7 Comments

Thank you Michael have you considered Lucy Peppiatt's suggestion re rhetorical statements in 'Unveiling Paul's Women: Making Sense of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16'?

Expand full comment
author

Yes, I've come across it, I need to re-read it again.

Expand full comment

Something simple which I can't resolve: Was the problem uncovering (removing the veil), or was it refusing to cover?

Expand full comment

It's a baffling topic in itself. Like the offer of a handshake, throughout most of (Western?) history, the removal of a hat has been held to signify trust of, and vulnerability to, the recipient of that gesture. It follows that the removal of a head covering in worship and prayer is a sign of obedience to the Lord. Yet, women in many churches are still welcomed to wear hats. Whatever the reason for women's head coverings in worship and prayer, it seems to have little to do with God.

Expand full comment

Very insightful! Thanks Dr. Bird! Going off of Pitta’s views, there exists an argument against transgenderism (if I’m understanding it correctly). If Paul is indeed emphasizing that women should refrain from trying to become men rather to embrace their femaleness to honor God in worship, the. It stands to reason that Paul cared about women and that he valued their sex and gender, not simply their roles or their status.

Also I might use Pitta’s view to argue against patriarchy.

Expand full comment

It makes no difference in the western world. It’s completely unimportant. How does one reconcile this with the clearly stated “ there is no Jew or Greek?” It seems a lesson is needed to apprehend the deep truths of the Gospel..

Expand full comment

I was going to make the same comment as Dolores. Reading Lucy’s book, Rediscovering Scriptures Vision for Women. This was very helpful.

Expand full comment