The Ward - Schellekens Debate
Mark J. Ward's Third Affirmative
"The scriptures teach that women today should
cover their heads when they pray."
Ward's Third Affirmative
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 compliment my good brother Rudy for his continued kindnesses shown me in his second negative. I would encourage Rudy and the readers to take special note that it is Rudy's place to attempt to negate the affirmative arguments I have advanced in my previous speeches/articles. In my estimation, as we will continue to show in this article, Rudy has not met the burden of the negative so far in this discussion in showing wherein we err in any of the scriptural argumentation we have set forth proving the proposition before us, "The Scriptures teach that women today should cover their heads when they pray."
Rudy takes up my answers to his questions and then makes comments on my 9 affirmative arguments, asking more questions, but not negating the argumentation. Let us look at our good brother's comments and questions of us in this Bible study as we continue to work toward agreement by pressing our points and showing wherein we believe the other errs in the spirit of lovingkindness.
As noted in the first two affirmations, I Corinthians 11:1-16 is the proof text to prove this proposition. My proposition stands proven having shown that God's Word teaches that women today are to cover their heads whenever they pray. Rudy agrees that some women (maybe wives ONLY???) were to cover their heads at Corinth (ONLY in that city???) when they prayed, but does not agree that such is necessary today. As in keeping with previous articles, let's see the sixteen verses again, this time from the American Standard Version (1901) and then proceed to take up Rudy's comments and questions:
1 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, 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 the woman; but the woman of the man:
9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:
10 for this cause ought the woman to have [a sign of] authority on her head, because of the angels.
11Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.
13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.- taken from: http://www.ccel.org/bible/asv/1_Corinthians.htm
Rudy wrote: ...What IS proven is that the women to whom the letter was addressed were to pray or prophecy with their heads covered. What you need to prove is the fact that this is still the case TODAY. Your first question, "Will my opponent argue that women do not engage in 'praying' today?" needs to be answered with, "No, Mark, I do not argue such. As far as your statement, "The Bible clearly teaches that women dishonor their head when they pray bareheaded (See I Cor. 11:1-16)" is concerned, you have proven that point - as far as the Corinthian situation is concerned.
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.One can sometimes trace a departure from truth towards an incorrect practice or belief by noticing the area wherein one leaves the truth and begins to deviate. In my estimation, Rudy does this with his theory that "every woman" should be translated "every wife" in chapter 11 (thus excluding the non-wives at Corinth). Then, he proceeds to not apply the passage to other women in the first century (away from Corinth), and finally, concludes (sincerely) that such is not applicable for "every woman" praying today! Rudy, did the "wives" at Ephesus (in New Testament times) who prayed bareheaded dishonor their heads?
Rudy asserts that the translators of the KJV, ASV, and NASB, for example, are incorrect (putting him at odds with over 150 scholars/translators) when he assumes "the woman" in verse 3 and "every woman" in verse 4 should be translated "the wife" and "every wife"! The scholars noted the contexts in EVERY chapter: 7, 11, and 14, for example, and translated forms of ANER - "man" (rather than "husband") and GUNE - "woman" (rather than "wife") in I Corinthians 11! Rudy, are you a scholar disputing the host of translating scholars who worked on those various versions of our English Bibles??? [NOTE: There are several other translations which we did not pile up on this particular point (i.e. just more versions of the Bible and more scholars opposing Rudy's assertion about it). Take a look at them for yourself. Its a good spiritual exercise! (NOTE: I am not saying you can't find a few translations that have the word "wife" and "husband" somewhere in chapter 11, Rudy <g>].
Rudy wrote, My question relating to the prophesying IS related to the subject, since the passage you use as a foundation for your case includes the prophesying. Now, when they do prophesy in the sense of, "uninspired teaching of God's word", do you expect them to cover their heads in those situations as well?
Yes, Rudy. God says "every woman" uncovered at times of "praying OR prophesying" dishonors her head (vs. 5). Thus, God expects women to cover their heads when engaging in uninspired teaching of God's Word. God also expects women to cover their heads when engaging in praying. The interpretation I place on I Corinthins 11:1-16 concerning the "prophesying" includes inspired and/or uninspired speech. Just as "teachers of good things" applies whether the teacher is teaching God's truth by inspiration or is uninspired (as in Titus 2:3) and just as "...A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country," (from Matthew 13:57, a form of STRONG's #4396) is true whether or not the prophet is inspired or uninspired, I believe that such an inclusive definition is warranted in I Corinthians 11. However, it must be noted, that the application today would be to uninspired folks since there are no living inspired people today. (Please note carefully "interpretation and application, then and now" Thanks.).
But notice, please, the fact that IF "prophesying" were defined as inspired only activity, such would not negate in any way this discussion, since the proposition is discussing women today when they "pray". Prayer is NOT exclusively inspired activity by any stretch and women today pray. Please keep that in mind as we continue our study!
Rudy also noted, I appreciate the answer to my question re. mixed/single gender meetings.
Thanks, Rudy. Do you agree? At least, do you agree that Corinthian wives would need to cover their heads whenever and wherever they prayed (i.e. in or out of church assembly arrangements, whether in single gender or mixed gender settings)?
Rudy then spoke about conjecture, Yet, if I were to ask you for the reasons for the writing of the entire Corinthian correspondence, if I were to ask you about the kind of people Paul writes to, some of your answers WILL be based on conjecture! And rightly so, since we can only surmise a number of circumstances from what we can read in the letter! Having said that... We have to look at the circumstances surrounding this letter, since some of the statements Paul makes goes AGAINST God's revelation in the pages of the Old Testament!
"Because of the angels" is a strange statement, and only, again, conjecture could be used for an answer. Could the angels be the leadership of the congregation (re. Rev. 1-3)? You list the reasons again why the women should have their heads covered while praying, but none of these give any clarification on the issue of angels.
If we are asked a Bible question, and the Bible does not reveal the answer, we should NOT base our faith on conjecture. Since God did not reveal that particular matter to us, it must not be necessary to "life and godliness". Rudy actually admits to basing parts of his belief on conjecture in his writing above! (Rudy, if I misrepresent your position at any time, please bring it to my attention. This is certainly not my intent!) Rudy, please consider: God has given US all things that pertain to life and godliness according to 2 Peter 1:3. God has NOT given US all that was written and taught in New Testament times, whether by Paul or others. But whatever they taught does NOT contain anything that we don't have regarding "life and godliness". If you agree with that premise, then you SHOULD agree that we should base our faith on what is revealed and not argue from the silence of the scriptures, as you appear to do.
Rudy, if God did not reveal something to us, then we don't have to have the answer to that matter in order to arrive at God's truth. He didn't leave it up to our guesswork, our conjecture, our wonderment! You assert that we are to make assumptions about the church of God at Corinth, about why Paul wrote to them (in specific areas not revealed to us as to the "why"), put out some possibilities, then pick one and base our "faith" on it! No sir! Certainly not. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17). Please reconsider your loose approach to reaching a studied conviction on subject matter in the Bible.
Rudy then noted, "Because of the angels" is a strange statement, and only, again, conjecture could be used for an answer. Could the angels be the leadership of the congregation (re. Rev. 1-3)? You list the reasons again why the women should have their heads covered while praying, but none of these give any clarification on the issue of angels.
God could have said "because of the frogs" if He wanted to, couldn't He? What if He did? And what if that was ALL He gave us? We could hypothesize about the frogs in Egypt and any other Bible references we could find about frogs. Some might give more consideration to New Testament frogs than to Old Testament frogs, but since God can base something in the New Testament on an example from the Old Testament, we certainly couldn't rule the old frogs out <g>. But, when it was all said and done, unless there was an unavoidable conclusion about the explanation of this "reason", we would be left with the simple fact that God said do something "because of the frogs". Now, God already has stated in the text that "every woman" who is "praying" uncovered dishonors and brings shame (verses 5-9). He doesn't have to give the reasons or explain the reasons. Rudy, I would not DARE presume to be able to give you what I think you want...a detailed explanation as to WHY God said "because of the angels". But its an INSPIRED REASON that God gave then, and angels exist now, and it is the burden of the negative speaker to engage that reason as NOT being applicable today (since you don't think it applies today). In other words, there is no unavoidable conclusion or necessary inference in Bible interpretation that mandates the conclusion that the reason "because of the angels" is no longer applicable in the law age in which it is given (i.e. the gospel age in which we now live).
Next, Rudy asserted, My last question dealt with the reasons you see for extending this command beyond the Corinthian situation. You quoted a number of passages, and stated that "Paul taught the same thing in all the churches of the saints". That, too, is conjecture!
Yet, the BIBLE declares, "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church." (I Cor. 4:17)
Now, if Rudy has a point on this at all, it must be that he believes that Paul refrained from teaching this part of whole counsel of God (i.e. the covering instruction) everywhere he taught. Who believes it? To be fair, Rudy, I know that Paul dealt with problems specific to churches that may not have been problems elsewhere, but the truth, the whole truth, was not diminished in any place wherein Paul taught!
Rudy, on my Argument One wrote, Well, Mark, please substanbtiate that this is a teaching for ALL saints. There is nothing in the text to make this applicable to all saints. There is nothing in the text that supports the idea that it is "a command to be obeyed throughout all the ages"
We must be careful in discussions such as this to not misrepresent another's position. The use of quotes can be to quote another. They can also be use to "set off" words. I am not sure which way Rudy intended the use of the quote marks when he wrote "a command to be obeyed throughout all the ages" above, but please read on. Rudy, I don't believe that God's instruction on the coverings per I Corinthians 11:1-16 was given for the Patriarchal Age OR the Mosaical Age; but rather for the Gospel Age (in which we live). I do not believe that Rudy intentionally wrote "ages" with any impure motive, but I must point this out for everyone's benefit (since I do not believe the covering of I Cor. 11 was "a command to be obeyed throughout all the ages").
Note what I wrote in my first affirmative: Since this teaching is an "ordinance of God" based on God-given reasons that still exist today, it is a command to be obeyed throughout the gospel age (applies now). And in my second affirmative, "Paul taught that this instruction concerning the matter of covered and uncovered heads was a ordinance or requirement of God that would be applicable to all saints (I Cor. 11:1-16; I Cor. 4:17). Since this teaching is an "ordinance of God" based on God-given reasons that still exist today, it is a command to be obeyed throughout the gospel age (applies now).
I hope that such is sufficient to make it clear that Rudy has not answered Argument One. The inspired reasons God gave for men to be uncovered and women to be covered exist today, so the instruction applies today. Answer, if you can, that argument Rudy. Thanks.
Rudy on my Argument Two (in part), I do not believe that the headship issue is tied to the head covering issue. Even without the issue of prayer, headship is still a fact.
I have pointed out that husbands and wives would be included in following this instruction, since it concerns "every man" and "every woman"; but, the text's instruction doesn't exclude non-marrieds, Rudy. Furthermore, it was an inspired apostle named Paul who TIED headship to the covering in this passage! You have no point when you say "even without prayer, headship is still a fact" since Paul is discussing headship and covered and uncovered heads of every man and every woman at times of prayer! Shame is still a fact without prayer, Rudy, but ~with prayer~ God says men be uncovered and women be covered.
Rudy AGREES with Argument Three, except he asserts that it is NOT a shame for non-married women at Corinth (if I understand him correctly), all other women at places other than at Corinth in the first century, and all women today can pray to God bareheaded with God's blessings! Who believes it? The BIBLE teaches it is a shame for "every woman". Rudy excludes women and makes a special class of "wives at Corinth"! Why, Rudy? Could it be that you have run away from the truth of the passage based on your assertion (re: "wives") wherein you find yourself opposing the scholars/translators of the KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB and NIV???
Rudy, on my Argument Four, Mark, you again jump to a conclusion: These truths are applicable today. Nothing in what you state here supports that point! I can think of a number of examples in the writings of Paul which were for that time, and that time only! But just for a short example: Greet one another with a holy kiss. Do you stil practice that, Mark? If not, why not? It is written by the same author, with the same authority, as an imperative, to boot!
Rudy, do you NOT believe that: Woman is the "glory of man" today as taught in verse 7 and in verse 9? Rudy, do you NOT believe that: God's Word also teaches us that the woman was "created for the man"? These are inspired, God-given reasons for women to pray with their heads covered. These truths are applicable today! This is inescapable Rudy. Please tell me you DO believe that woman is STILL the glory of man TODAY and it is still true TODAY that woman was created for the man! Then, continue to attempt to negate Argument Four, that still stands proven in support of our proposition I affirm, "The Scriptures teach that women today should cover their heads when they pray."
Concerning the holy kiss: I practice it, Rudy. You mean you don't? I use the FIRST part of Romans 16:16, as well as the LATTER PART of the verse today in belief and practice. Is that unauthorized and non-applicable in your mind for folks today? Can I not obey the first part of verse 16 today, Rudy? Am I NOT to obey it? Can I not use the second part of verse 16 today either, Rudy? The verse reads, "Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you."
Rudy on Argument Five and the angels, So, what DO the angels have to do with this? I know there are some who want to go back to Genesis 6 to find an explanation. Can you give me a little more insight?
I have dealt with this above. Even if I don't understand the reason God gives, He still gave it. My not understanding everything to do with the reason given (either due to God not deciding to reveal that part to me OR due to my inability to understand it, for reasons of lack of growth, etc) would still not NEGATE the instruction or invalidate the reason, as such. I will not get involved in conjecture. God gave the reason. Angels still exist today, Rudy. Where's your negating of the argument? The argument still stands, in this my last affirmative, in support of the proposition.
Rudy, on Argument Six goes Old Testament on us, Mark, please read through the dress of the High priest in the Old Testament. Tell we what you find about the covering he wears on his head. Now find the place where God tells him to take it off when he is praying...
The Old Testament was written for our learning according to Romans 15:4. But such is NOT instruction for the New Testament law age, the Gospel Age in which we live. If Rudy would spend more time in his negative speech in dealing with my arguments...
Just as unclean meats were NOT allowed in one law age and ARE allowed in another, there is no problem with a practice being different in separate law ages. No point here, good brother! Rudy, compare your argument in question form above to the man who was at Corinth at the time of the writing of I Corinthians: You write as though you argue that since the High Priest under the OLD LAW was to do something different from the teaching of I Corinthians 11:1-16 (NEW LAW instruction), that such would have something to do with it not being applicable today! Is that what you are arguing. Rudy? Apply, dear Rudy and readers, Rudy's argument above to the men at the church of God at Corinth when Paul wrote I Corinthians (when "praying or prophesying"). Could they pray to God covered and be right, Rudy? What has the High Priest of the Old Testament got to do with it?
Dear readers, I hope you can see that the argumentation provided is not being negated by our good brother Rudy in this discussion. Let us continue.
On my Argument Seven, Rudy notes, Well, Mark, I do not know where you are born and raised (or when, for that matter). I grew up during the sixties and seventies. I grew up in The Netherlands. At no time in my life was long hair for a man considered to be shame! Nor was short hair on a woman something to be ashamed of! The only people I ever remember speaking out against long hair were the American missionaries, working with churches in the Netherlands. Could this be an indication of a cultural issue? And if the long/short hair is a cultural issue today, could it have been a cultural issue in the Corinthian letter? And, bringing this back to the Bible. What was part of the Nazorite vow? Are you trying to convince me that Samson was unacceptable to God - where God set the conditions for the vow? Or are you planning to convince me that Samson did not pray as long as his hair was "long"?
In the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve were living, nakedness was the order of the day! Rudy, you have no point here. The Netherlands' "custom" or "accepted societal norm" concerning long or short hair on men is NOT the standard by which we are to live. God's Word is the standard! Paul did not use custom or culture as a basis for his instruction to the church of God at Corinth on this matter. Concerning Samson, he lived and died under a different law age, Rudy! Samson was not under the instruction of the new covenant. Concerning the length of hair for men and women, Paul gave us the revelation from God for the New Testament age in verses 14,15. In fact, Paul stated that he had "no such custom" as what the contentious man would contend for according to verse 16.
Concerning the Nazarite vow, we have another example that Rudy brings up from the Old Testament. Just as one practice (like unclean meats, for example) could be WRONG in one law age and RIGHT in another law age (ok to eat pork today per Acts 10, 11), the reverse can be true. What can be RIGHT in one law age (Nazarite vow with long hair as a practice) can be WRONG in another law age (long hair on man is a shame per I Cor. 1:14,15). No problem there Rudy. Where's the attempt to negate this argument good brother? The argument still stands proving our proposition.
On my Argument Eight, Rudy said, Exactly WHAT is the custom Paul is referring to as not being present in the churches of God? Being contentious, or the head covering? That the head covering was something belonging to the Gentile cultus is beyond a doubt. Men worshipped bareheaded, women covered. It was a shame for a woman to be seen uncovered in a temple, dedicated to the idols. So, exactly what IS the custom?
Rudy misses the instruction from Paul in verse 16. The "custom" (usage or practice) that neither Paul's associates, Paul, nor the churches of God had would be that for which the contentious man would contend for: women praying or prophesying uncovered and men praying or prophesying covered.
Scholars are in disagreement concerning the societal norm of the day. But note that Paul is not regulating the covering or uncovering of heads at times OTHER THAN praying or prophesying in the text. I believe the custom of the day was probably that Jewish men AND women were covered at Corinth and Gentile/Greek men and women were uncovered.
Since Rudy went there and asserted (without proof) that, "That the head covering was something belonging to the Gentile cultus is beyond a doubt. Men worshipped bareheaded, women covered. It was a shame for a woman to be seen uncovered in a temple, dedicated to the idols.", let me offer the following counter information for your consideration:
***the following quote has a chart in it that is best seen by viewing this file at:
http://www.religiousinstructor.com/mar03/3affw.html
No doubt there are some scholars who say that Paul is simply teaching the customs of the day, and that women always appeared in public with heads covered. On the other hand, there are other scholars just as weighty, if not more so, who definitely do not say this. In fact, I am convinced that the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Consider these quotations:
Cambridge Bible for Schools and College: "N. The remarkable fact that the practice here enjoined is neither Jewish, which required men to be veiled in prayer, nor Greek which required both men and women to be unveiled, but peculiar to Christians."
Morris in Tyndale Series: "Jewish men always prayed with their heads covered (as they still do). Greek women, as well as their menfold, prayed with head uncovered."
Expositor’s Greek Testament: "Paul’s directions do not agree precisely with current practice. Jewish men covered their heads at prayers with the Tallith . . . Amongst the Greeks both sexes worshipped with uncovered heads."
Vincent’s Word Studies: "The Romans, like the Jews, prayed with the head veiled . . ." (Vincent is speaking of men.)
Pulpit Commentary: "Having his head covered . . . The Jewish worshipper in praying always covers his head with his Tallith".
Moffat Series: "Men and Women worshipped bareheaded in Greek rites".
Robertson in Word Pictures: "The Greeks (both men and women) remained bareheaded in public prayer".
W.E. Vine, Commentary on 1 Corinthians: "Among the Jews the heads of the men were covered in the synagogue. Among the Greeks both men and women were uncovered".
Others, like Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, could be quoted to the same effect. From this information, please note the following chart.
CHURCH AT CORINTH
"Custom" I Cor. 11:1-16
Conclusion
Jews
Acts 18:8
I Cor. 10:1
Men-covered
Women-covered
Men- Uncovered
Women-covered
Contrary to custom of Jews
Greeks
Acts 18:8
Rom. 15:26-27
Men- uncovered
Women- Uncovered
Men- uncovered
Women- covered
Contrary to Custom
of Greeks
What shall we say to these things? According to these scholars, the chart shows clearly that even though there were both Jews and Greeks in the church at Corinth Paul’s instructions were contrary to the custom of both: contrary to the Greeks, in that he required women to pray with covered heads, wheras they "customarily" prayed with uncovered heads; and contrary to the Jews, in that he required the men to pray with uncovered heads, whereas they "customarily" prayed with covered heads. Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 11 is definitely not the customs of the day but is contrary to it, if these scholars are correct. It will take more than just an assertion that Paul is appealing to a local custom which exemplifies the principle of subjection, or an assertion that all scholars agree that the practice here enjoined was in keeping with the customs of Paul’s day. Again, I am not saying that NO scholar says these were just the customs of the day. What is being said is that there are many, and just as important as the others, who do not so state. And I am made to wonder why it is that people who often make such an appeal to scholars on this point never appeal to the scholars here quoted. Why not quote them? In this connection, we could be content to stay with the Bible text, and it does not base a single argument on custom. He who teaches that it does deal with custom will have to get that idea from somewhere other than the text. And he won’t get it from scholars, if he will take all of them.
Quoted from a tract entitled, COMMAND or CUSTOM, by Hiram O. Hutto at:
But this is NOT at issue...having to decide IF Paul's teaching was or wasn't in conformity to the societal norm of the day since God sets forth His will when He sets forth the instruction per I Corinthians 11:1-16. Paul said, But I would have you KNOW...verse 3.
Rudy proceeds to comment on my Argument Nine, Again, Mark, you keep applying this passage to TODAY. I have asked you earlier about the holy kiss. Do you, or do you not practice that? Let me add another one. The "letter of fellowship". Do you practice that one? After all, according to your reasoning - God only has to say something once...
Rudy argues AS IF he believes God has to say something MORE THAN ONCE for it to be true. Rudy has no point at all if that is not what he is trying to argue. In fact, who believes that God has to say something more than once for it to be true?
I didn't see a passage or explanation of what you mean by "letter of fellowship", so I couldn't deal with that part of your speech, Rudy. Bring it up in your affirmative, if you like with scriptures and a point relative to what you believe about its relationship to this subject.
Rudy, and dear readers, do you see where Rudy has gone in attempts to negate my affirmative arguments? What if I got it wrong on the holy kiss issue Rudy? Would that mean the instruction on the covering had to be one way or the other? Not on your life! They are separate Bible subjects. What about the "letter of fellowship", Rudy? Are you arguing (I am not going to make your negative arguments for you Rudy <g>) that you believe that the coverings of I Corinthians 11 are the same as the holy kiss and the "letter of fellowship"? If so, make your argument and I'll respond. (After your last negative speech <g>). I believe in the holy kiss Rudy, do you?
I appreciate brother Rudy and his efforts to negate the proposition that stands before us in this part of our discussion. Rudy is a very likeable fellow and I appreciate his kindnesses in this discussion. There are many men who will not study this subject in such a forum as this. Rudy is to be commended for debating this issue.
Dear reader: We are not "mad" at each other, we are just discussing areas wherein we disagree. We want to agree on God's Truth. I encourage all the readers of this discussion to take open minds, open Bibles and study for yourself the material here (and elsewhere) and come to your own studied convictions. Always keep the proper spirit towards those who might differ with you on this matter. God is certainly pleased when we study together like this. Thanks, Rudy. I look forward to your negative and first affirmative as we switch chairs and you affirm the next proposition in our study.
I would like to remind the readers, and Rudy, of the 10 questions I have asked of him and ask him 5 more at this time.
Here are the 5 questions I asked of Rudy in my first affirmative :
1. Did Paul teach women to cover their heads when they prayed?
2. Is God still head of Christ, Christ still head of man and man still
head of woman today?
3. Do angels exist today?
4. Since Paul taught the same thing everywhere in every church (I Cor.
4:17), did this instruction apply to all women who prayed in the first
century? Second century? Third? If not, why not?
5. Is it a shame for men to have long hair today and is it a shame for
women to have short hair today? If so, why? If not, why?Here are 5 additional questions from my second affirmative:
6. On what basis would you LIMIT the instruction of I Corinthians
11:1-16 to the church of God at Corinth (exclusively)?
7. Do men and women pray today?
8. Does God teach in I Corinthians 11:1-16 that women bring about shame
and dishonor if they pray to God uncovered?
9. Is it your contention that the word "woman" as found in verses
3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13, and 15 is meant to be
taken/interpreted/understood as being "wives" ONLY and that the word
"man" as found in in verses 3,4,7,8,9,11,12,14,16 is meant to be
taken/interpreted/understood as being "husbands" ONLY? Please explain.
10. Rudy, do you believe it was a shame for an unmarried man at Corinth
(at the time Paul wrote I Corinthians) to have long hair, given the
instruction in I Corinthians 11:1-16?And, finally, in the spirit of brotherly love and a good discussion, here are 5 more:
11. On what basis do you disagree with the weight of scholarship of the translators of the KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB and NIV wherein they translated the words, "the woman" in I Corinthians 11:3 and "every woman" ("woman" etc) in each instance in verses 5-15 (instead of translating the Greek as forms of "wife")?
12. Does God have to say something more than once for it to be true?
13. Why would it be any more important for a wife to be covered at Corinth than:
a. a non-wife at Corinth?
b. any woman at Ephesus in Paul's day?
c. any woman today?
14. Is man STILL "by the woman" today? (See verse 12) Or, do you believe that "man" should be translated "husband" in this verse and "woman" should be translated "wife" in this verse, in each instance? (If so, how would that make sense?)
15. Do you believe that men at Corinth who were not "husbands" could cover their heads when they were "praying or prophesying" with God's approval? Scripture please.We hope that Rudy will take up the task of the negative and engage the argumentation given thus far and deal with the questions we have asked. I want to again compliment Rudy on his demeanor in this debate.
We leave the affirmation of the proposition as proven, "The Scriptures teach that women today should cover their head when they pray." and remind the readership that we have looked to I Corinthians 11:1-16 and found the following inspired reasons that still apply today in support of our proof:
- HEADSHIP (vs 3)
- SHAME FOR WOMAN TO PRAY UNCOVERED (vs 5,6)
- WOMEN IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN (vs 7)
- WOMAN IS OF THE MAN (vs 8, 12)
- WOMAN WAS CREATED FOR MAN (vs 8, 12)
- BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS (vs 10)
- MAN IS BY THE WOMAN (vs 12)
- PROPER JUDGMENT (vs 13)
- LESSON FROM NATURE (vs 14, 15)
- NO SUCH CUSTOM AS CONTRARY VIEW (vs 16)Thanks to all for reading. Please give prayerful and careful consideration (again) to what has been written so far in this discussion and also to the reply forthcoming by brother Rudy. I appreciate so much his kind, brotherly spirit towards me as we engage in this Bible study. It is good when brethren who disagree discuss differences with the
proper spirit. May God richly bless us as we continue.
[-end of third affirmative by Ward]CLICK HERE TO GET BACK TO THE INDEX OF LINKS FOR THIS DEBATE
Email the Editor at markjward@yahoo.com
| CURRENT ISSUE | MAIN PAGE | BACK ISSUES | DISCUSSION PAGE |
| SPECIAL STUDIES | SERMON OUTLINES |