Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanah
.
|
Part1/2.
Did you see that, Evang. Dominic Benincasa (Dom, for short), how Amanah puts forward pointed rebuttals without the nastiness used by you? That's how it can be done. She is a good example for you to follow, getting her points across, with grace, seasoned with salt.
To interpret
1 Corinthians 11:3-10 accurately, we must look past the Greek text to the Hebrew concepts of creation and honor that Paul, a trained Rabbi, was utilizing.
Exactly! View and interpret the facts as Paul would have done in light of the times he lived in, with the knowledge he would have had. Think about this topic as he would have thought.
1. Head (Greek: Kephale / Hebrew: Rosh
In verse 3, Paul establishes a hierarchy of "headship." In Hebrew thought, the "Rosh" is not merely a "boss" but the "source" or "beginning." Paul’s logic is rooted in the order of creation: just as God is the source of Christ’s incarnate mission, and Adam was the source of Eve’s physical being, the "head" represents a relational origin that demands respect for the order God established.
Scholars have long-debated which definition of Kephale Paul uses.
2. Image and Glory (Greek: Eikon & Doxa / Hebrew: Tselem & Kavod)
In verse 7, Paul discusses "image" and "glory." The Hebrew "Tselem" (Image) refers to a representative likeness, while "Kavod" (Glory) literally means "weight" or "significance." Paul argues that man manifests God’s glory directly, while woman is the "Kavod" of man—meaning she is the "crown" or "excellence" of the human race.
Perhaps rather, she is the glory of her man because, even as significant as Eve was, she was made for him. That something as great as woman was made specifically for Adam indicates he was 'something else', remarkable. Thus, her presence indicates his glory. In a worship setting, Paul’s Hebraic view is that human "glory" (the head/hair) should be veiled so that only God’s "Kavod" is the focus of the assembly.
You later say "Summary of Interpretation"
Every Christian who takes the Word seriously takes the statements given in the Word, and uses them to form an interpretation, just as you have done.
I presume to think you here refer to Paul's words in 1Co11, where we say he speaks of an assembly or a church service. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
When Paul does not show references using either OT example nor OT command of God asking for a veil head-covering, which would then give the context used to provide an interpretation of his words, it then is left open for readers to decide how they will be interpreted.
Because Paul loves and is a scholar of the OT, the only Bible he has, which contains no command asking for a veil, nor example/story of a veiled woman exemplifying veiling as the specific symbol to show respect to God's Order of Authority, it then leaves these verses open for interpretation in many ways.
Did OT saints veil? Yes. Did they veil because of culture or command of God? That no veil command can be found lends credence that Paul's words references the veil which is seen in many ancient nations, not just Israel.
Plz someone, give an explanation why no OT command is seen for either a hair head-covering or the veil head-covering. I have done so, in my commentary. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing
If the known history of the Co culture is taken into consideration as the context for this 1Co11 writing, then Paul's words can be interpreted as referring to the cultural custom of the time. Doesn't it make sense to think that Paul would teach, for the NT, the things the OT Word he loves has indicated. When it had not indicated a veiling command then it would be unusual for Paul to NT command something not seen in the Book.
Scholars frequently remind us, when formulating Bible doctrine, to read and use the whole Book to do so. The vv does not do this by referencing any OT command for veiling. Why not? Instead, its scriptural support is mostly verses seen in the NT.
At least two doctrines are indicated in 1Co11. 1) God's Order of Authority. 2) Head-covering. The latter does not exist without the former. The first can exist without the second.
The doctrine Paul teaches, 1) God's Order of Authority, is seen in the Beginning by Paul. It should be seen that that which is of OT origin should also have OT commands showing support. Why are none found? I have put forward a reason, but most, if not all, in AFF have rejected it, though it is a scripturally based explanation, while they in AFF do not provide an explanation as to why not.
Funny that, the supporters of the vv cannot provide an explanation but still reject a view which does explain. What thing prevents the acceptance of scriptural explanations, in the absence of a view which does not? Sometimes this is explained as 'denominationalism' or 'dogmatism'. Therefore, "I can't leave behind what my group believes, even while scriptural evidence indicates I should". (Shuddering disbelief expressed)
3. Authority (Greek: Exousia / Hebrew: Mimshal)
In verse 10, the "symbol of authority" on a woman's head relates to the Hebrew concept of "Mimshal" (rule or domain). Within the context of "because of the angels,"
Referencing 'because of the angels
' does not yet clearly indicate which specific symbol is noticed by angels. Thus, it is only a statement worth noting as indicating something, without noting what exactly this something is. Paul is drawing on Second Temple Jewish tradition which taught that angels were present during prayer to ensure divine order.
What you do here is what some do when giving an explanation using culture. Some refer to the Greek cultural practices of veiling and you here refer to Jewish cultural practices of veiling. What none can do is refer to an OT command for veiling. It does not exist. Any who say Paul refers to a veiling Jewish Second Temple practice are making educated guesses of this, and not wrong to do so. But usually doctrine is formulated from clearly made commands indicating God's will. It is normal to think that the head is the logical place for the location of symbols, because our eyes normally focus on the head when meeting or communicating with someone.
Continued in 2/2...
Threaded Mode
