Musings

 

Biblical books, talks and ruminations by Rob J Hyndman 

Facebook Gplus RSS

Hairy problems in Corinth

Published on 20 October 2010 in Talks

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 requires women to wear head coverings while praying or prophesying, and men not to wear head coverings while praying or prophesying. It also says that long hair is unnatural for a man, and that short hair is a disgrace for a woman. The passage has puzzled Bible readers for centuries.

In this talk I try to explain the puzzles, using recent archaeological and historical scholarship summarized in After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change by Bruce W Winter (Eerdmans, 2001).

The talk was given at the Advanced Bible Study class, Dandenong Bible Education Centre on 20 October 2010.

Slides

Audio

 
20 Comments  comments 
  • N/A

    Dear Rob,
    There was little of the biblical view, when most of your quotations are from nonbiblical sources. .Why do you think God gave us his inpired word, if it is no longer relevant? God is unchanging and so are his teachings.
    You yourself state it can be man or husband (and woman or wife) in the greek. But then you take it upon yourself to change the bible, to husband (wife) where it suits your argument.
    I would think for an advanced bible study class, you would be giving more scripture and less secular works.
    So then what does the bible say?
    - 1 Cor 11:3 – there is a highrachy in the ecclesia and this applies, regardless of ones marital status.
    - v7 all men are created in the image and glory of God not just married men
    - Nowhere in Corinthians does it say it was just following local customs.
    - 1 Cor 10:25 -33 Talks about meat offered to idols. Here we have a custom of the day and Paul gives advice on how to eat without giving offence. But it is clearly a custom. However the head covering issue is not presented in this way in the next chapter.
    What God has given us is sufficent. There is no need to add in things from unispired sources.

    • Deb

      Dear N/A- I agree with your point. In today’s culture, the equivalent symbol of a married woman’s headcovering would be a wedding ring. If this issue was cultural, then Paul’s admonition for today would be that Sisters should not pray without their wedding rings. Does that make sense to us?

      • Warren

        If I understand Rob’s talk correctly, in Roman culture, it was a requirement in order to show honour to a god that you had to cover your head (male or female). But why Paul is saying men in Christian Church should NOT wear a head covering is because it looks like they are worshipping other gods. For females though not wearing a covering would make them look like a prostitute, so they should cover their head to show they were married (the way God prefers). In short they were trying to fit in with the Roman culture as best as they could without compromising Christians beliefs. We don’t have any requirements that praying to gods (in dress) in our culture, so using a wedding ring as an example isn’t a logical argument and missing the point entirely. I recommend you go back and listen to the talk again.

  • http://faithandpride.wordpress.com/ Andrew McFarland

    So if where you live long hair on men isn’t associated with homosexuality, it is OK?

    • http://robjhyndman.com Rob J Hyndman

      I think Paul’s objection to long hair on men was because of its homosexual implications in first century Corinth. So if there is no such implication in another time or place, the specific issue of long hair ceases to be a problem.

  • Warren

    I was always thought, if this head covering issue was so important why is it hardly mentioned in the Bible and where it is mentioned why can it be taken different ways and unclear at best. We use secular material as supporting evidence to show “greek” mythology on demons and devils without we would be still believing in them so secular material should be included as well for this argument (otherwise we are not being consistent). We don’t mention head coverings in any our of statement of faiths etc, so it obviously has never been important enough to be included, so I am not sure why people make such a big deal about it now.

    • Deb

      Dear Bro Warren:

      Respectfully, as a sister, it is very important for me to understand why I wear a headcovering and I have studied it quite a bit. The headcovering principle is actually mentioned often in scripture when you think about it in totality. The hierarchy principle right from Genesis, the principle of Christ being “the head”, The law of headcoverings for priests, the annointing of the head….

      While it is not a BASF doctrinal issue, I believe it is an important principle for the walk of sisters who want to respect the principle of submission which Christ himself followed for his walk and for Brethren to understand and constantly be reminded of their headship responsibility. It is an important element of our growth. Thank you.

      • Warren

        Dear Deb:

        Yes I agree, certainly Sisters who feel they need to wear a head covering should certainly continue to do so and I understand that having being taught it all your life and then having someone say that it is no longer necessarily … can be very confronting and scary. I understand that… But we should be careful not enforce our opinion on others (or blackmail with the “I’m offended” business), when it is clearly not part of our fellowship statement and especially seeing it is becoming so controversial.

        I have observed many responses to this issue and people appear to have a fear and emotional based response (rather than a logical one). Could it be the fear that because one thing we may have had wrong, means that it could bring the entire lot into question or change the role of sisters completely? But this need not to be the case, and we should be careful we are not throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Rather, let us remember how we got here and our heritage, embrace the wonderful attitude of seeking to question and prove all things as our pioneers have worked hard to do and the example of the Berean’s in Acts.

        Such questioning I have done over the last year or so and the argument for head coverings has become weaker and weaker. Being a male, the implications are of little concern to me personally especially on an emotional level, so I feel I have an unbiased attitude to looking at it openly.

        So I encourage all to approach this with an open mind. Search it out. Don’t start out trying to prove what you already (think) you know to be true. Don’t knock it on the head so quick (excuse the pun ;-) . Let the information flow, let us all look at it carefully, openly, with love, not bag it with emotional and half-baked responses (as some have). If people were really confident in what they believe they would behave differently. It is a complex issue and requires much study (just because of the tradition that has been passed down without question). But the emotional response and the hostility only further makes us wonder that there is something else at stake here or just simply fear (as opposed to love) and the evidence is not as clear as people make it out to be.

        In your reference to Genesis. Agreed to a certain extent, but the Jews were required to follow these regulations because of the covenant they made with God, to do so. Under the New Covenant, which Jesus established by his death and resurrection observance of these regulations is no longer necessary (though not necessarily prohibited). These ceremonial regulations we never intended to replace the spiritual realities they symbolically taught. Following Christ ascension and the establishment of the church, are only two practices that were universally mandated: baptism and the remembrance of his death in the breaking of bread. There are many things in Scripture that were cultural that had meaning and principles like fasting (we don’t fast now.. yet Christ said “When you fast”….). Anyway much can be said about this, but this is not the forum for it. Great for your own Bible Classes to discuss amongst yourselves.

        Thank you and hope and pray that we can all agree on this one day.

        • Deb

          Dear Bro Warren- thank you for your thoughts.
          I hope I did nto come off as scared or emotional, I am not. I like to think my perspective is based on scripture and many hours of study and not tradition or emotion.

          When I referenced Genesis, I meant the order, method and purpose of Man and womens’ creation, not a ceremonial Mosaic law. As Paul took the reader back to Genesis 1,2 & 3 in Corinthians 11 and 14, so I went there.

          I agree that the new covenant replaced the old but it did not replace the principles behind the law- just the ouward, repetitive actions. The principles remained. For me, as I read Paul’s words, the principle of hierarchy and submission and roles found in Gen 1,2&3 still apply.

          As to holding people hostage, one the one hand, I go to the scripture that says if your actions will cause another to stumble, don’t do it- even if you have a perfect right to. (1 Corin 8:12-13) On this topic, As an elder sister in my meeting once said, “sisters are asked to wear a hat, not cut off a finger”. Is it really so hard to do as requested so your sister won’t stumble? Do we care for our brethren more than for ourselves? I know of an ecclesia close by which split over this issue. It is so hard for me to understand that the Bre would rather force a sister’s right not to wear a hat and split the body which Christ has put together than have them put on a scarf. where are our priorities? 1 Corin 12: 25. (ok, now I am emotional) But I think we have this all wrong. The issue, in my mind, is not about the hat, it is about people’s pride and not wanting to bow to another’s will. The bre who feel strongly about this have studied scripture and are sincere. Hopefully, they are not trying to “lord it over” others. Even if they are wrong, is it worth causing so much division? I have never heard anyone say they think it is WRONG to wear a headcovering. If it was, then I agree there is a solid argument to be had and should be had.

          On the other hand, I agree that we cannot impose our perpectives on others when scripture can be interpreted in various ways on non doctrinal issues. While I am not comfortable at a breaking of bread service with sisters who are uncovered, I also am not comfortable with sisters wearing short skirts, and I know someone else who does not think we should wear red (so I don’t)- we all have our individual timelines of growth and understanding of what is appropriate (and maybe mine is flawed at the moment). We are not always on the same page at the same time and we need to respect that. Romans 14:4 again, says we need to study for ourselves and follow what we deem right. We can all come to different conclusions, but are required to follow our conscience.

  • dianne

    Rob,
    Congratulations on your courage in giving an interpretation of 1 Cor 11 which attempts to address the first question we should be asking – What did Paul’s words mean to the people to whom they were written.

  • Maryanne

    Hi Rob

    Thanks so much for your talk, I found it very enlightening and I can now read that scripture with a much better understanding.

    I come from a background where I was made to wear a hat as a young girl, even attending Sunday School. I grew up not understanding the reasons for a headcovering; the passage in 1 Cor. 11 seemed very ambiguous and contradictory to me.

    I wore a hat as this is what was expected, even though I didn’t agree. I now undertand, so thank you for taking the time to sort out this issue and put it into perspective.

    Just one question though. At the end of the talk, you mentioned that where it says: “for a woman’s hair is given for a covering”…you said that the word covering does not mean covering.

    What then is the context and meaning of that verse? I could not go back and listen again as the audio seemed stuck in the “forwards” position.

    • http://robjhyndman.com Rob J Hyndman

      Hi Maryanne. At the end of v15, where it says “her hair is given to her for a covering”, the word translated “covering” is peribolaion. All other words concerning covering in the chapter are based on the word katakalupto. My point was that the verse cannot be saying that the hair itself is a suitable covering of the sort described earlier, because Paul uses a different Greek word. It is unfortunate that our English translations have not preserved this distinction.

      v14-15 are saying that men and women are different in the way their hair is seen and interpreted. Long hair on men was a sign of homosexuality in Corinth at that time, whereas long hair on women was seen as a sign of beauty and glory. For women (in first century Corinth), hair functioned like a beautiful garment (a peribolaion), but it was not seen that way on men.

      • dianne

        The word peribolaion actually means “thrown round about”. Perhaps it refers to the long hair being thrown or wound around the head; what we today would call being put up. Even as late as the 1960′s it was considered inappropriate for an adult woman to have long hair hanging loose.
        In the secondary meaning where peribolaion is said to mean a garment, we need to understand ancient clothing. This was largely based on taking a long flat piece of material and throwing it around the body – peribolaion .
        The Indian sari is an example of this ancient clothing method.

  • Gerry Thornewell

    CONTEXT:
    If there was one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one single skill I could impart, one useful tip I could leave that would serve you well the rest of your life, what would it be?
    - What is the single most important practical skill I’ve ever learned as a Christian? Simply never read a Bible verse. That’s right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read at least a paragraph and sometimes the chapter.

    I generally read the paragraph, not just the verse. I take stock of the relevant material above and below. Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, I let it tell me what’s going on. This works because of a basic rule of all communication: Meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.

    So in the case of 1 Corinthians 11 we might even read more widely and learn that it is a letter addressing specific issues at that time. It was not written to all Christians.

    Taking a verse out of context is easy to do, especially if it tends to support one’s argument or long held viewpoint.

  • Andrew

    Personally I think we need to be very careful NOT to place a man-made document above that which was written by God Himself.

    Times and attitudes change as does fashion, however God Himself does not change and what was written, was written for our learning and understanding. If we do not understand why women should wear a head covering, then perhaps we need to delve deeper into the inspired word of God, putting aside current worldly attitudes and what might be fashionable, and look again and respect what God requires from ALL of us and why – Brethren and Sisters alike.

  • Andrew

    I think it rather petty to say, “it’s not in the BASF ( a man-made document) – therefore I don’t need to do it”.

  • Sabel

    After listening to this, while interesting, I was left asking, “So what?” Reference to the very first words of Paul, that of the pattern contained in God, Christ, man, woman is non-existent, yet it is this very pattern that the whole argument is built on. Another point to mention is that many contemporary scholars would disagree with Bruce W Winter’s interpretation. No mention is made of this fact, and as a result this is a very one-sided viewpoint. The practice of women wearing head-coverings is attested to by many first- and second century writers who do not confine the practice to the Corinthian believers. The context is also not mentioned. Paul start his arguments instructing his audience to imitate him as he imitates Christ. He then praises them for keeping to the traditions handed down by the apostles. After that he addresses two issues. Head-coverings and conduct at the memorial meeting. If we are to limit the scope of his instruction about head-coverings to the cultural environment of Corinth, are we also to limit Paul’s other comments to the Corinthian audience? This is tantamount to choosing what part of inspired scripture we wish to apply to our lives.

    • http://robjhyndman.com Rob J Hyndman

      You seemed to have missed an important point in my talk. That is, that man/woman here should be husband/wife. It is the only way to make sense of the passage. The pattern is God, Christ, husband, wife.

      I did not claim to present a review of all the ways this passage has been interpreted. I can see no good reason to do so. Instead, I tried to present one view that I think makes the most sense. Of course that is one-sided — it is one view. So what?

      Can you please provide references to these first and second century writers who refer to head-coverings. I know there are references to Jewish head-coverings, but I’ve not seen anything that refers to Christian head-coverings from this period.

      When reading Paul, everyone has to choose which parts are culturally specific and which parts are general commandments. For example, instructions to collect money for the believers in Jerusalem does not appear to be a general command. The command to greet each other with a holy kiss is usually interpreted to mean whatever greeting is culturally appropriate in the circumstances. And so on. The letter was written to a particular church at a particular time. It has value for us, but it was not written to us.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robin-Hughes/610608881 Robin Hughes

        I don’t see why

  • Eamonn Keogh

    Never mind about all the hair covering, there are more important verses to worry about. For example…

    “Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished”

    I want to beat my slave, just as the bible suggests (what a great book!), but it is not clear to me if “day or two” means exactly 48 hours. So how hard should I beat her?