11:3
First of all Paul deals with the matters of head coverings. Now to us this seems a rather arcane notion.The section 11:3-16 is difficult to interpret, and there are various ideas on many aspects of what Paul says. The first relates to what “head” means. There are three main suggestions: (i) authority; (ii) source; and (iii) preeminence. The second is seen if we compare NIV and ESV. NIV has man and woman, ESV has husband and wife. On balance NIV seems better, as the instructions given apply to men and women in general, not just to husband and wife. On the “head” issue Schreiner favours the “authority” line, and I am inclined to go along with that. Paul presents a headship sequence of God being the head of Christ, Christ being the head of everyman, and man being the head of woman. This then raises a further issue with regard to Christ and God. Is the authority (or headship) economic or ontological? What this means is Paul saying God is the head of Christ in a functional sense, or is it an inherent quality? The former is the case. I.e. Christ (Jesus as Messiah) lived under His Father’s authority, as the gospels clearly attest. It does not mean that the Son of God is in any way lesser or inferior to the Father. Schriener spends several pages on this verse, who would have thought it could be so complicated! We should note that in saying man is the head of woman Paul is not saying man is in any way superior to woman.
11:4
In the culture of the day wearing a head covering signified being under authority. So a man wearing a head covering while praying or prophesying “dishonours his head”. Now this may seem strange, for if Christ is our head, surely it would mean the man was recognising that Christ was his head? However, wearing head coverings was common in pagan worship rituals.
No comments:
Post a Comment