Many people find nothing wrong with religious controversy until you disagree with their “reality.” And so, I’m going to mess with reality but you are not my enemy even if you totally disagree with my reality. Please feel free to respond. When it comes to reality I like two different quotes: “There is an objective reality out there, but we view it through the spectacles of our beliefs, attitudes, and values”- David Myers. “The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense”- Tom Clancy. As one Pastor asked another, “Sure, that was historical reality in the first century church but is it ‘acceptable’ theological theory today?” Without a doubt, religious fiction makes a lot more sense to some people than reality. Call this what you will.
Let’s start with the controversy in the Corinthian church as Paul describes it in verse 16, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom [sunetheia - common or customary usage], neither the churches of God.” What are the contentions and the customs? I believe we can come to at least two very different contentions (by just a study of the bible) without initially looking at biblical or secular custom and history:
Some would contend that long hair is the woman’s covering and can be substituted for the veil in public worship (for her hair is given her for a covering). Others would contend that the veil is the required covering and that long hair cannot be substituted for the veil in public worship (we have no such custom). Some religious people will contend for either of those two positions today in America and abroad. Other contentions I won’t cover in this specific article.
Safest position: A woman should have long hair and wear a veil in a worship service or during prayer. A man should not have long hair and should not wear a covering or hat in a worship service or during prayer. In my opinion, that is the safest position regarding this chapter and, that being said, this is not my personal opinion. In other words, I don’t believe in practicing the safest position. Why?
I believe that women can substitute their long hair for the veil in public worship in America today because it is customary [sunetheia] and not considered a shame or immodest women’s dress by our society. I believe a woman can do this without calling attention to her dress and have more influence in her community. I believe that in other parts of the world it may be a shame or immodest dress for a woman to substitute her long hair for the veil and will negatively impact her influence. In some parts of the world the veil is a “sign of subjection.” In some parts of the world women without their veil in public would shame their husband and themselves in their community.
The Greek word in verse 16 for custom [sunetheia – a custom, customary or common usage] is the same word used in John 18:39, “But ye have a custom [sunetheia], that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” This was not a law to release someone on the Passover but a custom. Sunetheia was not the word used in verse two for ordinances. [Paradosis – a tradition, translated as ordinances by the King James translators.] In verse two Paul made an emphatic statement: “keep the ordinances [paradosis], as I delivered them to you.” However, in verse 16 his comments were not at all emphatic: “If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom [sunetheia] neither the churches of God.” Obviously, there was contention and disagreement “pertaining only to a custom” in this chapter. What was the contention regarding custom? Why would Paul not wish to offend others in the church and the larger community?
Well, read the 10th chapter verses 32 and 33. “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.” But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom [sunetheia - common or customary usage], neither the churches of God.” (1st Corinthians 11:16) What custom(s) will save many souls instead of excluding or excommunicating souls?
The “veil” was an important custom but it was just a custom and customs often change just like the times we meet for worship service on Sunday. Why do I say that a woman wearing a veil was a custom discussed in chapter 11 of 1st Corinthians? Look at verses 5 and 13.
Verse 5: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered [akatakalup - unveiled] dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." Simply stated: "Every woman worshiping with her head unveiled dishonors her husband just as if she were shaven."
If we study history, and even the context of this chapter, there was no question regarding the contrast or comparison. Obviously, the women of the Corinthian church would have recognized being shaven or shorn as a shame just like long hair for a man was recognized as a shame. Apparently they did not recognize being unveiled during worship as a shame. Otherwise, why the comparison?
Paul would not have used this comparison between being shaven and unveiled if his audience couldn’t understand the significance of the comparison. Why is Paul asking a question in verse 13 instead of giving a command? “Judge in yourselves; is it comely that a woman pray unto god uncovered?” Otherwise, he would just have given a specific command like he did in verse 2 without the obvious comparison that they all understood. I believe the context of “nature”[phusis or phusikos] refers to “walking after the flesh” similar to Romans 1:26-27 and 2nd Peter 2:12 where the same Greek word is used to describe “nature.” Also, I believe a study of history will easily bear this out.
Verse 13: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Simply stated: "What do you think, should a woman pray to God unveiled?" Again, if we go to Young's Analytical Concordance we will see the Greek word akatakalup, unveiled. “My house shall be called the house of prayer…” (Matt. 21:13)
If we want to just pick and choose word scholars (Vine, Young’s, etc.) when they only agree with our predetermined conclusion perhaps we shouldn’t use them at all? Or, perhaps we should present opposing arguments and opinions in our articles?
Avoiding those scholarly arguments, the safest position from the teaching of Paul is for women to wear a veil in the worship service. As I said previously, I don’t personally feel this is necessary today but fully recognize that God may not agree with me. My judgement may be faulty because I am just a man.
When it comes to ancient dress there was no “standard uniform.” We could spend hours and hours researching this subject (paintings, historical reference, and various cultures). Is there a “standard uniform” today? No. However, there are often various rules and social conventions pertaining to the customs of dress that can be recognized throughout history.
It would be very difficult to overlook some of the conventions of dress (dress code) pertaining to the Romans, Jews, and Greek cultures. “We have no such custom [sunetheia] neither the churches of God.” Christian churches didn’t consist of Greeks or Gentiles only. As you know from a study of the book of Acts the church came from the Jewish culture and many Jewish Christians kept their Jewish laws and traditions along with their Christian faith. Perhaps that’s another study over the significant controversies we observe in the book of Acts between Jewish and Gentile Christians. I believe Jewish Christians were often able to keep some traditions and customs without damaging the “law of liberty” which was very “radical” for their time (see Acts 15).
It would be difficult to be raised with a certain conscience or culture and reform it over night or perhaps even in a lifetime. Would we respect the trained conscience of Peter today? “Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” (Acts 10:12-14) Just because Peter was a Christian didn’t mean he divorced himself from his culture and his trained beliefs even after Pentecost (Acts 2).
I feel people like Clement of Alexandria (2nd century Christian) had a fairly good grasp of the world in which the Apostle Paul and Christians lived when he describes this teaching on women being covered. "Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence, possessing unfeigned love, pure in body, pure in heart, fit to pray to God. Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled." Clement was a member of the church, just like we are today, but (in my opinion) he was much closer to their culture than we are today.
Look up the word hat in an encyclopedia (if you still have one) and you may get a definition similar to this one I found in the Encyclopedia Americana: “Hat, strictly, a head covering…. During the early Middle Ages men continued to wear classical styles of headgear. Married women covered their hair with a veil or shawl. This practice, based on Biblical injunction and the idea that married women should not attract attention, was followed, with modification, by fashionable women until the 17th century.”
For example, Look at Alexander Campbell and his wife and you won’t find them even remotely dressed like we dress today. As for the early Church History in American, here is the reading of Alexander Campbell’s NT translation on this subject. As you may know, Campbell was considered one of, if not the, most noted authorities in his time.
4th Edition of The Living Oracles
Wherefore, if a woman be not veiled, even let her be shorn: but, if it be shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be veiled. Now man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God: but woman is the glory of man. Besides the man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man. And, also, the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this reason, ought the woman to have a veil on her head, on account of the messengers. However, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. Besides, as the woman is from the man, so also the man is by the woman; but all from God. Judge in yourselves, is it decent that a woman pray to God unveiled? Does not even nature itself teach you, that if, indeed, a man have long hair, it is a disgrace to him? But, if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a veil. However, if any one resolve to be contentious, we have no such custom; neither the congregations of God."
At this point some of you may think that I’ve changed the subject because I would like to bring in some history pertaining to our worldview or our frame of reference as it pertains to custom (reality versus fiction). With this material I would like to make the point that we don’t even remotely think like first century Christians (primarily Romans, Jews, and Greeks). When it comes to living thousands of years, instead of perhaps a century of time, we can’t get a very good feel for various customs.
Do you believe in women marrying “customarily” at the age of puberty? After all, God created women so they can bear children at a very young age. Just look at the history of marriage and the normal customs of marriage in the past.
The age of puberty naturally set the age of marriage in many countries. “Roman law according to which a man may marry at the age of fourteen and a woman at the age of twelve was adopted by the Church.” The History of Human Marriage, Edward Westermarck, Ph.D, 5th Edition Allerton Book Company New York 1922
“Similarly, hair covering was a sign not only of rabbinic modesty but of her belonging to a particular man, and the veil had to be worn whenever she was in mixed company or went out in public (M.Ketubot 7:6). According to the Mishna, a woman going about with uncovered hair represented unacceptable conduct. In fact such behavior is so improper, that it is considered sufficient grounds for a husband to divorce his wife without benefit of compensatory financial support (ketubah).” Source: Dr. Leila Leah Bronner, Jewish scholar (doctorate in Ancient Semitic Languages and History).
“Roman law placed a wife under the absolute control of her husband, who had ownership of her and all her possessions. He could divorce her if she went out in public without a veil. A husband had the power of life and death over his wife, just as he did his children. As with the Greeks, women were not allowed to speak in public. Jewish women, as well, were barred from public speaking. The oral law prohibited women from reading the Torah out loud. Synagogue worship was segregated, with women never allowed to be heard.” Source: Christianity: The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Women, Sue Bohlin
How do you think God views marriage at puberty and does he have the same judgement today? What does 1st Corinthians 7:36 mean? “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.”
When it comes to the subject of the “flower of her age” we could argue various possibilities but consider this quote from Eerdmans. “We should remember that fertile women had periods much less often than now; they were married at puberty and spent the rest of their lives either pregnant or nursing—few survived to the time of menopause.” Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, James D.G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson, Editors
Today we think of Christ as young at the age of 33 even though life expectancy at birth in the US in the year 1900, according to the US Census Bureau, was 46.3 years for men and 48.3 years for women. Of course, this is an average but tell me again how many people you know that have lived to be 120 years old? We don’t doubt the long lives of some in the bible we just haven’t seen anyone personally live that long in our modern era of medicine. I suspect someone living to 120 years old would also prove my point about our personal understanding of history and medicine (Mediterranean diet anyone?).
In the late 1800s it was immodest for a woman to show her ankles and women wore long dresses and high top boots. Today, no one thinks twice if a woman's ankles show. In those days it would have been inappropriate for religious women to dress contrary to public opinion and appear immodest. Today, that same dress would call attention to the outward person and not modesty. Can’t 1st Peter 3:3 be applied in several directions, even to modest dress, when our dress is strictly intended to make a religious statement and perhaps Matthew 23:28 can also then be applied to some?
No comments:
Post a Comment