1 Coríntios 11
Warren Wiersbe · Citado em PreceptAustin
1 Coríntios 11
Wiersbe - The Corinthian women who appeared in the assembly without the head-covering were actually putting themselves on the low level of the temple prostitutes. The prostitutes wore their hair very short, and they did not wear a head-covering in public. Their hairstyle and manner announced to others just what they were and what they were offering. “If you are going to abandon the covering,” wrote Paul, “then why not go all the way and cut your hair?” (Ibid) Eliezer Gonzalez - Within Roman culture, for a woman to have her head shaved (1 Cor 11:5) was the same as removing the marriage veil. Indeed, Dio Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 14 Sept 407) informs us that, “a woman guilty of adultery shall have her hair cut off according to the law and play the prostitute.” A shaved head was therefore by law associated with the shame of adultery and prostitution. Indeed, Winter (Roman Wives) notes that a prostitute, by implication, “could no longer wear the traditional mantle to signify marriage and hence pull it over the top of her head in public.” (J Adventist Theological Society 22, 2011) Jack Arnold - In Corinth, a woman who was not covered was either a prostitute (of which there were ten thousand in that city) or a slave who was used at times as a harlot. Also the priestesses in the Temple of Aphrodite ministered in the temple with their heads uncovered. Therefore, no respectable woman in Corinth would think of going out without a head covering. It would be disgraceful and shameful for Christian women to appear in any public place, pray in church or give encouraging words to others in church without the sign of acknowledgment of the principle of headship in her life.
1 Coríntios 11
Wiersbe - Paul gave several reasons why women must keep their proper place in the church: (1) it shows honor to their husbands; (2) it honors Christ, the Head of the church; (3) it agrees with the plan of creation itself, for God created woman for man; (4) the angels watch our worship and know what we do, v. 10; (5) nature itself gives the woman long hair and the man short hair, thus teaching subordination; (6) this is the practice in all the churches, v. 16. How does this matter of “wearing hats” and “wearing short hair” apply to us today? While we do not have all of the same circumstances that Paul had to deal with in Corinth, we must admit that a woman or a man out of place is always a hindrance to the work of God. There ought to be modesty in the local church, both in dress and action. We dare not conform to the world, lest we lose our testimony. (Expository Outlines on the NT) Final Advice from Jack Arnold - There were people then, just as there are some now, who make a big fuss over wearing a head covering. Paul seems to indicate by using “we” that a head covering for women when praying and prophesying publicly was apostolic practice. He did not say, however, to put these women out of the church for not wearing a shawl, but they were not to be contentious over the issue. It would be foolish to discipline women out of the church over a symbol. Each woman must come to her own conviction as to what this passage teaches. My wife and I do not agree. Because it is really a trivial custom (tradition), it is not worth fighting over. If a woman is really of the conviction that her long hair is her covering, then she ought to stick with that conviction until the Lord changes it, but I would ask women to study this passage diligently. The head covering is only a symbol. The important thing is that the woman is in submission to her husband. The heart attitude is more important than the symbol. However, the ideal is have a submissive wife with the proper symbol of a head covering. Nor do the churches of God. The tradition of the New Testament church was to have women cover their heads when praying and prophesying publicly in some official capacity. Why would anyone conclude that a head covering is applicable today? Let me first say the head covering can be of any nature a shawl, a veil, a bonnet or a hat. It can be of any size or shape. If it is a hat, it does not have to be accompanied with the latest fashions. The reason a head covering is fitting is because there are certain universal principles in this context which do not change: 1) Man is the head of the wife; 2) Woman is the glory of man; 3) Woman was created for man 4) Angels are still looking on; and 5) It is a good tradition handed down by the Apostles. There is still one issue which must be solved. When is a woman to have her head covered? The first view is the traditional one which says that a woman is to be covered when in the official, public meeting of the local church. Women would not have to have their heads covered at Sunday school, evening service, prayer meeting or a small home group. The second view (which is my personal conviction a this time) is that a woman should have her head covered when she is praying or prophesying publicly in some official capacity. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 may not be dealing with the official meeting of the church at all. Therefore, women do not have to wear hats to the official service, but they should be covered if they are going to officially pray or prophesy (pray in an official capacity or give words of encouragement to the body) either at the official meeting or outside the meeting if adult men are present. If a woman is going to pray publicly before the congregation in a leadership role, or if she is to teach a Sunday school class or home small group with men present, she should wear a covering, so as to show that even though she has a leadership position, she is in submission to her husband, her leader. Bruce Goettsche - A difficult passage like this reminds us of how carefully we must interpret Scripture. It is wrong to make ourselves the authority and declare, “Paul probably didn’t even write this” simply because we don’t like what it seems to be saying. Beware of those who are quick to dismiss passages of Scripture under the guise of scholarship because they don’t like what is being taught. Such actions quickly result in denying the inspiration and authority of Scripture, dismissal of anything supernatural, a diminishing of the work and character of Christ, and a way of salvation that is focused on man’s “worthiness” rather than Christ’s sacrifice. In approaching any passage we should abide by some simple rules, 1. We should submit to the Word of God rather than trying to get it to submit to us. 2. We must determine the context of the passage. 3. We should interpret the Bible as a whole. We need to compare Scripture with Scripture. The Bible will always be internally consistent. A passage that is clear should always inform an unclear passage. 4. We must evaluate those who teach the Bible by the text itself rather than evaluating the text by the teacher. In other words, we should always evaluate teaching by asking, “Is this actually what the text says? 5. We should be suspicious of any “new understanding”. Second, William Barclay gives us a second application, - It must always be remembered that this situation arose in Corinth, probably the most licentious city in the world. Paul’s point of view was that in such a situation it was far better to err on the side of being too modest and too strict rather than to do anything which might either give the heathen a chance to criticize the Christians as being too lax or be a cause of temptation to the Christians themselves. It is a good principle. It is always better to err on the side of being too careful. Third, we should focus on fulfilling our role instead of complaining about it. Men are to work hard at submitting to the Lord. They should be students of the Scriptures and work hard to honor the Lord in every aspect of their lives. Men are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (in a self-sacrificing way). If we truly love our wives as Christ loved the church we will seek to eliminate sexism and despise sexual harassment of any kind. Our job is to treasure and protect our wives and family. Wives are to likewise be woman of faith and character. In 1 Peter we read, Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. [1 Peter 3:1-4] Wives are to support, encourage, and respect their husband. Ladies, deep down inside, men want more than anything else, to feel the support and admiration of their wives. They want to be your “hero”. Likewise, I believe most women long for a man who will love them and lead them as Christ does the Church. We will both have what we desire as we work together to follow the Bible’s instruction. Paul was not a sexist or a woman-hater. Paul was a faithful servant of God who wanted God’s people to embrace God’s design, honor God in their actions, and make whatever sacrifices necessary to present the truth effectively to a lost and dying world. Keith Krell's Practical Applications of 1 Cor 11:2-16 As we conclude this challenging passage I’d like to offer a few closing challenges: Wife, please consider your relationship with your husband. If you are acting in a way that undermines your husband, then you should rethink what you are doing. He is not necessarily more capable or better than you, but he is the head, the prominent one in your relationship. Most of the world will see your relationship in that light. Thus, you demean yourself if you bring dishonor to him. Husband, please support your wife in her ministry. My wife has supported me in our ministry since we were first married. She worked to put me through seminary, she has maintained our home and yard so that I could study, and she has sacrificed time as a couple for my continuing education. Apart from Lori, I would not be who I am today. Yet, I am continually asking her: How can I support you in your ministries? When our kids are grown, I can see playing a more active role in supporting Lori in her ministry. Church, please reevaluate your view of women in ministry. Why do you hold the views that you do? Have you thoroughly studied what the Scriptures say on women in ministry, or are you basing your conclusions on what you have always assumed was correct or are comfortable with? I challenge you to prayerfully think through some of these issues and interact with people over what role women should play in the local church. This has been an agonizing sermon for me. Yet, I have attempted to rightly handle God’s Word to the best of my ability. One day, I will stand before Jesus Christ and give an account for my teaching and pastoral ministry (Heb 13:17). On that day, I may find that my view on women in ministry was flawed. My hope is that Jesus will say, “My son, you studied the Scriptures and tried to be faithful, but you overstepped My bounds.” If I hear those words, naturally I will repent with anguish. However, I must tell you that I would rather hear those words than hear Jesus say, “My son, you adopted a very restrictive view of women in ministry. Consequently, you prevented many of my gifted daughters from serving Me.” Ouch! That would be devastating! Obviously, my hope and prayer is that when I do stand before Christ, He will say, “My son, you found the biblical balance by upholding biblical spiritual leadership and yet releasing my women to serve. I am pleased with how you have honored Me and My people.” 1 Corinthians 11:17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. Amplified But in what I instruct [you] next I do not commend [you], because when you meet together, it is not for the better but for the worse.
1 Coríntios 11
Wiersbe - “Let the rich eat at home if they are hungry. When you abuse believers who are less fortunate than you are, then you are actually despising the church!” The “agape feast” should have been an opportunity for edification, but they were using it as a time for embarrassment. I recall an incident at a Sunday School picnic when I was just a teenager. The person in charge of the games set up a relay that involved various people throwing eggs to each other as they backed farther and farther apart. Of course, the farther the teams went from each other, the harder the participants had to throw the eggs, and the results were hilarious. However, some of us noticed two Sunday School children watching the eggs with great fascination. They came from a poor family that probably rarely ate eggs because they could not afford them. The little girl went to the lady leading the games and asked, “If there are any eggs left over, can my brother and I take them home?” Wisely, the lady stopped the game before it was really over, awarded the prizes, and gave all the eggs to the two children. She knew that it was wrong for some of the saints to have a good time at the expense of others. (Ibid) And (present tense - continually) shame (kataischuno) those who have nothing? - Nothing means that they had nothing in sense of being the poor saints, the "have nots" in stark contrast to the wealthy "haves!"To shame the poor in this context has the sense that the wealthier saints were actively disgracing and humiliating the poorer saints.Their shameful treatment of their poorer brethren was completely inconsistent with the Christian faith and the spirit of agape (unconditional, self-less, giving, "God-like" love). Their "love feasts" had become unlovely and their gatherings were characterized by sloppy agape! As
1 Coríntios 11
Wiersbe points out that "It is a remarkable thing that Jesus wants His followers to remember His death. Most of us try to forget how those we love died, but Jesus wants us to remember how He died. Why? Because everything we have as Christians centers in that death. We must remember that He died, because this is a part of the Gospel message: “Christ died … and was buried” (1 Cor. 15:3–4). It is not the life of our Lord, or His teachings, that will save sinners—but His death. Therefore, we also remember why He died: Christ died for our sins; He was our substitute (Isa. 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24), paying the debt that we could not pay. We should also remember how He died: willingly, meekly, showing forth His love for us (Rom. 5:8). He gave His body into the hands of wicked men, and He bore on His body the sins of the world. However, this “remembering” is not simply the recalling of historical facts. It is a participation in spiritual realities. At the Lord’s Table, we do not walk around a monument and admire it. We have fellowship with a living Saviour as our hearts reach out by faith. (Ibid)