Ward-Shellekens Discussion on the Covering

The Ward - Schellekens Debate

Mark J. Ward's First Negative

"The Scriptures teach that women today
may pray to God bareheaded."

Ward's First Negative

NOTE: This article, as well as all previous speeches, can be read easier by clicking on the Ward-Schellekens Links at:
http://www.religiousinstructor.com/mar03/debate.html

Greetings (again) to Rudy Schellekens, the list moderators of The Religious Debates Website, and to all the readers of this discussion. I would like to thank brother Rudy for his continued kindnesses shown me in his third negative and first affirmative (as we now change propositions). Rudy did not negate my affirmative arguments presented in the first part of our discussion, although he did try to deal with them more in his latter speeches in this good Bible discussion. I believe we are making progress in seeing the weaknesses in the position that brother Rudy is now affirming. I encourage brother Rudy, as well as all readers, to carefully read brother Rudy's last two articles and see wherein he fails as I reply to both speeches in this article.

Rudy is now affirming, "The Scriptures teach that women today may pray to God bareheaded." Rudy failed to define the terms of the proposition, and such would have caused brother Rudy problems, since he espouses a ~combination view~ of the long hair being the covering that ONLY THE WIVES ONLY AT CORINTH were to wear when praying or prophesying, but IF they had short hair, Rudy asserts and teaches, the passage teaches they should then have to wear an artificial headdress. (Rudy, you correct me if I misunderstand your position, as such is never my intent.) Rudy asserts, but does not prove from Scripture the assumptions that cause him to believe such a doctrine. In fact, the very translation that he uses in his first affirmative speech does not even uphold his position (for not once was the term "husband" or "wife" found in the translation that Rudy used in I Corinthians 11:1-16)!

In the spirit of a good Bible discussion, I will try to deal with all that brother Rudy noted in his last negative speech that he indicated I should deal with and then proceed to review his first affirmative speech. (Rudy, if I missed something, it was NOT intentional, so please bring it to my attention so I can reply to it and you can have a response before I get to my last negative. Thanks, in advance.) Please feel free to refer back to the referenced quotes from the earlier speeches given by our good brother Rudy. I appreciate so much brother Rudy being willing to engage in a Bible discussion like this, and hope that all can readily see that Rudy does NOT prove: "The Scriptures teach that women today may pray to God bareheaded." in his first affirmation.

Please note the following quotes taken from Rudy's 3rd negative speech on the first proposition (followed by my reply):

Rudy writes: What all your arguments have proven thus far, is that yes, the women in Corinth, at the time Paul was writing, needed to have their heads covered while praying or prophesying.

Rudy writes: No, Mark, they did not dishonor their heads (when I asked Rudy about wives at Ephesus praying bareheaded- mjw). And remember, this is the same letter where Paul discusses the idea of submission: Wives, submit to your husband. He is using the exact same words here as he is using in 1 Corinthians 11: Wives GUNAIKES (wives) must submit to their ANDRASIN (own husbands). Although the passage in Ephesians very specifically addresses the issue of submission and headship, no mention is made for the need of a head covering!

Rudy writes: I did not ask, Mark, what 150 scholars would do. I asked specifically: "Please explain how you would agree with the term "husband" in 1 Cor. 7, but so vehemently oppose the translation of ANER with husband in 1 Cor. 11? You even go so far as to call that idea a "liberal translation." You have not answered that question. Contextually (i.e. how words are used in similar context by the same author) "wives" and "husbands" can be pre-supposed as meaning. Not only can they pre- supposed by context, but when the same author uses the same terms in the same subject matter (submission), making a strong arguments that "wives must submit to their own husbands" than, to use your argument about "sameness of teaching", the Corinthian brethren must have understood this the same way the Ephesian brethren did.

Rudy writes: You still have not made the argument that a) the teaching was for all times, and b) the teaching went beyond Corinth. Once again, reading through the different letters, some issues are the same (and mentioned repeatedly), yet this issue is addressed nowhere else, even in a context extremely fitted for such an occasion, Ephesians 5!

Rudy writes …Yet, the head covering IS a cultural event, as I will make clear in my first affirmation.

Rudy writes: Mark, yes, I do believe that woman is the glory of man. Yes, I do believe that woman was created for man.

Mark here: When I defined my terms of the first proposition, Rudy did not seem to disagree with the headdress, yet Rudy later in the discussion begins to contend that ~the long hair~ is the covering required by the text for WIVES ONLY at CORINTH ONLY when praying or prophesying! I have shown that the inspired reasons that God gave for "every woman" to be covered while "praying or prophesying" included: headship, it is a shame for woman to pray uncovered, the order of creation, woman was created for the man, because of the angels, lesson from nature, and no such custom as the contentious man would contend for. All of these reasons exist today and have nothing to do with the "cultural" theory that Rudy presents to us. Please read on.

According to YOUNG'S ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE, the form of "ANER" is translated "MAN" in I Corinthians 11:3,3,4,7,7,8,9,9,11,12,14 IN EVERY INSTANCE IN CHAPTER 11, as well as "MAN" in I Corinthians 7:16 and 13:11 (i.e. when Paul became a MAN, not ~ a HUSBAND~, he put away childish things) [YOUNG'S CONCORDANCE, page 640]. The form of "ANER" is translated "HUSBAND" in I Corinthians 7:2,3,4,10,11,13,14,16,34,39 when SEXUAL RELATIONS AND MARRIAGE INSTRUCTION are under consideration and also in I Corinthians 14:35 & 2 Corinthians 11:2 (i.e. being ESPOUSED to one HUSBAND, not ~a MAN~) [YOUNG'S CONCORDANCE, page 505]. Dear Rudy and readers, it is the immediate CONTEXT that determines the translational difference between whether it is proper to use "man" or "husband" and "woman" or "wife" in these instances.

IF Rudy's contention is true on ALL of I Corinthians' instances of ANER needing to be translated "husband", then we should be able to put the word "HUSBAND" in all of the verses in the I Corinthians 11:1-16 text for "MAN", as well as put "WIFE" in place of "WOMAN". We will do this for the sake of pointing out just how wrong this idea of Rudy's is. Such does not make proper sense, as we can see by SUBSTITUTING below using the NASB (with the exception of putting "husband" for "man" and "wife" for "woman"):

RUDY'S POSITION WOULD HAVE THE TEXT READ:

1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every HUSBAND, and the HUSBAND is the head of a WIFE, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every HUSBAND who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every WIFE who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the WIFE whose head is shaved. 6 For if a WIFE does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a WIFE to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a HUSBAND ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the WIFE is the glory of HUSBAND. 8 For HUSBAND does not originate from WIFE, but WIFE from HUSBAND; 9 for indeed HUSBAND was not created for the WIFE's sake, but WIFE for the HUSBAND's sake. 10 Therefore the WIFE ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is WIFE independent of HUSBAND, nor is HUSBAND independent of WIFE. 12 For as the WIFE originates from the HUSBAND, so also the HUSBAND has his birth through the WIFE; and all things originate from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a WIFE to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a HUSBAND has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a WIFE has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God."

Mark here: The careful student in this study will recognize that such a substitution is invalid, especially given the wording in verse 3 (Christ is the head of every husband??? as opposed to every man???), verse 4 (why a disgrace ONLY to husbands???), verse 5 (why a disgrace ONLY to wives???), verse 6 (why is the shame associated with a wife, as opposed to every woman, such that if she prays without an artificial covering she bears the shame as if she had her hair cut improperly???), verse 7 (a husband only, as opposed to all men, is NOT the image and glory of God), verse 8 (the wife does NOT originate from the husband), verse 10 (why would wives, as opposed to all women, need be covered while praying "because of the angels"???), verse 12 (the husband does NOT have his birth through the wife, but man DOES have his birth through the woman), verse 13 (why improper for wives ONLY, as opposed to every woman, to pray to God uncovered???), verse 14 (why long hair a dishonor to husbands ONLY, but not to every man???), verse 15 (why would wives ONLY, as opposed to every woman, be given hair as a natural, permanent covering???).

Please note that chapter 11's context is dissimilar to chapter 7's which deals with the sexual relations between a husband and wife and the matter of departure from marriages and widows marrying in the Lord (being a widow ~demands~ one being previously being married). It is not hard to see why the translators translated forms of "ANER" and "GUNAI" in I Corinthians 11:1-16 "man" and "woman" respectively, and in I Corinthians 7 (except for verse 16) translated the forms of those same words as "husband" and "wife"! Context, my friend.

We already noted earlier:

So, Rudy admits:
1. The "women" to whom Paul wrote were to be covered during prayer.
2. "Women" today pray.
3. The "women" to whom Paul wrote dishonor their head when they pray bareheaded.

Rudy simply does NOT believe:
1. That "every woman" (verse 5) at Corinth had to obey the passage.
2. That "every woman" (verse 5) of the first century had to obey the passage (New Testament age folks).
3. That "every woman" (verse 5) today is to obey the passage.
4. That "every woman" (verse 5) shames or dishonors by not covering during praying today.

Rudy writes: You are correct in the above assumptions.

Mark here: God's word says "every woman" and Rudy says "every wife at Corinth only". God's word says "every man" and Rudy says "every husband at Corinth only". See the difference between what Rudy contends for and what the passage says? This should be enough evidence for many to see the error of my good brother Rudy's present position. Again, even the translation that Rudy used in his first affirmative speech (and Rudy did not tell us which one it was) says "every woman" and "every man" and NOT "every wife" and "every husband"! Such speaks volumes as to the incorrect nature of brother Rudy's assertion that the words in chapter 11 should be rendered "wife" and "husband".

As to Rudy's continued assertions that this covering instruction was LIMITED TO CORINTH ONLY…Rudy must ~prove such~ and not merely ~assert such without proof from God's Word~ before we can believe it! God's Word says in verse 16 that neither he (Paul), nor his associates, NOR THE CHURCHES OF GOD had any such custom as what the contentious man would contend for! Such wording necessarily includes other brethren OUTSIDE OF CORINTH! See the point? This extends the instruction beyond Corinth, Rudy. Rudy's position is "CORINTH ONLY". God's Word says "every man" and "every woman". Can't we see the incorrectness of such teaching by Rudy?

Rudy also argues that since we don't have written proof that the covering was taught to the folks at Ephesus ~in the book of Ephesians specifically~ that such indicates that they did not have to obey the passage! But we have already shown that Paul taught the same thing everywhere in every church (I Cor. 4:17) and did not fail to teach the whole counsel of God! Rudy has not answered this yet. He wrote something about it; but he did not negate what God's Word says Paul taught. Please note Rudy's writing when I asked him if the wives at Ephesus dishonored their heads by praying bareheaded (note the particular quote above by Rudy wherein he says he believes they did NOT).

By Rudy's reasoning above (note: I am not accusing brother Rudy of believing this, but his reasoning would argue for such), since the ~Lord's Supper instruction~ of I Corinthians, ~the marriage and divorce instruction~ of I Corinthians, the ~church discipline instruction~ of I Corinthians, the ~contribution instruction~ of I Corinthians, etc. was not found written specifically in the book of Ephesians, we could argue that the saints at Ephesus did NOT have to obey that inspired topical instruction either! Who believes it? Such should prove the fallacy of Rudy's assertion that the covering was NOT for saints in places other than Corinth (in addition to our previous argument on verse 16). Either the covering instruction in I Corinthians 11 is for all Christians in the gospel age, or it is not part of the whole counsel of God (for the inspired reasons given for "every woman" to be covered and "every man" to be uncovered when praying are still as valid today as when given originally). Rudy has failed to disprove this argument throughout this entire discussion.

Rudy agrees (from another of his quotes above) that it is STILL TRUE that ~woman is the glory of man and that woman was created for man~. The reader will note that this is NOT talking about "husbands" and "wives"! This is yet another inspired reason given for "every woman" to be covered when praying in the gospel age! The reason is still true today, yet Rudy argues such is merely cultural, without giving us any scripture to back up his assumption!

Rudy writes: So, Mark, explain to me than the very obvious conflict between head covering between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Explain to me the very obvious conflict between the Nazarite vow and the "shame" of 1 Corinthians 11."

Rudy writes: Mark, where did God change his mind about the head dress for men, and where did God change his mind about men praying with uncovered head? Or are you saying we are looking at exactly that in 1 Corinthians 11? Are you saying, "This is where God decided that what He permitted and prescribed in the Old Testament was no longer valid"?"

Rudy writes: The consistency of God is the point. How can something be "right" and "acceptable" to God at one time, and "wrong" and "unacceptable" to God at another? How van(sic - mjw) the long hair, as part of the Nazarite vow be pleasing to God at one point, and a shame the next? "

Mark here: The New Law is NOT in "conflict" (as Rudy uses the word) with the Old Law. The New Law is just that: a new and different law than the old. The Old Law was the tutor to bring us to the New Law. The Old Law (in its entirety) is abolished, yet brother Rudy writes as though it is incorrect for me to contend that in the OLD LAW it was ACCEPTABLE for a man with the Nazarite vow to have long hair and under the NEW LAW that it is a shame for a man to have long hair per I Corinthians 11:14,15 and thus is UNACCEPTABLE! We have answered this before and Rudy has not met the argument. Such reasoning by Rudy is comparable to asking me to explain the "conflict" (using Rudy's term as he used it before) between the ~eating of pork~ being WRONG in the Old Law and being RIGHT in the New Law! Surely we don't have to debate the fact that the old law is abolished and the new law exists today and is God's Will for us! This includes the fact that the NEW testament instruction on the coverings of I Corinthians 11:1-16 (long hair and artificial covering on women while praying and short hair and no artificial covering on men while praying) is God's Will for man today.

Rudy writes: Please quote the verse where it says that the head of every woman is every man. I have to date not been able to find that.

Mark here: "The woman" in verse 3 is the SAME WOMAN that is rendered "every woman" in I Corinthians 11:5. Christ is the head of every MAN (not just every "husband") and this is why the text renders "man" and "woman" properly, rather than "husband" and "wife" in this context. All women are to learn in silence "as also saith the law" per I Corinthians 14:33-35. And I Timothy 2:9-12 also teaches the principles of modesty and subjection of all women to all men (not just wives and husbands). Rudy has no point concerning a "mother" raising her "child" (for "child" is a different matter than "man") since there are passages that authorize mothers to raise their children (See Eph. 6:1ff).

Rudy writes: Mark, with a simple "yes" or "no" answer: Do you kiss your fellow believers as a greeting?

Mark here: YES. Now dear readers, please understand that (1) Rudy asked for a simple yes or no and I have complied, and (2) proving anything one way or the other about the holy kiss will prove nothing concerning the covering! Rudy would do better to provide what the SCRIPTURES TEACH on the ~covering~ instruction since that is what we are debating at this time. References to the Old Testament law concerning the Nazarite vow and to the holy kiss (as Rudy interprets it to be) are prime examples that Rudy cannot prove his assertions from the New Testament that the covering instruction is not applicable today!

Rudy writes: I will go along with your statement of inability to understand the reference to angels. Too bad, because I was hoping that, finally, here is someone who can shed light on that specific statement!

Mark here: So, brother Rudy… please deal with the argument that even though we don't understand all the "whys and details" behind this inspired reason, "because of the angels", we must still obey the covering instruction since this NEW TESTAMENT instruction is one of the reasons given as why "every woman" is to cover her head when she prays! We are STILL to abide by this New Testament teaching, even if we don't fully understand the reason behind the reason, for nothing has changed relative to the statement "because of the angels" that would preclude the reason from being applicable today!

Rudy writes: Now Mark, please show me where in the New Covenant God legislates about the length of hair!! Please show me where God has set the standard of hair for men and women! The ONLY standard set by God is nature itself: When a man lets his hair grow, it grows as long as a woman's hair! Nature in 1 Corinthians cannot possibly be "biological"! How long is too long, Mark? How short is too short? And as I read the text, it says that her LONG hair is given as a covering."

Mark here: As pointed out previously, GOD SAID it is a SHAME for a man to have long hair in the New Testament in I Corinthians 11:14, 15. Woman is taught the opposite, to wear long hair. The teaching is NOT based upon "biological reasons". Man may be able to grow the hair as long as a woman can. But, the teaching of God in the New Testament says women are to wear long hair and men are not! Rudy veers away from our primary discussion about women needing to wear artificial coverings at times of praying today and wants to engage me on "how long is long" and "how short is short". This will not settle our difference on the propositions we are discussing! Rudy, did God give instruction that could not be obeyed in I Corinthians 11:14,15? Certainly not!

Now let us look to some things Rudy taught in his first affirmative. Rudy is supposed to be proving, "The Scriptures teach that women today may pray to God bareheaded." I do appreciate the fact that Rudy put the verses in his speech. But let us all look closely at what he WROTE ABOUT the verses to see if such can stand the test of examination.

Rudy wrote:
The passage under consideration:
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[1] just as I passed them on to you.
3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

As stated before, there is little reason to doubt the identity of the people in question. Paul uses the word ANER fifteen times in this letter, and ALL the previous uses in the letter refer to a husband/wife relationship. Why would this change, suddenly?

Mark here: We have already noted that since Christ is the head of every MAN (not just husbands) the context demands ANER be translated man and not husband. We must also remind Rudy and the readers that the very translation that Rudy USES in his affirmation proves ANER is translated "man" and NOT "husband" in this text! I am surprised Rudy would not find and use a translation that renders EACH INSTANCE OF ANER in this text "husband"…OR, is there NOT a reliable translation that does so???

Rudy continued:
Only the husband is the head of his wife, and no generic statement is made in this verse. There is no generic "headship" of all men over all women to be found in this passage, not anywhere else in Scripture!

For a clear example, all one has to do is look at the book of Judges, and see Deborah's life described as one of the judges (leaders) of Israel.

A generic "headship" would nullify the mother/son relationship, as well. Mark, would you honestly believe that your wife, the mother of your children, will be subject to them? If so, I would like to see the biblical example of such!

Mark here: Rudy! The Bible does not say that the "male children" are the head of "every woman" does it? "Children" is translated from entirely different Greek words in the New Testament than are "man" and "husband". Also, we have previously noted that there are passages that teach that "children" are to obey their parents! Rudy has no point here at all. Paul is NOT discussing the relationship between a MOTHER and her MALE CHILD in I Corinthians 11:1-16, but rather MANKIND and WOMANKIND (both genders being adults). Do you disagree that both genders as adults are under consideration herein Rudy?

And, note that even if Rudy were right in his reference to Deborah (for the sake of argumentation ONLY, mind you), OLD TESTAMENT examples DO NOT serve as Bible Authority for New Testament activity!!! Rudy, I am surprised at you. Notice how many times Rudy has gone "Old Testament" on us to no avail.

Rudy continued:
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved.

Of course, this is where the issue begins. Is this a statement, binding upon all men at all times? According to Barnes (203), Keener (21), MacKnight (181), Allen (130) and Volger (124), among many others (Like Farrar, Vincent, McGarvey, Alfort, McGuiggan), the issue is cultural.

The men in Judaism prayed with heads covered. The men in Greek and Roman culti prayed with heads uncovered. There is more than sufficient evidence in a large number of sources, in a number of different languages available to support this position.

And, where the men prayed with their heads covered, the cultic priestesses in the Greek and Roman temples did the same with the head uncovered. Not only was the reminder of idolatry present by that act, but the idea of WIVES walking around in public uncovered (Barnes, MacKnight, Volger) was unheard of - and scandalous.

Mark here:
Rudy agreed to affirm what the SCRIPTURES TEACH and not what uninspired commentators say. The readership will note that if Rudy had a VERSE OF SCRIPTURE to prove his proposition, he would have used it above, instead of appealing to sources OUTSIDE THE WORD OF GOD! Rudy is doing a fine job of trying to uphold a position that is not taught in the New Testament. Note the lack of New Testament argumentation by brother Rudy in this debate so far! Note the assumptions that what Paul taught was "cultural" and Rudy's appeal to what the heathens were doing in the city of Corinth (who came from mixed cultures). Such is evident from his "proof" so far. I say this with love for all concerned, especially my brother Rudy.

Rudy, do you not even see that your OWN references "prove" that there was not ONE cultural norm concerning the use of head coverings? Your own argumentation and sources cited above work against your argumentation that what Paul was teaching was cultural! For example, your OWN references above say Jewish men prayed covered and Greek & Roman men prayed "uncovered"! Paul taught contrary to the culture of the Jews! So, what Paul taught was contrary to "culture"! You keep asserting that what Paul taught WAS cultural! And... without scripture to back it up. I have already shown in my affirmative speech wherein scholars disagree about the practice of the women, as well. Some uninspired writers believe that the Jewish women prayed covered and the Gentile women prayed bareheaded. If so, Paul taught against the culture of the Gentile women! How can you argue Paul was getting the Corinthians in line with a "custom" or "culture" when Corinth was a mixed bag of culture (according to your own cited references)??? You have no valid point here, my friend.

ALSO, please note that IF the "covering" is the long hair…then substitute LONG HAIR for "covered" in Rudy's commentators' wording above and see if you really believe that Rudy's "long hair portion" of his present position is true! Do you really think that the Jewish men prayed with LONG HAIR and the Greek and Roman men prayed with SHORT HAIR??? OR, are the uninspired commentators THAT RUDY USED in disagreement about the "custom" and are commenting on AN ARTIFICIAL COVERING worn either by men or women??? Rudy is arguing that women are to have "long hair" and if not, THEN they should put on a covering in PART of his affirmation. Then Rudy SWITCHES and begins to talk about the men, for example, and I believe he is talking about an ARTIFICIAL COVERING in the main and NOT SHORT HAIR! I believe that Rudy's commentators are talking about ARTIFICIAL COVERING matters and yet Rudy, in the main, argues for long hair (but if short, then women have to wear an artificial covering???) Straighten out the mess, brother Rudy!

Rudy cannot tell us "just what" the custom was at Corinth and we have already cited various commentators in response to Rudy's use of the same to show this to be true. IF the BIBLE told us, we would know. The BIBLE does not tell us "just what" the non-saints' practice was so it must not be important! But, Paul did tell us what God would have us know and do as men and women while praying! God gave us reasons OTHER THAN CUSTOM in I Corinthians 11:1-16 for "every woman" to pray with covered heads and to wear long hair in the gospel age! Rudy errs greatly, but especially in seeming to contend for a "long hair covering" first and then an "artificial covering" if a woman's hair was short! Where is the scriptural proof of Rudy's assertions? Remember, what goes for the woman, the OPPOSITE must work for the man in this text!

Rudy wrote:
6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Now, Mark, is it a disgrace in today's society for a woman to have short hair, or even her head shaved? Granted, Demi Moore looks a lot nicer with her hair long as compared to when she played the role of G. I. Jane. But the question is NOT one of looks, but of propriety. If, in Paul's Corinth, having an uncovered or a shaven head, is indeed a symbol of indecency, she very well should be covered with a veil! And if the fact that women had their heads uncovered indeed does bring back images of idolatry, she would do well, again, to have her head covered.

Mark here:
God has spoken on the matter of hair lengths in the New Testament. I am not to be overly concerned with what "today's society" thinks about women with short hair since God has already given plain New Testament instruction on the matter that is mandatory in I Corinthians 11:14,15! I would care if such were merely in the realm of a liberty, but since God is plain about the requirement for women to have long hair today (and men short hair), such is required EVEN IF society's view is just the opposite! Rudy, you have not proven that when a woman "at Paul's Corinth" (your expression) had short hair she would THEN (and only then) have to wear an artificial covering! Why ONLY at times of "praying or prophesying" brother Rudy, if her hair was short??? Why not ALL THE TIME, until the hair grew to an acceptable length? One of the commentators you cited talked about it being a shame for women to go around town uncovered. Paul wrote instruction about the times of "praying or prophesying". You position is full of inaccuracies. Please reconsider what you are teaching.

Rudy continued:
7 A man ought not to cover his head,[2] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

And here we are again, at the "sign of authority". Let's tie this in with the following statement, "For long hair is given to her as a covering". So, when a woman has long hair, she IS covered, according to Paul. That means there would be no need for an artificial covering - as far as God is concerned. Does that set the woman free to break the cultural pattern? Paul would exclaim, NO!

Mark here:
PAUL and GOD tie verse 7 in with verses 8-12 in the INSPIRED ORDER in our text of study, but brother Rudy CHANGES THE INSPIRED ORDER to "jump" over those verses to get his "hair theory" in! Such is improper handling of God's Word! Paul is talking about an artificial covering at times of "praying or prophesying" in the verses leading up to verse 14. I AGREE that her hair (long hair) is given for A covering…a natural, permanent covering to be worn at all times. Paul is teaching that for the God-given distinction He desires in the New Testament dispensation between men and women's length of hair (at all times), God desires that "every man" be Uncovered (artificially) and "every woman" be covered (artificially) when "praying or prophesying"!

Again, Rudy asserts a "cultural pattern" that is a mere hypothesis. Rudy has given NO INSPIRED RECORD of such a cultural practice from God's Word. More conjecture that we are supposed to agree with and believe? We can't do that when Paul gave us what God would have us know!

Rudy concluded:
11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.

Mark, as far as the "nature" (PHUSIN) is concerned in this passage. Tell you what: Do not get a haircut for the next six months, and measure how much your hair has grown. Now, ask your wife to do the same, and see how much her hair has grown. I have a strong feeling that (unless you are hair challenged), there will not be much difference between the hair increases! So, nature cannot possibly be Biological, but has to be "custom" or "habit". Other examples of where it cannot be biological (in Paul's writings) would be Romans 2:14 (The Gentiles doing what is right by "nature"), Ephesians 2:3 (And were by nature children of wrath).

Mark here:
Rudy, I have NEVER argued that men cannot grow hair as long as a woman! I do NOT teach that "nature" in this verse is "biological". You have no point here. God tells us HIS WILL for "every man" and "every woman". Do you really believe that it was a cultural shame at Corinth only for "husbands only" (as opposed to all men) to have long hair??? Rudy, do you really believe that it was a cultural shame at Corinth only for "wives only" (as opposed to all women) to have short hair??? Do you really believe that it was a cultural shame at Corinth only for "wives only" to pray without an artificial covering? Rudy, do you really believe that it was a cultural shame at Corinth only for "husbands only" to pray with something artificial on their heads? Where, from the INSPIRED RECORD, do you get such an idea(s)?

I continue to ask Rudy and all the readers to realize that the reasons given by God in I Corinthians 11:1-16 for women to cover their heads when they pray were NOT BASED on culture at Corinth as practiced by the heathens (non-saints)! Please give brother Rudy your full attention as he brings more information on his unusual belief to us in this good Bible discussion. What saith the SCRIPTURES?

God's blessings on us all as we continue this good study.

- Mark J. Ward
[-end of first negative by Ward]

IT WAS AT THIS POINT IN THE DISCUSSION THAT RUDY DISCONTINUED. I AM HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER WITH ANOTHER MAN WHO MIGHT BE WILLING TO DISCUSS THIS GOOD BIBLE SUBJECT IN THIS FORMAT.

CLICK HERE TO GET BACK TO THE INDEX OF LINKS FOR THIS DEBATE

Email the Editor at markjward@darientel.net