1 Coríntios 11
William MacDonald · Citado em PreceptAustin
1 Coríntios 11
William MacDonald - We might pause here to state that the head-covering is simply an outward sign and it is of value only when it is the outward sign of an inward grace. In other words, a woman might have a covering on her head and yet not truly be submissive to her husband. In such a case, to wear a head-covering would be of no value at all. The most important thing is to be sure that the heart is truly subordinate; then a covering on a woman’s head becomes truly meaningful. (Believer's Bible Commentary) Keith Krell interprets the authority differently - This verse is considered one of the most difficult verses in the entire Bible. So I propose my understanding with great humility. First, Paul is summing up his argument with the use of the word “therefore.” Second, the words “a symbol of” are in italics in the NASB. This means that these words are not in the Greek text. The NASB is suggesting that the head covering is what women ought to wear on their heads. However, my understanding of the “authority on her head” is to allow the term “authority” to have its usual meaning of “having the freedom or right to choose.” The meaning in this case would be that the woman has authority over her head (man) to do as she pleases. She can choose to submit or not. If the ladies continue to disregard Paul’s words to cover their heads, they will suffer the consequences. It is also possible that Paul meant that women have freedom to decide how they will pray and prophesy within the constraint that Paul had imposed, namely, with heads covered. Because of the angels (aggelos/angelos) - Robertson interpretatively paraphrases this " Even if she does not shrink from scandalizing men, she might surely fear to be an offence to angels." Amplified "that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them]." NET NOTE - Paul does not explain this reference to the angels, and its point is not entirely clear. It seems to reflect an awareness that angels are witnesses to church life (cf. Eph 3:10) and would be particularly sensitive to resistance against God’s created order.
1 Coríntios 11
William MacDonald - This does not mean that parties had broken away from the church and formed separate fellowships, but rather that there were cliques and factions within the congregation. A schism is a party inside, whereas a sect is a different party outside. Paul could believe these reports of divisions because he knew that the Corinthians were in a carnal state, and he had previous occasion in this Epistle to rebuke them because of their divisions. (Ibid) F B Hole on in part I believe it - Paul was prepared to give at least partial credence to the reports of the divisions at Corinth, since he knew that, owing to their carnal state, there were bound to be these opinionated factions in their midst. Here Paul reasons forward from their state to their actions. Knowing them to be carnal and walking as men, he knew that they would certainly fall victims to the inveterate tendency of the human mind to form its strong opinions, and the factions founded in those opinions, ending in the schisms and divisions. He knew, too, that God could overrule their folly and take occasion to make manifest those that were approved of Him, walking according to the Spirit and not as man; and consequently eschewing the whole of this divisive business. (The Administration of the Mystery) Arnold - This is not separation from the church, but dissensions within it. There were cliques, not sects, parties separated from each other by alienation of feelings, and also some differences of opinion over secondary doctrine. There were cliques of the rich, the poor, the Jewish converts, the Gentile converts, those who had spectacular spiritual gifts and those who exalted their particular leader.
1 Coríntios 11
William MacDonald - The question is often raised whether we should use leavened or unleavened bread, fermented or unfermented wine for the Lord's Supper. There is little doubt that the Lord used unleavened bread and fermented wine (all wine in those days was fermented). Those who argue that leavened bread spoils the type (leaven is a picture of sin) should realize that the same is true of fermentation. It is a tragedy when we become so occupied with the elements that we fail to see the Lord Himself. Paul emphasized that it is the spiritual meaning of the bread, not the bread itself that counts. "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:7, 8). It is not the leaven in the bread that matters, but the leaven in our lives! (Ibid) Remembrance (364)(anamnesis from ana = again + mimnesko = remember) means for causing someone to remember. Used only 4x in NT and 3 in context of Lord's Supper - Lk. 22:19; 1 Co. 11:24; 1 Co. 11:25; The fourth use is Hebrews 10:3 "But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year." All the animal sacrifices were reminders pointing forward to Jesus' crucifixion. Now the symbol of the sacrificial Lamb's body is a reminder pointing back to the crucifixion. Related Resource: What is the substitutionary atonement? | GotQuestions.org What is transubstantiation? What is consubstantiation? Why is the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper such a controversial issue? Should a non-Catholic Christian participate in a Catholic Mass? What is the spiritual presence view of the Lord’s Supper? What is the importance of the Lord’s supper / Christian Communion? What is the meaning and importance of the Last Supper? What does the Bible mean when it speaks of the breaking of bread? How often should the Lord’s Supper / Communion be observed? 10 Things You Should Know about the Lord's Supper and Communion - Sam Storms