In the new cosmological order inaugurated by Christ, where all believers now serve inside the veil of the most-holy place, men should no longer cover their heads, but women should—and both for the same reason the priests of the Old Covenant did.
Very glad to hear y'all deal with this from an Old Covenant perspective. More Christians need to uphold that continuity between covenants in their theology.
I question the idea that man's glory in women could truly compete with Christ's glory in men. I think it would be vain or arrogant, and therefore still a sin, to try and out-glory Christ. However, clarity would be appreciated on whether a woman could substantially diminish the Shekinah by her uncovered head.
This could be reconciled by noticing that, in covering, women give the appearance of a man's modest haircut. This is especially true if she covers by binding up her hair. There is therefore the appearance, not of men and women, but of men i.e. sons in the presence of God. Sons do not cover, but women have to cover in order to have the appearance of sons. Is this a long shot or worth considering?
One may object that, since the Old Covenant coverings were to hide the glory of God from man, and that glory is no longer hidden for men or women, then head coverings should not be used. However, it may be worth considering that the glory of man now be veiled in reverence to the unveiled glory of God. To leave it unveiled may be a sign of idolatrous rebellion against God's authority over man. Have I just come to your conclusion from a different angle?
Your point comparing women becoming sons to men becoming a Bride is well taken. Thank you for shedding light on how either half of that analogy may be taken too far.
I need to find a better word than "compete." I'm speaking in the context of everything we've said about modesty; that uncovering one's glory in the wrong context is to grasp for a higher place or a greater recognition than is right. That's what I am meaning by women "competing" with God for glory.
I am not convinced about your thesis that covering makes women into, shall we say, temporary sons, or visual sons? I get where you're coming from, but it seems a little perverse to me, and it is belied by all the other sexual distinctions that women do not conceal in worship. For instance, your thesis would suggest that women should also dress in a way that downplays their femininity. This seems intuitively wrong; in church of all places they dress to accentuate their femininity, as we've discussed in a previous episode.
"To leave it unveiled may be a sign of idolatrous rebellion against God's authority over man. Have I just come to your conclusion from a different angle?"
"For instance, your thesis would suggest that women should also dress in a way that downplays their femininity. This seems intuitively wrong; in church of all places they dress to accentuate their femininity, as we've discussed in a previous episode."
Thank you for pointing this out as I do not intend to say such a thing. Would you say it accentuates a woman's femininity to cover her hair?
To which previous episode do you refer? I would love to give it a listen.
I really appreciate your work here - it has born great fruit in my life and my worship of God.
I was wondering if you could recommend any books that discuss a more complete symbolic understanding of the Tabernacle?
Unfortunately most of my larnin' comes from papers or lectures, rather than books, so I can't. James Jordan is very helpful on this, and some of his relevant lectures are available free here: https://www.youtube.com/@jamesb.jordanarchive564/search?query=tabernacle
Very glad to hear y'all deal with this from an Old Covenant perspective. More Christians need to uphold that continuity between covenants in their theology.
I question the idea that man's glory in women could truly compete with Christ's glory in men. I think it would be vain or arrogant, and therefore still a sin, to try and out-glory Christ. However, clarity would be appreciated on whether a woman could substantially diminish the Shekinah by her uncovered head.
This could be reconciled by noticing that, in covering, women give the appearance of a man's modest haircut. This is especially true if she covers by binding up her hair. There is therefore the appearance, not of men and women, but of men i.e. sons in the presence of God. Sons do not cover, but women have to cover in order to have the appearance of sons. Is this a long shot or worth considering?
One may object that, since the Old Covenant coverings were to hide the glory of God from man, and that glory is no longer hidden for men or women, then head coverings should not be used. However, it may be worth considering that the glory of man now be veiled in reverence to the unveiled glory of God. To leave it unveiled may be a sign of idolatrous rebellion against God's authority over man. Have I just come to your conclusion from a different angle?
Your point comparing women becoming sons to men becoming a Bride is well taken. Thank you for shedding light on how either half of that analogy may be taken too far.
I need to find a better word than "compete." I'm speaking in the context of everything we've said about modesty; that uncovering one's glory in the wrong context is to grasp for a higher place or a greater recognition than is right. That's what I am meaning by women "competing" with God for glory.
I am not convinced about your thesis that covering makes women into, shall we say, temporary sons, or visual sons? I get where you're coming from, but it seems a little perverse to me, and it is belied by all the other sexual distinctions that women do not conceal in worship. For instance, your thesis would suggest that women should also dress in a way that downplays their femininity. This seems intuitively wrong; in church of all places they dress to accentuate their femininity, as we've discussed in a previous episode.
"To leave it unveiled may be a sign of idolatrous rebellion against God's authority over man. Have I just come to your conclusion from a different angle?"
Yes ;)
"For instance, your thesis would suggest that women should also dress in a way that downplays their femininity. This seems intuitively wrong; in church of all places they dress to accentuate their femininity, as we've discussed in a previous episode."
Thank you for pointing this out as I do not intend to say such a thing. Would you say it accentuates a woman's femininity to cover her hair?
To which previous episode do you refer? I would love to give it a listen.
Yes, it definitely accentuates a woman's feminity to cover her hair. Here's the episode: https://www.truemagic.nz/p/s1e6-how-should-we-dress-for-church