STOP WHINING!
6 years ago
Showing posts with label Women's rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women's rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
I Corinthians 11:10
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels (NKJ)
Then: Paul gives the Corinthians two rationales. The first, a visible symbol reminds worshipers of the Lord's past action in creation. He brought the woman out of man for the sake of man. Unexpectedly though, Paul does not follow up by restating that the woman's head ought to be covered. Instead he moves to a philosophical wording of "power on her head." If he had stayed with the literal, the comparison would have been clear. He didn't. So how is "power" to be understood? Some translate the words as "sign of authority" and some add the word "head covering." Fee (p. 839) says that in some textual use the Greek pronoun means "control of" rather than "power over."
As discussed before, confusion comes from the implications of Paul's analogical detail of covering. It doesn't come from his teachings about conducting worship services in an orderly manner. In the first translation - "authority on" women have no choice - whether they believe or do not believe in Christ. For women, Christ's death did not restore the creation on earth as God originally intended it. On earth, women's sin in the garden is still unforgiven because the effect of the sin stays in place even during worship services. In the second translation, women may choose to subject themselves to the authority of Christ, deny self, put others first and subject themselves to the needs and spiritual good of all co-believers in the kingdom - men and women. They have equal access to the Lord and equal freedom to use gifts given through the Spirit. In the second translation, a head covering is symbolic of the Lord's original creation and reminder of what happened before. Baker's notes (p. 157) present another predominant understanding regarding "power." Because of the Greek grammar, the translation has to have an active, not a passive sense. Therefore, when a woman wore a head covering she was exhibiting and taking personal control over her own head and demonstrating a choice to honor her husband or other male authority. Through here personal action, she was authorized to take part in worship with men. The head covering shows that authorization.
The verse's second rational follows the word "because." The woman needs "power on her head" because of the angels." No one is sure what Paul meant by bringing in the angels. Consequently, the verse's acceptance and understandings for the Corinthians is a matter of conjecture. A few commentators (including Augustine) believed that angels are present in church services. Although personal experience is never a verifiable basis for knowing truth, it is the reason I know angels are present.* Assuming Paul knew angels were present in worship services, some commentators state that women's head covering maintains a sex distinction which bears witness to the angels of the Lord's greatness in his creation. The distinction is necessary because eventually humans will have authority over the angels. That authority needs to be accepted by the angels themselves. Certainly, it is a conclusion of this section of Paul's presentation.
Now: In western societies women do not stick to specific dress codes. Variety and diversity is the mark of the day. Technology advancements allow for limitless production of clothing styles, materials, and appearance. The main goal for Christian women is to be modest, be functional in a work place, and be fairly acceptable to mainstream fashions. Looking wierd erects barriers which can signal disapproval of non-believers. It also precludes initial, friendly contacts wherein the gospel might be taught. Since dress is so varied, saying that women have to wear dresses and men slacks in church is meaningless.** The male/female distinctions of creation are obvious. If the translation of the verb means "self-control," the voluntary submission of personal goals and desires to the good of co-believers, provides no problem in today's services; however, if the translation means the necessity of displaying a literal, physical authority of men over women, then few services are in compliance.
Extra source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians by Gordon D. Fee (Eerdman's 1987) online http://books.google.com/books?id=XlBp10nUTXAC&dq=Gordon+Fee+Bible+commentator&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=SwLNSu3nA4v6Mf2XlDo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.
*(Instance of hearing the angels sing -- Once with my head bowed and singing the doxology during a service, I heard the roof creak, crackle and open. Then I could hear thousands of angels joining in the song.)
**(Second problem here - Paul only talked about head coverings.)
Then: Paul gives the Corinthians two rationales. The first, a visible symbol reminds worshipers of the Lord's past action in creation. He brought the woman out of man for the sake of man. Unexpectedly though, Paul does not follow up by restating that the woman's head ought to be covered. Instead he moves to a philosophical wording of "power on her head." If he had stayed with the literal, the comparison would have been clear. He didn't. So how is "power" to be understood? Some translate the words as "sign of authority" and some add the word "head covering." Fee (p. 839) says that in some textual use the Greek pronoun means "control of" rather than "power over."
As discussed before, confusion comes from the implications of Paul's analogical detail of covering. It doesn't come from his teachings about conducting worship services in an orderly manner. In the first translation - "authority on" women have no choice - whether they believe or do not believe in Christ. For women, Christ's death did not restore the creation on earth as God originally intended it. On earth, women's sin in the garden is still unforgiven because the effect of the sin stays in place even during worship services. In the second translation, women may choose to subject themselves to the authority of Christ, deny self, put others first and subject themselves to the needs and spiritual good of all co-believers in the kingdom - men and women. They have equal access to the Lord and equal freedom to use gifts given through the Spirit. In the second translation, a head covering is symbolic of the Lord's original creation and reminder of what happened before. Baker's notes (p. 157) present another predominant understanding regarding "power." Because of the Greek grammar, the translation has to have an active, not a passive sense. Therefore, when a woman wore a head covering she was exhibiting and taking personal control over her own head and demonstrating a choice to honor her husband or other male authority. Through here personal action, she was authorized to take part in worship with men. The head covering shows that authorization.
The verse's second rational follows the word "because." The woman needs "power on her head" because of the angels." No one is sure what Paul meant by bringing in the angels. Consequently, the verse's acceptance and understandings for the Corinthians is a matter of conjecture. A few commentators (including Augustine) believed that angels are present in church services. Although personal experience is never a verifiable basis for knowing truth, it is the reason I know angels are present.* Assuming Paul knew angels were present in worship services, some commentators state that women's head covering maintains a sex distinction which bears witness to the angels of the Lord's greatness in his creation. The distinction is necessary because eventually humans will have authority over the angels. That authority needs to be accepted by the angels themselves. Certainly, it is a conclusion of this section of Paul's presentation.
Now: In western societies women do not stick to specific dress codes. Variety and diversity is the mark of the day. Technology advancements allow for limitless production of clothing styles, materials, and appearance. The main goal for Christian women is to be modest, be functional in a work place, and be fairly acceptable to mainstream fashions. Looking wierd erects barriers which can signal disapproval of non-believers. It also precludes initial, friendly contacts wherein the gospel might be taught. Since dress is so varied, saying that women have to wear dresses and men slacks in church is meaningless.** The male/female distinctions of creation are obvious. If the translation of the verb means "self-control," the voluntary submission of personal goals and desires to the good of co-believers, provides no problem in today's services; however, if the translation means the necessity of displaying a literal, physical authority of men over women, then few services are in compliance.
Extra source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians by Gordon D. Fee (Eerdman's 1987) online http://books.google.com/books?id=XlBp10nUTXAC&dq=Gordon+Fee+Bible+commentator&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=SwLNSu3nA4v6Mf2XlDo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.
*(Instance of hearing the angels sing -- Once with my head bowed and singing the doxology during a service, I heard the roof creak, crackle and open. Then I could hear thousands of angels joining in the song.)
**(Second problem here - Paul only talked about head coverings.)
1 Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (KJV)
Then: Still in the account of creation, Paul continues his explanation for 11:7 that women are the glory of men and men the glory of God. N. T. Wright (p. 138) translates "for" as "for the sake of." The Corinthians could understand the comparison and Paul's desire that worship services display the distinctions of gender.
Now: Some commentators (i.e., Hayes, p. 191) separate acts of worship (functions) from the necessity to worship according to one's personality, individuality, sex and spiritual gifts. The corporate body is made of all, with gender as being a prominent distinction. Hayes believes Paul is prohibiting actions which blur gender distinctions because that does not honor God. Hayes also concludes that neither Paul's purpose nor text limits women's use of their gifts and talents in worship. Paul's original intent was to bring order out of disorder and dissension. Women in the first century could teach and preach. It was only later interpretations which imposed restrictions. It would have been helpful to modern readers to know exactly what the original questions inspiring this letter entailed. That could have better focused and specified western twenty-first century understanding of Paul's missive.
Extra Source: First Corinthians by Richard B. Hayes (John Knox Press, 1997) on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=M_PC0PAs3VYC&dq=1+Corinthians+and+Richard+B.+Hays&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=2oPcStDCIIvf8Aaq0Ki3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CCMQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=1%20Corinthians%20and%20Richard%20B.%20Hays&f=false
Then: Still in the account of creation, Paul continues his explanation for 11:7 that women are the glory of men and men the glory of God. N. T. Wright (p. 138) translates "for" as "for the sake of." The Corinthians could understand the comparison and Paul's desire that worship services display the distinctions of gender.
Now: Some commentators (i.e., Hayes, p. 191) separate acts of worship (functions) from the necessity to worship according to one's personality, individuality, sex and spiritual gifts. The corporate body is made of all, with gender as being a prominent distinction. Hayes believes Paul is prohibiting actions which blur gender distinctions because that does not honor God. Hayes also concludes that neither Paul's purpose nor text limits women's use of their gifts and talents in worship. Paul's original intent was to bring order out of disorder and dissension. Women in the first century could teach and preach. It was only later interpretations which imposed restrictions. It would have been helpful to modern readers to know exactly what the original questions inspiring this letter entailed. That could have better focused and specified western twenty-first century understanding of Paul's missive.
Extra Source: First Corinthians by Richard B. Hayes (John Knox Press, 1997) on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=M_PC0PAs3VYC&dq=1+Corinthians+and+Richard+B.+Hays&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=2oPcStDCIIvf8Aaq0Ki3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CCMQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=1%20Corinthians%20and%20Richard%20B.%20Hays&f=false
1 Corinthians 11:8
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man (KJV)
Then: Paul is justifying and explaining the basis of his reasoning about the concept of glory. For Jewish Christians it would have been obvious. For former gentiles, less so. Their knowledge about the creation would have been spotty.
Now: Those who know the Old Testament have no trouble realizing Paul is talking about the creation. Others might need clarification. The verse is the foremost justification for male authority over women when the understanding of headship is "boss," not "source."
Then: Paul is justifying and explaining the basis of his reasoning about the concept of glory. For Jewish Christians it would have been obvious. For former gentiles, less so. Their knowledge about the creation would have been spotty.
Now: Those who know the Old Testament have no trouble realizing Paul is talking about the creation. Others might need clarification. The verse is the foremost justification for male authority over women when the understanding of headship is "boss," not "source."
1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man (KJV)
Then: The verse has been used for so long as a means to deny women an equal place in the Lord's kingdom that it is impossible to discover what the Corinthians thought Paul meant -- although commentators try. Thiselton (p. 802) refers to Pomeroy's presentation which shows that the glorified status of men was displayed and inferred from the clothing worn by their mothers, sisters, and wives. Thiselton finds the meanings of "head" to be "source." Fee (p. 116) discusses the praise and honor which men give God because they are created in his image. The verse in Genesis 2 infers, but does not state that God the Father also created women in his image. Clearly though, the man did not create the woman. The source for both is the Lord, so the point is the glory as it flows out not a glory which returns to the source. Once more, the verse does remind hearers that there were two different stages in the creation of man. Paul's statement relates to his belief that the worship service represent the Lord's work.
Now: More attention is paid to assumed, follow-up requirements. Because of the creation, men honor God with their daily activites, their behavior (including clothing), and their life goals (Baker, p. 163). Women are to do the same in respect to their husbands. The sticky concept here is "worship." For women to worship their husband, fathers, pastor, or other male is unacceptable. The problem comes from not limiting the meaning of the verse to "glory" coming from God and proceeding through others. Respect, honor, obedience and worship of the Lord are natural responses of all believers is undeniable and Paul teaches it - elsewhere. Mutual submission of males and females is also taught - elsewhere.
Extra source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text by Anthony C. Thiselton (Authentic Media, c2000) online at http://books.google.com/books?id=IHG_DNLpmroC&dq=1st+Corinthian+commentaries&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=W9fQSpC1GILplAfHiumoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=falseThe First Epistle to the Corinthians by Gordon D. Fee (Eerdman's 1987) online http://books.google.com/books?id=XlBp10nUTXAC&dq=Gordon+Fee+Bible+commentator&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=SwLNSu3nA4v6Mf2XlDo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.
Then: The verse has been used for so long as a means to deny women an equal place in the Lord's kingdom that it is impossible to discover what the Corinthians thought Paul meant -- although commentators try. Thiselton (p. 802) refers to Pomeroy's presentation which shows that the glorified status of men was displayed and inferred from the clothing worn by their mothers, sisters, and wives. Thiselton finds the meanings of "head" to be "source." Fee (p. 116) discusses the praise and honor which men give God because they are created in his image. The verse in Genesis 2 infers, but does not state that God the Father also created women in his image. Clearly though, the man did not create the woman. The source for both is the Lord, so the point is the glory as it flows out not a glory which returns to the source. Once more, the verse does remind hearers that there were two different stages in the creation of man. Paul's statement relates to his belief that the worship service represent the Lord's work.
Now: More attention is paid to assumed, follow-up requirements. Because of the creation, men honor God with their daily activites, their behavior (including clothing), and their life goals (Baker, p. 163). Women are to do the same in respect to their husbands. The sticky concept here is "worship." For women to worship their husband, fathers, pastor, or other male is unacceptable. The problem comes from not limiting the meaning of the verse to "glory" coming from God and proceeding through others. Respect, honor, obedience and worship of the Lord are natural responses of all believers is undeniable and Paul teaches it - elsewhere. Mutual submission of males and females is also taught - elsewhere.
Extra source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text by Anthony C. Thiselton (Authentic Media, c2000) online at http://books.google.com/books?id=IHG_DNLpmroC&dq=1st+Corinthian+commentaries&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=W9fQSpC1GILplAfHiumoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=falseThe First Epistle to the Corinthians by Gordon D. Fee (Eerdman's 1987) online http://books.google.com/books?id=XlBp10nUTXAC&dq=Gordon+Fee+Bible+commentator&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=SwLNSu3nA4v6Mf2XlDo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
