Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1
The quote below from DB's response seems very LS & RR like;
Verse 10. The angels are involved with this subject, as they observe the obedience or disobedience of humans to God’s plan. The angels desire to look into our salvation (I Peter 1:12). Pride and rebellion caused the fall of Satan and many angels (I Timothy 3:6; Isaiah 14:12-15). Thus, a woman should have “power” on her head on her head as an example to the angels. The Greek word here is exousia, meaning “authority,” and in this context it indicates a mark or sign of authority. The angels look to see if women have the sign of consecration, submission, and power with God, or if they are rebellious like Satan. Women’s hair shows the angels whether or not the church is submissive to Christ, the head of the church. |
I don't take Bernard's statement here that way. One can sort of compare and contrast the two views but I don't see them as being parallel. That being said...
What Bernard seems to imply is an appeal to a sort of sympathetic magic. And despite the name, I'm not necessarily against "sympathetic magic" in all respects.
But to be clear, I am using the term in it's technical and academic sense and
NOT advocating wands and brooms.
Jesus taught us to pray: "... Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..." (
Matthew 6:10) The Bible is filled with references and instructions that we should do things on the earth after a "pattern" that is set in the heavens (see for example
Exodus 25:9 and
Exodus 25:40).
Matthew 18:15-20 seems to state that if we follow the will of our Father in heaven, then we can actually change some "patterns" in the heavens and the earth. It is the following or seeking to follow this "pattern" relationship that the term "sympathetic magic" is used.
The ancient people held "the heavens" to be a place of perfection. That's one of the reason's Galileo's telescope was looked upon with suspicion- it seemed to show "the heavens" that people were looking at as being governed by the same laws of motion as things on the earth. This of course didn't really contradict the Bible, but it threw a lot of people's preconceptions for a loop.
Many ancient monumental sites were set up to reflect "the heavens" on the earth. The pyramids at Giza and Stonehenge are just two examples. In the case of Giza, the main pyramids appear to be aligned like the stars in the constellation Orion's belt. Orion was important to the ancient Egyptians because the rising of the "dog star" Sirius coincided with the annual flood of the Nile. Stonehenge was aligned to point out the solstices and equinox. These were times of grain planting in neolitic England.
If the ancients followed a certain "pattern" in the heavens then they could more or less reliably predict the seasonal phenomena that governed their lives. There was deep and important "magic" in this. It meant the difference between famine and survival for ancient communities.
So it is into this context that Paul warns of a rebellion "in the heavens" and the need for us to pattern our lives in ways that are contrary to that rebellion. We should show ourselves to be under submission to the correct authorities and not lifted up with hautiness and say, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north..." (
Isaiah 14:13).
(
And for those who can't keep up... NO, I'm not suggesting that David Bernard advocates building pyramids and megaliths. Nor does he appear to, and nor do I advocate the worship of the constellation Orion or the Dog Star. Nor am I advocating the use of "spells" and such
).
Context is key to understanding any literature, the Bible included. You have to put yourself into the 1st century to truly understand the way people looked at things. It was to those people that Paul was speaking directly.
Bernard's analysis seems to compare the rebellion of Satan and his angels with the natural inclination toward rebellion in the human heart. He seems to be advocating a method in which we can "show" ourselves to not be in league with that rebellion.
I am in a agreement with him to a degree. The principle seems clear, however what one "shows" of their person will be interpreted differently in different contexts. Paul gives us the 1st century Hellenic context which is great. The question is, how far do we have to go in attempting to look like 1st century Hellenes? And the question that most folks want to debate here is: is any of this salvific? Bernard's opening paragraph is excellent on this question.
Threaded Mode
