it. It also appears strange that you would pick me out of all the women that have participated in this discussion. My husband, though not directly participating, has been a member of this board as has my father in law in the past AND we discuss any threads I participate in on here. You are not my husband. Women are not subject to ALL Men of the Church or else there would be quite a mess. Please see to your own wife.


----------



## MW (Feb 27, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> "If you will keep your hair uncovered (hanging out loose in an unkempt and socially shocking fashion)



Uncovered hair cannot be identified with unkempt hair for the simple reason that the man is instructed to pray uncovered. He certainly is not being told to pray with his hair hanging out in a socially shocking fashion.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 27, 2009)

> ''yet here on the PB we regularly have women who would seek to hammer the issue, lecturing and usurping other men of the church!"



I realize the implications of the post above, but perhaps we should also realize the implications of women upholding what scripture says when men won't do so. Deborah was raised up in a certain situation, and the fact that some women are needing to take the lead on this topic should make us reflect as to why.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 27, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> Until there was a complaint made, most of my posts were quotes of Church Fathers and other Ministers. A good portion more were made towards women. I did not make a dogmatic statement. I made a statement of how I had been taught about that Scripture and am ALWAYS willing to hear out another's point of view on it. It also appears strange that you would pick me out of all the women that have participated in this discussion. My husband, though not directly participating, has been a member of this board as has my father in law in the past AND we discuss any threads I participate in on here. You are not my husband. Women are not subject to ALL Men of the Church or else there would be quite a mess. Please see to your own wife.



Again, the attitude displayed here betrays the very issue at hand. It is a principle of Scripture that you are subject to, not merely this man or the other. I pick out your statement, because as noted in my last post, you have had a history on this board regarding this issue, and very often your statements have indeed been dogmatic and pointed toward the men with whom you would disagree, as I would say your response was to my little aside about Moses. I would never have corrected you if you had not decided to retort in the manner in which you did. That was the problem that sparked it all. 

Just because Mark has not felt a need to make a correction, does not mean that your words and demeanor are above correcting. If I see a woman in the church doing things that she ought not, I take it as my brotherly prerogative to make a correction. It matters not to me very much if her husband refuses to do so, for if there were a Christian brother who did not mind his wife engaging in other practices or behaviors that were detrimental to her Christian testimony it would merely be a fault of his, and not a declaration as to its justification.


----------



## MW (Feb 27, 2009)

Archlute said:


> It is a principle of Scripture that you are subject to, not merely this man or the other.



If the board allows a lady to speak, and you willingly participate in the discussions on this board, then you are bound to allow the lady to speak. If you have anything further to say you should take it up with the administration.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 27, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> > ''yet here on the PB we regularly have women who would seek to hammer the issue, lecturing and usurping other men of the church!"
> 
> 
> 
> I realize the implications of the post above, but perhaps we should also realize the implications of women upholding what scripture says when men won't do so. Deborah was raised up in a certain situation, and the fact that some women are needing to take the lead on this topic should make us reflect as to why.



Since Deborah and Barak were dealing with the external foe of Israel, the Canaanites, it might _possibly_ work better if we were to use this passage to encourage women in taking the lead against worldly institutions where the church has failed, but since these arguments almost always take place within the confines of the body of Christ, not so much.

I do think, however, that Judges 4 gets way too much press in our day for the limits presented by that confining parallel mentioned above!


----------



## MW (Feb 27, 2009)

This thread is about Greek and head coverings; any other discussion should be taken elsewhere. Henceforth irrelevant posts will be deleted.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 27, 2009)

charlie-

"Notice that Schreiner readily concedes that this is an extremely difficult passage. He is committed to doing the best exegesis he can, as am I. The point that I intended to make with my post is that different views on this passage have arisen from a careful study of the Greek text, not through ignorance or prejudice."

Fair enough! I apologize for any implication that you or anybody else was not bothering to look past English.

I do think that where we have multiple words in Greek all being translated into one English word- on any subject- confusion can arise. The word "love" is one example in addition to "covering." Then here we have one Greek word translated with two English words ( "tradition", and "handed down"). I always appreciate when my pastor is working through a hard text when he takes the time to check out Greek and Hebrew and commentaries on them before he preaches. 

I found that for hub and me, seeing 1 Cor 11 in the Greek was the end of the debate. ( not so at the PB though  )


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 27, 2009)

My apologies, I crossposted with the warning.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 27, 2009)

Just to clarify, Mark above is married to me, not the lovely lady Flynt.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 27, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Just to clarify, Mark above is married to me, not the lovely lady Flynt.



Thanks, I was scratching my head on that one


----------



## Mark Hettler (Feb 27, 2009)

Archlute said:


> If I found that my wife was making corrections of other men on an internet forum, theological or otherwise, I would make some corrections of my own, and would assist her in finding a more productive use of her time.



If I found that my wife was making corrections of other men without wearing a head covering, I would do the same.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 27, 2009)

I think it was this particular sermon in which Dr Bacon laid out the implications of the Greek and the culture:

SermonAudio.com - Are Headcoverings The Issue In First Corinthians 11?

-----Added 2/27/2009 at 10:27:04 EST-----

PS - Richard Bacon rocks. Very thorough.


----------



## Mark Hettler (Feb 27, 2009)

Here is a link to something I wrote 25 years ago. Back then I was heavily involved in some borderline excessive charismatic stuff, and 25 years later I don't know whether to be appalled or amused at the way I interspersed citations of charismatic wack jobs along with the citations of solid biblical scholars. But I think that to the extent that my reasoning was based on the latter, it's still pertinent.

http://mhettler.home.comcast.net/papers/headcov.doc


----------

