Reading 1 Corinthians 11 today (7/18/19) in Bible Read Thru and noticed this in verse 6...
For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short
If the common narrative is that the "covering" is referring to long hair, then this would read, "if a wife will not have long hair, then she should cut her hair short." But that is assuming that she already has short hair, hence the rebuke... if we 're ONLY talking about length of hair. How could the punishment for having short hair be to cut her hair short... It's already short.
Previously in vs 5 he said...
every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
If this is merely referring to length of hair again, it would read, "every wife who prays or prophesies with short hair is basically praying like she was bald." So her hair is not already shaven or short or else, again, this parallel would not make sense. It only makes sense if having short hair or a shaved head would be inherently disgraceful consequence and something no one would proactively, voluntarily partake.
Then in vs. 7 he seals the deal by saying
But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
Again, since it would be disgraceful to cut off her hair (short) or shave her head (bald altogether), let her cover her head. This would be nonsense if it read, "Since it is a shame to cut your hair short or bald, keep your hair long." It's already long or she would already be in a state of disgrace. As it is, she is being commanded to avoid a shameful state. She does so by covering her long hair which she already has. But the hair is not the covering or it would already be solved.
If the aim were merely to have long-haired women, you wouldn't have to warn short-haired or bald women with the threat of cutting their hair. That would be redundant.
"If you do not have long hair, I will be forced to cut your hair short."
"Ugh... It's already short."
"Ahhh!!!"
So Paul's aim here appears to be the covering; and that women would use that covering in addition to their long hair. The hair alone is not the covering, but is assumed. In no scenario is short hair permitted. It is only given as a consequence of being disobedient to the command to cover or as an equivocation of the shame they should experience for not covering.
In wrapping up this discussion, Paul says in vs. 13-15
Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
Nature is an additional witness that Paul confidently calls to the stand. If a man has long hair, it is disgraceful. We can all see that. It is not becoming of him or befitting his calling as a man. However, if a woman has long hair, that is glorious. It matches. It makes sense. In this analogy, nature is covering women. It is teaching us that women should have a covering on their head as observed in their natural state. What Paul is arguing about in this section is not merely doing what is already natural. He is leveraging the strength of what is natural in order to testify on behalf of his previous argument that women should proactively place a symbol of authority on top of the natural symbol they have been given.
In other words, women should place a covering on top of their long hair.
In vs. 10, Paul said it this way
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head
Symbols are artificial representatives of actual realities. The symbol is not the long hair. The long hair is the natural. The symbol is the artificial. The symbol in this case is the covering. So the covering goes on top of the long hair in order to symbolize what is already present in the natural in order to point even further to the supernatural reality of women being the glory of man.
Lastly, Paul closes this discussion by point out in vs. 16
If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
I realize even with this train of thought, many will not track or will jump ship in disagreement or will ride it out and still not be convinced. I'm just saying what I'm seeing. I'm late to the party on this, I understand and am not presuming to saunter in with a new revelation.
But whatever Paul meant by this discussion, he meant for it to be universal and unquestionable. This was not a Corinthian rule for a Corinthian situation resulting from a Corinthian problem. This was the rule for all Christians in all situations in all churches. There was no other acceptable practice utilized by Christians during that time in that neighborhood specifically or in the natural world more generally. Since nature does not change and the apostle went out of his way to state that this was not contextual, it seems reasonable to revisit this discussion to identify what is being said and how it applies to us now. The most unacceptable position to take regarding this passage is indifference. If there is a principle involved, it doesn't evaporate over time. If there are practices employed in the past empowered by embracing the principle, then we should learn from them and at the very least, seek to put into practice the principle in our time. Because principles don't die and nature doesn't change.
No comments:
Post a Comment