ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

General Christian Theology
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 »

Bootstrap wrote:What exactly do you want women to be saying today by wearing a head covering?
The scriptures say to do it. So just do it.

The alternative is to invent some way that 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't apply today. And I'm open to very, very narrow interpretations of 1 Co. 11:

- It only applies to married women.

- It only needs done during prayer, prophesy, or during formal church gatherings.

- Long hair can substitute for a covering.

But, in general, that's not how typical evangelical Christianity practices these things. It's entirely acceptable for a woman to have short hair when praying and in public gatherings with no covering. This doesn't personally offend or bother me.

What does bother me is that the scriptures in 1 Co. 11 seem to be completely ignored. And if we can ignore 1 Co. 11, why not ignore Romans 1? That's exactly the path progressive Mennonites have gone down, and I have no desire to repeat that journey.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:The scriptures say to do it. So just do it.

The alternative is to invent some way that 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't apply today.
But to do it, we have to agree on what "it" is, and what we teach about what "it" means.
Josh wrote:And I'm open to very, very narrow interpretations of 1 Co. 11:

- It only applies to married women.
- It only needs done during prayer, prophesy, or during formal church gatherings.
- Long hair can substitute for a covering.
If I were starting a church - and I'm not - I would probably ask women to cover their heads during public worship, at least the prayer portion of it. But my wife doesn't understand these texts the same way, and neither does my church. Any one church has to come to agreement on how they approach these things.

This is not something I think of as the acid test of true Christianity. I don't have a problem with Christians approaching this in different ways.
Josh wrote:But, in general, that's not how typical evangelical Christianity practices these things. It's entirely acceptable for a woman to have short hair when praying and in public gatherings with no covering. This doesn't personally offend or bother me.

What does bother me is that the scriptures in 1 Co. 11 seem to be completely ignored. And if we can ignore 1 Co. 11, why not ignore Romans 1? That's exactly the path progressive Mennonites have gone down, and I have no desire to repeat that journey.
My bigger problem is that the most central teachings of the Bible are largely ignored, and we major in minors. I'd like to see a faith that is mostly about what Jesus said and did. Sometimes external religious practices can feel a bit like tithing mint and cumin. Especially when the justice, mercy, and faith are not at the heart of things.

Why aren't we having the same focus on obeying the teachings about how we relate to the poor and the sick and prisoners, reaching out evangelistically, showing genuine love, etc?

And if the letter of the law is to wear a head covering, what exactly is the principle, the spirit of the law, that we want that to express? I feel like you are dodging that question, and I think it's a centrally important question. Bible-believing Christians answer that question in different ways.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Bootstrap wrote:Here's an issue for me: in today's culture, how do we express both the mutual slavery relationship of 1 Corinthians 7 and the creation order of 1 Corinthians 11? If we want to express the same principle that Paul was getting at then, would we do it the same way?
Boot- thank you for your earlier clarification. Per this, I don't think we can express this "mutual slavery relationship", at least here in America, for a couple reasons, unless you want to try to fit it onto employer/employee relationships...

While I don't see the creation order as the ONLY reason/argument to promote the Christian practice of a headship veiling, the creation order IS a Divine institution from creation, not from 1st century Corinth, which implies it to be timeless (at least in our temporal scene), unlike slavery which was a human creation not possessed of any particular time-transcendent virtue. Secondly, the practice of the headship veiling was commanded, whereas commands (and I'm looking to the NT here for simplicity) regarding slavery were simply in recognition of slavery and showing how to maintain Christian virtues/relationships within them, rather than commanding slavery. The first continues in force by virtues of its nature, the second was clearly cultural (and remains so today where it is still practiced openly). Or have I misunderstood you once again?
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Heirbyadoption wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Here's an issue for me: in today's culture, how do we express both the mutual slavery relationship of 1 Corinthians 7 and the creation order of 1 Corinthians 11? If we want to express the same principle that Paul was getting at then, would we do it the same way?
Boot- thank you for your earlier clarification. Per this, I don't think we can express this "mutual slavery relationship", at least here in America, for a couple reasons, unless you want to try to fit it onto employer/employee relationships...

While I don't see the creation order as the ONLY reason/argument to promote the Christian practice of a headship veiling, the creation order IS a Divine institution from creation, not from 1st century Corinth, which implies it to be timeless (at least in our temporal scene), unlike slavery which was a human creation not possessed of any particular time-transcendent virtue.
Here's how I understand the mutual slavery relationship of 1 Corinthians 7: a husband and wife no longer own themselves, they are each slaves / servants of the other. I don't think that's something that was abolished over time, I think that continues. And I think creation order continues. Both are timeless.
Heirbyadoption wrote:Secondly, the practice of the headship veiling was commanded, whereas commands (and I'm looking to the NT here for simplicity) regarding slavery were simply in recognition of slavery and showing how to maintain Christian virtues/relationships within them, rather than commanding slavery. The first continues in force by virtues of its nature, the second was clearly cultural (and remains so today where it is still practiced openly). Or have I misunderstood you once again?
Paul, writing to the Corinthians, made this command to them, and said that this was something he expected of all the churches. Creation order is timeless, but the symbols we use do change over time. Marriage is timeless, wedding rings are not. If Paul were writing to my church today, I'm sure his views on marriage and creation order would be the same.
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 »

temporal1 wrote:Valerie,
i received the post below for you from Knight-light.
i have not been reading MN during July, i will now go back and read this thread. :)
Valerie wrote:
Anyone familiar enough with ESV and or Greek that cares to speak into this? Or just speak into this regarding what they know about it?
When thinking about the translation of 1 Cor 11, I find it helpful to consider the very similar passage in Ephesians 5, and the way Paul writes about married and unmarried people in 1 Cor 7. How any particular author uses words matters far more than a list of meanings in a lexicon.

1. In Ephesians 5, Paul is clear: the head of the woman is her own husband. As Robert pointed out, Paul calls the woman to submit and the man to sacrifice.
2. Paul was writing to a very hierarchical society. I doubt a male slave thought he had "headship" over his master's wife, let alone over the woman who owned him herself.
3. In 1 Cor. 7, Paul does not talk about female submission/male headship at all. Instead, he talks about the mutual slavery of married men and women, and the freedom of unmarried men and women.
4. Adam and Eve were not a random male and female. Eve was created as Adam’s “own wife.” So a “headship” order based on “creation principles” is about a husband and wife.
5. Regarding the Greek:
Paul is pretty consistent in 1 Cor 7 and Ephesians 5 in using gune to mean wife and aner to mean husband. In 1 Cor 7, he uses anthropos for “man” when he means a man who is not a woman’s husband. With 1 Cor 7 so close to 1 Cor 11, it seems to me that if Paul intended to say that “every man is the head of every woman,” he would include the “every” and keep the parallel structure, and use anthropos, to be clear that a man who is NOT her husband is also the head of a woman, ie “the head of every anthropos is Christ, and the head of a woman is every anthropos.” No need for aner, because if every man is head of every woman, marriage is irrelevant to headship.
So I think there are good reasons for the translation “the head of a wife is her husband” in 1 Cor. 11. I think it would be reasonable to even have this translation: “The head of every husband is Christ, and the head of the wife is her husband.” Then in vrs 11-12, Paul introduces the “procreation order,” where he reminds husbands that although Eve came from Adam, every man since has come from a woman; ie Paul restates the equality in 1 Cor 7. Depending on what exactly the Corinthians asked, that could be what Paul was explaining, and would harmonize with Ephesians 5 and 1 Cor 7.
As far as women veiling as a sign of marriage in the first century, the translators may have been thinking of Roman women who wore veils for the wedding, but not routinely afterwards.
If anyone can read Greek, I think it is helpful to read Ephesians 5 and 1 Cor 7 a few times and get hold of Paul’s style, and then read 1 Cor 11.
Knight
Thank you Knight (and temp) for this analysis of a confusing passage in these days we live.
To me, and I understand why this has happened (although not in agreement with it) it is falling back on an analysis to justify not obeying the passages that WERE obeyed by women for 2000 years (some never departed from the original teaching and tradition about it) and so basically, we arrive in the 21st century having to figure out a way to explain it away-
but I find, after reading the Orthodox teaching and the Anabaptist teachings- that outside of those Churches- all others are in error in their teachings. Intentionally? Not necessarily. Accountable? Perhaps.

Also- the ESV says this as if they know for sure:
Greek gune. This term may refer to a woman or a wife, depending on the context. In verses 5-13, the Greek word gune is translated wife in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a sign of being married in first century. And then the footnote to 'angels' in vs 10 it says "Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report".


How do THEY know, that angels here- is referring to 'people' sent to observe & report? Where do they get that?

Also, I wonder what Knight would think about this article?

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2 ... coverings/

(I honestly & truly believe Apostolic succession on such topics is beneficial)
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16277
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 »

hello Valerie :D
i have not read this thread, as i planned, but, i was just reading this (link below.)
What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today?
https://bible.org/article/what-head-cov ... y-us-today
because this thread is under General Theology, i'll post it here.
about the author - it doesn't state his church affiliation:
Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.

His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996) has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries. He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible. Dr. Wallace is also the Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
i'm not sure if Knight has read this piece, he may know the author! i have no idea.
i found this because of questions coming from this thread. it seems many people are rethinking these questions, after a period of simply ignoring them.
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
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

temporal1 wrote:What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today?
https://bible.org/article/what-head-cov ... y-us-today
It's a good article.
temporal1 wrote:about the author - it doesn't state his church affiliation
His textbook is probably the most widely used for introductory Greek classes. His theology is more or less in keeping with the Southern Baptist tradition, here is the doctrinal statement of the seminary he teaches at: https://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

He's a pretty famous guy in biblical Greek circles. I've met him, but only briefly. Here's his outline of mainstream Protestant views:
What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today?
Related Media

The following ‘exegesis’ (if we can call it that) is really no more than an attempt to wrestle with the major hermeneutical-pragmatic double question of this passage, viz., what is the head covering and in what sense is this text applicable today?

There are several views in vogue on the text, but within evangelicalism three or four come readily to mind:

(1) This text has no applicability to us today. Paul is speaking about a ‘tradition’ that he has handed on. Hence, since this is not the tradition of the modern church, we hardly need to consider this text.

(2) The head covering is the hair. Hence, the applicability today is that women should wear (relatively) long hair.

(3) The head covering is a real head covering and the text is applicable today, in the same way as it was in Paul’s day. Within this view are two basic sub-views:

The head covering is to be worn by all women in the church service.
The head covering is to be worn by women in the church service only when praying or prophesying publicly.

(4) The head covering is a meaningful symbol in the ancient world that needs some sort of corresponding symbol today, but not necessarily a head covering. This also involves the same two sub-views as #3 above.

My own convictions are that that view 4 is correct. The sub-view within this that I adopt is the second one: women only need to wear some symbol when praying or prophesying publicly.
I pretty much agree with him - and Richard Hayes.
Second, if the actual symbol used is not the issue, but what it represents is, what symbol should we use today? There can be no universal answer, simply because the ‘meaningful symbol’ approach is a recognition that conventions change. If we were to canonize one symbol--especially one not mentioned in the Bible--then we would be in danger of elevating oral tradition to the level of Scripture and of externalizing and trivializing the gospel. Having said that, each church needs to wrestle with an appropriate symbol for the present time. Quite frankly, if you (and your church) think that what I’ve suggested in this paper has validity, then the leadership of the church should probably do some creative brain-storming. I would like very much to hear from you!

!!! SNIP !!!

At the present time--and I emphasize the tentative nature of this position--I think the wearing of a modest dress is an appropriate symbol. It does not pick up every correspondence in the passage, but it does do justice to many. In particular--and this is most important--a woman who wears a provocative dress (too feminine) or who pushes the boundaries of propriety in the other direction (such as jeans, business suit) is often not showing proper submission in her very attitude.
And I also appreciate his openness to other views.
I hope and pray that this paper is not too offensive to any who would read it. My concern at all times is first to be faithful to the Scriptures. And second, I wish at all times to be sensitive to real people with real needs. Some may object that this paper is not biblical enough; others may object that it is out of step with modern culture. If someone disagrees with my position, that is fine. But to convince me to change requires a refutation of the exegesis. I may well be wrong in my exegesis, but I will need to see it. As much as I sympathize with the feminist movement (and I sympathize with much in it), I cannot betray my conscience or my understanding of Scripture. I am open to other views on the text, but will not change simply because of ad hominem arguments. All believers need to be convinced of their views in light of Scripture; none should depart from what the Bible teaches simply because such views are not popular. The real danger, as I see it, is that many Christians simply ignore what this text says because any form of obedience to it is inconvenient.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
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 »

"Did God really say that"
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14443
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:"Did God really say that"
You seem to believe that God instituted a head covering for women as an eternal sign for all cultures forevermore. Did God really say that?

After all, I don't think many Mennonite churches treat 1 Corinthians 14 that way.

I certainly have no problem with churches that practice head covering as you do. I have more problems with people who judge those who do not have the same beliefs about head covering, speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc.
Last edited by Bootstrap on Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Josh wrote:"Did God really say that"

No. He states in the earlier part of the article"

"""The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it.""

Than suggested it should not be observed because it made women uncomfortable. Later suggests modest dress should be observed in place of it.

With exegesis like this, is it any wonder that the evangelical movement is off the rails. I an a bit surprised that a prof. from Dallas would write something like this. Most of my profs in grad school were educated there, (Mostly ThD's) and I could not conceive of one of coming up with a "Just as if you were actually obedient to the plain meaning of Scripture" view and suggesting it was valid. With that kind of hermeneutic it scares me as to what is next.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Post Reply