Thread: Kerygmania: A sign of authority on her head Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000974
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
A friend of mine, who has studied Biblical Greek (which I have not) said that, when Paul said that a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, the expression does not mean a sign that someone else has authority over her. Rather, it means a sign of her authority.
Is that true? Is this one of those expressions where no one else 2000 years ago ever said anything similar, so we don't really know? Or ... what?
Thanks!
[ 19. November 2013, 02:18: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
That's the first time I've come across that interpretation, Josephine - do you know if the passage your friend was referring to was the one in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16?
If it was that passage, at first glance it does seem as though Paul is emphasising man as the head of woman.
It would be worth exploring further, but I thought I should check first...
[ 28. July 2012, 20:18: Message edited by: Nigel M ]
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
...edit here to amend link to cover full set of verses!!!
[ 28. July 2012, 20:20: Message edited by: Nigel M ]
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
The relevant verse is 1 Cor 11:10. Trying to translate as word-for-word as is intelligible in English, I get:
quote:
For this reason, the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels/messengers.
On the basis of the Greek alone, either translation is possible.
Another interesting issue with this verse is with the word generally translated 'angels.' This translation has never made much sense to me (why do angels care about headwear?). The word could also be translated 'messengers,' which I find much easier to understand. The point might be this: messengers from other Christian communities where women do wear headwear when preaching (note that women preaching is unquestioned here) and are scandalized that in Corinth, women don't. The strong have the obligation to defer to the scruples of the weak, so Corinthian women should wear headwear to preach.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
Yes, thank you, those are the verses I was referring to.
I hadn't thought about the ambiguity in the word angel -- that is something else to consider.
Thank you.
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
when Paul said that a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, the expression does not mean a sign that someone else has authority over her. Rather, it means a sign of her authority.
From the brief summary that you have relayed, I would suggest that both a plain reading of the passage, and my understanding of the culture of the time, make this understanding of the passage unconvincing to me. But I would be open to hear more.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Could the angels be something to do with Paul's understanding of humanity's position under/above the Law? Elsewhere he talks of angels in relation to this subject and seems to be citing a slightly obscure rabbinical teaching about man being a 'little under the angels' and therefore subject to Law. But Christ has raised man above the angels to be free from the Law.
Thats all a bit garbled and may be of no relevance whatsoever, but maybe if we had the original rabbinical text (if thats what he is even quoting or referencing) the whole head scarf thing would make a lot more sense and we might also make sense of that reference to angels.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
It helps to pull back a bit from the reference to authority and angels in 11:10 to the wider sweep of Paul's argument. As I read his letter, his intent is signalled in his introduction – that's where he sets out the main themes he wants to tackle by way of response to the issues he has been hearing about in the Corinthian Christian community.
So he kicks off with 1:2-9...
quote:
...to the God's community in Corinth, those made holy [above-the-norm / set apart] in [by virtue of being defined by loyalty to] the Messiah, Jesus, and thus called [appointed to the responsibility of remaining] holy, so that you are at one with all the others everywhere else who call on the name of [express their loyalty to] our master, the Messiah Jesus: their master and ours.
I am always thanking my God for you because of the grace of God that was given to you in Messiah Jesus, because you were made rich by association with him in every way – both in all you say and know. The Messiah's witness is secure in you and therefore you have all the spiritual gifts you need as you wait for the revealing of our master, Messiah Jesus. He will secure you until the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our master, Messiah Jesus. God is faithful, by whom you were called into his son's community, Messiah Jesus, our master.
Key themes he will draw out from this include:
[1] Focus on Jesus as the God-appointed source and glue for this community. Paul uses this to counter the divisions occurring in Corinth, some around leadership/authority, some about lawsuits, others about community practice (e.g., at the Lord's Supper).
[2] Focus on remaining holy. This becomes important when practicing community discipline over those who are not reflecting God's glory.
[3] Focus on the power and responsibility they have, being full of spiritual gifts. Paul wants to make clear that the community's real power lies not in normal ways of thinking and speaking (worldly), but in a counter-intuitive gospel. It is fine to have the many gifts the community has, but there needs to be an order, a responsibility, in their use.
Reading Paul's introduction and then the rest of the letter in the light of that, perhaps these main themes could be summed up with the phrase: Show respect for all, especially those who are weaker in the faith.
If these themes are important for understanding the letter, then how do they impact on chapter 11?
Can I suggest that what Paul is doing there is drawing on creation imagery from Gen. 1-3 as background to his argument that there is a chronological sequence to creation: God (through Jesus) – man – woman. This is summed up by use of the word 'head' (kephale, = κεφαλη) in the sense of 'source.' Christ (with God) predated and was the source for man's creation, and then man predates and is the source for woman's creation, according to Gen. 2. This isn't the only time Paul draws on the historical-sequential sweep of Genesis to draw principles from which to base arguments (Romans is a much fuller treatment). Here, in Corinthians, he parallels the sequential order of source with the Gen. 1 principle of man/woman as a unit (11:11-12). Given the creation background to this section, I think the 'angels' in 11:10 is a passing reference to Gen. 3 – the cherubim placed as guards to the paradise garden of Eden.
The creation background works out as follows:-
Issue: the Jesus community in Corinth is divided. Despite having the attributes of a spiritual community, their practice is a bad witness. They are boasting that they can do what they want, when they want, how they want.
Resolution: Paul seeks to mitigate this issue by taking Gen. 3 (the 'fall') seriously. In other letters he is keen to spell out how Gen 1-2 impact on Christian life, bringing freedom and equal responsibilities. Here, however, he has to tackle the problem of taking that freedom down the wrong path. Yes, “everything is permissible” as the Corinthians say, but not everything is beneficial or constructive (6:12 and 10:23-24). In other words, Gen.1-2 has been tempered with Gen. 3 in Corinth. Paul has to say that for Corinth they have yet work to do to grow to the state where they can genuinely place themselves in 'Eden.' Only those 'pure in heart' (to coin a phrase) can pass the Cherubim, but for the time being there are those weak in the faith who have to grow, and that means those strong in the faith have to seek the good of others and voluntarily restrain their freedoms. This principle works itself out in the food sacrificed to idols issue in chapter 10.
Given that the Corinthian community is, at the moment, still outside Eden as far as practice is concerned, Paul recommends that both men and women in the community conform to cultural standards of the place and time by not drawing attention to their appearances. If Paul is referring to hair in the context of head-covering, then perhaps here we are in the realm of anthropological studies that refer to sexual license at the time: covered head indicated restricted sexuality. Absence of covering sent signals relating to undisciplined sexuality. Given the sexual issues in the community Paul has to address (chapters 5-7), this context does not seem far out of place.
A lot more could be said about this, but getting back to the point(!) I can see Paul stressing head-covering relating to authority as indicating a necessity – given the context of the time and place – to avoid a greater evil. The followers of Jesus in Corinth should be growing in their faith, using their undoubted spiritual gifts to stand on their own feet together in Christ. However, they are sending all the wrong signals to the rest of Corinth. As a result, Paul has to draw on Gen 1-3 to remind them that they cannot do what they want in Eden. They have a responsibility to creation and to others in the community to protect or tend them while they seek to embed the gospel in them. If that means women retaining or adopting the cultural mores that do not conflict with the gospel so that they retain authority (in terms of proper respect), then they need to do so. To do otherwise would open them up to disrespect, dishonour, and by extension would also sully the gospel and Jesus.
In all this, Paul urges his readers to follow his example as he follows that of Christ (4:16; 11:1). He becomes “all things to all men” (9:19-23).
In a sense, then, Josephine's friend has a point (if this is the point he or she was making). Yes, a woman's self-authority is an issue. However, Paul puts this in the context of sourcing: ultimately it is indeed God's authority that is at stake.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
The relevant verse is 1 Cor 11:10. Trying to translate as word-for-word as is intelligible in English, I get:
quote:
For this reason, the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels/messengers.
On the basis of the Greek alone, either translation is possible.
Another interesting issue with this verse is with the word generally translated 'angels.' This translation has never made much sense to me (why do angels care about headwear?). The word could also be translated 'messengers,' which I find much easier to understand. The point might be this: messengers from other Christian communities where women do wear headwear when preaching (note that women preaching is unquestioned here) and are scandalized that in Corinth, women don't. The strong have the obligation to defer to the scruples of the weak, so Corinthian women should wear headwear to preach.
I've never heard this interpretation before, and it's quite interesting! I can see how (what is rendered in English as) "prophesy" could mean "preach;" what do you make of "pray" then? ISTM the traditional understanding would be what anyone in the church would be doing - participating in the liturgy, offering communal as well as personal prayers; hence, women attending church had to wear something on their heads in most denominations until quite recently*. But in recent centuries, those churches that required women to cover their heads in church were certainly NOT about to let a woman preach!
Also, if this is about preaching, why would women need to cover their heads and men would need to make sure they didn't? (Did Jewish men wear yarmulkes or similar in synagogues in Paul's day?)
*ETA: I grew up in a Pentecostal church, so "prophesying" would be done by people in the pews during a service, and I always assumed that was roughly what Paul had in mind - since he seems to talk about those kinds of spiritual gifts, and rules to practice those gifts in an orderly fashion in the assembly. What's the Greek word used here, and is it the same used in the sections of the book where he's talking about charismatic gifts, and/or preaching?
[ 30. July 2012, 05:46: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Another reference to angels:
Matthew 18:10 NET
“See that you do not disdain one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
We need to remember that Christian ministry is highly word orientated, and these words have meaning against a particular context. In that scenario, there are certain roles that must be played out, even if they don't indicate the true nature of things.
1 Corinthians 11:12 NET
For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God.
Men are not superior to women, nor vice versa, but they need to maintain a situation of ”women live under the authority of men ” to illustrate the type of Christ and His bride.
If each of us has an angel in Heaven, they would have different rankings and different functions.
A woman's angel could have a lower ranking than a man's. Thus does not mean less worth, but different function.
[ 30. July 2012, 17:44: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I've heard a rather bizarre explanation that the reference to angels has to do with Genesis 6 (and Enoch 6). I don't remember why that was supposed to be relevant here, but I thought I should mention it just to show the wide range of interpretations that are brought to bear on this mysterious verse.
Since we can't be sure what it means, I doubt we should place a lot of weight on it. It may be something Paul's original audience got, but the angels are an unconvincing rationale for us today. They might be more convincing if we had any idea what the reference means, but we have to admit it's highly speculative.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
@Churchgeek
I understand your point, and I would not want to speculate beyond the available information.
What is available is that Jesus did not consider the children to be nonentities, as society and courts do: they had a high status in the kingdom because of their angels.
Similarly, women had a lesser ranking in the Kingdom, because of their angels.
I add a speculation that some parables and types lose their teaching value if roles become blurred. How can men love their wives the way Jesus loved the church, if there was no difference between the sexes?
Paul says there are no differences between the sexes in the Lord, ie. between fellowbelievers, but in the world, we present a different face.
To retain the effectiveness of the teachings. Hope that was not confusing!
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
What is available is that Jesus did not consider the children to be nonentities, as society and courts do: they had a high status in the kingdom because of their angels.
Similarly, women had a lesser ranking in the Kingdom, because of their angels.
Because of their angels? That seems a bit of a stretch to me. I'm with churchgeek; i think we're probably missing a lot of cultural context that means we don't really get the passages you quoted earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
How can men love their wives the way Jesus loved the church, if there was no difference between the sexes?
Couldn't Paul simply be correcting the Ephesians, drawing each gender back from the different (but both off-track) directions they'd headed down? So the Christian husbands weren't loving their wives in the way Christ loves the church, and the Christian wives weren't submitting to their husbands as to the Lord.
On the submission point, the verse immediately before the wives and husbands section (it's Ephesians 5:21) states it plainly: 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
@Kevin, I'm not ignoring your other points, but concentrating on this, because it can help shed light on other issues.
Why did Jesus attach value to children because of the position their angels held in heaven?
I mean we don't know what the doctrine of angels comprised of, as taught by Jesus, but apparently, this comment has some bearing on the matter.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
What is available is that Jesus did not consider the children to be nonentities, as society and courts do: they had a high status in the kingdom because of their angels.
Similarly, women had a lesser ranking in the Kingdom, because of their angels.
Because of their angels? That seems a bit of a stretch to me. I'm with churchgeek; i think we're probably missing a lot of cultural context that means we don't really get the passages you quoted earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
How can men love their wives the way Jesus loved the church, if there was no difference between the sexes?
Couldn't Paul simply be correcting the Ephesians, drawing each gender back from the different (but both off-track) directions they'd headed down? So the Christian husbands weren't loving their wives in the way Christ loves the church, and the Christian wives weren't submitting to their husbands as to the Lord.
On the submission point, the verse immediately before the wives and husbands section (it's Ephesians 5:21) states it plainly: 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'.
[ 31. July 2012, 14:07: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Why did Jesus attach value to children because of the position their angels held in heaven?
Like with what I said about Paul's comments regarding wives and husbands, couldn't it be that Jesus is simply correcting a misconception? So he says children's angels always see God's face; not that this makes those angels special, rather that they are just like adults' angels.
Putting aside what exactly it means for each person to have an angel, I think the passage might just be saying children are valuable to God just as adults are.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Actually, they are not like adults. They are ranked higher. They are what adults should aspire to be :
Matthew 18:1-6 NET
At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a child, had him stand among them, and said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me.
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
So your argument, footwasher, seems to be as follows:
1. Jesus attached value to children because their angels see God's face.
2. Jesus told adults to become like children; therefore he's saying children are ranked higher than adults.
3. Combining 1 & 2, we can deduce that children's angels are ranked higher than adults' angels.
4. Paul says women should cover their heads because of "the angels."
5. Therefore, combining 1-4, women's angels must be of a lower rank than men's.
6. Therefore, women, though equal to men, must assume a role of lower rank than men.
First of all, I think you need to prove that everyone has an angel in heaven, and that their angel assumes a rank based on - what, the person's age and sex? - and that persons therefore need to assume a rank on earth that's roughly equivalent to that of their angel in heaven.
I can't see that teaching in Scripture, except if you cobble together the rather disparate texts you're using. It also doesn't seem clear from Scripture that angels are ranked by people's sex and age. (So if a child dies, his/her angel never gets demoted? Or do we get reassigned to lesser angels once we grow up?)
I see no reason to bring Jesus' statements about children to bear here, other than that you're finding the word "angels" in one passage, and, since it has the word "children" in it, you're looking to a different passage that also has the word "children." If that's how you want to play it, then note that Jesus speaks of "their angels," whereas Paul says "the angels." (Of course, I'm working with English translations here - maybe the Greek has technical terms for "the" and "their" that prove footwasher's point?)
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Footwasher - 'become like little children' in the sense, Jesus adds shortly afterwards, of being humble. Again, I think Jesus is correcting a misconception about who is great - as you say, people in Jesus' time didn't think much of children but Jesus corrected that view and showed that, in fact, adults can learn from children in some ways. Not that children are more valuable to God than adults.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I've heard a rather bizarre explanation that the reference to angels has to do with Genesis 6 (and Enoch 6). I don't remember why that was supposed to be relevant here, but I thought I should mention it just to show the wide range of interpretations that are brought to bear on this mysterious verse.
Since we can't be sure what it means, I doubt we should place a lot of weight on it. It may be something Paul's original audience got, but the angels are an unconvincing rationale for us today. They might be more convincing if we had any idea what the reference means, but we have to admit it's highly speculative.
Yes, I have heard something along those lines too. I'm pretty much out of time for today but if I get the chance over the next couple of days I'll try to regurgitate something.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
"So your argument, footwasher, seems to be as follows:
1. Jesus attached value to children because their angels see God's face."
Yup.
"2. Jesus told adults to become like children; therefore he's saying children are ranked higher than adults."
Yup. Everything else being equal.
"3. Combining 1 & 2, we can deduce that children's angels are ranked higher than adults' angels."
Nope. Those who have not entered the kingdom do not have representation in heaven. An adult gets his angel in place when he becomes like a child.
Ephesians 2:6 NET
and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
"4. Paul says women should cover their heads because of 'the angels.'"
Yup.
"5. Therefore, combining 1-4, women's angels must be of a lower rank than men's."
Nope, different role. Jesus lays down His life for the church (comprising men and women) and men laying down their lives for their wives.
"6. Therefore, women, though equal to men, must assume a role of lower rank than men."
Nope. Women must provide an opportunity for men to lay down their lives for them:
Ephesians 5:25 NET
Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her.
Ephesians 5:32 NET
This mystery is great – but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
"First of all, I think you need to prove that everyone has an angel in heaven, and that their angel assumes a rank based on - what, the person's age and sex? - and that persons therefore need to assume a rank on earth that's roughly equivalent to that of their angel in heaven."
Easy peasy. Children are to be treasured because they are innocent, which is what we will become, when we are in Christ.
I repeat:
children=innocent=valuable.
A woman play the role of a canvas upon which her husband's love is showcased, mirroring Christ's relationship to the church.
Women=opportunity = lesser role
Men play the role of protector, sacrificing themselves for their wives as Christ sacrificed Himself for His Church.
Men=benefactor=higher role.
1 Corinthians 11:7 NET
For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
"I can't see that teaching in Scripture, except if you cobble together the rather disparate texts you're using. It also doesn't seem clear from Scripture that angels are ranked by people's sex and age. (So if a child dies, his/her angel never gets demoted?"
Yup.
"Or do we get reassigned to lesser angels once we grow up?)"
What do you think?
John 1:51 NET
He continued, “I tell all of you the solemn truth – you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
"I see no reason to bring Jesus' statements about children to bear here, other than that you're finding the word "angels" in one passage, and, since it has the word "children" in it, you're looking to a different passage that also has the word "children." If that's how you want to play it, then note that Jesus speaks of "their angels," whereas Paul says "the angels." (Of course, I'm working with English translations here - maybe the Greek has technical terms for "the" and "their" that prove footwasher's point?)"
Their angels: refers to specific angels.
The angels: refers to the ordered taxonomy of angels.
"Footwasher - 'become like little children' in the sense, Jesus adds shortly afterwards, of being humble. Again, I think Jesus is correcting a misconception about who is great - as you say, people in Jesus' time didn't think much of children but Jesus corrected that view and showed that, in fact, adults can learn from children in some ways. Not that children are more valuable to God than adults."
Innocence gets you into the Kingdom.
Humility gets you promoted.
Children have both.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
[HOSTING]
We've been sticking to the idea of female authority without delving into the Dead Horse of women's ordination. Well done. But the last post very definitely introduces the Dead Horse of Headship, which I have hyper linked for your convenience if you wish do discuss it. I even bumped it for y'all.
As always, if you have any questions or compelling arguments to make, please take them to the Styx.
[/HOSTING]
Kelly Alves
Kerygmania Host
[ 01. August 2012, 05:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Footwasher, I'm sorry but I can't make any headway in this discussion with you. It seems you're making so many points that I've just never considered before, and some of them you're stating as if they were obvious. Well, they're not obvious to me. Maybe you could post a couple of links to articles that explain the basics of your view? Give us some background to this? Because I'm really struggling at the moment!
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I think the relevant bit for this thread is to ask what angels are and what they mean in this text. Maybe other Scriptures mentioning angels might shed some light on that, maybe not.
I'll confess that I'm not convinced of the reality of angels (or demons, for that matter). They're too bound up in ancient mythologies which evolved quite a lot over time (an evolution that didn't end with the NT). In Scripture, their existence, roles, and nature tend to be assumed by the texts and the people in the texts (although there isn't consistency across all the books of the Bible), and that doesn't help us at all with this particular case.
Besides, if Paul's intent is to speak to divinely ordained roles (that's the closest I'm going to come to touching the dead horse), why would he be so round-about as to appeal to angels? He's already giving instructions about roles. I can see the appeal for a modern reader who has a schema worked out like footwasher has, because it would give Paul's teachings a sense of permanence, inscribing them into the divine order of the cosmos. But I'm not convinced that's what Paul means here.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
"3. Combining 1 & 2, we can deduce that children's angels are ranked higher than adults' angels."
Nope. Those who have not entered the kingdom do not have representation in heaven. An adult gets his angel in place when he becomes like a child.
Ephesians 2:6 NET
and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
This is rather confused. Why would our "representation in heaven" be an angel, when we have but one High Priest, Jesus? Also, I don't see how Eph. 2.6 makes your point at all. It doesn't mention angels at all. Are you conflating angels and souls?
quote:
(So if a child dies, his/her angel never gets demoted?"
Yup.
"Or do we get reassigned to lesser angels once we grow up?)"
What do you think?
John 1:51 NET
He continued, “I tell all of you the solemn truth – you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
What do I think? I think John 1.51 refers to the dream Jacob had, where he saw angels descending and ascending on a "ladder" (probably a ziggurat). A ziggurat was supposed to connect heaven and earth, and the angels in Jacob's dream represented that heaven and earth were indeed connected in the place he thus called "House of God" (Beth-El).
Gen 28.11-19, text here.
Jesus' alluding to it tells us that JESUS is the link between heaven and earth, making God present with us.
But I have no idea why you seem to think the verse in John makes your point.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I think the relevant bit for this thread is to ask what angels are and what they mean in this text. Maybe other Scriptures mentioning angels might shed some light on that, maybe not.
Yes, I think given Paul's penchant for deriving support for the gospel from the Jewish Scriptures, the answer most likely lies here. It's that gospel history - spelled out more fully in the Romans letter - that takes me to Genesis 1-3 for the most likely source of these angels.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I also would like to know - did Jewish men at that time wear anything on their heads in Synagogues? 'Cause Paul is saying in these verses that it's shameful for a man to pray or prophecy with his head covered.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
There are several ways of arriving at the answer, and it is a new direction, having nothing to do with tempting the angels (the Enoch angle) or indication of marriage (Grudem's take).
Lets assume that it was required for :
A. men to pray and prophesy with their head uncovered.
This equates with:
B. Proper (not shameful) conduct.
How do we make the leap from A to B?
By seeing the accompanying requirement.
C. Laying down of life
How does praying and prophesying bareheaded become a laying down of life?
Because that is what Christ did. When He ministered through word, it was to enlighten the disciples. When He ministered through deed, it was to teach by example. Both sacrificial because it was done without a headcovering, (incognito?), leading to His persecution and execution.
Core teaching
Love your fellow man.
Lay down your life.
Praying and prophesying is a sacrificial work:
Acts 7:53-60 NET
You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.”
When they heard these things, they became furious and ground their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked intently toward heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look!” he said. “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” But they covered their ears, shouting out with a loud voice, and rushed at him with one intent. When they had driven him out of the city, they began to stone him, and the witnesses laid their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul. They continued to stone Stephen while he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Then he fell to his knees and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” When he had said this, he died.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
The gist then being that women should pray and prophecy with their heads covered, i.e., for them it's not sacrificial and they're doing it incognito? Things are getting more and more confusing in here.
BTW, nice turn of phrase with "the Enoch angle"! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
"The gist then being that women should pray and prophecy with their heads covered, i.e., for them it's not sacrificial and they're doing it incognito? Things are getting more and more confusing in here."
It shouldn't be, since it's a recurring motif.
"BTW, nice turn of phrase with 'the Enoch angle'!".
Glad you caught on to the wordplay. I get my pun fix where I can, even places I didn't sow.
If you catch a glimpse of the view, it would be nice. Else I'll launch from another direction. Believe me, it makes sense. The good thing is that you get to use ALL the evidence.
Remember, the best solution is the comprehensive one. Ask Holmes. He worried about the dog that didn't bark on the night.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
And in India in the churches we women normally cover our heads, and so do we in some specific churches in Scotland. So we are told it's important and what God wishes.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
This is an interesting thread but I'm getting as confused as churchgeek - footwasher, could you possibly do quotes properly, so that your posts are easier to read? Thanks very much.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
But WHY is female headgear important to God? (I don't believe it is, by the way.) So far I've not seen any compelling argument for this point, including whatever it is that Footwasher is trying to communicate, that makes no sense whatsoever to me, and apparently to others as well.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
But WHY is female headgear important to God? (I don't believe it is, by the way.)
I read an interesting article a few years ago that explained the strange ideas of sex from that time (as opposed to the strange ideas of sex from our time.) Apparently in Roman times, women's hair was seen as a sex organ of some sort, so it was viewed as impious for a woman to leave her head uncovered in worship -- kind of like a man exposing himself might be seen as a tad OTT during worship today. As I recall, the article was in a respectable publication, but it is kind of a hazy memory. Perhaps another shipmate may recall it or know to what the author was referring.
--Tom Clune
[ 02. August 2012, 14:06: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
And in India in the churches we women normally cover our heads, and so do we in some specific churches in Scotland. So we are told it's important and what God wishes.
Good point Daisymay, which I was about to bring up. You also know that widows in India are required to shave their head.
1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head,
1Co 11:5 and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having her head shaved.
1Co 11:6 So if a woman does not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. If it is a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her own head.
Okay let's see how we can approach an understanding from a different direction.
Paul is concerned that men and women showcase Christ's relationship with the Church in their ministry.
What did Christ do? He laid down His life for the church.
Why did He do it? Because God promised to rescue the world unconditionally in His promise to Abraham.
Because God could show His love through sacrifice.
Because God could save, heal, so He could be appreciated, not for what He did, but for what He WAS.
Interestingly, God will CREATE opportunities to showcase His goodness.
John 9:3 "Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but
it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
A man's ministry mirrors God's/Christ's action. A woman's ministry mirrors the role of the beneficiary, humans/the church.
1 Co 11:7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
Men who keep their hair long show they are noncombatants. Women who leave their hair long show they are leaving the job of protection to the men. Women who shave their head show they are now unprotected, need to take their own defensive measures.
Clear as mud?
Wait till we examine God, Abraham and Isaaac...
Pine Marten, I've dusted off my laptop and fired it up. Android is fast, easy to keep on all the time and quick to boot up, but leaves a lot to be desired in the text handling area.
[ 02. August 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Men who keep their hair long show they are noncombatants. Women who leave their hair long show they are leaving the job of protection to the men. Women who shave their head show they are now unprotected, need to take their own defensive measures.
Or women in Corinth who left their hair long / uncovered / untied were very likely to be prostitutes so when the Christian women did this, other people thought they were prostitutes. That's a common interpretation, isn't it; one that hasn't been discredited by more recent historical / archaeological investigation?
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Men who keep their hair long show they are noncombatants. Women who leave their hair long show they are leaving the job of protection to the men. Women who shave their head show they are now unprotected, need to take their own defensive measures.
Or women in Corinth who left their hair long / uncovered / untied were very likely to be prostitutes so when the Christian women did this, other people thought they were prostitutes. That's a common interpretation, isn't it; one that hasn't been discredited by more recent historical / archaeological investigation?
I think my explanation covers the issue of shaven heads.
Comprehensive, comprehensive, comprehensive...
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
footwasher, thank you for tidying up the quotes in your posts, it is much appreciated by an aged old bag like me.
However, I am still finding it difficult to follow your argument. But please continue and maybe we will find common ground.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
footwasher, thank you for tidying up the quotes in your posts, it is much appreciated by an aged old bag like me.
However, I am still finding it difficult to follow your argument. But please continue and maybe we will find common ground.
Sure, Pine Marten, let's do just that. An area of confusion is Paul's use of the word "head". I tend to see patterns, so I think I can wrap my mind around these idea jumps better. Oooh, 1 John is a doozy, in that respect!
1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head,
Paraphase
1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors (his head=God),
The man is supposed to be showcasing God, and he's wearing a mask? God is speaking, reasoning, taking a risk of rejection and He is confident that His words will pass the test, that He will be justified when He is judged. He isn't a phantom scribbler, an anonymous graffiti artist: He speaks in the Temple, during the day. And He wants His day in court, even a kangaroo court.
1Co 11:5 and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having herhusband head shaved.
1Co 11:6 So if a woman does not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. If it is a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her own head.
The woman prays and does it bare headed? She is doing the rescuing, self protecting? Well she may be enacting something, but it isn't the church. Paul says he is talking about church contexts, not marital relations. If she rebels, she dishonours what her husband REPRESENTS. Tantamount to considering him DEAD.
Sometimes I wonder how we are supposed to untangle these texts, seeing the diverse experience required (Daisymay and I, here), but I suppose that's why we are told not to neglect watering the gathering of the saints. There might just be someone who has access to the relevant information. To contribute AND to correct...
[ 02. August 2012, 18:16: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
A friend of mine, who has studied Biblical Greek (which I have not) said that, when Paul said that a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, the expression does not mean a sign that someone else has authority over her. Rather, it means a sign of her authority.
It is an interpretation that I've come across and found plausible and defended on occasion. I don't know a lot about Biblical Greek, but whenever in English you say someone is wearing a sign of authority you mean that the sign is a sign of the authority of the person wearing it; the sign is not of someone else's authority over them. What you want to signal with a sign is the person who has the authority; not the person over whom authority is had.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
A friend of mine, who has studied Biblical Greek (which I have not) said that, when Paul said that a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, the expression does not mean a sign that someone else has authority over her. Rather, it means a sign of her authority.
It is an interpretation that I've come across and found plausible and defended on occasion. I don't know a lot about Biblical Greek, but whenever in English you say someone is wearing a sign of authority you mean that the sign is a sign of the authority of the person wearing it; the sign is not of someone else's authority over them. What you want to signal with a sign is the person who has the authority; not the person over whom authority is had.
It does lead to the question, though, why a man "dishonors his head" if he does the same. Shouldn't every person in authority have the same sign of that authority? Or does this have to do with the prevalent gender roles/stereotypes of the time - maybe men were always allowed/expected to be in those roles, but women weren't, so if they were, they needed some marker to show the church wasn't just being unruly and letting anyone get up and speak?
I'd still like to know if Jewish men would have worn a yarmulke or anything like it back then when they were in synagogues.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
What a poor finish:
When the gospels are read carefully with these ideas in mind, they are fairly unambiguous. Jesus thought God's primary overriding concern was for the Israelites to love others. Since the economic crisis of the time had caused widespread poverty, the primary manifestation of that love ought to be helping the poor. Jesus did not share the Pharisees' belief that Israelites needed to hold fast to their God-given ancestral customs. He took the view that most of those customs were not God-given at all, and he was particularly concerned that many of those customs only served to make the plight of the poor and needy more difficult. So he thought the Pharisees were focusing entirely on the wrong things - putting all their efforts into trying to get Israelites to follow meaningless customs when they should have been working to build loving communities who aided the poor and the needy. Equally, Jesus felt the Temple system was being used to extort money from people, and in particular from those who could not afford to pay. While other Israelites saw the Temple as the center of their religion, Jesus believed God would act in judgment against it.
After starting out so well:
Richard Hays and others have recently done helpful work on the nature of narratives, and pointed out that when reading the bible we need to be one the look out for this sort of thing. Paul in particular seems to be a prime candidate for this. Paul (presumably) knows the story of Christ's life, his teachings, his conflicts with the Jewish authorities, his miracles and healings, his execution, resurrection, and the political fallout of this on the Christians and the other Jews. Yet Paul doesn't seem to mention much of the story of Christ's life. This can be explained because it was a shared narrative between himself and his readers. Shared narratives does not need to be repeated but are referred to it using synecdoche/metonymy - single words or short phrases that stand in for the entire narrative. (Hays suggests, for example, that the phrase "faithfulness of Christ" acts in such a way, and I agree)
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=016661
Anyone still having doubts that the role of the men was to go on the offensive, and that of the women was to be the body under protection?
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
This website has some answers about 1st century practice from a Messianic Jewish point of view.
ETA: in answer to churchgeek.
[ 04. August 2012, 09:34: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
This website has some answers about 1st century practice from a Messianic Jewish point of view.
ETA: in answer to churchgeek.
Excellent point about the covering being a veil.
Stephen: "You did not obey Torah, instruction!"
What was Torah?
For Adam, it was just 1 instruction.
For the Children of Israel, 613 instructions.
For Jesus, 2 instructions.
Love God with all that is in you, love your fellow man as you love yourself.
Listed in ascending order of difficulty.
Result. The Kingdom of God would be ushered in. Darkness would be dispersed.
Why did the first two sons of God fail.
They disbelieved God.
They changed the instructions. Adam changed the words of God regarding the result of disobeying, and believed the serpent regarding God's motive.
Israel changed the scope, reducing the requirements, cherrypicking the rules, watering down the consequences. They taught that any identification, even bare circumcision was sufficient.
What then should they have done? They should have believed God . Success is not demanded. Belief is. One should believe God requires obedience. And God gives the means to obey.
If Adam had believed God, the battle with temptation, weak resolve would have been won, the darkness would have dispersed. If Israel had believed God required them to enter Canaan, and that He would provide the strength, He would have fought for them, blessed them and the neighbouring nations would have repented and returned to God. Then the darkness would have dispersed.
When Jesus obeyed, He took a risk, and God vindicated Him. The words He spoke made sense, because God gave Him the words to speak. They became words that gave life. His words persisted. His enemies were defeated. His church was nourished.
When Stephen spoke, his words gave life. A seed was sown in Paul's mind. God took on Stephen's life. He fought for him. You could say Stephen had the same unity with God that Jesus had. Was it Stephen speaking or God? You couldn't tell. They were in synch.
Even though Stephen died, he still lives. We aren't just bags of flesh, we are persons, with beliefs, feelings. Stephen's words remain with us. He lives on in them, even though they are God's Words in the book of Life, it has our name as co author. And God is not a God of the dead, but of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of living people. What we believe counts, it's what differentiates us from the world,from cattle. Inasmuch as what we believe is the same stuff that God teaches, we walk in the same light and the blood of Jesus cleanses us of the difference.
What is the cross? It is laying down one's life. Unless a seed dies, it cannot live. Unless one sets aside ego, own will, one cannot unite with God. Not our will, but His will. This is what obeying God involves. This is what the men in the church taught. This is what Jesus taught.Against the Jews and the Greeks. This is what led to their death. This is how they lay down their life for the church, so that it would not have to sacrifice. This is how the church is preserved and nurtured and washed. God fights for the church. God lives through his witnesses in the church. You can't have a masked witness. Not if your testimony is that you have to lay down your life to live, to model it for your people, to model it for the world. Not if you tell the world that Christ is the husband who gave Himself for His church.
Before the cross, those who believed God were crushed by the law (the publican in the temple). They were held prisoner until Christ came. After the Cross, those who believed God were enveloped in Christ, sharing His empowerment, fulfilling the work that remains to be done, sharing in His suffering and vindication.
Thus the least in the kingdom of God is greater than the greatest before John was born.
Any aspect I didn't cover? Or, too much information? !
Hebrews 8:5 NET
The place where they serve is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, “See that you make everything according to the design shown to you on the mountain.”
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
This website has some answers about 1st century practice from a Messianic Jewish point of view.
ETA: in answer to churchgeek.
Thank you, that's quite helpful!
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
This is not an original thought, but it may be relevant to the current discussion:
Roman (male) priests did invariably perform their religious duties capite velato, "with head covered."
A flamen wore a particular kind of hat called an apex as a sign of his office. A flamen wearing an apex is shown in the picture accompanying the referenced Wikipedia article.
An augur covered his head with a fold of his toga while taking the auspices, as did a priest offering sacrifice.
Augustus Caesar, represented as pontifex maximus, is shown with his head covered in this way in the portrait statue known as the Via Labicana Augustus.
In the context of ancient Corinth, then, Christian men who did not cover their heads when they prayed would be visibly differentiating themselves from the priests who carried out the rituals of Imperial Rome.
Roman priestesses also veiled their heads while performing their religious duties. But the practice of covering one's head was not so closely associated with religion, if one was a woman.
As I understand it, women of status in the ancient world generally wore a head covering of some kind on most occasions that took them out of the home. Head coverings were worn for the sake of propriety (as, many years ago, I was taught to wear white gloves and a hat for daytime public occasions). On the other hand, slaves and working women would probably not be wearing head coverings, which would mark them out as low-status women and make them vulnerable to sexual harassment and insults in the streets.
Paul could be offering the opinion that women should continue to wear head coverings, so that they might observe the proprieties while in church, and avoid harassment and insults on the way there and back. It's a reasonable and humane solution, of a piece with other examples of his pragmatic approach to Church government.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Even as a child in CofScotland, I always was wearing a hat in church and to Sunday School, along with all the other girls. Nowadays that is not demanded, not often used. And that means that a man who has a hat can now wear it for comfort or making sure he doesn't lose it by taking it off.
So people don't now think it's "spiritual" to wear something on your head to develop you and show your strength.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Paul gave praying and prophesying the status of a sacrament.
1 Corinthians 11:16 NET
16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
Sacrament: the external manifestation of an internal act of grace.
Communion is a depiction of a work God did.
Public prophesying, testifying, is what Jesus did, for which He was executed. But His testimony cleansed His church.
You could say His sacrifice saved His Church. His Church did not save itself.
God did not allow Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Saving His people, being a vessel through which the world would be blessing, is God's job. It's the setting for the showcasing of His love.
The church is the setting for the showcasing of God's love.
Men and women depict the work of God by enacting the roles of benefactor and beneficiary.
Mankind is the glory of God, the setting in which God's love is manifested. Women are the glory of men, the setting in which the love of men can be manifested, in the sacrificial laying down of life, martyrdom to 'save' them. The Israeli army is proud of the contribution its womenfolk has made to the defense of the country. But attrition was demoralising. It has now become mandatory to restrict women from serving on the front line and areas where direct contact with enemy forces are expected. I understand a similar ruling is being promoted in several progressive countries with troops on active duty.
1 Corinthians 11:7 NET
7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
The man who testifies represents God's Chosen, is IN Christ. It's Christ who speaks. Christ speaks without a veil. Its the only way He can make Himself a target. Which He needs to do if He is to make the necessary sacrifice. Which He professes. The testimony that God dies for His Church.
The woman who testifies represents God's Church, His Called, is IN man. Its those whom He called who hear. God desires none should perish, but all should be saved. Requiring Him to provide the Lamb. Her words are a confession, but they confess that the One making the sacrifice is God. Her protection against being targeted is the veil. The only way the Church can be targeted is if it is wiped out. Which means identifying its members. Those who confess. Without a veil. Which is impossible. Because, then the sacrifice is from man. Which is not the Church's confession.
Bottom line, the Church sends a message. Not just with words, but its actions, its sacraments.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I'm sorry, but I'm starting to glaze over now.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
I'm sorry, but I'm starting to glaze over now.
I guess I'm saying that the Church makes a statement with women's ministry when they wear a veil while testifying.
As it does with Communion, Baptism.
I think it lost a good testimony in the name of labelling the practice an anachronism.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Originally posted by Footwasher: quote:
I'm saying that the Church makes a statement with women's ministry when they wear a veil while testifying.
I'm sure it does. Whether that's the statement you think it's making is another matter...
OK. Let's see if I've understood you: You're arguing that men represent Christ and women represent the church. Christ always puts himself at risk, but the church always has to be protected. As a sign of being protected, women wear veils and as a sign of being vulnerable men don't.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Originally posted by Footwasher: quote:
I'm saying that the Church makes a statement with women's ministry when they wear a veil while testifying.
I'm sure it does. Whether that's the statement you think it's making is another matter...
OK. Let's see if I've understood you: You're arguing that men represent Christ and women represent the church. Christ always puts himself at risk, but the church always has to be protected. As a sign of being protected, women wear veils and as a sign of being vulnerable men don't.
Yup. Succinct in all the ways my post wasn't!
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
OK. I disagree with you throughout as a matter of theological anthropology, think it's highly unlikely that Paul had any such theory in mind; but at least I know what you're saying...
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Ephesians 5:23 NET
because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Hands up those husbands who command their wives!
Hands up those wives who takes commands from their husbands!
All I know about Paul's provenance to comment on this matter is that either (a) he wasn't married, or (b) lived apart from his wife for most of his working life.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Nope Kwesi.
Methinks paul was married.
How else do you explain the "thorn in the flesh" comment?
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I hope that's a joke, shamwari.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
shamwari: quote:
Methinks paul was married.
How else do you explain the "thorn in the flesh" comment?
Groan. A dusty joke, smelling of mothballs. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Anyway, in at least one passage where Paul recommends that single people remain single, I believe he states that he is single, too.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
I first came across the suggestion referred to in the OP in the book Split image by Anne Atkins, which I read in its year of publication, 1987. (Oh Lord, have I been studying this subject and arguing about it for 25 years now? **sigh** ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)
I’ve made two attempts to compose a post about this passage, and given up both attempts in frustration because of the impossibility of saying anything in less than the many hundreds of words that would be needed to do it justice . I’ve consoled myself with the thought that 1Cor.11:10 is considered by commentators as a good candidate for the award of ‘Most obscure verse in the most obscure passage in all of Paul’s writings’.
Gordon Fee* gives an excellent analysis of the exegetical problems in the passage leading up to v.10, which I summarise (with some re-working) as: a) what is the meaning in each usage of the word kephalē which seems to vary between the literal anatomical ‘head’ and the not-totally-clear metaphorical use established in v.3; b)what is the meaning of the phrase in v.4 usually translated as ‘having his head covered’ but which is literally ‘having down the head’; and c) what is the meaning in v.5 and v.13 of akatakaluptos ‘uncovered’. There is also the usual ambiguity in meaning of anēr and gunē as man/husband, woman/wife.
When one has worked out the most probable solutions to these and followed the argument up to v.9, one logically expects the instruction: ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have her head covered’. But we don’t get that, we get the apparent non sequitur, a googly out of left field: ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have authority on the head [the possessive ‘her’ is implied in the text, not explicit] because of the angels’. Why on earth does Paul bring in the reference to authority here? What is he talking about, and what on earth is the relevance of the angels? (I’ll come back to the angelic reference later.)
I suppose that it is the attempt of translators to make the text of v.10 fit the expected instruction for the woman to wear a head covering that leads them to insert the words ‘a sign of’ before ‘authority’. The proposition that this refers to a third party’s authority, rather than the authority of the person directly referenced does have some slender support. In another book covering this passage**, there is a quotation from the writings of Diodorus of Sicily between 60 and 30BC, in which Diodorus describes a statue of the mother of King Osymandias as follows:
‘There is also another statue of his mother standing alone, a monolith twenty cubits high, and it has three kingdoms on its head, signifying that she was both daughter and wife and mother of a king’. (There is another translation supplied which gives ‘...three diadems on its head...’ where the translators here have rendered basileia (literally ‘kingdoms’) as ‘diadems’ a word which conveys the meaning: a sign of a kingdom, thereby inserting the meaning ‘sign of’ in the same way that is done by the insertion of the words ‘sign of’ in 1Cor.11:10.)
So in this extract from Diodorus we have the description of a woman with ‘kingdoms’ on her head, where the kingdoms are those of other men to whom she is related. So it’s not unprecedented for Paul’s usage in 1Cor.11:10 to follow the same pattern. But it is slender evidence. (And before any shipmate posts to criticise this as clutching at straws, similarly obscure classical references are used by those arguing for the opposite theological position.)
But maybe we don’t have to go down this ‘sign of’ route at all. Is there an understanding of v10 in which the ‘authority’ can be ascribed to the woman/wife, while fitting in with the meaning expected as a logical continuation of the argument in vv3-9, viz. ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have her head covered’, but without going to the extreme that Atkins does in proposing that because the wife’s head is her husband (as explained in v.3) not only is she the one who has authority, but it ought to be exercised over her husband. (Thereby blatantly contradicting Paul’s instructions in other epistles.)
Before we try to develop such an understanding of v.10, we must bear in mind that it must also lead logically into v.11. No matter how obscure Paul’s arguments appear to us now, I always have in the back of my mind the conviction that he wasn’t stupid, and whatever he wrote must have made very good sense to him when he wrote it. Looking at v.11 it starts with ‘Nevertheless ...’ plēn, which Fee explains (p.147 note 17), quoting from BDAG, is a “marker of something that is contrastingly added for consideration”. That is, a restriction or limitation on what is instructed in v.10. We must lead coherently into: ‘Nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man...’
I think there is a possible understanding which fits all these requirements. My first observation is that ‘authority’ is only one of a number of possible translations of exousia – there are other shades of meaning within its semantic range. One of these is ‘control’ or ‘jurisdiction’.*** So, if we are expecting ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have her head covered’, Paul slightly wrong-foots this expectation by writing: ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have control/jurisdiction over her head [in terms of what she wears on it as a covering/veiling] – i.e. her head covering ought to be under her own control. Having thus granted her head covering as being under the woman’s/wife’s own jurisdiction, the ‘nevertheless’ follows very logically as a limitation on that jurisdiction – it is not to be exercised independently of the man/her husband, but interdependently with him.
I am under no illusion in thinking that this suggestion immediately clarifies the meaning of the whole passage. It certainly doesn’t. But it has the benefit of leading coherently into v.11, which the traditional ‘sign of’ understanding doesn’t. If Paul has to write ‘Nevertheless ... woman is not independent of man..’ it must be presumably because what he wrote in v.10 might lead the Corinthians to mistakenly think that Paul is implying that woman is independent of man. What would lead the Corinthians to think that? The granting by Paul of some form of authority/control/jurisdiction to the woman. So he then has to cut short the possibility of erroneous belief that this form of authority/control/jurisdiction implies that the woman/wife is independent of the man/husband.
Oh, but there’s also the bit about ‘...because of the angels’. I have the impression that Paul presents this throw-away rationale for his instruction in v10 as something that would be entirely obvious to the readers of his letter. I imagine them sitting there going: ‘ah yes, of course, the angels, that clinches it!’ while we, divorced from the presuppositional context by 2000 years, just go: ‘Duhhh???’
I’m reminded of the top-class exegesis of 1Pet.3:18-22 by R.T.France**** in which he quotes another author: “More recent studies in Jewish apocryphal writings and in early Jewish-Christian literature reveal a whole world of ideas which was powerfully at work, all the more so because simply taken for granted, in the writers of the New Testament. The exegete ... must try to immerse himself as deeply as possible in the mental atmosphere of the biblical writer, his presuppositions, his categories of thought, his literary conventions” and then continues: “In fact, if you are not prepared to dirty your hands in the muddy waters of apocalyptic and rabbinic speculations, much of the New Testament must necessarily remain obscure. To try to understand 1 Peter 3:19-20 without a copy of the Book of Enoch at your elbow is to condemn yourself to failure”. I suspect that the same is true of the reference to ‘the angels’ at the end of 1Cor.11:10.
I have not succeeded in the act of immersion recommended in the quotation above, and my knowledge of the Book of Enoch is non-existent. But I would be very interested indeed to know whether my proposed understanding of 1Cor.11.10 fits with whatever instruction Paul was intending to support with his reference to ‘the angels’. I wouldn’t mind if it turned out completely wrong, but it would be rather exciting if it gave another chink of light on the obscurity of this passage.
Angus
[P.S. Note to shipmates. I honestly can’t make head or tail of footwasher’s contributions, either. Sorry, footwasher. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
*In: Discovering Biblical equality : complimentarity without hierarchy / editors Ronald W Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis Apollos, 2005 [UK edition] Ch.8 pp142-160 I don’t agree with all of Fee’s conclusions, but his analysis of the textual difficulties is excellent.
**Partly direct quotation, partly reworking of text from: Evangelical feminism & Biblical truth : an analysis of 118 disputed questions / Wayne Grudem. Apollos,2005 [UK edition], pp338-339 and note 19.
*** See: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains / editors. Johannes P. Louw, Eugene A. Nida. United Bible Societies, 1988; vol.2 p.92 glosses b and e.
****In: New Testament Interpretation : Essays on Principles and Methods / edited by I Howard Marshall. Paternoster,1977. Ch.XIV pp264-265
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Thanks, A. Pilgrim.
That's very interesting.
Moo
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Seconded - thanks, A.Pilgrim.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
Yes, thank you! That is very helpful.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
When one has worked out the most probable solutions to these and followed the argument up to v.9, one logically expects the instruction: ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have her head covered’. But we don’t get that, we get the apparent non sequitur, a googly out of left field: ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have authority on the head [the possessive ‘her’ is implied in the text, not explicit] because of the angels’. Why on earth does Paul bring in the reference to authority here? What is he talking about, and what on earth is the relevance of the angels? (I’ll come back to the angelic reference later.)
I suppose that it is the attempt of translators to make the text of v.10 fit the expected instruction for the woman to wear a head covering that leads them to insert the words ‘a sign of’ before ‘authority’. The proposition that this refers to a third party’s authority, rather than the authority of the person directly referenced does have some slender support. In another book covering this passage**, there is a quotation from the writings of Diodorus of Sicily between 60 and 30BC, in which Diodorus describes a statue of the mother of King Osymandias as follows:
‘There is also another statue of his mother standing alone, a monolith twenty cubits high, and it has three kingdoms on its head, signifying that she was both daughter and wife and mother of a king’. (There is another translation supplied which gives ‘...three diadems on its head...’ where the translators here have rendered basileia (literally ‘kingdoms’) as ‘diadems’ a word which conveys the meaning: a sign of a kingdom, thereby inserting the meaning ‘sign of’ in the same way that is done by the insertion of the words ‘sign of’ in 1Cor.11:10.)
So in this extract from Diodorus we have the description of a woman with ‘kingdoms’ on her head, where the kingdoms are those of other men to whom she is related. So it’s not unprecedented for Paul’s usage in 1Cor.11:10 to follow the same pattern. But it is slender evidence. (And before any shipmate posts to criticise this as clutching at straws, similarly obscure classical references are used by those arguing for the opposite theological position.)
But maybe we don’t have to go down this ‘sign of’ route at all. Is there an understanding of v10 in which the ‘authority’ can be ascribed to the woman/wife, while fitting in with the meaning expected as a logical continuation of the argument in vv3-9, viz. ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have her head covered’, but without going to the extreme that Atkins does in proposing that because the wife’s head is her husband (as explained in v.3) not only is she the one who has authority, but it ought to be exercised over her husband. (Thereby blatantly contradicting Paul’s instructions in other epistles.)
Before we try to develop such an understanding of v.10, we must bear in mind that it must also lead logically into v.11. No matter how obscure Paul’s arguments appear to us now, I always have in the back of my mind the conviction that he wasn’t stupid, and whatever he wrote must have made very good sense to him when he wrote it. Looking at v.11 it starts with ‘Nevertheless ...’ plēn, which Fee explains (p.147 note 17), quoting from BDAG, is a “marker of something that is contrastingly added for consideration”. That is, a restriction or limitation on what is instructed in v.10. We must lead coherently into: ‘Nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man...’
I think there is a possible understanding which fits all these requirements. My first observation is that ‘authority’ is only one of a number of possible translations of exousia – there are other shades of meaning within its semantic range. One of these is ‘control’ or ‘jurisdiction’.*** So, if we are expecting ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have her head covered’, Paul slightly wrong-foots this expectation by writing: ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have control/jurisdiction over her head [in terms of what she wears on it as a covering/veiling] – i.e. her head covering ought to be under her own control. Having thus granted her head covering as being under the woman’s/wife’s own jurisdiction, the ‘nevertheless’ follows very logically as a limitation on that jurisdiction – it is not to be exercised independently of the man/her husband, but interdependently with him.
I am under no illusion in thinking that this suggestion immediately clarifies the meaning of the whole passage. It certainly doesn’t. But it has the benefit of leading coherently into v.11, which the traditional ‘sign of’ understanding doesn’t. If Paul has to write ‘Nevertheless ... woman is not independent of man..’ it must be presumably because what he wrote in v.10 might lead the Corinthians to mistakenly think that Paul is implying that woman is independent of man. What would lead the Corinthians to think that? The granting by Paul of some form of authority/control/jurisdiction to the woman. So he then has to cut short the possibility of erroneous belief that this form of authority/control/jurisdiction implies that the woman/wife is independent of the man/husband.
In other words, women are allowed to preach because they have the imputation of authority from men? The man's authority is imputed to the woman, indicated by the head covering? Then why does he say
‘Nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man...’.
Instead of limiting the jurisdiction, it seems to imply that the distinction is artificial, the imputation of authority not required, since both are equal in the Lord.
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Oh, but there’s also the bit about ‘...because of the angels’. I have the impression that Paul presents this throw-away rationale for his instruction in v10 as something that would be entirely obvious to the readers of his letter. I imagine them sitting there going: ‘ah yes, of course, the angels, that clinches it!’ while we, divorced from the presuppositional context by 2000 years, just go: ‘Duhhh???’
I’m reminded of the top-class exegesis of 1Pet.3:18-22 by R.T.France**** in which he quotes another author: “More recent studies in Jewish apocryphal writings and in early Jewish-Christian literature reveal a whole world of ideas which was powerfully at work, all the more so because simply taken for granted, in the writers of the New Testament. The exegete ... must try to immerse himself as deeply as possible in the mental atmosphere of the biblical writer, his presuppositions, his categories of thought, his literary conventions” and then continues: “In fact, if you are not prepared to dirty your hands in the muddy waters of apocalyptic and rabbinic speculations, much of the New Testament must necessarily remain obscure. To try to understand 1 Peter 3:19-20 without a copy of the Book of Enoch at your elbow is to condemn yourself to failure”. I suspect that the same is true of the reference to ‘the angels’ at the end of 1Cor.11:10.
I have not succeeded in the act of immersion recommended in the quotation above, and my knowledge of the Book of Enoch is non-existent. But I would be very interested indeed to know whether my proposed understanding of 1Cor.11.10 fits with whatever instruction Paul was intending to support with his reference to ‘the angels’. I wouldn’t mind if it turned out completely wrong, but it would be rather exciting if it gave another chink of light on the obscurity of this passage.
I understand that commentators use the Book of Enoch to support the view that angels attend every meeting of the church, and to avoid tempting them from falling into entanglement with the daughters of Adam, they are asked to dress modestly!
No issue with not understanding my take! Let's work at a reaching correct conclusion, whosoever it belongs to!
[ 15. August 2012, 16:04: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
Thanks for the appreciative feedback – I’m glad to know the effort of composition was worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
In other words, women are allowed to preach because they have the imputation of authority from men? The man's authority is imputed to the woman, indicated by the head covering? .
No, that isn’t what I intended to mean at all. I was suggesting that Paul is talking about ‘control’ not ‘authority’, and that perhaps v.10 could be read as : That is why the woman/wife ought to have control/jurisdiction over her head [in terms of what she wears on it as a covering/veiling] – i.e. her head covering ought to be under her own control. There is nothing about that control being imputed to her by the man, and I haven’t addressed the issue of what significance there might be in the head covering – that’s another knotty problem.
The thing is, if we remove the ‘[sign of] authority’ concept from the text, there is no implication that the head covering has anything at all to do with the woman having authority to pray and prophesy, or showing that such authority has been imputed to her, or showing that she isn’t usurping the (supposed) authority that her husband might have over her – none of this can be found in the passage at all. And I’m happy with that, because TTBOMK there is nothing in the NT that supports the idea that in the gathered congregation of the church anyone has to be granted authorisation from anyone else to pray or prophesy. People could just get on and do it, provided that everything was done decently and in order. (Any specific textual evidence on this, either for or against would be welcome.)
And Paul isn’t talking about preaching (either as proclaiming kērussō or teaching didaskō) but about praying proseuchomai and prophesying prophēteuō. Hart made the same mistake near the top of p.1 of this thread. I had thought about pointing this out in my previous post, but it was long enough already.
Angus
[Edit for code]
[ 15. August 2012, 22:48: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
How does this follow:
That is why the woman/wife ought to have control/jurisdiction over her head [in terms of what she wears on it as a covering/veiling] – i.e. her head covering ought to be under her own control.
When the preceding verse is:
English Standard Version (©2001)
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
International Standard Version (©2008)
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Thanks for the appreciative feedback – I’m glad to know the effort of composition was worth it.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
In other words, women are allowed to preach because they have the imputation of authority from men? The man's authority is imputed to the woman, indicated by the head covering? .
No, that isn’t what I intended to mean at all. I was suggesting that Paul is talking about ‘control’ not ‘authority’, and that perhaps v.10 could be read as : That is why the woman/wife ought to have control/jurisdiction over her head [in terms of what she wears on it as a covering/veiling] – i.e. her head covering ought to be under her own control. There is nothing about that control being imputed to her by the man, and I haven’t addressed the issue of what significance there might be in the head covering – that’s another knotty problem.
The thing is, if we remove the ‘[sign of] authority’ concept from the text, there is no implication that the head covering has anything at all to do with the woman having authority to pray and prophesy, or showing that such authority has been imputed to her, or showing that she isn’t usurping the (supposed) authority that her husband might have over her – none of this can be found in the passage at all. And I’m happy with that, because TTBOMK there is nothing in the NT that supports the idea that in the gathered congregation of the church anyone has to be granted authorisation from anyone else to pray or prophesy. People could just get on and do it, provided that everything was done decently and in order. (Any specific textual evidence on this, either for or against would be welcome.)
And Paul isn’t talking about preaching (either as proclaiming kērussō or teaching didaskō) but about praying proseuchomai and prophesying prophēteuō. Hart made the same mistake near the top of p.1 of this thread. I had thought about pointing this out in my previous post, but it was long enough already.
Angus
[Edit for code]
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
Footwasher – I agree that the lead-in from vv8-9 is not entirely satisfactory. As I said initially, we’re expecting ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have her head covered’, but then I described my suggestion as Paul slightly wrong-footing this expectation, as a way of admitting its lack of obvious continuity.
I had been wondering if the content of vv8-9 was a bit of a digression from the main theme of the argument, (or rather, the presenting of further evidence to support a point already made) so I was very pleased to see in the RSV that vv8-9 are placed in parentheses, indicating that the translators of that version thought so, too.
So then, we’re looking for a lead-in from vv6-7 instead. v.6 in the ESV reads: ‘For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head’. There’s one word in that translation that I’m not happy with - the ‘since’ in ‘But since it is disgraceful...’ Other translations have ‘But if it is disgraceful...’ which I suggest is a more faithful representation of the Greek.
It therefore appears that Paul is offering a wife two options – cover her head or cut her hair short. If cutting off her hair or shaving her head is shameful, then she should cover her head. We can then follow this with v.10 according to my suggested reading, now slightly amended: ‘That is why a woman ought to have control over her head [in terms of whether she wears a covering or whether she cuts her hair short] – in other words, the wife has the discretion to decide for herself between the two options Paul has discussed in v.6.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit that the RSV throws a spanner in the works of my so-far-constructed argument by also putting vv11-12 as a parenthetical digression as it does for vv8-9. It is therefore much less necessary for v10 to lead coherently into v.11. The RSV leads the reader to see two sequences of logic in the verses, that is: vv3-6 (and possibly v.7), v.10, vv13-15 interspersed with a digression retrospectively adding more evidence in vv(possibly 7),8-9 and vv11-12. (Sorry that I don’t have the time to write out the full quotations in this order – I realise it would be clearer, and I’ll just have to ask shipmates to follow the sequences of verses themselves.)
I have on other occasions in Paul’s writing noticed his (IMO infuriating) habit of conducting two lines of argument simultaneously, interrupting one to switch to the other, and vice-versa, with no clue as to when he makes the switch. And that is what could be happening here.
Sometimes I feel that studying this passage is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where half the pieces are missing, you can’t work out what the pieces that you’ve got are showing individually, and you have to propose what the patterns are on the missing pieces in order to construct a picture. Then someone comes along and tells you that half the pieces that you’ve got are the wrong way up, and you need to pull it all apart and turn them upside down, and propose a different lot of patterns on the missing pieces so that you get an entirely different picture. Then someone else comes along, tells you that the previous person was wrong, the half that they said were the wrong way up were actually right, the half they thought were right were actually upside down, half the patterns on the missing pieces that you initially proposed were correct, but the rest should be an entirely different pattern from what anyone else had yet suggested, and then when you’ve pulled it all apart and put it back together, you’ll have a different picture yet again. Naturally, the box that the pieces came in doesn’t have a picture on it!!
It's at times like this that I wish I were more competent at semantic structure analysis, as I have seen how powerful it is for understanding other complex passages.
I’m approaching a busy weekend in RL, so I regret that I will probably not be able to engage in this discussion here for a while. I’m also starting to try to get my head round the Book of Enoch. Extra-canonical 1stC Jewish apocalyptic literature? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Angus
[ 16. August 2012, 23:02: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Footwasher – I agree that the lead-in from vv8-9 is not entirely satisfactory. As I said initially, we’re expecting ‘That is why the woman/wife ought to have her head covered’, but then I described my suggestion as Paul slightly wrong-footing this expectation, as a way of admitting its lack of obvious continuity.
I had been wondering if the content of vv8-9 was a bit of a digression from the main theme of the argument, (or rather, the presenting of further evidence to support a point already made) so I was very pleased to see in the RSV that vv8-9 are placed in parentheses, indicating that the translators of that version thought so, too.
So then, we’re looking for a lead-in from vv6-7 instead. v.6 in the ESV reads: ‘For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head’. There’s one word in that translation that I’m not happy with - the ‘since’ in ‘But since it is disgraceful...’ Other translations have ‘But if it is disgraceful...’ which I suggest is a more faithful representation of the Greek.
It therefore appears that Paul is offering a wife two options – cover her head or cut her hair short. If cutting off her hair or shaving her head is shameful, then she should cover her head. We can then follow this with v.10 according to my suggested reading, now slightly amended: ‘That is why a woman ought to have control over her head [in terms of whether she wears a covering or whether she cuts her hair short] – in other words, the wife has the discretion to decide for herself between the two options Paul has discussed in v.6.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit that the RSV throws a spanner in the works of my so-far-constructed argument by also putting vv11-12 as a parenthetical digression as it does for vv8-9. It is therefore much less necessary for v10 to lead coherently into v.11. The RSV leads the reader to see two sequences of logic in the verses, that is: vv3-6 (and possibly v.7), v.10, vv13-15 interspersed with a digression retrospectively adding more evidence in vv(possibly 7),8-9 and vv11-12. (Sorry that I don’t have the time to write out the full quotations in this order – I realise it would be clearer, and I’ll just have to ask shipmates to follow the sequences of verses themselves.)
I have on other occasions in Paul’s writing noticed his (IMO infuriating) habit of conducting two lines of argument simultaneously, interrupting one to switch to the other, and vice-versa, with no clue as to when he makes the switch. And that is what could be happening here.
Sometimes I feel that studying this passage is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where half the pieces are missing, you can’t work out what the pieces that you’ve got are showing individually, and you have to propose what the patterns are on the missing pieces in order to construct a picture. Then someone comes along and tells you that half the pieces that you’ve got are the wrong way up, and you need to pull it all apart and turn them upside down, and propose a different lot of patterns on the missing pieces so that you get an entirely different picture. Then someone else comes along, tells you that the previous person was wrong, the half that they said were the wrong way up were actually right, the half they thought were right were actually upside down, half the patterns on the missing pieces that you initially proposed were correct, but the rest should be an entirely different pattern from what anyone else had yet suggested, and then when you’ve pulled it all apart and put it back together, you’ll have a different picture yet again. Naturally, the box that the pieces came in doesn’t have a picture on it!!
It's at times like this that I wish I were more competent at semantic structure analysis, as I have seen how powerful it is for understanding other complex passages.
I’m approaching a busy weekend in RL, so I regret that I will probably not be able to engage in this discussion here for a while. I’m also starting to try to get my head round the Book of Enoch. Extra-canonical 1stC Jewish apocalyptic literature?
Angus
Yup, I agree, it's a difficult task:
Quote
Imagine asking a jeweller to describe a watchspring. He might simply talk about the spring itself: he might demonstrate how it was related to the rest of the mechanism: he might even explain the value of knowing the right time, and the significance of the watchspring as part of achieving that end.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf
[ 17. August 2012, 16:54: Message edited by: footwasher ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0