I thought I'd take one more peek before the weekend, so let me leave a quick P.S. to give us a good place to start on Monday.
If you and Joe represent the way that I have come across, than I owe everyone a huge apology. I must have done an incredibly poor job of communicating my intentions all around. If I have said anything to degrade others, than I am sorry. Certainly that was never my intent.
I do not say that people are PMing me as a support that my interpretation of scripture is right. I even recall mentioning that they didn't all agree with me. I simply say because I have not responded individually. And also to try and encourage them to join in. (I don't think they are regulars, or they would.) :-) Perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up.
I don't think that anything has been proved or disproved on either side yet. In debate, dismissing all evidence from your opponent because it's not consistent with your conclusion does not constitute proof -- only, at best, denial, and at worst, circular reasoning. If our respective interpretations are what in question, than we cannot use those same interpretations as evidence to support our interpretations. We must both appeal to other passages and other sources (for instance Greek grammar, systematic theology, or even history) for supportive evidence. If proof is to be reached in either direction, it still lies ahead.
If only Catholics and Jews agree with me, than why to the notable reformed commentators Matthew Henry (a 1700's Presbyterian minister) and Matthew Poole (a 1600's Calvinist theologian) state the same thing I am saying? I was surprised by their easy and plenary dismissal, and I think at least a brief explanation would be fair. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I have completely misunderstood Hodge, then I must need a little help understanding him. Could you explain what he means by the following? This is the part I find most confusing trying to support your position:
"A costume which is proper in one country, would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress to all those usages which the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The veil in *all eastern countries* was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of modesty and subjection. For a woman, therefore, *in Corinth* to discard the veil was to renounce her claim to modesty, and to refuse to recognize her subordination to her husband. It is on the assumption of this *significancy* in the use of the veil, that the apostle's whole argument in this paragraph is founded." (emphasis added to highlight points of confusion)
I haven't heard (or at least understood) anyone saying it as such, but is the problem that you all doubt the truthfulness of the Jewish history? Do you believe it, or my account of it, to be in error? If that is the case, then I might be able to address that next week. However, can we agree that if, somehow, it can be reasonably proven to be factual that the use of head coverings for men were used in that time, would that make a difference? If not, then let's not waste our time.
If your position is that even if it was common place before this letter, Paul here reverses the practice, then we can continue to address that. Hodge makes some good points against that. I also don't think that we've exhausted by any means my argument that it would be characteristically and theologically inconsistent... how can I emphasize this... WITH SCRIPTURE!!, for Paul to make that reversal here. So we can delve into that more, if you require.
The only other thing I can think of is that we have a diametric view of absolute truth. I believe that scripture is 100% truthful, though our interpretation of it may or may not be. Since there is only one truth, an absolute truth, then an accurately interpreted scripture will always be supported by any other absolute truth, regardless of the source of that truth. Whether it be history, archeology, science, reason, logic, or a donkey, if it is TRUE, then it cannot conflict with the truth of scripture. Therefore, if there is an apparent contradiction, than the only left that can be in error is the interpretation. Does this make sense? It may seem obvious, but when questioned, the majority of modern, western evangelicals claim not to believe in absolute truth. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with my take on this, because this is one of those foundational things we must know that agree on in order to have any meaningful dialog about anything.
