Non-Argumentative [sic Argumentative] Head Covering Poll

[py3ak]

Well, if Paul's joy in beholding the Colossians' order is not to be restricted to a liturgical pleasure, then whether you take angels of the ministering spirits or of the messengers of the churches I would imagine they can have a similar joy in an orderly and submissive ministry of women when not in congregational assembly.

 

[MW]

Well, if Paul's joy in beholding the Colossians' order is not to be restricted to a liturgical pleasure, then whether you take angels of the ministering spirits or of the messengers of the churches I would imagine they can have a similar joy in an orderly and submissive ministry of women when not in congregational assembly.

The apostle assumes the presence of the church-angels, which would not necessarily be presupposed in an external setting.

 

[py3ak]

So you are taking church-angels of the ministers?

 

[MW]

So you are taking church-angels of the ministers?

I incline in that direction because of the emphasis on external decorum; but even if we take it to refer to heavenly messengers, such could only be of significance because those messengers in some way superintend the corporate gathering. Therefore I think we are closed up to a corporate setting for the apostle's instructions.

 

[py3ak]

I can understand your argument, I think. Let me see if I got it right. The presence of "praying and prophesying", the emphasis on decorum, the mention of the angels, even the use of "shame" all lead us to think of a corporate gathering, indeed, one specific corporate gathering: the meeting of the congregation in their stated services.

Is that correct?

If so, I can appreciate that there is definitely some weight to the argument. And then, since we have to account for the prohibition of chapter 14, there are not a lot of options left open to us. I guess I would be helped over my difficulty if there were some reference in the NT or the in the Septuagint or even in classical Greek where "praying or prophesying" could be understood as "corporately singing Psalms and listening to a sermon". Do you have any references I could consider?

 

[MW]

I can understand your argument, I think. Let me see if I got it right. The presence of "praying and prophesying", the emphasis on decorum, the mention of the angels, even the use of "shame" all lead us to think of a corporate gathering, indeed, one specific corporate gathering: the meeting of the congregation in their stated services.

Is that correct?

Yes.

If so, I can appreciate that there is definitely some weight to the argument. And then, since we have to account for the prohibition of chapter 14, there are not a lot of options left open to us. I guess I would be helped over my difficulty if there were some reference in the NT or the in the Septuagint or even in classical Greek where "praying or prophesying" could be understood as "corporately singing Psalms and listening to a sermon". Do you have any references I could consider?

I think it is based on analogy and argument from the greater to the lesser. If this was required under the extraordinary influence of the Spirit then much more under ordinary means of grace. Personally I prefer to simply adhere to the fact that a corporate gathering context is in mind and that praying/prophesying was simply one element of that context in which the decorum problems were being exasperated.

We forget in our unisex world that male-female interaction was stereotyped in traditional cultures, and that the New Testament church provided a liberty for women to commune with men in a way previously unknown. The apostle's instructions allow for the continuing communion while manifesting the natural order which God has instituted between men and women. The apostle's argument from creation means that the natural distinction was to be reflected in the entire gathering and cannot be confined to a personal exercise of spiritual gifts.

 

[py3ak]

OK, I can see the argument from the greater to the lesser. But then if in 1 Corinthians 11 women were praying and prophesying in a way the apostle regulates, how are we to understand his prohibition in chapter 14, or when writing to Timothy?

 

[MW]

OK, I can see the argument from the greater to the lesser. But then if in 1 Corinthians 11 women were praying and prophesying in a way the apostle regulates, how are we to understand his prohibition in chapter 14, or when writing to Timothy?

This is obviously where the analogy argument breaks down and why I think we are better off considering the praying/prophesying as simply one action among many. I don't think the apostle's prohibition of women speaking forbids them from participation in ordinary means of grace. It only prohibits them from exercising official roles, such as would have been manifested in praying and prophesying.

 

[py3ak]

So praying and prophesying equate to taking on an official role. That is prohibited to them. But when the head is commanded to be covered in praying and prophesying it's a figure of speech for being in church. Am I grasping your argument?

 

[MW]

So praying and prophesying equate to taking on an official role. That is prohibited to them. But when the head is commanded to be covered in praying and prophesying it's a figure of speech for being in church. Am I grasping your argument?

No, it's not a figure of speech. It was an actual exercise of charismata. But it's only one action among many in the gathering of the church. This particular action comes in for attention because the individual came to the fore as he/she spoke to the congregation, so that a covered man or uncovered woman would make themselves conspicuous. But the apostle's way of dealing with the matter indicates that the issue of covering pertained to the gathering as a whole and not simply to praying/prophesying. The argument from the order of creation is applicable to every action of the assembly and not only to the specific action he draws attention to.

 

[py3ak]

So because a specific action is regulated, and the context makes it clear that it is in the context of the assembly, the regulation applies across the board.

But what I still don't quite get is that (albeit with a broader application in mind) Paul does regulate what he goes on to prohibit.

 

[MW]

So because a specific action is regulated, and the context makes it clear that it is in the context of the assembly, the regulation applies across the board.

But what I still don't quite get is that (albeit with a broader application in mind) Paul does regulate what he goes on to prohibit.

No, it doesn't necessarily apply across the board; but his reference to the creation order in this case is applicable to every action in the assembly. The woman is of the man and for the man, and therefore she ought to have power (or a token of power) on her head; but she is of the man and for the man not only when she prophesies but when she sings psalms and listens to the exposition of the Word, so she ought to have power on her head when she engages in these actions also.

I think chap. 11 is best seen as limiting itself to the question of decorum in the gathering while the regulation of prophesying is left off to its appropriate place where it shall be discussed in chap. 14.

 

[Mushroom]

So because a specific action is regulated, and the context makes it clear that it is in the context of the assembly, the regulation applies across the board.

But what I still don't quite get is that (albeit with a broader application in mind) Paul does regulate what he goes on to prohibit.

No, it doesn't necessarily apply across the board; but his reference to the creation order in this case is applicable to every action in the assembly. The woman is of the man and for the man, and therefore she ought to have power (or a token of power) on her head; but she is of the man and for the man not only when she prophesies but when she sings psalms and listens to the exposition of the Word, so she ought to have power on her head when she engages in these actions also.

I think chap. 11 is best seen as limiting itself to the question of decorum in the gathering while the regulation of prophesying is left off to its appropriate place where it shall be discussed in chap. 14.

I'm just a simple layman, but that sure sounds like some serious gymnastics. Again, why would Paul dictate rules applicable to a thing he would in a short space proscribe? Why are the angels mentioned limited to Church Angels? The text does not in any way require that. And since it does not, the statement that a woman's hair is her covering makes complete sense.

 

[py3ak]

OK, I think I'm still following you. But what I don't understand is why the Apostle regulates decorum making specific reference to the question of prophesying, when in bringing it up again shortly it is his intention to forbid it. As you pointed out when we began this conversation, that is a little strange. Just to take a simple example, when a recovering romanist requests guidance with regard to prayer for the saints, I don't normally explain how to do so decorously and then explain that it's wrong to do so --I start off with it being wrong and see no need to proceed any further!

 

[MW]

OK, I think I'm still following you. But what I don't understand is why the Apostle regulates decorum making specific reference to the question of prophesying, when in bringing it up again shortly it is his intention to forbid it. As you pointed out when we began this conversation, that is a little strange. Just to take a simple example, when a recovering romanist requests guidance with regard to prayer for the saints, I don't normally explain how to do so decorously and then explain that it's wrong to do so --I start off with it being wrong and see no need to proceed any further!

Just to clarify, I only regard it as strange on the supposition that he limits the regulation to the action of praying/prophesying. If his regulation applies to all actions in the assembly, as I believe it does, there is no difficulty. His regulation continues to apply to other actions even after he has prohibited the women from speaking in the church.

 

[MW]

I'm just a simple layman, but that sure sounds like some serious gymnastics. Again, why would Paul dictate rules applicable to a thing he would in a short space proscribe? Why are the angels mentioned limited to Church Angels? The text does not in any way require that. And since it does not, the statement that a woman's hair is her covering makes complete sense.

Sometimes we need gymnastics to extricate people from the tangles men sadly create for themselves. The non prima facie reading of this text has created the tangles.

The idea of long hair as a covering is just another tangle (tangled hair!). The apostle says that if the woman is not covered let her also be shorn. To be shorn is to have the hair cut close to the scalp, i.e., to have short hair. It would be redundant to say, if the woman does not have long hair let her also have short hair. The text clearly speaks of an artificial covering. The long hair is brought in later to make an illustration from nature to enforce the need for an artificial covering.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm just a simple layman, but that sure sounds like some serious gymnastics. Again, why would Paul dictate rules applicable to a thing he would in a short space proscribe? Why are the angels mentioned limited to Church Angels? The text does not in any way require that. And since it does not, the statement that a woman's hair is her covering makes complete sense.

Sometimes we need gymnastics to extricate people from the tangles men sadly create for themselves. The non prima facie reading of this text has created the tangles.

The idea of long hair as a covering is just another tangle (tangled hair!). The apostle says that if the woman is not covered let her also be shorn. To be shorn is to have the hair cut close to the scalp, i.e., to have short hair. It would be redundant to say, if the woman does not have long hair let her also have short hair. The text clearly speaks of an artificial covering. The long hair is brought in later to make an illustration from nature to enforce the need for an artificial covering.

Short hair that is not shorn is also not long hair. The reduncy would be Paul defining the rules for a practice he would later prohibit. I'm sorry, Pastor, but this sure appears to be eisogesis to defend a traditional practice that has no basis in scripture. The covering, as Paul clearly states in the same passage, is the hair.

 

[MW]

Short hair that is not shorn is also not long hair. The reduncy would be Paul defining the rules for a practice he would later prohibit. I'm sorry, Pastor, but this sure appears to be eisogesis to defend a traditional practice that has no basis in scripture. The covering, as Paul clearly states in the same passage, is the hair.

Perhaps it would be wise to consult a few standard commentaries before determining this interpretation to be eisegesis, especially considering that the commentaries have no interest in defending a traditional practice. For the record, whatever the covering refers to, Paul regulates women prophesying in chap. 11 and prohibits women speaking in chap. 14. This must be accounted for even if one holds the long hair to be a covering. Hence it is no argument against the natural sense of the words. As for the distinction between short hair and shorn, it is a distinction without a difference in the Greek.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

IF this has been linked already, apologies.
Paul's Discourse on the Use of Head Coverings During Public Worship. An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

 

[Mushroom]

Short hair that is not shorn is also not long hair. The reduncy would be Paul defining the rules for a practice he would later prohibit. I'm sorry, Pastor, but this sure appears to be eisogesis to defend a traditional practice that has no basis in scripture. The covering, as Paul clearly states in the same passage, is the hair.

Perhaps it would be wise to consult a few standard commentaries before determining this interpretation to be eisegesis, especially considering that the commentaries have no interest in defending a traditional practice. For the record, whatever the covering refers to, Paul regulates women prophesying in chap. 11 and prohibits women speaking in chap. 14. This must be accounted for even if one holds the long hair to be a covering. Hence it is no argument against the natural sense of the words. As for the distinction between short hair and shorn, it is a distinction without a difference in the Greek.

The simplest accounting for the two passages is that the first is addressing all situations of the Christian woman's life. She is not prohibited from praying or prophesying (expositing the scriptures) except in the setting of corporate worship. She will, as all Christians, pray continually, and exposit the scriptures to her children and other women. In those situations, she should be covered. Even when she is lying in her bed. And in all those situations the angels are witnesses. Thus she must always wear her covering, which Paul defines as her long hair.

One could say that short and shorn hair is a distinction without a difference in english as well, but those of us who speak it know different. Which makes more sense? Paul saying a woman must wear a doilly when she prays and prophesies in Church, which by the way she can't do; or that she must wear a covering whenever she prays or prophesies, which by the way she can't do in Church, but may elsewhere, and is her long hair?

Alright.... I'm done.

 

[MW]

One could say that short and shorn hair is a distinction without a difference in english as well, but those of us who speak it know different. Which makes more sense? Paul saying a woman must wear a doilly when she prays and prophesies in Church, which by the way she can't do; or that she must wear a covering whenever she prays or prophesies, which by the way she can't do in Church, but may elsewhere, and is her long hair?

Which makes more sense? I would suggest it is the prima facie reading of the text which requires an additional covering over and above the natural covering of the hair.

 

[TimV]

Which OT law is a woman's head covering based on?