Rhetorical Questions ll
In answer to yesterday's discussion of how rhetorical questions are marked, it appears from the rest of 1 Corinthians that they are often directly followed by an answer. However, they can be answered in either the positive or the negative. They may be introduced by κρινω, 'you examine the question', or 'you decide.' So it seems correct to translate 1 Cor. 11:13 as, "You decide. Is it proper for a women to pray with her head uncovered?"
However, the answer is less obvious. Is it "Does not nature itself teach you?" or "Nature itself does not teach you?" I find little support for the first option. The natural world does not teach us this. Nor does the Old Testament, with its stories of Samson and Absalom. Experience might teach you to keep long hair tied back, that is reasonable. The other interpretation is contrary to what we know.
Neither is there a single dominant custom regarding head covering. And if 'nature' means 'custom' then how does one explain the following verse, "We have no such custom." Even though this option appears to contradict verse 4, it seems to be the only clear choice.
If verse 14 contradicts verse 4, verse 11
It seems clear that a woman should have liberty regarding her own head. I have a definite doubt about whether a woman should take this liberty if it will cause others to stumble. That is, if an older woman always wears a hat out of her own upbringing and conscience, a younger woman might also where a hat, even if she felt no requirement. That has often been done. If a head covering correctly communicates a married status it seems reasonable to wear one. Today it does not.
Paul discusses many Christian liberties. But we should not necessarily take them. It would surprise me very much if any woman ever spoke up in a Brethren breaking of bread service. I cannot ever remember hearing a woman speak in a situation where she had not been given that liberty by the men. (I have just recently heard that there are Brethren assemblies that allow women to teach. I know little about them.)
That does not mean that a woman should always keep silent. The first time I ever challenged church elders, it was over a matter of serious abuse. I do not in any way think that I should have kept quiet. But I went to the home and spoke in private. No one should look out for their own interests but for the interests of others. 1 Cor. 10:24.
The first women ordained in Canada had served as deacons and teachers for a lifetime before they were formally recognized for the service they had given, often in remote locations. They had no more to do with modern worldly feminism, than Florence Nightingale. They took the Christian liberty of working for the gospel in a place where no one else did and many scholarly and traditional men realized that this was of God.
However, the answer is less obvious. Is it "Does not nature itself teach you?" or "Nature itself does not teach you?" I find little support for the first option. The natural world does not teach us this. Nor does the Old Testament, with its stories of Samson and Absalom. Experience might teach you to keep long hair tied back, that is reasonable. The other interpretation is contrary to what we know.
Neither is there a single dominant custom regarding head covering. And if 'nature' means 'custom' then how does one explain the following verse, "We have no such custom." Even though this option appears to contradict verse 4, it seems to be the only clear choice.
If verse 14 contradicts verse 4, verse 11
- πλην ουτε γυνη χωρις ανδρος, ουτε ανηρ χωρις γυναικος εν κυριω
- ου γαρ εστιν ανηρ εκ γυναικος, αλλα γυνη εξ ανδρος
It seems clear that a woman should have liberty regarding her own head. I have a definite doubt about whether a woman should take this liberty if it will cause others to stumble. That is, if an older woman always wears a hat out of her own upbringing and conscience, a younger woman might also where a hat, even if she felt no requirement. That has often been done. If a head covering correctly communicates a married status it seems reasonable to wear one. Today it does not.
Paul discusses many Christian liberties. But we should not necessarily take them. It would surprise me very much if any woman ever spoke up in a Brethren breaking of bread service. I cannot ever remember hearing a woman speak in a situation where she had not been given that liberty by the men. (I have just recently heard that there are Brethren assemblies that allow women to teach. I know little about them.)
That does not mean that a woman should always keep silent. The first time I ever challenged church elders, it was over a matter of serious abuse. I do not in any way think that I should have kept quiet. But I went to the home and spoke in private. No one should look out for their own interests but for the interests of others. 1 Cor. 10:24.
The first women ordained in Canada had served as deacons and teachers for a lifetime before they were formally recognized for the service they had given, often in remote locations. They had no more to do with modern worldly feminism, than Florence Nightingale. They took the Christian liberty of working for the gospel in a place where no one else did and many scholarly and traditional men realized that this was of God.
posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 11:27 PM
4 Comments:
"However, the answer is less obvious. Is it 'Does not nature itself teach you?' or 'Nature itself does not teach you?' I find little support for the first option. The natural world does not teach us this."
What about this interpretation?
What does Paul mean by the word “nature?” Paul’s use of the term elsewhere and the use of the term teach suggest that he is referring to the natural and instinctive sense of right and wrong that God has planted in us, especially with respect to sexuality. This sense of what is appropriate or fitting has been implanted in human beings from creation. In this sense “nature teaches” us. In Rom 1:26–27 Paul says that women and men involved in a homosexual relationship have exchanged the natural function of sexuality for what is contrary to nature, that is, they have violated the God-given created order and natural instinct by engaging in sexual relations with others of the same sex.
We can say, then, that nature teaches in this sense, in the sense that our natural instincts and perceptions of masculinity and femininity are manifested in particular cultural situations. Or to say it another way, nature teaches in that the natural inclination of men and women is to feel shame when they abandon the culturally established symbols of masculinity or femininity. Thus, a male instinctively and naturally shrinks away from doing anything that his culture labels as feminine. So, too, females have a natural inclination to dress like women rather than men. Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order, that is, acting like males or females. Of course, what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary from culture to culture, but in Corinth men were generally identified with short hair and women with longer hair.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't imagine that I present here a final interpretation of any verse. But that is not an excuse to disengage. We must make clear our understandings in order to interact with others.
I have been reading Finally Feminist today by John Stackhouse, a fellow Canadian and fellow Brethren. He writes about the hermeneutic spiral. One can enter the discussion either through the details or the big picture, but in any case you will go around many times without necessarily finding resolution. The important thing is not to close off dscussion and dialogue, and not to be hampered from acting for the gospel.
I heard him speak last week, and it was very refreshing to hear him refer, not to his wife, but to his sisters. He asked men to repent of their sexaul reading of women. It was a relief to me.
I have to assume that Stackhouse is not presently attending a Brethren assembly, but he maintains connections and mentioned to me a group of Brethren which include women teachers.
He, like myself, found the sexism of the Christian community to be almost unbearable after many years in a secular university. It is regrettable, that Christianity pioneered education for women(among the first women medical doctors in Canada were many Baptist missionaries) but now that same Christianity, is imposing limitations on women not encountered elsewhere.
However, I do not stand confidently beside my interpretation and application, because this passage is so difficult.
I appreciate your attitude, Matthew, and I appreciate that you have been courageous enough to state it so transparently here in public. I used to "know" things much more confidently about the Bible than I do today. Having had to wrestle with the biblical text for many years to translate it into another language has caused me to question many things I once thought were certain doctrine. At the same time, I think I believe even more strongly things which seem to be in focus and stated rather clearly and repeatedly throughout the Bible.
Thanks, again, for your helpful comment.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home