Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Text:God's Word to Women:Lesson 31

128 bytes added, 13:50, 4 September 2005
m
formatting quote
238. As to Paul's transition from the veil to hair, in general the expositors assume that the woman's hair indicates where the veil should go, and translate the Greek preposition anti (always implying substitution, or barter) as “for," when it should be rendered "instead of," ¾"hair is given her INSTEAD OF a covering." Alford gives us the logic of this teaching:" When we deal with the properties of the artificial state, of clothing the body, we must be regulated by nature's suggestion: that which she has indicated to be left uncovered, we must so leave; that which she has covered, when we clothe the body, we must likewise cover. This is the argument." The italics are Alford's. His reasoning is surprising indeed, when reduced to the syllogism,¾as contradictory as most of the reasoning on this passage:
<blockquote>
"That which Nature has left uncovered, we must so leave." Nature has left the face of woman "uncovered."
</blockquote><blockquote>
Ergo: "We must leave" the face of woman "uncovered."
</blockquote>
Again:
<blockquote>
"That which nature has covered, when we clothe the body we must cover likewise."
</blockquote><blockquote>
"Nature has covered" the face of man¾with a beard.
</blockquote><blockquote>
Ergo: "When we clothe the body" man "must cover" the face "likewise."
</blockquote>
239. Having convinced himself that Paul teaches in this passage the supremacy and splendor of the male sex, next the commentator grows ashamed of the weakness of the reasoning which leads to these conclusions, and apologizes, not for himself, but for St. Paul. The lameness of Paul's logic is due to "his early training in the great rabbinical schools." "He is not free," says Sir Wm. Ramsey (for example), "from the beliefs and even the superstitions of his age. . . . In the non-essentials he sometimes, or often, remains impeded and encumbered by the tone and ideas of his age. . . . The instructions which he sometimes gives regarding the conduct of women are peculiarly liable to be affected by current popular ideas. . . . Where both angels and women are found in any passage,[1] Paul is peculiarly liable to be fettered by current ideas and superstitions."[2]
293
edits

Navigation menu