Our Journey to Obeying I Corinthians 11
Occasionally, a chronicle of one’s personal, spiritual journey can be beneficial to others. While humbling to tell, it can be encouraging to others to hear of the baby steps fellow Christians make. This paper is a combination of both personal testimony and Scriptural investigation. The topic isn’t even considered worthy of serious study in most Christian circles. Yet this Biblical teaching is found in a New Testament letter which today is both popular and timely. The letter is 1 Corinthians, and the topic is the headship veiling of chapter 11. Embarrassing as it is to admit, I believe I can safely say I’ve held to almost every possible interpretation. The only consolation to this is the fact that, while ignorant, I was at least honest. It is important to remember to be sympathetic to those who dismiss the headship veiling as unimportant. In today’s Christian circles, this text is almost completely ignored or mishandled. (1) R. C. Sproul (2) has chided today’s expositors for engaging in eisegesis of the worst kind as regards 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. (R. C. Sproul’s comments are contained in Appendix A.)
In my opinion, the modern Christian is insulated from even beginning to consider this teaching by various erroneous assumptions. For me personally, it was a misunderstanding of the very words of Jesus. Christ stood as a road block to further investigation. The unwarranted assumption was simply this: Jesus’ message stands in opposition to any consideration of externals; especially in regards to clothing issues. A few of those misunderstood statements would include: 1) “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life…nor about your body, what you will put on.” (Matthew 7:25)
2) “Do not judge according to appearance…” (John 7:24a)
3) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27) 4) “Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Matthew 23:26) These verses are used to derail the discussion even before it gets started. In the early days of my Christian walk, I would have simply brushed aside the entire issue with a pious cliché, “Let’s not major on the minors.” Yet, now I believe that such cavalier dismissal of Scripture is wrong for the following reasons: 1) It is Scripture we are doing away with, not some extra-Biblical writing. (Recall 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God
may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”)
2) Peter and Paul both deal with the externals: of clothing, etc. If they were lead by the Holy Spirit to address these matters, are we more “spiritual” now than even the apostles
themselves?
3) Church history shows that Christians for hundreds of years in different lands accepted this Scripture as applicable. Can we really assume they misunderstood, and we are so
much wiser?
(1) Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary
(2) Knowing Scripture, p. 110, R. C. Sproul, I.V.P.
4) That which we relegate to the “minor” commandments may be more essential than we realize. If we could see as the Good Shepherd sees, we might adjust our thinking.
(Matthew 5:19; Isaiah 55:8-9)
None of the aforementioned, of course, proves that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is to be obeyed literally today, but it does begin to make the way clear to an open-hearted study. Put in the plainest terms – all Scripture is worthy of serious study, is it not? Admittedly, there was a time in our own Christian walk when ANY discussion of externals of this nature would have immediately been branded as “Pharisaical.” Now, while the way may seem clear to begin a serious study, usually another smoke bomb is dropped into the discussion. In verses two and sixteen, two similar words are used (varying according to translation) namely, “tradition” and “custom” (KJV – “ordinances”). Here an unwarranted assumption is made again. I made this assumption for years. The erroneous thought is this: tradition and custom are always in opposition to Jesus Christ’s own teaching. I’ve heard these words pronounced with a snarl in the voice: “Tradition! Ha!” “Custom! Right!” Inferred in this is that Jesus hated tradition (Matthew 15) and hates it still, and that whenever we read the word ‘tradition’ or ‘custom’, it is always man-made and never used positively. This, of course, is not what the New Testament shows. Two examples will be sufficient concerning the word ‘tradition’: A) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) B) “But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) This word pronounced par-ad’-os-is used here in Thessalonians is the same used by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 15. The Greek lexicons define it as: “transmission i.e. (concretely) a precept, ordinance.” (Strong’s, p. 1072); “That which is delivered, the substance of teaching.” (Thayer’s Greek/English Lexicon, p. 481); “What is transmitted in the way of teaching, precept, doctrine.” (Analytical Lexicon, p. 302). Simply put, the word tradition isn’t a bad word, contrary to my earlier belief. It can be used with reference to man’s teaching or God’s – depending on the context. Kittel’s sums it up very well with this comment: “For Paul, Christian teaching is tradition, and he demands that churches should keep to it since salvation depends on it.” (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Volume 2, p. 172)
The situation concerning the word “custom” is very similar. We assumed that “custom” was man-made ordinances. Yet, simply put, the Greek word used here means “usage, habit.” (We’ll deal at length with what the actual cultural context was in Corinth a little later.) Suffice it to say, custom isn’t a bad word either, at least in this context. On the matter of custom in general, one short quote is helpful: “All we have for sure is the text on the pages of the Bible! God wrote it for us, to us and preserved it as we have it today. No information external to the text about the presumed cultural influence on the Apostle Paul’s attitude toward women, worship or anything else can be known with certainty. Therefore, it may never be used to negate, deny, or change the plain and direct meaning of the words of the text.” (Reformed Witness Magazine, March 1992) The thorough treatment of the cultural context will come later. It is my belief that modern evangelical Christians have made void the commandment of God concerning the headship veiling in conformity to our customs. It isn’t that the apostle spoke as influenced by his culture but the culture of pseudo-equality twists our minds! Surely, after all this, the way is clear for a serious look at the text. “But,” we’re told, “this precept (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) is only mentioned once; therefore it must not be all that important. After all, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every charge must be established, right?” Do we believe that if we can’t find two or three verses on any given subject, then it really doesn’t matter? Two items come to mind as I consider such a claim: A) Melchizedek – Are things only important when they are mentioned a lot? If 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 isn’t valuable, then neither is Melchizedek. But in Hebrews 7:4 we read: “Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.” While he is hardly referenced, he is greater than Abraham! (Hebrews 7:7) * B) Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is only mentioned once in the New Testament. Could this be not important?
C) The mark of the beast: 666 – Not important? Well, this is mentioned once in Revelation 13! Can we safely disregard the warning in this Scripture? After all, it is mentioned only once. Items may appear to be more important or less important because of the number of citations, but this is not a Scriptural way to make such an evaluation. It is regularly maintained that the headship teaching was a problem peculiar to Christians in Corinth. This is what I thought for a long time. And for a long time, I had no motivation to look any further. But as I looked again, this theory began to unravel as well. The first question is: Did Corinthian women have a problem with their observance (or should I say their non-observance) of the headship veiling? Consider 1 Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Can we say from this, contrary to verse two, that they didn’t keep the traditions? Nevertheless, Paul does proceed to say immediately following his commendation, “But I would have you know that…” It appears they were obeying, but ignorantly. If the Corinthian women did wear the covering, Paul very well could have been led by the Holy Spirit’s illumination rather than local conditions at Corinth. We do know the letter wasn’t written just to the Corinthian church – see 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” (See also the custom mentioned in Colossians 4:16 of sharing letters: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”) Also 1 Corinthians 11:16 uses the phrase “neither do the churches of God”; possibly indicating this teaching wasn’t unique to Corinth. (On this point, the Wycliffe Commentary [Moody Publishing], agrees and adds similar points as well.) Besides all this, Paul himself cites no special Corinthian situation anywhere in his teaching. A portion of the Wycliffe Commentary may be helpful at this point: “It should be noted; however, that each of the reasons given for the wearing of the veil is taken from permanent facts lasting as long as the present earthly economy. Paul did carry his point, for early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch and Africa, the custom became the norm.” (Wycliffe Commentary, 1962, Moody Press) We also know the “custom” extended eventually to all Christian communities until quite recently. If this teaching was originally intended to be merely a local response to a unique problem, the entire early church misunderstood! For early drawings show Christian women wearing “…a close fitting headdress while men have their hair short (and also presumably uncovered). Tertullian and Chrysostom testify that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches.” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Volume III, p. 787)
As you can see, there is a lot of work that needs to be done just to get to the text, but now that we’ve cleared some debris, we can move on to the first real argument which I believe makes any sense. The view maintains that the hair is the covering. Obviously this can’t just be hair since then the men would need to shave their heads. * The actual references to Melchizedek include Genesis 14; Psalm 110; and Hebrews 7
What is being proposed is that women ought to have long hair, and this is what Paul intended. This is maintained despite the fact that the entire early church interpreted Paul as teaching a cloth veiling over the hair! (See previous quotes) We are simply being asked to believe that when the church adopted a cloth veil, they did so contrary to the true teaching of Paul. This seems unlikely for several reasons:
1) This “misunderstanding” would have continued during the time Paul was still alive and able to correct them. Not only doesn’t Paul correct them even up to the day of his execution, but no one else even questions this so-called erroneous practice. 2) This “misunderstanding” would have been believed even though they had the great advantage of being native Greek speakers. Our modern scholars, twice removed from the Greek language, are better interpreters than the original readers? This is hard to believe. (John Calvin found this impossible to believe.) * 3) Supplying the words “long hair” wherever the word “covering” or “covered” is used results in confusion. Try this yourself. Not to mention, why use the cryptic “covering” when all you intend is long hair? 4) The strength of the hair = covering view is verse fifteen. However, (and native Greek speakers would have caught this) the Greek word for covering in verse fifteen is a completely different Greek word from those which proceed it. This disconnects verse fifteen from the proceeding in the sense that one is speaking of the natural hair, the other a veil. 5) The statement given in verse fifteen is that the hair is given “for” a covering. Some would understand this as “instead of” a covering, namely, a cloth veil. Yet when we understand the context of 1 Corinthians 11, we see that the inspired apostle is referring to the natural to illuminate the spiritual. The hair is the natural which should lead us to conclude a cloth veil is fitting. Therefore, we would like to submit the meaning “similar to” in replacement of “for” or “instead of”. (See for confirmation Appendix B) This would further weaken the “hair is the covering” position. Many evangelicals will pay lip service to the position that the hair is the covering. Don’t assume anyone is truly convinced this is so. Some specific questions, as outlined above, will create cracks in the facade of this theological house of cards. Needless to say, I once lived in this shaky house. I once believed Jesus didn’t care about externals until His Spirit through His inspired apostles challenged me to look again. I thought whenever the words “tradition” or “custom” were used; it was man-made and therefore nonessential. I had learned that Corinthian women were being given a local solution to a local problem, not applicable to the church at large. Honestly, these positions were held to simply because on the surface they seemed reasonable. It is easy to be an expert at a glance. Yet God’s Word deserves more than a casual glance. In this, 1 Corinthians 8:2 speaks volumes: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.” This verse reminds me of another one of my little arguments against literally observing any of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Verse sixteen says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Here I understood that if anyone didn’t want to go along with the head-covering and was argumentative, Paul was saying, “Forget the whole thing.” While this understanding seems plausible at first glance, various observations indicate this isn’t correct. * “Should anyone now object that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says it is not, for it (the hair) is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it.”
(John Calvin Commentaries, Translated from the Latin 1848)
A) First, it strikes me as unlikely that the apostle would argue forcefully for the headship veiling, bringing in creation facts and even angels, then say, “But never mind if you don’t like it.” This really doesn’t make much sense. B) If the phrase “we have no such custom” is non-negotiable, then the illogical theory may be inescapable. But the Greek word translated “such” is translated “other” in several English translations. While this may seem confusing, keep in mind prepositions are very flexible. Their context often determines their meaning. The phrase “we have no other custom” completely changes the meaning, but is translated thusly in the New International Version, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Williams, Good News Bible, Phillips and the Amplified Bible. This is not a textural matter but a translation challenge. The word is too flexible to hang a conclusion on. Early Christians didn’t argue and obeyed. Let us now return to the strongest argument against the headship veiling. We are told that the Corinthian Christian women were modeling the inappropriate practice of Corinthian prostitutes. Fairly representative of such a view is a footnote in the Life Application Bible: “We need to read it in the context of the situation in Corinth…For a woman to uncover her head in public was a sign of loose morals…Paul was saying that in the Corinthian culture, Christian women should keep their hair long…” (New Living Translation, Life Application Bible, p. 1818) Did Paul really write a concession to Corinthian culture? Could the very one who wrote “Do not be conformed to this world…” (Romans 12:2) really have let the Corinthian customs press him into their mold? Even more troubling is the thought that if Paul wrote teachings in the Corinthian letter based not on God’s infallible Spirit, but on human judgments, what else is cultural? 1 Both Appendix A and B cover aspects of the cultural arguments, and I would urge you to read both. Briefly I want to explain what the actual situation was in both Jewish and Greek cultures. This hopefully will answer the question: Does 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 reflect the culture of that time? Our discussion has centered on the head-covering for women. Yet equally innovative for a Jewish man was Paul’s inspired teaching in 11:4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” Jewish men covered their heads when entering prayer settings (see Exodus 29:6; Leviticus 16:4) and still do. First Corinthians 11:4 isn’t traditional Jewish teaching. Greek prostitutes for sure didn’t cover their heads, this is true. But what isn’t said is that Greek women, as well as their men folk, in general didn’t cover their heads while praying. So the head-covering isn’t in conformity to Greek practice. This brought the Tyndale Commentary to conclude: “Christians adopted a distinctive practice of their own.” (Volume 7, p.152) Another quote is helpful: “(Paul’s) teaching in 1 Corinthians goes far beyond the cultural conditions affecting the Corinthian church. Indeed it was applicable also to other first century churches (1 Corinthians 11:16b) and to God’s people at any time. 2 Still, although all this was true, I could hardly believe that in all my Christian experience, no one had seen any of this. How could the truth be so obscure? What I discovered next truly surprised me. In a commentary dated 1916, I read: “To this day, the universal custom in Christian places of worship, of women being covered and men uncovered and the increasing revolt against the acknowledgment of the subordination of women to men, etc…” (Layman Commentary, 1916, p. 106)
1 Various groups are willing to help us in our search. The Metropolitan Community Church suggests Paul’s prohibition of homosexuality was a similar reaction to the Corinthian temple prostitution cult.
2 For an excellent treatment of the Jewish and Grecian practices, see Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 10, pp. 254-257)
Was the head-covering still common practice in 1916? Apparently so. In 1928, Charles Erdman’s Commentary contained these comments: “It is interesting to observe that while the habit of covering the head in public worship is but a trivial custom which obtained in the days of Paul, it is still almost universally observed among Christians. Its real meaning is little understood. Its true significance is almost forgotten. However, the important principle it once represented is everywhere questioned or rejected in the alleged interest of the rights and liberties of women.” It is surprising to realize that the veiling has been removed so recently. In the end, the covering was quarantined to public worship. Yet John Calvin’s observations demonstrate this too was a recent deterioration: “…women should not go out in public with uncovered heads.” (Calvin’s Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 10, Section 29)* Even here we got tripped up into believing the veiling was properly suited to the church service alone. “After all,” I reasoned, “where do we pray and prophecy?” At church. What happened as we deepened our understanding of what constitutes true “church”? Is true “church” only that which happens on Sunday in the “house of God”? Little by little, it dawned on us that we were always members of the church and that anytime we shared Jesus and prayed, this was as much “having church” as any other time. Home Bible studies were surely church (see Acts 16:13). In the grocery store witnessing to searching souls was church. We would slip into church over and over using the head-covering like a convertible top on a rainy day. Up and down it would go until the foolishness of this finally settled in. Overlooked in all this was that our text doesn’t say it is just about praying or prophesying. The focus was more on the demonstration of God’s created order. “God-Christ-Man-Woman.” This doesn’t need to be demonstrated just in church. And, “because of the angels” (11:10) doesn’t seem to imply church settings only, unless angels only go to church and not to the home studies, or grocery store or the beach. Angels minister to us wherever we are. (See Hebrews 1:12; 13:2; Luke 22:43; 2 Kings 6:17) Do you recall the tale of Gulliver’s travels? After a ship wreck, a solitary man is washed ashore on a strange island. He awakens to find himself tied down by hundreds of miniature ropes and surrounded by hundreds of miniature people. This, of course, is a fantastic fable, far-fetched in the extreme. Yet, this picture accurately illustrates the way I feel God dealt with us as He laid reason after reason over our minds, bringing us into conformity to His will. As in Gulliver’s story, at any time he could have lifted himself up, broke free of the Lilliputians’ constraints; so can any of us resist the Holy Spirit’s leading. In the case of the miniature Lilliputians, they were too small to control Gulliver, but in the Holy Spirit’s case, it isn’t that He isn’t able to forcibly tie us down, but that He is unwilling. As you can see from this paper, there are specific, Scriptural, reasonable arguments that may be submitted in favor of the headship veiling. More important, however, is our personal willingness to submit to God’s inspired Word. Bible experts are everywhere offering their counsel. Yet there remains but one Wonderful Counselor: Jesus Christ our Lord. The Jews, expert as they were in God’s law, murdered the holy and just one. As it is written, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves…” (Luke 7:30a) I trust you will not make the same mistake. God bless you, Don and Lauren Childs John Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564.
Appendix A
Widely respected Bible teacher R. C. Sproul’s comments from the book, “Knowing Scripture”: “Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes. What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and have no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis. 3. The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. Appeals to creation ordinances reflect stipulations a covenant God makes with man qua man. The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God. To set principles of creation aside as mere local custom is the worst kind of relativizing and dehistoricizing of the biblical content.” (Knowing Scripture, p. 110-111; R. C. Sproul, professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary.)
Appendix B
Are There Cultural Aspects of the Bible?
(and, thereby, Portions of Scripture Not Applicable for Today?)
Gil Rugh 4-24-88
“As we approach the Scriptures and interpret it, we interpret it in a literal or normal way according to the rules of grammar in light of the historical setting in which it was given by God. We need to be very careful we don’t write-off portions of the Word saying, ‘That was cultural.’ Because everything in the Word of God was cultural…it was written within the culture within which it was given. So the cultural arguments simply become an excuse [for some] to reject whatever portion of the Word of God that does not fit with what (they and) the world are doing in this area today. The Word of God transcends culture. What is important here is that it is God giving these instructions. Some say, ‘Well, these portions simply reflect the cultural practices of that period of time.’ That is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture.” (Taken from: “Family Fitness: Equal But Different”; Biblical Discernment Ministries) Titus 1:9 – “…holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”
Our Journey to Obeying I Corinthians 11
Occasionally, a chronicle of one’s personal, spiritual journey can be beneficial to others. While humbling to tell, it can be encouraging to others to hear of the baby steps fellow Christians make. This paper is a combination of both personal testimony and Scriptural investigation. The topic isn’t even considered worthy of serious study in most Christian circles. Yet this Biblical teaching is found in a New Testament letter which today is both popular and timely. The letter is 1 Corinthians, and the topic is the headship veiling of chapter 11. Embarrassing as it is to admit, I believe I can safely say I’ve held to almost every possible interpretation. The only consolation to this is the fact that, while ignorant, I was at least honest. It is important to remember to be sympathetic to those who dismiss the headship veiling as unimportant. In today’s Christian circles, this text is almost completely ignored or mishandled. (1) R. C. Sproul (2) has chided today’s expositors for engaging in eisegesis of the worst kind as regards 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. (R. C. Sproul’s comments are contained in Appendix A.)
In my opinion, the modern Christian is insulated from even beginning to consider this teaching by various erroneous assumptions. For me personally, it was a misunderstanding of the very words of Jesus. Christ stood as a road block to further investigation. The unwarranted assumption was simply this: Jesus’ message stands in opposition to any consideration of externals; especially in regards to clothing issues. A few of those misunderstood statements would include: 1) “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life…nor about your body, what you will put on.” (Matthew 7:25)
2) “Do not judge according to appearance…” (John 7:24a)
3) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27) 4) “Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Matthew 23:26) These verses are used to derail the discussion even before it gets started. In the early days of my Christian walk, I would have simply brushed aside the entire issue with a pious cliché, “Let’s not major on the minors.” Yet, now I believe that such cavalier dismissal of Scripture is wrong for the following reasons: 1) It is Scripture we are doing away with, not some extra-Biblical writing. (Recall 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God
may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”)
2) Peter and Paul both deal with the externals: of clothing, etc. If they were lead by the Holy Spirit to address these matters, are we more “spiritual” now than even the apostles
themselves?
3) Church history shows that Christians for hundreds of years in different lands accepted this Scripture as applicable. Can we really assume they misunderstood, and we are so
much wiser?
(1) Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary
(2) Knowing Scripture, p. 110, R. C. Sproul, I.V.P.
4) That which we relegate to the “minor” commandments may be more essential than we realize. If we could see as the Good Shepherd sees, we might adjust our thinking.
(Matthew 5:19; Isaiah 55:8-9)
None of the aforementioned, of course, proves that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is to be obeyed literally today, but it does begin to make the way clear to an open-hearted study. Put in the plainest terms – all Scripture is worthy of serious study, is it not? Admittedly, there was a time in our own Christian walk when ANY discussion of externals of this nature would have immediately been branded as “Pharisaical.” Now, while the way may seem clear to begin a serious study, usually another smoke bomb is dropped into the discussion. In verses two and sixteen, two similar words are used (varying according to translation) namely, “tradition” and “custom” (KJV – “ordinances”). Here an unwarranted assumption is made again. I made this assumption for years. The erroneous thought is this: tradition and custom are always in opposition to Jesus Christ’s own teaching. I’ve heard these words pronounced with a snarl in the voice: “Tradition! Ha!” “Custom! Right!” Inferred in this is that Jesus hated tradition (Matthew 15) and hates it still, and that whenever we read the word ‘tradition’ or ‘custom’, it is always man-made and never used positively. This, of course, is not what the New Testament shows. Two examples will be sufficient concerning the word ‘tradition’: A) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) B) “But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) This word pronounced par-ad’-os-is used here in Thessalonians is the same used by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 15. The Greek lexicons define it as: “transmission i.e. (concretely) a precept, ordinance.” (Strong’s, p. 1072); “That which is delivered, the substance of teaching.” (Thayer’s Greek/English Lexicon, p. 481); “What is transmitted in the way of teaching, precept, doctrine.” (Analytical Lexicon, p. 302). Simply put, the word tradition isn’t a bad word, contrary to my earlier belief. It can be used with reference to man’s teaching or God’s – depending on the context. Kittel’s sums it up very well with this comment: “For Paul, Christian teaching is tradition, and he demands that churches should keep to it since salvation depends on it.” (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Volume 2, p. 172)
The situation concerning the word “custom” is very similar. We assumed that “custom” was man-made ordinances. Yet, simply put, the Greek word used here means “usage, habit.” (We’ll deal at length with what the actual cultural context was in Corinth a little later.) Suffice it to say, custom isn’t a bad word either, at least in this context. On the matter of custom in general, one short quote is helpful: “All we have for sure is the text on the pages of the Bible! God wrote it for us, to us and preserved it as we have it today. No information external to the text about the presumed cultural influence on the Apostle Paul’s attitude toward women, worship or anything else can be known with certainty. Therefore, it may never be used to negate, deny, or change the plain and direct meaning of the words of the text.” (Reformed Witness Magazine, March 1992) The thorough treatment of the cultural context will come later. It is my belief that modern evangelical Christians have made void the commandment of God concerning the headship veiling in conformity to our customs. It isn’t that the apostle spoke as influenced by his culture but the culture of pseudo-equality twists our minds! Surely, after all this, the way is clear for a serious look at the text. “But,” we’re told, “this precept (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) is only mentioned once; therefore it must not be all that important. After all, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every charge must be established, right?” Do we believe that if we can’t find two or three verses on any given subject, then it really doesn’t matter? Two items come to mind as I consider such a claim: A) Melchizedek – Are things only important when they are mentioned a lot? If 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 isn’t valuable, then neither is Melchizedek. But in Hebrews 7:4 we read: “Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.” While he is hardly referenced, he is greater than Abraham! (Hebrews 7:7) * B) Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is only mentioned once in the New Testament. Could this be not important?
C) The mark of the beast: 666 – Not important? Well, this is mentioned once in Revelation 13! Can we safely disregard the warning in this Scripture? After all, it is mentioned only once. Items may appear to be more important or less important because of the number of citations, but this is not a Scriptural way to make such an evaluation. It is regularly maintained that the headship teaching was a problem peculiar to Christians in Corinth. This is what I thought for a long time. And for a long time, I had no motivation to look any further. But as I looked again, this theory began to unravel as well. The first question is: Did Corinthian women have a problem with their observance (or should I say their non-observance) of the headship veiling? Consider 1 Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Can we say from this, contrary to verse two, that they didn’t keep the traditions? Nevertheless, Paul does proceed to say immediately following his commendation, “But I would have you know that…” It appears they were obeying, but ignorantly. If the Corinthian women did wear the covering, Paul very well could have been led by the Holy Spirit’s illumination rather than local conditions at Corinth. We do know the letter wasn’t written just to the Corinthian church – see 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” (See also the custom mentioned in Colossians 4:16 of sharing letters: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”) Also 1 Corinthians 11:16 uses the phrase “neither do the churches of God”; possibly indicating this teaching wasn’t unique to Corinth. (On this point, the Wycliffe Commentary [Moody Publishing], agrees and adds similar points as well.) Besides all this, Paul himself cites no special Corinthian situation anywhere in his teaching. A portion of the Wycliffe Commentary may be helpful at this point: “It should be noted; however, that each of the reasons given for the wearing of the veil is taken from permanent facts lasting as long as the present earthly economy. Paul did carry his point, for early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch and Africa, the custom became the norm.” (Wycliffe Commentary, 1962, Moody Press) We also know the “custom” extended eventually to all Christian communities until quite recently. If this teaching was originally intended to be merely a local response to a unique problem, the entire early church misunderstood! For early drawings show Christian women wearing “…a close fitting headdress while men have their hair short (and also presumably uncovered). Tertullian and Chrysostom testify that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches.” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Volume III, p. 787)
As you can see, there is a lot of work that needs to be done just to get to the text, but now that we’ve cleared some debris, we can move on to the first real argument which I believe makes any sense. The view maintains that the hair is the covering. Obviously this can’t just be hair since then the men would need to shave their heads. * The actual references to Melchizedek include Genesis 14; Psalm 110; and Hebrews 7
What is being proposed is that women ought to have long hair, and this is what Paul intended. This is maintained despite the fact that the entire early church interpreted Paul as teaching a cloth veiling over the hair! (See previous quotes) We are simply being asked to believe that when the church adopted a cloth veil, they did so contrary to the true teaching of Paul. This seems unlikely for several reasons:
1) This “misunderstanding” would have continued during the time Paul was still alive and able to correct them. Not only doesn’t Paul correct them even up to the day of his execution, but no one else even questions this so-called erroneous practice. 2) This “misunderstanding” would have been believed even though they had the great advantage of being native Greek speakers. Our modern scholars, twice removed from the Greek language, are better interpreters than the original readers? This is hard to believe. (John Calvin found this impossible to believe.) * 3) Supplying the words “long hair” wherever the word “covering” or “covered” is used results in confusion. Try this yourself. Not to mention, why use the cryptic “covering” when all you intend is long hair? 4) The strength of the hair = covering view is verse fifteen. However, (and native Greek speakers would have caught this) the Greek word for covering in verse fifteen is a completely different Greek word from those which proceed it. This disconnects verse fifteen from the proceeding in the sense that one is speaking of the natural hair, the other a veil. 5) The statement given in verse fifteen is that the hair is given “for” a covering. Some would understand this as “instead of” a covering, namely, a cloth veil. Yet when we understand the context of 1 Corinthians 11, we see that the inspired apostle is referring to the natural to illuminate the spiritual. The hair is the natural which should lead us to conclude a cloth veil is fitting. Therefore, we would like to submit the meaning “similar to” in replacement of “for” or “instead of”. (See for confirmation Appendix B) This would further weaken the “hair is the covering” position. Many evangelicals will pay lip service to the position that the hair is the covering. Don’t assume anyone is truly convinced this is so. Some specific questions, as outlined above, will create cracks in the facade of this theological house of cards. Needless to say, I once lived in this shaky house. I once believed Jesus didn’t care about externals until His Spirit through His inspired apostles challenged me to look again. I thought whenever the words “tradition” or “custom” were used; it was man-made and therefore nonessential. I had learned that Corinthian women were being given a local solution to a local problem, not applicable to the church at large. Honestly, these positions were held to simply because on the surface they seemed reasonable. It is easy to be an expert at a glance. Yet God’s Word deserves more than a casual glance. In this, 1 Corinthians 8:2 speaks volumes: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.” This verse reminds me of another one of my little arguments against literally observing any of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Verse sixteen says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Here I understood that if anyone didn’t want to go along with the head-covering and was argumentative, Paul was saying, “Forget the whole thing.” While this understanding seems plausible at first glance, various observations indicate this isn’t correct. * “Should anyone now object that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says it is not, for it (the hair) is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it.”
(John Calvin Commentaries, Translated from the Latin 1848)
A) First, it strikes me as unlikely that the apostle would argue forcefully for the headship veiling, bringing in creation facts and even angels, then say, “But never mind if you don’t like it.” This really doesn’t make much sense. B) If the phrase “we have no such custom” is non-negotiable, then the illogical theory may be inescapable. But the Greek word translated “such” is translated “other” in several English translations. While this may seem confusing, keep in mind prepositions are very flexible. Their context often determines their meaning. The phrase “we have no other custom” completely changes the meaning, but is translated thusly in the New International Version, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Williams, Good News Bible, Phillips and the Amplified Bible. This is not a textural matter but a translation challenge. The word is too flexible to hang a conclusion on. Early Christians didn’t argue and obeyed. Let us now return to the strongest argument against the headship veiling. We are told that the Corinthian Christian women were modeling the inappropriate practice of Corinthian prostitutes. Fairly representative of such a view is a footnote in the Life Application Bible: “We need to read it in the context of the situation in Corinth…For a woman to uncover her head in public was a sign of loose morals…Paul was saying that in the Corinthian culture, Christian women should keep their hair long…” (New Living Translation, Life Application Bible, p. 1818) Did Paul really write a concession to Corinthian culture? Could the very one who wrote “Do not be conformed to this world…” (Romans 12:2) really have let the Corinthian customs press him into their mold? Even more troubling is the thought that if Paul wrote teachings in the Corinthian letter based not on God’s infallible Spirit, but on human judgments, what else is cultural? 1 Both Appendix A and B cover aspects of the cultural arguments, and I would urge you to read both. Briefly I want to explain what the actual situation was in both Jewish and Greek cultures. This hopefully will answer the question: Does 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 reflect the culture of that time? Our discussion has centered on the head-covering for women. Yet equally innovative for a Jewish man was Paul’s inspired teaching in 11:4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” Jewish men covered their heads when entering prayer settings (see Exodus 29:6; Leviticus 16:4) and still do. First Corinthians 11:4 isn’t traditional Jewish teaching. Greek prostitutes for sure didn’t cover their heads, this is true. But what isn’t said is that Greek women, as well as their men folk, in general didn’t cover their heads while praying. So the head-covering isn’t in conformity to Greek practice. This brought the Tyndale Commentary to conclude: “Christians adopted a distinctive practice of their own.” (Volume 7, p.152) Another quote is helpful: “(Paul’s) teaching in 1 Corinthians goes far beyond the cultural conditions affecting the Corinthian church. Indeed it was applicable also to other first century churches (1 Corinthians 11:16b) and to God’s people at any time. 2 Still, although all this was true, I could hardly believe that in all my Christian experience, no one had seen any of this. How could the truth be so obscure? What I discovered next truly surprised me. In a commentary dated 1916, I read: “To this day, the universal custom in Christian places of worship, of women being covered and men uncovered and the increasing revolt against the acknowledgment of the subordination of women to men, etc…” (Layman Commentary, 1916, p. 106)
1 Various groups are willing to help us in our search. The Metropolitan Community Church suggests Paul’s prohibition of homosexuality was a similar reaction to the Corinthian temple prostitution cult.
2 For an excellent treatment of the Jewish and Grecian practices, see Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 10, pp. 254-257)
Was the head-covering still common practice in 1916? Apparently so. In 1928, Charles Erdman’s Commentary contained these comments: “It is interesting to observe that while the habit of covering the head in public worship is but a trivial custom which obtained in the days of Paul, it is still almost universally observed among Christians. Its real meaning is little understood. Its true significance is almost forgotten. However, the important principle it once represented is everywhere questioned or rejected in the alleged interest of the rights and liberties of women.” It is surprising to realize that the veiling has been removed so recently. In the end, the covering was quarantined to public worship. Yet John Calvin’s observations demonstrate this too was a recent deterioration: “…women should not go out in public with uncovered heads.” (Calvin’s Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 10, Section 29)* Even here we got tripped up into believing the veiling was properly suited to the church service alone. “After all,” I reasoned, “where do we pray and prophecy?” At church. What happened as we deepened our understanding of what constitutes true “church”? Is true “church” only that which happens on Sunday in the “house of God”? Little by little, it dawned on us that we were always members of the church and that anytime we shared Jesus and prayed, this was as much “having church” as any other time. Home Bible studies were surely church (see Acts 16:13). In the grocery store witnessing to searching souls was church. We would slip into church over and over using the head-covering like a convertible top on a rainy day. Up and down it would go until the foolishness of this finally settled in. Overlooked in all this was that our text doesn’t say it is just about praying or prophesying. The focus was more on the demonstration of God’s created order. “God-Christ-Man-Woman.” This doesn’t need to be demonstrated just in church. And, “because of the angels” (11:10) doesn’t seem to imply church settings only, unless angels only go to church and not to the home studies, or grocery store or the beach. Angels minister to us wherever we are. (See Hebrews 1:12; 13:2; Luke 22:43; 2 Kings 6:17) Do you recall the tale of Gulliver’s travels? After a ship wreck, a solitary man is washed ashore on a strange island. He awakens to find himself tied down by hundreds of miniature ropes and surrounded by hundreds of miniature people. This, of course, is a fantastic fable, far-fetched in the extreme. Yet, this picture accurately illustrates the way I feel God dealt with us as He laid reason after reason over our minds, bringing us into conformity to His will. As in Gulliver’s story, at any time he could have lifted himself up, broke free of the Lilliputians’ constraints; so can any of us resist the Holy Spirit’s leading. In the case of the miniature Lilliputians, they were too small to control Gulliver, but in the Holy Spirit’s case, it isn’t that He isn’t able to forcibly tie us down, but that He is unwilling. As you can see from this paper, there are specific, Scriptural, reasonable arguments that may be submitted in favor of the headship veiling. More important, however, is our personal willingness to submit to God’s inspired Word. Bible experts are everywhere offering their counsel. Yet there remains but one Wonderful Counselor: Jesus Christ our Lord. The Jews, expert as they were in God’s law, murdered the holy and just one. As it is written, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves…” (Luke 7:30a) I trust you will not make the same mistake. God bless you, Don and Lauren Childs John Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564.
Appendix A
Widely respected Bible teacher R. C. Sproul’s comments from the book, “Knowing Scripture”: “Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes. What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and have no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis. 3. The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. Appeals to creation ordinances reflect stipulations a covenant God makes with man qua man. The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God. To set principles of creation aside as mere local custom is the worst kind of relativizing and dehistoricizing of the biblical content.” (Knowing Scripture, p. 110-111; R. C. Sproul, professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary.)
Appendix B
Are There Cultural Aspects of the Bible?
(and, thereby, Portions of Scripture Not Applicable for Today?)
Gil Rugh 4-24-88
“As we approach the Scriptures and interpret it, we interpret it in a literal or normal way according to the rules of grammar in light of the historical setting in which it was given by God. We need to be very careful we don’t write-off portions of the Word saying, ‘That was cultural.’ Because everything in the Word of God was cultural…it was written within the culture within which it was given. So the cultural arguments simply become an excuse [for some] to reject whatever portion of the Word of God that does not fit with what (they and) the world are doing in this area today. The Word of God transcends culture. What is important here is that it is God giving these instructions. Some say, ‘Well, these portions simply reflect the cultural practices of that period of time.’ That is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture.” (Taken from: “Family Fitness: Equal But Different”; Biblical Discernment Ministries) Titus 1:9 – “…holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”
Our Journey to Obeying I Corinthians 11
Occasionally, a chronicle of one’s personal, spiritual journey can be beneficial to others. While humbling to tell, it can be encouraging to others to hear of the baby steps fellow Christians make. This paper is a combination of both personal testimony and Scriptural investigation. The topic isn’t even considered worthy of serious study in most Christian circles. Yet this Biblical teaching is found in a New Testament letter which today is both popular and timely. The letter is 1 Corinthians, and the topic is the headship veiling of chapter 11. Embarrassing as it is to admit, I believe I can safely say I’ve held to almost every possible interpretation. The only consolation to this is the fact that, while ignorant, I was at least honest. It is important to remember to be sympathetic to those who dismiss the headship veiling as unimportant. In today’s Christian circles, this text is almost completely ignored or mishandled. (1) R. C. Sproul (2) has chided today’s expositors for engaging in eisegesis of the worst kind as regards 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. (R. C. Sproul’s comments are contained in Appendix A.)
In my opinion, the modern Christian is insulated from even beginning to consider this teaching by various erroneous assumptions. For me personally, it was a misunderstanding of the very words of Jesus. Christ stood as a road block to further investigation. The unwarranted assumption was simply this: Jesus’ message stands in opposition to any consideration of externals; especially in regards to clothing issues. A few of those misunderstood statements would include: 1) “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life…nor about your body, what you will put on.” (Matthew 7:25)
2) “Do not judge according to appearance…” (John 7:24a)
3) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27) 4) “Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Matthew 23:26) These verses are used to derail the discussion even before it gets started. In the early days of my Christian walk, I would have simply brushed aside the entire issue with a pious cliché, “Let’s not major on the minors.” Yet, now I believe that such cavalier dismissal of Scripture is wrong for the following reasons: 1) It is Scripture we are doing away with, not some extra-Biblical writing. (Recall 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God
may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”)
2) Peter and Paul both deal with the externals: of clothing, etc. If they were lead by the Holy Spirit to address these matters, are we more “spiritual” now than even the apostles
themselves?
3) Church history shows that Christians for hundreds of years in different lands accepted this Scripture as applicable. Can we really assume they misunderstood, and we are so
much wiser?
(1) Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary
(2) Knowing Scripture, p. 110, R. C. Sproul, I.V.P.
4) That which we relegate to the “minor” commandments may be more essential than we realize. If we could see as the Good Shepherd sees, we might adjust our thinking.
(Matthew 5:19; Isaiah 55:8-9)
None of the aforementioned, of course, proves that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is to be obeyed literally today, but it does begin to make the way clear to an open-hearted study. Put in the plainest terms – all Scripture is worthy of serious study, is it not? Admittedly, there was a time in our own Christian walk when ANY discussion of externals of this nature would have immediately been branded as “Pharisaical.” Now, while the way may seem clear to begin a serious study, usually another smoke bomb is dropped into the discussion. In verses two and sixteen, two similar words are used (varying according to translation) namely, “tradition” and “custom” (KJV – “ordinances”). Here an unwarranted assumption is made again. I made this assumption for years. The erroneous thought is this: tradition and custom are always in opposition to Jesus Christ’s own teaching. I’ve heard these words pronounced with a snarl in the voice: “Tradition! Ha!” “Custom! Right!” Inferred in this is that Jesus hated tradition (Matthew 15) and hates it still, and that whenever we read the word ‘tradition’ or ‘custom’, it is always man-made and never used positively. This, of course, is not what the New Testament shows. Two examples will be sufficient concerning the word ‘tradition’: A) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) B) “But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) This word pronounced par-ad’-os-is used here in Thessalonians is the same used by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 15. The Greek lexicons define it as: “transmission i.e. (concretely) a precept, ordinance.” (Strong’s, p. 1072); “That which is delivered, the substance of teaching.” (Thayer’s Greek/English Lexicon, p. 481); “What is transmitted in the way of teaching, precept, doctrine.” (Analytical Lexicon, p. 302). Simply put, the word tradition isn’t a bad word, contrary to my earlier belief. It can be used with reference to man’s teaching or God’s – depending on the context. Kittel’s sums it up very well with this comment: “For Paul, Christian teaching is tradition, and he demands that churches should keep to it since salvation depends on it.” (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Volume 2, p. 172)
The situation concerning the word “custom” is very similar. We assumed that “custom” was man-made ordinances. Yet, simply put, the Greek word used here means “usage, habit.” (We’ll deal at length with what the actual cultural context was in Corinth a little later.) Suffice it to say, custom isn’t a bad word either, at least in this context. On the matter of custom in general, one short quote is helpful: “All we have for sure is the text on the pages of the Bible! God wrote it for us, to us and preserved it as we have it today. No information external to the text about the presumed cultural influence on the Apostle Paul’s attitude toward women, worship or anything else can be known with certainty. Therefore, it may never be used to negate, deny, or change the plain and direct meaning of the words of the text.” (Reformed Witness Magazine, March 1992) The thorough treatment of the cultural context will come later. It is my belief that modern evangelical Christians have made void the commandment of God concerning the headship veiling in conformity to our customs. It isn’t that the apostle spoke as influenced by his culture but the culture of pseudo-equality twists our minds! Surely, after all this, the way is clear for a serious look at the text. “But,” we’re told, “this precept (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) is only mentioned once; therefore it must not be all that important. After all, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every charge must be established, right?” Do we believe that if we can’t find two or three verses on any given subject, then it really doesn’t matter? Two items come to mind as I consider such a claim: A) Melchizedek – Are things only important when they are mentioned a lot? If 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 isn’t valuable, then neither is Melchizedek. But in Hebrews 7:4 we read: “Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.” While he is hardly referenced, he is greater than Abraham! (Hebrews 7:7) * B) Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is only mentioned once in the New Testament. Could this be not important?
C) The mark of the beast: 666 – Not important? Well, this is mentioned once in Revelation 13! Can we safely disregard the warning in this Scripture? After all, it is mentioned only once. Items may appear to be more important or less important because of the number of citations, but this is not a Scriptural way to make such an evaluation. It is regularly maintained that the headship teaching was a problem peculiar to Christians in Corinth. This is what I thought for a long time. And for a long time, I had no motivation to look any further. But as I looked again, this theory began to unravel as well. The first question is: Did Corinthian women have a problem with their observance (or should I say their non-observance) of the headship veiling? Consider 1 Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Can we say from this, contrary to verse two, that they didn’t keep the traditions? Nevertheless, Paul does proceed to say immediately following his commendation, “But I would have you know that…” It appears they were obeying, but ignorantly. If the Corinthian women did wear the covering, Paul very well could have been led by the Holy Spirit’s illumination rather than local conditions at Corinth. We do know the letter wasn’t written just to the Corinthian church – see 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” (See also the custom mentioned in Colossians 4:16 of sharing letters: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”) Also 1 Corinthians 11:16 uses the phrase “neither do the churches of God”; possibly indicating this teaching wasn’t unique to Corinth. (On this point, the Wycliffe Commentary [Moody Publishing], agrees and adds similar points as well.) Besides all this, Paul himself cites no special Corinthian situation anywhere in his teaching. A portion of the Wycliffe Commentary may be helpful at this point: “It should be noted; however, that each of the reasons given for the wearing of the veil is taken from permanent facts lasting as long as the present earthly economy. Paul did carry his point, for early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch and Africa, the custom became the norm.” (Wycliffe Commentary, 1962, Moody Press) We also know the “custom” extended eventually to all Christian communities until quite recently. If this teaching was originally intended to be merely a local response to a unique problem, the entire early church misunderstood! For early drawings show Christian women wearing “…a close fitting headdress while men have their hair short (and also presumably uncovered). Tertullian and Chrysostom testify that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches.” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Volume III, p. 787)
As you can see, there is a lot of work that needs to be done just to get to the text, but now that we’ve cleared some debris, we can move on to the first real argument which I believe makes any sense. The view maintains that the hair is the covering. Obviously this can’t just be hair since then the men would need to shave their heads. * The actual references to Melchizedek include Genesis 14; Psalm 110; and Hebrews 7
What is being proposed is that women ought to have long hair, and this is what Paul intended. This is maintained despite the fact that the entire early church interpreted Paul as teaching a cloth veiling over the hair! (See previous quotes) We are simply being asked to believe that when the church adopted a cloth veil, they did so contrary to the true teaching of Paul. This seems unlikely for several reasons:
1) This “misunderstanding” would have continued during the time Paul was still alive and able to correct them. Not only doesn’t Paul correct them even up to the day of his execution, but no one else even questions this so-called erroneous practice. 2) This “misunderstanding” would have been believed even though they had the great advantage of being native Greek speakers. Our modern scholars, twice removed from the Greek language, are better interpreters than the original readers? This is hard to believe. (John Calvin found this impossible to believe.) * 3) Supplying the words “long hair” wherever the word “covering” or “covered” is used results in confusion. Try this yourself. Not to mention, why use the cryptic “covering” when all you intend is long hair? 4) The strength of the hair = covering view is verse fifteen. However, (and native Greek speakers would have caught this) the Greek word for covering in verse fifteen is a completely different Greek word from those which proceed it. This disconnects verse fifteen from the proceeding in the sense that one is speaking of the natural hair, the other a veil. 5) The statement given in verse fifteen is that the hair is given “for” a covering. Some would understand this as “instead of” a covering, namely, a cloth veil. Yet when we understand the context of 1 Corinthians 11, we see that the inspired apostle is referring to the natural to illuminate the spiritual. The hair is the natural which should lead us to conclude a cloth veil is fitting. Therefore, we would like to submit the meaning “similar to” in replacement of “for” or “instead of”. (See for confirmation Appendix B) This would further weaken the “hair is the covering” position. Many evangelicals will pay lip service to the position that the hair is the covering. Don’t assume anyone is truly convinced this is so. Some specific questions, as outlined above, will create cracks in the facade of this theological house of cards. Needless to say, I once lived in this shaky house. I once believed Jesus didn’t care about externals until His Spirit through His inspired apostles challenged me to look again. I thought whenever the words “tradition” or “custom” were used; it was man-made and therefore nonessential. I had learned that Corinthian women were being given a local solution to a local problem, not applicable to the church at large. Honestly, these positions were held to simply because on the surface they seemed reasonable. It is easy to be an expert at a glance. Yet God’s Word deserves more than a casual glance. In this, 1 Corinthians 8:2 speaks volumes: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.” This verse reminds me of another one of my little arguments against literally observing any of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Verse sixteen says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Here I understood that if anyone didn’t want to go along with the head-covering and was argumentative, Paul was saying, “Forget the whole thing.” While this understanding seems plausible at first glance, various observations indicate this isn’t correct. * “Should anyone now object that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says it is not, for it (the hair) is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it.”
(John Calvin Commentaries, Translated from the Latin 1848)
A) First, it strikes me as unlikely that the apostle would argue forcefully for the headship veiling, bringing in creation facts and even angels, then say, “But never mind if you don’t like it.” This really doesn’t make much sense. B) If the phrase “we have no such custom” is non-negotiable, then the illogical theory may be inescapable. But the Greek word translated “such” is translated “other” in several English translations. While this may seem confusing, keep in mind prepositions are very flexible. Their context often determines their meaning. The phrase “we have no other custom” completely changes the meaning, but is translated thusly in the New International Version, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Williams, Good News Bible, Phillips and the Amplified Bible. This is not a textural matter but a translation challenge. The word is too flexible to hang a conclusion on. Early Christians didn’t argue and obeyed. Let us now return to the strongest argument against the headship veiling. We are told that the Corinthian Christian women were modeling the inappropriate practice of Corinthian prostitutes. Fairly representative of such a view is a footnote in the Life Application Bible: “We need to read it in the context of the situation in Corinth…For a woman to uncover her head in public was a sign of loose morals…Paul was saying that in the Corinthian culture, Christian women should keep their hair long…” (New Living Translation, Life Application Bible, p. 1818) Did Paul really write a concession to Corinthian culture? Could the very one who wrote “Do not be conformed to this world…” (Romans 12:2) really have let the Corinthian customs press him into their mold? Even more troubling is the thought that if Paul wrote teachings in the Corinthian letter based not on God’s infallible Spirit, but on human judgments, what else is cultural? 1 Both Appendix A and B cover aspects of the cultural arguments, and I would urge you to read both. Briefly I want to explain what the actual situation was in both Jewish and Greek cultures. This hopefully will answer the question: Does 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 reflect the culture of that time? Our discussion has centered on the head-covering for women. Yet equally innovative for a Jewish man was Paul’s inspired teaching in 11:4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” Jewish men covered their heads when entering prayer settings (see Exodus 29:6; Leviticus 16:4) and still do. First Corinthians 11:4 isn’t traditional Jewish teaching. Greek prostitutes for sure didn’t cover their heads, this is true. But what isn’t said is that Greek women, as well as their men folk, in general didn’t cover their heads while praying. So the head-covering isn’t in conformity to Greek practice. This brought the Tyndale Commentary to conclude: “Christians adopted a distinctive practice of their own.” (Volume 7, p.152) Another quote is helpful: “(Paul’s) teaching in 1 Corinthians goes far beyond the cultural conditions affecting the Corinthian church. Indeed it was applicable also to other first century churches (1 Corinthians 11:16b) and to God’s people at any time. 2 Still, although all this was true, I could hardly believe that in all my Christian experience, no one had seen any of this. How could the truth be so obscure? What I discovered next truly surprised me. In a commentary dated 1916, I read: “To this day, the universal custom in Christian places of worship, of women being covered and men uncovered and the increasing revolt against the acknowledgment of the subordination of women to men, etc…” (Layman Commentary, 1916, p. 106)
1 Various groups are willing to help us in our search. The Metropolitan Community Church suggests Paul’s prohibition of homosexuality was a similar reaction to the Corinthian temple prostitution cult.
2 For an excellent treatment of the Jewish and Grecian practices, see Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 10, pp. 254-257)
Was the head-covering still common practice in 1916? Apparently so. In 1928, Charles Erdman’s Commentary contained these comments: “It is interesting to observe that while the habit of covering the head in public worship is but a trivial custom which obtained in the days of Paul, it is still almost universally observed among Christians. Its real meaning is little understood. Its true significance is almost forgotten. However, the important principle it once represented is everywhere questioned or rejected in the alleged interest of the rights and liberties of women.” It is surprising to realize that the veiling has been removed so recently. In the end, the covering was quarantined to public worship. Yet John Calvin’s observations demonstrate this too was a recent deterioration: “…women should not go out in public with uncovered heads.” (Calvin’s Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 10, Section 29)* Even here we got tripped up into believing the veiling was properly suited to the church service alone. “After all,” I reasoned, “where do we pray and prophecy?” At church. What happened as we deepened our understanding of what constitutes true “church”? Is true “church” only that which happens on Sunday in the “house of God”? Little by little, it dawned on us that we were always members of the church and that anytime we shared Jesus and prayed, this was as much “having church” as any other time. Home Bible studies were surely church (see Acts 16:13). In the grocery store witnessing to searching souls was church. We would slip into church over and over using the head-covering like a convertible top on a rainy day. Up and down it would go until the foolishness of this finally settled in. Overlooked in all this was that our text doesn’t say it is just about praying or prophesying. The focus was more on the demonstration of God’s created order. “God-Christ-Man-Woman.” This doesn’t need to be demonstrated just in church. And, “because of the angels” (11:10) doesn’t seem to imply church settings only, unless angels only go to church and not to the home studies, or grocery store or the beach. Angels minister to us wherever we are. (See Hebrews 1:12; 13:2; Luke 22:43; 2 Kings 6:17) Do you recall the tale of Gulliver’s travels? After a ship wreck, a solitary man is washed ashore on a strange island. He awakens to find himself tied down by hundreds of miniature ropes and surrounded by hundreds of miniature people. This, of course, is a fantastic fable, far-fetched in the extreme. Yet, this picture accurately illustrates the way I feel God dealt with us as He laid reason after reason over our minds, bringing us into conformity to His will. As in Gulliver’s story, at any time he could have lifted himself up, broke free of the Lilliputians’ constraints; so can any of us resist the Holy Spirit’s leading. In the case of the miniature Lilliputians, they were too small to control Gulliver, but in the Holy Spirit’s case, it isn’t that He isn’t able to forcibly tie us down, but that He is unwilling. As you can see from this paper, there are specific, Scriptural, reasonable arguments that may be submitted in favor of the headship veiling. More important, however, is our personal willingness to submit to God’s inspired Word. Bible experts are everywhere offering their counsel. Yet there remains but one Wonderful Counselor: Jesus Christ our Lord. The Jews, expert as they were in God’s law, murdered the holy and just one. As it is written, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves…” (Luke 7:30a) I trust you will not make the same mistake. God bless you, Don and Lauren Childs John Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564.
Appendix A
Widely respected Bible teacher R. C. Sproul’s comments from the book, “Knowing Scripture”: “Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes. What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and have no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis. 3. The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. Appeals to creation ordinances reflect stipulations a covenant God makes with man qua man. The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God. To set principles of creation aside as mere local custom is the worst kind of relativizing and dehistoricizing of the biblical content.” (Knowing Scripture, p. 110-111; R. C. Sproul, professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary.)
Appendix B
Are There Cultural Aspects of the Bible?
(and, thereby, Portions of Scripture Not Applicable for Today?)
Gil Rugh 4-24-88
“As we approach the Scriptures and interpret it, we interpret it in a literal or normal way according to the rules of grammar in light of the historical setting in which it was given by God. We need to be very careful we don’t write-off portions of the Word saying, ‘That was cultural.’ Because everything in the Word of God was cultural…it was written within the culture within which it was given. So the cultural arguments simply become an excuse [for some] to reject whatever portion of the Word of God that does not fit with what (they and) the world are doing in this area today. The Word of God transcends culture. What is important here is that it is God giving these instructions. Some say, ‘Well, these portions simply reflect the cultural practices of that period of time.’ That is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture.” (Taken from: “Family Fitness: Equal But Different”; Biblical Discernment Ministries) Titus 1:9 – “…holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”
![IMG_0419[2]](http://drews2centsforyou.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/img_04192-e1325048144304.jpg "IMG_0419[2]")
![IMG_0422[1]](http://drews2centsforyou.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/img_042211-e1325048172360.jpg "IMG_0422[1]")
![IMG_0424[1]](http://drews2centsforyou.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/img_042411-e1325048185383.jpg "IMG_0424[1]")
![IMG_0428[1]](http://drews2centsforyou.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/img_042811-e1325048209465.jpg "IMG_0428[1]")
1Loading…
