ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

[Bootstrap]

One wonders if one can ever accept NT scripture at face value or if it always has to get redefined through a cultural lens.

I think it is often helpful to understand things in the original culture to know how to apply them today. For instance, circumcision and meat offered to idols were major themes in the New Testament that might seem irrelevant today, but if we understand what they meant to the people at the time and why, they become much more relevant to issues we face now.

1 Cor. 11 is one of those things that makes sense in its own. It's not hard to understand. So why is it so popular in Christendom to ignore it or come up with complex explanations why you can ignore it?

When I read 1 Cor 11, I have questions like these:

• Is it saying that "the man is the head of every woman" or "the husband is the head of his wife"? The Greek could mean either, and it makes a big difference in the meaning of the passage.
• Is it talking about women putting their hair up as respectable Roman women did, or covering their heads with a cloth? This is not entirely clear to me either.
• What does "because of the angels" mean in this passage?
• Were both single and married women expected to cover?
• Was this a teaching applied only during a public prayer service, or was it meant to be more broadly applied?
• What was the basic meaning of the head covering to them then?

It's not surprising that people try to understand these questions in light of the culture. Unfortunately, most of the simple explanations based on culture seem to break down for this particular passage.

But I think it's always possible to use the same symbols they did and give them a very different meaning, and that can be a danger too. I was part of a community that taught that all women were under the authority of men and should not question or contradict a man. That played out in all kinds of nasty ways over time. And the head covering was a symbol of that teaching. I've read about a community where some men drugged and raped women - while their community taught that the head covering protected women from rape.

Ideally, I'd like a solid understanding of what Paul was saying and why, with a good answer to at least the questions I asked above. I think that would help me know how to appropriately apply the passage.

[Bootstrap]

The answer is pretty simple...they don't want to wear a veiling when praying or prophesying.

I agree that the simplest, most direct application would be to ask women to wear a veiling in public prayer and prophecy.

But some churches who take this seriously don't allow women to pray or prophecy in public at all, and many insist on quite a few things that the passage does not clearly ask for, such as veiling at all times. Very few churches apply this text that simply. The ones that do tend to be a lot less dogmatic and less inclined to judge other churches.

I think a lot of this is because when people do something, they want to understand what it means. What is the significance of covering the head? And to me, at least, this is not something that the passage gives a clear and simple answer to.

[Valerie]

The answer is pretty simple...they don't want to wear a veiling when praying or prophesying.

I agree that the simplest, most direct application would be to ask women to wear a veiling in public prayer and prophecy.

But some churches who take this seriously don't allow women to pray or prophecy in public at all, and many insist on quite a few things that the passage does not clearly ask for, such as veiling at all times. Very few churches apply this text that simply. The ones that do tend to be a lot less dogmatic and less inclined to judge other churches.

I think a lot of this is because when people do something, they want to understand what it means. What is the significance of covering the head? And to me, at least, this is not something that the passage gives a clear and simple answer to.

When you say there are some churches who don't allow women to pray in public, I think you are assuming that Apostle Paul meant 'outloud'- every Church I've ever attended, bows their head in prayer- if you will notice, ever male head is uncovered.
Prophesying is another situation- we know that in Corinthians where this same passage is, Apostle Paul then goes into teaching about spiritual gifts, including his emphasis on prophesying- and with chapter 11, and then the chapters about spiritual gifts taken into consideration, he seems to assume women could prophesy among a mixed crowd- I don't see this happening anywhere but pentecostal churches- and of course everyone questions their authenticity- but they are doing the same thing as other denominations- taking the Spiritual Gifts encouragement at face value for their churches.

[Valerie]

It's kind of interesting- I have considered that the men who generally contend against headcovering may feel like if they approached their wives about it, and shared that they have truly come to the conclusion that they are supposed to cover- that perhaps their wives would not be submissive to this- I am guessing- but I am wondering if this supposition lends itself to why men contend against it sometimes, but not always. It was women who protested against it to begin with, when this started to decline- that is what a Nun told me, which is why the Pope gave in- as she said "chose your battles carefully". So it really was a somewhat rebellious spirit that started the trend away from it.

[Bootstrap]

When you say there are some churches who don't allow women to pray in public, I think you are assuming that Apostle Paul meant 'outloud'- every Church I've ever attended, bows their head in prayer- if you will notice, ever male head is uncovered.

What does it mean to prophecy to yourself? I think "out loud" is an inherent part of the meaning.

There are certainly churches where male leaders pray and preach in public with covered heads, including the Pope and Orthodox Patriarchs. I think that goes way back in history.

[Josh]

In the Mennonite churches I have been a part of, women pray and prophesy in a public assembly rather regularly.

Perhaps there are some ultra strict groups that don't do this, but that's not a fair reason to condemn all head-coverers.

[Bootstrap]

Perhaps there are some ultra strict groups that don't do this, but that's not a fair reason to condemn all head-coverers.

I am certainly not condemning all head-coverers. Some people are writing as though the only two possible positions are to teach head covering or to condemn it.

[ohio jones]

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".

According to their 'teaching' no one after the first century needs to concern themselves with this at all, married, or not-

I don't see how one reads this into the footnote unless they are "inclined to be contentious."

Obviously nobody living today was married in the first century. Maybe "a first century sign of being married" would be clearer wording. But saying what a veil signified in the first century does not say anything at all about any other century.

By referring to the creation order and the principles of glory and authority, Paul transforms the veil from a sign of being married (if the footnote is historically correct) to a trans-century, transcultural practice. The footnote does not conflict with this.

[Joy]

So far as women praying aloud in a gathering, many hymns are prayers. And with a broad interpretation of prophesying, that could possibly be included in hymns, also.

[lesterb]

Many of the NT commands are given in the form of principles. This leaves us with the responsibility of finding a way to live out this principle within the culture we live in. But it never gives us the right to explain away the principle entirely.

Once in a while the NT will enlarge on the principle, but there are always aspects that are left to us to apply. But we always need to make sure that we apply it in a manner that aligns with the original concern, or we have misused our responsibility to apply the principle to eliminate it.

I view the basic principle of the first half of 1 Cor 11 to be headship. But in this case, Paul went on and built on the principle and gave some instruction as to how the principle should be shown in everyday life. He still left the actual application open to local application within the reader's culture. But again, rather than just writing off what the NT says, we need to build our applications to this principle within the framework that the NT gives us. In other words, our responsibility to application within our culture starts where the NT stops. In this case, I would see this to include the following...

1. Earthly headship needs to mirror heavenly headship principles. IE. God is the father, and Christ takes his position under the father's direction. Jesus clearly didn't rebel against his father's direction. Similarly, earthly headship mirrors this, where the man is in the leadership role and the woman is in the supportive role. Someday the earthly and heavenly roles will be merged in the marriage supper of the lamb, and men and women will have equal roles in this as being part of the bride of Christ. But in the meantime, we need to make sure that our earthly roles line up in principle with the heavenly pattern.

2. God knows that humans need reminders that they can see and feel. So in this case the principle was important enough to our well-being that God gave us some reminders. First, since the woman's hair is for the glory of man, she is told not to cut it off. But the glory isn't just for men in general. She is to save that glory for her husband, so she covers it. This is a sign that she is accepting her role in God's plan.

3. This step of obedience on the woman's part should be a constant reminder to her of being a player in God's plan, and so should help her to keep her proper place, like Christ keeps his.

4. This obedience on the woman's part is a daily reminder to the man of his responsibility as well. He is in the role of mirroring the heavenly father on earth. Both the man's role and the woman's role are very important. Compare them to the role of the Father and the Son. But the submission of his wife or daughters to the heavenly plan should bring out the best in the father and husband.

5. The obedience of Christian men and women to the heavenly model is also an important part of their witness to onlookers. In this context Paul uses the term "angels" and there may be a special meaning in that, where the angels support the woman in her role. But in a generic way this could also include onlookers in general.

So, yes, culture enters into the application. But first, application must always support the principle. And second, it must include the direction given in the context of the principle. From that point on, application will depend somewhat on culture. I think that this is often misunderstood. And finally, the NT tells us to always be ready to give an answer to the hope that lies within us. This leads me to feel that this principle applies to more than corporate worship. It is a sign to society, it is a sign to the angels, it is a sign to the Christian brothers, and it is a sign that she is always ready to pray or prophesy as the need comes her way. And lets not forget that it is a sign to her personally that will help her to submit to God's plan for her.

Those are my thoughts. Take them for what they're worth...