“For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
Galatians 5:1 NRSV
I am unsure if I’ve ever shared this but my wife and I are Mennonites. Basically what this means is that our parents and grandparents were followers of Menno Simons teachings. For some, the Mennonite name brings images of Amish like people riding around in horse drawn carriages, that was not our experience!
Certainly, the Church I attended as a child was a traditional Mennonite German church. We had German and English services, sang from a high German songbook with simple songs led by a group of four men who were the song leaders. The men and women sat apart, though I think most North American Mennonite churches have moved on from this tradition. The preachers wore all black… this tradition came out of a desire by early Mennonite followers to differentiate themselves from the lavish Catholic priest colours. The Mennonite Churches were plain, unimpressive buildings that were more for function than beauty. Today many “Mennonite” churches are beautiful architecturally - that was not the case with Mennonites historically. Some Mennonite churches had haylofts or food storage above the sanctuary for feeding the hungry.
In my wife’s church experience the married women traditionally wore head coverings after marrying. Some of the older women would wear more prominent all encompassing black full cover style “bonnets” whereas the younger ones wore fashionable coloured kerchiefs on their heads in church and in public. This accessory was meant to show that the woman was married and that she was under her husbands “authority”.
I remember when my wife walked into the room the day after our wedding day wearing a traditional kerchief for the first time ever… my heart sank. I loved her open hair… I didn’t see the need to “dress down” just because we were now married. Additionally, I saw myself as a partner, an equal with her in marriage and in life… she was not required to be subservient to me.
At the time I didn’t have the understanding of scriptures that I could explain it… Mary could see my disappointment. Yet, according to our understanding of the Bible and our church tradition (especially hers) she had to wear this now so we did what good Mennonite adults did and dressed according to the tradition handed down to us.
I was 20, she was 19… I’ve often joked that we grew up together. We are married 37 years now. We were completely different people back then in so many ways. Mary would wear that covering fairly faithfully for well over a year before we began to find revelation scripturally that this covering was not being understood correctly.
I won’t have time to get into our story here, it has been a long and winding journey to where we are now. That said; and as a preface to today’s post from a theological and philosophical standpoint… the head covering and headship doctrine was one of the big challenges my wife and I faced during our early marriage. This subject created much tension between us and also her parents.
I know that may be hard to understand for some people who have not grown up in a legalistic culture. To be clear, I’m writing this today for the ones who are bound by traditions they don’t understand and struggle with aligning this doctrine with the rest of the scriptures.
I also want to preface this topic by stating that some of the most authentic, faith-filled, godly, kind, intelligent and thoughtful people I know still carry on this tradition of wearing head coverings. I do not in any way judge them as we ALL have traditions. The people I’m thinking of do not teach others that this covering is somehow connected to salvation… it’s just a part of their personal act of worship based on a different understanding of the scriptures and perhaps their culture. We all have various traditions that are personal acts of worship! My intent to to help free those who are struggling with this particular topic like my wife and I were.
Let’s get into it!
Here are a few points of historical interest that will be valuable for hermeneutical interpretation of this passage:
• The Church in Corinth was very new. It was very likely less than five years old with many new converts from a number of different regions like Rome, Greece and Asia Minor including a strong Jewish presence at the time of Paul’s writing.
• The City of Corinth had a long history of pagan worship. While the Temple of Apollos lay in ruins, its columns still stood and its influence was still felt in the culture, especially for men. Corinth was also home to a number of Pagan temples dedicated to the goddess Artemis.
• Worship in many pagan temples was sensual and in particular the temple Artemis had a long history of highly sexualized temple rituals. While it is entirely possible based on evidence we have now that the temples had less prostitution during the time of Paul’s letter… the sexualized Corinthian culture is evident.
In terms of interpretation of scripture- if you have read my previous article entitled “Is The Bible Inerrant?” you will remember that we talked about reading the Bible as a whole unit… so when we find a passage that is not in alignment with other parts of the scriptures we know there is “more to the story”. This is our signal to do some digging for context and comprehension!
Questions we now have when we use this method of Bible study:
1. Are there other passages that align with Paul’s teaching here?
2. If not, are there passages that indicate this is a teaching or practice that many other churches followed religiously?
3. If one and two above are both no… or if there are contradictory passages where clearly there were women who did not have their heads covered while praying… then this passage must have a local implication which requires more study or a correction to our understanding of the context.
Referring to question one, the only other passage that refers to a head covering on a woman is found in Numbers 5:18. This passage reads like this:
“The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman's hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse.” NRSV
It is easy to see that this passage in its context has to do with a local law governing the Israelites in regards to sexual purity and nothing to do with a larger requirement for God worshipers. I won’t delve further into that here… Old Testament law takes a great deal of careful study to make sense of - I can recommend some books that help if you have questions.
On to question two!
Are there any passages indicating that this head covering issue was prevalent elsewhere?
The fact is that there are no scriptures other than this letter to the Corinthian Church that refer to head coverings for women. Considering how much teaching there is in the Christian church on this topic does that not seem odd?
Head coverings for women are referenced one time in the scriptures whereas there are over 20 mentions of circumcision. I have to wonder why men are not as passionate about circumcision as they are with ensuring women have a head covering? (This is a joke).
To be fair, we do know that women of faith in the ancient world often did wear a veil of some kind… though it is clear it was not always. Further to this, some men would wear a kind of head covering as well. It is noteworthy that some of the women who came into the Corinthian church would have been from cultures that did not have a veil or covering tradition, one example would have been Greek culture. In Roman culture women often did wear a veil, though this was more from a patriarchal standpoint than a spiritual one.
Biblically, there just isn’t much on hair or head coverings. One passage I found is the story of the woman who washed Jesus feet. Her name was Mary of Bethany… she was Lazarus sister. This story is found in all four gospels but Mary is named as the woman only in Johns gospel below.
“Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus' feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”” - John 12:1-8 NRSV
In this text we hear that Mary came and washed Jesus feet with expensive perfume and dried them with her hair. Let’s logically think this through… if Mary’s hair was veiled would not have used her covering or veil to dry Jesus feet. Instead we read that she used her hair. Further to this, the disciples nor Jesus had harsh words for her in regards to praying without a covering which indicates that open hair was perhaps not as uncommon as we think, and clearly there was no sin implied with her hair according to Jesus. At best the head covering during the time appears to have been mostly a cultural preference or some deference to the patriarchal dominance of Roman culture.
On women in authority; women held powerful positions in Rome both politically and business wise. There are both biblical and historical references to women who were wealthy and influential. Joanna, Mary Magdalene and Suzanna financed Jesus ministry according to Luke 8:1-3. Dorcas was a highly influential woman mentioned in Acts 9. Lydia is mentioned in Acts 16. Priscilla is mentioned in Roman’s 16 and Acts 18. Pheobe was a deaconess mentioned in Roman’s 16. Don’t forget about Phillips four unmarried daughters who were prophetess’s from Acts 21. In secular history there was Cleopatra VII, Livea Drusilla, Agrippina the Elder, Antonia Minor, Julia the Elder and others who were highly influential and powerful women in the first century. Just because it was uncommon doesn’t mean it was absent.
This same Mary that is referred to in the previous text was also the one who sat at Jesus feet while her sister Martha was busy taking care of guests and meals in Luke 10. Jesus said of Mary that “there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her”
The only other passage I have found referring to hair or covering is Peters letter to the exiles. Oddly this passage which is shown below also gets misunderstood and misapplied.
“Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight.” - 1 Peter 3:3-4 NRSV
Interesting that Peter is talking about braiding hair. If women all wore coverings why did they need to adorn themselves and spend time braiding their hair? Once again we are seeing that the narrative of head coverings being a teaching for all Christian’s falling apart.
Back to our three questions… if one and two are bow both answered “no”… then we must dig into what Paul is actually trying to deal with in the text.
• What conditions existed in the Corinthian church that could bring clarity to the biblical text so we can grasp what the readers of Paul’s letter would have understood?
• What biblical principle is Paul bringing across in the text?
Next week… we will look at the cultural conditions of the Corinthian Church!
Comments