File Info : Proposition #4: Concerning Headship and Coverture (11:2-16) | EBOOK DOWNLOAD :PROPOSITION #4: CONCERNING HEADSHIP AND COVERTURE (11:2-16) |
Contents : Proposition #4: Concerning Headship and Coverture (11:2-16) 11:2 . 11:2 Now I-praise you brethren because you- ye -have-minded me /kept me my instruction in memory regarding-all-things and just-as I-instructed you /I-delivered (them) to-you you- ye are-holding-secure holding-down the instructions /traditions things-delivered . 11:2 It is good policy to commend persons for what they are doing correctly in order to present a positive balance and show there is no ill intention or fault-finding preparing them to graciously receive kindly correction on what they may be doing wrong. Paul praises the Corinthians in general for conscientiously following his instructions which must have included contacting him if any questions arose which they could not resolve. The Corinthians had problems for which Paul rebukes them but his overall evaluation was positive at least as to their intention. After all they aren't contacting him in order not to follow his instructions. Even if they didn't know what to do or how to do it nevertheless they were ready to do it once Paul explained. So Paul explains another issue. "Instructions" are things delivered from one person or group of persons over to the next. The word could be translated "tradition " but "tradition" can have a connotation of mere cultural customs passed down by oral communication with honorary authority which has accumulated over time. Rather Paul by the authority of Christ Jesus is the source and these are directly revealed verbal instructions and instructive examples as to what exactly to do. In modern English we would not call such things "traditions." The King James Version reads "keep the ordinances " from which some have inferred that Paul meant only water baptism and the sharing of the loaf and cup. No doubt these instructions were on the level of directives precepts and ordinances but there is no indication that Paul limited his reference to water baptism and the sharing of the loaf and cup after all there was in fact some serious fault in their practice of the sharing of the loaf and cup and neither water baptism nor the sharing of the loaf and cup directly connect with the following discussion of headcovering. So what instructions (or traditions or ordinances) is this referring to This passage appears to refer to actual practices not merely to principles. Likewise the passages which follow (11:17-14:40) appear to focus on the actual practices within the gathering of the assembly. So 11:3-16 might likewise refer to practices within the gathering of the assembly. The argument against this is that it doesn't actually say this which is a very good argument but not a decisive one. 11:3 : : . 11:3 Yet I-desire for-you to-know that the head of-every man adult-male is Christ and the head of- the -woman adult-female /wife is man adult-male /husband and the head of-Christ is God. 11:3 Paul doesn't simply address this next issue with a directive "do this." Instead he invites their attention to a logical argument ("I desire for you to know") beginning the argument by stating a principle which he will develop point by point into a compelling conclusion which has directive force by reason of its simple and irrefutable logic. This principle is that there is a constitutional order of headship and submission into which everyone fits somewhere. Christ submits to God (John 14:28 1 Corinthians 15:27-28). Wives submit to husbands (Genesis 3:16 Ephesians 5:22 24 Colossians 3:18 1 Peter 3:1 5-6). Children submit to parents (Ephesians 6:1 Colossians 3:20). Servants submit to masters (Ephesians 6:5 Colossians 3:22 1 Timothy 6:1 Titus 2:9 1 Peter 2:18). Populations submit to governments (Romans 13:1 1Timothy 2:1-2 Titus 3:1 1 Peter 2:13-14). Governments submit to Christ (Matthew 28:18 Philippians 2:9-11 Colossians 2:10 1 Peter 3:22). The gathered assembly submits to Christ (Ephesians 1:22 4:15 5:23 Colossians 1:18 2:19). All things submit to Christ under God (Matthew 11:27 John 3:35 13:3 1 Corinthians 15:27 Ephesians 1:22 Hebrews 2:8-9). All things ultimately submit under God (Romans 11:36 Ephesians 4:6). But for Paul to mention here all of these levels and channels of this constitutional order would necessarily distract his readers from his point: Man is by constitutional order head of the woman. If the woman made motions and pretenses so as to usurp the man's headship she would be acting contrary to her constitutional position. This would be unconstitutional and would lead to one constitutional imbalance after another until many things would fall out of order. The same thing would be true if the man or the woman assumed the headship position of Christ or if the man assumed a subservient position to the woman. Some jurisdictions technically allow for exceptions in extreme circumstances. For example women are never encouraged but grammatically are not excluded from positions in government. Some jurisdictions such as in the gathered assembly allow no such exceptions. Deborah the female judge would be a prominent Biblical example of an extraordinary one-time-only exception to this regular order which was made necessary by the failure of male leadership in Israel in an emergency situation an immediate need for decisive action. The fact that it was necessary for Deborah to lead Israel as judge was itself a humiliation to the men of Israel. This established no precedent for women judges. The exception is allowed only for the purpose of survival and only for as long as it takes to restore proper order. "Head" here means the one to whom submission is due (compare Ephesians 5:22-24) (the idea but not the word is in 1 Corinthians 15:28). In other contexts "head" may also mean representative head (the idea but not the word is in Romans 5:12 19) or administrative head (Colossians 2:19). "Man" and "woman" here means adult male and adult female. Though the two terms can mean "husband" and "wife " there is nothing in the context to suggest that these terms are meant to be limited to this meaning either here or anywhere else in this passage. Certainly 11:3 includes husband and wife but to interpret 11:3 as referring only to husband and wife would be to cast a strange interpretation upon the remainder of the passage. 11:4 11:5 . : . 11:4 11:5 Every man praying or prophesying while having anything down over his head continually dishonors /disgraces puts-to-thorough-shame his Head namely Christ . But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not-completely-covered not-as-an-object-for-covering continually dishonors /disgraces puts-to-thorough-shame her own head namely her male protector for it-is in effect one and the same with- her-who -has-been-shaven namely a prostitute . 11:4 Roman men would often cover their heads while performing religious duties. Sodomite men wore long hair. Jewish men prayed with uncovered heads. 11:5 The Jewish woman wore plaited hair held together with bands and coverings. For a Jewish woman to appear with uncovered head outside of the house was considered shameful and would place her in danger of divorce. Among the Jews women guilty of adultery had their heads shaved. Among the Corinthians prostitutes and sodomite women shaved their heads. Paul regards incompletely covered women and shaved women to be essentially equivalent so covering is not considered a matter of degree but is an absolute either she is covered or she isn't. 11:4-5 The woman's head is her male protector if married then her husband if unmarried then her father if orphaned of a father then her eldest brother if no man in the family can responsibly fulfill the role then her situation is very distressed. She may need help from other kinsmen or friends or she may be forced to become her own protector. A widow functions as her own head and protector 1 Corinthians 7:39. Note: this is an entirely different situation from a woman who simply assumes to herself the position of being her own protector. To assume the appearance and demeanor of those above us is to assume their position to dishonor them and to rebel against God's order. A woman is honored in her man and tears down her own house if she desires honor for herself or deflects it from her man. A man is honored in Christ and tears down his own house if he desires honor for himself or deflects it from the Lord. So the woman is honored who looks out for her man's honor and the man is honored who looks out for Christ's honor. Some say this passage proves that an individual woman may directly address the gathered meeting with prayer and prophecy therefore 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 cannot mean what they appear to say about women not speaking in the gathered meeting. First it is uncertain whether this passage is referring to any activity in the gathered meeting. Second the passage speaks only of what a woman may not do. A negative which prohibitis doing a certain thing does not necessarily infer a positive which permits doing any other thing as long as that one prohibited thing is not done unless of course the context clearly indicates that any other thing is permitted which this context does not. When we approach an intersection which has a stop sign if we are prohibitted from driving through without stopping we may not infer from this that at every intersection without a stop sign we may drive straight through without any consideration for stopping. It is uncertain whether this passage refers to activity in the gathered meeting and it is uncertain whether it assumes women may pray and prophesy in the gathered meeting. However these two assertions are not necessarily ruled out. Nevertheless even if we assume that these two assertions are true there is still no reason to assume that the expression "praying and prophesying" includes individuals male or female directly addressing the gathered meeting. For example 1 Corinthians 14:26 lists singing psalms among the regular activities in the gathering. The terms "prayer" and "prophecy" perfectly describe the contents of the psalms. Acts 4:23-31 explicitly declares "they raised their voice to God with one accord" and sang Psalm 2 as a prayer. So if both men and women the congregation sang the psalms of Scripture in the gathered meeting this activity could not possibly be excluded from the expression "praying and prophesying." Congregational singing does not necessarily violate the constitutional order addressed in 11:3. Since Paul does not describe what he included under the expression "praying and prophesying " and since we know that singing the psalms would satisfy the meaning of the expression and since 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 explicitly prohibit women directly addressing the gathered meeting we may conclude that if the passage is speaking approvingly of women praying and prophesying in the gathered meeting then this expression must at least include the congregational singing of psalms but we lack the necessary information to discern whether it refers to anything more or anything else. It is possible that among Christians the expression "praying and prophesying" was actually a technical term (jargon idiom vernacular lingo) for singing the psalms. It is a standard and universal rule of interpretation not just for Scripture but for all of human communication that positive directives and doctrine must be drawn from clear passages directly addressing an issue and that obscure passages which do not directly address an issue must be brought into conformity with the clear and direct passages. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 clearly and directly address the issue of women speaking in the gathered meeting. 1 Corinthians 11:5 and context is admitted by all to be obscure and hard to understand and it certainly does not clearly and directly address the issue of women speaking in the gathered meeting. Hence we stand hermeneutics on its head when we begin with 1 Corinthians 11:5 and from among many possible interpretations we pick the one which happens to fit our fancy then we build our entire understanding of Scripture's teaching on women speaking in the gathered meeting upon our own choice of interpretations contorting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 until they confess to the meaning which we have clearly imported into 1 Corinthians 11:5. 11:6 : . 11:6 For if a woman does- not -have-herself-completely-covered then let-her- also -have-herself-clipped. But since it is shameful /a disgrace for- a -woman to-have-herself-clipped or to-have-herself-shaved then let-her-have-herself-completely-covered. 11:6 The word for "have-herself-completely-covered" is ambiguous as to what the covering is. It can mean "to have the head covered with hair" as well as mean "to cover the head with other things." Paul is arguing that this is an either-or proposition there is no middle ground. He classifies any woman who has her head clipped or sheared with a scissors with a woman who has her head shaved with a razor. Notice his focus upon the woman's hair. 11:7 11:8 11:9 11:10 11:7 : : : : . For a man indeed is-obligated not to-have- his head -completely-covered being-originally-constituted as the image and glory of-God. But the woman exists as the glory of- the -man. 11:8 For man is not constituted out-of woman as his head-source But-rather woman is constituted out-of man as her head-source. 11:9 For also man was- not -created for-the-sake-of the woman but-rather woman was created for-the-sake-of the man. 11:10 On-account-of this constitutional order the woman is-obligated to-have a controlling-authority /coverture upon her head on-account-of the angels /for-the-sake-of the messengers . 11:7 denotes the original state or condition which still exists in contrast to what is temporary or accidental. literally means "to begin below or under that is to begin at the foundation or from the very first " and from that develops the meanings "to come into being at the very beginning " "to begin to be from the start " and later "to be present or at hand " "to subsist or supply what is necessary to existence " "to belong to or be in possession of." simply means "to be" "to exist." The woman is made to correspond to the man to be his counterpart or mate and his helper suited to him to be man's glory even as man is made to be God's glory. 11:8-9 Woman was made out of man and for man to be his helper to multiply his joys pleasures and comforts and to divide his trials afflictions and sorrows to rule his house under him and to care for him. Genesis 2:18-23. 11:10 This passage is obscure but prevailing interpretations do seem to assume that the passage is discussing what takes place within the gathered meeting. One interpretation is that in the general assembly in the presence of God angelic creatures cover themselves with the natural covering of their glorious wings (Isaiah 6:2 Ezekiel 1:11) so likewise women are obligated to follow this example in the sanctuary of the gathered meeting by covering themselves in a similar way. An alternate interpretation is that "angels" may refer to men who speak in the gathered meeting as the messengers of God Ecclesiastes 5:6 Isaiah 42:19 44:26 Haggai 1:13 Malachi 2:7 3:1 Matthew 11:10 Mark 1:2 Luke 7:24 27 9:52 James 2:25 Revelation 1:20 2:1 8 12 18 3:1 7 14. The chief speaker in the Jewish synagogue was called the "angel." So the woman is obligated to have a controlling authority upon her head because she is in the presence of those who speak for God in the gathering. Another common interpretation is that "angels" may refer to angelic beings such as the cherubim who covered the mercy seat within the holiest of holies within the temple. The gathered meeting is explicitly and repeatedly called the holiest of holies the inner sanctuary of the temple. Therefore angelic beings may be invisibly present. Compare 4:9. The weakness of this interpretation is that it is not clear or apparent why only women are obligated to be covered before invisible angels. If we take the words literally then this is not talking about any outward covering at all but about the need for every woman to have a controlling authority over her. Remember it was an angel in the form of a serpent in the midst of the garden who first deceived Eve. Adam should have spoken to the serpent in the midst of the garden not Eve. It was the subtlety of the serpent to attack and kill the man through the woman. The gathered meeting typologically and functionally corresponds to the midst of the garden of God and to the innermost sanctuary of the temple the holiest of all. Would we invite Eve to speak No. In the presence of angels she needs Adam the head and controlling authority over her to speak. 11:11 11:12 : . 11:11 Nevertheless neither does a man exist apart from a woman nor does a woman exist apart from a man in the design of the Lord. 11:12 For just-as the woman is constituted from the man in-this-way also the man is born through the woman but all things derive from God as their Head-Source. 11:7-12 Man is the initial cause of woman and woman is the instrumental cause of man but the ultimate cause of both is God. Here Paul supplies a needed balancing point. Man and woman need each other in every respect. Everywhere in Scripture woman is placed in subjection to or under the authority of the man but nowhere in Scripture is woman placed in subjugation to or under the enslaving power of the man. They each have their respective roles and are mutually accountable to Christ under God for their mutual relationship. 11:13 11:14 11:15 : : : 11:13 Judge +ye among /Decide for your-own-selves: is-it proper /fitting-to-the-circumstances /suitable for a woman to-be-praying to-God while not-completely-covered No it is not proper. 11:14 Or does- not-even the nature of the thing itself -teach you that if a man on-the-one-hand should-be-wearing-a-head-of-long-hair it-is a mark of dishonor /disgrace to-him Yes its nature does teach us this. 11:15 While-on-the-other-hand if a woman should-be-wearing-a-head-of-long-hair it-is a mark of dignity glory to-her Yes its nature does teach us this. Because the head-of-long-hair has-been- once-for-all -given to-her by God in-the-place-of /answering-to /corresponding-to a veiling-apparel /cloak what-is-wrapped-around . 11:13-15 It was one of the regular occupations of the gathered meeting to carefully and concientiously deliberate and eventually render judgement on matters. (e.g. 1 Corinthians 2:15 5:12 6:2-5 10:15 11:31 14:20 24 29) Paul is confident in submitting his argument to their judgement. Until this point Paul has avoided using any word which would necessarily imply an article of apparel. Here at the very end of his argument the word for "veiling apparel" a cloth wrapping which is thrown around the head is explicitly mentioned but Paul explicitly states that the head of long hair by its natural design does the very thing which this veiling apparel is manufactured to do. The grammar expects a "no" answer to the question about the propriety of a woman praying while not completely covered. is used to introduce a question expecting a positive answer. The grammar expects a "yes" answer to each of the comparative questions "does not even the nature of the thing itself teach you ...." Women's hair naturally grows thicker faster and women are much less prone to baldness. Women are smaller and more delicate than men (1 Peter 3:7) and by general acclamation across cultures grown women meet a standard of beauty which is not even applied to grown men and their hair is a large part of that beauty the exceptions arguably proving the rule. Men are rarely known for their hair while women are rarely known apart from it. Long hair on men or short hair on women is cross-culturally and universally considered a sign of distress or perversion. To anyone who would argue that it means no such thing in our culture today we would ask the obvious question: "Does a culture in distress or filled with perversion see itself that way " 11:15 "Given to her" is certainly a theological passive pointing to God as the source thereby expressing God's authority and approval. The head of long hair stands in the position of being a veiling apparel. This does not rule out wearing an additional veiling-apparel but it does clearly declare that long hair itself sufficiently functions as a veil not unlike an angel's natural covering of wings. If a woman is balding or has cropped hair for whatever the special reason an additional veiling-apparel or a wig would seem appropriate. 11:16 . 11:16 Now since someone intends /seems /presumes /has a mind to-be contentious /argumentative /quarrelsome fond-of-strife about this matter let it be said that we-ourselves the Apostles are- not -holding-to any custom /usage of such kind as this last mentioned wearing special apparel and-neither are the assemblies congregations /gatherings of-God. 11:16 This is a first class condition which means it assumes the proposition to be true at least for the sake of discussion. Since Paul has been answering particular questions throughout this epistle in this context we may assume this discourse is the answer to one of those questions and we may translate "since" instead of merely "if." "Custom" means an established usage a practice. Some suggest that the "no such custom" refers to an established practice in the Corinthian gathering of men being covered and women being uncovered while praying and prophesying. This seems most unlikely for the simple reason that the Gentile culture would not necessarily require it and the Jewish culture would not be prone to tolerate it. It seems more likely that the passage is a cleverly constructed argument in favor of the conclusion and that the "no such custom" refers to the content of the conclusion. (One's presuppositions will drive his conclusions.) If the passage is an argument and the last half of verse 15 is the conclusion then verse 16 clinches the conclusion. The argument would follow this train of thought: 1. -- (11:2) The Corinthians had written Paul concerning several questions. Apparently some members of the gathering (probably Jews) had written to Paul about the need for women to cover themselves presumably with cloth veils possibly in the gathered meeting and they saw this issue of women covering themselves on the level of authoritative apostolic instruction. 2. -- (11:3) Paul argues strongly for the headship of the man and the submission of the woman to the man agreeing in principle with those who advocate cloth veils for women. 3. -- (11:4-5) Paul argues strongly that it is shameful for women not to wear something on their head when praying and prophesying agreeing in principle with those who advocate cloth veils for women. (If this is taking place in the gathering then this may refer to singing psalms which is praying and prophesying and which all men and women would participate in.) 4. -- (11:6) Paul argues strongly that a woman with hair clipped or shorn is the opposite of the woman with her head completely covered agreeing in principle with those who advocate cloth veils for women. However Paul introduces a contrast. This contrast is not between either covering the hair completely with a cloth veil or else uncovering the hair partially or completely. Rather this contrast is between either being completely covered with anything or else having the hair itself partially or completely cut off. Those who advocate cloth veils for women have to agree in principle with this statement but they may squirm a bit when they realize that Paul's argument is not based upon a covering of the head with a cloth veil but simply upon the covering of the head. By introducing the absence of hair as an inadequate covering Paul has subtly introduced hair as an adequate covering an implicit point which will become explicit at the conclusion of his argument. If those who advocate cloth veils for women have to agree with Paul's statement here then they will not be able to resist the force of his conclusion later.
- Rating :
- Surf Anonymously!
- File Type : .pdf
- Length : 6 pages
- File Size: 175.6 kb
- Virus Tested : No
- Verified : 2013-03-28
- Source: www.triviumpursuit.com
INFO HASH : bb00408b73b044663eef7226e2e08327ae7ad7fc