Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 1

David Bercot argues that Paul gives only two reasons for head covering in 1 Corinthians 11—“headship” and “because of the angels”; how does that claim reshape the way you read the passage compared with explanations that lean heavily on “local Corinthian culture”?

Another way to ask: Bercot says Paul gives only two reasons for head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11: “headship” and “because of the angels.” How does reading it that way change your view compared to explaining it mainly by Corinth’s local culture?

Direct Answer Bercot’s claim pushes you to read Paul’s instructions as grounded in the reasons Paul actually states, rather than in speculative reconstructions of Corinthian or wider cultural customs. It shifts the focus from “what was happening in Corinthian society” to Paul’s own argument—headship and the angels.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot says commentators “act as if they know what was happening behind the scenes… In truth, none of us know anything.”
He quotes 1 Corinthians 11:5–10 and then concludes: “Paul gives two reasons for his instructions: first, headship; and second, because of the angels.”
He stresses: “Nowhere does he say anything about Roman, Greek, or Jewish customs.”
He labels culture-based reasons as something “Adam Clarke made up.”
He calls such additions “counterfeit history… used to distort what the Scriptures actually teach.”

Discussion Follow-ups If Paul’s stated reasons are sufficient, what role (if any) should background studies play? When do they clarify, and when do they compete with the text?

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 1 of 10