1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Sorry Esaias. I didn’t realize y’all were isolating 1Corinthians 11 from the Old Testament examples of veil use. I still think it’s interesting even if it’s not necessarily relevant to the story.

I’m not trying to take a side in the discussion, I’m just trying to learn. I think that the position that Esaias takes makes the most sense to me. I wish it were articulated more clearly by Paul, but I have an idea that in his time, and to the audience he was writing to, it probably made perfect sense.

I have also thought about the custom of removing our hats to pray as men. It does seem uncouth for a man to pray with a hat on.

Just another note to Dan? Just to keep it real, it really shouldn’t be on Esaias to prove you wrong. I think that would be an unrealistic precedent to follow. Typically, when we address doctrine, it is incumbent on us individually to prove doctrine by supporting it with scripture. After all there is only one doctrine that is true and correct. There are many opinions. And of course, as is usually the case in vetting doctrine, it is only possible for one view to be true. On the other hand it is possible for both to be wrong.

Or all three. I do think it’s important to pursue truth though. That is the beauty of the AFF forum in my opinion.

Well, I wasn't trying to isolate 1 Cor 11 from the Old Testament references to veils and coverings, per se. I was however trying to point out that Paul's doctrine was not simply a repeat of "old testament doctrine". I do notice that the Levitical priests were required to cover their heads when ministering in the Tabernacle/Temple. This at first glance appears to contradict Paul's doctrine. But when we consider Paul also taught that the glory of God was concealed or covered up as it were under the old covenant (symbolised by Moses having to veil his face when he was in public), whereas under the new covenant the glory of God is uncovered in Christ, it follows the same pattern. That is, the new covenant "ordinance" of the man being uncovered when praying or prophesying is a great new covenant contrast to the old covenant Levitical priestly ordinance.

As for the woman, if (as Paul points out) she represents the glory of Man, then she ought to be covered. Not because of anything about females in particular, but because of what they symbolically represent - the glory of the man - needing to be covered in the presence of God. That is, God's glory is symbolically uncovered, and man's glory is symbolically covered, when anyone is speaking either to or for God.

The old testament-era custom of women being veiled (pretty much all the time) when in public - which also prevailed not only in new testament times but all up through the middle ages and the renaissance and into the 1800s - appears to have been a social custom, since I cannot find a Divine ordinance anywhere in Scripture for women to be veiled "whenever out in public". Neither is there a command for men to be uncovered "whenever out in public". I think the Scripture indicates that women probably DID wear a headcovering of some kind whenever in public (otherwise the reference in Isaiah to Babylon as a woman being shamed by being stripped, including the removal of her headgear wouldn't really make much sense), but as far as I can see the INSTRUCTION is for "praying and prophesying".

The fact Paul speaks about "when praying or prophesying" indicates the tradition he is referring to is independent of any social custom, but rather has to do with worship. Which also is one of the reasons I don't think his point is simply about hair length, since that would be a matter that pertained all the time, not just when praying or prophesying.

I've noticed most people, who don't have some kind of tradition they grew up with about the subject, when they read 1 Cor 11 their first impression is usually that it is saying women ought to wear a headcovering during worship, and men ought not to. At least that has been my experience.