ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

General Christian Theology
haithabu
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Affiliation: Missionary Church

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by haithabu »

I think the real stumbling block for the application of I Corinthians 11 today is not that its meaning is obscure but that the underlying principle is all too clear: that the wearing of a covering represents a woman's recognition of [male] authority.

For many believers it is a step too far in being out of step with our society but they are not willing to deny the Bible's authority in outright rejecting the passage so they attempt to square the circle by finding difficulties in understanding it. Present company excepted of course, but I think it is true in general.
0 x
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Robert »

haithabu wrote:I think the real stumbling block for the application of I Corinthians 11 today is not that its meaning is obscure but that the underlying principle is all too clear: that the wearing of a covering represents a woman's recognition of [male] authority.

For many believers it is a step too far in being out of step with our society but they are not willing to deny the Bible's authority in outright rejecting the passage so they attempt to square the circle by finding difficulties in understanding it. Present company excepted of course, but I think it is true in general.
I think you make a good point here. The issue for me is that it was a recognition of male ownership of women. Even Jesus berated the men for their hard hearts and the way they treated women as throw away things and property.

We also have to recognize the very strong patriarchal society that Jesus and especially Paul as dealing with. A woman was seen more as property and a baby maker then a "helpmate." The word used in Genesis for a woman was also the same word used to define an ally in a battle. An ally is not one who is one step up from a slave. An ally is more an equal and partner.

Paul also writes that slaves should obey their masters. He sent Onesimus back to his owner. Yet, in doing so, he called them to see him as a brother more than just property.

[bible]Philemon 1,17[/bible]

I also suspect that not all women wore head coverings. Christianity spread to many places quickly. Roman roads were used. Many cultures started being brought in. One example would be China. While this did not happen really quickly, Chinese women wore pants. Some of the Ethiopian tribes wore very little. Not all who came under the umbrella of Middle Eastern culture and traditions. Some of this is what caused the Acts 15 statements. The early church had to find a way to blend everything together from all the different cultures, Judaism would be one of the many. The Jerusalem Council rejected most of the Jewish religious practices at this time. They clearly broke from Judaism. They also stepped away from a strict Israelite culture. This is because they recognized that some of the expectations were cultural, not doctrinal.

I personally think many are reading the verses a little backwards. I think the focus is on the man being as Christ, yet all many see is what the woman should do.

[bible]1 cor 11,3[/bible]

Then in closing of this part, Paul even references custom (culture).

[bible]1 cor 11,16[/bible]

I also think about the verse of a woman having her head shaven as a disgrace. I think of those who are being treated for cancer and have lost their hair because of chemo. I see nothing disgraceful in that.

I also see nothing disgraceful for a man, while working the fields, to be talking (praying) to God the entire time he is working and keeping his hat on.

Maybe these are just ways that I try to rationalize the other verses. I am willing to own that if I am doing so. My struggle is those who demand strict adherence to these verses for others, but gloss over the ones they should be living themselves. I know of few women who would have an issue with honoring their husband when the husband is honorable. I see few women who would have issue with honoring men, if men as a whole were honorable.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Josh »

Paul makes it clear this is something established at Creation - but I guess God's creation plans get overridden by how smart men are in the 21st century.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:Paul makes it clear this is something established at Creation - but I guess God's creation plans get overridden by how smart men are in the 21st century.
Actually, no. I'm apparently not as smart as all the people who find the meaning of this passage crystal clear.
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
And I am not smart enough to know what the underlying principle is and how we should best express that today. Would you like to carefully explain all that to me?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

Robert wrote:
haithabu wrote:I think the real stumbling block for the application of I Corinthians 11 today is not that its meaning is obscure but that the underlying principle is all too clear: that the wearing of a covering represents a woman's recognition of [male] authority.

For many believers it is a step too far in being out of step with our society but they are not willing to deny the Bible's authority in outright rejecting the passage so they attempt to square the circle by finding difficulties in understanding it. Present company excepted of course, but I think it is true in general.
I think you make a good point here. The issue for me is that it was a recognition of male ownership of women. Even Jesus berated the men for their hard hearts and the way they treated women as throw away things and property.

I recognize the teaching of headship order, but I do not see it the way you are seeing it, and I always see that God has given women value, precious value, which is why He chose a woman, Mary, in the plan of redemption to bring His Son, and her Son, into the world to reconcile us to the Father. Some hold her in high esteem and so there's no fear of this patriarchal confusion- God did set up headship order, in Creation and Paul clarified it with Jesus as the head over man, in 1 Corinthians 11.

Robert- don't you think that Paul get's this accurately?

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.


We also have to recognize the very strong patriarchal society that Jesus and especially Paul as dealing with. A woman was seen more as property and a baby maker then a "helpmate." The word used in Genesis for a woman was also the same word used to define an ally in a battle. An ally is not one who is one step up from a slave. An ally is more an equal and partner.

I do not get that by reading Scriptures, there are many women given honor throughout the Old Testament and New- you would think that since I am of the female gender, I would be offended by Scriptures then if I held this same view but instead I recognize the value God, and even men- gave to women in many stories throughout the Bible- not just as property or baby makers. I wonder how we can arrive with such different perceptions? I do recognize the 'order' throughout, the 'roles' throughout- but not in a degrading way- too many beautiful stories that give honor to the women-

Paul also writes that slaves should obey their masters. He sent Onesimus back to his owner. Yet, in doing so, he called them to see him as a brother more than just property.

Slaves were a cultural situation- this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 regarding headship order wasn't a cultural situation



I also suspect that not all women wore head coverings. Christianity spread to many places quickly. Roman roads were used. Many cultures started being brought in. One example would be China. While this did not happen really quickly, Chinese women wore pants. Some of the Ethiopian tribes wore very little. Not all who came under the umbrella of Middle Eastern culture and traditions. Some of this is what caused the Acts 15 statements. The early church had to find a way to blend everything together from all the different cultures, Judaism would be one of the many. The Jerusalem Council rejected most of the Jewish religious practices at this time. They clearly broke from Judaism. They also stepped away from a strict Israelite culture. This is because they recognized that some of the expectations were cultural, not doctrinal.

In all the countries where the Apostles took Christianity, the women covered their heads- evidence of that is in the Orthodox Church- as we visited a variety of ethnic Orthodox Churches, from various countries- some women still covered their heads- in Orthodox Churches where they seemed to have drifted away from this, and they saw I was wearing one, I got asked a couple of times if I was from the country of their origin- (which surprised me!) of course as soon as I began speaking that cleared that up- but- it did tell me in the variety of countries Christianity was taken, women covered their heads. It was taken to Russia in the 10th century- and all Russian Christians are taught even today, to cover their heads- so if this practice made it with the missionaries even still in the 10th century- I think it is clear that they taught this throughout this church age. Same with the Catholic Church (of Rome and other places) it was required by women to wear something on their heads to church until 1978- my husband grew up Catholic, and remembers his mom & sisters had to wear something on their heads, you just didn't come in without a covered head- they are Irish/Schotish Catholic- So it was brought to those countries as well- (of course we know Christianity was brought to Ireland in the 4th century)

I personally think many are reading the verses a little backwards. I think the focus is on the man being as Christ, yet all many see is what the woman should do.

It's only a focus because people changed- it wasn't a focus as long as both sexes were obedient to this. Men STILL uncover their heads to pray. You will not see men wearing any covering on their head in Church- you will see them remove their hats at any public gathering anywhere, when someone prays- I've watched my husband do this forever- this comes from 1 Corinthians 11- so we don't need to focus on the men- they didn't move away from it.

[bible]1 cor 11,3[/bible]

Then in closing of this part, Paul even references custom (culture).

[bible]1 cor 11,16[/bible]

I also think about the verse of a woman having her head shaven as a disgrace. I think of those who are being treated for cancer and have lost their hair because of chemo. I see nothing disgraceful in that.

There is not a person on earth that would see that Paul would be seeing a woman losing their hair from cancer as disgraceful. Clearly, he is pointing out gender distinction and choosing to identify with the other gender by wearing short hair or shaving and from what I was told (who knows if it's true) it also had something to do with temple prostitutes. I think this is a very weak defense Robert-

I also see nothing disgraceful for a man, while working the fields, to be talking (praying) to God the entire time he is working and keeping his hat on.

Maybe these are just ways that I try to rationalize the other verses. I am willing to own that if I am doing so. My struggle is those who demand strict adherence to these verses for others, but gloss over the ones they should be living themselves. I know of few women who would have an issue with honoring their husband when the husband is honorable. I see few women who would have issue with honoring men, if men as a whole were honorable.
Men in our society have become very weak in many ways- I do admire the denominations that are still making the distinctions of roles very clear- I think that the gender confusion we see today has something to do with our overall dismissal of what God's word teaches, and perhaps some rebellious spirits involved. I work as a cashier these days- we have a special card at our store where customers can use their points at time of their purchase- I cannot tell you, how many men seem afraid to make a decision without their 'wives' approval and who call their wife the boss- they think it is funny. I think it is telling. I've heard this for quite some time and have been a witness of this reversal of authority in the average American household as who now wears the pants in the family- it's hard for me to bite my tongue when men say this. They've become 'afraid' it seems- and have no problem calling the wife the boss. She's the boss- I've yet to see a woman, if she's present- deny it either-
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

haithabu wrote:I think the real stumbling block for the application of I Corinthians 11 today is not that its meaning is obscure but that the underlying principle is all too clear: that the wearing of a covering represents a woman's recognition of [male] authority.

For many believers it is a step too far in being out of step with our society but they are not willing to deny the Bible's authority in outright rejecting the passage so they attempt to square the circle by finding difficulties in understanding it. Present company excepted of course, but I think it is true in general.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one-
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote: And I am not smart enough to know what the underlying principle is and how we should best express that today. Would you like to carefully explain all that to me?
Do you remember GC Donner's testimony about this? His wife began covering her head when she read the passage- to her it seemed pretty clear. Once women start listening to modern day explanations, then they get confused. Or when translations come out that make them feel like it was only 'married women in the 1st century' who practiced this-
I apologize if I seem contentious about it but it's difficult to accept how God's word get's twisted to say what we want it to say. I see this being done with the homosexual passages as well.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:And I am not smart enough to know what the underlying principle is and how we should best express that today. Would you like to carefully explain all that to me?
Do you remember GC Donner's testimony about this? His wife began covering her head when she read the passage- to her it seemed pretty clear. Once women start listening to modern day explanations, then they get confused. Or when translations come out that make them feel like it was only 'married women in the 1st century' who practiced this-
I quoted the passage that I was asking Josh to explain. Feel free to give it a shot. I don't think the confusion comes from modern day explanations.

Tertullian said that most people in his church thought the teaching was only for married women. That was a very long time ago. Interpretations of this passage have differed from early on.

I was part of a community that practiced head covering rigidly for 6 years. It had real problems, I think you know some of the story. I'm sure it would feel different in a community with a different attitude toward women and authority.
Valerie wrote:I apologize if I seem contentious about it but it's difficult to accept how God's word get's twisted to say what we want it to say. I see this being done with the homosexual passages as well.
Feel free to try explaining the passage I quoted verse by verse, that would be more helpful. I really don't think I'm trying to twist anything. It would be interesting to see if those who practice head covering could come to agreement on how it is to be understood. Try focusing on the verse instead of claims about other people's motivations.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Robert »

Valerie wrote:
Robert wrote:
haithabu wrote:I think the real stumbling block for the application of I Corinthians 11 today is not that its meaning is obscure but that the underlying principle is all too clear: that the wearing of a covering represents a woman's recognition of [male] authority.

For many believers it is a step too far in being out of step with our society but they are not willing to deny the Bible's authority in outright rejecting the passage so they attempt to square the circle by finding difficulties in understanding it. Present company excepted of course, but I think it is true in general.
I think you make a good point here. The issue for me is that it was a recognition of male ownership of women. Even Jesus berated the men for their hard hearts and the way they treated women as throw away things and property.

I recognize the teaching of headship order, but I do not see it the way you are seeing it, and I always see that God has given women value, precious value, which is why He chose a woman, Mary, in the plan of redemption to bring His Son, and her Son, into the world to reconcile us to the Father. Some hold her in high esteem and so there's no fear of this patriarchal confusion- God did set up headship order, in Creation and Paul clarified it with Jesus as the head over man, in 1 Corinthians 11.

Robert- don't you think that Paul get's this accurately?

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.


We also have to recognize the very strong patriarchal society that Jesus and especially Paul as dealing with. A woman was seen more as property and a baby maker then a "helpmate." The word used in Genesis for a woman was also the same word used to define an ally in a battle. An ally is not one who is one step up from a slave. An ally is more an equal and partner.

I do not get that by reading Scriptures, there are many women given honor throughout the Old Testament and New- you would think that since I am of the female gender, I would be offended by Scriptures then if I held this same view but instead I recognize the value God, and even men- gave to women in many stories throughout the Bible- not just as property or baby makers. I wonder how we can arrive with such different perceptions? I do recognize the 'order' throughout, the 'roles' throughout- but not in a degrading way- too many beautiful stories that give honor to the women-

Paul also writes that slaves should obey their masters. He sent Onesimus back to his owner. Yet, in doing so, he called them to see him as a brother more than just property.

Slaves were a cultural situation- this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 regarding headship order wasn't a cultural situation



I also suspect that not all women wore head coverings. Christianity spread to many places quickly. Roman roads were used. Many cultures started being brought in. One example would be China. While this did not happen really quickly, Chinese women wore pants. Some of the Ethiopian tribes wore very little. Not all who came under the umbrella of Middle Eastern culture and traditions. Some of this is what caused the Acts 15 statements. The early church had to find a way to blend everything together from all the different cultures, Judaism would be one of the many. The Jerusalem Council rejected most of the Jewish religious practices at this time. They clearly broke from Judaism. They also stepped away from a strict Israelite culture. This is because they recognized that some of the expectations were cultural, not doctrinal.

In all the countries where the Apostles took Christianity, the women covered their heads- evidence of that is in the Orthodox Church- as we visited a variety of ethnic Orthodox Churches, from various countries- some women still covered their heads- in Orthodox Churches where they seemed to have drifted away from this, and they saw I was wearing one, I got asked a couple of times if I was from the country of their origin- (which surprised me!) of course as soon as I began speaking that cleared that up- but- it did tell me in the variety of countries Christianity was taken, women covered their heads. It was taken to Russia in the 10th century- and all Russian Christians are taught even today, to cover their heads- so if this practice made it with the missionaries even still in the 10th century- I think it is clear that they taught this throughout this church age. Same with the Catholic Church (of Rome and other places) it was required by women to wear something on their heads to church until 1978- my husband grew up Catholic, and remembers his mom & sisters had to wear something on their heads, you just didn't come in without a covered head- they are Irish/Schotish Catholic- So it was brought to those countries as well- (of course we know Christianity was brought to Ireland in the 4th century)

I personally think many are reading the verses a little backwards. I think the focus is on the man being as Christ, yet all many see is what the woman should do.

It's only a focus because people changed- it wasn't a focus as long as both sexes were obedient to this. Men STILL uncover their heads to pray. You will not see men wearing any covering on their head in Church- you will see them remove their hats at any public gathering anywhere, when someone prays- I've watched my husband do this forever- this comes from 1 Corinthians 11- so we don't need to focus on the men- they didn't move away from it.

[bible]1 cor 11,3[/bible]

Then in closing of this part, Paul even references custom (culture).

[bible]1 cor 11,16[/bible]

I also think about the verse of a woman having her head shaven as a disgrace. I think of those who are being treated for cancer and have lost their hair because of chemo. I see nothing disgraceful in that.

There is not a person on earth that would see that Paul would be seeing a woman losing their hair from cancer as disgraceful. Clearly, he is pointing out gender distinction and choosing to identify with the other gender by wearing short hair or shaving and from what I was told (who knows if it's true) it also had something to do with temple prostitutes. I think this is a very weak defense Robert-

I also see nothing disgraceful for a man, while working the fields, to be talking (praying) to God the entire time he is working and keeping his hat on.

Maybe these are just ways that I try to rationalize the other verses. I am willing to own that if I am doing so. My struggle is those who demand strict adherence to these verses for others, but gloss over the ones they should be living themselves. I know of few women who would have an issue with honoring their husband when the husband is honorable. I see few women who would have issue with honoring men, if men as a whole were honorable.
Men in our society have become very weak in many ways- I do admire the denominations that are still making the distinctions of roles very clear- I think that the gender confusion we see today has something to do with our overall dismissal of what God's word teaches, and perhaps some rebellious spirits involved. I work as a cashier these days- we have a special card at our store where customers can use their points at time of their purchase- I cannot tell you, how many men seem afraid to make a decision without their 'wives' approval and who call their wife the boss- they think it is funny. I think it is telling. I've heard this for quite some time and have been a witness of this reversal of authority in the average American household as who now wears the pants in the family- it's hard for me to bite my tongue when men say this. They've become 'afraid' it seems- and have no problem calling the wife the boss. She's the boss- I've yet to see a woman, if she's present- deny it either-
You are teaching again.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: And I am not smart enough to know what the underlying principle is and how we should best express that today. Would you like to carefully explain all that to me?
Do you remember GC Donner's testimony about this? His wife began covering her head when she read the passage- to her it seemed pretty clear. Once women start listening to modern day explanations, then they get confused. Or when translations come out that make them feel like it was only 'married women in the 1st century' who practiced this-
I apologize if I seem contentious about it but it's difficult to accept how God's word get's twisted to say what we want it to say. I see this being done with the homosexual passages as well.
And what about taking the passage literally regarding men everywhere lifting holy hands in prayer. Is this not a twisting of interpretation to suggest this is not to be taken literal ? I, too, have some problems with the veiling passage. One being, that there is nothing in nature that indicates to me that men should have short hair. Actually in the Nazarite vow they were required not to cut their hair. Most pictures of Jesus show Him with long hair. For sure Samson and Abasolom had long hair. Man naturally grows long hair just as he naturally grows a beard and mustache. And as mentioned regarding Paul's comments regarding angels. Whats with that ?

To say that anyone ,who doesn't see veiling as a present day requirement, is a person who twists scripture for convenience purposes, could be passing unsubstantiated judgment on another believer and might be crossing the Romans 14 text.

I believe God is most interested in what is in the heart and not what man often judges things by which is often outward apparel. Wearing or not wearing a veil for women and for men lifting or not lifting hands in prayer means nothing if the heart is not in the right place of honouring God.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Post Reply