Headcoverings

[satz]

Hi Traci,

All of the following reasons given from my previous post by Paul are ETERNAL. They are NOT cultural.

I don’t believe I ever said the reasons were cultural. I agree with you 100% that the reasons Paul gives are founded on creation principles. Where we differ is this: What are these creation principles reasons for? What I have been saying is that the principles Paul states are reasons why a woman should cover her head when she prays and prophesizes. Paul states that plainly in v4 and 5. The whole discussion is about the proper treatment of the head when praying or prophesying.

Are they not also good reasons (Paul thought so) for continuing the practice even if we grant you, for the sake of argument, your prophesy/close of the canon argument?

My whole point has been that ‘the practice’ is the proper treatment of the head when praying of prophesying. Hence if the canon is closed and prayer and prophecy has ceased, there is no longer occasion to utilize the practice. No where in 1 Corinthians 11 does Paul indicate the practice of headcovering (or not headcovering for a man) has any application outside ‘praying and prophesying’.

As I have been saying in this thread, the whole controversy rests on identifying what is ‘prayer and prophecy’ that Paul meant in v4 and 5. And I have written several lengthy posts addressing that.

Women and men still pray today in the solemn assemblies.

I already mentioned in one of my posts that my position was that ‘prayer’ by its close linkage with prophecy, inspired prayer. In other words what Paul is addressing is the use of inspired spiritual gifts that operated before the close of the Canon as the churches at that time did not yet have a complete New Testament. If not, you have the strange situation of Paul regulating 1) an inspired spiritual gift and 2) uninspired prayer. By why pick prayer out of all the things that go on in worship? What about singing, listening to preaching etc? I believe the most consistent interpretation is to see that both prayer and prophecy are inspired.

It could be argued that singing the Psalms is prophesying and that is still done today. I find it interesting that following both of the EP scripture texts Col 3:16 and in Ephesian 5:19 that Paul reinterates submission of wives, children etc. In fact in the Ephesians passage he reinterates headship as well.

It could be argued, I agree, and in my posts I acknowledged that the word ‘prophecy’ could be used to refer to an uninspired activity. However, within the context of 1 Corinthians, I believe it can be strongly argued that prophecy in that epistle refers to an inspired activity. I also made a post where I put down verses from 1 Corinthians referring to prophecy.

Men are still the image and glory of their creator thus they should not be covered, this still stands today.

Women are still the glory of man, this still stands today.

The man was not made for women but the woman for the man THEREFORE she should have a sign of power on her head. This still stands it is a creational principle.

I heard a sermon that made the point that the women's glory is covered because she is the glory of man and only the glory of God should show forth in the assembly thus the man should go uncovered because he is the glory of God but the womans should be covered. This still stands today

As I mentioned above, these are all excellent reasons. But reasons for what? For a woman to cover (or a man to not cover) when praying or prophesying. It all comes down to the question I have been trying to address this whole thread. If the treatment of the head has any application outside of praying or prophesying, I don’t think we can see it in 1 Corinthians 11.

I am open to the idea that public preaching or leading in prayer before the assembly by men approximates the spiritual gifts of inspired prayer and prophecy enough to require men leading in public worship today to observe the principle. I confess I have not given it much thought. However, given Paul’s general rule that women are to be silent in the church in 1 Corinthians 14 (the practice of INSPIRED spiritual gifts being an exception to that general rule, just like singing is) I don’t see how women would today perform any activity that would require the principle to be applied.

I’ve said it so many times already, but I’ll repeat again I have nothing against women who cover and have the upmost respect for them (for the ones I have seen on this board, anyway). I know it is not easy to go against both culture and the majority of the church, and I have nothing but admiration for a heart that takes the Lord’s commands seriously and refuses to compromise for the sake of comfort. But off course, I believe you are mistaken in interpreting what his command is, exactly . If a family choses to cover for whatever reason today, there is surely nothing wrong with it. But as far as saying it is a biblical command for women today to obey, at this point of time I disagree.

 

[Augusta]

Hi Traci,



I don’t believe I ever said the reasons were cultural. I agree with you 100% that the reasons Paul gives are founded on creation principles. Where we differ is this: What are these creation principles reasons for? What I have been saying is that the principles Paul states are reasons why a woman should cover her head when she prays and prophesizes. Paul states that plainly in v4 and 5. The whole discussion is about the proper treatment of the head when praying or prophesying.



My whole point has been that ‘the practice’ is the proper treatment of the head when praying of prophesying. Hence if the canon is closed and prayer and prophecy has ceased, there is no longer occasion to utilize the practice. No where in 1 Corinthians 11 does Paul indicate the practice of headcovering (or not headcovering for a man) has any application outside ‘praying and prophesying’.

As I have been saying in this thread, the whole controversy rests on identifying what is ‘prayer and prophecy’ that Paul meant in v4 and 5. And I have written several lengthy posts addressing that.



I already mentioned in one of my posts that my position was that ‘prayer’ by its close linkage with prophecy, inspired prayer. In other words what Paul is addressing is the use of inspired spiritual gifts that operated before the close of the Canon as the churches at that time did not yet have a complete New Testament. If not, you have the strange situation of Paul regulating 1) an inspired spiritual gift and 2) uninspired prayer. By why pick prayer out of all the things that go on in worship? What about singing, listening to preaching etc? I believe the most consistent interpretation is to see that both prayer and prophecy are inspired.



It could be argued, I agree, and in my posts I acknowledged that the word ‘prophecy’ could be used to refer to an uninspired activity. However, within the context of 1 Corinthians, I believe it can be strongly argued that prophecy in that epistle refers to an inspired activity. I also made a post where I put down verses from 1 Corinthians referring to prophecy.



As I mentioned above, these are all excellent reasons. But reasons for what? For a woman to cover (or a man to not cover) when praying or prophesying. It all comes down to the question I have been trying to address this whole thread. If the treatment of the head has any application outside of praying or prophesying, I don’t think we can see it in 1 Corinthians 11.

I am open to the idea that public preaching or leading in prayer before the assembly by men approximates the spiritual gifts of inspired prayer and prophecy enough to require men leading in public worship today to observe the principle. I confess I have not given it much thought. However, given Paul’s general rule that women are to be silent in the church in 1 Corinthians 14 (the practice of INSPIRED spiritual gifts being an exception to that general rule, just like singing is) I don’t see how women would today perform any activity that would require the principle to be applied.

I’ve said it so many times already, but I’ll repeat again I have nothing against women who cover and have the upmost respect for them (for the ones I have seen on this board, anyway). I know it is not easy to go against both culture and the majority of the church, and I have nothing but admiration for a heart that takes the Lord’s commands seriously and refuses to compromise for the sake of comfort. But off course, I believe you are mistaken in interpreting what his command is, exactly . If a family choses to cover for whatever reason today, there is surely nothing wrong with it. But as far as saying it is a biblical command for women today to obey, at this point of time I disagree.

Mark you talk about "inspired prayer" can you expand on that. I know of prophesy being inspired teaching and forthtelling. I don't understand prayer as being inspired per se. Prayer is our human supplication to God mediated, because it is human, by our mediator. I think you are lumping them together as both charismatic when they are not. I think this is disingenuous because it helps your argument to say they have both passed away when they have not. We know that of the two, prophesy and prayer, both are still performed by at least one party (men) and the other by both (men & women). There is definitely the pastor leading the congregation in prayer.

What of the verse 13: Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

I think it is significant that he does not include men here and he does not include prophesy here. It should not be overlooked. There is also the oneness of the body of Christ before the throne of God in corporate worship. This is where the angels both evil and good according to Matthew Henry are watching:

4. She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to him, and inferior to the other sex. Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, put on her veil, in token of her subjection, Gen. xxiv. 65. Thus would the apostle have the women appear In Christian assemblies, even though they spoke there by inspiration, because of the angels, that is, say some, because of the evil angels. The woman was first in the transgression, being deceived by the devil (1 Tim. ii. 14), which increased her subjection to man, Gen. iii. 16.

This subjection is also commanded in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 as I stated previously. We still worship in spirit and truth, before the throne of God, and the order of subjection, as exposited by Paul, should appear because of the angels, creational principles, and for Gods glory whether women still prophesy or not. I will also note that MH mentions above "they spoke there by inspiration" but that he along with Calvin and many others believed that the prophesy of women was manifested in other meetings besides corporate worship due to the ban on women speaking in the public assemblies, or that they waited until the end to give it to their presbyters.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

From a 1993 article on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 by James Jordan:

4. Every man praying or prophesying, having something on his head, shames his head.

This passage has to do with "praying or prophesying" (vv. 4-5). In 1 Corinthians 11-14, prophesying refers to the special gift of prophecy, which has ceased with the completion of the canon of Scripture. Similarly, the only other reference to prayer in this book is to praying in tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. Thus Godet and some other commentators have suggested that both praying and prophesying here refer to the temporary gifts of the first phase of the New Covenant era, which ceased in ad 70.

Later he continues:

3. Prophecy has ceased, and it is very likely that the praying spoken of here was praying in tongues, which has also ceased. Thus, these rules in their strict sense applied only to the interim Church.

4. Prophecy was a Spirit-given gift. Paul is very concerned here and throughout this passage, especially in chapter 14, to affirm the orderliness of Christian worship. Why? The answer is that the Spirit works very indirectly and mysteriously, and thus is easy to counterfeit. How do we know when we are being led by the Spirit and when we are not? Paul’s answer is simple: The true Spirit leads to order, and the counterfeit spirits lead to disorder.

During this interim period, the Bible had not been completed and it was not clear what the new order in the Church was to be like. The Spirit was bringing that new order into being. It was a "chaotic" time, what ritual scholars call a "liminal" time, a time between two orders. The new position of women in the Church was being used by the counterfeit spirits to say that women no longer needed the covering of a man and that men could function independently of women. The true Spirit through Paul states that this is not the case, and enjoins upon the Church an outward sign of the continuing reciprocal relationship of men and women.

These requirements were in force only at those times when the Spirit was especially active in the congregation, during prophecy and tongues, because it was then that the distinction between the true and the false spirits needed to be affirmed clearly.

The site with this article is being worked on right now and I can no longer find it. However it is available in Cache. I linked it with "praying" and "prophesying" highlighted for quick reference to the specific sections addressing these two words.

 

[satz]

Mark you talk about "inspired prayer" can you expand on that. I know of prophesy being inspired teaching and forthtelling. I don't understand prayer as being inspired per se. Prayer is our human supplication to God mediated, because it is human, by our mediator.

If prophecy is inspired teaching, then prayer is just that, a (public) prayer inspired directly by the spirit. Like the article Chris referenced mentioned, praying in tongues is one such example of inspired prayer (see 14:14).

I think you are lumping them together as both charismatic when they are not. I think this is disingenuous because it helps your argument to say they have both passed away when they have not. We know that of the two, prophesy and prayer, both are still performed by at least one party (men) and the other by both (men & women). There is definitely the pastor leading the congregation in prayer.

I have said this over and over but no one has interacted with it. Prophecy can refer to uninspired teaching. But within the context of 1 Corinthians, where Paul deals extensively with spiritual gifts, I believe it is logical to assume he uses it to refer to the inspired form of the word. Since the spiritual gifts have ceased for us today (and even those who disagree will say they are much more rare) we get confused by the word prophecy. But the Corinthians, being the church that had the most spiritual gifts, would have recognized what Paul was talking about instantly. And it is not that difficult for us to do so, by looking at how Paul uses the word prophecy in that book.

I believe prayer in 1 Corinthians 11 is inspired prayer because of its close contextual connection with prophecy. Otherwise you have Paul randomly choosing two aspects of public worship to regulate and neglecting the rest.

You ask, do men still ‘pray and prophesy’ in the 1 Corinthians 11 sense today? If we understand, as I do, prayer and prophesy to be inspired, than the answer is no, they do not. I mentioned already that I believe an argument could be made that the public work of the pastor in church assemblies is similar enough to trigger the principle, but I do not see women as doing anything today that would.

What of the verse 13: Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

I think it is significant that he does not include men here and he does not include prophesy here. It should not be overlooked.

Could you explain why you think it is significant? Whatever praying Paul is talking about here, by the rules of context must be the same praying as is mentioned in verses 4 and 5. As to why only men are mentioned, I don’t know. Prehaps the problem at Corinth was the women refusing to cover (when praying or prophesying ) and not the men covering when they were not supposed to. Prehaps you could explain further how this verse affects the argument.

This subjection is also commanded in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 as I stated previously. We still worship in spirit and truth, before the throne of God, and the order of subjection, as exposited by Paul, should appear because of the angels, creational principles, and for Gods glory whether women still prophesy or not.

I respectfully disagree. The principles you mention are all still relevant today, but they only manifest in women needing to cover when they pray or prophesy. Paul says that explicitly in verse 5: “every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head”. If a women is not praying or prophesying, she can uncover her head with no dishonor. There is no need to speculate about when the covering is required because the Spirit tells us explicitly – when praying or prophesying. Everything comes back down to that.

I will also note that MH mentions above "they spoke there by inspiration" but that he along with Calvin and many others believed that the prophesy of women was manifested in other meetings besides corporate worship due to the ban on women speaking in the public assemblies, or that they waited until the end to give it to their presbyters.

Calvin I know did hold to the view you are putting forward, but with respect I disagree with him. Paul is in 1 Corinthians 11 regulating the praying and prophesying of women in public assemblies. It would make no sense for him to regulate it here only to condemn it in 1 Corinthians 14. While that ban on women speaking there is a general rule, there are (and I have said this before) exceptions made to ‘keeping silent’. Singing is an obvious one, and I believe inspired prophecy or prayer is another.

 

[Augusta]

If prophecy is inspired teaching, then prayer is just that, a (public) prayer inspired directly by the spirit. Like the article Chris referenced mentioned, praying in tongues is one such example of inspired prayer (see 14:14).



I have said this over and over but no one has interacted with it. Prophecy can refer to uninspired teaching. But within the context of 1 Corinthians, where Paul deals extensively with spiritual gifts, I believe it is logical to assume he uses it to refer to the inspired form of the word. Since the spiritual gifts have ceased for us today (and even those who disagree will say they are much more rare) we get confused by the word prophecy. But the Corinthians, being the church that had the most spiritual gifts, would have recognized what Paul was talking about instantly. And it is not that difficult for us to do so, by looking at how Paul uses the word prophecy in that book.

I believe prayer in 1 Corinthians 11 is inspired prayer because of its close contextual connection with prophecy. Otherwise you have Paul randomly choosing two aspects of public worship to regulate and neglecting the rest.

You ask, do men still ‘pray and prophesy’ in the 1 Corinthians 11 sense today? If we understand, as I do, prayer and prophesy to be inspired, than the answer is no, they do not. I mentioned already that I believe an argument could be made that the public work of the pastor in church assemblies is similar enough to trigger the principle, but I do not see women as doing anything today that would.



Could you explain why you think it is significant? Whatever praying Paul is talking about here, by the rules of context must be the same praying as is mentioned in verses 4 and 5. As to why only men are mentioned, I don’t know. Prehaps the problem at Corinth was the women refusing to cover (when praying or prophesying ) and not the men covering when they were not supposed to. Prehaps you could explain further how this verse affects the argument.


I respectfully disagree. The principles you mention are all still relevant today, but they only manifest in women needing to cover when they pray or prophesy. Paul says that explicitly in verse 5: “every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head”. If a women is not praying or prophesying, she can uncover her head with no dishonor. There is no need to speculate about when the covering is required because the Spirit tells us explicitly – when praying or prophesying. Everything comes back down to that.



Calvin I know did hold to the view you are putting forward, but with respect I disagree with him. Paul is in 1 Corinthians 11 regulating the praying and prophesying of women in public assemblies. It would make no sense for him to regulate it here only to condemn it in 1 Corinthians 14. While that ban on women speaking there is a general rule, there are (and I have said this before) exceptions made to ‘keeping silent’. Singing is an obvious one, and I believe inspired prophecy or prayer is another.

Speaking in tongues is not called prayer in the scriptures, a person who is speaking in an unknown tongue can pray in that unknown tongue but it is not the tongues themselves that are a prayer.

Can you give a few examples of "inspired prayer." I have never heard of this anywhere except my old charismatic church that had a warped view of the gifts and practiced "prayer languages" which was a total misunderstanding of the gifts of the spirit, namely tongues speaking.

Chris, I have never heard of James Jordan. If you guys are going to go this far astray of the historical understanding by many divines and reformers I will have to agree to disagree. With all due respect I am baffled as to how to procede to dialogue with you if you are taking this strange view of prayer. I will have to agree to disagree. If you have any historical respected reformer that espouses this view I am all ears. Otherwise I will stay with Chrysostom, Augustine, Tertullian, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Luther, Gill and many others.

 

[lv1nothr]

Maybe this has been discussed before but as I am searching the Scriptures and looking specifically at 1 Cor. 11, I am seeing a creation ordinance or at least foundation.

But I also see this:

In fact it seems that much of the first part of 1 Cor. 11 is referring to hair, and the hair being the covering. Just what I am noticing at first glance.

1 Corinthians 11:5 - 6 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

This is an easy one if I may: Replace the word covering with the word hair and see it would make sense. It would go something like this: If a woman has no hair on her head let her shave it off. Ok...so the covering is NOT hair.

Hubby and I did a word study on this issue way back when, and I remember when we were done it was so easy to see that the covering is required and a regulated circumstance to use the words of our Pastor in worship.

I hope that helps,

 

[Romans922]

From a 1993 article on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 by James Jordan:



Later he continues:



The site with this article is being worked on right now and I can no longer find it. However it is available in Cache. I linked it with "praying" and "prophesying" highlighted for quick reference to the specific sections addressing these two words.

Do you know that you just quoted James Jordan on THIS BOARD?

 

[satz]

Hi Traci,

Unfortunately, I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Speaking in tongues is not called prayer in the scriptures, a person who is speaking in an unknown tongue can pray in that unknown tongue but it is not the tongues themselves that are a prayer.

Can you give a few examples of "inspired prayer." I have never heard of this anywhere except my old charismatic church that had a warped view of the gifts and practiced "prayer languages" which was a total misunderstanding of the gifts of the spirit, namely tongues speaking.

Perhaps the term ‘inspired prayer’ was not helpful. Still, to pray in tongues is not an act of the reason and will like saying a prayer today, it is the use of a supernatural spiritual gift.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Again, I will maintain that the close connection between prayer and prophecy in verse 4 and 5 shows the inspired nature of both. And that prophecy in 1 Corinthians is by context of the rest of the epistle referring to the primary sense of inspired prophecy and not the secondary sense of teaching etc. It makes no sense for Paul to associate so closely one inspired activity and one uninspired activity. He could easily made reference to mere presence of participation in public worship, but he instead chose to pick out two activities as a general representation of inspired activity before a church. At least that is my reading of the passage at this point.

Chris, I have never heard of James Jordan. If you guys are going to go this far astray of the historical understanding by many divines and reformers I will have to agree to disagree. With all due respect I am baffled as to how to procede to dialogue with you if you are taking this strange view of prayer. I will have to agree to disagree. If you have any historical respected reformer that espouses this view I am all ears. Otherwise I will stay with Chrysostom, Augustine, Tertullian, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Luther, Gill and many others.

Hmm, how about this from Matthew Henry?

Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, Romans 11:5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (Romans 14:34,1Ti+2:12), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle's discourse, Romans 14:1-23. Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.

Nevertheless, I will say this, and I know it may sound arrogant, but that is not how I mean it. Being a puritan or reformer does not make one right on every single little point of doctrine and practice. As far as the kingdom of God goes, I may not be fit to tie the straps of their sandals, but on this issue I don’t see it in the bible.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Do you know that you just quoted James Jordan on THIS BOARD?

Yeah, I knew this was coming

Well, this was 1993, but regardless I am not quoting him on Justification. Doug Wilson still had/has good things to share and is still quoted on the Puritan Board from time to time - as well as John Wesley, Augustine, CS Lewis, Tozer, etc.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Chris, I have never heard of James Jordan. If you guys are going to go this far astray of the historical understanding by many divines and reformers I will have to agree to disagree. With all due respect I am baffled as to how to procede to dialogue with you if you are taking this strange view of prayer. I will have to agree to disagree. If you have any historical respected reformer that espouses this view I am all ears. Otherwise I will stay with Chrysostom, Augustine, Tertullian, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Luther, Gill and many others.

By all means disagree Traci, we can agree to disagree.

I am presenting the interpretation that seems most plausible considering the clear text and the context of the entire letter. Scripture takes precedence and I have yet to see reason as to why prayer and prophecy is to be interpreted unlike the use of the two words throughout the epistle.

As Chrysostom says in his homilies, this was an issue in Corinth that needed corrected but this issue was inserted as a “lighter matter.” To this day this topic is not given the same apologetic effort as the resurrection, the Lord’s Supper, and Spiritual gifts. As I said, for the sake of your conscience, cover. We do not have volumes of works dedicated to this topic like we do with the “heavier matters” Paul brings up. If I came to an interpretation regarding, say, the doctrine of the resurrection or the Lord’s Supper that disagreed with the majority of historical Christianity, then sure, that is significant considering the attention given to that doctrine. However, with 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, it has historically been treated the same as Paul treated it – as a “lighter matter”.

I am sure you do not agree with everything Chrysostom, Augustine, Tertullian, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Luther, Gill on even some of the weighty matters. So why all of a sudden do I have to be like minded with all of them on headcovering? Plus, even though they may all agree that women should cover, they may come to this same conclusion but in different ways. Roman Catholics, Methodists, and Lutherans baptize infants, so should I recommend their exegesis to prove why we should do so? As I already stated Calvin is often quoted in support of covering, but yet he supported men covering despite the passage saying they should not. So I ask you, do you really agree with Calvin even though he comes to the same conclusion that women should cover? I still disagree with Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, and the Lutherans on the issue of baptism even though they come to the same conclusion that we should baptize our children.

James Jordan has gone the way of Doug Wilson, professes to be reformed, and yet has erred on the doctrine of Justification.

Blessings,

 

[Augusta]

James Jordan has gone the way of Doug Wilson, professes to be reformed, and yet has erred on the doctrine of Justification.
Blessings,

I noticed that. I am not letting you off the hook. I would like to see some sound exegetical material from a reputable source who holds your view. I think it is VERY strained and strange.

 

[Augusta]

Hi Traci,

Unfortunately, I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

The above is what I am talking about when I say that you can pray in an unknown tongue for the benefit of those who speak that tongue but those that don't it is unfruitful and needed interpretation. That does not make prayer=tongues speaking or vice versa.

Again, I will maintain that the close connection between prayer and prophecy in verse 4 and 5 shows the inspired nature of both. And that prophecy in 1 Corinthians is by context of the rest of the epistle referring to the primary sense of inspired prophecy and not the secondary sense of teaching etc. It makes no sense for Paul to associate so closely one inspired activity and one uninspired activity. He could easily made reference to mere presence of participation in public worship, but he instead chose to pick out two activities as a general representation of inspired activity before a church. At least that is my reading of the passage at this point.

They can be put together for other connections than the one you are giving. Maybe they are both mediated by Christ and that is their connection. Maybe that is why reverence an awe are necessary when doing either. They are both from and to the heavenly father through our mediator. Since women are to keep silent in the churches they shouldn't be praying aloud or prophesying aloud and that may be why both are mentioned. They both include addressing the congregation.

Prophesy is mentioned with teaching in Romans 12:5-7 with teaching, exhorting etc. Does that make all of those things inspired and ecstatic gifts?
Romans 12:5-7
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Hmm, how about this from Matthew Henry?

Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, Romans 11:5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (Romans 14:34,1Ti+2:12), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle's discourse, Romans 14:1-23. Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.

See above comments. I have no problem that she may have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to step out and do either of these but that does not make prayer always inspired and ecstatic. As soon as an utterance is inspired it becomes prophesy and no longer a prayer.

Nevertheless, I will say this, and I know it may sound arrogant, but that is not how I mean it. Being a puritan or reformer does not make one right on every single little point of doctrine and practice. As far as the kingdom of God goes, I may not be fit to tie the straps of their sandals, but on this issue I don’t see it in the bible.

Maybe not but when you have a propondance of godly teachers saying the same thing over many hundreds of years I would look hard at it before coming up with my own interpretation.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I noticed that. I am not letting you off the hook. I would like to see some sound exegetical material from a reputable source who holds your view. I think it is VERY strained and strange.

Well, I don't see myself as "on the hook" to produce anything. I am basing my view on clear scriptural use of words and context and have yet to see from YOU and others how Paul is using the two words in question differently in this part of his letter than the rest. That Paul refers to Prophecy and Prayer as inspired is historically recognized. I addressed why this issue does not require historical “backup” (if you will) based on the matter being “light” and that historically the conclusions may have been the same, but not based on consistent and like minded exegesis. I have no problem calling James Jordan’s work on the issue trustworthy and reputable just as many will rely on Doug Wilson’s earlier work, prior to the justification controversy, as reliable.

But I will be happy to provide more.

Here is an article from the OPC question and answer page; I will paste below the part related to our discussion:

Women Praying and Prophesying
But wait! When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that a woman should keep her head covered "while praying or prophesying," isn't he presupposing that women will be speaking in church?

Not really. In 11:5 Paul is referring to the situation where women are exercising the special spiritual gifts that chapters 11-14 focus on. Thus, the praying and prophesying in view in chapter 11 is inspired utterance, in which God is speaking through his chosen human instrument (2 Peter 1:21).

On the other hand, the speech in view in 14:33b-36 is ordinary, uninspired utterance. Clearly, rules governing ordinary speech would not necessarily apply to inspired speech. And yet, as a reminder to all that she remains in subjection as a woman, the inspired woman is to give utterance to God's word with her head veiled (11:10). It is this situation, not that in 14:33b-36, that is no longer with us.

Prophesying is always inspired speaking in the Bible, as it is in chapters 12-14. The word "praying," by itself, could refer to inspired or uninspired speech, but, when coupled with inspired "prophesying," it should be understood as inspired as well.

This is borne out in chapters 12-14, where the only praying that is mentioned, alongside prophesying, is praying "in a tongue" (14:14) and "with the Spirit" (14:15). Here the praying is equivalent to speaking in a tongue. The point of linking prayer and prophecy may be that some inspired utterance is directed toward God (prayer) and some is directed toward man (prophecy).

Since 14:33b-36 is a separate section, not a continuation of the discussion of spiritual gifts, there is no reason to think that the speaking in view in it is anything other than ordinary speech. The appeal to the Law in verse 35 also indicates that ordinary speaking is in view.

Therefore, chapter 11 is best understood as regulating the circumstances for delivering inspired speech in church, while 14:33b-36 forbids ordinary speech by women in church.

Again, I do not condemn anyone for covering, but I will not require it of anyone based on the text and context. Bless you and your house Traci for searching the scriptures.