Also, interestingly, all the churches have the same practice.. including the church at Jerusalem which was 'zealous for the law' (Acts 21). It seems that that particular zeal characterized that church over the span of time. Ultimately, the kind of zeal in Jerusalem was immature from a Christian perspective, although the Apostles were willing to 'work with it' knowing that the time of reformation would come. But my point is that the uniformity of practice spanned all churches including Jerusalem.. there could be a good indication there, of continuity from Jewish times and even before (Abraham's extended family). It would seem strong that the leading aspect in 1 Cor 11 is universal (Christ is the head of every man, etc)
I am actually more intrigued by the appeal to nature in v. 14 than the OT parallels, as valuable as that comparison will be. The didactic power of nature is such that Paul can say, more or less, "you ought to know this just by looking at male and female." It raises for me the question of whether we even need Scripture as a justification to have our wives covered in worship - Paul seems to self consciously appeal to nature as an even more plain witness than his own words he writes on the matter. What do you think? Open to being persuaded otherwise.
It's a good question, but a lot hinges on whether you think the covenantal/cosmic context of Paul's instruction is important background to his appeal to nature. I would read him as saying, not (necesssarily), "Doesn't nature itself teach that it is shameful for a woman to pray uncovered?" But rather, "Given what I have said about headship, doesn't nature itself teach this."
> 13 In ye yourselves judge: is it seemly that a woman uncovered pray unto God? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man, truly, if he have locks, it is a dishonor to him? 15 Now a woman, if she have locks, it is a glory to her: for her locks are given her for a mantle.
I think if you track his logic here, he is asking them to judge for themselves _after_ he has made his covenantal case. I.e., he saying, in light of the revealed truths about headship, then even nature should impel women to cover, because we intuitively understand glory and dishonor with respect to hair.
I've read it. I find the CREC guys' inability to understand symbolism very strange, considering the importance of James Jordan to their thought. I also find Jordan's inability to understand this particular passage very strange too, though. So...
Also, interestingly, all the churches have the same practice.. including the church at Jerusalem which was 'zealous for the law' (Acts 21). It seems that that particular zeal characterized that church over the span of time. Ultimately, the kind of zeal in Jerusalem was immature from a Christian perspective, although the Apostles were willing to 'work with it' knowing that the time of reformation would come. But my point is that the uniformity of practice spanned all churches including Jerusalem.. there could be a good indication there, of continuity from Jewish times and even before (Abraham's extended family). It would seem strong that the leading aspect in 1 Cor 11 is universal (Christ is the head of every man, etc)
I am actually more intrigued by the appeal to nature in v. 14 than the OT parallels, as valuable as that comparison will be. The didactic power of nature is such that Paul can say, more or less, "you ought to know this just by looking at male and female." It raises for me the question of whether we even need Scripture as a justification to have our wives covered in worship - Paul seems to self consciously appeal to nature as an even more plain witness than his own words he writes on the matter. What do you think? Open to being persuaded otherwise.
It's a good question, but a lot hinges on whether you think the covenantal/cosmic context of Paul's instruction is important background to his appeal to nature. I would read him as saying, not (necesssarily), "Doesn't nature itself teach that it is shameful for a woman to pray uncovered?" But rather, "Given what I have said about headship, doesn't nature itself teach this."
> 13 In ye yourselves judge: is it seemly that a woman uncovered pray unto God? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man, truly, if he have locks, it is a dishonor to him? 15 Now a woman, if she have locks, it is a glory to her: for her locks are given her for a mantle.
I think if you track his logic here, he is asking them to judge for themselves _after_ he has made his covenantal case. I.e., he saying, in light of the revealed truths about headship, then even nature should impel women to cover, because we intuitively understand glory and dishonor with respect to hair.
That makes sense - had you read Toby Sumpter's refutation of this position? He appeals to the use of "head" as being metaphorical.
I've read it. I find the CREC guys' inability to understand symbolism very strange, considering the importance of James Jordan to their thought. I also find Jordan's inability to understand this particular passage very strange too, though. So...
Nice use of 2 Pet 3:5-13 and Rv 21:1 👍🏽👊🏽 #postmill