Cop out. We're not talking about inspiration here. We're talking about an aspect of the head covering debate. I will look in on inspiration but I've already said my piece there and I'm not going to change my opinion.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
An alternative take on head coverings
- Thread starter IshChayil
- Start date
Cop out. We're not talking about inspiration here. We're talking about an aspect of the head covering debate. I will look in on inspiration but I've already said my piece there and I'm not going to change my opinion.
With all due respect Zec, I dont feel I need to cop out when discussing the bible with you...
I only need not be distracted by torrential fury which often creeps in... that's why I **now** try to carefully manage when we discuss things so something edifying can actually come from our communications... interestingly, ever since I saw your video I like you more and don't react so easily to your provocations (or your responses to my provocations whoever starts it
that's not me "copping out" that's me treading lightly ...
Last edited:
Thanks for understanding brother. In a day or 2 I'll properly digest your takes on this issue.
Thanks again for all the thought and research.
Martin's case is a lot easier to understand in his response to Goodacre.
In a way this makes sense but in a way it verges on 'words mean whatever I want them to mean' that feminist and marxist thinkers like to pull. I think he's mostly using the later approach. You still have to have a translation commiserate to the meaning of the word itself and, as Goodacre points out, if Paul meant testical there was a better word for that.
Emphasis added to point out why he is insisting on a minority translation of 'instead of'. Without that translation his argument falls apart.
He is also playing games about the context. The context isn't v15, but v 1-16 and issues of heirarchy, headship, glory, and creation. His argument depends on Paul only having in mind body physiology.
From what I can see περιβόλαιον is generally used an allusion to clothing, garb. A better translation would be mantle. And Paul actually tells us in this passage both why her hair was given her and why she should cover it:
Tie together verse 7:
with the first half of verse 15:
Paul points out man is God's glory and woman is man's glory. What glory does a woman get to have? God gave her her hair for that. Her long hair falling about her shoulders is a mantle of glory! So when she covers her hair, she is covering both her and man's glory when coming before God. For in the presence of God we ought not glorify any but Him and His son!
Tell me man, does not your bodily nature testify to you that a woman's hair (think long sleek shiny falling about the shoulders) is a glory to her?
While Martin hangs his hat on his translation being the only understanding that makes sense of the passage, this just reveals this complete non-understanding of the whole section and requires a translation out of character for Paul and scripture. What I lined out above ties the whole passage together neatly in context.
In a way this makes sense but in a way it verges on 'words mean whatever I want them to mean' that feminist and marxist thinkers like to pull. I think he's mostly using the later approach. You still have to have a translation commiserate to the meaning of the word itself and, as Goodacre points out, if Paul meant testical there was a better word for that.
Emphasis added to point out why he is insisting on a minority translation of 'instead of'. Without that translation his argument falls apart.
He is also playing games about the context. The context isn't v15, but v 1-16 and issues of heirarchy, headship, glory, and creation. His argument depends on Paul only having in mind body physiology.
From what I can see περιβόλαιον is generally used an allusion to clothing, garb. A better translation would be mantle. And Paul actually tells us in this passage both why her hair was given her and why she should cover it:
Tie together verse 7:
with the first half of verse 15:
Paul points out man is God's glory and woman is man's glory. What glory does a woman get to have? God gave her her hair for that. Her long hair falling about her shoulders is a mantle of glory! So when she covers her hair, she is covering both her and man's glory when coming before God. For in the presence of God we ought not glorify any but Him and His son!
Tell me man, does not your bodily nature testify to you that a woman's hair (think long sleek shiny falling about the shoulders) is a glory to her?
While Martin hangs his hat on his translation being the only understanding that makes sense of the passage, this just reveals this complete non-understanding of the whole section and requires a translation out of character for Paul and scripture. What I lined out above ties the whole passage together neatly in context.
This is part I'm weak on. But it often looks to be used of metephoracal clothing. Like trees clothed in leaves. Or saints clothed in glory.
The main leap here is biological. If the Testicles haven't descended by the age of 6 months you have a medical problem. The garb of puberty is not the testies, but hair; something both sexes have.
But Paul isn't talking about testies or the garb of puberty but the garb of glory.
OK, so based on the consternation the podcast has caused among many (even those who didn't listen to it), I feel the need to respond in general to the various posts.
I reread what folks wrote (even including the "mic-drop" arguments ) and so this doesn't become a novel, I'm going to reply generally to the main objections instead of point by point which will loose most everyone anyway.
Let me start by sharing where I am at on the actual issue of women wearing shayins.
In my culture, it is fully appropriate for a married woman to cover her head at all times outside of her home.
Men, should also cover their heads especially when entering the synagogue (hence my earlier baseball cap reference with respect to Judeo-Christian ethic). It's very common to see younger Jewish guys wearing baseball caps because they don't want to attract attention to the yarmulka / male headcovering.
So for any ladies who wear a shayin who felt threatened by this article, my own mom usually wears a scarf on her head ok. I'm a fan. There is zero intent
to in anyway debunk the use of shayins. The later practice of some Jewish ladies wearing wigs over their normal hair never made sense to me but whatever...
OK so now we should all understand that ish-chayil is not trying to take headcoverings away, in fact he likes 'em.
That said, this is an element of Jewish culture which the apostle to the Gentiles seems careful with when dealing with Gentile-believers (I'm talking cultural elements in general).
Paul wouldn't need to tell Jews to act like Jews right?
It is my belief that Paul, realizing there was a common tradition between the Greek ladies, and the Jewish ladies, to cover their heads but for different reasons, is speaking to an unknown conflict in one of the Gentile/Greek congregations. He has henceforth been careful not to impose Jewish traditions on Greeks even though we know Paul himself still keeps the Jewish traditions (as described in Acts). Instead, he is "to the Greek as a Greek" reasoning with them by their cultural mores of the day.
OK so I think we should still all be in agreement. I haven't said anything outlandish or not generally believed in various degrees (for you Hebrew roots folks by tradition I don't mean torah, I mean things like headcoverings, meat mixed with milk, candles on holidays, etc. which are not commanded in the torah).
OK, so now I'm writing to you as a polyglott; I'm including this because I hope it will help some of you understand how I look at linguistic data.
I'm fluent in a few modern languages; when I say fluent I mean I don't think in english, my native language, when I communicate in those other languages; I just talk and just listen, read, etc. English is not a part of it unless I'm doing live interpreting for others. I write this because most of my fellow Americans have never gone completely through the process of obtaining fluency in 1 additional language (some are born in bilingual families so there's that but they haven't obtained a 3rd or 4th or ...).
In the process of taking a foreign language to fluency you learn about the semantic domain of words. Some words have 10+ meanings and context informs you of their meanings. Take the English word member. This word means penis in some contexts. In Russian it's the main colloquial word for penis (schlen - member). We don't have to think about these things in our native language as long as we are familiar with the context. Imagine explaining what it means to "close the window" on your laptop to an ancient person.
The word περιβόλαιον absolutely means testicles in some contexts. Surely you can see how this even developed; if "member" can eventually mean "penis" it is not a stretch that "that which is wrapped around" could eventually mean testicle. This is just how languages develop; what once was a euphemism can become an actual sophisticated medical term.
Troy W. Martin makes an argument that a word often meaning edict is used by one playwrite to mean penis. The context is a list of all body parts to which some translators still translate the underlying word as "edict". So you have a list of all body parts then "edict".
Allow me to share a paragraph from one of my Greek grammars: (emphasis mine)
It is important to remember that Greek words (like English ones) have a meaning that is context-determined to a significant degree. For instance, the Greek of John 1:1a (“In the beginning was the Word”) could, in an appropriate context, be translated,
“The treasurer was in the midst of a body of troops”! Keep in mind, therefore, that the semantic field (area of meaning) of a Greek word is much wider than can be summarized in the vocabulary of a beginning grammar, and that the definitions given in this text represent only the most common meanings of the words as they are used in the New Testament.
Black, D. A. (2009). Learn to read New Testament Greek (3rd ed, p. 24). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.
So ... does περιβόλαιον literally mean "that which is thrown around" ? Yes. Are headcoverings "thrown around" i.e. wrapped, yes they are.
Does this refer to the testicles in some Greek medical texts. Yes, it absolutely does.
Did Hippocrates teach fecundity was related to hair health and length on a woman and lack-there-of on a man?
Yes, yes he did.
Would highly educated Paul have been aware of these teachings?
Maybe, I think so (rich kid grew up Roman citizen and at the feet of Rav Gamliel, highly educated)
If he was aware, is it possible he may have alluded in a double-entendres sort of way seeing as how the result leads to something that was also true in his own culture (albeit for different reasons)? Yes
Do we know absolutely that this is what is being stated in these passages?
It's hard to read someone's mail and be certain what they are talking about; we only have Paul's responses in his letters, not the initial reports which he is often responding to.
Might hardcore modern feminists abuse this kind of information in a way to escape from the headcovering or the authority of a man?
absolutely, rebels will use anything available to them. I always liked the Southern expression "the Devil will quote scripture for his purpose".
Someone abusing scripture, or proper exegeses thereof does not relegate those analyses void.
Regarding the back and forth between the main scholar, Tray Martin and Goodacre, it sure seemed like Martin ate the other guy's lunch with his sea of primary sources.
For any interested in the response this is in the Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 132 #2 freely viewable online.
Some of you folks have had some good takes regarding authority, angels watching authority and how people behave according to it, etc. Interesting takes.
I enjoyed the responses, especially @rockfox who really dug in and exposed some of the feminist agenda for clinging to this research.
For me, after considering everything, I'm more convinced than ever that Martin has something here.
Summary:
Are headcoverings good on ladies? Yes
Is it a shame for fellas to have long hair? No (since may of you see motivation in lots of statements let me clarify I don't have long hair)
Does the ancient, Orthodox church require women to wear headcoverings? yes
Do orthodox Jews require wives to wear headcoverings? yes
Did the ancient pagan Greeks require women to wear headcoverings? yes, some of them
Did the ancient Greek intelligentsia see hair as fundamental in fecundity? yes
I don't see why we have to be wrong or right on this. I'm delighted with the scholarship and find it deeply edifying. I think I'll leave it at that.
I hope nobody still thinks I have some motive to somehow remove headcoverings from women or relegate Pauline literature to uninspired status.
Shalom
I reread what folks wrote (even including the "mic-drop" arguments
) and so this doesn't become a novel, I'm going to reply generally to the main objections instead of point by point which will loose most everyone anyway.Let me start by sharing where I am at on the actual issue of women wearing shayins.
In my culture, it is fully appropriate for a married woman to cover her head at all times outside of her home.
Men, should also cover their heads especially when entering the synagogue (hence my earlier baseball cap reference with respect to Judeo-Christian ethic). It's very common to see younger Jewish guys wearing baseball caps because they don't want to attract attention to the yarmulka / male headcovering.
So for any ladies who wear a shayin who felt threatened by this article, my own mom usually wears a scarf on her head ok. I'm a fan. There is zero intent
to in anyway debunk the use of shayins. The later practice of some Jewish ladies wearing wigs over their normal hair never made sense to me but whatever...
OK so now we should all understand that ish-chayil is not trying to take headcoverings away, in fact he likes 'em.
That said, this is an element of Jewish culture which the apostle to the Gentiles seems careful with when dealing with Gentile-believers (I'm talking cultural elements in general).
Paul wouldn't need to tell Jews to act like Jews right?
It is my belief that Paul, realizing there was a common tradition between the Greek ladies, and the Jewish ladies, to cover their heads but for different reasons, is speaking to an unknown conflict in one of the Gentile/Greek congregations. He has henceforth been careful not to impose Jewish traditions on Greeks even though we know Paul himself still keeps the Jewish traditions (as described in Acts). Instead, he is "to the Greek as a Greek" reasoning with them by their cultural mores of the day.
OK so I think we should still all be in agreement. I haven't said anything outlandish or not generally believed in various degrees (for you Hebrew roots folks by tradition I don't mean torah, I mean things like headcoverings, meat mixed with milk, candles on holidays, etc. which are not commanded in the torah).
OK, so now I'm writing to you as a polyglott; I'm including this because I hope it will help some of you understand how I look at linguistic data.
I'm fluent in a few modern languages; when I say fluent I mean I don't think in english, my native language, when I communicate in those other languages; I just talk and just listen, read, etc. English is not a part of it unless I'm doing live interpreting for others. I write this because most of my fellow Americans have never gone completely through the process of obtaining fluency in 1 additional language (some are born in bilingual families so there's that but they haven't obtained a 3rd or 4th or ...).
In the process of taking a foreign language to fluency you learn about the semantic domain of words. Some words have 10+ meanings and context informs you of their meanings. Take the English word member. This word means penis in some contexts. In Russian it's the main colloquial word for penis (schlen - member). We don't have to think about these things in our native language as long as we are familiar with the context. Imagine explaining what it means to "close the window" on your laptop to an ancient person.
The word περιβόλαιον absolutely means testicles in some contexts. Surely you can see how this even developed; if "member" can eventually mean "penis" it is not a stretch that "that which is wrapped around" could eventually mean testicle. This is just how languages develop; what once was a euphemism can become an actual sophisticated medical term.
Troy W. Martin makes an argument that a word often meaning edict is used by one playwrite to mean penis. The context is a list of all body parts to which some translators still translate the underlying word as "edict". So you have a list of all body parts then "edict".
Allow me to share a paragraph from one of my Greek grammars: (emphasis mine)
It is important to remember that Greek words (like English ones) have a meaning that is context-determined to a significant degree. For instance, the Greek of John 1:1a (“In the beginning was the Word”) could, in an appropriate context, be translated,
“The treasurer was in the midst of a body of troops”! Keep in mind, therefore, that the semantic field (area of meaning) of a Greek word is much wider than can be summarized in the vocabulary of a beginning grammar, and that the definitions given in this text represent only the most common meanings of the words as they are used in the New Testament.
Black, D. A. (2009). Learn to read New Testament Greek (3rd ed, p. 24). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.
So ... does περιβόλαιον literally mean "that which is thrown around" ? Yes. Are headcoverings "thrown around" i.e. wrapped, yes they are.
Does this refer to the testicles in some Greek medical texts. Yes, it absolutely does.
Did Hippocrates teach fecundity was related to hair health and length on a woman and lack-there-of on a man?
Yes, yes he did.
Would highly educated Paul have been aware of these teachings?
Maybe, I think so (rich kid grew up Roman citizen and at the feet of Rav Gamliel, highly educated)
If he was aware, is it possible he may have alluded in a double-entendres sort of way seeing as how the result leads to something that was also true in his own culture (albeit for different reasons)? Yes
Do we know absolutely that this is what is being stated in these passages?
It's hard to read someone's mail and be certain what they are talking about; we only have Paul's responses in his letters, not the initial reports which he is often responding to.
Might hardcore modern feminists abuse this kind of information in a way to escape from the headcovering or the authority of a man?
absolutely, rebels will use anything available to them. I always liked the Southern expression "the Devil will quote scripture for his purpose".
Someone abusing scripture, or proper exegeses thereof does not relegate those analyses void.
Regarding the back and forth between the main scholar, Tray Martin and Goodacre, it sure seemed like Martin ate the other guy's lunch with his sea of primary sources.
For any interested in the response this is in the Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 132 #2 freely viewable online.
Some of you folks have had some good takes regarding authority, angels watching authority and how people behave according to it, etc. Interesting takes.
I enjoyed the responses, especially @rockfox who really dug in and exposed some of the feminist agenda for clinging to this research.
For me, after considering everything, I'm more convinced than ever that Martin has something here.
Summary:
Are headcoverings good on ladies? Yes
Is it a shame for fellas to have long hair? No (since may of you see motivation in lots of statements let me clarify I don't have long hair)
Does the ancient, Orthodox church require women to wear headcoverings? yes
Do orthodox Jews require wives to wear headcoverings? yes
Did the ancient pagan Greeks require women to wear headcoverings? yes, some of them
Did the ancient Greek intelligentsia see hair as fundamental in fecundity? yes
I don't see why we have to be wrong or right on this. I'm delighted with the scholarship and find it deeply edifying. I think I'll leave it at that.
I hope nobody still thinks I have some motive to somehow remove headcoverings from women or relegate Pauline literature to uninspired status.
Shalom
I think it's next to the "I don't' have anything to add, so I'll cheerlead" button
Last edited:
Martin's piece falls dramatically short because he spends more time discussing Greek than the actual context of the passage. His rendering requires a minority translation of the text in order to even be a possibility while never actually fitting the context (glory, headship, authority, hierarchy) of the whole passage.
The whole point of this Ish was that yes, what you were proposing would remove Pauline literature from inspired status, whether you think so or not.
Bless you for that Zec, I needed a good belly laugh
Because of Angels
ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.
[32 (ággelos) can refer to "a human messenger" (cf. John the Baptist, Mt 11:10, quoting Mal 3:1; see also Lk 7:24, 9:52). 32 /ággelos (plural, angeloi) refers to heavenly angels over 150 times in the NT, i.e. spiritual beings created by God to serve His plan.
So someone decided to translate it as Angel instead of messanger sent by G-d.
If your drawing the connection to the Genesis when Beni Elohim took the daughters of man as wives check this out. Its a possible explaination from the Sages.
Rashi (i.e., Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak, 11th century), comments on the Gen. 6:2 reference to the bnei elohim (sons of elohim) who “saw that the daughters of men were good and they took for themselves wives …” that the terms bnei elohim should be translated “sons of princes and rulers.” He grants that another explanation is that the terms apply to angels who mingled with humanity. He says: “Whenever the word elohim occurs in the Scriptures it signifies authority, and the following passages prove this: (Ex. 4:16) ‘and thou shalt be his (elohim) master,’ and Ex. 7:1‘See, I have made thee (elohim) a master’.” The ArtScroll Series of translations and commentaries on Scripture, the following discussion of Gen. 6:2 (p. 180; “There are several interpretations of the expression Bnei elohim, ‘Sons of the rulers’, as usual, adheres to Rashi and the majority of commentators who follow Targum, which reads ‘a master’ and understand it as referring to the judges, potentates, and the sons of nobility, basing themselves on the interpretation of elohim in Exodus 22:7 ‘and the owner of the house shall come near to elohim, the judges’, while ‘daughter of man’ is interpreted as maidens of lower rank. Ramban ,Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, 13th century, cites this interpretation and comments that ‘if so, the Torah relates that the very judges who should have administered justice committed open violence while no one interfered.’ This follows, also, the view cited in the Midrash: ‘The verse indicates that aristocratic youths took as wives the daughters of people who were powerless to resist.
Bnei elohim’s meaning is higher powers mastering others, including social powers and natural powers attributed to gods or angels. The Torah itself affirms explicitly by terming G-d Elokim, however, that all these powers are subsumed within G-d, the One G-d, Creator of heaven and earth, which is why the term when applied to G-d takes only a singular verb: only G-d, the sum of and transcending all powers, rules supreme.
Drawing the connection to Paul warning about Angels means he could be talking about mortal messengers, visiting Pastors, or those in authority above others like Elders and Deacons to prevent them from sining by thought or action, which would be a modesty issue.
If you beleive that the Nephilim where the product of Angels and women (I do) read the Book of Enoch, the part about there punishment where The ArchAngel Michael trembled in Fear and to paraphrase in him in modern languge said " There ain't an Angel stupid enough to do that ever again.
G-d ensured that the Angels would do that again. Since Paul was a scholar and Zealous for the traditions of his fathers he would have known both the long held traditional stance, which is part of the reason they decided not to declare the Book of Enoch as Canon even though it was used in another fashion, and the Stance of the book of Enoch which many early beleivers held as cannon. I do not see how he would have been speaking of Angels in either case.
Chalk that up to an interpretation not guided by the Holy spirit.
There's alot of commentaries that draw connections from halacha: The reason for the universal custom of short hair has to do with questions about creating an interposition between the tefillin and the skull, Its a very old arguement. Plus the one made from Vayikra 18:3 and the prohibition of Lo Silbash. These arguments might not be found in Torah, but the came about in fear of breaking Torah and walking in a way G-d did not want them to walk. Talmud (Sotah 10b) states that Absalom’s long hair caused him to rebel against his father, King David. So yes there was a cultral stigma for long hair.
Culture matters in context. Why would the it not to a self professed Pharisee? Anyways, I don't believe Paul is speaking Greek to Greeks. He has a method. Meet with local Jews, spread the Gospel of Yeshua. Meet with local Jewish beleivers in Yeshua and organize. Meet with Gentile beleivers in Yeshua bring them into the fold. Spread the Goespel to any Gentile who has ears. Feeds them milk, Yeshua's love, mercy, and salvation (what is the easiest to take in). Then solid food, meat and potatoes, the meaning of scripture and what's expected of them as the Eklesia. Theses were not Greeks he was speaking to but Disciples of the Way, beleivers in Yeshua, the called out of the world, their Greek world, to prepare the kingdom for the returning conqueror.
ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.
[32 (ággelos) can refer to "a human messenger" (cf. John the Baptist, Mt 11:10, quoting Mal 3:1; see also Lk 7:24, 9:52). 32 /ággelos (plural, angeloi) refers to heavenly angels over 150 times in the NT, i.e. spiritual beings created by God to serve His plan.
So someone decided to translate it as Angel instead of messanger sent by G-d.
If your drawing the connection to the Genesis when Beni Elohim took the daughters of man as wives check this out. Its a possible explaination from the Sages.
Rashi (i.e., Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak, 11th century), comments on the Gen. 6:2 reference to the bnei elohim (sons of elohim) who “saw that the daughters of men were good and they took for themselves wives …” that the terms bnei elohim should be translated “sons of princes and rulers.” He grants that another explanation is that the terms apply to angels who mingled with humanity. He says: “Whenever the word elohim occurs in the Scriptures it signifies authority, and the following passages prove this: (Ex. 4:16) ‘and thou shalt be his (elohim) master,’ and Ex. 7:1‘See, I have made thee (elohim) a master’.” The ArtScroll Series of translations and commentaries on Scripture, the following discussion of Gen. 6:2 (p. 180; “There are several interpretations of the expression Bnei elohim, ‘Sons of the rulers’, as usual, adheres to Rashi and the majority of commentators who follow Targum, which reads ‘a master’ and understand it as referring to the judges, potentates, and the sons of nobility, basing themselves on the interpretation of elohim in Exodus 22:7 ‘and the owner of the house shall come near to elohim, the judges’, while ‘daughter of man’ is interpreted as maidens of lower rank. Ramban ,Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, 13th century, cites this interpretation and comments that ‘if so, the Torah relates that the very judges who should have administered justice committed open violence while no one interfered.’ This follows, also, the view cited in the Midrash: ‘The verse indicates that aristocratic youths took as wives the daughters of people who were powerless to resist.
Bnei elohim’s meaning is higher powers mastering others, including social powers and natural powers attributed to gods or angels. The Torah itself affirms explicitly by terming G-d Elokim, however, that all these powers are subsumed within G-d, the One G-d, Creator of heaven and earth, which is why the term when applied to G-d takes only a singular verb: only G-d, the sum of and transcending all powers, rules supreme.
Drawing the connection to Paul warning about Angels means he could be talking about mortal messengers, visiting Pastors, or those in authority above others like Elders and Deacons to prevent them from sining by thought or action, which would be a modesty issue.
If you beleive that the Nephilim where the product of Angels and women (I do) read the Book of Enoch, the part about there punishment where The ArchAngel Michael trembled in Fear and to paraphrase in him in modern languge said " There ain't an Angel stupid enough to do that ever again.
G-d ensured that the Angels would do that again. Since Paul was a scholar and Zealous for the traditions of his fathers he would have known both the long held traditional stance, which is part of the reason they decided not to declare the Book of Enoch as Canon even though it was used in another fashion, and the Stance of the book of Enoch which many early beleivers held as cannon. I do not see how he would have been speaking of Angels in either case.
Chalk that up to an interpretation not guided by the Holy spirit.
It's cool, It seemed like the way you were phrasing your statements were a dig at me.
I re-read everything about the Nazerite vow and it's no shorter than 40 days i over looked as i was translating.
Plent of extrabiblical sources and it was common in the time of the apostles.
There's alot of commentaries that draw connections from halacha: The reason for the universal custom of short hair has to do with questions about creating an interposition between the tefillin and the skull, Its a very old arguement. Plus the one made from Vayikra 18:3 and the prohibition of Lo Silbash. These arguments might not be found in Torah, but the came about in fear of breaking Torah and walking in a way G-d did not want them to walk. Talmud (Sotah 10b) states that Absalom’s long hair caused him to rebel against his father, King David. So yes there was a cultral stigma for long hair.
Culture matters in context. Why would the it not to a self professed Pharisee? Anyways, I don't believe Paul is speaking Greek to Greeks. He has a method. Meet with local Jews, spread the Gospel of Yeshua. Meet with local Jewish beleivers in Yeshua and organize. Meet with Gentile beleivers in Yeshua bring them into the fold. Spread the Goespel to any Gentile who has ears. Feeds them milk, Yeshua's love, mercy, and salvation (what is the easiest to take in). Then solid food, meat and potatoes, the meaning of scripture and what's expected of them as the Eklesia. Theses were not Greeks he was speaking to but Disciples of the Way, beleivers in Yeshua, the called out of the world, their Greek world, to prepare the kingdom for the returning conqueror.
This is either a typo or I desperately need the full doctrine about this!
I don't know whether there are any more angels willing to take the plunge. It seems like a terrible idea. Then again... apparently a third of them can be induced to rebel, which also seems like a terrible idea.
My familiarity with Enoch isn't quite up to snuff. Can you give me the reference for that?
Enoch 68:2
2And on that day Michael answered Raphael and said: ' The power of the spirit transports and makes me to tremble because of the severity of the judgement of the secrets, the judgement of the angels: who can endure the severe judgement which has been executed, and before
3 which they melt away ? ' And Michael answered again, and said to Raphael: ' Who is he whose heart is not softened concerning it, and whose reins are not troubled by this word of judgement
4 (that) has gone forth upon them because of those who have thus led them out ? ' And it came to pass when he stood before the Lord of Spirits, Michael said thus to Raphael: ' I will not take their part under the eye of the Lord; for the Lord of Spirits has been angry with them because they do
5 as if they were the Lord. Therefore all that is hidden shall come upon them for ever and ever; for neither angel nor man shall have his portion (in it), but alone they have received their judgement for ever and ever.
Well really it doesn’t work this way. While it is true that the semantic domain of this greek word covers the gambit from “messenger of G-d” to “human messenger from someone importsnt”, the context determines how we translate this word.
In the absence of an agent, the domain for translation becomes G-d. It is Important not to confuse angellos (sorry for formatting on tab...) with a “sent one” apostalmenos. Angellos has a specific function, to deliver a message and you don’t have them just standing around observing folks. Kinda like the UPS guy doesn’t stand around checking your wives’ flowing lochs because his duty is being a messenger...
There are only a couple places in the Greek New Testament where we have the flexibility to translate angellos as “human messenger”. We find them qualified by whose messengers they are
Luke 9:52 (NA28): Καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ.*
And He sent messengers (Angelous) before His (arrival).
Like 7:24
Ἀπελθόντων δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων* Ἰωάννου ἤρξατο λέγειν πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους περὶ Ἰωάννου·
When John’s messengers left, Yeshua ...
The intertestamentsl literature is similar.
1 Maccabees 1:44 καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ βασιλεὺς βιβλία ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλων εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ τὰς πόλεις Ἰούδα, πορευθῆναι ὀπίσω νομίμων ἀλλοτρίων τῆς γῆς,
And the King sent letters en the hands of messengers to Jerusalem......
Judith 1:11 they send back Nebuchadnezzar’s messengers
Ok so that’s my understanding but I decided to check myself by consulting the 10 volume tome “theological dictionary of the new testsment” here is a blurb which confirms thoughts on this:
The meaning of human messenger plays only a very small role in the NT. The scouts sent out by Joshua to Jericho in Jm. 2:25, the men sent by John to Jesus in Lk. 7:24 and by Jesus to the Samaritan village in Lk. 9:52, are the only cases in which men sent by other men are called ἄγγελοι in the NT.
in point of fact, it is not as you represent it “someone decided to translate it as Angel instead of messanger sent by G-d.”
You can’t just look at some glosses, a lot of this becomes intuitive from reading the original language text lots. THere are syntax rules, context, and there is a reason translators don’t argue about this word being angel or human messsenger” as Paul uses it here...it’s understood to be angel.
I’m on a tablet and it’s really hard to keep scrolling properly and responding so if anyone wants to see akevins more detailed points to which I’ll now address more generally, just look at his post.
I love the sages, but I learned a long time ago that is not the place to go for word meanings for Biblical Hebrew. you Brought up ArtScroll, one of the problems so have with their edition of Psalms is that many of their translations lean on Aramaic definitions and not Biblical Hebrew
..they refuse to adapt scholarship gained from Ugarit hailed by many biblical scholars as a greater discovery than the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical studies, and many are infkuenced by aramaic since they spend more time in the gemara than the tanakh directly. The ArtScroll psalms used to drive me nuts when I’d look at the English to understand a rare Hebrew word and their definition did not exist in ANY of the scholarly Christian lexicons. The sages are wonderful brother but you don’t get your Hebrew nuances from translations of Medieval French (rashi).
Elohim in Hebrew expresses a locale of being... not an authority as you posit.
Elohim is a disembodied being, a being who loosely dwells in the spirit world.
The angels are Elohim, G-d is the El-Elyon (most high) among Elohim, and the prophet Samuel when brought from the dead is referred to as Elohim.
Anecdotally one may see that Elohim are in a position of power, but authority is not the definition of this word. When the psalmist says “ki gadol Hashem al kol Elohim” “for the L-rd is greater than all the Elohim” it makes sense. They are not earthly judges, what kind of compliment is that to G-d “you are greater than humans!” No duh, He knows. But since humans get confused by the Elohim, status, power, offices, etc. it makes sense to qualify that He is over them all.
B’nei Elohim as taught to me by my Rabbi whomwas practicing Orthodox when I got bar mitzvahed was in jewish tradition an idiom for “angels”. Now that i have learned
Much more Imwould say it’s more like “archangels” some angelic office above others.
‘Iriyn as the Aramaic fragments from 1 Enoch put it “watchers”.
Elohim does not mean judges, we have a plethora of Hebrew words for judges.
Targums are wonderful commentaries but as such do not always shed light on the original language. LXX renders “angels” for the b’nei Elohim. With targumim you Get a lot more commentary injected than pure translation. That said, great work referencing all of those things! I love it
Perhaps u will rethink this one in light of the semantic information I shared above about angellos
You know I teach from Enoch sometimes (just 1 Enoch) I’ve told you about that.
That said, I don’t think it should be added to the canon. I’m sure Paul was aware of it and likely also did not treat it as inspired or “inspired enough”
We don’t have any information that future rebellions by angels can NOT happen again.
Yes, the reasons you list are Jewish reasons, if you reread my argument you will note I carefully delineated between Jewish reasons and Greek reasons and Paul is clearly writing Greeks here.
Regarding tractate Sotah, it does not state Avshalom’s hair caused him to rebel, it states his LOVE of his hair caused him to rebel...
Thanks for putting so much time into this @Kevin. You clearly have spent a lot of time on this. What a Mentsch!
Last edited:
Excellent! I was missing that piece... to something unrelated to head coverings.
I take that as a nice chunky argument against there being a "second incursion" after the flood.
I have a video about the Nephilem, Ham and the Cananites I'll pm you. Or start a seperate thread.
Now your just splitting hairs.
I don’t think so.
Considering hair length intrinsically evil and being a vain person are quite different.
The hairs got nothing to do with it, and if Abshalom didn’t have long hair he’d have loved something else about himself. I’m sorry anyone able to,commit adultery against his own father 10 times and want to kill him has a bigger issue of the heart at hand than homeboys trips to the barber.
The cause is his vanity. If you go to New York and see a bunch of trash bc the garbage Union is striking, and the trash drew lots of rats, you wouldnt say “look at all the trash these rats brought here!” (Tony Robbins-Personal Power)
Last edited: