Cai de abordare a problemei "acoperirii" capului

surorilor din Biserica

In climatul general de abandonare a acestei practici in bisericile baptiste
americane si de diferente de vederi in bisericile baptiste din Romania, iata citeva
posibile pozitii ale Bisericii Bethel:

1. Socotim invatatura corecta si compulsorie, refuzind orice abatere care ar fi n

acest caz o incalcare a pozitiei apostolului Pavel din 1 Corinteni 11:1-16) ("va
laud ca tineti invataturile intocmai cum vi le-am dat".).

2. Socotim invatatura corecta si compulsorie, dar n-o impunem, cautind sa ne

acomodam la "impietrirea inimii voastre" (cum a facut Dumnezeu cu divortul).

3. Socotim invatatura corecta "atunci" si "acolo", dar depasita "acum" si nu o

impunem, mai ales in contextul americanizarii.

4. Socotim invatatura neclara si neconclusiva si nu impunem practicarea ei.

5. Socotim invatatura lasata la latitudinea fiecarei familii ("isi necinsteste
barbatul ei") si nu stabilim o regula generala pentru Biserica.
"Daca iubeste cineva cearta de vorbe, noi n-avem un astfel de obicei si nici
Bisericile lui Dumnezeu" (1 Cor. 11:16).
In alegerea unei pozitii a Bisericii este bine sa luam in considerare:

a. Aceasta nu este o problema de mintuire, ci de "rinduiala" in aspectele sociale

ale inchinaciunii in public.Singurele reglementari compulsorii pentru Biserica au
fost reglementate in Consiliul de la Ierusalim - Fapte 15).

b. Daca raminem in USA, peste multi ani, vom fi adeptii unei practici americane
(mediul modeleaza aspectul social).

c. Impunerea unui obicei exterior nu garanteaza starea reala a inimii. Supunerea

despre care se vorbeste in text poate fi exprimata in alte cai in contextul
contemporan.

d. In cazul unor diferente de vederi, riscam sa impingem spre alte biserici pe cei
care nu vad in aceasta invatatura decit un aspect cultural depasit istoric de
realitatea prezenta.

e. In contextul contemporan, permanentizarea unei practici sociale care nu se

mai practica in societate poate pune o piedica artificiala in calea celor care
(romani sau americani) ar dori sa se alature Bisericii Bethel prin convertire si
botez.

f. In cazul neimpunerii acestei practici, unii membri ai Bisericii Bethel ar putea

opta pentru mutarea la o alta biserica, unde ea este respectata.
Raspuns nr.1
Hello Fr.Daniel,
Sa incep de a va zice.....bine ati venit inapoi. Pentru ca imi este mai usor in Romineste, ma
scuzati ca am sa sciu in Engleze.

I am pleasantly surprised at the topic. I am in no way, shape or form, in a

position to voice an opinion, among all the "leaders" and "wiser" individuals
mentioned, but since I have been copied in on this e-mail, I would like to put in
my two cent worth!!
I fully understand and respect the issue we have of being "covered", even though
at times it is a burned for us as ladies.
I would like to say that I do agree with you that this is not a matter of "being
spiritual". As you well know, there are enough examples in our church where the
American ladies are prime examples of living a Christian / Holy life.
At the same time, I also do try to respect our "older generations" such as Xyx,
which feel that if the "rules" are not followed, we will surely perish. And I am
not kidding.....she has clearly expressed her views on that, and has backed it up
with scripture...there is no bending of the rules according to her...... !! But that is
neither here nor there!!
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I appreciate you're opinion in this
matter. We do live in a culture that is "different" than that from where we are
from. I do not necessarily agree with just embrasing other customs or "lack of
rules", but at the same time, it would be wrong of us to "put down, or "alienate
from church" those that do not chose to follow certain traditions. It is a very
touchy subject, and people on both sides will have good arguments. And there
are those, of course, that will take the issue of "freedom" to an extreme, and
interpret the application wrongly. All to be done in good measure, with God's
wisdom and in good taste.
Fr. Daniel, I do have to confide in you, that it is a struggle for those of us trying
to form our own family ideals and traditions. We see this more importantly now
as being parents, and realizing that we need to make a stand on certain issues,
and that we need to stick to these rules in order for our kids to know the rules
and guidelines of the home.
In one sense, we do not want to let go of our Romanian traditions and ideology,
and at the same time we are living in a culture which is completely different.
These customs and ideals influence every aspect of our lives (from worship to
what we wear).
I just pray for God's wisdom, for ourselves and our kids. I belive God designed
each of us with an inner sense of moral right and wrong, and if we are honest
with ourselves, the answere becomes easy, and I don't think God like pomp, but
nor does he like disorder or people that are slobs.
Excuse my rabbling on.........., but I do think it is very important to talk about these "real" issues
within our community, before (as you said) there will not be a community.

We must hold on to what is pure and right, and allow God to work in our own lives as He sees
fit. May God give us all wisdom and understanding, and above all help us be worthy of His
name in order that we may bring glory and honor to Our Father who has indeed been soooo good
to us.

In Christ,

Raspunsul nr. II
Draga Daniel,
Voi incerca citeva comentarii fugare la acest text, cu mentiunea ca ar fi
important ca biblistii nostri de pe lista sa intervina pentru a clarifica chestiunile
exegetice dificile ale textelor implicate.
_____________
>Cai de abordare a problemei acoperirii capului surorilor din Biserica
>In climatul general de abandonare a acestei practici in bisericile baptiste
americane si de diferente de vederi in bisericile baptiste din Romania, iata citeva
posibile pozitii ale Bisericii Bethel:
>1. Socotim invatatura directa si compulsorie, refuzind orice abatere care ar fi in
acest caz o incalcare a pozitiei apostolului Pavel din 1 Corinteni 11:1-16) ( ca
tineti invataturile intocmai cum vi le-am dat.).
Nu <compulsorie>, ci OBLIGATORIE, in romaneste.
Ca sa decidem daca Pavel a intentionat sa faca din acest obicei o norma
universala, nu este suficient 'sa ne dam cu presupusa', fiecare dupa cit de
<conservator> sau <liberal> este. Decizia trebuie bazata pe o exegeza serioasa a
textului. Nu stiu daca Alex Neagoe mai este pe lista, dar daca nu, poate ca ar
trebui sa-i cerem ajutorul. Lui sau altcuiva competent in teologia biblica a
Noului Testament.
>2. Socotim invatatura corecta si compulsorie, dar n-o impunem, cautlnd sa ne
acomodam la...
Aceasta mi se pare in esenta o pozitie de compromis, pe care eu o socotesc
inacceptabila. Daca Biblia face intr-adevar din aceasta sugestie o norma
obligatorie (ceea ce ramine de stabilit) atunci ea trebuie aplicata, oricare ar fi
consecintele.
>3. Socotim invatatura corecta , dar depasita si nu o impunem, mai ales in
contextul americanizarii.
Aceasta mi se pare o afirmatie si mai gogonata. Cum ar putea fi <depasita> o
invatatura <corecta> a Scripturii?
>4. Socotim invatatura neclara si neconclusiva si nu impunem practicarea ei.
Se pare ca aceasta chestiune a fost una disputata adesea in Biserica, ceea ce
dovedeste ca cel putin intr-o oarecare masura nu este foarte clara. Aici doresc sa
mai adaug ceva. In luarea unei decizii, in afara de o exegeza corecta este absolut
necesar sa privim in istoria interpretarii acestui text. In afara cazului in care
credem in ideea stupida si aroganta ca putem face abstractie de 2000 de teologie
crestina. Din pacate aceasta prostie se practica curent in bisericile noastre.
>5. Socotim invatatura lasata la latitudinea fiecarei familii ( barbatul ei>) si nu
stabilim o regula pentru Biserica.
Daca textul ne lasa aceasta latitudine (ceea ce ma indoiesc) atunci putem face
asta. Daca nu, atunci ar fi din nou un compromis si un transfer nelegitim al
raspunderii.
>In alegerea unei pozitii a Bisericii este bine sa luam in considerare:
>a. Aceasta nu este o problema de mintuire, ci de in aspectele sociale ale
inchinaciunii in public.Singurele reglementari compulsorii pentru Biserica au
fost reglementate in Consiliul de la Ierusalim - Fapte 15).
Cu prima afirmatie sint absolut de acord. A doua insa este foarte riscanta. Nici
botezul nu este esential pentru mintuire (mai corect ar fi sa spun <justificare>),
dar asa fiind, totusi nu-l putem trata <la diverse>. Chestiunile care tin de
<ascultarea credintei> ramin norme absolute pentru crestin, nu chestiuni in care
putem decide personal daca ne plac sau nu.
>b. Daca raminem in USA, peste multi ani, vom fi adeptii unei practici
americane (mediul modeleaza aspectul social).
Sa ma iertati pentru ce va voi spune acum, dar va marturisesc ca poate cea mai
pregnanta impresie pe care mi-au facut-o bisericile romanesti din America a fost
anacronismul lor - tendinta de a pastra o mentalitate si un comportament de anii
^50, care a disparut de mult din Romania, slava Domnului!, dind-o drept
credinciosie fata de Dumnezeu. Nu cred ca cineva poate fi mai favorabil ca mine
ideii de adaptare culturala. Exista insa limite scripturale clare ale acesteia. Ca si
in exemplul lui Christos, limita ar trebui sa fie <fara pacat> . Daca (Doamne
fereste!) bisericile baptiste americane vor hotari ca norma ordinarea
homosexualilor, in veti urma in aceasta? Sa speram ca nu.
>c. Impunerea unui obicei exterior nu garanteaza starea reala a inimii.
Supunerea despre care se vorbeste in text poate fi exprimata in alte cai in
contextul contemporan.
Prima afirmatie mi se pare absolut corecta si voi reveni asupra ei. Si totusi,
DACA acoperirea capului este o norma obligatorie, semnificatia ei NU POATE
FI REALIZATA pe alte cai. De exemplu, am putea inlocui botezul prin
scufundare in apa in semnificatia lui (una dintre ele) ca moarte a omului vechi si
inviere in Christos, cu intrarea catehumenului intr-un dulap din care sa iasa cu
haine schimbate? Desi simbolistica ar fi oarecum pastrata, a face asa ceva
frizeaza erezia. Sau, putem lua cina cu brinza si lapte in loc de piine si vin?
Dupa cum vedeti, intram intr-o problematica sacramentala, extrem de dificil de
analizat si in care deciziile au implicatii imprevizibile.
In plus, trebuie sa ne intrebam, acoperirea capului cu ce? - cu iashma\ (adica cu
val care acopera fata, ca in vremea lui Isus; cu batic mare, inflorat, legat
obligatoriu sub barba, ca in anumite medii penticostale sau de alta <secta>; cu
palarie etc? - in baza caror criterii decidem ce merge si ce nu?
>d. In cazul unor diferente de vederi, riscam sa impingem spre alte biserici pe
cei care nu vad in aceasta invatatura decit un aspect cultural depasit istoric de
realitatea prezenta.
Acesta mi se pare a fi unul dintre cele mai slabe (si periculoase argumente) desi
este unul dintre argumentele tipice ale pastorilor nostri. Chestiunea nu este <cum
vad oamenii acest obicei>, ci ce anume spune Scriptura. Iar daca ei nu vor sa
accepte ce spune Scriptura, este mai bine sa plece, cu tot riscul de a ne scadea
noua bugetul, respectiv salariul.
>e. In contextul contemporan, permanentizarea unei practici sociale care nu se
mai practica in societate poate pune o piedica artificiala in calea celor care
(romani sau americani) ar dori sa se alature Bisericii Bethel prin convertire si
botez.
Acesta nu mi se pare un argument separat, ci o extindere a celui de mai sus la
noii sau potentialii convertiti. Raspunsul este oarecum acelasi. Evanghelia
presupune un pret, pe care noi trebuie sa-l predicam, iar ei trebuie sa-l accepte.
Marea intrebare este insa daca nu cumva noi punem pe oameni poveri pe care nu
le pune Scriptura.
Inclinatia mea este de a considera ca acesta este cazul si in aceasta chestiune.
Concluzia la care am ajuns in studiul pe care l-am facut acum citiva ani asupre
acestui text este ca alaturi de argumente din alte spatii, Pavel foloseste aici un
argument cultural. Contextul este acela al unei discutii despre restabilirea
autoritatii apostolice a lui Pavel, pe care el incearca s-o incadreze in discutia mai
larga despre natura ierarhica a lumii lui Dumnezeu (exemplificata aici in cadrul
familiei).
Convingerea mea (ce-i drept provizorie; sint gata oricind s-o schimb daca am
argumente) este ca importanta aici este asezarea femeii sub autoritate, indiferent
cum este semnificata aceasta in exterior. In Corint era acoperirea capului cu un
val); la noi poate fi orice altceva ce comunica aceasta realitate.
Cea mai mare aberatie ar fi sa ne multumim sa le punem femeilor noastre
<pestelca> in cap, iar ele sa ramina la fel (de razvratite de exemplu) cum erau si
fara asta. Ati auzit probabil vorba pocaita moldoveneasca cum ca <barbatul este
capul, iar femeia este gitul care misca capul>. Din pacate, (din multe pricini,
printre cele mai importante fiind faptul ca rasa barbatilor este pe care de
disparitie - ma refer aici nu la diaparitia sexului barbatesc, ci la disparitia
calitatii de barbat) in cele mai mule cazuri femeile sint obligate sa preia
conducerea din pricina iresponsabilitatii barbatilor.
Nu stiu care este impresia voastra acolo in America, dar aici sint biserici de 2-
300 de membri in care nu poti gasi 7 oameni seriosi ca sa faci un comitet. In
schimb, poti gasi femei serioase cu care sa faci trei comitete.
Din pacate eu nu cred in solutiile feministe (cred ca putem avea diaconite, dar
nu prezbiteri - si deci nu putem avea pastori femei) asa incit am ramas sa ne
multumim a defila cu ce avem. Dumnezeu sa aiba mila de noi!
Danut Manastireanu

Observatie la raspunsul nr.II

Multumesc lui Danut si rog pe toti care pot sa ne ajute in aceasta dezbatere.
Exista un caracter <urgent> in aceasta dezbatere.
Danut a observat ca nu toate alternativele sunt biblice sau justificabile. El insista
sa raminem linga cele <biblice> si <istoric> validate de exegeza bisericii.
Cine ne poate ajuta cu:
1.<O exegeza lamuritoare> si
2. <Sa privim in istoria interpretarii acestui text> ?
Inca o data, multumesc lui Danut.
As face insa o intrebare: <vazut din Romania> comportamentul nostru din
America este anacronic (<Sa ma iertati pentru ce va voi spune acum, dar va
marturisesc ca poate cea mai pregnanta impresie pe care mi-au facut-o bisericile
romanesti din America a fost anacronismul lor - tendinta de a pastra o
mentalitate si un comportament de anii ^50, care a disparut de mult din
Romania, slava Domnului!, dind-o drept credinciosie fata de Dumnezeu. >). Am
remarcat si eu acest lucru.
Ne-ati putea ajuta cu citeva observatii specifice?
Daniel Branzai

RASPUNSUL nr.III
Dragii mei, Am urmarit discutia declansata de Daniel asupra problemei
acoperirii capului si primul punct a: <socotim invatatura corecta si obligatorie>
este suficient si determinant in acceptarea fara abatere a textului biblic din 1 Cor.
11:1-16. In capitolele 11 la 14 ap. Pavel discuta lucrurile privitoare la inchinarea
in public.
Acoperirea capului femeilor este discutata in cap. 11 si pozitia apostolului este
ca surorile trebuie sa aiba capul acoperit in timpul inchinaciunii in public.
Inovatia Corintienelor de a veni la adunare cu capul gol (posibil ca printre surori
sa fi vazut Pavel pe unele cu capul neacoperit) a fost considerata de el ca:
<nereligioasa, mai mult decat necuviincioasa> prin aceasta aratand ca obiectiile
sale nu aveau nimic in comun cu obiceiurile sociale, mentionate de Barzilai en
Dan in pozitia 5.a si 5.e si de unii comentatori care au apelat la termenul
<obiceiuri sociale> pentru a se indeparta de la decizia exprimata de Pavel aici,
care este strict doar pentru serviciile adunarii si nu pentru <relatii sociale>.
Ap. Pavel ne pune inainte cateva motivari ale punctului sau de vedere:
1 Argumentul Teologic, vers. 2-6, aratand ca in ordinea lui Dumnezeu, femeia
este dupa barbat. Bine inteles ca aceasta nu implica inegalitatea sexelor conform
cu Gal 3:28 si subordonarea nu implica neaparat inegalitate. Cheia intelegerii
pozitiei sexelor se gaseste in partea a doua a vers 3: Barbatul este capul femeii
asa cum Tatal este capul lui Hristos. Baza teologica a acoperirii capului femeii
ne duce inapoi la Gen 3:16.
Barbatul si el, are o porunca de indeplinit: capul sau nu trebuie sa fie acoperit
(vers.4). Versetul 5 arata ca actiunea de a se ruga si vorbirea femeii in adunare
cu capul neacoperit, este o necinstire a capului ei fizic (comparatie cu rusinea si
disgratia de a fi rasa de parul capului). Ironia din cuvintele vers. 6 parca ar
spune: fa-o lata pana la capat !
2 Argumentul Biblic, vers 7-12. Realitatile Creatiei (vers. 7-9, 12, 13 ) si
prezenta ingerilor la inchinare (vers 10) sunt aduse in fata. Expresia:<barbatul
este chipul si slava lui Dumnezeu> ne duce inapoi la Gen1:26-27. Barbatul
poarta autoritatea lui Dumnezeu pe pamant iar in vers 8 si 9 cele 2 prepozitii
<din> si <pentru> ne reveleaza pozitia femeii. Ea are origina si scopul vietii in
om, in barbat, Gen. 2:21-25. Orice femeie care isi ia un nume nou, al barbatului,
la casatorie, accepta tacit invatatura ap. Pavel.
<Semn al stapanirii ei> din vers. 10 insemana un semn al autoritatii iar <din
pricina ingerilor> nu se refera la prezbiteri ca in Apoc 2:1, ci la ingeri ca in 1
Cor 14:9. Se refera la ingeri buni (nu la cei rai din Gen. 6:1-4) care sunt prezenti
la inchinaciunea adunarii, din moment ce ei traiesc in prezenta lui Dumnezeu
(Luca 15:10, 1 Tim 5:21).
Ne subordonarea femeilor prin refuzarea recunoasterii autoritatii sotilor lor
ofenseaza pe ingeri, care sub autoritatea lui Dumnezeu, vegheaza asupra
Universului creat (Col 1:16, Ef 1:21) si nu cunosc nesupunerea.
3 Argumentul Fizic, vers 13-16 Insasi buna cuviinta bazata pr bunul simt natural
indeamna la acoperirea capului, cuvantul <cuviincios> se refera la o necesitate
bazata pe o dorinta interioara la fel cum Domnul Isus a facut: <asa se cade sa
implinim tot> Mat 3:15 sau, asa e modul cel mai potrivit. Este o sugestie de
natura divina observatia ca barbatul sa poarte parul scurt iar femeia sa-l aiba
lung, astfel dandu-se atentie la aspectul exterior in adunare.
Cuvintele <parul i-a fost dat ca invelitoare a capului> nu inseamna ca parul
femeii este acoperitoarea (nefiind nevoie de acoperirea capului) caci astfel s-ar
vicia forta demonstratoare a vers 2-14. Cuvantul <ca> invelitoare, este oferit ca
raspuns la <podoaba femeii>.
Expresia <n-avem uni astfel de obicei> se refera la obiceiul unor femei de a veni
la inchinaciune fara capul acoperit. Unii comentatorii spun ca acest obicei era
caracterisitic femeilor din Corint dar cuvintele ap. Pavel: <nici Bisericile lui
Dumnezeu> contrazic aceasta parere pentru ca si Corintul era inclus in Bisericile
lui Dumnezeu. Unii comentatorii ca Barcla], Morris, sustin ca acoperirea capului
sa nu se aplice astazi. Totusi, altii insista ca toate argumentele pentru acoperirea
capului sunt luate din fapte permanente care dureaza atat cat exista pamantul
(Godet). Cuvantul sustinut de ap. Pavel in acest subiect a fost preluat de Biserica
primara si sunt dovezi ca in Roma, Antiohia si in Africa acoperirea capului era o
norma respectata.
Un cuvant final. Baticul, palaria, pestelca sau ce o fi, nu sunt importante ci
subordonarea pe care o reprezinta, asezarea femeii sub autoritate, asa cum bine
remarca Danut in emailul din 15 mai.
Prezenta -imbinata armonios- a celor doi factori in implinirea cerintelor
<acoperirii> este ideala.
Mitica Ghitea

Din Comentarii si Dictionare

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's Commentary
1 Chorintians 11
1 Corinthians 11:1-34. CENSURE ON DISORDERS IN THEIR ASSEMBLIES:
THEIR WOMEN NOT BEING VEILED, AND ABUSES AT THE LOVE-
FEASTS.
1. Rather belonging to the end of the tenth chapter, than to this chapter.
followers--Greek, "imitators." of Christ--who did not please Himself (Romans
15:3); but gave Himself, at the cost of laying aside His divine glory, and dying
as man, for us (Ephesians 5:2, Philippians 2:4,5). We are to follow Christ first,
and earthly teachers only so far as they follow Christ.
2. Here the chapter ought to begin.
ye remember me in all things--in your general practice, though in the particular
instances which follow ye fail.
ordinances--Greek, "traditions," that is, apostolic directions given by word of
mouth or in writing (1 Corinthians 11:23, 15:3, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). The
reference here is mainly to ceremonies: for in 1 Corinthians 11:23, as to the
LORD'S SUPPER, which is not a mere ceremony, he says, not merely, "I
delivered unto you," but also, "I received of the Lord"; here he says only, "I
delivered to you." Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is
to know what is a genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can
be proved to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected
(Revelation 22:18). Those preserved in the written word alone can be proved to
be such.
3. The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes
in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of
propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary head-
covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the
degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, while on a
level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (Galatians 3:28), their
subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul
reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in 1 Corinthians 14:34, as to the
retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on
the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation.
the head--an appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman's
appropriate headdress in public.
of every man . . . Christ--(Ephesians 5:23).
of . . . woman . . . man--(1 Corinthians 11:8, Genesis 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:11,12, 1
Peter 3:1,5,6).
head of Christ is God--(1 Corinthians 3:23, 15:27,28, Luke 3:22,38, John 14:28,
20:17, Ephesians 3:9). "Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God:
for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same
essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of the
same essence as the Father" [CHRYSOSTOM]. "The woman is of the essence of
the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father,
but of the essence of the Father" [THEODORET, t. 3, p. 171].
4. praying--in public (1 Corinthians 11:17).
prophesying--preaching in the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:10).
having--that is, if he were to have: a supposed case to illustrate the impropriety
in the woman's case. It was the Greek custom (and so that at Corinth) for men in
worship to be uncovered; whereas the Jews wore the Talith, or veil, to show
reverence before God, and their unworthiness to look on Him (Isaiah 6:2);
however, MAIMONIDES [Mishna] excepts cases where (as in Greece) the
custom of the place was different.
dishonoureth his head--not as ALFORD, "Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3); but
literally, as "his head" is used in the beginning of the verse. He dishonoreth his
head (the principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a
mark of subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards
to his Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then,
ought not man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the
woman wears it in token of her subjection to man? "Because Christ is not seen:
the man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ is not seen; of her
who is under the man, is seen" [BENGEL]. (Compare 1 Corinthians 11:7).
5. woman . . . prayeth . . . prophesieth--This instance of women speaking in
public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous
gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the
prophetess and Priscilla (so Acts 2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in
public (1 Corinthians 14:34,35, 1 Timothy 2:11,12). Mental receptivity and
activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as most accordant with the
destiny of woman. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking
in public. even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took
place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it
till 1 Corinthians 14:34,35. Even those women endowed with prophecy were
designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public
congregation.
dishonoureth . . . head--in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the
modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the
badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it
connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering
was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Genesis 24:65), and conjugal
chastity (Genesis 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the
power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the
priest (Numbers 5:18). ALFORD takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical,
not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the
latter one.
all one as if . . . shaven--As woman's hair is given her by nature, as her covering
(1 Corinthians 11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous:
therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would be similarly
indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought,
therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head-covering) to show that she
does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of
her subjection to man.
6. A woman would not like to be "shorn" or (what is worse) "shaven"; but if she
chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is,
"shorn."
a shame--an unbecoming thing (compare 1 Corinthians 11:13-15). Thus the
shaving of nuns is "a shame."
7-9. Argument, also, from man's more immediate relation to God, and the
woman's to man.
he is . . . image . . . glory of God--being created in God's "image," first and
directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man.
Man is the representative of God's "glory" this ideal of man being realized most
fully in the Son of man (Psalms 8:4,5; compare 2 Corinthians 8:23). Man is
declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God
(compare James 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God
(Colossians 1:15; compare Hebrews 1:3). "Express image," Greek, "the
impress." The Divine Son is not merely "like" God, He is God of God, "being of
one substance (essence) with the Father." [Nicene Creed].
woman . . . glory of . . . man--He does not say, also, "the image of the man." For
the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image of God, as well as
the man (Genesis 1:26,27). But as the moon in relation to the sun (Genesis
37:9), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light
derived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not that she does not in grace
come individually into direct communion with God; but even here much of her
knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally
dependent.
8. is of . . . of--takes his being from ("out of") . . . from: referring to woman's
original creation, "taken out of man" (compare Genesis 2:23). The woman was
made by God mediately through the man, who was, as it were, a veil or medium
placed between her and God, and therefore, should wear the veil or head-
covering in public worship, in acknowledgement of this subordination to man in
the order of creation. The man being made immediately by God as His glory, has
no veil between himself and God [FABER STAPULENSIS in BENGEL].
9. Neither--rather, "For also"; Another argument: The immediate object of
woman's creation. "The man was not created for the sake of the woman; but the
woman for the sake of the man" (Genesis 2:18,21,22). Just as the Church, the
bride, is made for Christ; and yet in both the natural and the spiritual creations,
the bride, while made for the bridegroom, in fulfilling that end, attains her own
true "glory," and brings "shame" and "dishonor" on herself by any departure
from it (1 Corinthians 11:4,6).
10. power on her head--the kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the
emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and
exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had before his mind the root-
connection between the Hebrew terms for "veil" (radid), and "subjection"
(radad).
because of the angels--who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare
Psalms 138:1, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of
the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward
demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which
angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (1 Corinthians 4:9,
Ephesians 3:10, Ecclesiastes 5:6). HAMMOND quotes CHRYSOSTOM, "Thou
standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet
dost thou stand laughing?" BENGEL explains, "As the angels are in relation to
God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His
presence are veiled (Isaiah 6:2). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His
presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness,
offend the angels (Matthew 18:10,31). She, by her weakness, especially needs
their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them."
11. Yet neither sex is insulated and independent of the other in the Christian life
[ALFORD]. The one needs the other in the sexual relation; and in respect to
Christ ("in the Lord"), the man and the woman together (for neither can be
dispensed with) realize the ideal of redeemed humanity represented by the bride,
the Church.
12. As the woman was formed out of (from) the man, even so is man born by
means of woman; but all things (including both man and woman) are from God
as their source (Romans 11:36, 2 Corinthians 5:18). They depend mutually each
on the other, and both on him.
13. Appeal to their own sense of decorum.
a woman . . . unto God--By rejecting the emblem of subjection (the head-
covering), she passes at one leap in praying publicly beyond both the man and
angels [BENGEL].
14. The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair,
proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The
Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by
God (Numbers 6:5). Compare as to Absalom, 2 Samuel 14:26, and Acts 18:18.
15. her hair . . . for a covering--Not that she does not need additional covering.
Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The
will ought to accord with nature [BENGEL].
16. A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal custom of the
churches.
if any . . . seem--The Greek also means "thinks" (fit) (compare Matthew 3:9). If
any man chooses (still after all my arguments) to be contentious. If any be
contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians'
self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (1 Corinthians 1:20).
we--apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the
Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women
veiled themselves when in public, according to TERTULLIAN [ESTIUS]. The
former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context: but he
often refers to himself and his fellow apostles, by the expression, "we--us" (1
Corinthians 4:9,10).
no such custom--as that of women praying uncovered. Not as CHRYSOSTOM,
"that of being contentious." The Greek term implies a usage, rather than a
mental habit (John 18:39). The usage of true "churches (plural: not, as Rome
uses it, 'the Church,' as an abstract entity; but 'the churches,' as a number of
independent witnesses) of God" (the churches which God Himself recognizes),
is a valid argument in the case of external rites, especially, negatively, for
example, Such rites were not received among them, therefore, ought not to be
admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine, or the essentials of worship, the
argument is not valid [SCLATER] (1 Corinthians 7:17, 14:33).
neither--nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but a general test
of decency.

Wesley's Explanatory Notes

1 Corinthians Chapter 11
1Co 11:2
Verse 2. I praise you -The greater part of you.
1Co 11:3
Verse 3. I would have you know -He does not seem to have given them any order
before concerning this. The head of every man -Particularly every believer. Is
Christ, and the head of Christ is God -Christ, as he is Mediator, acts in all things
subordinately to his Father. But we can no more infer that they are not of the
same divine nature, because God is said to be the head of Christ , than that man
and woman are not of the same human nature, because the man is said to be the
head of the woman .
1Co 11:4
Verse 4. Every man praying or prophesying -Speaking by the immediate power
of God. With his head -And face. Covered -Either with a veil or with long hair.
Dishonoureth his head -St. Paul seems to mean, As in these eastern nations
veiling the head is a badge of subjection, so a man who prays or prophesies with
a veil on his head, reflects a dishonour on Christ, whose representative he is.
1Co 11:5
Verse 5. But every woman -Who, under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, (for
then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church ,) prays or prophesies
without a veil on her face, as it were disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour
on man, her head. For it is the same , in effect, as if she cut her hair short, and
wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages, men wore their hair
exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures.
1Co 11:6
Verse 6. Therefore if a woman is not covered -If she will throw off the badge of
subjection, let her appear with her hair cut like a man's. But if it be shameful far
a woman to appear thus in public, especially in a religious assembly, let her, for
the same reason, keep on her veil.
1Co 11:7
Verse 7. A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image of God
-In the dominion he bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion
of God, which is his glory. But the woman is only matter of glory to the man,
who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore she ought not to appear, but
with her head veiled, as a tacit acknowledgment of it.
1Co 11:8
Verse 8. The man is not -In the first production of nature.
1Co 11:10
Verse 10. For this cause also a woman ought to be veiled in the public
assemblies, because of the angels -Who attend there, and before whom they
should be careful not to do anything indecent or irregular.
1Co 11:11
Verse 11. Nevertheless in the Lord Jesus, there is neither male nor female
-Neither is excluded; neither is preferred before the other in his kingdom.
1Co 11:12
Verse 12. And as the woman was at first taken out of the man, so also the man is
now, in the ordinary course of nature, by the woman; but all things are of God
-The man, the woman, and their dependence on each other.
1Co 11:13
Verse 13. Judge of yourselves -For what need of more arguments if so plain a
case? Is it decent for a woman to pray to God -The Most High, with that bold
and undaunted air which she must have, when, contrary to universal custom, she
appears in public with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14
Verse 14. For a man to have long hair , carefully adjusted, is such a mark of
effeminacy as is a disgrace to him .
1Co 11:15
Verse 15. Given her -Originally, before the arts of dress were in being.
1Co 11:16
Verse 16. We have no such custom here, nor any of the other churches of God
-The several churches that were in the apostles' time had different customs in
things that were not essential; and that under one and the same apostle, as
circumstances, in different places, made it convenient. And in all things merely
indifferent the custom of each place was of sufficient weight to determine
prudent and peaceable men. Yet even this cannot overrule a scrupulous
conscience, which
really doubts whether the thing be indifferent or no. But those who are referred
to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious, persons.

Matew Henry
Chapter 11
In this chapter the apostle blames, and endeavours to rectify, some great indecencies and
manifest disorders in the church of Corinth; as,

I. The misconduct of their women (some of whom seem to have been inspired) in the public
assembly, who laid by their veils, the common token of subjection to their husbands in that part
of the world. This behaviour he reprehends, requires them to keep veiled, asserts the superiority
of the husband, yet so as to remind the husband that both were made for mutual help and
comfort (v. 116).

II. He blames them for their discord and neglect and contempt of the poor, at the Lords supper
(v. 1722).

III. To rectify these scandalous disorders, he sets before them the nature and intentions of this
holy institution, directs them how they should attend on it, and warns them of the danger of a
conduct to indecent as theirs, and of all unworthy receiving (v. 23 to the end).

Verses 1-16 Paul, having answered the cases put to him, proceeds in this chapter
to the redress of grievances. The first verse of the chapter is put, by those who
divided the epistle into chapters, as a preface to the rest of the epistle, but seems
to have been a more proper close to the last, in which he had enforced the
cautions he had given against the abuse of liberty, by his own example: Be ye
followers of me, as I also am of Christ (v. 1), fitly closes his argument; and the
way of speaking in the next verse looks like a transition to another. But, whether
it more properly belong to this or the last chapter, it is plain from it that Paul not
only preached such doctrine as they ought to believe, but led such a life as they
ought to imitate. "Be ye followers of me, that is, "Be imitators of me; live as
you see me live. Note, Ministers are likely to preach most to the purpose when
they can press their hearers to follow their example. Yet would not Paul be
followed blindly neither. He encourages neither implicit faith nor obedience. He
would be followed himself no further than he followed Christ. Christs pattern is
a copy without a blot; so is no mans else. Note, We should follow no leader
further than he follows Christ. Apostles should be left by us when they deviate
from the example of their Master. He passes next to reprehend and reform an
indecency among them, of which the women were more especially guilty,
concerning which observe,
I. How he prefaces it. He begins with a commendation of what was praiseworthy
in them (v. 2): I praise you, that you remember me in all things, and keep the
ordinances as I delivered them to you. Many of them, it is probable, did this in
the strictest sense of the expression: and he takes occasion thence to address the
body of the church under this good character; and the body might, in the main,
have continued to observe the ordinances and institutions of Christ, though in
some things they deviated from, and corrupted, them. Note, When we reprove
what is amiss in any, it is very prudent and fit to commend what is good in them;
it will show that the reproof is not from ill-will, and a humour of censuring and
finding fault; and it will therefore procure the more regard to it.
II. How he lays the foundation for his reprehension by asserting the superiority
of the man over the woman: 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.
Christ, in his mediatorial character and glorified humanity, is at the head of
mankind. He is not only first of the kind, but Lord and Sovereign. He has a
name above every name: though in this high office and authority he has a
superior, God being his head. And as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the
head of the whole human kind, so the man is the head of the tow sexes: not
indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the kind or God has over the man
Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he has, and the woman should be in
subjection and not assume or usurp the mans place. This is the situation in
which God has placed her; and for that reason she should have a mind suited to
her rank, and not do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing places.
Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been
guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their
assemblies, v. 5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep
silence in the churches (ch. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12), which some understand without
limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems
very well to agree with the connection of the apostles discourse, ch. 14.
Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities
pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet
when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though
she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a
superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public
assembly. She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such
acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the
thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow
the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the
epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to
reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church,
without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or
prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it.
We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well
done.
III. The thing he reprehends is the womans praying or prophesying uncovered,
or the mans doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand this, it must be
observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to
be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours,
where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority
and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,
IV. The reasons on which he grounds his reprehension.
1. The man that prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his
head, namely, Christ, the head of every man (v. 3), by appearing in a habit
unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should, even in
our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman,
on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered
dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, v. 3. She appears in the dress of her
superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal
decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in
that age. This would be in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing
sexes, a manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on the
other sex. And this was probably the fault of these prophetesses in the church of
Corinth. It was doing a thing which, in that age of the world, betokened
superiority, and therefore a tacit claim of what did not belong to them but the
other sex.
Note, The sexes should not affect to change places. The order in which divine
wisdom has placed persons and things is best and fittest: to endeavour to amend
it is to destroy all order, and introduce confusion. The woman should keep to the
rank God has chosen for her, and not dishonour her head; for this, in the result,
is to dishonour God. If she was made out of the man, and for the man, and made
to be the glory of the man, she should do nothing, especially in public, that looks
like a wish of having this order inverted.
2. Another reason against this conduct is that the man is the image and glory of
God, the representative of that glorious dominion and headship which God has
over the world. It is the man who is set at the head of this lower creation, and
therein he bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the
glory of the man (v. 7): she is his representative. Not but she has dominion over
the inferior creatures, as she is a partaker of human nature, and so far is Gods
representative too, but it is at second-hand. She is the image of God, inasmuch
as she is the image of the man: For the man was not made out of the woman, but
the woman out of the man, v. 8. The man was first made, and made head of the
creation here below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the
woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being
made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her
husband, and deriving that honour from him out of whom she was made.
3. The woman was made for the man, to be his help-meet, and not the man for
the woman. She was naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because made for
him, for his use, and help, and comfort. And she who was intended to be always
in subjection to the man should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, that looks
like an affectation of equality.
4. She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power, that is, a
veil, the token, not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the
power of her husband, subjected to him, and inferior to the other sex. Rebekah,
when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, put on her
veil, in token of her subjection, Gen. 24:65. Thus would the apostle have the
women appear In Christian assemblies, even though they spoke there by
inspiration, because of the angels, that is, say some, because of the evil angels.
The woman was first in the transgression, being deceived by the devil (1 Tim.
2:14), which increased her subjection to man, Gen. 3:16. Now, believe evil
angels will be sure to mix in all Christian assemblies, therefore should women
wear the token of their shamefacedness and subjection, which in that age and
country, was a veil. Others say because of the good angels. Jews and Christians
have had an opinion that these ministering spirits are many of them present in
their assemblies. Their presence should restrain Christians from all indecencies
in the worship of God. Note, We should learn from all to behave in the public
assemblies of divine worship so as to express a reverence for God, and a content
and satisfaction with that rank in which he has placed us.
V. He thinks fit to guard his argument with a caution lest the inference be carried
too far (v. 11, 12): Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the
woman without the man in the Lord. They were made for one another. It is not
good for him to be alone (Gen. 2:18), and therefore was a woman made, and
made for the man; and the man was intended to be a comfort, and help, and
defence, to the woman, though not so directly and immediately made for her.
They were made to be a mutual comfort and blessing, not one a slave and the
other a tyrant. Both were to be one flesh (Gen. 2:24), and this for the propagation
of a race of mankind. They are reciprocal instruments of each others
production. As the woman was first formed out of the man, the man is ever since
propagated by the woman (v. 12), all by the divine wisdom and power of the
First Cause so ordaining it. The authority and subjection should be no greater
than are suitable to two in such near relation and close union to each other.
Note, As it is the will of God that the woman know her place, so it is his will
also that the man abuse not his power. VI. He enforces his argument from the
natural covering provided for the woman (v. 1315): "Judge in yourselves
consult your own reason, hearken to what nature suggests is it comely for a
woman to pray to God uncovered? Should there not be a distinction kept up
between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a
distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The womans
hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have
long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.
Note, It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies,
to make no breach upon the rules of natural decency. VII. He sums up all by
referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches,
v. 16.
Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of
the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not
silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would
appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would
quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter
strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the
ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women
to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was
manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed
who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.

DARBY'S SYNOPSIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

1 Corinthians Chapter 11
Observe here the way in which the apostle grounded his replies with regard to
details on the highest and fundamental principles. This is the manner of
Christianity (compare Titus 2:10-14). He introduces God and charity, putting
man in connection with God Himself. In that which follows we have also a
striking example of this. The subject is a direction for women.
They were not to pray without having their heads covered. To decide this
question, simply of what was decent and becoming, the apostle lays open the
relationship and the order of the relationship subsisting between the depositories
of God's glory and Himself, [In 1 Timothy 2: 11-15 the moral effect of the
circumstances of the fall is introduced, as giving the woman her true place in the
assembly with regard to man. ] and brings in the angels, to whom Christians, as
a spectacle set before them, should present that of order according to the mind of
God.
The head of the woman is the man; that of man is Christ; of Christ, God.
This is the order of power, ascending to Him who is supreme. And then, with
respect to their relationship to each other, he adds, the man was not created for
the woman, but the woman for the man. And as to their relations with other
creatures, intelligent and conscious of the order of the ways of God, they were to
be covered because of the angels, who are spectators of the ways of God in the
dispensation of redemption, and of the effect which this marvellous intervention
was to produce.
Elsewhere it is added, in reference to the history of that which took place, the
man was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, transgressed first. Let us
add-from the passage we are considering-that, as to creation, the man was not
taken from the woman, but the woman from the man. Nevertheless the man is
not without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord; but all
things are of God;-and all this to regulate a question of modesty as to women,
when in praying they were before the eyes of others.[We are not as yet come to
the order in the assembly. That commences with verse 17.]
The result-in that which concerns the details-is that the man was to have his
head uncovered, because he represented authority, and in this respect was
invested (as to his position) with the glory of God, of whom he was the image.
The woman was to have her head covered, as a token that she was subject to the
man (her covering being a token of the power to which she was subject). Man
however could not do without woman, nor woman without man.
Finally the apostle appeals to the order of creation, according to which a
woman's hair, her glory and ornament, shewed, in contrast with the hair of man,
that she was not made to present herself with the boldness of man before all.
Given as a veil, her hair shewed that modesty, submission-a covered head that
hid itself, as it were, in that submission and in that modesty-was her true
position, her distinctive glory. Moreover, if any one contested the point, it was a
custom which neither the apostle nor the assemblies allowed.

The Peoples New Testament

The Book of 1 Corinthians
Chapter 11
Dress and Conduct in the Church.
SUMMARY.--Men in Church to Pray with Uncovered Heads. Women to Be Veiled. Disorderly
Assemblies. The Abuse of Love Feasts. The Lord's Supper Profaned. The Lesson from Christ's
Appointment of the Ordinance. Must Be Eaten with Solemn Reverence.

1, 2. Be ye followers of me, etc. This refers to 1

Corinthians 10:33. Like him, they
should not seek to "please themselves," but to so act as to save others. 2. Now I
praise you. This praise is preparatory to censure for disorderly conduct among
them. Keep the ordinances. Those he had taught them while in Corinth.
3-8. For I would have you to know, etc. The order of rank is that Christ is the
center, with the Father above and man below him; and in the family the man is
first and the woman second. That is nature's order. 4. Every man praying or
prophesying. The last word means speaking by inspiration. With his head
covered. He dishonors his head by covering what God would have exposed.
Some hold that the head dishonored is Christ. I agree rather with Meyer and
Schaff, that it is his own. Heathen priests of Rome covered their heads. So do
modern Jews. 5. Every one that prayeth, etc. With the customs and ideas which
existed in the East in that age it would be an unseemly act, and would bring
reproach. The veil was regarded as a badge of subordination, and if not worn
would imply that the woman did not yield deference to her husband. Almost all
women are still veiled in the presence of men in the East. All one as if she were
shaven. For a woman's head to be shaven was usually a sign of shamelessness
(See Meyer). The uncovered head in an assembly was also unbecoming. 6. For if
the woman be not covered. If she defies decorum by an uncovered head, let her
go further, and be shaven. 7. A man ought not to cover his head, etc. In this
whole passage we must keep in mind the Eastern ideas of the relations of the
sexes. Paul bases these rules of propriety on the account of their creation. The
veil is a sign of subordination to others present. But man, the image and glory of
God, has no created superior. The woman, the glory of the man, is subordinate to
him, of which the veil is the symbol. 8. For the man is not of the woman. In the
creative act man was first, and woman was made from man.
9-12. Neither was the man, etc. Woman was made for man because he needed a
helpmeet. 10. For this cause ought a woman to have power, etc. She ought to
have on her head the veil, the badge of submission to authority. Because of the
angels. This clause has puzzled the critics. The idea probably is: "There should
be no violation of decorum, such as a bareheaded woman in a public assembly
would be, lest it offend the ministering angels which are always present, though
unseen." 11. Neither is the man without the woman, etc. Neither sex is
independent of the other; each needs the other. In the Lord. The Lord recognizes
their mutual dependence upon each other. 12. For as the woman is of the man,
etc. As she was created for man so man is born of woman. There is an equipoise.
These relations are all "of God."
13-16. Is it comely that a woman should pray, etc.? That is, in the public
assembly. Private prayer, or with her own sex or household, is not meant. It was
very unbecoming in view of the customs of the East, nor would it generally be
esteemed decorous in our times, and with our ideas, that she should appear with
no covering on her head at all. 14. Doth not even nature itself, etc.? It is nature's
arrangement that men should wear short hair, and a woman long. For a man to
have long hair and a woman to be shorn are violations of nature's teachings. 16.
But if a man seem to be contentious. If, in spite of nature's lessons, a man
contentiously opposes, let him know that no such custom exists in the churches.
Many suppose that custom refers to being contentious. I think, rather, that it
refers to covering the head, etc. The lesson of this whole passage is that we must
not defy existing social usages in such a way as to bring reproach on the church.

ZONDERVAN
Cover, covering - The term is used of clothing (Prov. 31:22) and bedspreads
(Prov. 7:16). The covering of the head seems to have been normal among Jews
in OT times (Ezec. 24:17). Women were enjoined by the Mishnaic law to cover
their heads, and bareheaded married women might be divorved. Paul insists that
men should pray with their heads uncovered, but women should have their heads
covered in public worship (1 Cor. 11:4-11). Prostitutes are said to have had their
heads uncovered, and Paul was making it clear that Christian women must show
their loyalty to their husbands. - (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the
Bible, pag. 1016)).
Daca-mi este ingaduit un comentariu la comentariu, reglementarile lui Pavel
sunt facute ntr-un context social n care existau doua conventii estetice:
1. Numai femeile prostituate umblau cu capul descoperit si (sau) rase.
2. Femeile casatorite purtau tot timpul pe cap un simbol al starii lor sociale:
acoperitoarea.
Nici una din aceste doua conventii sociale nu mai exista in societatea americana.
Covernng the Head - Modern arheological discovery has provided information
about ancien head covering from the reliefs of wall paintings. Evidently early
palestinian men were bareheaded. Later a veriety of head-coverings came into
use. The simplest was the headband (1 Kings 20:38, 41). Women wore either the
headresses ("legqturile de pe cap") (Is. 3:20) sau headbands ("mahrame") (Is.
3:18) both of wich were ornamental. The word "headbands" denotes various
kinds of headdress, that worn by priests, made of linen (Exod 39:28; Ezec.
44:18); by ordinary men and cast aside for mourning (Is. 61:3); Ezec. 24:17),
23); by bridegroom (Is. 61:10). High piests had a special "turban" (Exod 28:4;
29:9; 39:28; Lev. 8:13). In time of mourning the head was covered by the hand
or with dust (2 Sam. 13:19; Lam. 2;10). - (The Zondervan Pictorial
Encyclopedia of the Bible, pag. 1016)
Pluralul folosit n descrierea de mai sus neaga obligativitatea unor acoperitori de
uniforma si nu interzice folosirea acoperitorilor pentru infrumusetare.
The Ryrie Study Bible - comenteaza pentru textul din 1 Corinteni 11:3:
who has her head uncovered. Women should be vailed or covered in the
meetings of the church, and men should not. pauls reasons were based on
theology (headship, v.3), the order of creation (vv.7-9), and the presence of
angels in the meeting (v.10). None of these reasons was based on contemporary
social custom.
The Ryrie Study Bible - comenteaza pentru textul din 1 Corinteni 11:15
her hear is given to her for a covering. This is not the same word (acoperit=
"katakluptos"; invelitoare= "peribollaion" used only here and in v.15 si in
Hebrew 1:12) as that used in vv.5-6. The point here is that as the hair represents
the proper covering in the natural realm, so the veil is the proper covering in the
natural realm, so the veil is the proper covering in the religious.
The Life aplication Bible - comenteaza textul din 1 Corinteni 11:2-15
In this section Pauls main concern is irreverence in worship. We need to read it
in the context of the situation in Corinth. The matter of wearing hats or head
coverings, although seemingly insignificant, had become a big problem because
the two cultural backrounds were colliding. Jewish women always covered their
heads in worship. For a woman to uncover her head in in public was a sign of
loose morals. On the other hand, Greek women may have been used to
worshiping without head coverings.
In this letter Paul had already spoken about divisions and disorder in the church.
Both are invovled in this issue. Pauls solution comes from his desire for unity
among church members and for appropriateness in the worship service. He
accepted Gods sovereignty in creating the rules for relationships.

1 Corinthians Commentary by John MacArthur - in incheierea comentariului la

textul 1 Cor. 11;1-16, John MacArthur scrie:
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is dishonor to
him, but if a woman has long hair, it is glory to her. Men and woamen have
distinct physiologies in many wyas. One of htem os on the process of hair
growth on the head. Hair develoops in three stages - formation and growth,
rsting, and fallout. The male hormone testosterone speeds up the cycles that men
reach the third stage earlier than women. The male hormone estrogen causese
the cycle to remain in stage one for alonger time, causeing womens hair to grow
longer than mens. Women are rarely bald becasue few even reach stage three.
This physiology is reflected in most cultures of the world in the custom of
women wearing longer hair then men.
Nature (phusis) also carries the idea of instinct, an innate sense of what is
normal and right This is an appeal to human conciousness. Paul is saying that as
a man looks aorund himself he recognizes that,but for rare exceptions, both
nature and human instinct testify that it is normal and proper for a womans hair
to be longer that a mans. Beautifully dressed hair is a glory to a woman, Gods
special gift to show the softness and tenderness of a woman. The greek word
(kome) for long hair can mean both long hair and a neat hairdo.
A womans hair is itself given toher for a covering. Her hair is her natural
covering or veil, and headwear is a cultural symbolic covering, both
representing her subordinate role. Both nature and general custom reflect Gods
universal principle of mans role of authority and womans role of
subordination. The unique beauty of a woman is gloriously manifest in the
distinctive femininity portrayed by her hair and her attendance to feminine
customs.
In modern cultures where the wearing of a hat or veil does not symbolize
subordination, that practice should not be required of Christians. But womens
hair and womens dress is to be distinctively feminine and demonstrate her
womanly lovliness and submissiveness. There should be no confusion about
male and female indenities, because God made the sexes distinct - phsiologically
and in roles and realtionships. He wants men to be masculine, to be responsibly
and lovingly authoritive, He wants women to be feminine, to be responsible and
lovingly submissive.
As in almost every age and every chuch, some of the believers in Corinth were
not satisfied with Gods way and wanted to disregard of modify it to suit
themselves. Paul anticipated their objection to what he had just taught. He knew
that some would be inclined to be contentious, but he could say nothing
additional to them that would be more convincing that what he had already said.
In summing up this argument, we note that Paul has established that women are
to be submissive to men because of the relationship in the Godhead(v.3), the
divine design of male and female (v.7), the order of creation (v.8), the role of
women (v.9), the interest of the angels (v.10), and the charecteristics of natural
physiology (vv. 13-15).
That is why he declares that neither God, represented by His apostles, nor the
faithful congregstiona of His church will recongize any pother principle or
follow any other pattern of behavior. The argument is utterly convincing. "If you
want to find a sympathetic ear to your dissent," he says, "you wont find it
among the apostles or in the churches." We have no other practice, nor have the
chuches of God. The apostles in the other churches were firmly committed to the
practice that women should wear longer hair than men and should have
distinctiely female haridos. And where custom dictated it, they should wear
proper head coverings to distinguish themselves as submissive.

Raspunsul nr. IV.

Este din week-end pe aici, si desi subiectul pare sa treaca incet sub tacere, eu o
sa ma intorc la el.
In privinta folosirii comentariilor pentru interpretarea unui text, cred ca sunt
foarte folositoare, dar cred ca sunt si o multime de probleme legate de acestea.
Ma gindesc mai intii numai la faptul ca in cele mai multe privinte comentatorii
insisi pot fi foarte impartiti. Deci, in ultima instanta va trebui sa iau decizii eu
insumi. Pur si simplu nu pot doar sa culeg ce spun altii si apoi sa ma situez intr-o
tabara sau alta. Personal, folosesc comentariile dupa ce am ajuns la o anumita
intelegere a textului, sau cel putin am identificat unele intrebari majore pentru
mine insumi, pe care le consider esentiale pentru a ajunge la o intelegere corecta
a Scripturii. Ca sa nu mai vorbesc de faptul ca imi place sa caut sa citesc un
spectru cit mai larg de interpretari, si sa inteleg nu numai ce spune cineva, ci
logica din spatele opiniilor lor. Aceasta mai intotdeauna te obliga sa citesti un
comentariu nu numai cu privire la un verset specific ci in intregime. De foarte
multe ori introducerea unui comentariu iti spune mult mai mult decit citirea unui
paragraf in sine. Deci, personal ma abtin deocamdata de la a comenta
comentariile!
Similar as trata si parerea profesorului de greaca al lui Beni, sau a oricui
altcuiva. Nu ma indoiesc ca acest profesor are motivele lui, sustinute de
calificarea lui de profesor de greaca, sa afirme un lucru sau altul. Dar cred ca ar
fi mult mai folositor pentru noi sa stim si de ce sau cum a ajuns la o concluzie
sau alta. Parerea lui X sau Y este foarte folositoare, mai ales atunci cind cunosc
pe X sau Y (cred ca pt. Timotei parerea lui Pavel intr-o problema sau alta era f.
importanta), dar si mai folositor este daca X sau Y ma ajuta sa vad si eu ce vad
ei. Poate Beni reuseste sa ne aduca aici ceva mai mult pe linga opinia
profesorului de greaca.
Ma intorc atunci la text. 1 Cor trateaza consecutiv anumite subiecte oarecum
independente, dar cred ca exista si o anumita legatura intre ele.
Exista numeroase subiecte care se refera la viata bisericii, iar sctiunea 11:2-
14:40 trateaza in special diferite aspecte legate de inchinarea comuna in biserica.
Personal, as vrea sa identific afirmatia majora a acestui pasaj si sa inteleg
dezvoltarea argumentului lui Pavel. Pina acolo, insa, mai am nevoie de
raspunsuri la intrebari ajutatoare, si as vrea sa lansez una acum. Pate cineva care
depune mai multa munca in greaca poate sa ne ajute cu aceasta.
In original, exista vre-o diferenta intre acoperit/descoperit si invelit/desvelit? In
romana mi se pare un pic de diferenta de nuanta.
See also <>http://www.communio.org/1cor11.htm>
Trying to make one step at a time,
********************
Eugen Matei

Raspunsul nr.V
Subscriu si eu cu tarie la ce spune Danut tinand sa accentuez mai ales principiul
pomenit deja de el si anume ca pentru un roman care pleaca in America cea mai
inteleapta strategie de viata (indiferent de varsta!) este sa RENUNTE la cultura
lui si sa se INTEGREZE in cultura tarii in care va trai restul vietii. Este un non-
sens sa procedezi altfel. Macar asta ar trebui sa fie tendinta generala: sa intri in
procesul de integrare. Insa unii romanii nu numai ca nu sunt constienti de lucrul
acesta, ci chiar se impotrivesc cu tarie sa se integreze in noua societate. Si totusi
au dorit sa mearga acolo. Asta ramane de neinteles.
Claudiu Capusan

Raspunsul nr. VI
Ei, chiar ca de data asta s-a ajuns cam prea departe cu un anumit gen de
atotstiinta care nu pridideste cum sa mai dea sfaturi la altii. Atit expresia lui
Danut (ale carui mesaje de altfel le apreciez destul de mult) : "Fratilor, poate
gresesc, dar cred cu tarie ca daca cineva vrea sa ramina roman, Romania este cel
mai bun loc pentru aceasta." cit si "isonul" care i l-a tinut Claudiu mi s-au parut
ca baleiaza intre caraghios si penibil.
Dragii mei (Claudiu si Danut), va stiam oameni pertinenti care de obicei (oare
mai pastrati acest obicei) nu va hazardati sa formulati afirmatii despre lucruri pe
care nu le-ati experimentat. Va stiam ca nu cintati "dupa ureche". Spuneti-ne va
rog cite luni sau citi ani ati petrecut in continuu in USA in comunitati romanesti
cit si in contexte exclusiv americane ca sa ne putem da oarecum seama ce
material folositi cind faceti astfel de afirmatii. Cit cunoasteti voi America de fapt
(nu din carti ...sau Internet). Nu va suparati pe mine dar nu stiti despre ce vorbiti.
Chiar si eu care traiesc de aproape doi ani aici va voi spune ce am sa va spun cu
teama si rezerva ca e posibil ca in anumite privinte sa nu am totalmente dreptate.
Si v-o spun asta fara nici un fel de patima. Un roman poate foarte bine sa ramina
roman si sa-si pastreze etnicitatea si autenticitatea foarte bine si in Diaspora. Ba
chiar mai mult acolo. Si sa nu-mi spuneti ca Eliade, Cioran, Brincusi, Caragiale,
Tismaneanu si multi, multi altii au fost si sint doar exceptii. Eu personal sint din
ce in ce mai convins ca in Diaspora iti poti pastra si intari caracterul etnic chiar
mai bine decit in tara. Pentru ca in tara "romanismul" se "depune" pe multi doar
ca un fel de "spuza a cotidianului". In Diaspora "romanismul" (atit cit e el) se
cultiva.
Este o problema de alegere si de aceea este mult mai consitent ...atunci cind este.
Pentru ca este foarte adevarat, foarte multi romani (daca nu chiar marea
majoritate) se "dilueaza" (nu se integreaza) in acest talmes-balmes care este
America (voi spune mai tirziu ceva despre aceasta).
Copii lor uita si ce n-au stiut din limba romana si cu asta-basta. Dar au fost
acestia cu adevarat romani. Sa avem pardon! Probabil ca stiti mai bine decit
mine ca majoritatea romanilor baptisti (ca despre ei vorbim) nu prea au
biblioteci in casa ci mai ales cite o vitrina cu bibelouri de portelan si ceva carti
de literatura confesionala.(am observat asta mai ales in Ardeal).
Nu e un pacat, vai de mine. Fiecate isi umple casa cu ce vrea. Cu bibelouri de
Sighisoara insa nu iti poti umple mintea. A fi roman nu inseamna sa traiesti si sa
muncesti in Romania ci inseamna sa citesti, sa cugeti si sa comunici in limba
romana mai mult decit dialogurile despre nimicurile de fiecare zi. Multi dintre ei
nu au facut niciodata asta. Si nu cred ca e nevoie sa spun mai multe. Pentru ei
Romania si lb. romana n-au insemnat mare lucru iar daca acum au ajuns in
America iar aici banii se fac "in limba engleza" atunci la ce sa le mai foloseasca
copiilor limba sau cultura romana. Pot s-o uite. CA TOT NU LE MAI
FOLOSESTE LA NIMIC. Sper ca observati aspectul utilitarist si pragmatic din
modul in care se raporteaza multi dintre ei la realitate (nu toti). Sa fiu sincer nu-i
judec absolut deloc.
Acesti oameni n-au tinut niciodata la faptul ca sint romani (si nici n-au stiut ce
inseamna asta) si este o prostie sa le pretinzi acum a fi ceea ce n-au fost
niciodata. Cit despre copii, ei sint "victimele" parintilor lor.
Nu cred ca este cel mai potrivit sa dau exemple din familia mea dar in timp ce
alti copii despre care stim ca nu sint aici de mai mult de citiva ani abia mai
vorbesc romaneste, copii nostri dupa doi ani in America, timp in care au facut
scoala in limba engleza (dar si o parte in lb.romana) continua sa vorbeasca si sa
scrie la fel de bine si in engleza si in romaneste dar in acelasi timp continua sa se
simta romani, sa cunoasca despre Romania, sa doreasca si sa spere ca se vor
intoarce intr-o zi in tara. Noi le-am cultivat cu atentie si gingasie acest lucru.
Intotdeauna le-am spus ca nu stim cit vom sta aici dar indiferent cit vom sta ei
vor trebui sa nu uite ca traiesc in mijlocul Americii ca romani. Este oarecum
asemanator (nu identic) cu a spune ca traiesti in mijlocul lumii ca si crestin.
Nimeni nu spune ca aceasta nu implica o tensiune dar tu esti administratorul sau
victima acestei tensiuni. Oare cine reuseste sa fie mai bun roman: cel care nu isi
da seama de asta sau cel care trebuie mereu sa o constientizeze?
Si inca ceva: despre talmes-balmes-ul care este America.
Claudiu scria: "sa RENUNTE la cultura lui si sa se INTEGREZE in cultura tarii
in care va trai restul vietii. Este un non-sens sa procedezi altfel."
Probabil ca o fi valabil cu privire la cultura germana sau franceza, dar in ce
priveste America este o mare eroare. Claudiu, poate n-ai stiut inca dar NU
EXISTA CULTURA AMERICANA. Si asta nu o afirm doar eu (ca atunci n-ar
avea mare valoare) ci insasi oamenii lor de "cultura". A te lasa sau a-ti lasa copii
"integrati" in "cultura" MacDonald, Mustang, BBQ, Mall, Disney si mai ales "in
God we trust" mi se pare o crima. In acelasi timp tuturor celor care invoca
"cultura americana" le pun intrebarea la ce se refera cind exprima asa ceva: la
ghetourile negre din centrul LA, Atlanta sau Chicago, la Chinatown din San
Francisco, la Midwest, la Navajo land din Arizona si New Mexico, la
comunitatile germane din nordul Georgiei sau Nebraska, la comunitatile
mexicane, la inuitii din Alaska, la comunitatile evreiesti din New Jersey sau
Chicago, la amishii din Ohio sau la spatiul universitar din New England. Dupa
cum vedeti si stiti bine America este in marea ei majoritate un spatiu pluralist al
emigratiei iar ceea ce ii da astazi farmec nu este uniformizarea de tip WalMart
sau JCPenney ci pastrarea culorii etnice in pluralism. Din pacate guvernul
american nu impartaseste acest punct de vedere asa cum o face cel canadian. Si
asta spre paguba lui. In orice caz, niciodata nu m-am simtit mai bine ca sint
roman ca acum cind sint in mijlocul americanilor. Copii mei simt exact acelas
lucru intre colegii lor americani sau de alte etnii. Deunazi m-au intrebat daca isi
pot scrie si ei pe ghetele de sport RP (Romanian Pride) fiindca au colegi coreeni
care si-au scris KP (Korean Pride). Sa fiu sincer n-as schimba pentru nimic in
lume "coloratura" mea romaneasca cu superficialitatea si infantilismul american.
Asta insa nu ma impiedica sa traiesc in mijlocul americanilor, sa fiu acceptat de
ei si chiar sa il marturisesc pe Hristos colegilor mei americani. Totul depinde de
tine. Tu decizi daca etnicitatea ta este o bariera sau devine o cale de comunicare
si de imbogatire interioara (ar fi multe de spus despre asta dar nu e locul acum).
Personal cred ca etnicitatea este un dar de la Dumnezeu pentru a ne impiedica sa
ne unim intr-o razvratire universala dar si pentru a exprima intr-o varietate
multicolora enorma intelepciune si creativiate a lui Dumnezeu. Abandonarea
("integrarea") in americanism mi se pare o saracire si o uniformizare a
universului lui Dumnezeu. Personal nu vreau sa fiu partas la asa ceva si regret ca
nu pot sa fiu de acord cu cei care gindesc altfel.
In ce priveste povestea cu baticu' si cu anacronismul bisericilor romanesti de
aici, intr-o editie urmatoare dupa ce ati "obosit" bine subiectu' pe care Daniel
Brinzei l-a aruncat cu dibacie si acum priveste sa vada cine-i da lovitura de
gratie. -)
Virgil

Raspunsul nr. VII

Fr. Daniel,
Ultimul email m-a surprins prin problema ridicata. Aceasta problema lasata asa
la voia fiecaruia si nerezolvata la timp a facut mult rau.
Inteleptul Solomon in Cint. Cint. 2:15 spune prindeti-ne vulpile cele mici care
strica viile ... in floare. Te bucuri sa primesti si alte opinii eu ca cel mai
neinsemnat dintre frati, vreau sa-ti fac cunoscut si opinia noastra de aici si doua,
trei experiente din ultimii ani din America. Eu personal pina aici, in Houston, nu
am putut crede ca aceasta problema, acoperirea capului la femeile crestine poate
fi o problema asa de grea. Acest lucru se datoreaza numai si numai necunoasterii
Sfintelor Scripturi. Bisericile noastre din America sint pline cu crestini firesti si
cari fac mult rau.
Cind am ajuns la Houston in 1996 cu mare regret am constatat ca de aprox. 3-4
ani in biserica se framinta aceasta problema. Se formase doua grupuri. Cei doi
pastori si rudele lor erau de acord ca femeia crestina sa nu se acopere. Timpul
treacea si problema se agrava relatiile dintre fratii din biserica erau tot mai reci
si se urau unii pe altii si in cele din urma problema a degenerat, cei doi pastori si
rudele, aprox. 7 familii, au preferat sa rupa biserica formand un alt grup de cit sa
renunte la aceste pretentii firesti. In tot timpul acesta biserica din locul acesta a
avut si are si acum de suferit de pe urma acestei rele marturii. Nastere din nou
nu a existat, dovada ca biserica era moarta. Spunea cineva ca cel mai important
surub intr-un tren este surubul slabit. Si atunci se ridica intrebarea - Cui i sa dat
dreptul sa voteze Biblia? Am eu dreptul sa votez Biblia? Se poate spune ca
anumite versete din Biblie sint bune iar altele nu sint bune? In 2 Tim. 3:16 citim:
Toata Scriptura este insuflata de Dumnezeu... Noi putem sa acceptam Biblia asa
cum este ea, sau sa nu o acceptam. Da si nu, nu exista.
Sfintele Scripturi au acelasi puteri ca si la inceputul cretinismului. Ea este de
aceeasi actualitate prezenta pentru toate timpurile. Dumnezeu ne-a avut si pe noi
in vedere, cei din 2000. Asa zisii crestini firesti din bisericile noastre spun ca
acoperirea capului la femeii in biserica este o invatatura depasita "noi venim din
alta cultura" si vezi Doamne ca trebuie sa ne emancipam. In 1990, eram din
biserica din San Leandro si intr-o vineri seara a venit la biserica fr. evanghelist
Louis Palau. Sper ca-l cunosti.
Dupa ce s-a plimbat putin prin biserica s-a uitat la fiecare in special la surori, si
a inceput sa predice; mai mult striga: frati romani, ramineti romani asa cum va
stiu eu din tara. Nu va americanizati. America are nevoie de voi sa ramineti
sarea americii. Ramineti credinciosi. Societatea americana este in cadere dar voi
ramineti credinciosi, pocaiti. Se referea la problema acoperirii capului la femei.
N-as vrea sa te plictisesc dar imi aduc aminte: Presedintele nostru de la institut
venea des pe la noi la biserica si la ora de teologie sistematica pentru ca eram in
clasa mai multi romani s-a discutat in mod deosebit aceasta problema, a
acoperirea capului la femeile crestine. Dupa citeva ore de discutie impreuna cu
presedintele si citva profesori, presedintele institutlui ne spune ca cu ani in urma
si "noi eram la fel ca si voi." Se ridica intrebarea, cine s-a schimbat? Cei care
vor sa minimalizeze importanta acestei practici spun: obicei local, invechit,
depasit. Practica orientala veche, sintem ingusti la minte. Apost. Pavel spune in
1 Cor. 1:2 catre toti cei ce cheama in vreun loc numele Domnului Isus Hristos,
Domnul lor si a-l nostru. Cum s-ar putea ca prima jumatate al cap. 11 din 1 Cor.
Sa fie depasita, iar cind ajungem la a doua jumatate, adica la cina Domnului, sa
aibe valoare universala in crestinism.
O analiza asupra istoriei bisericii crestine scoate in evidenta ca de indata ce
aceasta practica dispare va fi doar chestiune de timp pina cind toate celelalte
practici specifice nonconformismului crestin vor disparea. In 1 Cor. 11:3 ... dar
vreau sa stiti ca Hristos este capul oricarui barbat, ca barbatul este capul femeii,
si ca Dumnezeu este capul lui Hristos. Aici ni se prezinta ordinea instituita de
Dumnezeu cu privire la relatia noastra cu Dumnezeu. Este vorba despre un
principiu cu caracter permanent care este in vigoare si astazi in baza hotaririi lui
Dumnezeu. Astfel daca intr-o relatie cu totul divina, structura de autoritate s-au
conducere este buna si necesara, cu atit mai mult relatia barbat-femeie. Noi ne
aducem contributia cea mai importanta atunci cind functionam in sfera ce ne-a
fost destinata de Dumnezeu. Atit femeia crestina cit si barbatul crestin sint
implicat sa depuna marturie vizibila. In versetul 4-5 ni se arata forma pe care
Dumnezeu vrea s-o ia marturia noastra. Pentru barbat semnul autoritatii
prestabilit de Dumnezeu consta in a avea capul descoperit si nu a purta nimic pe
cap cu semnificatie religioasa. Pe cind pentru femeia crestina marturia
prestabilita de Dumnezeu consta in acoperirea capului. In versetul 4-7 cuvintul
acoperamint este derivat de la grecescul "Katakalupta" si inseama val.
Neglijarea acestei practici se spune ca necinsteste capul celui ce o incalca.
Despre care cap este vorba? Se intelege ca femeia care nu vrea sa se inveleasca
se pune pe ea in locul barbatului pretinzind autoritate peste acesta si in acelasi
timp respinge autoritatea divina sub care se afla barbatul. In vers. 8 ne arata clar
ca ordinea stabilita de Dumnezeu a ramas aceeasi. In versetul 10 este un alt
argument in favoarea acoperirii capului. Este pina si pentru ingeri un semn.
In versetul 11-12 se observa foarte clar interdependenta intre barbat si femeie si
ca amindoi depind in intregime de Dumnezeu. Cind barbatul si femeia se
conformeaza ordine divine, barbatul va purta parul scurt si fara invelitoare, iar
femeia crestina va purta parul lung si cu acoperitoare.
Aceaste este rinduiala luii Dumnezeu prin creatie in tiparul familiei. In versetul
15 se foloseste iar katakalupto - adica invelitoare, iar anterior acestui verset se
foloseste cuvintul periboloian - adica acoperitoare. Distinctia dintre aceste doua
verbe apare si in versetul 6; "...daca nu se inveleste sa se si tunda." Cum se poate
explica aici dubla inlaturare a parului daca parul este acoperitoare, si ea este
desvelita? Daca femeia crestina refuza sa se acopere ea merita si al doilea semn
al rusinii, adica capul tuns, daca singura acoperitoare ar fi parul. In versetul 16
apostolul Pavel spune: ca ar fi straniu ca cineva sa contrazica o practica atit de
universala acceptata de toate bisericile. Faptul ca aceaste recomandari nu mai
apar si in alte epistole este o foarte clarra dovada ca acest subiect a fost bine
inteles pentru toti crestinii. Oamenii lui Dumnezeu cari au intelepciunea Lui isi
vor da repede seama ca Biserica este aceea care va adopta regula pentru forma
de acoperire permisa, si asftel se vor inlatura de la sine o multime de discutii si
de probleme fara nici un fel de sens, cari se nasc daca fiecare ar fi liberi sa si le
rezolve dupa cum ar gasi fiecare de cuviita. Acoperirea este felul in care
Dumnezeu vrea sa ne aduca mereu aminte de structura cu caracter permanent
divin. Accept eu sa intru in sfera de ascultare a lui Dumnezeu, sau nu? In
incheiere sper ca nu te-am plictisit iar dupa experienta noastra de aici privind in
urma, constatam ca hotarirea pe care am luat-o impreuna cu totii ca acoperirea
capului la fameia crestina este obligatorie, a dat multa roade. Sa stopat orice
discutie pe tema aceasta, sa eliminat o sursa sigura de scandal in biserica si
marturia bisericii incepe sa capete un contur tot mai aproape de realitatea
biblica. Ca dovada dupa aprox. 8 luni activitatea multor frati din biserica este tot
mai rodnica; fratii au mai mult timp acum sa se ocupe cu lucruri mult mai
importante decit cearta. In data de 30 Mai, 1999, dupa multi ani avem un botez
Nou Testamental. Dumnezeu sa te binecuvinteze pe tine si pe fratii din biserica
pe care o pastoresti si doresc sa aveti o pozitie si o lumina biblica si categorica
in aceasta problema.
Paul Gavriliuc - Houston

Raspunsul nr. VIII

Dragii mei
Admir luarile de cuvint si pretuiesc sinceritatea discursului atit de intim incit
prinde un iz de spovedanie. Multumesc pentru tot ce ne-ati scris. Desi am tacut
citeva zile, nu inseamna ca nu am fost atent. Iata citeva consideratii personale:
1. In privinta culturii sau a lipsei de cultura
- Ramin la parerea ca lumea, cu intelepciunea ei, nu ne poate ajuta prea mult in
inaintarea noastra personala. "Caci intrucit lumea cu intelepciunea ei n-a
cunoscut pe Dumnezeu in intelepciunea lui Dumnezeu, ... este scris: "Voi
prapadi intelepciunea celor intelepti si voi nimici priceperea celor priceputi"
Cind va aud vorbind despre nivelul de cultura sau incultura al Americii,
respectiv Romaniei, ma furnica pe sira spinarii. Solomon n-a gasit o femeie
adevarata in aproximativ 1,000. Noi nu gasim un mesaj cu valoare vesnica nici
in 1,000 de anumite carti (vorbesc, ca si Solomon, ca unul care a avut
pasiunea ... "cartilor"). Vorba lui: "Mi-am pus inima sa cunosc intelepciunea si
sa cunosc prostia si nebunia. Dar am inteles ca si aceasta este goana dupa vint"
(Ecles. 1:16).
Si inca ceva, parca mai aud inca ecoul cuvintelor: "Te laud, Doamne, Tata al
cerului si al pamintului ca ai ascuns aceste lucruri de cei intelepti si priceputi si
le-ai descoperit pruncilor. Da, Tata, Te laud pentru ca asa ai gasit Tu cu cale."
2. In ce priveste pozitia unui om in interiorul sau in afara unei anumite culturi
nationale.
- Ramin la parerea ca orice crestin este plasat strategic in interiorul unei anumite
culturi ca sa o fecundeze cu saminta dumnezeirii. Ceea ce ne defineste pe noi nu
trebuie sa fie atingerea culturii periferice, ci posedarea "semintei"
extratemporale, marturie a apartenentei noastre la o alta "cetate", nepieritoare.
Intreb, unde s-a simtit Avram mai acasa: in UR, Caldeea, in Egipt sau in Canaan.
Raspunsul pe care ni-l da cartea Evrei este: "In credinta au murit toti acestia,
fara sa fi capatat lucrurile fagaduite; ci doar le-au vazut si le-au urat de bine de
departe, marturisind ca sunt straini si calatori pe pamint. Cei ce vorbesc in felul
acesta, arata deslusit ca sunt in cautarea unei patrii. Daca ar fi avut in vedere pe
acea DIN CARE IESISERA, negresit ca ar fi avut vreme sa se intoarca in ea.
Dar doreau o patrie mai buna, adica o patrie cereasca. De aceea lui Dumnezeu
nu-i este rusine sa se numeasca Dumnezeul lor, caci le-a pregatit o cetate."
(Evrei 11:13-16).
Evreii au fost presarati un timp printre neamuri pentru "polenizarea" florilor din
cautarile pagine. Astazi, crestinii sunt "mireasma" care vesteste apropierea unei
civilizatii eterne.
Banuiesc ca prin "cultura" se defineste "ambalajul" unei realitati sociale. Va
propun o meditatie pe aceasta tema:
Pot exista nivele paralele de cultura? Exista:
- cultura lui "How"
- cultura lui "Whom"
si - cultura lui "Why" ?
Dava da, atunci nu cumva cultura lui "how" va fi intotdeauna stratul de
suprafata, poleiala subtire, etc ? Nu cumva doar Biblia ne poate face partasi
adincimilor din stratul culturii lui "Why" ? Nu cumva cultura lui "Whom" este
doar un cult steril al unor personalitati clasificate de Isus drept "cei veniti inainte
de Mine" si care "au fost hoti si tilhari" ?
3. In ce priveste acoperirea capului sotiilor supuse.
Iata trei ginduri care nu-mi dau pace:
a. O acoperire "de forma" nu ar putea pacali "ingerii", deci ar trebui acoperite
numai sotiile cu adevarat supuse! Fara gluma, m-am intors din Israel cu ultima
"gaselnita" jidaneasca. Din cauza atmosferei impuse de "ortodoxi", exista un
intreg comert cu ... "peruci". Evreicele smechere, care nu vor sa poarte batic,
intra in sinagoga purtind ... peruci. Nimeni nu le poate spune ca nu sunt
"acoperite" !!! Ce spuneti de asta ?!!
b. O acoperire "mecanica" ne-ar impinge spre practica catolica. Textul specifica
o acoperire obligatorie doar in momentele active ale participarii la un servici
divin (rugaciunea si profetia). Textul nu spune ca o femeie care intra in adunare
trebuie sa se acopere pe timpul cit sta si asculta sau cinta. In bisericile catolice
exista obiceiul purtarii unui fel de sal, care acopere umerii si care este pus pe cap
doar in momentele rugaciunii. Ce ziceti de asta ?!!
c. O acoperire "perpetua", asa cu este ea practicata in unele locuri ne-ar face ca
femeile, si chiar si fetele, sa fie (toata ziua si oriunde s-ar afla) ascunse sub val
de privirile "ingerilor"(!!) In majoritatea timpurilor si locurilor, capul femeii a
fost acoperit din motive care au tinut mai mult de protectie si igiena, decit de
motive religioase. O femeie din Orient se acopere ca sa scape de soare, de vint si
de praf (ca si barbatii de altfel). O femeie care merge in Romania la prasit
dimineata, n-are nevoie de biserica sa-i spuna sa se acopere pe durata zilei.
Pericolul insolatiei si atacul vintului si al prafului sunt motivatii suficiente.
Singurele femei care erau silite prin specificul "meseriei" lor sa poarte parul ca o
nada ademenitoare pentru atragerea barbatilor erau cele de profesie
"prostituate." Astea nu mergeau nici la prasit si tolaneala lor era la umbra.
In societatea confortului modern, unde pericolul insolatiei si amenintarea
prafului s-au redus considerabil, femeile au inceput, de la sine, sa mearga pe
strada cu capul descoperit. Acelasi lucru este valabil si pentru servici, scoala,
acasa, in masina, in parc, etc. Asta a dus la o schimbare a conventiilor sociale si
a simbolismelor familiale.Ce ziceti de asta?
Si inca ceva, pasionati sa discutam "acoperirea" femeii, am uitat sa discutam
"neacoperirea" barbatului. Recomandata de Pavel, ea vine in contradictie cu
prevederile mozaice din Lege. In cazul in care asa stau lucrurile, mai ramin
prevederile de acoperire "universal valabile" ? Se conrazice Dumnezeu?
Si inca ceva (promit sa fie ultimul), cum de a ajuns Biserica istorica sa calce
prevederile Pauline si sa ceara popilor, episcopilor si mai tuturor fetelor
bisericesti sa slujeasca si sa se roage cu ... "capul acoperit" ? Ma uitam la pozele
cu Papa si Patriarhul si ma intrebam: Cum stati voi cu "acoperirea femeii" ?!!!
De ce poarta mereu Papa un fel de "fes" evreiesc? Stiu ca obiceiul evreiesc vine
de la o talmacire Talmudica despre slava stralucitoare de pe fata lui Moise, etc.
etc., dar ce facem cu aparenta contrazicere a lui Pavel cu traditia preotiei
mozaice?
Daniel Branzai

Raspunsul nr. XIX

Draga Daniel,
Azi e simbata,si am mai mult timp de scris,asa ca incerc sa iti raspund la ultima
ta scrisoare,cu toate ca e cam tirziu si poate ai uitat deja de problemele care te
framintau atunci. Ma simt onorat cand un prieten "ma impovareaza" cu
necazurile lui.
Problema ta cu sedinta de "genul acela",care te-a impovarat pe tine,pe mine m-a
"despovarat" un pic... Pt. ca vad ca nu sunt singurul care trebuie sa sufar aceste
dureri,care dupa cum bine ai zis,sunt nimicuri "trecatoare" pe langa eternitatea
plina de glorie care ne sta in fata. Impartasirea suferintelor cu fratele tau
injumatateste apasarea acelui necaz,dupa cum impartasirea cu cineva drag,a unei
bucurii ,i dubleaza marimea acesteia.Si eu am avut probleme cu comitetul
atunci cind,intr-o tabara de tineret,am discutat cu ei problema (cu baticul) pe
sleau,asa cum ai facut-o tu pe internet.
Impartasesc de altfel aceeasi viziune cu a ta in sensul ca si mie mi se pare o
problema "locala",pt. ca ea apare numai la Corinteni.Numai ca la tinerii mei era
vorba de a avea voie sau nu cu batic pe strada,la scoala sau chiar in baie...Despre
portul in biserica nici nu s-a pus problema! In mai toate bisericile noastre nici nu
poate intra in adunare o fata fara batic!
Problema e ca fetele au mai venit uneori la REPETITIA DE COR fara
batic.Adica "in biserica"...Ce sa spun? Pavel a folosit,dupa mult contestatul text
expresia "daca cineva iubeste cearta de vorbe...".Eu am constatat ca problema
asta nu duce decit la cearta de vorbe si in ultimul timp,m-am specializat in a
"ocoli" subiectul,asa cum as dribla pe cineva la fotbal. Adica atunci cind vine
vorba de asta, incerc sa minimalizez pe cit se poate subiectul,si sa dau
importanta altuia ca sa distrag atentia de la acesta.Nu pot sa-ti spun ca am reusit
de fiecare data ,dar incerc.
Realizez ca oricit as vorbi si explica, nu voi rezolva mare lucru.Poate tu esti mai
optimist. Am observat ca dupa reactia lor, fratii nostri se impart in doua
categorii: legalistii pe care nu ii voi convinge niciodata, pt. ca sunt de felul lor
"tari la cerbice" si nu accepta nimic din ceea ce nu corespunde sistemului lor
personal de legi si valori "self-made",si liberalii,care se bucura intotdeauna de o
noua "libertate",dar nu inteleg deloc sensul acelei libertati,si o folosesc in
general in satisfacerea firii lor pamintesti.
Pentru ca eu lucrez la ora actuala cu tinerii,trebuie sa iti spun ca majoritatea fac
parte din a doua categorie.Ei sunt liberali prin definitie, in opozitie permanenta
cu mai virstnicii frati,95% consevatori si in mare parte legalisti.Am vazut ca
tinerii ma iubesc f. mult pt. ca eu sunt un mai virstnic liberal...si nu prea.Nu intr-
atit de liberal ca sa fiu un usuratec,dar nici un legalist din acela care distruge in
jurul lui precum bomba atomica."Ma,da buna imagine de sine ai!" o sa
spui."Trebuie sa fii tare fericit si implinit!".Trebuie sa spun ca nu sunt chiar asa
de fericit cum pare.Si asta pt. ca tinerii mei abia asteapta sa le "dau peste nas"
celor batrini cu o predica "traznet" ,"bazata" ,care ii lasa pe legalisti cu un "no
coment" in git. Constat insa ca demersul meu nu ii ajuta citusi de putin pe ei in
cresterea lor spirituala,ci le mai intaresc doar pozitia lor in fata inamicilor
legalisti. I'm sorry,dar nu ma incinta cu nimic acest rezultat,chiar daca aparent
sunt simpatizat de cei care sunt viitorul intr-o biserica.De aceea eu m-am hotarit
sa-i canalizez pe tineri mai degraba spre ordine si disciplina,atit doar cat sa nu
dau in legalism.De aceea am renuntat de la un timp sa le mai spun ca au
voie,scriptural vorbind, fara batic.Ii las sa desopere SINGURI asta.Ma gindesc
ca Dumnezeu a lasat textul din Corinteni,poate special,un pic mai "derutant",ca
el sa fie pemtru disciplinarea "bebelusilor in Hristos",dar pe masura ce acestia
vor creste in maturitate spirituala,sa descopere SINGURI ceea ce a spus dl.Isus:
"ADEVARUL va va face SLOBOZI". Aceeasi situatie incrincenata,si de mai
mare importanta decat cea a baticului,este cea a mantuirii: se pierde sau nu?
Pentru mine ea nu poate fi pierduta in mod cert.Dar nu am crezut de la inceput
asa.
Se pare ca multor crestini le trebuie un timp mai lung sau foarte lung,sa
inteleaga sensul drgostei lui Dumnezeu.Si nici aici Biblia nu e prea clara
(amintesc doar mult controversatul Evrei 6).Am constatat ca oricit de explicit as
fi,nu toti sunt in stare sa creada acest adevar fundamental al crestinismului.Ca si
problema baticului,din pacate se ajunge la cearta si dezbinare.Am fost pus
deoparte de la vestirea cuvintului pt. ca am atacat acest subiect "tabu" care duce
la dezbinare in biserici.Imi aduc aminte cum odata,dupa ce m-am straduit sa
explic clar cum e cu harul lui Dumnezeu,s-a ridicat dupa mine imediat un
legalist feroce care a anulat tot ce am spus eu cu "mintuirea trebuie dusa pina la
capat cu frica si cu cutremur"...Intr-adevar m-am "cutremurat" la auzirea
aiurelilor pe care le-a putut scoate.Nu stiu daca iti poti imagina taraboiul ce a
urmat...(la Ploiesti a fost asta,acum cativa ani).Concluzie: incerc sa vestesc
aceste adevaruri acolo unde e posibil, dar contez mult pe faptul ca "ADEVARUL
va va face SLOBOZI".Slobozenia e "frisca" de pe tortul adevarului,si numai cei
care il traiesc pot avea parte de ea...
In speranta ca nu te-am obosit cu flecareala mea,al tau,
Eduard Teodorescu"
P.S.
Cam asta a fost "romanul meu" din 17 iul.99 . Adevarul e ca ADEVARUL ceresc
e absolut si imanent,pe cand cel care vine de la noi are totdeauna o doza de
relativitate,pt. ca suntem inca aici jos pe pamant.Nu cred ca as putea concluziona
subiectul de mai sus sub forma unui principiu batut in cuie ,pe care sa il prezint
cuiva (in afara de mine insumi) ca pe o paradigma de nezdruncinat, ci as prefera
varianta aplicarii "de la caz la caz" in functie de "mediul" de discutie. Astept sa
imi mai scrii. Totdeauna ma bucur cand primesc un mesaj de la tine. Cu drag,
Eduard

In loc de concluzie
Aparuta pe fondul Reformei, miscarea baptistq a fost oferta de a integra sub
acelasi acoperis un numar de miscari de "trezire" care n-au avut in nici un caz
aceleasi pareri in toate privintele. Constienti ca Biserica Catolica nu detine
adevarul, aceste miscari de trezire au pornit in studierea Bibliei cu o dorintq
arzatoare de a o face singura autoritate in materie de crez si comportament.
Fiind constienti ca fiecare cunoastem "doar in parte" si ca ne aflam la puncte
diferite de intelegere a Scripturilor, baptisii, preluind o terminologie
augustiniana au elaborat o intreita temelie de asociere si colaborare in lucrare:
1. In doctrinele importante - UNITATE
"Este un singur trup, un singur Duh, dupa cum si voi ati fost chemati la o
singura nadejde a chemarii voastre. Este un singur Domn, o singura credinta,
un singur botez. Este un singur Dumnezeu si Tata al tuturor, care este mai
presus de toti, care lucreaaza prin toti si care este in toti" - Efes. 4:4-6
2. In doctrinele neesentiale - LIBERTATE
"Primiti bine pe cel slab in credinta si nu va apucati la vorba asupra parerilor
indoielnice. Caci cine esti tu, care judeci pe robul altuia? Daca sta in picioare
sau cade, este treaba stapinului sau; totuai va sta in picioare, caci Domnul are
putere sa-l intareasca pentru ca sa stea. Asa ca fiecare dintre noi are sa dea
socoteala despre sine insusi lui Dumnezeu. ... Incredintarea pe care o ai
pastreaza-o pentru tine, inaintea lui Dumnezeu. ferice de cel ce nu se osindeste
singur in ce gaseste bine." - Rom. 14:1,4,12,22
3. In toate doctrinele- DRAGOSTE
"Si chiar daca as avea darul proorociei si as cunoaste toate tainele si toats
stiinta; chiar daca as avea toats credinta asa incit sa mut si muntii, si n-as avea
dragoste, nu sunt nimic" - 1 Cor. 13:2
In categoria doctrinelor importante au fost incadrate acelea despre Dumnezeu,
Biblie si cele privitoare la mintuire, restul raminind sa fie aplicate dupa cum
"Dumnezeu va va lumina" (Filipeni 3:15-16).
UNITATEA IN DIVERSITATE - i-a facuit pe baptisti sa aibe un spirit tolerant si
sa ajunga sa numere nu mai putin de 21 de "asociatii" distincte (Southern, North
american, Independent, Conservative, etc.).
In aceasta atitudine, baptistii au fost calauziti de:
1. Principiul tacerii sau al neabordarii lucrurilor care duc la divizare pentru
adevaruri neesentiale ("Primiti bine pe cel slab in credinta si nu va apucati la
vorba asupra parerilor indoielnice" - Rom. 14:1)
2. Principiul libertatii de constiinta (Fiecare sa fie pe deplin incredintat in
minte lui", "Incredintarea pe care o ai pastreaza-o pentru tine, inaintea lui
Dumnezeu. Ferice de cel ce nu se osindeste singur in ce gaseste bine. Dar cine
se indoieste si maninca este osindit, pentru ca nu vine din incredintare. Tot ce nu
vine din incredimntare, e pacat" (Rom. 14:5b, 22-23) "daca nu ne osindeste
cugetul nostru."
Problema "acoperirii" capului surorilor in Biserica nu se incadreaza in categoria
doctrinelor esentiale.