Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Have you ever considered that Paul's views on women's roles in the church, like the matter of head-covering, were a safeguard to them because of first century cultural views?
|
I am open to God changing His mind for modern times, as I believe in continuing revelation, however if we restrict ourselves to what only the bible says, and consider that Paul's reasoning for it is based upon timeless truths, I think it unlikely to be only for the first century. If we consider the Greek text, the reasons Paul gives for it (none of which are about safeguards, except perhaps with regard to angels) and how it was actually practiced in the early church and still practiced until the 20th Century, it seems undeniably relevant for today. Consider that Paul only appeals to the functional hierarchy within the Trinity and between man and woman, the creation of man, angels, nature, and the universal church.
The key is 1 Corinthians 11:2 and the Greek translation of two words, the one for ordinances and the one for delivered:
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (KJV)
The Greek word paradosis for traditions/ordinances is a strong word, the same word being found in 2 Thess 2:15 concerning the gospel, and 2 Thess 3:6 where Paul commands to keep away from those not holding to the traditions.
The verb delivered, paradidómi, is also a strong word. When Paul says "..I delivered (paradidómi) them to you", this is on the level of doctrinal importance, not optional preference.
It is the same word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15:3:
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I
delivered (paradidómi) unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Because of this, the matter is on the level of orthopraxy, and not an optional custom. Verse 2 governs the rest of the chapter, where what follows in verses 3,4,5 etc regarding head coverings are those traditions/ordinances spoken of in verse 2.
We then come to 1 Corinthians 11:16 in which Paul says the churches have no other custom, clearly showing that his instructions are observed by all the churches. Because it was on the level of orthopraxy as seen by verse 2, Paul could appeal to the fact that most of the other churches were following it in verse 16.
We then see in verses 3-9 that Paul bases this instruction on the (functional, not ontological) hierarchy within the Trinity - God the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, and man the head of the woman:
1 Cor 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
and on Creation -
1 Corinthians 11:8-9 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
And Paul makes clear that these are the reasons for it:
1 Cor 11:10 - That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head,
Paul mentions nothing about safeguarding women or any other cultural or particular circumstance at the time.
Then we see how the early church practiced it. I think the historical evidence points to the fact that it was observed in the church well into the middle ages and later, which also indicates a "first century only" view is incorrect. If it were only a first century thing, we might expect to see women throwing off their head coverings shortly thereafter. Head covering was practiced by most Christian women until the 20th Century:
Earle, Alice Morse (1903). Two Centuries of Costume in America, Vol. 2 (1620–1820). The Macmillan Company. p. 582. “One singular thing may be noted in this history, – that with all the vagaries of fashion, woman has never violated the Biblical law that bade her cover her head. She has never gone to church services bareheaded.”