“At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16: 11)
The Basket Case Chronicles #125
“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” (1 Cor. 11:6).
Without coming to any final conclusions just yet, we should first consider the if, then possibilities. Paul says here that if the woman is not covered, she might as well be shorn. If it is a disgrace for a woman to be shorn in this way, and it is, then she should make a point of remaining covered. So, whatever “covering” means here, not having it is tantamount to a woman having her head buzzed.
Given the larger context, this sentence could be saying one of two things. Paul could be saying “if the woman is uncovered by a veil/shawl/hat, then she might as well have her head shaved.” Or he could be saying that “if the woman has short hair, such that it does not provide a natural covering, then she might as well go all the way and have it all shaved off.”
Now I am inclined to take it in the latter sense here. Saying that “a woman with most of her hair cut off is about the same as having all her hair cut off” seems to follow, in a way that saying “a woman without a hat is about the same as having all her hair cut off” does not.
This is also because to take “uncovered” as not having an artificial cover requires us to say that an uncovered woman with long hair might as well get a buzz cut. But this seems to contradict v. 15, which says that long hair is a woman’s glory. As that glory it is either an analogue to the required artificial covering, or it is that covering itself, provided by nature. But in neither case would it be tantamount to being shaved. The thing that would be tantamount to being shaved would be for a woman to have her hair cropped to such an extent that it did not provide her with her natural covering.
Agreed (I know, right?).
All that, plus: the only time Paul mentions a covering per se is in v. 15, where he expressly says that her long hair is given her ἀντὶ περιβολαίου, in the place of a wrap, a cloak, a covering.
Do I sense a reaction to the recent head covering movement?
As always, very thought provoking. I even did a couple re-reads to make sure I wasn’t simply reading what I wanted to see said. I’m looking forward to more.
Pastor Wilson,
I would respectfully request that if possible given the format, that you would engage with Calvin and Henry’s writings regarding this issue. I am curious if their position (which seems similar to each other) correlates or juxtaposes with your exposition.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xviii.i.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.iCor.xii.html
Thank you.
One might also ask if this is a follow on to some posts at another blog. Hmmm… If Conzelmann is right (as I suspect he is), this passage is all about submission. If that is the case, then is it appropriate to sever the physical from the underlying metaphor it signifies? What is the real cover here? Is it hair? Is it cloth? Or is it covenant cover? If that is the real core, then I think the point has been missed. The woman, without covenant cover, might as well be shorn. By the nature of the ebb and flow… Read more »
Still isn’t recognizing carriage returns or HTML tags, Doug.
Mr. Brainerd, If I am understanding your comment correctly, it seems that you are echoing Calvin when he says: “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…”For this cause ought the woman to have power”. From that authority he draws an argument in favor of outward decorum. “She is subject,” says he, “let her then… Read more »
The Hat Trick – Ok, here it goes, because anyone who has been following along at this point “should” be concerned about Doug continuing to say, well the word of God could say this, or it could say that. That is not Wilson language. Another minister Tom, just jumped in and is saying “what is the real cover here? Is it hair? Is it cloth? Or is it covenant cover?” Which is the “Wright” way of saying well we just don’t know, but it’s not necessary for salvation. Let’s do a study! Confusion in the sanctuary over a symbol, and… Read more »
Here’s my take, and I’ll admit that it could easily be wrong. I agree with some of what Steve Perry said. The hair of a woman is her glory, and as glory, it should be covered when the woman is prophesying or praying. I don’t think this passage is talking about worship in the generic sense, or simple daily hairstyles either. The way I’ve come to see this passage is saying that a woman praying or prophesying (both communal activities) should cover her glory, to prevent man from being glorified (since man is her head) and let God’s glory be… Read more »
I think Steve is right to argue that this is about creation and worship and if we see it that way there is no contradiction between verses six and sixteen: Paul is simply saying that if the woman is not properly adorned for worship then she should also give up her creational glory as well. That makes a lot more sense then establishing the hairline to determine what hair is long enough.
First, to those who have raised the question, note the second line of the post: this is #125 in a series. The serendipitous timing that coincides with the new headcovering movement business is a God thing, not a Doug thing. Second, I come down on the it’s-an-additional-covering side: In the context of worship, God’s glory (man) stays uncovered; man’s glory (woman) gets covered; woman’s glory (hair) gets covered. Third, I lean toward thinking that the covering is only required of wives, but I’m not superconfident or articulate on that point. Which… …fourth, makes it even weirder that I’ve chosen to… Read more »
How, one might ask, can the position of the man as woman’s head and the woman as man’s glory be separated? I question whether a hard line of false dichotomy is being drawn here. The two issues are inextricably intertwined *right back to the garden.* [There is supposed to be a new paragraph here] If the woman is not adorned in the inner person of the heart with a quiet and gentle spirit, submissive to her own husband, then she is hardly the glory of the man, now is she? Nor is her self-removal from creation order a glory to… Read more »
If there is a ‘movement, it has not found California.
And , Tom it does appear that I can make a new paragraph
Was there supposed to be one in that post?
Tom, it’s not about your wedding. It’s about worship, and the responsibilities and authority you and Adam have as priests prior to your marriage. Worship first as individuals before God. And yes, women have their own creational glory without being married! And why do you continue to cut off unmarried women, widows, women who don’t want to marry and are without a father etc, etc, etc. Perhaps you are using the modern version ESV where ministers got together and transferred their own pulpit authority and responsibility to husbands and the sphere of the family? Just another attempt by Adam to… Read more »
Steve, the language is only tentative because I want to get through the chapter. I will state my conclusions at the end.
Steve, please explain how a ‘hard divide’ comes between what happens in the congregational worship and what happens the other 166 hours of the week. [paragraph] Is it not clear from the prophets that ‘second table apostasy’ is an impediment to worship, just as it is clear from the Sermon on the Mount. Second table apostasy is, by definition, related to what happens in those 166 other hours.[paragraph] Yes, the woman has her own glory in the context of God’s economy. But it is not severable from her being the glory of her husband. And if her lack of submission… Read more »
Hmmm…no, don’t use the ESV. And, frankly, I would like *somebody* to explain to me how wearing a signification of proper submission in second table terms into the worship service is something violative of the primary family of God.[paragraph] BTW…Perhaps you would also be interested in the writings of Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, who asserts that what the woman wears is “Authority on Her Head,” or Troy Martin, asserting that the headcovering is really a metaphorical ‘testicle’ on her head? LIke Conzelmann, as liberal (and feminist) theologicians, they arrive at the same conclusion of the core of the passage, with much more… Read more »
St. Paul’s mention of long hair on men (which as an aside finally convinced me out of my long hair) seems odd if we’re talking about hats and veils.
>>and I’ve never gotten a whiff of anybody making an issue of it… That is, anybody except the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul. With that clarification, I very much like your summary, Valerie. Preaching through First Corinthians, last Spring we arrived at chapter 11 and spent a few weeks on vs. 1-16. Read and read and read on it and arrived at the brilliant conclusion that covering has always been one of the ways the Christian church confesses her faith that God’s Creation Order is good and beautiful. Few things are as good-newsy or transformational or evangelistic today as… Read more »
Johnny wields Occam’s Razor quite well.
Doug, I don’t think you caught the point raised against you from the last post. If I may note it again…. Paul shows that “uncovered” does not mean short hair and “shorn” does not mean shaved because in the sixth verse he uses the phrase ‘shorn or shaven’ showing that they are not the same thing. This is a problem for you as we can see when we implement your idea: For if the woman be not covered has short hair, let her also be shorn shaven: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn shaven… Read more »
Formatting errors in last post, replace it with this… Doug, I don’t think you caught the point raised against you from the last post. If I may note it again…. Paul shows that “uncovered” does not mean short hair and “shorn” does not mean shaved because in the sixth verse he uses the phrase ‘shorn or shaven’ showing that they are not the same thing. This is a problem for you as we can see when we implement your idea: For if the woman be not covered has short hair, let her also be shorn shaven: but if it be… Read more »
Henry, how are you getting the HTML tags to work? What am I missing?
Tom, our workaround has been to use the blockquote tag to create an artificial paragraph break. The em tag works, the i tag does not. a href works. Not sure about bold or strong, so let’s see: bold, strong. Just be careful to close any open tags to avoid accidentally formatting the rest of your comment.
Henry — I’d of course be happy for you not to rebuild your sandcastle. ;^)
Tim — Of course by “anybody” I meant the any members of the congregation.
Very confuzle.
Hello Tom. Let me clarify something. When you start talking about, second table apostasy and that I might be interested in Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza’s work, somewhere we got off track or I failed to articulate myself plainly. I’m sorry. I can only speculate as to why, but here it goes. When I said, “Which is the “Wright” way of saying well we just don’t know, but it’s not necessary for salvation”, I was not in any way suggesting that the wearing of a covering by a woman was. I was generalizing the answer many ministers give on this subject. This answer… Read more »
For the first time ever, I am thinking that my long hair is not enough to properly honor God. This in spite of the personal experience (I know, I know)that women I have known who have worn a covering have been controlling and “heads” of many areas in their lives. There us more . . . but I don’t want to completely muddy the waters.
of women I have known . . .
Steve…by going into the ‘second table apostasy’ issue I am in no way asserting that you or anyone else thinks that this is not adiaphora. Instead…that what happens in the 166 hours has a very direct bearing on what happens in the two…that there is no ‘white space’ for a hard divide between the two. Hence, a separation between the headship of the man in the 166 and what happens in the 2 does not go away. It may recede into the background. Everybody is supposed to ‘wear’ their submission all the time. First, obviously, it needs to exhibit in… Read more »
Hello Tom. 1st, if a woman wearing a covering is dependent upon her purity exhibited in her heart and life, then each of us should really start doing some very deep reflection as to whether we should come to church or not. But that’s what confession is for. God see’s the heart, but the Angles do not. God wants’ to see this visible creed of creation at His table. If you wear a collar, do you in purity of heart and life always exhibit what it means? I attempted to give an allegory above, because symbolism without the symbol is… Read more »
Mari — Every once in a while a woman will ask me about covering, and, if she is married, I always say the same thing: ask your husband what he wants you to do. So, if you’ve got one, ask him!
Valerie, a husband is not responsible for how we are to worship in the sanctuary. The minister is. Also, the worship of God is not a movement. As our memorials say, “We believe that Lord’s Day worship is our highest privilege, our greatest duty, and our deepest joy. And, “In constructing our liturgies, we are to pay particular attention to those portions of God’s Word that are specifically given to inform us of what God desires in worship.” How about all of 1 Cor 11 and not just half! This is something to fight over in love. And by the… Read more »