John Knox's View: Head Covering P/6

                                                      Read Part One HERE

 In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of head covering since today there is a movement  called the Head Covering Movement base on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved....

 In this post I will share the viewpoint of well know Scottish Protestant Reformer John Knox (1505 - 1572 A.D.)

In 1558 John Knox penned "The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women."  This work which he published anomymously was a fiery case that female rule is contrary to Biblical teching. In his writing he quotes extensively from the Bible and appeals to various leaders throughout church history. He does this to demonstrate that women having a subordinate position is Biblical and has been taught  by Christians throughout the ages. In his work he briefly stops in 1 Corinthians 11 and also quotes from a defence of head covering by Roman Catholic Church Father John Chrysostom.

First, Knox quotes 1 Cortinthians 11:8-10 for support that a woman should not rule over a man as follows: "First, I say, that woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As St. Paul does reason in these words, "Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.And man was not created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man; and therefore ought the woman to have a power upon her head."                  Knox understood that "power upon her head" referred to a covering, which is a sign of subjection.

My Comment

As for John Knox  writing that woman in her greates perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him, he is obviously referring here to the Creation Acount in Genesis 1:26-28 where we read that God made the man to rule over creation but this rulership did not including ruling over the woman.However, likewise, God made the woman to rule over creation, which is confirmed in Genesis 2:18 where we read that God made the woman as the man's equal partner, or "ezer kenegdo".

As for the words in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, these words are not Paul's words but are words of some of the religious leaders in the church in Corinth that Paul quoted and later on in the chapter corrected.

As for John Knox understanding that 1 Corinthians 11:10 "and, therefore, ought the woman to have a power upon her head" refers to a overing, which is a sign of subjection, this is a misunderstanding of the text since the original text makes it very clear that the woman has "exousia", which means "authority" or "power",  on her own head. This relates to her own power or authority and does not relate to any covering as a sign of her subjection.

P.S. In my next post I will deal with John Knox's referral to Roman Catholic Church Father St John Chyrsostom.

Read Part Seven HERE

Martin Luther's View: Head Covering P/5

                                                     Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of head covering since today there is a movement called the Head covering Movement based on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved...

In this post I will share the viewpoint of well know Protestant Reformer Martin Luther (1483 - 1546 A.D.)

On 15 January 1525 Martin Luther preached a message on marriage. In his sermon he said this: "Women, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife." Ephesians 5:22-23. Again to the Colossians in the third chapter (Colossians 3:18): "Because of this, the wife has not been created out of the head, so that she shall not rule over her husband but be subject and obedient to him." For that reason the wife wears a headdress, that is, the veil on her head, as St Paul writes in 1 Corinthians in the eleventh chapter, that she is not free but under obedience to her husband."

My Comment

Protestant Reformer Martin Luther makes a direct connection between veiling and the creation order. He points out that woman was not created out of the man's physical head. Luther sees the place she was created from as important due to the symbolism. She wasn't created from man's head, as if she's head over him, but rather wears a headdress to show she's under her husband and obeys him.                            Luther was one of the Protestant Reformers, who addressed the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and had eventually been ex-communitated because he had begun to understand the importance of the priesthood of all believers. Sadly, he did not apply that teaching to women but still kept to the teaching of these Roman Catholic Church Fathers, who had been influenced by the pagan culture around them, when teaching on women. This meant that he believed the husband as head of his wife, was in authority over his wife basing this on the fact that the first woman had not been created out of the head of the first man. This is indeed true. However, she was created from the side of the first man (not from the rib), which confirms her equality to the man as we know from Genesis 1:26-28 where we read that both the man and the woman were given the task of ruling over creation. As for the woman wearing a headdress, or a veil on her head as a sign of her obedience to the man, Luther was here referring to 1 Corinthians 11:5. These words are not Paul's words but are part of a quotation from some of the religious leaders in the church in Corinth who were trying to keep women in their place. Paul corrected these leaders later on in the chapter.

Read Part Six HERE

Thomas Aquinas' View: Head Covering P/4

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of head covering since today there is a movement called the Head Covering Movemenr based on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

And every women who prays or prophesis with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved....

In this post I will share the viewpoint of well know Roman Catholic Church Father Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274 A.D.)

Thomas Aquinas believed the focus of 1 Corinthians 11 was issues related to the Eucharist, and head covering related to proper dress during this practice. He said, "The Corinthians erred in clothing, namely, because the women gathered for the sacred mysteries with heads uncovered." So for Aquinas head covering was a church issue. He explained what it was that head covering symbolized as follows: "A veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature."

My Comment

Thomas Aquinas was a Roman Catholic Church father who called the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, and believed it contained "sacred mysteries." According to Roman Catholic Theology, the bread (wafer in their case) turns literally into the Body of Christ and the wine literally turns into the Blood of Christ each time the priest blesses these items. This is a false teaching for Christ died once for all and He is now seated at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 9:24-28; Hebrews 10:12). No priest is able to bring Christ down from heaven to enter a wafer. Nor can the wine ever turn into the Blood of Christ.

Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas believed that women had to have their heads covered when taking part in the Lord's Supper or what he called the Eucharist.

As for his reason as to what head covering symbolized, he believed that a veil put on the head showed submission/subjection to another in accordance with the order of nature. This very likely means he believed in the so-called creation order whereby the man is supposed to have been placed in authority over the woman. However, that is contrary to Scripture since God created both the man and the woman to rule over creation together but not over each other (Genesis 1:26-28). Thomas Aquinas was most likely influenced by other Roman Catholic Church Fathers of the past who had been influenced by their pagan culture in which the woman was indeed seen as inferior to the man and in subjection to him. This, no doubt, shaped his understanding of certain passages in Scripture including Genesis 1:26-28; Genesis 2:18; 1 Corinthians 11, making his view more in line with some of the religious leaders in Corinth rather than Paul.

Read Part Five HERE

Augustine's View: Head Covering P/3

                                                     Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of Head Covering since today there is a movement called the Head Covering Movement beased on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond.

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved....

In this post I will share the viewpoint of well know Roman Catholic Church father Augustine (354 - 430 A.D.)

Augustine: In writing to his friends Possidius, an elder in a local church, details the relationship of spiritual headship in the home and spiritual headship in the church: "Those who belong to this world have also to consider how they may please their wives if they be husbands, their husbands if they be wives, with this limitation that is is not becoming for women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands to keep their heads covered."

My Comment

The Bible does not use the term spiritual "headship" in the home nor does it use the term "spiritual headship" in the church. The Bible only uses the term "head" as found in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23.

In both verses, the Greek word used for the term "head" is "kephale" which means "physical head" or "source," "source of life." However, it does not mean "authority." These texts are, therefore, not referring to "authority." Moreover, the word "kephale" can not be translated into "headship" including spiritual "headship". Augustine is, therefore, reading into these texts something the text does not teach. Finally, it is not Paul who commanded women to keep their heads covered but some religious leaders in Corinth who demanded that woman kept their heads covered. Paul rebuked them for their words later on in the chapter and made it clear that he did not have such a custom, neither did the church of God  as we know from a correct translation of 1 Corinthians 11:16                                                           

If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no SUCH practice - nor do the churches of God.

Read Part Four HERE

 

 

St John Chrysostom's View: Head Covering P/2

                                                     Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of Head Covering since today there is a Movement called the Head Covering Movement based on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved....

 In this post I will share the viewpoint of well known Roman Catholic Church Father St John Chrysostom (347 - 407 A.D.)

1. St John Chrysostom; "The business of whether to cover one's head was legislated by nature. When I say "nature" I mean "God." For He is the One who created nature.Take note, therefore, what great harm comes from overturning these boundaries! And don't tell me that this is a small sin."                                               

2. St John Chrysostom has furthermore stated: "The angels are present here... Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church!... Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels."

My Comment

 1. As for the business of whether to cover one's head was legislated by "nature", or in fact, by God, God did indeed create "nature" as we know from the Genesis 1 Account in which we are given details of what exactly God created and at which day He created certain parts of "nature". In that same chapter we are given an account of the creation of the first man and the first woman. I presume he believed that the first man was given authority over the first woman at that time even though we know that they were both given the task of ruling over creation, which is confirmed in Genesis 2 when the woman was formed from the man's side as his equal partner.                                                                                         St John Chrysostom then connected the Creation Account of Genesis 1 and 2 and referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:3.... the man is head (kephale) (meaning source of life) of the woman.... to 1 Corinthians 11:5                                                                                                                                      And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovers dishonours her head....                believing the words in this verse are part of Paul's teaching. But St John Chrysostom is not correct in his understanding for these words are not part of Paul's teaching but are part of a quotation from a letter Paul had received in which some religious leaders in the church in Corinth taught that women were to have "something coming down from their head" as a sign of their submission to a male authority. St John Chrysostom believed that the words "something coming down from their head" was to be understood as a veil. However, we are not entirely sure what it means. Moreover, Paul did not teach here that women were to wear a veil or anything else on their head as a sign of their submission to the authority of men. St John Chrysostom was, therefore, teaching something more in line with these religious leaders in the church in Corinth than with Paul's teaching. Paul's teaching, in the form of a rebuke against these religious leaders can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:11-16.

2. As for the Apostle teaching women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels, St John Chrysostom refers here to 1 Corinthians 11:10    

For this reason and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 

However, the words "a sign of" have been added to the text by translators because they believed that the woman was under submission to the man's authority. But the original text simply states that the woman had "exousia" on her head, meaning she had power or authority on her head. And this power or authority is her own power or authority. So Paul was not teaching here that women were to cover their heads with a veil because of the angels but it is a teaching brought into the church, including by St John Chrysostom, because they believed that women had to wear a veil as a sign they were under submission to men's authority... As for the statement "because of the angels"  we cannot be certain as to its meaning....

Read Part Three HERE

Tertullian's View: Head Covering P/1

Today I will begin a series of posts to discuss the subject of Head Covering since there is a Movement called the Head Covering Movement based on their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond.

 I will share the views of some Roman Catholic Church Fathers, Protestant Reformers, as well as some well known men in the Evangelical world from the 16th Century until today on this topic before looking at the people who are leading this Head Covering Movement.

Tertullian (150 - 225 A.D.)

Writing about 160 years after Paul's 1 Corinthians letter, Tertullians states, "For throughout Greece, and in certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of churches kept their women covered, so let no one ascribe this custom merely to the Gentile customs of the Greeks and Barbarians.The Corinthians themselves understood him (the Apostle Paul) to speak in this manner. For to this very day the Corinthians veil their virgins. So, on both sides of the matter, the apostle has written with sufficient clarity, in fact, he says quite succinctly, "every woman." What does "every" mean if it doesn't mean every class, every order, every condition, and every age." It is notable that Paul never appeals to the customs of the day in his arguments for the use of headcoverings.The practice of headcoverings as described in 1 Corinthians 11 was not a specific Greek, Asian or Roman custom. The failure to wear a headcovering would not have caused a scandal among the local population. Paul's appeal to nature, creation and angels indicates that the veiling was the most appropriate expression of headship in the church in every age.

My Comment

Tertullian mentioned the following subjects: nature, creation, angels, the veiling of women and headship. 

According to him nature, creation and angels teach us something about the veiling of women in relation to headship. 

These words can be found in 1 Corinthians 11, a chapter written by the Apostle Paul.

1.The word "nature" can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15                                                               Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory?

2.The word creation can not be found in the chapter but he may be hinted at it in 1 Corinthians 11:3 Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

3.The word angels appears in 1 Corinthians 11:10                                                                                   For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have (a sign of) authority on her head.

4.The word veiling does not appear anywhere in the chapter but the word cover can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:5                                                                                                                                         And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as if her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

5.The word "headsip" does not appear in chaper 1 Corinthians 11 but the word "head" appears in 1 Corinthains 11:3                                                                                                                                       Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, ad the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.                                                                                                                                      

Let's now begin to look at each term used by Tertullian

1. Nature....Paul possibly used this term in his debate with the Greek believers. We are not quite clear what he meant with the words in this verse.

2. Creation.... As I have already said, the term "creation" cannot be found in 1 Corinthians 11. However, it seems Paul referred to the Creation Account of Genesis 1 -2 when he mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man...                                             Paul used the Greek term "kephale" here which means "source," "source of life" for Christ was the source of life for the first man from whom every human has descended and the first man was the source of life for the first woman. Tertullian obviously correctly understood that "head"meant "source," "source of life" in this context.

3. Angels... Paul used this term in 1 Corinthians 11:10                                                                             For this reason, and because of the angels. the woman ought to have (a sign of) authority on her head....                                                                                                                                                           It is unclear as to why Paul referred here to angels so we better not speculate.

4. "Veiling....The word "veiling" can not be found in 1 Corinthians 11  but he may be referring to 1 Corintians 11:5 which states that                                                                                                                 Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head...... she should cover her head.                                                                                                                                 Tertullian seemed to understand from this verse that women's heads should be covered and he understood that the covering was to be done by being veiled. Sadly, he did not realise that the words in 1 Corinthians 11:5 were not Paul's words but were part of a quotation of religious leaders in Corinth Paul corrected later on in that same chapter.

5. Headship... The word "headship" does not appear in this chapter. Neither does it appear anywhere else in Scripture. It is a made-up term possibly related to the man being the head of the woman. Very likely, Tertullian accepted this term "headship" and understood it to mean that men were to be in authority over women because of the culture of his time when women were seen as inferior beings who were under the authority of men. This despite the fact that he correctly understood that                           1Corinthians11:3                                                                                                                                                        ... man is the head of the woman...                                                                                                           is  related to the Creation Account. Consequently, "head" could not mean "authority" but had to mean "source of life" as indeed it did....It seems he could not put aside his traditional/cultural view of men and women as we can see from his statement that "the veiling was the most appropriate expression of headship in the church in every age." which seems to indicate that he believed in the church women were to wear a veil as a sign of their submission to men's authority. He, futhermore, taught that this was not just for his time but for every age. Unfortunately, this unbiblical term "headship" and its meaning of "authority" has indeed been taught throughout the centuries and is still being taught today as I will prove in future posts.

Read Part Two HERE

 

 

Obedient wives will not be spanked: Wives Spanking P/10

 

                                                       Read Part One HERE

In this post I will finalise Lauren's story who was spanked by her husband and eventually left the marriage.

 Lauren: "The thing is he never raged. At times he could be very sweet and charming. But over it all was this sense of control and "he was the man." My wedding vows included a vow to obey and he would often remind me that God commanded wives to submit and obey their husbands as they were supposed to do towards Christ. The thing is I never felt "threatened." Just utterly powerless. I never truly fought "back" as if I was fighting for my life. But often I would struggle or try to escape but he was big and strong enough to hold me in place and then would tell I was getting more for disobeying and struggling."

Lauren: "We had no children (thankfully) and we are fully divorced. When I left he was convinced that it was because of my friend and being led astray and away from God. He did not stalk me or anything but vowed to constantly pray for me to come to my senses and return."

Lauren: "My parents were a little surprised at first but I think they see spanking as not the same as abuse. They told me that I needed to do a better job of obeying and not being disrespectful or difficult and told me I needed to pray more to be a better wife. When I left him, they did not abandon me but at the same time were not fully supportive and told me they were praying for us to work it out. I love them but our relationship is often strained."

Friend Julie Anne: "We need to be aware of the existence of this atrocity in our churches and be bold in calling it out when we see it. It is insidious that this practice has continued in the name of God and Christianity. Young boys in these homes will likely learn this behaviour of entitlement over women and repeat it. Young girls will also learn from the behaviour and may find themselves with abusive men because of familiarity. In an abusive home, children do not have a sense of a normal healthy marriage, so this modeling of abusive behaviour could affect generations."

Friend Julie Anne: "When we protect and defend abused wives, we are also protecting and defending their children and future generations."

 My Comment 

Lauren's husband had no understanding of his function as head of his wife that he was to sacrifically love his wife as Christ sacrifically loves His Church. As for wives submitting to their husbands, the original text makes it clear that this is not obedience but a voluntary submission and is done mutually since in Ephesians 5:21 believers are told to submit to one another.

 As for Lauren leaving, it was good she eventually did so. However she should have actually gone to the police and her husband should have gone to prison for his abusive behaviour towards his wife. This is criminal activity and should have been stopped. There is always the danger that he will eventually marry another girl and continue his spanking with her.

As for her friend Julie Anne, she is right in saying wife spanking needs to be called out as is being done through these blog posts. For any of you, if you are aware of any abuse taking place, do not be silent about it but address it. However, please do it in a way that is safe for the victim.

 

 

 

                   WISHING EVERYONE A VERY HAPPY EASTER MONDAY

  

                                                      CHRIST IS RISEN!!

                                                  HE IS RISEN INDEED!!

Wives must call their husbands "sir": Wife Spanking P/9

 

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to share the story of Lauren who was was spanked by her husband and eventually left the marriage.

Lauren: "As far as wife spanking is concerned, I imagine the biggest thing that other women might be experiencing is that of embarrassment, demoralizing and feeling very disempowered. Especially, in situations where the woman feels something is wrong but might not think of herself as "abused." My husband was only two years older (but he is close to 6 feet tall and heavily muscled and I am around 5 feet tall and under 100lbs). Yet I was expected to call him "sir" at all times and I was often addressed as "young lady" or "little girl", which was a constant put-down that made me feel small and powerless."

Lauren: "Even the words I used to think make some women question whether it was wrong or not. It's not called "beatings" or "abuse" which is what it is. Calling it just "spanking" in some ways covers up what is going on, I think. I know for a long time I did not consider myself a battered or abused wife."

Lauren: "He wasn't hitting me with closed fists or objects. It ranged anywhere from a swat or two over my clothing to him spanking me in a more direct way that left me crying. But he never swore, or acted out of control. So I deluded myself to thinking that I wasn't like those women in shelters scared for their lives. While he never threatened my life physically and I still think he would never have that in him, the fact is that the abuse did threaten my "life" in terms of making me feel very alone and afraid, not very good inside."

My Comment

It is very understandable that Lauren mentions women being spanked is an embarrassing, demoralizing,  disempowering experience for them for that is the truth!!. Moreover, for Lauren to have to call her husband "sir" and for him to call her "young lady" or "little girl" proves that she was never allowed to grow up and act as an adult in the marriage relationship. It is very sad that it took her such a long time to consider herself a battered or abused wife. Thankfully, she eventually did recognise it and left her marriage.It is very sad too that she felt so alone and afraid during her marriage. However, it is not surprising she felt that way, especially because she did not feel she could share with anyone what happened to her during her marriage for quite some time.

I will continue with one more post on Lauren's story.

Read Part Ten HERE