It seems that the simplest explanation of the plain text is the correct answer and the multiplication of words to explain otherwise is hedging and cowtowing to the modern culture because to leave the world and follow Jesus requires sacrifice and giving up of the world. We cannot be friends of the world and friends of Christ, we must pick one to serve. If Paul says women cover your heads, I think that is probably what it means no matter how many words you want to use to refute the plain meaning of the text.
Interestingly, St. Jerome who actually spoke fluently the Greek of the apostles, not the so called scholars of today, translated it that way, so I’m going to go with him and not a self appointed wise guy who wants to justify modern society.
If that is what the text actually says, that would be true. But the point Garwood is making—one I see English speakers make repeatedly—is that translation work is not so simple as word-for-word correlation. The donor or source language (Greek in this case) and the recipient or target language (English) don’t function exactly the same. Then there are the vast cultural nuances and lack of punctuation in Greek. Whether or not Gardwood has correctly articulated the text’s exact meaning doesn’t mean that the meaning of the text is as simple as you are assuming.
Specificaly & only applies when praying or prophesing (which could include sermons & hyms since the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy Rev 19:10)
REGULATION:
1) MEN = NO COVERING (of any kind!!!) Preist & Popes need to remove that head covering & NO LONG HAIR!!
2) WOMEN NEED COVERING (of some kind!!!) LONG HAIR is given for a covering but if women do not have long hair for a covering then she needs to cover with something. Otherwise its a shame & same as if she were shorn or shaven.
CONTEXT:
The entire discourse is head covering and SPECIFICALY its relationship to long and short hair on both men & women. Its a comparison & contrast.
A) LONG HAIR = IS CONSIDERED A COVERING
👉MEN = SHAME TO HAVE HAIR LIKE A WOMEN
👉WOMEN = OK
B) SHORT HAIR = NOT CONSIDEREDA COVERING ON MEN OR WOMEN.
👉MEN = OK
👉WOMEN = SHAME (HAIR LIKE A MAN) SO NEED SOMETHING ELSE TO COVER. OTHERWISE, ITS SAME SHAME AS IF SHE HAD A SHORN OR SHAVED HEAD.
long hair is given to women for a covering. If she dont have long hair then must still find a cover because it is a shame & might as well have/ be shorn or shaven because short hair is NOT considered a covering for a man or a women. Long hair on a man is a shame BUT long hair on a women is considered a covering.
IN BOTH & ALL CASES THE HAIR IS COMPARED & CONTRASTED
“HAIR LIKE WOMEN”
“HAIR ON MEN”
All other is sophistery, assumptions, eisegesis & babble!
But it is not 'plain text'. That is the problem. It is an ancient text that is crafted in terms of prevailing practices and presumptions. So, in short women: even in a friends home gathered for edification, keep your public habit of head covering: you are not "available" here. Men: no showing off as the priest who has purchased his rank to sacrifice. Do not adopt that head covering display (as show-offs).
By the way, you Corinthians, get rid of the pagan ideas of superiority based on sex. Remember creation: Eve was drawn from Adam by God's power, but that doesn't impart any 'authority' to men. Because men now, post creation. come from women. Your are equal. Just as Yeshua and Yahweh are 'equal' while Yeshua proceeds from Yahweh teleologically.
This rough interpretive paraphrase puts the ideas of head covering and so called "headship" (a concept alien to the Bible, particularly in terms of the church and inter-sex relations) where they belong: in them bin. The relations are not command relations, but generative in a teleological sense, rather than ontologically. (IMO, of course)
We are changing our material to Substack. So, the author of each title is listed as my name, but we are editing them. This essay belongs to Dr. Jason Garwood. But as for me, I find the theory plausible, though I am not thoroughly convinced.
It seems that the simplest explanation of the plain text is the correct answer and the multiplication of words to explain otherwise is hedging and cowtowing to the modern culture because to leave the world and follow Jesus requires sacrifice and giving up of the world. We cannot be friends of the world and friends of Christ, we must pick one to serve. If Paul says women cover your heads, I think that is probably what it means no matter how many words you want to use to refute the plain meaning of the text.
Interestingly, St. Jerome who actually spoke fluently the Greek of the apostles, not the so called scholars of today, translated it that way, so I’m going to go with him and not a self appointed wise guy who wants to justify modern society.
If that is what the text actually says, that would be true. But the point Garwood is making—one I see English speakers make repeatedly—is that translation work is not so simple as word-for-word correlation. The donor or source language (Greek in this case) and the recipient or target language (English) don’t function exactly the same. Then there are the vast cultural nuances and lack of punctuation in Greek. Whether or not Gardwood has correctly articulated the text’s exact meaning doesn’t mean that the meaning of the text is as simple as you are assuming.
HEAD COVER
CONDITIONS:
Specificaly & only applies when praying or prophesing (which could include sermons & hyms since the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy Rev 19:10)
REGULATION:
1) MEN = NO COVERING (of any kind!!!) Preist & Popes need to remove that head covering & NO LONG HAIR!!
2) WOMEN NEED COVERING (of some kind!!!) LONG HAIR is given for a covering but if women do not have long hair for a covering then she needs to cover with something. Otherwise its a shame & same as if she were shorn or shaven.
CONTEXT:
The entire discourse is head covering and SPECIFICALY its relationship to long and short hair on both men & women. Its a comparison & contrast.
A) LONG HAIR = IS CONSIDERED A COVERING
👉MEN = SHAME TO HAVE HAIR LIKE A WOMEN
👉WOMEN = OK
B) SHORT HAIR = NOT CONSIDEREDA COVERING ON MEN OR WOMEN.
👉MEN = OK
👉WOMEN = SHAME (HAIR LIKE A MAN) SO NEED SOMETHING ELSE TO COVER. OTHERWISE, ITS SAME SHAME AS IF SHE HAD A SHORN OR SHAVED HEAD.
long hair is given to women for a covering. If she dont have long hair then must still find a cover because it is a shame & might as well have/ be shorn or shaven because short hair is NOT considered a covering for a man or a women. Long hair on a man is a shame BUT long hair on a women is considered a covering.
IN BOTH & ALL CASES THE HAIR IS COMPARED & CONTRASTED
“HAIR LIKE WOMEN”
“HAIR ON MEN”
All other is sophistery, assumptions, eisegesis & babble!
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305366745/Revelation-the-First-Gospel-of-the-Kingdom
But it is not 'plain text'. That is the problem. It is an ancient text that is crafted in terms of prevailing practices and presumptions. So, in short women: even in a friends home gathered for edification, keep your public habit of head covering: you are not "available" here. Men: no showing off as the priest who has purchased his rank to sacrifice. Do not adopt that head covering display (as show-offs).
By the way, you Corinthians, get rid of the pagan ideas of superiority based on sex. Remember creation: Eve was drawn from Adam by God's power, but that doesn't impart any 'authority' to men. Because men now, post creation. come from women. Your are equal. Just as Yeshua and Yahweh are 'equal' while Yeshua proceeds from Yahweh teleologically.
This rough interpretive paraphrase puts the ideas of head covering and so called "headship" (a concept alien to the Bible, particularly in terms of the church and inter-sex relations) where they belong: in them bin. The relations are not command relations, but generative in a teleological sense, rather than ontologically. (IMO, of course)
Pastor Brito, is it safe to assume that you hold to the quotation theory also?
We are changing our material to Substack. So, the author of each title is listed as my name, but we are editing them. This essay belongs to Dr. Jason Garwood. But as for me, I find the theory plausible, though I am not thoroughly convinced.