PART 1/2
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
.
|
Part 1/2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon
I was reading 1 Cor 11 recently and was thinking about the issue of head coverings, and something came to mind: head coverings predated the arrival of Christianity in Corinth (and everywhere else in the Greco-Roman world).
This is true, but see Evangelist Benincasa's post above to see where there were distinct purposes and uses of head coverings or veils, for both men and women.
Quote:
It was not a new teaching that Paul brought to Corinth.
Correct. Paul called his teaching a tradition he had passed down to them.
No OT command for head-covering is found which would have developed into a religious tradition. Can this statement be disproved? If it was a tradition (tradition and custom have such great similarities in their definitions that they often are used inter-changeably. Does Paul, in 1Co11? NO.) then it was of human origin, not religious. Paul usually bases his ideas on the OT, the only Word of God he has. He would not teach for NT doctrine things not having their origins in the only Word he loves. Therefore, his opening comments in 1Co11 can not be referring to a religious tradition of veiling. Can this be proved wrong? Showing the origin of a tradition by way of command would show this thought wrong.
1 Corinthians 11:2-3 (ESV),
Quote:
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you...
the traditions: παραδόσεις (paradoseis)
Quote:
HELP Word Studies:
3862 parádosis (from 3844 /pará, "from close-beside" and 1325 /dídōmi, "give over") – properly, give (hand over) from close-beside, referring to tradition as passed on from one generation to the next.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance:
Word Origin: from paradidómi
Definition: a handing down or over, a tradition
Thayer's Lexicon:
a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i. e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. (see παραδίδωμι, 4); hence, equivalent to instruction, Epictetus diss. 2, 23, 40; joined with διδασκαλία, Plato, legg. 7, p. 803 a. objectively, what is delivered, the substance of the teaching: so of Paul's teaching,
2 Thessalonians 3:6; in plural of the particular injunctions of Paul's instruction,
1 Corinthians 11:2;
2 Thessalonians 2:15.
See:
https://biblehub.com/greek/3862.htm
So, we see Paul has handed down to the Corinthians a traditional teaching which he himself had handed down to him through a previous source (perhaps Gamaliel?).
I don't agree.
BUT, and this is key, as you've already mentioned, the Corinthians were already well versed in Greco-Roman life and culture. Corinth was well known as being a highly metropolitan city. So, Paul didn't hand down or transmit to them a Greco-Roman tradition they were already familiar with, one they would have already been practicing.
Are you familiar with the counter-cultural revolution which was challenging the norm of those days? If other facts of history are used to help determine what Paul says to the Co, then this needs to be in the mix also.
Quote:
If Christianity had never existed, there would have still been an expectation—a requirement—in the Greco-Roman world that modest women would wear head coverings in public.
While true, this doesn't have sufficient explanational force
(this is especially true when giving it regard would contradict the view you want to prop up. Just saying. But...go on.) for why Paul commended the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions he passed down to them, as I showed above, since veiling the head was something the Corinthians would have inherited from the cultural milieu of the time, and not from Paul.
Therefore, something else must be in view. Again, as shown by Evangelist Benincasa, the Greco-Roman practice of veiling is not at all identical to the Christian practice Paul gives us in
1 Corinthians 11.
Well....certainly! Almost impossible for anyone to disagree. Dom writes about men veiling, and you about women veiling. Something else is at play. Thematically similar, perhaps, but vastly different in actual application.
Agreed, thematically similarity is a possibility if the subject is women, but only if it can be shown that Paul is distinctly referencing a command from God for veiling, which cannot be found. This command does not exist in the only Book Paul reads for religious instruction. Those who say that Paul references 'a command of God for veiling in 1Co11', use a lot of reading between the lines erroneously to do so.
Paul does not use a distinct religious word (in veiling for God) but uses the everyday word all Co/Greek used almost daily, of human origin. Words of daily practices are usually invented for the sake of convenience. The word google is a recent invention. If no OT command of God existed for a distinct obedience-command, then no distinct word would come into use for it (either in Greek or Hebrew). That none appeared shows that the Jew had not received a command for its practice. This word did not appear for the Greek who are miles from loving the Word/God, but a word/words did for that which was of human origin - veiling.
Something else is at play.
What is in play is a desire to make Paul appear to say something he would not say. His words have long ago been misconstrued, leading to a long held view which is hard to let go of, because it has so long been considered gospel and woven into Christian culture as truth.
It should be seen that Paul speaks in 1Co11 of the use of two separate symbols. One, the symbol many nations in the ancient world recognized - the veil. It symbolized commitment to the marriage covenant. Two, the symbol of respect a woman had to her man's desires for a pretty woman. He likes the beauty of long hair. If she wishes to diss her man (as in a counter-cultural revolution) then she may deny in actions that which he likes. If she does what he likes, she shows regard to God's order of authority doing so. The opposite if she does not.
Quote:
Some would argue that this fact shows that Paul's teaching on this matter is culturally bound and not required in all cultures. For proponents of head coverings in all cultures, how would you respond to that argument?
Yes, veiling the hair IS a culturally bound requirement. However, the requirement isn't bound to either the cultures of the 1st century Greco-Roman society in general, or the 1st century Corinthian society in particular.
True.
Rather, the cultural requirement is that of the Kingdom of God.
But not. Pauls says we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Do you wish to contradict Paul? It is a part of the Church, and Her culture, as fundamental to the spiritual realities and understandings of the larger context of both Old and New Covenant Israel, i.e. the Church.
If this is so, then just saying so does not make a theological argument. Without the exegesis and scripture to back it, 'saying so' is only an opinion.
That no command for the veil is seen in the OT shows any references, to the veil there, are to a man-made culture. God does not command the keeping of culture as 'sinning if you don't', but does ask saints for compliance to culture norms so as not to insult cultural norms which negatively affect societal views of the Church/church.
The question, then, is why? Why was this inherited tradition a part of the Church and the Kingdom of God? In my estimation, it's because of the long standing understanding, based in the Torah, of a married woman covering her hair.
Rebekah veiled herself upon meeting Isaac (
Genesis 24:65). She had been betrothed to him prior, when Abraham's servant Eliezer negotiated the marriage contract with Laban and her family. But, upon meeting Isaac, as the story goes, she immediately veiled herself, then went into the tent and consummated the marriage.
Errr...Rebecca had connection with the Torah which was perhaps 450 years from existence? I think not. She had connection to the cultures of Mesopotamia, the idolatrous religions which later showed up in Jacob's tents, in idols brought there by her relative, Rachel. But do try again in efforts to show the OT commandments as the source for veiling. You've already convinced yourself of this and you may be able to convince other people who also are convinced by facts without substance. Do better, you who is rich in knowledge and experience.
Later, in
Numbers 5:18, we have the Sotah Ritual, when a wife was accused of adultery by her husband, he brought her to a priest, who unveiled her hair as part of the ceremony.
No one should deny that this really happened in Israel. But seeing it does not yet point to a command where God required all Jews to veil. All this shows is what a priest does in the Sotah ritual, but nothing beyond. But do keep trying. You may yet find what you want, to convince others.
Part 2/2 to follow.
Threaded Mode
