ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

[Judas Maccabeus]

"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?

Yes, if you read his article. He states it would be the most obvious exegesis of that passage

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

You mean 1 Cor:11 here, right? Many Mennonite churches have women pastoring churches, leaders in relationships clearly forbidden in Scripture, and a membership that sees little problem with divorce and remarriage. If they are using that method of moving from Scripture to practice, I can understand why. There is no stopping place if you follow this path.

J.M.

[Bootstrap]

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

You mean 1 Cor:11 here, right?

No, I really did mean 1 Corinthians 14. If a church feels that instructions about tongues and prophecy and church order in 1 Corinthians 14 are not binding on all churches in all cultures for all times, it seems inconsistent to claim that instructions about what to wear when praying and prophesying in a public gathering are.

Many Mennonite churches have women pastoring churches, leaders in relationships clearly forbidden in Scripture, and a membership that sees little problem with divorce and remarriage. If they are using that method of moving from Scripture to practice, I can understand why. There is no stopping place if you follow this path.

Honestly, I think there are some churches that cover but ignore much of what is central in Scripture. I was once a member of that kind of church. And there are some churches that do not cover but are quite faithful to Scripture as I understand it. I've been a member of that kind of church too. If this is your understanding of Scripture, you should be faithful to it.

Some Christians seem to see head covering as one of the most important signs of true discipleship. That puzzles me. The passage is obscure to me - I'm not sure that I know what the principle is, whether it is hair or a cloth covering, whether it is meant for all times or just during public prayer, or what phrases like "because of the angels" mean. Because I'm not confident that I understand the underlying principle, I'm not confident that I know how to live it out today.

I've said my peace, and I'm not trying to change what anyone else does. I really do think we need to follow our best understanding of Scripture, and sometimes we just disagree.

[Josh]

"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.

I don't think what 1 Co. 11 says about communion is obsolete, nor what 1 Co. 14 says about speaking in other languages or prophesying is obsolete.

[temporal1]

Valerie wrote:
it is falling back on an analysis to justify not obeying the passages that WERE obeyed by women for 2000 years.

1. I was addressing the reasonableness of the translation, not commenting on how exactly to “obey,” and if you recall my posts on MD, I do not “justify not obeying.”

2. I have not studied EO history, so can’t comment on the accuracy of the claim in the article that EO churches have practiced all women veiling during worship for 2000 years. But requiring all women, married or not, to veil 17/7 has NOT been a universal Christian practice for 2000 years.

3. Tertullian is quite clear some unmarried women did not veil and his church had accepted it: “Still, until very recently, among us, either custom was, with comparative indifference, admitted to communion. The matter had been left to choice, for each virgin to veil herself or expose herself, as she might have chosen, just as (she had equal liberty) as to marrying, which itself withal is neither enforced nor prohibited.” Sounds like a good application that respects BOTH 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 7.

Valerie wrote:
“Also- the ESV says this as if they know for sure.”

4. The Roman Empire is a big place, with a lot of cultures, and the evidence is very fragmentary. I just suggested that they are using Roman women as evidence, and yes, that would be a problem.
Re: aggelos, it does mean “messenger,” in for example, Malachi 3:1, and Matt. 11.10, where it is used for John the Baptist. But I don’t see a clear instance where Paul uses it like this.

5. Re: Wallace. I do not know him personally and have not used his textbook.
I learned Classical Greek, with NT Greek used as “easy” Greek for the transition from textbooks to learning to read real authors. In the article, Wallace writes: “γυνή (gune) should be taken as woman (as opposed to ‘wife’) unless there are sufficient contextual reasons to argue otherwise.” If in “contextual reasons,” Wallace includes looking beyond the chapter and examining the style of the individual author, I agree.

Knight

[Valerie]

Honestly, I think there are some churches that cover but ignore much of what is central in Scripture. I was once a member of that kind of church. And there are some churches that do not cover but are quite faithful to Scripture as I understand it. I've been a member of that kind of church too. If this is your understanding of Scripture, you should be faithful to it.

Something central to Scripture, is obedience. As I've pointed out, ALL women covered their heads in Churches for the better part of 2000 years until denomination by denomination dropped it. THat is the same thing as dropping the teaching of obedience being central to showing that we love Christ- when 'thy will' is replaced by 'my will' something starts going the wrong direction, and we begin to lose trust in leadership and those who claim to understand God's Word-and as we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, we have to 'appear' to making this central, only to keep it from becoming lost to modern day translations

Some Christians seem to see head covering as one of the most important signs of true discipleship. That puzzles me. The passage is obscure to me - I'm not sure that I know what the principle is, whether it is hair or a cloth covering, whether it is meant for all times or just during public prayer, or what phrases like "because of the angels" mean. Because I'm not confident that I understand the underlying principle, I'm not confident that I know how to live it out today.

Again- I think that the some Christians you are referring to realize that denominations dropped an Apostolic doctrine & tradition and now explain it away- recognizing that we are warned in the last days about false teachers & prophets and go after teachings that would appeal to itching ears, you can understand the defense of those who keep contending for the faith - instead of them being convinced that now, in this past century, the 'true light' has been shed on the subject- and we can assume then men & women have been deceived for over 1900 years when men removed their hats or whatever on their head to pray, & women made sure to wear a covering of some type. You lose confidence boot but then so do we, if we see what has happened, understand what happened, what led to what happened, and then get concerned over 'what else' can happen when we question God's Word- I lost confidence in most pastors today when I hear their explanations of 1 Corinthians 11- even HOLLYWOOD did their homework & showed in an old 1960's series of Seattle being settled, that all the women going to Church, put on a scarf type thing on their heads when going in to Church- if Hollywood did their homework & got it right, why can't pastors?

I've said my peace, and I'm not trying to change what anyone else does. I really do think we need to follow our best understanding of Scripture, and sometimes we just disagree.

We disagree, the unbelieving world watches, and thinks since we change things over time, then God didn't really say what He says in His Word- and then they can question all else, and the falling away precedes His return, this isn't an overnight falling away-

[Valerie]

Valerie wrote:
it is falling back on an analysis to justify not obeying the passages that WERE obeyed by women for 2000 years.

1. I was addressing the reasonableness of the translation, not commenting on how exactly to “obey,” and if you recall my posts on MD, I do not “justify not obeying.”

2. I have not studied EO history, so can’t comment on the accuracy of the claim in the article that EO churches have practiced all women veiling during worship for 2000 years. But requiring all women, married or not, to veil 17/7 has NOT been a universal Christian practice for 2000 years.

3. Tertullian is quite clear some unmarried women did not veil and his church had accepted it: “Still, until very recently, among us, either custom was, with comparative indifference, admitted to communion. The matter had been left to choice, for each virgin to veil herself or expose herself, as she might have chosen, just as (she had equal liberty) as to marrying, which itself withal is neither enforced nor prohibited.” Sounds like a good application that respects BOTH 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 7.

Valerie wrote:
“Also- the ESV says this as if they know for sure.”

4. The Roman Empire is a big place, with a lot of cultures, and the evidence is very fragmentary. I just suggested that they are using Roman women as evidence, and yes, that would be a problem.
Re: aggelos, it does mean “messenger,” in for example, Malachi 3:1, and Matt. 11.10, where it is used for John the Baptist. But I don’t see a clear instance where Paul uses it like this.

5. Re: Wallace. I do not know him personally and have not used his textbook.
I learned Classical Greek, with NT Greek used as “easy” Greek for the transition from textbooks to learning to read real authors. In the article, Wallace writes: “γυνή (gune) should be taken as woman (as opposed to ‘wife’) unless there are sufficient contextual reasons to argue otherwise.” If in “contextual reasons,” Wallace includes looking beyond the chapter and examining the style of the individual author, I agree.

Knight

Thanks Knight- I appreciate your response-
I have an Eastern Orthodox Study Bible- I appreciate their footnotes very much- they will at times include different interpretations that are out there on particular passages. (it's strange to me, they don't comment on the headcovering but perhaps their assumption is that it is Orthodox using their Study Bible, and that they would know this already, think- they have icons of the saints, men & women, Old Testament, New Testament, and throughout this Church age, and they always show the women veiled- so probably to them there is no need to footnote this- but for the record, many EO Churches have gotten very laxed on this- only the Russian Orthodox (Russian in America too) will you probably find ALL women covering their heads, at least where we visited). I do feel much more confident in their long history of interpretations than today's to be honest with Apostolic succession of such importance to them- you will not see any icons (or artwork) of Christian women without a veil of some type, on their heads. I read a book called "Glories Seen & Unseen" the story of the headcovering- which is quite informative of the practice, throughout this Church age- it really does support it- and there's where I lose confidence in today's scholars (well, one place at least)

[lesterb]

Valerie wrote:
it is falling back on an analysis to justify not obeying the passages that WERE obeyed by women for 2000 years.

1. I was addressing the reasonableness of the translation, not commenting on how exactly to “obey,” and if you recall my posts on MD, I do not “justify not obeying.”

2. I have not studied EO history, so can’t comment on the accuracy of the claim in the article that EO churches have practiced all women veiling during worship for 2000 years. But requiring all women, married or not, to veil 17/7 has NOT been a universal Christian practice for 2000 years.

3. Tertullian is quite clear some unmarried women did not veil and his church had accepted it: “Still, until very recently, among us, either custom was, with comparative indifference, admitted to communion. The matter had been left to choice, for each virgin to veil herself or expose herself, as she might have chosen, just as (she had equal liberty) as to marrying, which itself withal is neither enforced nor prohibited.” Sounds like a good application that respects BOTH 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 7.

Valerie wrote:
“Also- the ESV says this as if they know for sure.”

4. The Roman Empire is a big place, with a lot of cultures, and the evidence is very fragmentary. I just suggested that they are using Roman women as evidence, and yes, that would be a problem.
Re: aggelos, it does mean “messenger,” in for example, Malachi 3:1, and Matt. 11.10, where it is used for John the Baptist. But I don’t see a clear instance where Paul uses it like this.

5. Re: Wallace. I do not know him personally and have not used his textbook.
I learned Classical Greek, with NT Greek used as “easy” Greek for the transition from textbooks to learning to read real authors. In the article, Wallace writes: “γυνή (gune) should be taken as woman (as opposed to ‘wife’) unless there are sufficient contextual reasons to argue otherwise.” If in “contextual reasons,” Wallace includes looking beyond the chapter and examining the style of the individual author, I agree.

Knight

Hi Temp. Since you seem to have a direct line to Knight, say hi to him from me.

[temporal1]

Hi Temp. Since you seem to have a direct line to Knight, say hi to him from me.

i receive a surprise email from him, a couple of times yearly. he's doing well, is busy!
like some others (you know who you are) - he reads MN, but, so far, has not registered.
time will tell on that.
i'm sure he'll see your message.

[MattY]

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

You mean 1 Cor:11 here, right?

No, I really did mean 1 Corinthians 14. If a church feels that instructions about tongues and prophecy and church order in 1 Corinthians 14 are not binding on all churches in all cultures for all times, it seems inconsistent to claim that instructions about what to wear when praying and prophesying in a public gathering are.

Many Mennonite churches have women pastoring churches, leaders in relationships clearly forbidden in Scripture, and a membership that sees little problem with divorce and remarriage. If they are using that method of moving from Scripture to practice, I can understand why. There is no stopping place if you follow this path.

Honestly, I think there are some churches that cover but ignore much of what is central in Scripture. I was once a member of that kind of church. And there are some churches that do not cover but are quite faithful to Scripture as I understand it. I've been a member of that kind of church too. If this is your understanding of Scripture, you should be faithful to it.

Some Christians seem to see head covering as one of the most important signs of true discipleship. That puzzles me. The passage is obscure to me - I'm not sure that I know what the principle is, whether it is hair or a cloth covering, whether it is meant for all times or just during public prayer, or what phrases like "because of the angels" mean. Because I'm not confident that I understand the underlying principle, I'm not confident that I know how to live it out today.

That's because of a fundamental disagreement with your idea that the passage is "obscure." They view it as being pretty clear, and it's also something that the surrounding culture has conspicuously abandoned. So if something so clear is abandoned due to cultural pressure, what is going to happen next?

It is also convenient that it can be easily seen whether or not a church is following this teaching, due to its visible obvious outer application.

For some, it might even be sort of a "shibboleth". Obviously no one who rejects the authority and inerrancy of scripture and its timeless application to culture is going to teach the head covering - even if some who do believe in those things don't teach head covering. This could be similar to the way dispensationalism became a shibboleth for fundamentalists in the early 20th century - no theological liberal was going be a dispensationalist. (I say this as a moderate dispensationalist myself).

For myself, I also disagree with your view of the passage - it seems obvious that it is at least a veiling intended for, at minimum, public worship, as a symbol of the headship order. It's the easiest and plainest reading.

I think 1 Corinthians 14 is binding for today. I don't know if prophecy and tongues needs to occur at an equal rate in all cultures, or if it would occur more in cultures with little exposure to the gospel. And I don't know that Pentecostal tongues are true NT tongues, or if the "prophecy" that occurs there is real (I'm skeptical), so I don't think the fact that we lack those things that Pentecostals have is particularly troubling. I don't know how it would look otherwise. So maybe we try to live our daily lives by the Spirit and if He gives us prophecy and tongues, or not, so be it. I do know what head covering looks like, even if the application (cap, bonnet, scarf, cloth, white veil, black veil, snood, etc) can vary. I think 1 Corinthians 11 is not that hard to understand, unless - this is my blunt personal view - cultural resistance makes people want to not understand it.

That said, I don't personally make it a test of faith. I understand there are Christians who believe differently, even if I don't understand their view. While I would prefer to be in a church that teaches covering, if I met a godly single woman who didn't believe in covering and fell in love with her, I could join a church where it wasn't taught, like a CMC church.

[Bootstrap]

For myself, I also disagree with your view of the passage - it seems obvious that it is at least a veiling intended for, at minimum, public worship, as a symbol of the headship order. It's the easiest and plainest reading.

If I were starting a church, as I said, I would probably do the same. But this isn't at all a dealbreaker for me, and I do see the text as more complex than you do.

That's because of a fundamental disagreement with your idea that the passage is "obscure." They view it as being pretty clear, and it's also something that the surrounding culture has conspicuously abandoned. So if something so clear is abandoned due to cultural pressure, what is going to happen next?

Yes, that is how you see it. And Pentecostals feel the same way about 1 Corinthians 14.

It is also convenient that it can be easily seen whether or not a church is following this teaching, due to its visible obvious outer application.

And Pentecostals feel the same way about 1 Corinthians 14. They often look at tongues and prophecy as the true test of whether a church has the Holy Spirit. Some Mennonites almost feel the head covering is the true test of whether a congregation is obedient to Scripture. These have become real identity issues.

I think 1 Corinthians 14 is binding for today. I don't know if prophecy and tongues needs to occur at an equal rate in all cultures, or if it would occur more in cultures with little exposure to the gospel. And I don't know that Pentecostal tongues are true NT tongues, or if the "prophecy" that occurs there is real (I'm skeptical), so I don't think the fact that we lack those things that Pentecostals have is particularly troubling. I don't know how it would look otherwise. So maybe we try to live our daily lives by the Spirit and if He gives us prophecy and tongues, or not, so be it. I do know what head covering looks like, even if the application (cap, bonnet, scarf, cloth, white veil, black veil, snood, etc) can vary. I think 1 Corinthians 11 is not that hard to understand, unless - this is my blunt personal view - cultural resistance makes people want to not understand it.

For some Pentecostals, 1 Corinthians 14 is the clear passage and they think they know what it looks like ...

That said, I don't personally make it a test of faith. I understand there are Christians who believe differently, even if I don't understand their view. While I would prefer to be in a church that teaches covering, if I met a godly single woman who didn't believe in covering and fell in love with her, I could join a church where it wasn't taught, like a CMC church.

I don't think we are miles apart here.