The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings and more

Marcus,

I'm not sure we have a problem in communication as much as we disagree on how to interpret the Bible, aka: hermeneutics? I certainly want to understand the "historical" context of all Scripture. But I also have to understand the "Grammatico" as well as the "Historico" of a text. You are wanting to interpret the grammatico BY the historico, whereas my approach is to consider the historico but give the grammatico more weight because God inspired the words... no, the very letters of words which were written by men moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus I have asked you repeatedly how you would interpret Paul's words: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." The grammar would appear, at least to me, to be a direct contradiction of the "historical context" which you are wanting to bring to this text. As of yet, you have not graced me with a reply that specifically answers that question. If you choose not to deal with this apparent dilemma, fine. But I would truly like to know how you handle it.

As to dramatic breaks in "cultural practice", you asked if there were any others. Well certainly..... dietary laws is one that comes immediately to mind. (Acts 10:9-14; 11:4ff). The original account in Acts 10 and Peter's rehearsal of that account in the next chapter are the only two places where this is mentioned. Indeed, it wasn't the dietary laws only that Peter had to dispense with but also that which their removal symbolized; the inclusion of Gentiles into the Kingdom, who before were considered to be "unclean". Now, there is no long and convoluted treatise to be found concerning these things, just the one event. And that even isn't written as an injunction which is to be honored by all but as a personal revelation of truth to Peter, who then preached and taught the universality of the Church of the Lord Christ, e.g., (Acts 15:7-11). Doubtless, this break with not only tradition but strict laws given by God through Moses is at least a serious thing as is one not wearing a "tallit", eh? The entire body of civil legislation might also be mentioned here as well, not to mention the sacrificial system, the Aaronic priesthood, etc., etc.... But be that as it may, again, my focus of the passage in question is the text itself.

Lastly, and I am clearly NOT making any judgments and/or accusations of you personally.... but the error of "Theistic Evolution" in all its forms, including the almost humerous "Gap Theory" and its derivatives have come to be due to an attempt to meld "culture" (in that case alleged scientific evidence which is in vogue) with the biblical text. The "cultural evidence" is given precedence and thus the creation account is screened through the mesh of "science" resulting in that which is totally foreign and contradictory to the biblical text itself. The reason I bring this up is to perhaps illustrate a similar tendency you are given to in such matters? Being a staunch defender of Messianic Judaism, it seems to me that you are going to give far more weight to Jewish secular history and custom than I would. And thus I could easily understand how you could be given to allowing the "customs" that have come down through the ages to color the glasses with which you see Scripture in certain places where there would be conflict. Perhaps this is not the case, but it is certainly understandable that it is quite possibly true.

As has been mentioned by some of the others who have participated in this discussion, I am not advocating any form of legalism: ala, works + faith = justification. What I am advocating is growing in grace unto sanctification. Again, the "type" of covering a woman should wear is a non-issue, IMHO. But the expression of heart submission by women is to be observed by having some kind of covering on their heads. And likewise men are not to cover their head as a sign of their divinely appointed authority. If this smacks against a long-standing Jewish custom, so be it. The Church is to live in the new covenant administration; not the old. While there is definite continuity, there is far more discontinuity. For with the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of the LORD Jesus Christ, much of what was practiced in the old covenant which were types and shadows have been fulfilled in Him.

In His Grace,