A Theological Tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

A friend of mine sent this in a round of emails and I wanted to share it here for discussion. (with his permission)




Speaking of the woman's "glory", here's another theological tidbit that I found interesting. Some of you may remember some years ago (decades?) a pop teaching in the UPC was that when a woman cuts her hair an angel dies? (Based on 1 Co. 11:10a, which uses the phrase "because of the angels".)

In any case, a much more sensible explanation of that obscure phrase was offered by Bruce Winter (Cambridge University, a specialist in Roman culture). Most of the difficulty in this phrase comes from translating the word as "angel" rather than "messenger". This same term was used in the Roman Empire to refer to human information-gatherers who reported on unusual activities that might be construed to have political significance.

Winter says, "In the case of a colony [i.e., Corinth] with special loyalty to Rome, watching strange or foreign religion was all the more important." The decorum of Christian women in congregational meetings would need to be such that their public speaking would arouse no suspicion of fomenting anti-Roman sentiment.

Paul concludes his discussion, of course, by addressing the issue over whether Corinthians should be veiled for public prayer or speech. If Roman male pagans drew up their togas over their heads to pray or if women threw off the married veil (which functioned, more or less, like a wedding ring does today), they were signaling that they embraced a value system in conflict with their Christian beliefs.

Winter's comments on this and other passages in 1 Corinthians are extremely insightful.

Check out Winter's After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001).

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Hey Renders ... this discussion is interesting as apparently it comes from someone who taught in UPC circles ...

It is the first time I hear of a teaching in UPC circles that if one cut their hair an angel would die ...

I'd like to know more about this .... who taught the angel dying doctrine several years ago?

Did SG Norris subscribe to this?

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Very interesting tid-bit. If this is the case that the translation should be messenger, then "having power" from angels in uncut hair is so off course it's ridiculous!

Being a political "statement" makes complete sense.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

The interpretation of angels being messengers as well is sound ... and has been used by many especially in interpreting Revelation ...

But I still think that it is open to many interpretations as it is admittedly obscure ... Segraves nailed it that being dogmatic about this one passage is unsound.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

I'd have to look into that more before I came to my own conclusion, but that explanation makes a lot more sense than others I've heard.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

I'd never heard of an angel "dying" - is that scriptural?

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Only if you cut your hair and nope, don't think that's scriptural at all.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

No. That's just crazy. It's a kitten. A kitten dies whenever a woman cuts her hair. :ursofunny

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

rofl!!

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

the vast majority of commentaries and lexicons I have seen all support angels a the translation

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

I have heard that every time a star falls a witch dies, and that when a bell rings an angel gets his wings....but have never heard about the cut hair/angel dies doctrine....sounds loony.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

I dont believe the UPC would be so foolish as to teach that. Maybe a rogue member but surely no one ordained by them would be that far off or members that would accept it.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

One would like to think that, however, there are those that have bought into the "power" in uncut hair doctrine. What's different - it's not scriptural either.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

No, but at least it's verifiable. Can't tell whether an angel really dies or not, but you can tell if, say, someone is healed or not!

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

I have never heard that we humans could do anything that would cause an angel to die.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Well, don't look behind you, but angels can't die........

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Maybe it was before your time. :heeheehee

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

How do you know that?

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Luke 20:36 (New International Version)
36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Ah yes! I forgot about that one. Thanks.

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

You didn't think there was one, did ya?

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

I said I forgot about it. You win! Sheesh.

:ursofunny

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

But if the multiple sources are right ... it appears that LS might have been teaching this in the early 80's?

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

That is exactly what I'm understanding.

Has anyone else heard of this?

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

If true ... this idea did not remain as part of LS's repertoire.... and evolved to the modern day HMH .... why not?

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Perhaps he realized he was in error?

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

Hmmm ... I think this is worth delving deeper into .....

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

agreed

Re: A theological tidbit on I Corth. 11:10
 

M & M - I don't see much different in this and the power in the hair doctrine that is being taught today.

Why isn't someone in the UPC saying it's foolish instead of publishing a picture of it in the Herald?