I know this topic has been discussed before but I haven’t seen my particular question addressed. As I’ve read commentaries on 1 Corinthians, I've noticed a departure in modern commentaries from historically reformed commentaries. Every recent commentary I've read uses what is unclear, or at least what is inexplicit in 11:5, to interpret 14:34-35, but historically, commentators have used what is very clear and explicitly in 14:34-35 to interpret 11:5. Why the change, why the departure? (Other than culture, if there is one)
Men whom I have an incredible amount of respect for almost all do this and it seems backward. It seems all of them assume Paul permits women to pray or prophesy during the formal gathering of the church in light of 11:5. They use the implicit and obscure to interpret the clear and explicit. I would love an explanation for why there been an almost unanimous departure even from complementarian commentators. Thanks.
Men whom I have an incredible amount of respect for almost all do this and it seems backward. It seems all of them assume Paul permits women to pray or prophesy during the formal gathering of the church in light of 11:5. They use the implicit and obscure to interpret the clear and explicit. I would love an explanation for why there been an almost unanimous departure even from complementarian commentators. Thanks.
