ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

General Christian Theology
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 »

Sudsy wrote:
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.
Well, in the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church hands are lifted in prayer- we haven't visited all denominations to see where it is done, but since they go back to Apostolic times, and we witness this in both, they are not ignoring the passage. In our former Pentecost/Charismatic days, hands were lifted in prayer, and in worship.

I don't mean to come across as judgemental when 'discussing' this Sudsy. Just contending for the faith once delivered to the saints- if the ancient Churches understand this and teach it, and ALL denominations used to do this (until the turn of last century, and 'new' denominations arrived on the scene) then again we have over 1900 years of history where there was not this utter confusion about it. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14) man has confused it, women's liberation has had a large part to play in this as well as vanity- it's difficult for men here to speak on behalf of women, but I've come from the women's lib era, and the lifting up of vanity we women tend to get caught up in, and satan hates headship order, he hates this whole teaching, and loves to get us out of order.
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 »

Robert wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Robert wrote:
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.
Only if you are learning- but since you advocate women teaching I am sure you appreciate the attempt. I don't see myself as teacher and you as student, perhaps you do- I am discussing and commenting on your comments- perhaps being a Priscilla in this case- how she tried to further explanations-
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:
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.
You want ME to explain how "I" understand it verse by verse? At face value, as if I have not been taught about it?

I might start with the frame of mind that God was speaking through Jeremiah the Prophet:
Jeremiah 6:16
King James Version
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote: Well, in the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church hands are lifted in prayer- we haven't visited all denominations to see where it is done, but since they go back to Apostolic times, and we witness this in both, they are not ignoring the passage. In our former Pentecost/Charismatic days, hands were lifted in prayer, and in worship.

I don't mean to come across as judgemental when 'discussing' this Sudsy. Just contending for the faith once delivered to the saints- if the ancient Churches understand this and teach it, and ALL denominations used to do this (until the turn of last century, and 'new' denominations arrived on the scene) then again we have over 1900 years of history where there was not this utter confusion about it. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14) man has confused it, women's liberation has had a large part to play in this as well as vanity- it's difficult for men here to speak on behalf of women, but I've come from the women's lib era, and the lifting up of vanity we women tend to get caught up in, and satan hates headship order, he hates this whole teaching, and loves to get us out of order.
My guess, according to my own experiences, is that a vast minority of Anabaptist men lift their hands in prayer in corporate settings. They jump right over this text (1 Timothy 2:8) and get into what women should do. And it is irritating to some men when I keep bringing it up. But if we are to take scriptures literally then we should not just talk about what women should do when they pray, right ? In our MB church, a few, mainly younger men, lift their hands in prayer and worship. And I have seldom seen it in Baptist, United, Presbyterian and Salvation Army groups either except for some that lead out in prayer. In Pentecostal churches it is not followed by all men either. It is not considered a modern day command regardless of what Paul said at that time that he wanted to occur. He first addressed the men and then the women. If one command is to be taken literally for the women then so must the command for the men if what Paul said does not have cultural influence.

In the context of God not being the author of confusion, I believe this is speaking of an orderly way of running a worship service, not how we interpret scriptures. And actually what Paul said here is not very reflective if any of our services, imo.

But when it comes to confusion over doctrines, how do we know that the earliest churches got it right on all these areas of debate ? Perhaps some got it wrong from the earliest times and then it got passed down as that is the only way to look at it. In times past there was a fear of challenging what was being passed down as truth. You just may be killed over it. Today, in our culture, we are allowed to challenge these ideas without fear of bodily harm. And in doing so, we find and can discuss other possibilities to the traditional views. One can feel this is too unstable a way of following Christ and rely on the traditional views handed down (which I think is the road you have taken) or one can believe that some of these views may not have held up as the one and only truth on a subject. If they saw through a glass darkly in Paul's day, then what has changed ?

Myself, I like to look into other possibilities like annihilation or a form of open theism in my seeing through a glass darkly. I believe if God wanted to, the scriptures would be so black and white that we would all come to the same conclusions if studied independent of each other. But we don't. And early Anabaptists thought it was possible for anyone to understand the plain meaning of scripture but what happened ? Anabaptism is one of the most fragmented groups over interpreting scripture and it's practise.

I believe 'contending for the faith once delivered' was the Gospel that Paul preached and described as the Gospel that saves us. This we must contend that there is no other way to be reconciled to God but through what Jesus did for us.

Anyway, I don't disagree that women's liberation to speak out and take more of a leader role can influence how some scriptures are viewed but I also feel very blessed by women in teaching roles today that I believe are being used by the Holy Spirit. God certainly isn't blocked from furthering His kingdom by what I chose to believe. And I do enjoy reading your teachings discussion points. :)
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
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: Only if you are learning- but since you advocate women teaching I am sure you appreciate the attempt. I don't see myself as teacher and you as student, perhaps you do- I am discussing and commenting on your comments- perhaps being a Priscilla in this case- how she tried to further explanations-
Rationalizing?

I have no issue with a woman teaching me or with a woman who does not veal. You are the one who seems to want to take certain parts ultra literal and then rationalize out other parts. I am honest and rationalize out all parts. 8-)

I guess if you do not see yourself as teacher, I can not see females as women, so they would not be required to veal. :clap:

Yes, I am being snarky. :dance:
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.
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 »

Sudsy wrote:
Valerie wrote: Well, in the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church hands are lifted in prayer- we haven't visited all denominations to see where it is done, but since they go back to Apostolic times, and we witness this in both, they are not ignoring the passage. In our former Pentecost/Charismatic days, hands were lifted in prayer, and in worship.

I don't mean to come across as judgemental when 'discussing' this Sudsy. Just contending for the faith once delivered to the saints- if the ancient Churches understand this and teach it, and ALL denominations used to do this (until the turn of last century, and 'new' denominations arrived on the scene) then again we have over 1900 years of history where there was not this utter confusion about it. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14) man has confused it, women's liberation has had a large part to play in this as well as vanity- it's difficult for men here to speak on behalf of women, but I've come from the women's lib era, and the lifting up of vanity we women tend to get caught up in, and satan hates headship order, he hates this whole teaching, and loves to get us out of order.
My guess, according to my own experiences, is that a vast minority of Anabaptist men lift their hands in prayer in corporate settings. They jump right over this text (1 Timothy 2:8) and get into what women should do. And it is irritating to some men when I keep bringing it up. But if we are to take scriptures literally then we should not just talk about what women should do when they pray, right ? In our MB church, a few, mainly younger men, lift their hands in prayer and worship. And I have seldom seen it in Baptist, United, Presbyterian and Salvation Army groups either except for some that lead out in prayer. In Pentecostal churches it is not followed by all men either. It is not considered a modern day command regardless of what Paul said at that time that he wanted to occur. He first addressed the men and then the women. If one command is to be taken literally for the women then so must the command for the men if what Paul said does not have cultural influence.

There is a reality within the headship order teaching that carries with it understandings that are timeless, and important- it's deeper than most realize. The walking away from the headship order teachings and the covering on a woman carries with it something that happened in Christendom that isn't 'pretty'- it's a my will verses thy will that started the decline. You will note that there has not been one woman contending 'against' headcovering on this forum- only a handful of men- and I feel the arguments have been weak and human reasoning. As far as the posture of 'hands' during prayer and that being the justification to dismiss headship teaching of 1 Corinthians 11- I cannot answer why men don't lift holy hands in some Christian prayer settings-but I don't see dismissing 'both' teachings because one is not followed by all.

In the context of God not being the author of confusion, I believe this is speaking of an orderly way of running a worship service, not how we interpret scriptures. And actually what Paul said here is not very reflective if any of our services, imo.

God is not the author of confusion in any situation- no matter why this passage was mentioned, if there is confusion among Christians about something, God is not the author of it. I think in times past there wasn't near the confusion over this subject as there is now- I am not confused at all, as to why satan wants to confuse it. He hates it. He loves division. He loves to get headship order out of order. He hates submission of wives to husbands. He loves to destroy families. He loves rebellion. He loves to divide. He loves to confuse. He loves to make the Church look like they disagree, that we must not be guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding and practice. He knows- his time is short (and shorter all the time). He knows the marriage of the Lamb with His Bride is coming.

But when it comes to confusion over doctrines, how do we know that the earliest churches got it right on all these areas of debate ? Perhaps some got it wrong from the earliest times and then it got passed down as that is the only way to look at it. In times past there was a fear of challenging what was being passed down as truth. You just may be killed over it. Today, in our culture, we are allowed to challenge these ideas without fear of bodily harm. And in doing so, we find and can discuss other possibilities to the traditional views. One can feel this is too unstable a way of following Christ and rely on the traditional views handed down (which I think is the road you have taken) or one can believe that some of these views may not have held up as the one and only truth on a subject. If they saw through a glass darkly in Paul's day, then what has changed ?
We have a different understanding of "seeing through a glass darkly"- I don't think that Apostle Paul didn't understand the headship passages he was teaching, when he saw through a glass darkly, I don't believe it was about the Scriptures he was teaching- I believe it was about the mysteries.
Apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11 to address some issues- one of them headship order- and he explained about the woman covering her head. Where the Apostles took the Gospel, women covered their heads. Maybe not identically- but as I mentioned, icons (drawings) in the Orthodox Church were drawings of many Christian women during THIS Church age, with heads veiled- Jesus' Mother Mary, is always seen with a veiled head- there was not confusion about this. I think to imply it was passed down wrong from the beginning seems a reach, don't you? I don't know how necessary it was for early Christian writers to keep writing about it, if it is the proof people are looking for- I mean how many times do you have to repeat yourself? The Church was started 'orally'- we all know this- it wasn't given a textbook to follow. Jesus commissioned His Apostles to go and make disciples of all nations- the only Scriptures they used for quite awhile were Old Testament- which were used to show how Christ fulfilled the prophesies about Him, along with all else the OT teaches- there was not a manual to start the Church- the early Churches were taught well, there would always be divisive people in the Church and always be those trying to enter in with their own ideas- but the gates of hell did not prevail against Her.

Myself, I like to look into other possibilities like annihilation or a form of open theism in my seeing through a glass darkly. I believe if God wanted to, the scriptures would be so black and white that we would all come to the same conclusions if studied independent of each other. But we don't. And early Anabaptists thought it was possible for anyone to understand the plain meaning of scripture but what happened ? Anabaptism is one of the most fragmented groups over interpreting scripture and it's practise.

Personally I feel like what's happened to Anabaptism as far as 'fragmented' are trying to make the application of ancient Scripture apply to modern days where so many things that have come at us so fast, have had to be sifted through and sorted out to decide upon what is best to avoid, that could hurt our relationship with the Lord- challenges that the Church at large never had to face. To me, they're fragmenting is more about application, than interpretation- until MCUSA came to be that is- from what I understand in observation- that is where major 'interpretations' of passages started to change. But here we have an example of the pattern by Apostle Paul of passing on the teachings,
and this continued-(continues) so it seems to me, what still stands, was there from the beginning.
2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.


I believe 'contending for the faith once delivered' was the Gospel that Paul preached and described as the Gospel that saves us. This we must contend that there is no other way to be reconciled to God but through what Jesus did for us.

I believe it includes all Apostolic doctrine, and it's all part of the Gospel-obviously what Jesus did for us, is the MAJOR focus, reconciling us to the Father by His shed blood- but that doesn't dismiss the rest of Apostolic doctrine either- there was a reason for all of it.

Anyway, I don't disagree that women's liberation to speak out and take more of a leader role can influence how some scriptures are viewed but I also feel very blessed by women in teaching roles today that I believe are being used by the Holy Spirit. God certainly isn't blocked from furthering His kingdom by what I chose to believe. And I do enjoy reading your teachings discussion points. :)
You don't? I certainly do. I think women's liberation had a great influence (sad influence) on Scriptures. Hey- you haven't hung around Christian women all your life in America like I have, to hear how attitudes have changed through the years. To try and teach the headship order today in most Churches would not well be received. Remember- when I asked the Nun why the Pope declared in 1978 that women no longer had to cover their heads- the REASON was because women were fighting it- they plain didn't want to do it. And he gave in- the Nun said "chose your battles carefully". Well- I don't know about you Sudsy but it seemed a case where women's lib AND modern hairstyles, made headship order- and putting a covering over your hairstyle (yes big hair was in!) and things like this- well the whole teaching became very unpopular.
Yes we can all be blessed by women and what they have to share- I love it when Justme and Sunbeam come out and speak ocassionally and love what others share here too, and those who write- etc- there have been a vast number of influential Christian women in this 2000 Church age, many I have seen on icons and read their stories, used for examples- to us- and their coverings (or veils) didn't take away from their important contributions to the faith.
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 »

Robert wrote:
Valerie wrote: Only if you are learning- but since you advocate women teaching I am sure you appreciate the attempt. I don't see myself as teacher and you as student, perhaps you do- I am discussing and commenting on your comments- perhaps being a Priscilla in this case- how she tried to further explanations-
Rationalizing?

I have no issue with a woman teaching me or with a woman who does not veal. You are the one who seems to want to take certain parts ultra literal and then rationalize out other parts. I am honest and rationalize out all parts. 8-)

I guess if you do not see yourself as teacher, I can not see females as women, so they would not be required to veal. :clap:

Yes, I am being snarky. :dance:
Well- this isn't church I am not a 'teacher' and you are not a 'student' and this is a discussion forum, not a church.
I see that as 'fact' not 'rationalizing' but this isn't the first time we disagree- I think basically you keep using this to try to deter the discussion away from the 'facts'. ;)
0 x
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 »

Speaking of lifting hands - that's usually what I do whenever we sing a song which addresses prayer or praise directly to God. I often though not always do that in private prayer as well. Not because I think it's mandatory, but because it seems fitting and natural.

I understand I Timothy 2:8 to be prescribing the inner state to be assumed during prayer rather than the outward posture. The reference to posture I take to be simply descriptive. Ie, make sure that hands which you customarily lift to pray are holy!

Mind you, if Paul were to have added an extended rationale as in I Corinthians 11 to emphasize why lifting hands was so important, then I would have no problem taking it as normative. We are given so much which is hard to do and contrary to the flesh as believers, why kick at the one thing which is easy?

But I think the issue with I Corinthian 11 comes back to authority as Robert acknowledged, or rather what our fallen natures interpret what authority means - something repressive and imposed, a barrier to our self actualization, life taking rather than life giving.

It's not just a matter of male/female authority, our culture has a problem with any form of authority, up to and especially with God's. But I think the key to the rightful understanding of authority is to see it in the light of Jesus' teaching on servant leadership - which is also how Paul describes the husband's authority.

I think that most Mennonites are on board with the idea of servant leadership, but I also think that many of us confuse it with abdication or non-assertiveness. But when Jesus washed his disciples' feet, he also said "You call me master and lord and you say well, for so I am." So the servant leader is called to be a real leader with real authority and real accountability to God for how he exercises his calling.
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 »

Calling myself out on error when I said this, as the Lord reminded me:
"God is not the author of confusion in any situation- no matter why this passage was mentioned, if there is confusion among Christians about something, God is not the author of it. I think in times past there wasn't near the confusion over this subject as there is now- I am not confused at all, as to why satan wants to confuse it. He hates it. He loves division. He loves to get headship order out of order. He hates submission of wives to husbands. He loves to destroy families. He loves rebellion. He loves to divide. He loves to confuse. He loves to make the Church look like they disagree, that we must not be guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding and practice. He knows- his time is short (and shorter all the time). He knows the marriage of the Lamb with His Bride is coming. "

God indeed, as the Trinity- was the author of confusion here:
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

There are various instances where God is the author of confusion, but- to me He is not the author of confusion about Scripture- Jesus expected people to understand the Old Testament- and with the Holy Spirit deposited into believers in the New Covenant- it's hard to conclude God is the author of this confusion.
0 x
User avatar
JimFoxvog
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Northern Illinois
Affiliation: MCUSA

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by JimFoxvog »

Valerie wrote: 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?
There is a explanation of alternatives, no knowing for sure. "This term MAY..." "OR messengers..." The footnote just says the Greek allows either translation. I haven't seen anything to dispute that.
0 x
Post Reply