Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne
http://www.theearlychurch.com/englis...forangels.html
This is an article someone sent me and I'd like to hear your opinions on it. While I don't agree with everything written, I thought it was interesting and well thought out. Please read it and let me know what you think. This will be in three parts, as it's too large for one post.
|
HO- I don't have time nor desire to go through this article point by point. Is there something in particular that you found plausible?
The big issues that jump out are:
1. The idea that God suddenly mandates head covering issues to denote authority lines in the NT (based on the garden of Eden) that are in contrast to OT such as the priests wearing head coverings. And this is somehow for the benefit of the angels? Did the angels go on strike or something to get this new set-up in the NT?
2. The author misses the cultural implications of Paul's day to this particular group of people. He/she doesn't recognize or notice that moral women already wore head coverings in public in Corinth (that went to the issue of modesty and morality).
3. He/she doesn't note the last 2-3 verses of chapter 10 (man-made break not put their by Paul) that talks about not giving offense to the various cultures so that God might be glorified. He/she fails to mention the culture of the day that regarded most uncovered women as prostitutes (either temple or companion).
4. He/she failed to explain what Paul meant by calling it custom in verse 16 and saying that the church had no such custom. In fact the author said it was pretty hard to figure out what Paul meant...
Indeed. The author couldn't put the pieces of the puzzle together.
To do that effectively, one must read this passage in context not isolation. The puzzle pieces fit together coherently when we look at the passage in relation to the rest of the 1 Corinthians epistle, the NT and all the way back to the garden of Eden. IMO
Threaded Mode
