Headcovering (Part Two)

 As a continuation of "Headcovering, Part One", I see two more possible ways of interpreting 1 Corinthians 11.

The most common one in modern Christianity is...


(OPTION 3)This passage was talking about a cloth covering, but is no longer culturally relevant.

I don't think it makes any sense, due to the inconsistencies noted in the section where I dealt with "Option 1."
If those inconsistencies exist in a Mennonite context, then they would also exist in a Corinthian context. If it's simply cultural, then it's not a spiritual principle.

But it looks like Paul was addressing a spiritual principle... unless... it's another spiritual principle he was dealing with, and due to focusing too closely, we haven't been able to see the forest for the trees. What if the key is not in the Greek wording, but in the context of a larger conversation that was happening?
..............................

Which means Paul's actual intent may most rationally be found in the last option:

(OPTION 4) This is an obscure mixture of questions quoted from the letter from Corinth, and Paul's answers back to them. 

This idea, I think, may actually be the most credible of the four.
The book of 1 Corinthians has quite a few such quotations from that long-lost letter, which the church hasn't always identified correctly.

Here are a few examples:

Example A:
1 Cor 7:1 was translated "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
But is this true? 
In Genesis, God said, "It is not good that man should be alone: I will make a help meet for him!"  Therefore, it's good for men to be married - it was God's original plan.
The Anglican translators of the KJV, highly influenced by Catholic tradition, thought celibacy was more spiritual than marriage.

Actually, that was probably a question: "Is it good for a man not to touch a woman?"
Greek doesn't have question marks or periods. We have to understand from context what are statements and what are questions.

And the rest of the chapter is Paul's answer to that question: let every man have his own wife, and every woman have her own husband. (Of course, Paul spoke in favor of celibacy, but that wasn't Holy Ghost inspired instruction: Paul clarified it was only his personal opinion.)

Example B:
"Every sin that a man doeth is without the body..." (6:18)
Now, is this one true?
Are there any sins that directly involve the body? Of course!   Several come to mind immediately: gluttony, drunkenness, sexual immorality, drug abuse, etc.

This is actually an early Gnostic idea: that the physical world is so separated from the spiritual realm that whatever you do physically won't affect your spirit.
(This heresy is still found in some "Christian" theology!)

Paul's response was immediate: "BUT, he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body!"
Fornication was a big problem in the Corinthian church, due to Gnostic influence.
This passage is another attempt by Paul to straighten out heretical doctrine in the early church.

Example C:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak... as also saith the law..." found in  1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Big problem: The Law of Moses said no such thing.
But the Pharisees' law handed down from "them of old time" (which Jesus strongly opposed!) said this, almost word-for-word. Those two verses are actually a quote from the Pharisee addition to Moses' law. I have personally read it in the Mishnah.

And again, Paul's strong disapproval of those two verses is reflected by his comeback in the next verse, I Corinthians 14:36 - "WHAT?..."
(I've dealt with this at length in the blog post entitled, "As Also Saith This Law.")
......................

Therefore, would it be surprising if the first half of 1 Cor. 11 would also be part of this long-misunderstood conversation between the Corinthian church and Paul?

In fact, my uncle Dr. Karl Westmeier, who preferred to read the New Testament in Greek, believed strongly that this is the only possible correct interpretation of the passage. (He was a college professor who read and spoke at least 5 languages, including Greek and Hebrew.)

For years, I had a hard time seeing clearly which parts would have been the questions and which parts would have been Paul's answers. But suddenly, it was as if a light switched on, and I saw it clearly.

Let's look at the passage:

2  Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3  But I would have you know, that the head (source*) of every man is Christ; and the head (source*) of the woman is the man; and the head (source*) of Christ is God.

*NOTE: Greek "kephale" ("head") in the first century, had no connotation of "authority."
First-century Greek literature used "kephale" to mean "source" as in "headwaters."
It wasn't until the second century that "kephale" was used to indicate a position of authority.

And now Paul quotes from the lost letter:

4  "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5  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.
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.
7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8  For the man is not of (Gk:"originating from") the woman; but the woman of (Gk:"originating from") the man.
9  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10  For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

And then Paul opposes the preceding verses:

11  Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (see Galatians 3:28)
12  For as the woman is of (Gk: "out of") the man, even so is the man also by (Gk: "through") the woman; but all things of (Gk:"originating from") God.
(see the contradiction with v.8?... Also, see how Paul's theme is "source"?)

Again, Paul quotes from the lost letter, as the Pharisaical legalists now appealed to carnal reason:

13  "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

And then Paul opposes that idea:

16  But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

WHY?
Why did Paul conclude the discussion with this strange wrap-up?

Because nowhere else in the entire Bible is this an issue!

Notice, Paul references two groups that have no such custom: "we" and "the churches of God."

First, who was Paul referring to as "we"?
Most likely, he was talking about Jewish culture. Paul was a Jew, writing to a Gentile church. And Jewish tradition has never held a woman's headgear to be a religious symbol... rather it was a sexual symbol.

In fact, a woman's veil could be the mark of a prostitute - see Genesis 38:14-19.
And not only ungodly women wore the veil over their faces - see Genesis 24:65.

Even in the Old Testament, God never told women to wear a veil. It was merely human custom. Ancient records, along with Scripture, indicate veils were not a symbol of submission at all, but were rather an article of clothing worn to conceal identity.

Women were allowed to minister in song in the Temple... (1 Chron. 25:5-6 and Psalm 68:24-25)... but even in that context, God said NOTHING about their need to be veiled, even though MALE priests were required to have their heads covered!

Instead, the Old Testament instructs the opposite of what 1 Cor 11 would seem to indicate - God actually asked women to do exactly like the men, when consecrating themselves to the Lord via a Nazarite vow... let the hair grow untrimmed during the vow, and then shave or shear the head BALD at the end.

Now, how could this be a "Creation principle," for women to be veiled and have uncut hair, if God required the opposite under the Law?

Along the same lines, look at the required headcoverings for the male priests - they were to be "for glory and for beauty" when appearing before the Lord. (Exodus 28:40)
So, how could it become repulsive to God, to see a man praying with something on his head... and such an idea not be a great enough change for Jesus to say something about it?

Remember also, that the early church continued worshiping in the Temple (even sacrificing animals! see Acts Acts 21:26) and they continued keeping the Law exactly as they had been taught... with no mention of a change about head covering or hair length different from what Moses taught!

Therefore, it is obvious that Jewish culture and history had no such custom of viewing a woman's cloth head veil or her long hair, as having any religious significance.

...But what about "neither the churches of God"?
Are there any other Scriptures that would indicate a woman's headcovering or long hair was required in the first-century church?

In Acts 15, the Apostles came together to discuss what rules were to be observed by Gentile believers. This was a time of great debate, and much care went into formulating the list of requirements. And they simplified it into 4 points, the final one being the most important: 

1. Farming with horses
2. Speaking Pennsylvania Dutch
3. Wearing ultra-religious drab clothes
4. Woman in absolute submission, signified by long hair and a headcovering.

oops. wrong list.


The actual list was:
1. No idols
2. No fornication
3. No eating strangled things
4. Don't eat blood.


Neither headcoverings nor hair length were on that list!

Think about that! The Jewish Church would have made the headcovering (or long hair) a rule for Gentile believers, if it were a New Testament requirement!  But they didn't. Because it wasn't.

Jesus introduced ALL of the New Covenant principles... and the Apostles reinforced each one in the book of Acts. And neither Jesus nor his Apostles mentioned hair or veils. In fact, they "had no such custom!"

In conclusion,

Look again at Paul's wrap-up in verse 16.
"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Paul was highly educated. He knew how to introduce a subject, formulate an argument and then how to conclude it. And an educated lecturer always concludes by clarifying the core issue, and then telling the audience how to act on it.

This verse, Paul's wrap-up of the entire discussion, is usually skimmed over and largely ignored by most head-covering preachers, as obscure and difficult to understand!

But in this concluding verse, Paul zeroes in on the core issue: someone within the church was stirring up contention over opinions about dress - which is a prime example of how the devil works, getting our focus off God, and onto man.

After all, where do contentions and strife come from?

James 3:14  But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. 15  This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

So... the entire issue discussed in the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 was brought up by earthly, sensual, devilish thinking! Someone was operating in the flesh, thinking they were super-spiritual!

Of course. That's how the Pharisees operated - looking on the outward appearance.
Passing judgment on others... and justifying self by adopting an overtly religious outward appearance. That's legalism.

When we judge ourselves as righteous (or others as unrighteous) based on outward appearances, then... "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by (any) law; ye are fallen from grace." Galatians 5:4

Now, most Christian legalists aren't pure legalists... They usually sincerely believe they are saved by Christ's finished work on the cross.

However, Galatians 5:4 is a warning to ALL of us.  You see, it's impossible to stay at one point spiritually. We are always moving a little, like a boat in a flowing stream. And the direction we move is the direction we are focusing. The more we focus on outward things, the more distanced we become from Christ's finished work. And that way lies eventual spiritual death... if we keep going that direction.

But the more focused we become on Christ, the less we think like man, on outward things, and more we think like God, on things of the heart.

This is a matter of individual conscience and culture.

Hair and veils are not salvation issues.
These are "outward appearance" issues... which is not what God focuses on.

Wherever you decide to do on this subject is between you and God.
Do what you honestly feel is right.

But remember, we are all works in progress.
It usually takes a lot of time til we fully understand God's ways... in fact, it takes a lifetime!

So don't feel pressured to come to a quick conclusion on this subject.
Let God lead you as He wills... and have patience and grace with yourself and others.