Head Coverings: History, Context, and Exegesis

[Ready1]

Any thoughts on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT2yCvJAzi8

Does anyone know anything about Bishop Carlton McCleod? Or Calvary Revival Church Chesapeake?

[Jericho]

Can you give the gist of what he said?

[Ready1]

Yes, he goes through 1 Cor 11:2-16 and gives historical understanding of the passage and examines the relevance of it in our world today through context and exegesis. Intriguing.

I'lll won't spoil his conclusions for those who want to listen...

[Abiding in His Word]

I'lll won't spoil his conclusions for those who want to listen...

Well you can assume his conclusion imo when within the first 20 min. he is encouraging the "plain" reading of scripture regarding women's covering, leadership of a husband over his wife, women under authority, and women forbidden to lead and preach.....

Also within the first several minutes he verbalized high regard for Calvinism, John MacArthur, John Piper and Wayne Grudem who graciously afforded women a list of @ 83 things they are allowed to do in a church.

All in all, the concern appears to be the rise of educated women who see the scripture as one of "one-another" treatment and mutual submission as opposed to a hierarchy and/or patriarchal interaction between believers.

And I'm only at the 25 min. mark.....

[Ready1]

Does anyone know anything about Bishop Carlton McCleod? Or Calvary Revival Church Chesapeake?

[Jericho]

I've listened to parts of it. So basically he affirms what 1 Co 11 says, that women should wear a head covering in service, while men should not. One thing to note about 1 Corinthians is that it's what's called a responsa. A responsa is basically a rabbinic response to a question or problem. So the Corinthians were asking Paul questions to which he was responding to. It's sort of tricky because it's not always clear what the question is and where his response begins. From what I can tell 1Co 11 2-15 is the question and 1Co 11:16 is Paul's response:

But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.

He's basically saying that women wearing head coverings was the common custom at that time. This to me seems more of a cultural thing more than anything. There was never a commandment by God that women should wear head coverings in worship, but it was part of the culture to do so. So if it's the cultural custom then it should be observed. Here in the West we don't generally observe that custom, so I think it comes down to personal conviction and preference.

[Abiding in His Word]

You are correct, Jericho, in that Paul often writes in response to questions asked of him as is clear from 1 Cor. 7:1:

1Cor. 7:1  Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 

And I agree that some things in scripture depict cultural customs rather than commands. Greeting one another with a holy kiss, for example is mentioned 4 times in the NT and obviously that is not viewed as a command and practiced today in most churches.

[Abiding in His Word]

I'm still listening, but being limited for time I'm now only up to 40 min. So far, this man is falling short imo in the areas of history, context, and good exegesis.

I'll post evidence of this, hopefully tomorrow. My son is coming for a visit from Tampa Friday and I've got lots to do to prepare but if not tomorrow...I'll do so as time allows.

[Ready1]

Is there anyone who agrees that he might have a point?

[Abiding in His Word]

Is there anyone who agrees that he might have a point?

Hi Ready 1,

I've got 10 more min. to listen to but up to this point, he's way off base in his interpretation of the passage. It's obvious he is a believer in God-ordained hierarchy in the Trinity, marriage, and the church. But he's yet to provide scriptural evidence from history or context. And even using a comedic style of presentation apparently to make the topic more palatable, he clearly uses selective literalism in an effort to prove governing authority in those areas but falls short.

More later this afternoon hopefully.

[Abiding in His Word]

OK, I finished the entire hour-long discourse. As I said above, it's obvious that authority is paramount in McLeod's understanding of the passage in 1 Cor. 11. He neglects, however, to provide an overview of the conditions at the church of Corinth due in part to the large number of gentile converts who came from pleasure-seeking, sensuous practices, worship of idols, close friendships with heathens, etc. Also worth mentioning is the fact that Paul receives numerous reports of behaviors that have needed correcting; questions from them that needed clarification; and the letters Paul sent regarding immorality, food sacrificed to idols, marriage, etc.

So McLeod begins with stating (rather emphatically) that the words "head of" reflect God's governing order. In that ordained order, "head" means one who is authority over...."

He ridicules "source" as the meaning of head/Kephale, but had he skipped down to verses 11-12, he could have confirmed the meaning as "source" as Paul clearly summarizes the passage by leveling the field (so to speak) by emphasizing the word "originate" between God, Jesus, man and woman.

1Cor 11:11  However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 
1Cor 11:12  For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 

The problem with reading a hierarchy into verse 3 is that Christ was indeed subordinate to God, but that was true only His human nature, not His deity. Also, scripture qualifies His subordination to God by stating it was true " for a time" not eternally. (Heb. 2:9) And though He was equal with the Father, He took the form of a bond servant and both humbled and emptied Himself. (Phil. 2:6-8)

Next, the problem with reading authority and/or hierarchy in the phrase: the head of every man is Christ...implies that Jesus is not the authority over every woman. Absurd.

And finally the problem (with verse 11) implying authority of a husband over his wife, is lacking scriptural evidence that supports such authority required or commanded of a husband. To my knowledge, the only command in scripture for a husband is that he love his wife. Ephesians tells husbands to love their wives using Christ's love for the church in giving Himself up for it as the example. Furthermore, Ephesians 5:21 (and others) clearly speaks of mutual submission of one to another. Additionally, scripture speaks of 59 One-Anothers with nary a one mentioning having authority over others.

So much for incorrectly interpreting 1 Cor. 11:3 imo as it contradicts many other passages regarding the equality of believers and trying to emphasize the "equal but different" theory that has no support.

Enough for now....

Thoughts?

[SueAnn]

While I was growing up women had to wear head coverings to go to church. Ladies had stopped wearing hats decades before, but there we were in the 1960s still required to wear hats to church.

When I was in elementary school I was invited to go to a xchurch function in the evening with a school mate and her family.
I had no head covering. My friend's mother tsk tsk tsked me the whole time she was bobby pinning one of her handkerchief's to my head. A glance in the hall mirror as we walked out the door confirmed what I suspected...I looked as ridiculous as I felt.

It was my generation that rebelliously just stopped the practice.
I never looked back.

[Abiding in His Word]

More thoughts about head coverings and shaved heads....

The speaker in the video made a special point of saying that what the church heard for 1900+ years is a head covering. He then proceeded to say that what Paul is saying to wives and ladies is "Stop trying to be men!" Implying that women who do not wear veils are trying to be men is completely unsubstantiated. Then, while he objected to the passage being interpreted as cultural by some...he now refers to culture today himself. He asks, "Is our culture today confused about the sexes?" This deflection to culture today apparently is justification for women looking like women by wearing the veil and men looking like men so the sexes are clearly identifiable.

He's certainly going to great lengths in an effort to persuade those listening that wearing a veil/head covering is a command. Absent from his explanation, however, is clarifying whether the practice is required for married women only or all women. Since he seems to see it as a sign of a married women's submission to the authority of her husband, can we assume single women need not abide by this custom/command?

I found interesting information/scripture about veils and shaven heads. I'll post that as time allows.

[mark s]

And finally the problem (with verse 11) implying authority of a husband over his wife, is lacking scriptural evidence that supports such authority required or commanded of a husband. To my knowledge, the only command in scripture for a husband is that he love his wife.

Hi Abiding,

There are a couple of other commands to the husband regarding his wife, Love them, Be not bitter towards them, and Live with them with understanding.

The thing about being not bitter towards them, as best as I can determine, can mean either, don't hold bitterness against my wife, or just the same, don't be the bitter pill for her.

This, IMO, is what husbands need to be focused on.

About the headship, so many think it's about authority, I think it's just about how things work. The head of the woman is the man, I take that to mean that just like with me, whatever way my head goes, the body goes, so whatever way I go, the marriage goes, so I'd better pay attention to what direction I'm going!

For all the places we are told to submit to each other, not once are we told to take authority over others, and in fact, we're told that we aren't to be that sort of people.

Much love!

[Abiding in His Word]

For all the places we are told to submit to each other, not once are we told to take authority over others, and in fact, we're told that we aren't to be that sort of people.

Agreed. So why, then, are so many trying to ascribe authority to a husband over his wife when such a command to husbands is nowhere to be found? And on top of that, insist on a visible symbol of that authority/submission? And I've heard more times than I can count that discounting that authority is the fault of the rise of feminism in the '50s or so.

This is a prime example of eisogesis or starting with a doctrine or idea and going into the Bible to try to find proof for it. And this particular person in the video is evidently calling this hierarchy correct exegesis.

[Abiding in His Word]

1 Cor. 11:14  Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him

This is confusing since Paul was aware of the significance of long hair as the outward sign of a Nazirite vow.

Num 6:2  "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the LORD...

Num 6:5  'All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long.  

So is the preacher seems to be applying a cultural, current-day, adverse opinion (of some) to what was a significant, scriptural, visible outward sign of a time of separation to the Lord. He failed to mention that however which is important to the understanding of the context.

Num 6:8  'All the days of his separation he is holy to the LORD.