(once more into the brink...) You're right, we do have different approaches to hermeneutics (or exegesis I think would be more accurate). I don't think that it's justifiable to throw out the historico for the sake of the grammatico, any more than you can throw out the grammatico for the sake of the historico. (Note: the latter is not my intent, but I get the feeling that you think that's what all this is about) I believe that any interpretation that is TRUE will be 100% consistent with both. (Also note I'm using the terms grammatico and historico loosely, since we are not here dealing with a matter of linguistic translation, but exegesis of the *meaning.*)
It just occurred to me that perhaps what you are asking of me to explain that verse is for me to appeal to the original Greek and find some clue in the translation? If that is the only thing you're waiting on me for, you're going to wait a long time. I already checked the Greek, and the translation is sound. :-) Understanding the words used is not the issue, the issue is in figuring out the meaning and intent that generated them. And for that, you have to broaden your scope. Exegesis 101. (you're going to make that my new favorite word, you know) :-)
I have to thank Joe for going through all the work of transcribing Hodge's commentary on this passage. Joe, you're my hero! Going to scholarly commentary is usually the last thing I do, once I have wrestled with the issue myself. But being at my wit's end about explaining this, perhaps referring you to someone like Hodge will help. Even though he and I are expressing exactly the same position on the interpretation, perhaps you will respect his reputation enough to not so flippantly ignore and dismiss his reasoning. If you do not, I can similarly quote to you from the commentaries of Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and Jamison, Faucet and Brown, as I mentioned in a post to Tom. I'm sure you're recognize them as, although not inspired, very conservative and widely respected biblical interpreters and scholars of historic proportions. Even if you ultimately disagree with them, you have to admit that they have forgotten more about exegesis than you and I will ever know. They all agree with Hodge on the cultural content and historical context of the symbol of a head covering or lack thereof. The only thing about Hodge that I would take exception with is that in his dissection of your favorite verse, he says that the use of the tallit (or tallis or sometimes tallith) only dates back to just after the apostolic age. Mathew Poole and Jamison, Faucent and Brown both specifically make the point in their translations that the tallith was in use at least by the time that Paul pens this letter. (Matthew Henry doesn't mention it) I don't know what to say, but that if I ever get to talk to Hodge in eternity, I'll ask him where he gets his information. :-) Perhaps he confuses here the prayer shawl and the skull cap. The skull cap only dates back to that time, but the shawl goes back to OT times (and is now used mainly in more formal occasions, like Sabbath).
If even this is not yet what you are demanding for an interpretation of that verse, then I don't know what to do. I have interpreted that verse until I am blue in the face! Please help me out, here! Tell me exactly what you are looking for. Phrase it differently. Give me a specific example, a model to follow. Explain what standard of proof I must meet for you and what tools I am permitted to use to do it. If it's possible within your guidelines, I'm willing to try. And please refrain from using the terms that have cause us confusion in the past like exegesis and hermeneutics, because I don't think we're using the same dictionary or something.
Perhaps in all the pages of text we've both produced here it got lost again, but I do remember using specifically the kosher dietary laws as an example of new covenant overriding the old. And yet in it we see that the following of kosher traditions was not forbidden to the Jews who were already practicing it, but only that it was no longer imposed. It was not the establishment of a new law, it was only the liberation from an old one. Such is the pattern of all the differences between OT and NT. Incidentally, inclusion of gentiles has never been a problem. As long as there have been Jews, there have been gentile converts to Judaism. The implication of Peter's vision is that gentiles need not make themselves "clean" according to OT law before coming to Christ, but are able to come to faith as uncircumcised gentiles. This is a concept that Paul picks up later and deals with in great detail.
See, I told you that you were going to mistake me for a liberal. You promised you wouldn't, but here you go. :-) No, I absolutely do not believe in "theistic evolution" in any form. I believe in a literal 6-day creation because the Bible says so, and there is no evidence to force other interpretation. (don't get excited yet) Hypothetically, if it were possible, perhaps with a time machine or something, to go back and prove absolutely and conclusively that evolution did occur, then we would have to re-examine our interpretation of Scripture, wouldn't we? If it doesn't seem to match fact, than either our interpretation of it is wrong, or we have to give up on the infallibility of scripture. (I would rather face the former) Why do we say that scripture is inspired? Why is that important? Because that's how we know it's true. We can trust that it represents truth if it comes from God. But not all truth has to come from scripture. I can say that the sky is blue, and that would be true. That would be just as true as scripture, even though I didn't need an apostle to tell me. Truth will always be in harmony with truth, no matter what the source, because we live in a universe of absolutes, despite what our postmodern existential culture of epistemological and ontological relativism tells us. (there's some vocabulary words for you) So if history is true, then it will agree with scripture, and if the sky is blue, than that will be consistent with a right interpretation of scripture. Evolution has nothing to do with culture or mixing extra-biblical truth with scripture. Evolution isn't true, period. It can't even make a scientifically sound argument for itself; it's full of wholes any way you look at it. Evolution is the philosophy of dedicated atheists who have to have some way to explain existence if they begin with the assumption that there is no God. So, strictly speaking, evolution is not science, it is faith, a false religion. That's my thought on it.
So be careful when you say, as you have in this thread, that you stand firmly on the infallible Word. No, you don't. We all stand on our completely fallible interpretation and understanding of the infallible Word. That's what's at question here and in all theological discussion.
So read over Charles Hodge there and tell me what you think of his interpretation, since he and I seem to have the same opinion. And if you'd like to compare, I'll be happy to transcribe with those others I mentioned, if you don't already have them handy. But that will wait for another day, because it's late.
