L
It's probably related.is it unrelated that seraphim (also creatures subject to authority) cover their faces with a pair of their wings? (Isaiah 6:1-2)
I don't want a debate on whether a woman is to have a head covering or not, whether it is cultural or a Command of God...I just want to know what is meant in context 'because of the angels.
Here is the Expanded Bible's rendition (sort of an amplified version).Yea, I went too far into the Greek without explanation.
The word exousia is referring to the woman as the subject, by default.
It is very difficult to make the passage say that the "power" or "authority" is anything but her own.
I have a feeling that the translation errors/difficulty rendering this passage,
is due to a "turn of phrase" that is lost in translation,
because the literal rendering in actually nonsensical.
I will check how the Aramaic text renders this passage. (Not that it has any authority over the Greek, but that the Greek here is not lining up with the English, and I want to know why).
10 So that is why a woman should have a ·symbol of authority on [or authority over] her head, because of the angels [C the significance of the angels is unclear; perhaps their presence at worship calls for reverence and propriety].
That is what I was thinking before.1 Corinthians 11:10 (NKJV)
10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1 Corinthians 11:3 (NKJV)
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Psalm 8:5 (NKJV)
5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels,[a]
Head of the woman is man, head of a man is Christ and the head of Christ is God. In an equation, we could say, the head of the woman is God therefore, the woman (ought) (must) (should) have a symbol of authority on her head because God is her head and the angels ought to know.
or simply saying, a sign on a woman's head is needed because the angels need to know/recognize who is the head of the woman.
are they female? Lol. My guess is that is referring to the brightness of God's glory and Holiness.is it unrelated that seraphim (also creatures subject to authority) cover their faces with a pair of their wings? (Isaiah 6:1-2)
Like as in false teachers?what if this should be "messengers" instead of "angels" ?
I thought about that too, because the Greek word means both,what if this should be "messengers" instead of "angels" ?
But it would have stated that, if such was the case.Like as in false teachers?
I agree, lacks it in the context. I was just trying to get clarification from PHBut it would have stated that, if such was the case.
At least a partial clause.
Even if he didn't want to say who the messengers were reporting to, there would be something inserted to differentiate these messengers from Messangers.
are they female? Lol. My guess is that is referring to the brightness of God's glory and Holiness.
Like as in false teachers?
I agree with the cultural understanding part that we are probably missing some info. I have reservations about the symbolism angle because Paul runs it back to Adam and Eve.yeah, afaik angels are always represented as masculine, everywhere in the Bible, as am sure you know too.
but i've always wondered over Isaiah's description there too, covering their faces & feet. it seems like the idea he0re in 1 Cor. is a cultural understanding that's pretty much lost on us, but has something to do with a symbolism of being spoken for or under the authority of someone -- the ESV has this footnote in the context:
b. 1 Corinthians 11:5In verses 5–13, the Greek word gunē is translated wife in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a sign of being married in first-century culturei think the same sort of idea was taken further by Mohammed with the whole burka thing.
Isaiah's description makes a kind of symbolic sense if covering ~ being subject and under another's authority & power, what these angles see and say, where they go being subject to their master, the Lord, represented by their faces and feet covered by wings. if that's the concept, then women meant to be the wife of an husband, who should be their head, having long hair that covers their face makes a sort of conceptual symbolic sense too.
but if it's all about preventing fallen angels from seeing their lovely faces, which sounds more like superstition to me than symbolic logic, then this doesn't shed any light on Isaiah's description of the seraphim. *shrug*
i don't understand this any more than the rest of you -- just thinking out loud ((that is, thinking in text)).
two things i'm taking for granted though: it's a symbolism & it's related to cultural ideas that the people in Corinth would have understood without being explicitly told
I agree with the cultural understanding part that we are probably missing some info. I have reservations about the symbolism angle because Paul runs it back to Adam and Eve.
Regarding the Seraphims, I suppose it could be taken "the angels cover themselves and so should we"...but men aren't mentioned, hmmm.