1 Corinthians 11:6
For 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.
The woman in question here has hair, but not a covering. She is not shorn, but has no shawl. If she refused to get a scarf, she should be shorn. To be shorn would be shame, so it'd be a shame if she didn't simply get a scarf. That said, hair length cannot be the entire scope of this conversation.
Paul does later appeal to nature in verse 14 stating that women should have long hair and men should not, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" This qualifier seems redundant and unnecessary in supporting an apostolic command to do something most people already felt inclined to do. In other words, Paul is appealing to the natural to support his command to artificially cover. If it was a sheer matter of a woman growing her hair to a certain length, he could not appeal to nature, since they would have already felt free to ignore it in cutting their hair short in the first place. Whatever standard he would be looking to levy from nature would already have been ignored and set aside by his hearers. In other words, the women in Corinth already had long hair. He didn't need to command them to do something they were already doing. He wrote to command something some of them were wondering if they could set aside, that is, the covering of a woman's head when entering corporate worship.
This makes sense since the Christian church made women equal to men in Christ (Gal. 3:28) and as such invited them into the corporate worship of their common God and Savior. But since some norms were being broken down, like women and men attending the same service under the same roof, the question perhaps arose about what other norms were up for reconsideration. Head coverings, as Paul points out here, was one of those traditions anchored in eternity past (his appeal to creation order) and every geographical space (his appeal to every other church of God in existence).
God commands to our weakness and for the benefit of others. Paul didn't have to command Corinthians women to do something they were already inclined to do. But Paul is downright punchy here and even punctuates his argument by pointing out that others might want to punch back about this in vs. 16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Again this would make the most sense if being applied to an artificial covering more than to hair length. Who exactly is fighting about this back then? If Paul's appeal to nature is to be believed, then most people who would need to be presupposed to themselves presuppose that standard. If people largely did not recognize that nature covers a woman and not a man, then his appeal would lack authority. But if everyone already acknowledged that authority, then who exactly are these women who have already shorn themselves voluntarily?
Finally, Paul ends this appeal by stating that this is the practice of every church of God as mentioned above in vs. 16. It would stand to reason that a practice is something put into place. Again, women growing their hair long was something they were already doing. You don't need to introduce a practice of sleeping at night or eating when you are hungry. You would, however, have to introduce a practice to sleep during the day or to fast. These are unnatural and would require effort. If women intuitively grew their hair long, as nature demands, what practice would be needed?
IA straight forward reading of this text will lead any woman to assume she should cover her head with something at church. That same woman, however, then looks around and doesn't see many, if any, other women artificially covering their heads and even sees many who have cut their uncovered hair short to boot. She then assumes she has misread the text and that if it were this obvious, everyone else would be doing something about it. In other words, anyone who makes the case that the topic du jour here in 1 Corinthians 11 is merely about hair length, seems to start from a presupposition of saying, "It isn't about head coverings." This does beg the question, why would so many be so allergic to this reading of the text. At the very least, it seems like an honest reading. But many pastors actively attempt to admonish their women away from covering the heads or worse, threaten discipline them if they pursue it. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. It seems like a basic reading and comprehension thing, not a matter of subtle "yeah, but in the Greek" or "you have to consider the context of Corinthian prostitution" in order to understand. This is why it's also so baffling to me that so many don't just interpet the text at face value: that is to say, women should wear an artificial covering over their head during corporate worship. Plain and simple. Straight forward. Right there in the text and easy to obey.
At the end of the day, if Paul had made it back to Corinth, what would he have looked for in order to tell if he had been obeyed? It seems like he would expected to see women covering their head on the Lord's Day during the corporate worship gathering. Paul does point out that it's specifically in the context of praying or prophesying with her head uncovered that a shame is produced, but later goes on to state that it's a shame for her to have short hair wherever she is, whatever she is doing. It is a shame for a women to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered, but it is equally a shame for her to prepare dinner with short hair. The context implies that something should happen in the worship service that could happen elsewhere without incident. A women could not have short hair anywhere without being disgraced. Ergo, the way to avoid shame in the corporate worship setting is to put an artificial symbol of authority (a covering) over the natural symbol of authority (long hair) She is presupposed to possess the natural symbol, the command is to adopt the practice of placing an artificial one in place during worship services.
The consequences outlined in this section only seem to match a woman without a covering over her hair. The presence of long hair is simply assumed which is why one of the consequences of disobedience is shortening one's hair. If she already had short hair, this would be of no consequence. All of this to say, I don't know how to make heads or tails of any of the language in 1 Corinthians 11 without bringing in something other than ponytails.
If you're still not convinced, consider Calvin or Dabney.
"'But I would have you know' It is an old proverb: 'Evil manners beget good laws.' As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established." — John Calvin, Calvin's Commentary on the Bible: 1 Corinthians
"He says, that 'as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man.' We shall afterwards see, how he comes to infer from this, that women ought to have their heads covered." — John Calvin, Calvin's Commentary on the Bible: 1 Corinthians
"'Every woman praying or prophesying' Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1 Timothy 2:12.) It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14:34. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.
'For it is all one as if she were shaven'. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust." — John Calvin, Calvin's Commentary on the Bible: 1 Corinthians
"Two principles, then, are laid down: first, verse 4, that the man should preach (or pray) in public with head uncovered, because he then stands forth as God’s herald and representative; and to assume at that time the emblem of subordination, a covered head, is a dishonor to the office and the God it represents; secondly, verses 5, 13, that, on the contrary, for a woman to appear or to perform any public religious function in the Christian assembly, unveiled, is a glaring impropriety, because it is contrary to the subordination of the position assigned her by her Maker, and to the modesty and reserve suitable to her sex; and even nature settles the point by giving her her long hair as her natural veil. Even as good taste and a natural sense of propriety would protest against a woman’s going in public shorn of that beautiful badge and adornment of her sex, like a rough soldier or a laborer, even so clearly does nature herself sustain God’s law in requiring the woman to appear always modestly covered in the sanctuary. The holy angels who are present as invisible spectators, hovering over the Christian assemblies, would be shocked by seeing women professing godliness publicly throw off this appropriate badge of their position (verse 10). The woman, then, has a right to the privileges of public worship and the sacraments; she may join audibly in the praises and prayers of the public assembly, where the usages of the body encourage responsive prayer;. but she must always do this veiled or covered." — R.L. Dabney, The Public Preaching of Women
"A feeble attempt is made to find an implied recognition of the right of women to preach in 1 Cor. xi. 5 : 'But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonor-eth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.' They would fain find here the implication that the woman who feels the call may prophesy in public, if she does so with a bonnet on her head." — R.L. Dabney, The Public Preaching of Women
"The ordinance of worship which the apostle is regulating just here is not public preaching at all, but the sacred singing of psalms. And all that is here settled is, that Christian females, whose privilege it is to join in this praise, must not do so with unveiled heads, in imitation of some pagan priestesses when conducting their unclean or lascivious worship, but must sing public praises with heads modestly veiled." — R.L. Dabney, The Public Preaching of Women
No comments:
Post a Comment