|
Re: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanah
Quote:
Notes from my ESV study Bible
1 CORINTHIANS—NOTE ON 11:10 wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. More literally, a “wife ought to have authority [Gk. exousia] over her head,” where the word “authority” refers to a head covering, which was a symbol of authority. This probably means, in the context of the Corinthian church, that the wife should wear a covering over her head as a sign that she is under her husband’s authority.
|
The surety of opinion is overwhelming in this commentary, said facetiously. Probably is used twice. (Kudos to them for saying 'probably' instead of saying 'definitely'. If you think you are ambiguous it is better to indicate so rather than indicating you are definite.) An opinion is offered and followed by the counter-offering of another. No blame is placed on these commentators, when all readers seek to find a view of 1Co11 without holes which covers all the bases. Opinions of things thus must be expressed when looking for a view, which hopefully will be accepted by all without controversy.
That having been said, it is still needed to be explained by holders of the veil view, why v15 says that a woman's long uncut hair is given for the veil. This verse seemingly contradicts that which the veil view says is a good point. This verse is a huge problem for them. Better is to find a view which doesn't present holes such as this. Those who have read my commentary may remember the points I made concerning v15.
Quote:
|
Others, however, suggest that a head covering is a sign of the woman’s authority to prophesy in church, or to participate generally in the church assembly. because of the angels. This probably refers to the invisible heavenly beings (6:3; Heb. 1:7) who are present with the Corinthians when they worship (cf. Ps. 138:1) and whose presence makes propriety in worship that much more important. The NT elsewhere uses the fact that angels are watching as one motive for obeying God’s commands (see 1 Tim. 5:21; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 1:12).
|
If the ESV view is the view you hold, do you not load the gun of the other side, who say that the cover is not just for times of worship? These verses about angels do not refer just to times of prayer and prophecy, which you seem to contend for, saying the apostle is saying when the veil should be present.
If you are going to quote verses that only mention angels, in contexts showing times other than times of worship, then why stop with just these verses and quote all the verses which only mention angels. Then you would have the appearance of having hundreds of verses showing support for your view. That you use such tactics shows you must be reaching for proof which otherwise isn't there. But such tactics must then be used by you, when the view you hold doesn't have Biblical support which can be called upon. Change your view and then you will find support for it in the Word, and won't need to use such tactics.
The following quote is a poorly constructed paragraph. Better support for your views would have been given had you taken more time with it.
Quote:
|
1 CORINTHIANS—NOTE ON 11:16 See 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 14:33, 36 for Paul’s appeal to the practice of other churches. no such practice. That is, “no such practice” as that of those who disagree with Paul (therefore some translations render this “no other practice,” giving about the same sense). Paul’s objective is to bring the Corinthians into conformity with generally accepted Christian behavior.
|
Quote:
|
1 CORINTHIANS—NOTE ON 11:16 See 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 14:33, 36
|
These verses are strong evidence that Paul teaches everywhere the same, but doesn't yet show what it is that Paul teaches about co/unco. A person in my position would say that Paul teaches every church about the instinct view. A person who believes that women should wear a veil during worship times would say that Paul teaches that view in every church. Ditto with the uncut long view.
Quote:
|
for Paul’s appeal to the practice of other churches. no such practice. That is, “no such practice” as that of those who disagree with Paul (therefore some translations render this “no other practice,” giving about the same sense). for Paul’s appeal to the practice of other churches. no such practice. That is, “no such practice” as that of those who disagree with Paul (therefore some translations render this “no other practice,” giving about the same sense).
|
Actually it substantially changes the meaning when the Greek says 'such' and not 'other'. As shown in my commentary, which I now refer the reader to, some translators err in their translation methods. See page 98ff, which I won't repeat here, for this explanation.
Quote:
|
Paul’s objective is to bring the Corinthians into conformity with generally accepted Christian behavior.
|
No doubt this is true. Readers of 1Co11 continue to search for an explanation of it that doesn't have holes which another view can poke at. Hopefully the instinct view is one which doesn't have such holes. After examination by many it may be shown to have holes. As of yet I don't know that holes have been exposed. |
.
|