ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

General Christian Theology
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: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?
Yes, you say this is easy to understand, I find it much more obscure. So show me how easy it is to understand. Line it out verse by verse, as you understand it. What does each verse mean? People who are arguing that this is simple should be able to do that.
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. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, 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. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.

7 A man, in fact, should not cover his head, because he is God’s image and glory, but woman is man’s glory. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. 9 And man was not created for woman, but woman for man. 10 This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 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.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering. 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
temporal1
Posts: 16279
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 »

boot:
Yes, you say this is easy to understand, I find it much more obscure. So show me how easy it is to understand. Line it out verse by verse, as you understand it. What does each verse mean?
People who are arguing that this is simple should be able to do that.
if all we have is human understanding, your premise is correct.
we have more. as Valerie points out, there is a matter of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be quantified in these human ways you demand. you demand others align with your set of criteria, or else it's false. scriptures warn against this: human reasoning.

i understand, from my personal experience, reading scriptures, and observing others, the Holy Spirit confounds those who have not been touched by it. this void can cause big problems. thankfully, scriptures are honest about it, so, no need for surprise.
Proverbs 3:5
2 Corinthians 3:6
John 20:28

however, scriptures also warn about false, or empty prayers and acts.
(so. i understand this to mean) if the covering is meaningless to you, there is nothing to be gained in empty displays. pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit.
1 John 3:18
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
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Could some semi-Greek-literate explain for some of the rest of us how 1 Tim. 2:8 is a command, rather than Paul simply expressing desire? I occasionally lift hands, but based on the various concordances and lexicons on my shelves and online that I've been able to peruse, I've never understood the text and Paul's language to support it as a command, as is the teaching of the veiling. Perhaps I've been in error all this time, at least intellectually?
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 »

temporal1 wrote:
boot:
Yes, you say this is easy to understand, I find it much more obscure. So show me how easy it is to understand. Line it out verse by verse, as you understand it. What does each verse mean?
People who are arguing that this is simple should be able to do that.
if all we have is human understanding, your premise is correct.
we have more. as Valerie points out, there is a matter of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be quantified in these human ways you demand. you demand others align with your set of criteria, or else it's false. scriptures warn against this: human reasoning.
I don't think that's a Holy Spirit kind of answer, Temp. You're just slapping a nice label on yourself and a nasty label on me without even trying to answer the question. Everyone who agrees with you has the Holy Spirit, everyone who doesn't is just using human reasoning.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is critical in understanding a passage. I agree that only human reasoning is not enough. But usually, when the Holy Spirit makes something plain, you can explain it. And you can explain it in the fruit of the Spirit.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote:
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.


I think I need to better clarify my thoughts, if possible. I am not dismissing the headship order spoken about in this text and agree it is timeless. I am not convinced though that wearing a veil during prayer is reflective of whether or not that woman is respecting this headship order. She may be doing it out of tradition and her heart is far from accepting the headship order. If she does wear a 'covering' (which is another issue on just how much is being covered), and this is to honor the headship order, I have no problem with her choice to do so. Whatever we do we are to do it as unto the Lord.

The reluctance of men lifting hands in prayer is not a way I'm using to dismiss the headship teachings. I'm just saying if women are act in a certain way when praying (wearing a veil) then the men that support that belief should act in a certain way (lifting of holy hands) when they pray and for men, it is spelled out as being done 'everywhere'. And should not the 'everywhere' a man prays be also taken literally if men expect women to be veiled everywhere ?



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.

My thought here is that if men were to be treating their wives in a way as Christ loves the church and gave Himself for her, the submission to headship would not be an issue. I don't see all the blame going on modern day women's liberation. As in Jesus day, Jesus told slave masters who were His followers how to treat those in submission to them. And the believing slaves how to serve their masters. When both are doing their part, why would a slave be striving to get out from under that order of headship. But slaves did need to escape because of the ill treatment of their masters. I think women to a great extent have rebelled against the headship order because man did not treat them in the way God intended.

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.


From the little I know (and it is little, so everyone knock off with the 'amens' :) ) an early book like the Didache spoke of practises such as being baptised naked. Now this certainly wasn't a requirement we see in the NT baptisms and it would appear that sometime later that was changed to not require nakedness. So, how does one accept that the oral somehow got passed down along with the written without change and is only now followed by the EO ? If it was a requirement to be baptised naked, then I would think this would be a big enough issue to read about in the NT. Same for having icons, the worship of Mary not found in the NT, etc. I just don't have the faith to believe that certain men (a true church) has not messed with what was orally passed down. However, I do believe God is still building His Church on His own criteria of what matters most.

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.
I said I didn't disagree not did disagree. However, as said earlier I think more blame should be placed on us men for not following our headship role than for women's desire to rule (which I believe it evolved to)
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Sudsy »

Heirbyadoption wrote:Could some semi-Greek-literate explain for some of the rest of us how 1 Tim. 2:8 is a command, rather than Paul simply expressing desire? I occasionally lift hands, but based on the various concordances and lexicons on my shelves and online that I've been able to peruse, I've never understood the text and Paul's language to support it as a command, as is the teaching of the veiling. Perhaps I've been in error all this time, at least intellectually?
Question - if it is Paul's desire and not a command, then it must also be Paul's desire to continue with what he said about how women should dress and do good works and keep silent, right ? In other places Paul would say, 'I say ----- not the Lord'. Are we then suggesting in Paul's reference here to worship that what Paul said in this text cannot be used in literal application in what he says when he begins a text with what he desires to occur ?
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by lesterb »

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.
1 x
RZehr
Posts: 7028
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by RZehr »

:up:
0 x
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Hats Off »

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. I also honestly feel that we are not interested in understanding each other on this issue. I certainly am not going to take the time to list every good OR bad argument I have heard or read. I will continue with my opinion and Boot and Sudsy will continue with their's.

Thanks, Lester, for your explanations. You posted this since I started.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7028
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by RZehr »

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.
0 x
Post Reply