Headcoverings history, & Cultural Meltdown
I DO NOT MAKE THIS A TEST OF FELLOWSHIP AND RARELY DISCUSS IT, ( so please don't accuse me of being a legalist or take this any way except at face value), but when you get time, I'd be very interested in your thoughts on the following.
About two and a half years ago I sent this to the folks on my mailing list -- generally a very opinionated and contentious bunch -- and I got very few replies and no one answered the direct question I began the discussion with : "Can any of you who do not ( or anyone who does) believe in a "literal" interpretation of I Cor 11 name one significant, conservative, Bible commentator prior to 1800 who espoused the theory that the headcovering was hair ? or something to be taken as "symbolic only" ? or a cultural thing that applied only to this time/ situation ?"
Please Read ( or at least skim) and give me your thoughts :
- Leslie Riley
--
Dear All,
Scripture, not history, must be our final judge. However, it is interesting to note how great the volume of "witnesses" is that believed in a interpretation on I Cor. 11 that required women to wear a literal covering in public worship. ( PLEASE read the forwarded article below -- Chapter five from "Headcoverings in Scripture" that gives a MASSIVE list of quotes from Bible commentators -- from the ancient Irenaeus to the modern R.C. Sproul ; all of whom view the headcovering as something literal ).
Can any of you who do not ( or anyone who does) believe in a "literal" interpretation of I Cor 11 name one significant, conservative, Bible commentator prior to 1800 who espoused the theory that the headcovering was hair ? or something to be taken as "symbolic only" ? or a cultural thing that applied only to this time/ situation ?
Many of you may be asking why I care or why this matters ( in light of all the "real issues" out there) ? Or if this is merely theological hair-splitting?
If, prior to the 1900's Bible-believing Christian churches all practiced the wearing of a headcovering by women for public worship and now almost none do -- the obvious question becomes what changed ?
I think it is interesting to consider a few other things that happened in the 1800's & early 1900's in the church and culture and the results . . . in the broad culture ( among other things) the rise of feminism; of communism/ socialism/ statism; the spread of "public" ( i.e. government) education -- by and large led by open socialists and communist with the openly stated goal of negating the influence of the family and the church upon children so they could be prepared to more readily accept communism/ socialism; the widespread, gradual - then rapid breakdown in Biblical standards of morality, Christian modesty and traditional social/ cultural standards in favor of "if it feels good do it"; the near universal ( even among professing Christians) acceptance of evolutionary foolishness; the mass of women entering the workplace in search of mammon -- along with children being left "unto themselves" ( or placed in the hands of no-telling-who to raise, shape, train, and possibly exploit them); the worship of youth culture and the whole idea that "teenage rebellion" was acceptable -- even expected; the removal of families, particularly fathers from the selection of spouses in favor of the innovation of "dating" . . . . the list goes on ad nausem
Then briefly consider theological and practical trends in the professing Evangelical church that have come along at the same time -- Dispensationalism; "higher criticism"/ theological liberalism; the "social gospel"; revivalism and "Finney -anism"; Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, and Abolitionism; less condemnation of real sin and more making up sins to condemn; the acceptance of psychology and "self-esteem" views; "progressive creationism"; the rise of youth ministry, children's ministry, graded Sunday School and an almost limitless spread of extra-biblical church "programs" that split the family up and seek to entertain rather than edify; a complete reversal of the role of women -- the removal of the headcovering, the redefining or ignoring of "keepers at home" ( Titus 2) so more potential tithers can enter the workforce, the gradual moving of women into leadership and teaching positions ( even to the point of having women co-pastors or associate pastors); the rise of the church growth movement, "seeker friendly" churches and a desire to meet people's "felt needs"; less biblical exposition and more flesh-feeding entertainment; . . . again, the list goes on ad nausem
Finally, examine what has happened in Western "Christian" culture in the last 150 or so years . . . ( do I really need to recount this?)
Am I claiming that women putting a piece of cloth on their head for worship will make any difference in the course of world events -- yes, I am. . . if you disagree or you would like me to prove this claim please respond . . I'd love to hear some comments on this one
Your Obedient Servant,
Leslie Riley
--
Headcoverings in Scripture
by Greg Price
Chapter Five: What Does Church History Teach?
(Full Article Here)
Hi,
I have done a lot of research on the head covering issue from historical sources of the Jews. The head covering was worn by men because of reverence toward God and because they felt themselves ashamed before him and unworthy to look upon God without a covering. It is the same thing that happened in the garden of Eden. The covering was made by the man and the woman because of the shame of their sin before God. They could no longer stand before God without feeling shame because of their sin. The Talmud also speaks about the woman's head covering. Because of Eve's sin, the married woman is to go around with her head covered because of the shame of the first wife who they say brought the first husband into sin.
Paul says that to wear a head covering that symbolizes the shame of our sin is not appropriate for a Christian. Jesus has taken away the shame of our sin and to wear a symbol of that shame is to place the emphasis on our sin instead of the one who took away our sin and shame.
For the woman Paul allows her to wear the head covering because in those days Society considered an uncovered woman's head in public to be a shame to her husband. The Talmud tells us why. An uncovered married woman's hair was considered as private as exposing her private parts and this brought shame to her husband if her hair was shown in public. The punishment for a married woman caught without her veil was divorce without the marriage settlement. This would have caused her to be destitute so although the veil symbolized the shame of sin for both the man and the woman, Paul allows the woman to be veiled because of her earthly head - her husband and the impact on her marriage. However the man had no marital obligations to wearing the head covering so Paul did not allow him to be veiled. Paul said the man had no obligation to be veiled and since the veiling brought shame to Christ the men were forbidden to veil. John Lightfoot in his commentaries brings out the Jewish tradition that many people have never seen nor understood before. Now that the Talmud is available in English more people are seeing and understanding the reason that Paul said that the head covering shamed Christ.
Cheryl
Posted by
Cheryl Schatz |
9:22 PM
Hi,
Up until about 15 years ago, commentatories said that women were not spiritually equal with men because of creation and the fall. Does this prove a point that commentatories on the bible are infallable? Not likely.
It's easy for someone to find out why the head covering shames Christ and the Jewish historical sources show that the head covering symbolized our shame of sin. So what about the woman? Does the head covering symbolize her shame of sin? Yes indeed it does too. But scripture shows that Christ is our head as Christ is the head of the entire church and the husband is also our head. The woman is the only one who has two heads. If she wears the symbol of her sin she shames Christ. If she doesn't wear the symbol of her sin she shames her husband (according to Jewish sources). We cannot discount the historical sources because this is part of proper interpretation. It is called the historical grammatical interpretation method.
So Paul does not demand that the woman wear the veil, he says "let her". He allows her to wear the veil and if there is shame if she doesn't wear the veil he allows her to veil. It is her decision because either way she shames one of her heads. When we all come into union with Christ, there will no longer be the requirement in society to veil because no longer will the husband be shamed. My husband and I am united in our glorifying Christ and he would never consider my not wearing a veil as a shame to him.
Both men and women are the glory of God, but only the woman has two glories. She is the glory of God because she was also created in his image, but she is also the glory of man because she was created from the man. Two glories, two heads and a choice for the woman.
I have to run and won't be checking back on this blog. If you want to email me on this issue, my email address is mmoutreachATgmailDOTcom.
Cheryl
Posted by
Cheryl Schatz |
6:16 AM