Does culture affect the application of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?
For most commentators,
the answer is an emphatic “Yes!
Thiselton (2000) quotes Rousselle (“Body Politics in Ancient Rome”), “A veil or hood constituted a warning: it signified that the wearer was a respectable woman and that no man dare approach her,” i.e., as one potentially or actually sexually “available”. Thiselton later draws what he sees as an application: “To employ a dress code which hints at sexual availability while leading worship is unthinkable.” While that certainly is “unthinkable”, so is a woman leading the worship of the church, regardless of her wardrobe (14:34-38). Despite spending 48 pages commenting on this section of Scripture, Thiselton does not cite a single primary source to confirm his assertions about the covering in Corinthian culture.
Blomberg (1994) says, “If an external head covering is meant, Paul probably wants married women to wear a shawl over their hair and shoulders, as many Greek women still did in public, and not to resemble those who discarded their hair coverings during pagan worship in order to demonstrate their temporary transcendence of human sexuality.” He applies (?) this passage to say, “At the very least, the church of Jesus Christ should seek outward, public signs in every culture to affirm the full equality of the sexes- and also of races and classes.” Blomberg makes this passage so relative to culture that he even says that men should wear a covering on their head in certain “holy places” (e.g. Jewish synagogues). In 19 pages, Blomberg does not cite a single primary source to confirm his claims about the covering in Corinthian culture.
Fee (1987) comments more honestly than most, “Even if we were sure of prevailing customs, we would need to be able to distinguish between Greek, Roman and Jew customs as well as differences in geography, how one dressed at home, outside the home, and in worship, and differences between the rich and poor.” In a footnote he writes, “These kinds of problems render generally useless a large amount of the literary evidence that is often cited in reference to this text.” In another footnote he references several ancient works of art from Corinth, Pompei and other places, speaking of the “ambiguity” of the practice of women wearing head coverings in religious contexts. Fee denies the claim “that short hair or a shaved head was the mark of the Corinthian prostitutes.” He says, “There is no contemporary evidence to support this view (it seems to be a case of one scholar’s guess becoming a second scholar’s footnote and a third scholar’s assumption).” It seems to me that this is the case with much of what has been written about this passage.
Reese (2004) notes the various customs for worship: Jewish men covered their heads, as did Roman men, but the Greek men worshiped uncovered. He then says, “It might seem that… Paul simply decided in favor of the Greek custom… But in a moment we shall see that he does not follow the Greek custom concerning the dress of ladies when worshipping in public.” Reese claims, “If Paul were writing to Jews, or to Romans, or to Germans, all of whom covered the head during worship, he would have doubtless told them that any man who violated this custom [covering the head]… thereby showed lack of reverence and humility.” But since, according to Reese, Paul is writing to Greeks, “he bids them therefore to abide by their custom.” With regard to women, he says, “Greek women in pagan worship settings laid aside their veils. By removing their veils, they were offering themselves for sexual relations to any man who came along.” This is a rather shocking claim, to which Reese attaches zero evidence.
Garland (2003) does a better job of citing primary sources than many others, but his attempt to relate the Babylonian Talmud and Philo’s comments on the Law of Moses to the cultural norms in first century Corinth are questionable at the very least.
Most commentators dwell on the cultural perception of women going out in public without covering their heads. Thiselton and Reese imply that respectable, modest women always wore a covering on their heads in public. Their conclusion, then, is that Paul told the Corinthian women to veil their heads so as not to shame themselves and their husbands. But this seems to miss the point of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Paul is not addressing general public outings.
Thiselton (2000) quotes Rousselle (“Body Politics in Ancient Rome”), “A veil or hood constituted a warning: it signified that the wearer was a respectable woman and that no man dare approach her,” i.e., as one potentially or actually sexually “available”. Thiselton later draws what he sees as an application: “To employ a dress code which hints at sexual availability while leading worship is unthinkable.” While that certainly is “unthinkable”, so is a woman leading the worship of the church, regardless of her wardrobe (14:34-38). Despite spending 48 pages commenting on this section of Scripture, Thiselton does not cite a single primary source to confirm his assertions about the covering in Corinthian culture.
Blomberg (1994) says, “If an external head covering is meant, Paul probably wants married women to wear a shawl over their hair and shoulders, as many Greek women still did in public, and not to resemble those who discarded their hair coverings during pagan worship in order to demonstrate their temporary transcendence of human sexuality.” He applies (?) this passage to say, “At the very least, the church of Jesus Christ should seek outward, public signs in every culture to affirm the full equality of the sexes- and also of races and classes.” Blomberg makes this passage so relative to culture that he even says that men should wear a covering on their head in certain “holy places” (e.g. Jewish synagogues). In 19 pages, Blomberg does not cite a single primary source to confirm his claims about the covering in Corinthian culture.
Fee (1987) comments more honestly than most, “Even if we were sure of prevailing customs, we would need to be able to distinguish between Greek, Roman and Jew customs as well as differences in geography, how one dressed at home, outside the home, and in worship, and differences between the rich and poor.” In a footnote he writes, “These kinds of problems render generally useless a large amount of the literary evidence that is often cited in reference to this text.” In another footnote he references several ancient works of art from Corinth, Pompei and other places, speaking of the “ambiguity” of the practice of women wearing head coverings in religious contexts. Fee denies the claim “that short hair or a shaved head was the mark of the Corinthian prostitutes.” He says, “There is no contemporary evidence to support this view (it seems to be a case of one scholar’s guess becoming a second scholar’s footnote and a third scholar’s assumption).” It seems to me that this is the case with much of what has been written about this passage.
Reese (2004) notes the various customs for worship: Jewish men covered their heads, as did Roman men, but the Greek men worshiped uncovered. He then says, “It might seem that… Paul simply decided in favor of the Greek custom… But in a moment we shall see that he does not follow the Greek custom concerning the dress of ladies when worshipping in public.” Reese claims, “If Paul were writing to Jews, or to Romans, or to Germans, all of whom covered the head during worship, he would have doubtless told them that any man who violated this custom [covering the head]… thereby showed lack of reverence and humility.” But since, according to Reese, Paul is writing to Greeks, “he bids them therefore to abide by their custom.” With regard to women, he says, “Greek women in pagan worship settings laid aside their veils. By removing their veils, they were offering themselves for sexual relations to any man who came along.” This is a rather shocking claim, to which Reese attaches zero evidence.
Garland (2003) does a better job of citing primary sources than many others, but his attempt to relate the Babylonian Talmud and Philo’s comments on the Law of Moses to the cultural norms in first century Corinth are questionable at the very least.
Most commentators dwell on the cultural perception of women going out in public without covering their heads. Thiselton and Reese imply that respectable, modest women always wore a covering on their heads in public. Their conclusion, then, is that Paul told the Corinthian women to veil their heads so as not to shame themselves and their husbands. But this seems to miss the point of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Paul is not addressing general public outings.
As
I read the entire New Testament, I see no prohibition against women going to
the market or civic functions without a head covering. The only time the Holy
Spirit specified for women to cover their heads is when they pray or prophesy.
As Oster (1995) says, “Since the apostle specifies the exact circumstance he
has in mind and this is participation in liturgy (i.e., praying and
prophesying), one has clearly left Paul’s agenda to take this text to refer to
what a believing woman should wear when she goes outside her home.”
Besides the fact that the cultural argument tends to downplay the importance of the attending circumstances (praying or prophesying) in 1 Corinthians 11, there is also the problem of being forced to conclude that Paul urged the women to follow Roman (or Jewish) custom, but told the men that it was shameful for them to follow Roman (or Jewish) custom. Instead, the men should follow Greek custom. This seems inexplicably bizarre coming from someone as logical as Paul. Corinth was rebuilt in 44 BC as a Roman colony. Commanding men in a Roman colony to pray to their God with their head uncovered is a counter-cultural command. See the statue Via Labicana Augustus, in which the emperor is presented as the veiled Pontifex Maximus, the high priest of the gods performing sacred rites.
But all these lines of evidence are merely secondary. The primary evidence that Paul’s directives are not in their present form due to an eye for cultural sensibilities lies in the fact that Paul does not attach the command to culture. This may be contested to some degree, but all can agree that Paul never tells the Corinthians, “Men shouldn’t be covered while praying, but women should, since culture assigns certain values to these conditions.”
The reasons for the covering are given plainly. We do not have to guess. A man shouldn’t wear a covering “because he is the image and glory of God.” A woman should wear a covering because “she is the glory of man” since woman originated from the man and was created for the man’s sake (Genesis 2). She should also wear a covering “because of the angels”. Some ask, “But how does the covering convey this significance today? This is not a part of our culture.” The answer is that Paul is not concerned here with how the ungodly culture perceives these Christians. The covering has meaning and significance to fellow family members in Christ because God has made it so. The covering carries weighty connotations because it is related to the Godhead, the creation of the world and the heavenly hosts. If the covering does have some cultural relevance, this pales in comparison with the ideas to which Paul attaches it.
Finally, this was a universal practice. “The churches of God” practiced these principles without exception. “All who in every place call on the name of our Lord” (1:2) should apply this passage. The issues related to the covering pertain to Paul’s “ways which are in Christ”, which he taught “everywhere in every church” (4:17). All who have been baptized by the one Spirit into the one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, (12:13) should practice what is taught in 1 Corinthians 11. Or was it from us that the word of God went forth? Or did it only go to the Corinthians? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which Paul wrote to the Corinthians are the Lord’s commandment (14:36-37).
Besides the fact that the cultural argument tends to downplay the importance of the attending circumstances (praying or prophesying) in 1 Corinthians 11, there is also the problem of being forced to conclude that Paul urged the women to follow Roman (or Jewish) custom, but told the men that it was shameful for them to follow Roman (or Jewish) custom. Instead, the men should follow Greek custom. This seems inexplicably bizarre coming from someone as logical as Paul. Corinth was rebuilt in 44 BC as a Roman colony. Commanding men in a Roman colony to pray to their God with their head uncovered is a counter-cultural command. See the statue Via Labicana Augustus, in which the emperor is presented as the veiled Pontifex Maximus, the high priest of the gods performing sacred rites.
But all these lines of evidence are merely secondary. The primary evidence that Paul’s directives are not in their present form due to an eye for cultural sensibilities lies in the fact that Paul does not attach the command to culture. This may be contested to some degree, but all can agree that Paul never tells the Corinthians, “Men shouldn’t be covered while praying, but women should, since culture assigns certain values to these conditions.”
The reasons for the covering are given plainly. We do not have to guess. A man shouldn’t wear a covering “because he is the image and glory of God.” A woman should wear a covering because “she is the glory of man” since woman originated from the man and was created for the man’s sake (Genesis 2). She should also wear a covering “because of the angels”. Some ask, “But how does the covering convey this significance today? This is not a part of our culture.” The answer is that Paul is not concerned here with how the ungodly culture perceives these Christians. The covering has meaning and significance to fellow family members in Christ because God has made it so. The covering carries weighty connotations because it is related to the Godhead, the creation of the world and the heavenly hosts. If the covering does have some cultural relevance, this pales in comparison with the ideas to which Paul attaches it.
Finally, this was a universal practice. “The churches of God” practiced these principles without exception. “All who in every place call on the name of our Lord” (1:2) should apply this passage. The issues related to the covering pertain to Paul’s “ways which are in Christ”, which he taught “everywhere in every church” (4:17). All who have been baptized by the one Spirit into the one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, (12:13) should practice what is taught in 1 Corinthians 11. Or was it from us that the word of God went forth? Or did it only go to the Corinthians? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which Paul wrote to the Corinthians are the Lord’s commandment (14:36-37).
Comments
Post a Comment