Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
Renee argues it would have been counterproductive for Paul to spend time teaching Greek men to be uncovered (since Greeks already were) unless something bigger than local culture was happening; how persuasive do you find that reasoning, and what alternative explanation would you offer that still takes Paul’s details seriously?
Another way to ask: Renee says Paul wouldn’t waste time telling Greek men not to cover their heads if they already did that, so something bigger than local culture must be going on. How convincing is that, and what other explanation could fit Paul’s details?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Renee’s reasoning is meant to show Paul is not merely addressing a local Greek custom, because his instructions deliberately cut across both Greek and Jewish expectations; the transcript doesn’t develop a full alternative explanation beyond her “universal order” argument.
- She states, “no Greeks covered their heads before conversion…Male Greeks didn’t…female Greeks didn’t,” so teaching Greek men to be uncovered wouldn’t fix a Greek cultural problem.
- She argues the Jewish situation was opposite: Jewish men “would have…been taught that they need to uncover,” a “huge cultural transition,” while Jewish women “would have always been veiled.”
- She frames Paul’s teaching as addressing both groups: Greeks would struggle with women covering; Jews would struggle with men uncovering.
- This supports her claim it “crossed everybody” and wasn’t “just one group.”
- She repeatedly concludes: “This isn’t culture…time…age,” because Paul appeals to headship, creation, and nature.