Following up our explanation of why head coverings matter in the new covenant age, we consider several objections — and even more questions — to flesh out the exegetical case, and apply it to modern life.
Hi Bnonn and Smokey, thanks for the episode, it was great. Do you think the submission of women to men will be a reality in the new heavens and new earth? I ask this because you said that head coverings are an “eschatological accommodation”. If head coverings are a symbol of submission, and they are done away with, would the submission still be a reality when Jesus returns?
Hi Solomon, I don't think we should reduce head coverings to submission, nor reduce submission to something done in worship. There will still be a creational hierarchy in the new heavens and the new earth, and men will still lead; but because the church herself will have reached eschatological fulfillment, shining forth as the glory of Christ, I think it follows that women will shine forth in the heavenly court without need of a covering any more. This doesn't eliminate submission, since the church will still submit to Christ, of course!
"The head of the woman is the man." This only makes sense for the man's wife. A man is not the head of a woman he isn't married to. This passage clearly refers to a woman's submission to her husband and the head covering in worship as symbolic of that one of the reasons for the head covering. I don't see room for it in any other way in spite of your insistence.
The problem is that Paul is speaking of patterns or archetypes, and you're trying to particularize these in a way that does violence to what he is saying. "The head of the woman is the man" is an archetypal statement, and while there's no real issue with particularizing it to "the head of the wife is the husband," it establishes too narrow a frame when you come to verse 6. Now you suddenly discover that you have constrained what Paul is saying down to a context where it becomes absurd: "if it is shameful to a woman to be shorn or to be shaven" cannot be interpreted as referring just to wives, without implying that hair is not glorious on unmarried women (similarly in verse 15). By the same token, as we get into verse 7, you are forced to conclude that unmarried women are _no one's_ glory, which is equally nonsensical.
You seem to b misunderstand the Greek here. A woman almost always refers to a married woman, there was the expectation that a woman would be married and there was no separate word for "wife." So the context often determines the meaning. I believe it clearly indicates a married woman in this passage. If she was unmarried, she would be likely to either be called a virgin (a maiden) or a widow.
The passage makes no sense if Paul is only speaking of married women, and no one actually thinks it is saying that, including the ESV — as I pointed out in the podcast.
Hi Bnonn and Smokey, thanks for the episode, it was great. Do you think the submission of women to men will be a reality in the new heavens and new earth? I ask this because you said that head coverings are an “eschatological accommodation”. If head coverings are a symbol of submission, and they are done away with, would the submission still be a reality when Jesus returns?
Hi Solomon, I don't think we should reduce head coverings to submission, nor reduce submission to something done in worship. There will still be a creational hierarchy in the new heavens and the new earth, and men will still lead; but because the church herself will have reached eschatological fulfillment, shining forth as the glory of Christ, I think it follows that women will shine forth in the heavenly court without need of a covering any more. This doesn't eliminate submission, since the church will still submit to Christ, of course!
Thanks for your answer Bnonn, it’s very interesting to think about these things!
"The head of the woman is the man." This only makes sense for the man's wife. A man is not the head of a woman he isn't married to. This passage clearly refers to a woman's submission to her husband and the head covering in worship as symbolic of that one of the reasons for the head covering. I don't see room for it in any other way in spite of your insistence.
The problem is that Paul is speaking of patterns or archetypes, and you're trying to particularize these in a way that does violence to what he is saying. "The head of the woman is the man" is an archetypal statement, and while there's no real issue with particularizing it to "the head of the wife is the husband," it establishes too narrow a frame when you come to verse 6. Now you suddenly discover that you have constrained what Paul is saying down to a context where it becomes absurd: "if it is shameful to a woman to be shorn or to be shaven" cannot be interpreted as referring just to wives, without implying that hair is not glorious on unmarried women (similarly in verse 15). By the same token, as we get into verse 7, you are forced to conclude that unmarried women are _no one's_ glory, which is equally nonsensical.
You seem to b misunderstand the Greek here. A woman almost always refers to a married woman, there was the expectation that a woman would be married and there was no separate word for "wife." So the context often determines the meaning. I believe it clearly indicates a married woman in this passage. If she was unmarried, she would be likely to either be called a virgin (a maiden) or a widow.
The passage makes no sense if Paul is only speaking of married women, and no one actually thinks it is saying that, including the ESV — as I pointed out in the podcast.
Hmm, there was a transcript this morning, but now it's not showing. Is it in the shop for repairs?
Strange, I don't know. It's showing up this end. Try refreshing?