CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
No, I'm saying that Paul and the Corinthians share information between them that we don't know about. We weren't present when he delivered the traditions of which he spoke. All we can do is deduce the tradition from clues in the text. I said this in response to your accusation that I am "philosophizing the text" which is an unfair and incorrect accusation. The best way to study the Bible is to avoid dismissing our questions. Intellectual curiosity is an essential ingredient in Bible study.So are you suggesting we can simply ignore the ep[istles because they were to written to us specifically?
We should always be ready to ask questions like, "why did he say it THAT way? What did this mean to his readers? Would they have understood his points? What problem is Paul addressing?
He seems to be speaking about the tradition of removing the head covering while praying and prophesying. And he praises them for wanting to keep that tradition. What we don't know is why he delivered that tradition or what significance Paul gave it. But we do know, from this epistle, that his instruction concerning the removal of the head covering presented a problem for the women, because if a woman were to remove her head covering to pray and prophesy just as the men were doing, this would cause her to disrespect her husband. THIS is the problem Paul decides to address in his letter.
Really? Are you unfamiliar with the OT prophets and the linguistic pattern associated with the pronouncement of the Oracles? When a prophet speaks for God, the prophet says, "Thus saith the Lord." Nothing like that appears in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians. We have no reason to believe that Paul is presenting oracles from God.YOu are making Paul this linguistic scholar superb and knowledgeable of all the finer points and nuances of argument.. but this dictum comes from God and not Paul.
Rather, a careful examination of the passage reveals Paul's defense of his position that a woman ought to leave her head covering on her head while praying or prophesying. In other words, he wants the Corinthians to become convinced in their own minds that a woman ought to continue to wear her head covering during prayer and prophesying based on the reasons he gives.
Let's review each verse and look for imperatives -- verbs that express what one ought to do.
Verse 1: imperative -- Be imitators of me, just as I am of Christ.
Verse 2: statement of fact
Verse 3: statement of fact
Verse 4: statement of fact
Verse 5: statement of fact
Verse 6: if-then conditional.
Verse 7: statement of ethical principle -- a man ought not to have his head covered, since . . .
Verse 8: statement of fact
Verse 9: statement of fact
Verse 10: statement of ethical principle -- a woman ought to have "authority" on her head, because . . .
Verse 11: statement of fact
Verse 12: statement of fact
Verse 13: imperative -- judge for yourselves
Verse 14: interrogative
Verse 15: statement of fact
Verse 16: statement of fact.
A review of the text has shown only TWO imperatives: 1) be imitators of me, and 2) judge for yourselves. We also have two statements of ethical principle where Paul gives a man reason to remove his hat during prayer and prophesying, (Verse 7) and he gives a woman reason to keep her hat on during prayer and prophesying. (Verse 10)
If Paul's intent was simply to relay two commandments of God, then all he needed to do was give a clear command, "Men shall remove the hat while praying and prophesying, But not the women. A woman should keep her hat on her head while praying and prophesying." But that is not what Paul did. He didn't list two oracles of God. Instead, he gave them ethical principles based on reason to do as he says. A man ought to do one thing, based on the reason given, and a woman ought to do the opposite for the reason given. These ethical principles continue for as long as the reasons remain valid.
If the reasons are no longer valid, then the ethical principle is no longer valid.
Paul tells a woman that she ought to wear her head covering because of the angels, and I maintain that he refers to the messages the head coverings convey. He states that a woman ought to wear "authority" on her head, which is a short-hand way of saying, she ought to wear the head covering because it represents her husband's authority over her. That is what the head covering means in that culture. And she should continue to wear her head covering because to do otherwise will be a sign of disrespect to her husband. Why? Because THAT is what removing the head covering MEANS.
A cultural symbol is a physical manifestation that signifies the ideology of a particular culture or that merely has meaning within a culture. In her particular culture, a woman wore a head covering as a sign of respect. She respects her husband and so she wears the covering. In Paul's view, this act of respect, the wife for the husband, should be both encouraged and acknowledged. God himself teaches that a woman ought to respect her husband.
But, if she should remove her head covering during prayer or prophesying, just as her husband does, this would inadvertently signal disrespect for her husband. For this reason, Paul says, the wife should not imitate her husband and remove her covering. She should continue to wear her symbol of respect because of the message it conveys.