Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
)
|
Part1/3....
Some will see me as a son of Satan, come to destroy God's doctrines. Some will see as a truth-seeker, who's seen discrepancies in Apostolic doctrine.
Plz note, votivesoul, (vs), does not attempt to discredit my views of the word 'tradition', seen in post20,21. He says nothing against it. Does silence indicate agreement?
Costeon,
One other thing that I think is important to note vis a vis veiling the hair in
1 Corinthians 11:1-16, such as I have defined in my previous posts, is:
What is the Biblical definition of naked(ness)?
vs will now discuss head symbols and nakedness. Are they opposites, as he will attempt to prove?
Plz note before preceding: vs will now take you the long, long way around to convince you that God required the veil of the OT saint, and doing so without a command asking for it. Has anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor? Had God wanted to be as convincing as vs, then he had a simple solution which doesn't go the long, long way around: "I'll command it." And we know he didn't. There is no command for veils seen in the OT.
We know of course of the famous passage in Genesis, about Adam and Eve both being naked in the Garden, yet being so without the shame or stigma of public nudity.
What is often not discussed is how something God-given to A&E, nakedness, suddenly in an instant becomes moral depravity. In an instant. This moral code against nakedness did not exist in eternity within the nature of God, or God would not have created them naked. Just sayin' what is obvious. vs's comment shows he agrees. Our bro Dom would accuse me of being an ecclesiastical blankety-blankety if I ever said something from the Bible was subjective. My guess is that his buddy will get away with that which I would not. But that's what happens sometimes, when proving your point is more important than double-standards.
Genesis 2:25 (ESV),
Quote:
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Naked: עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (ărūmmîm), from עָרוֹם (arom): nude, either partially or fully, i.e. naked.
See:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6174.htm
Nothing particularly special or revelatory about the Hebrew text. But note, it's rather circular. Crossing between English to Hebrew simply tells us only this:
Naked = Naked
We still don't have a Biblical definition. Yes, we have our own understanding of what it means, but our own understanding is rather subjective in nature and scope, partly based on cultural values and laws, and the various moral responses to both.
By saying this I think I see you agreeing with what I said about nakedness in an instant becoming morally wrong and not an eternal wrong. It is subjectively wrong, but only after the Fall.
So, an infant at her mother's breast, bereft of all clothing, nursing in the comfort of her parent's bed, privately at home, is, definitionally naked, but no one responds negatively to such a phenomena. A husband and wife, fully disrobed, in the act of procreatively making that baby, is fully understood and appreciated as a moral reality, provided it takes place behind closed doors, i.e. in private.
Indeed. They fulfill the will of God. Doing so shows them as being spiritual, to fulfill God's will.
Same with showering or bathing, or undergoing certain surgeries, etc. No one bats an eye at these things. The issues arise when cultural mores and taboos are transgressed. But these issues depend greatly upon time and place. Many tribal women around the world go topless, while the men may only wear a loincloth covering their genitalia, while leaving the rest of their body available for seeing. This is deemed acceptable as a cultural practice. Photos, videos, documentaries, etc. abound, are shown regularly in schools, or in magazines like National Geographic, or etc., and we don't look away in shock or disgust. It seems perfectly normal.
A&E produced loin cloths from fig leaves. But the cover God provided covered much more.
But if a young woman goes to the beach in a thong bikini, our Christian ethic is to look away and be ashamed for her. Taking the example from earlier, some cannot stand the idea of a woman breastfeeding in public without a screen or cover of some sort. Yet, there are all kinds of entertainment options from the mildly perverse, to the pornographically obscene, yet our culture and laws tolerate all this. Why, you cannot even walk through Walmart without going past the underwear section to see photos of women in their bras and panties, or men in their jockeys. It's all normative. We don't raise an alarm or react poorly. We just go about shopping as if nothing is amiss. Yet, we'd recoil if we saw a woman parading herself in Walmart dressed only in her skivvies.
So, what gives? The issue is, we don't have a Biblical definition of nakedness, and we've allowed, cross-culturally, people to define it for themselves in a somewhat admittedly organic, but no less willy-nilly fashion, no pun intended. One people group's nudity is another people group's standard flair.
This is obvious and easy to understand how this happens, but what if? What if the whole world had a standardized definition of nakedness, and what if that standardized definition of nakedness was entirely based on the Bible? What then?
What would it be? We might again start with Adam and Eve.
Genesis 3:7 (ESV),
Quote:
Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
What is a loincloth? We might think of it as a piece of fabric or some other material designed to cover a person's external genitalia, male or female. But if this is so, what about the buttocks, or the breasts of a woman?
Surely, we as good, God-fearing Christians wouldn't go out into the world showing off our rear assets, or allow our wives or daughters, sisters or mothers, to go about with their breasts exposed to the world?
But loincloth might suggest that Adam and Eve's understanding of their own nakedness meant only that they should cover their lower parts, i.e. their external genitilia. That was their INSTINCT (paying attention, Don?).
And yet, it wasn't good enough for God. How do we know? Because God himself made Adam and Eve some clothes made from animal skins:
Genesis 3:21 (ESV),
Quote:
21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
Garments: כָּתְנ֥וֹת (kāṯənōwṯ), from כְּתֹנֶת (kethoneth): a tunic, coat, or robe...denotes a long, shirt–like garment that served as the basic article of clothing for both men and women in ancient Israel. It was normally woven from wool or linen, extending to the knees or ankles, with or without sleeves.
See:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3801.htm
Now, we're getting somewhere. Man's instinct was to cover only his external genitalia. But God's design was to cover Adam and Eve from head to knee or possibly, even to toe.
Furthermore, as it pertains to how a woman should be dressed or covered, Biblically speaking, we still have to deal with Paul's teaching on hair and veils.
Again, I refer to
Isaiah 47:1-3 (ESV),
Quote:
1 Come down and sit in the dust,
O virgin daughter of Babylon;
sit on the ground without a throne,
O daughter of the Chaldeans!
For you shall no more be called
tender and delicate.
2 Take the millstones and grind flour,
put off your veil,
strip off your robe, uncover your legs,
pass through the rivers.
3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
and your disgrace shall be seen.
I will take vengeance,
and I will spare no one.
This passage of Isaiah, along with most of the words of the prophets, along with the Psalms, many of the Proverbs, and other areas of the OT, are cast as Hebrew poetry, which works along the lines of parallelism.
This link will give a very good overview and introduction to how Biblical Hebrew poetry works:
I also recommend reading Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Poetry as Alter is probably the leading and foremost scholar on the subject. You can read it online for free here.
Part2/3....
Threaded Mode
