Weeds Amongst The Wheat?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

May the love of christ in faith and hope with grace guide you all in jesus name.

 

So what of 1corinthians 11:2-16. Take particular interest in verse 16. Is saint paul saying that these things he mentioned are personal devotions and not church official, and never to be argued about? I take this verse as saying i can wear my hat in holy mass if i choose to and that these little personal devotions becoming laws can become wolves in sheeps clothing, weeds amongst the wheat. Though i don't wear my hat at holy mass because the general consensus of this particular assembly as far as i can tell is no hats and the priest told me no. What if saint paul is warning us about personal devotions becoming wolves in sheeps clothing or weeds amongst the wheat and false doctrine, like spread like weeds.

 

All glory to GOD.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Not that such personal devotions are wrong individually, but shouldn't be a communal law.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Benedictus]

All the commentary notes on 1 corinthians 11:2-16 I have read state that Paul is saying his examples, and the practices, weren't up for debate. The problem is knowing what he was 'really' talking about and why. There's lots of debate about what was typical to the various cultures at the time, to Christian communities and also about what was deemed taboo. Many scholars seem to be saying Paul wasn't talking about coverings (hats, veils etc) but about the length and presentation of the hair. Paul pulled issues around hair into his ontological ideas of the sexes, culture and the natural order. This is a scholar text to illustrate the point
 

 

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

St paul also said " it is holier for a man to have short hair and a women to have long hair but it is not to be argued about." This is a plain statement no need to look into it really is there, not saying all of the paulinian letters are as such. So i don't agree with your relating the veils to hair in this case because he uses the hair analogy at another time.

But also i too agree there is a particular way to read holy scripture in the light of time and cultural lingo, though of course that doesn't discredit it for this time and culture because the word of GOD is eternal in that the basic fundamentals of what is being revealed to us through holy scripture in abc123 understanding the will of GOD, without being GOD himself, is and always will be the same, though holy scripture is not the only source of divine revelation of GODS will.

 

Also saint paul wasn't saying it is un holy for a man to have long hair just holier for a man to have short hair or he would have used the word un holy surely. What i'm getting at is this the same as hats inside for men. There is only one thing that upsets me about the whole catholic churches faith and doctrine that i have learnt to date is the hats off inside, in the light of these scriptures. Not that it will make me un catholic christian, because the weeds will grow amongst the wheat until harvest time which perhaps is vatican councils which is a little glimpse of the final coming of our LORD at the end of time when ALL weeds will be removed and also i understand that holy scripture is not infallible that men reveal the will of GOD imperfectly, including saint paul. Something like that anyway. Is it heretical for me to think like this? I don't know, i hope not.

 

God is GOOD.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

And actually i think in all cultures around the world in the last days(harvest time) all weeds will be separated from the wheat and only the good traditions will remain and the evil ones will be done away with.

[AugustineA]

I have always understood the weeds amongst the wheat to be referring to people, never thought of it in terms of doctrine. Now wearing a hat is not going to be the dividing line between salvation and damnation, but I do believe we ought to strive to fit the models of God's greatest servants. If St. Paul tells us something is good, and something is better, we ought to strive to do the better, and gladly do the good. Also, like you pointed out earlier, St. Paul tells us to refrain from things that would scandalize our more conservative brethren, and since many people consider wearing a hat in the Church a sign of disrespect, we ought to extend charity to them and remove our hat. 

 

On a personal note, I feel comfortable covering my head and sometimes even eyes when praying alone in silence, but I come from a mixed Jewish background. I do my best to follow the traditions of the community or church wherever I am, including not wearing a hat (Byzantine, TLM, NO). 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Yeah i agree, and saint paul does say on such matters something like we must concede to the general consensus of the assembly on such matters. 

 

And when i read the gospels i see various forms of fire that our LORD speaks of, there is eternal damnation, temporal damnation and renewal or seperation between what is truly good and what is not which has nothing to do with temporal damnation nor eternal. Same when Jesus speaks of darkness, there are varying types as far as i can tell, each with a different purpose. The father descended upon the apostles as a dark cloud at the transfiguration, and it had nothing to do with the devil. :)

 

All glory to GOD.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[John Ryan]

I am convinced by Troy W. Martin's thesis in his Paul's Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering printed in the Journal of Biblical Literature. Martin demonstrates that, in the ancient world at the time of St. Paul, the understanding of sexuality in relation to the anatomy was quite different than our modern conceptions. Semen was thought to originate in the head. The testicle was considered a weight that draws semen from the head down to be useful in ejaculation. The hair was also thought to be a force that draws the semen within the body. Men were commonly discouraged from wearing long hair, because it would tend to work against the weight of the testicles and keep the semen in the head. Women were encouraged to have long hair, because the long locks would draw the ejaculated semen up into the body and allow for fertility. The long hair was, therefore, in the ancient Roman mind, the female counterpart to the testicles in the male. The hair was thus seen as a sexual feature of the female.  

 

[AugustineA]

Interesting John, and kinda worthy of a good chuckle, but this paper can't be taken seriously.. 

 

I say paper, but it really is more like a 9 page gloss. He draws almost entirely on secondary Hyppocratic sources and pagan myth, without even a nod to St. Paul's Jewish background, he being taught at the feet of renowned Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22).

 

St. Paul inherited the tradition of women veiling from Jewish custom. Hair laws are confirmed in scripture not only predating Paul by centuries but from a completely different cultural milieu, such as Song of Songs 4:1, Genesis 24:65, and the invert law that correlates to it, Deut. 21:12, not to mention the ancient Jewish customs around veiling which explained the Judeo-Christian understanding. These customs were codified in the Mishna in Ketubot, or in Berakoth which confirmed the practice and theological understanding of these laws as far away as Babylon.

 

Conspicuously, he doesn't touch any of these sources on ancient hair laws, or the volumes that have been written on the inherited traditions that predated Paul's lifetime but that he would have studied. 

 

In a few short paragraphs bristling with pagan legends, Martin claims it is all a misunderstanding, while ignoring Paul's own explanations, which actually correspond to Jewish teaching? If only my professors were so willing to accept this workmanship, I should have tenure, but then I am not sure I would want to publish such a weed amongst wheat.  :(

 

Edited May 19, 2014 by AugustineA

[John Ryan]

Interesting John, and kinda worthy of a good chuckle, but this paper can't be taken seriously.. 

 

I say paper, but it really is more like a 9 page gloss. He draws almost entirely on secondary Hyppocratic sources and pagan myth, without even a nod to St. Paul's Jewish background, he being taught at the feet of renowned Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22).

 

St. Paul inherited the tradition of women veiling from Jewish custom. Hair laws are confirmed in scripture not only predating Paul by centuries but from a completely different cultural milieu, such as Song of Songs 4:1, Genesis 24:65, and the invert law that correlates to it, Deut. 21:12, not to mention the ancient Jewish customs around veiling which explained the Judeo-Christian understanding. These customs were codified in the Mishna in Ketubot, or in Berakoth which confirmed the practice and theological understanding of these laws as far away as Babylon.

 

Conspicuously, he doesn't touch any of these sources on ancient hair laws, or the volumes that have been written on the inherited traditions that predated Paul's lifetime but that he would have studied. 

 

In a few short paragraphs bristling with pagan legends, Martin claims it is all a misunderstanding, while ignoring Paul's own explanations, which actually correspond to Jewish teaching? If only my professors were so willing to accept this workmanship, I should have tenure, but then I am not sure I would want to publish such a weed amongst wheat.  :(

 

I would have to ask why you think St. Paul should be trying to force Jewish custom upon the Church at Corinth? Troy Martin works with the Greek and pagan sources, because Corinth is a Greek city.

[AugustineA]

I would have to ask why you think St. Paul should be trying to force Jewish custom upon the Church at Corinth? Troy Martin works with the Greek and pagan sources, because Corinth is a Greek city.

 

Corinth may have been a Greek city, yet Paul was a Jew converting (not forcing) people into a Jewish-birthed faith pregnant with Jewish ideas and history.

 

If the Corinthians were predisposed due to their own theories of biology, there remains no good reason to project that theory onto Paul's understanding, which clearly coincides with the Jewish understanding, predates the Greek, and in which he was formally educated most of his life before entering the Peloponnese. 

 

Besides all of the missing footwork with primary sources posted above.. Essentially we are looking at an argument by correlation, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. John was this published in an open access journal? 

Edited May 20, 2014 by AugustineA

[BarbTherese]

Interesting posts between John Ryan and Augustinea.  Thank you both for your posts.