Marie-Henriëtte schreef:Daarom moet de vrouw een macht op het hoofd hebben, om der engelen wil.
Wie kan hier meer over vertellen?
De tekst luidt: 9 De man is immers niet geschapen om de vrouw, maar de vrouw om de man. 10 Daarom moet de vrouw een macht op het hoofd hebben vanwege de engelen.
Het "daarom" van vers 10 slaat (primair) terug op vers 9, en wijst dus niet zozeer vooruit naar "vanwege de engelen".
Wat betreft het "vanwege de engelen" zijn meerdere uitleggen mogelijk (in het Engels, heb geen tijd om het te vertalen of samen te vatten):
Διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους· Because of the angels.] Because of the angels? Whom? Whether because of good angels? or because of bad? or because of the ministers? The reader knows what is said for this sense and for that and for the other, which we will not repeat.
I. Trulyz, if I would understand a veil by ἐξουσίαν, power,
by angels I would understand devils, which are called angels in this very Epistle, chap. 6:3. And if I were of opinion that the apostle treated here of public assemblies only, I would render his words to this sense: “A woman in the public assembly of the church ought to have her face veiled, because of the devils: namely, that they ensnare not men by the appearance of the beauty of women’s faces, and provoke them to gaze upon their faces, and to behold them with lascivious eyes, while they ought rather to look up to heaven, and to be intent upon divine things.”
II. Or if
by angels are to be understood ministers, our interpretation doth suit very well, which makes a veil a sign of shame and reverence before God, not of subjection towards the husband. For certainly this sounds more logically: women are to be veiled in religious worship, as being ashamed before God; therefore let them be veiled before those who are the ministers of God: than that women are to be veiled in religious worship, because they are subject to their husbands; therefore they are to be veiled before ministers.
III. If
we take angels in the most proper sense, that is, for good angels, and attribute its most proper sense to the expression, ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν, to have power, that is, to have power in one’s own hand, then we might interpret the place after this manner: A woman hath not the power of her own head in her own hand, διὰ τὸν Θεὸν, in respect of God, but is to be veiled in reverence towards God: but she hath the power of her head in her own hand, of not veiling herself διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, in respect of the angels; for she oweth not such a religious reverence to them.
IV. But I suppose the apostle looks another way; and,
I. That he does not here speak in his own sense, but cites something usual among the Jews; not so much to dictate some rule for Christian women, as to produce a Jewish custom in confirmationa of those things which he had said immediately before.
II. He had said, That ‘the woman is the glory of the man,’ that ‘she was of the man,’ that ‘she was made for the man,’ &c. “And this may testify that which is said among the Jews, The woman ought to have in her own hand power of her head, because of the angels.”
III. But now there was among them שילוחי קדושים angels, or messengers of espousals; who were deputed by this or that man to espouse a wife for him that deputed him. Concerning which angels the masters here and there discourse largely; but especially see Kiddushinb: where it begins thus; איש מקדש בו ובשילוחו A man espouseth a wife to himself, either by himself or by his angel, or deputy.
IV. But now, although the canons of the masters required, and the custom of the nation approved, the veiling of women’s faces in the streets; yet it was permitted women to bare their faces, to adorn them, to beautify them, in order to honest marriage: which reason itself and the custom of the nation confirm, and the Rabbins teach.
V. Hither the reasoning of the apostle in this place seems to refer, “Woman was created for man,” ver. 9. Which is proved, O ye Jews, by your own consent; when ye decree that a woman hath power, and ought to have it in her own hand, over her own head, because of the angels of espousals. Let her bare her face if she will, that she may appear beautiful; let her veil it if she will, that she may appear modest. She hath free power in her own hands to promote her own espousal and marriage, that she may be for a man, since she was created for man.
VI. It is true, indeed, that especially obtained which immediately almost followeth after the words newly alleged, מצוח בו יותר מבשילוחו It is commanded that a man espouse a woman by himself, rather than by his deputy: and that which presently follows, “Let no man espouse a woman before he see herc.” But it was very frequently done, that after one had seen a woman, he betrothed her to himself by his angels or deputies, either out of his own modesty, or some necessity compelling him.
VII. Hence the apostle seems to make mention of those angels, rather than of the men that deputed them to that business; and that the more strongly to confirm and prove the thing which he treats of. As if he should say, “The woman hath not only power of her head to bare her face before him who is to be her husband, but before them who are sent and deputed by him to betroth her: and from this very thing (saith he) it is clear that the woman was created for the man: seeing she, that she might be for the man, hath such a power of uncovering her face before those angels who come to espouse her, when otherwise by the custom of the nation it were not lawful.” The apostle conceals the word קדושים espousals; and saith only, because of the angels, not because of the angels of espousals: for by the very scope of his discourse that is easily understood, when in the words immediately going before he saith, “The woman is created for the man.” So also the Talmudists very frequently use the single word שילוחים angels, when once it is known that they are speaking of espousals.
Lightfoot, J. (2010).
A commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians: Volume 4, Acts-1 Corinthians (237–239). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
. Er zaten hier toch zoveel theologen op het forum?
