ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

General Christian Theology
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14441
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

lesterb wrote:This was aimed at Valerie, I know. And she can answer it separately if she wants. But I thought I'd throw in my understanding of this, for what it's worth.
Thanks, Lester. That was the kind of response I was looking for.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14441
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Hats Off wrote:Could we once more PLEASE drop the discussion on the women's veiling and simply agree that for some of us it comes across as something that is mandatory and some of us do not understand it this way at all. Can we agree to respect each other's opinion even while being firmly grounded in our own?

Personally, I have seen and heard many good explanations on why we desire to maintain the veiling. I also feel strongly that the opposing views are not as credible. But once again that is my opinion.
Thanks, Hats Off. I'm dropping out of this thread now. This is my last post here.

I appreciate your admonition and the spirit in which it is given.
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 »

lesterb wrote: God [head of] Christ
Christ [head of] man
Man [head of] woman
I might be helpful to explain how you define "head of."

I have a feeling I see it differently, thus some of my struggle with the interpretation of these verses.
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: 5855
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Sudsy »

RZehr wrote:
Sudsy wrote:In other places Paul would say, 'I say ----- not the Lord'.
When Pauls says 'I say ----- not the Lord', this is not necessarily to mean that he is simply tossing out random opinion of his own. I believe he simply saying that he is not directly quoting Jesus, but rather is speaking as the Holy Spirit directs him. Therefore what follows carries the same authority as all other inspired writings.
So then wherever Paul did not say 'I say ----' he was quoting Jesus ? I think much of what Paul said was not quoting Jesus but was written as the Holy Spirit guided him to write. Personally, I have no problem with Paul giving an opinion outside of direct Spirit prompting on a subject as when he said - "But in my opinion it would be better for her to stay single, and I think I am giving you counsel from God’s Spirit when I say this" NLT, Paul was not completely sure he was guided by the Spirit in writing this. To me, this is no challenge to the inspiration of scripture and it shows that Paul could distinguish between direct Spirit leading from his own thoughts. Well, I guess I wandered off topic again. Whoops :oops:
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by silentreader »

Robert wrote:
lesterb wrote: God [head of] Christ
Christ [head of] man
Man [head of] woman
I might be helpful to explain how you define "head of."

I have a feeling I see it differently, thus some of my struggle with the interpretation of these verses.
That's a good point Robert, I think 'the head of' meaning does sometimes get twisted. Certainly, whatever meaning we give to it, it is difficult for a woman to accept a man as 'head of' if Christ is not the 'head of' that man.
There needs to be a 'filter down' effect for the 'head of' to work properly.
How to define that, though. In what way was God the 'head of' Christ? A general idea we might consider is 'primacy of order'. But what shape does that take as it trickles down?
Perhaps Paul's statement in Philippians might be helpful as a starting point;
Philippians 2:1-11English Standard Version (ESV)
Christ's Example of Humility
2 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[c] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I know that 'submit' is almost a dirty word in some circles, but if Christ had not submitted to the will of the Father, then we would still be lost in our sins.
But here again, what shade of meaning does 'submit' take in the 'head of' context?
My feeling is that it must be guided by mutual love and care, not by coercion of any degree.

....just some thoughts...
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
temporal1
Posts: 16275
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by temporal1 »

silentreader wrote: I know that 'submit' is almost a dirty word in some circles, but if Christ had not submitted to the will of the Father, then we would still be lost in our sins.

But here again, what shade of meaning does 'submit' take in the 'head of' context?
My feeling is that it must be guided by mutual love and care, not by coercion of any degree.
....just some thoughts...
in my early years on MD, submission was discussed often. i enjoyed those discussions, and learned to think about it in new ways, and in more depth than i had. especially in the context of accept, submit, obey.

i believe it to be very important in today's world where dominant messages are self-centered, pride-centered, rebellion-resistance-centered.

certainly there are misunderstandings and abuses.
i've concluded mankind has a unique ability to run anything off the rails.
but, it's too important to dismiss.

as you say, Jesus Christ modeled God at center, submission and obedience, to the ultimate.
He modeled this over+over, consistently, in word and action.

i'm not convinced we get Jesus' first commandment quite right. i'm not sure why. :?
but, i believe He gave us an order in His commandments, and, truly, it seems to me, when we get it right, all remaining is so much more easily falls into place.
lesterb wrote:God [head of] Christ
Christ [head of] man
Man [head of] woman
this just seems so "normal" to me.
it's a shame it's been so widely abandoned. when in balance, it's a good order for families and communities; men have direction, women are fulfilled.

there were abuses.
however, the replacement has as many or more problems, people are no more content than they ever were, in marriage, a lot less content. all are struggling.

is that a net win? not from my perspective.

i remind my daughter, when times are tough:
no life is perfect, no one has it all. those are fantasies and lies.

women are not small men.
children are not small adults.
there seems to be lots of confusion about those things out there.

when mankind abuses God's Word, then turns to human law for replacement .. that's just not very wise. better to return to seek the Holy Spirit more deeply in God's Word to correct, or find new direction, rather than to attempt to go off in a human direction.

one human law seems to require untold numbers of more human law to add to it, it never cures anything, and never ends. may as well stick with the Master. how many buildings in D.C. are filled with human law right now, with no end in sight?!

sometimes i imagine all those buildings full of human law - then, compare it to one Bible.
that vision is a clue to visualize the utter madness of human reasoning compared to the wisdom of God.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
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 »

Temp your observations align with mine, probably a similar reason then why we were so attracted to MD. I think you put it well.
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 »

lesterb wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: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.
This was aimed at Valerie, I know. And she can answer it separately if she wants. But I thought I'd throw in my understanding of this, for what it's worth.

Norman Geisler said one time that the problem with a lot of people is that they spend so much time reading between the lines of scripture that they ignore the lines themselves. I find it a bit frustrating how that some people tend to spend so much time in dissecting and analyzing what is fairly clearly stated. I think they manufacture their own confusion.
3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.
I’ve explained my interpretation of this earlier in this thread. This is Paul’s thesis, or his topic sentence, and leads me to believe that the rest of the passage should be interpreted in light of this.
God [head of] Christ
Christ [head of] man
Man [head of] woman
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head.
Men should show deference to their head by uncovering it in times of prayer and prophesy. Note that covering the head cannot apply to the hair or all Christian men would need to shave their heads. Nor does it seem likely that it means a weather protection head covering, since that wouldn’t really work in some climates. Anyway, throughout this passage the idea of covering assumes a recognizeable symbol, which a weather protection doesn’t really supply.
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…
He head is man, and especially her husband or father (if she is single). It also dishonors the whole principle of headship if she doesn’t cover.
…since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. 6 So if a woman’s head is not covered, her hair should be cut off.
This assumes that the woman feels that it would be a disgrace for her to have her hair shaved off. Which is why women in general will wear a wig if they lose their natural hair. This again shows that the hair is not the covering in focus because if she isn’t covered, then she should cut off all her hair. If the hair is the covering, then it is already gone.
But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.
Again, Paul assumes that it is disgraceful for a woman to have all her hair cut off.
7 A man, in fact, should not cover his head, because he is God’s image and glory
This also makes the most sense if we realize that we are talking about a covering that has special significance, such as the Jewish prayer cap.
but woman is man’s glory. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man.
Refers to the order of creation as one reason for the headship process.
9 And man was not created for woman, but woman for man.
ditto
10 This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
The covering should be a symbol that is understood by onlookers, not something like a toque or a bandana.
11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God.
In all of this, men should not take advantage of their position in God’s order by lording it over the woman. Rather, the Christian life, and the Christian home is a team effort.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Rhetorical question: assumed answer is NO
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him,
Rhetorical question: assumed answer is YES
15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?

Rhetorical question: assumed answer is YES
For her hair is given to her as a covering.

This covering is not talking about the symbol covering but her “natural glory covering.” It is part of her appeal to man and is to be kept for her husband. This is part of the headship emphasis.
16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.
Don’t bother arguing about this, because this is the only custom we have as the church of God.
Thank you lesterb, I think this was very well explained- verse by verse-
It seems though even if it can be explained and accepted this way- the ESV attributes to a limited time & culture which is why I started the thread-
At this point though I feel some are so grieved by the discussion I feel I perhaps should never have brought it up?
0 x
joshuabgood
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:23 pm
Affiliation: BMA

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by joshuabgood »

I agree with Lester's interpretation with a couple of short addendums.

I think "weather protection" head gear is still a covering. That is why in courtrooms, when the judge enters, you remove your hats. And why, even outside when praying, men remove their headgear. I do think it is permissible for men to wear weather protection, but it should be removed when praying or prophesying.

It also isn't clear to me that the veiling needs to be "something immediately recognizable" to the onlooker. The onlooker, depending on education and cultural awareness, may or may not recognize spiritual significance. Further, as Paul mentioned, women covering their heads, whether with bandana, German Kapp, or any other item is natural and I think meets the requirement.

Lastly, it isn't clear to me that women need to wear them all the time, rather, like Paul says, when praying or prophesying. At the very least, in the public context. It's probably ok if they pray in bed uncovered, methinks.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
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 »

The Bible is not, generally, a book demanding we engage in unreasonable rituals of no value. I do not see a principle in scripture that a man can't talk to God when he's by himself outside chopping wood in freezing weather, or that a woman can't sing and pray to God when in the shower.

I do see a principle for order in gatherings of believers to worship. If believers lack heated buildings and have to meet in the woods in the dead of winter, then perhaps the best solution is to just let the women do all the praying and prophesying.
0 x
Post Reply