acoperirea capului

Upload: laurentiu-ispas

Post on 04-Apr-2018

248 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    1/32

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

    3. Socotim invatatura corecta "atunci" si "acolo", dar depasita "acum" si nu oimpunem, 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 necinstestebarbatul 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 socialeale 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. Supunereadespre 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 ceicare nu vad in aceasta invatatura decit un aspect cultural depasit istoric de

    realitatea prezenta.

    e. In contextul contemporan, permanentizarea unei practici sociale care nu semai 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 puteaopta pentru mutarea la o alta biserica, unde ea este respectata.

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    2/32

    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 aposition 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 verytouchy 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    3/32

    name in order that we may bring glory and honor to Our Father who has indeed been soooo goodto 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 , 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

    sau 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 o

    invatatura 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    4/32

    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 ),

    dar asa fiind, totusi nu-l putem trata . Chestiunile care tin de

    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 practiciamericane (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 . 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 cevafrizeaza 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 ; 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    5/32

    este unul dintre argumentele tipice ale pastorilor nostri. Chestiunea nu este , 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 asupreacestui 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

    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 . 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 in aceasta dezbatere.

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    6/32

    Danut a observat ca nu toate alternativele sunt biblice sau justificabile. El insista

    sa raminem linga cele si validate de exegeza bisericii.

    Cine ne poate ajuta cu:

    1. si

    2. ?

    Inca o data, multumesc lui Danut.

    As face insa o intrebare: comportamentul nostru din

    America este anacronic (). 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:

    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 lainchinarea 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:

    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

    pentru a se indeparta de la decizia exprimata de Pavel aici,

    care este strict doar pentru serviciile adunarii si nu pentru .

    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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    7/32

    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: ne duce inapoi la Gen1:26-27. Barbatul

    poarta autoritatea lui Dumnezeu pe pamant iar in vers 8 si 9 cele 2 prepozitii

    si ne reveleaza pozitia femeii. Ea are origina si scopul vietii inom, in barbat, Gen. 2:21-25. Orice femeie care isi ia un nume nou, al barbatului,

    la casatorie, accepta tacit invatatura ap. Pavel.

    din vers. 10 insemana un semn al autoritatii iar 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 asupraUniversului 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 se refera la o necesitate

    bazata pe o dorinta interioara la fel cum Domnul Isus a facut: 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 nu inseamna ca parul

    femeii este acoperitoarea (nefiind nevoie de acoperirea capului) caci astfel s-ar

    vicia forta demonstratoare a vers 2-14. Cuvantul invelitoare, este oferit ca

    raspuns la .

    Expresia 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: 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 onorma 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

    este ideala.

    Mitica Ghitea

    Din Comentarii si Dictionare

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    8/32

    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 thesame 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,

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    9/32

    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 conjugalchastity (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 shedoes of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    10/32

    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 theshaving 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 thewoman 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    11/32

    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 toGod, 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" (1Corinthians 4:9,10).

    no such custom--as that of women praying uncovered. Not as CHRYSOSTOM,

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    12/32

    "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, theargument 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 11:2Verse 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 ofthe 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 dishonouron 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 willthrow 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    13/32

    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 11:10Verse 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 neithermale 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 otherchurches 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 andmanifest 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    14/32

    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 asyou 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 praiseworthyin 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 superiorityof 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 toher 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    15/32

    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 abilitiespretend 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 orprophesying. 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 changingsexes, 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 madeto be the glory of the man, she should do nothing, especially in public, that looks

    like a wish of having this order inverted.

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    16/32

    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, inasmuchas 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 lookslike 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 evilangels 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    17/32

    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 suggestsis 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 havelong 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 wouldquarrel 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 interventionwas to produce.

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    18/32

    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 tothe 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 wereshaven. 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    19/32

    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. Inthe 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 mancontentiously 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 Jewsin 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:

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    20/32

    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 intouse. 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 deuniforma 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    21/32

    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 stagethree. 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 herwomanly 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    22/32

    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 pentrumine 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 decalificarea 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,

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    23/32

    ********************

    Eugen Matei

    Raspunsul nr.VSubscriu 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 pecare 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 dince 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 fostacestia cu adevarat romani. Sa avem pardon! Probabil ca stiti mai bine decit

    mine ca majoritatea romanilor baptisti (ca despre ei vorbim) nu prea au

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    24/32

    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 einu 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-aravea 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    25/32

    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 deei 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 asala 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 caanumite 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    26/32

    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 dinbiserica 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, aacoperirea 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 ceaceasta 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 careDumnezeu 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

  • 7/30/2019 Acoperirea capului

    27/32

    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 douaverbe 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 lerezolve 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

    b