"For This Cause" A Discussion About Angelic Hair

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Isn't angel hair that white fluffy stuff they put in christmas tree ornaments?

silly van dyke-wearing canadian....
it's spaghetti.

[Trouvere]

I remember that.Isn't that fiberglass???

[Nahum]

My thread! You've ruined my beautiful thread!!!!

[Trouvere]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

My thread! You've ruined my beautiful thread!!!!

Isn't it time you buy a new suit? Thread bare should be a clue????

[ManOfWord]

I came across an interesting book a number of years ago that, at least for me, shed valuable light on this whole "hairy" topic. The gist of portions of it was that the "authority" the woman had regarding her hair was the authority she had over it HERSELF. It is not that she has authority ON her head, it is that she has authority OVER her head.

At the price of a long laborious post and criticism for doing so and the fact that I HATE long posts, I will post a portion of which I am referring to. It may take a couple of posts, but I think it is worth it. If you don't, that is fine as well.

[ManOfWord]

We can prove that the usual interpretation of St. Paul’s words about veiling is wrong, because it is a misfit all around.

MISFIT#1 Dr. Weymouth, substitutes something totally different from what the text says. The text reads, “ought to have power,” while Dr. Weymouth, following the usual interpretation, says, “ought to have “power,” here exousia, meaning authority, right; the same word for “power,” and preposition for on, epi, (often translated “over”), with the same construction, will be found in many places, - for instance, Rev. 11:6, “They have power over waters to turn them to blood.” and likewise in Matthew, Mar, and Luke, in the sentence, “The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” Furthermore, the original text here has never been called into question the reading is as simple as it could possibly be, “The woman ought to have power over (rendered “on” in the English Versions) her head. No scholar questions this.

At this place, the Authorised Version introduces the longest Marginal Note to be found in the whole Bible. Where Paul says, “ought to have power,” the Note reads, “That is, a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband.” This is certainly a most extraordinary substitute for the words of Scripture. Had it read merely, that she was to be “under power” even that would have been a contradiction of the explicit statement of St. Paul; but they add to this contradicting though: The woman is not only expected to yield to authority, instead of wielding authority, but also to “wear a sign” that she renounces the authority Paul gives her. And not only is she to renounce that authority, but to renounce it in favour of a particular person, - her husband. The BIBLE/St. Paul says nothing of this sort, but the Marginal Note, and the Bible Commentators teach it.

For our part, we think it suspicious because that husbands, not wives, have discovered this extraordinary meaning for St. Paul’s words. If indeed a woman should wear “a sign of subjection” (and scholars can produce no Scriptural proof that a veil is a sign of subjection) then why should it not rather be a sign of subjection to God, who she serves in prophesying, or who she addresses in prayer?

Why is the husband thrust in by husbands, at this point? Dr. J.W. Thirtle makes the sensible remark here, “The context puts in no plea for anyone outside the woman: it is THE WOMAN’S OWN AUTHORITY that is in question, and the Apostle defends it with his decisive OUGHT.” (the capitals are Dr. Thirtle’s)
The phrase in verse 10 is manifestly a conclusion – the ergo – of all the foregoing arguments of the passage. Now we ask, If you were arguing a point, would you, or would you not, know the point you were arguing? Certainly you would know it. And would know how to state your point? Certainly, even if you could not argue it, for you have your right mind. St. Paul was a highly intelligent person, and to pretend that he know how to argue a point, but could not express the point in plain words, is puerile.

Whether Paul knew how to argue clearly or not, he knew how to state what he was arguing about, or St. Paul’s intelligence was far below the average man’s. And when we believe that St. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit in what he wrote, then we must yield at once that verse 10 means what it says, and we dare not reject its teaching for the “vain traditions of men.”

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

My thread! You've ruined my beautiful thread!!!!

I for one feel terrible about my role in troubling you.

You are visibly upset.

The gigantic font.
Changing the text color.
Inserting the arm-pit washing smiley-head.

Hey man,
for this cause,
forgive me.

[ManOfWord]

Part 2

Of the usual interpretation here, Sir William Ramsay, our present-day most widely accepted authority on St. Paul, says very truly, “Most of the ancient and modern commentators say the “authority” which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject – preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the N.T. where (as they seem to think), Greek words may mean anything that the commentators choose.” Here, then, in the usual interpretation, is a tremendous Misfit.

MISFIT #2 As to the second clause of verse 10, “because of the angels,” a very common explanation, given by Dean Stanley for instance, one of the Translation Committee that produced our Revised Version, is that the angels and women fell into sin together, therefore, he says, “Woman ought not to part with the sign that she is subject, not to them, but to her husband.

The authority of the husband is, as it were, enthroned visibly upon her head, in token that she belongs to him alone, and that she owes no allegiance to anyone else besides, not even to the angels who stand before God’s throne,” This teaching (1) contradicts Heb. 2:2. “The word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward.” (2) It assumes that angels are males, whereas they are sexless, - Mk. 12:25. (3) We have already, in paragraph 158 and note, disposed of the superstition that angels sinned with women. (4) Christian women belong to Christ, who purchased them with His own blood, - not to their husbands. (1Cor. 6:19, 20)

MSFIT #3 Verse 4. Commentators set forth two or three views here: Men dishonor their own heads by wearing “a token of subjection.” If so, then Christ dishonored His head when “He took on Him the form of a servant?” Why are not men called upon to imitate Christ’s humility? Another view is, that because Christ is man’s Head man must not veil in His presence. This is more nearly correct.

But if man must unveil before Christ, because Christ is man’ head, in the same sense Christ is the woman’s head, and therefore she will dishonor Him unless she unveils in His presence. And if it is because of “headship” then, since man is woman’s head, she should, for the same reasons, unveil before man. Here then is a double reason why women should unveil.
But next, in verses 5 and 6, we come to a clear statement which has given occasion for the assumption that Paul is arguing for the veiling of women, not against their veiling. Can we get an explanation for the words, “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head.” Which can be reconciled with St. Paul’s logic for unveiling? We promise a satisfactory explanation in due course. Please note that the penalty, “Let her be shorn or shaven.”

Is softened to “let he cut off her hair,” by Dr. Weymouth, though it is not at all what the words mean. It is too much, even for these hardy expositors, to claim that Paul actually commended the church to punish unveiled women after this fashion.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by tbpew

I for one feel terrible about my role in troubling you.

You are visibly upset.

The gigantic font.
Changing the text color.
Inserting the arm-pit washing smiley-head.

Hey man,
for this cause,
forgive me.

You are a very perceptive young man!
Go and spin no more.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by tbpew

silly van dyke-wearing canadian....
it's spaghetti.

Didn't taste like spaghetti to me.