Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Bringing up head covering as an example is like grasping at straws. It was a matter of custom of the times. And the whole thing to Ephesus has a context of a pagan cult in which the women are the top and are on display rather than covered. Note that Paul did not give these kinds of commands to all the others.
|
Wallace says that it is not a one-off command, but was followed by all the churches:
https://bible.org/article/what-head-...apply-us-today
If we read verse 2 in isolation, it may seem like a local instruction only. However verse 16 says
16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Wallace says:
The noun παραδόσις is no less rich in its theological implications. It is used but five times in Paul, but when it has to do with the traditions that he embraces as a Christian, such are intended to be binding on all. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul instructs the believers to stand firm and hold on to the traditions that he had passed down to them. In 2 Thess 3:6, believers are commanded to stay away from any believers who do not abide by Paul’s traditions. Thus, the verb παραδίδωμι and its nominal cognate, παραδόσις cannot be treated lightly. They do not mean ‘tradition’ in the modern English sense of the word of a nice custom that one can dispense with if desired.
How do we reconcile 1 Cor 11:2 with 1 Cor 11:16? Verse 2 governs v 16. That is to say, because the practice was a παραδόσις, it was put on the level of orthopraxy. It was a doctrine that the early church followed. Since it was on this level, most of the churches followed it religiously. Hence, Paul could appeal to what other churches were doing (v 16) as an appeal to the reasonableness and pragmatic outworking of this ‘tradition.’ This would be like saying, “Christ died for you; therefore, you should observe the Lord’s Supper. Besides, other Christians are already doing this and none have a different practice.” The practice puts flesh to the doctrine.
In sum, the view that 1 Cor 11:2-16 has no relevance today is based squarely on the English text, but not the Greek. It assumes that such traditions are optional, while Paul used words to describe them that he had reserved for the tradition of the death and resurrection of Christ. Surely, such ‘traditions’ are not optional with Paul!
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
But there is a specific instruction in the Bible for all to submit to one another. Once you exclude anyone from having to submit to anyone for any reason, it is not longer one another, but more like "some of you should submit to others."
|
You are reading too much into this verse without considering the many other verses that clearly lay out the social order. Sort of like how some read too much into the verse which Adam left the garden of Eden so Eve must have been left behind. We need to read the bible with a degree of common sense.
You are confusing the general sense of the verse with specific meaning. It does not mean that the social order of parents over children, masters over slaves, and husbands over wives, or rulers over the people, is inverted. When Paul says submit to one another in the fear of Christ, it is implied that he is not upsetting the whole social order that is declared elsewhere. It would not make sense for Paul to be teaching that children submit to parents and masters submit to slaves, or that ruling authorities must submit to the people. There is no common sense with that view, so it is unlikely that it is the correct view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
As for quoting DTS professors, I have been a member of a Bible church that stands somewhat in opposition so some of the DTS positions on women. A church lead by DTS graduates (among others) who spent 18 months concluding that women were going to be allowed to preach to the general congregation. Without pre-vetting of what would be said.
You are throwing the standard "everyone reads it this way" argument in the face of serious questions as to whether it has been read right in the first place. Just finding yet another significant theologian that learned from theologians that learned from theologians that . . . on and on . . . does not prove your point. You dismiss the suggestion as if to say "no one ever asked that question before, so I won't give it the time of day. Case closed." That is too often how well-entrenched positions become well-entrenched. Not by careful consideration of what has been questioned.
|
Wallace is not merely "learning from theologians that learned from theologians" etc. He is an internationally known Greek New Testament scholar who has studied all over the world, and done his research in his own right. By "whether it has been read right in the first place" you seem to be suggesting that even the Greek NT experts like Wallace may be wrong. You are questioning decades of research and their expertise.
The irony is, that those who reject Lee for not being a trained theologian, are themselves rejecting what the trained theologians have to say. Your discussion with Nell has already revealed a few kooky things he or Jane believes in -beyond what they claim about the "lemon translations". They sound just like those who are skeptical of medicine, and refuse to take their children to the doctor or take modern medicine. Their view that there are lemon translations of the bible is bordering on a conspiracy theory.
I knew something was up when I realized that no one on this thread apart from myself was willing to consult the Greek new testament experts on this matter. At first I thought I might find that the Greek NT experts agree with Jane's view. Instead, what I found by reading Wallace and others, was that the original Greek means almost exactly what the supposedly incorrectly translated English verses mean. That is, there is no conspiracy and no mistranslations - the lemon verses are not lemons at all.