UNPUBLISHED BOOK: GOOD ORDER IN THE CHURCH
Leslie McFall
CONTENTS
4.8 Local customs need to be updated (1 Tim 2:8-12)
4.8.1. Men's prayer (1 Tim 2:8)
4.8.2. Women's Adornment (1 Tim 2:9-10)
4.8.3. Women's Submission (1 Tim 2:11-15)
4.8.4. Rabbinical teaching on the place of women
4.8.5. The non-participation of women in the service
4.8.6. Transposing first-century cultural expressions
4.8.7. "Greet one another with a holy kiss"
_______________________________________
4.8 LOCAL CUSTOMS NEED TO BE UPDATED (1 TIM 2:8-12)
There is the assumption in many commentaries that Paul has taken over customs local to Corinth, such as women covering their heads in public and being silent in the assembly, or local to Ephesus, such as women learning in quietness, and not teaching or ruling men, and that he has invested these with the sanctity of law, and a law which is permanent and universal. We are informed by these commentators that no word of God was spoken in a cultural vacuum. God did not shout culture-free maxims at His people from a distance. Instead, He stooped to their level, entered their history, assumed their culture and spoke their language. Consequently Scripture is an amalgam of substance and form, of eternal truth (which transcends culture) and its transient cultural presentation. The former is universal and normative; the latter is local and changeable. How can we distinguish between them? How are we to handle the cultural element in Scripture? Three answers are given: (1) retain the original permanent teaching and its local form; (2) retain the original permanent teaching but not its local form; and (3) retain neither the teaching nor the form.
The latter option regards the local form as transient and consequently when it passes out of fashion then the teaching attached to it also drops out. In the case of head-covering (1 Cor 11:4-15), being silent in the assembly (1 Cor 14:34), refraining from teaching men or exercising leadership over men (1 Tim 2:11-12), since these are now passing out of fashion then the theological arguments that were used to give them force are no longer relevant to the modern church. The assumption behind this option is that the form came first and was justified by a later theology. The danger of declaring any passage of Scripture to have only local (not universal), and only transient (not perpetual) validity is that it opens the door to a wholesale rejection of apostolic teaching, since virtually the whole of the New Testament was addressed to specific situations.
In the case of the first two options the assumption is that the theology came first and found expression in a form. The point of disagreement between them is that the first regards the form as an indispensable expression of the permanent teaching, whereas the second regards the form as dispensable in the sense that it can undergo constant updating according to the region of the world where the permanent teaching is preached.
Ethical commands and their cultural expressions are not equally normative and must therefore be distinguished. The issue then facing us is to decide in each instance whether the cultural form (or expression) is an integral part of the teaching, or whether it is open to updating or "cultural transformation."
If we take the case of 1 Timothy 2:8-12 it is argued that here we have three examples where "cultural transformation" must take place if the permanent teaching is not to be lost. The three cases are (1) men's prayers, (2) women's adornment, and (3) women's submission.
It is argued that if the first two examples are granted then the third follows. In essence the argument is that in the case of men's prayers we recognise in v. 8 that praying without anger and disputing, on the one hand, is ethical, but on the other hand, lifting up holy hands is a cultural expression of that ethic; and in the case of women's adornment there is nothing in the text of v. 9 which requires us to distinguish between the commands to women to dress modestly, on the one hand, and on the other, that they are to avoid hair-plaiting and jewellery. Unlike the first part of v. 9, the second part is surely not an absolute ban on all hairstyles in which the hair is plaited. It cannot mean that all material adornment is forbidden to women today just because it was prohibited in Paul's day. So in each case there is an ethical command (which is permanent) which is expressed in a local convention or custom (which is not permanent).
When we come to the third example (1 Tim 2:11-12) it is argued that Paul's instructions cover only the universal principle of female submission to male "authority," and not its changeable cultural expression, so women should submit to the headship (i.e., caring responsibility) of men, and not try to reverse sexual roles, but not necessarily refrain from teaching or ruling them, because the local expressions of submission in the Ephesian culture (and maybe the wider Greek culture) required that women did not teach or lead men, but that is not so today. Must "submission" always and only be expressed in "silence," and must "not exercising authority" always and only be expressed in "not teaching"? In other words can we divorce "teaching" from "authority" which could not be done in Paul's day? In other words, Is it legitimate to see the submission to male authority as permanent and universal (because grounded in creation, see v. 13), while seeing the silence and teaching activities as a first-century cultural expression of it, which is therefore not necessarily applicable to every culture, but open to cultural transformation into each? If so, this would allow women to teach and lead men today because these activities are no longer seen as carrying "authority" in our Western society; they are now viewed as compatible with "submission" to male authority. But in order to avoid infringing on male authority, group ministries would include women ministers under the direct caring responsibility of a male "leader."
Let us look at each of the three examples in their own right first of all, and see if they are all in the same category.
4.8.1. MEN'S PRAYER (1 TIM 2:8)
1 Timothy 2:8 reads: "I desire, therefore, men to pray in every place lifting up holy hands, apart from anger and disputing." Here the command to pray is channelled through a particular visual form: men praying with outstretched hands toward heaven/God.
In Hebrew thought hands are the agent of the heart and so their state will reflect the moral and spiritual state of the heart. Iniquity or blood on the hands means polluted hands (Isa 59:3; Ezk 23:37; Ps 7:3), the opposite to pure or hallowed hands as envisaged in 1 Timothy 2:9. To wash the hands is to express innocency (Pss 26:6; 73:13), consequently clean hands and a pure heart go together (Ps 24:4) and Yahweh will recompense to each man according to his own righteousness, that is, according to his clean hands (Ps 18:20, 34). The cleanness of a righteous man's hands may even benefit others (Job 22:30). On the other hand, even a righteous man's clean hands may not be seen as clean in Yahweh's pure sight (Job 9:30). Only those who have clean hands can come before Him in worship (Ps 24:4). Clean hands enables one to live a confident life (Job 17:9).
Lifting up the hands with the palms facing heaven appears to have been the normal accompaniment to vocal prayer in Israel (cf. Solomon's prayer of dedication, 1 Kgs 8:22, 38, 54 [=2 Chr 6:13]). The hands stand for the heart, and consequently if the hands are "clean" then this is symbolic of a clean heart. It is almost as if the worshipper is holding up his clean heart in his hands for Yahweh to inspect in order that He will grant his petition. Indeed Lamentations 3:41 reads: "We lift up our heart on our hands to God in the heavens." If the hands are not "clean" then Yahweh will turn away His face from them, "Your new moons and your set seasons have My soul hated; . . . and in your spreading out your hands, I hide My eyes from you. Also, when you increase prayer, I do not hear you" (Isa 1:15).
There are many examples in the Old Testament of prayer being associated with upraised arms and hands spread out in a direct and personal appeal to Yahweh to hear strong petitions. "My eye grieved because of affliction. I called You, O Yahweh, all the day I have spread out to You my hands" (Ps 88:9); "I have spread out my hands to You. My soul is as a weary land [waiting] for You" (Ps 143:6); "Arise, cry aloud in the night . . . Lift up to Him your hands, for the soul of your infants, who are feeble with hunger" (Lam 2:19). The gesture is used in blessing Yahweh, "So I bless You in my life, in Your name I lift up my hands" (Ps 63:4), and to express delight in being His follower, "And I lift up my hands to Your commands that I have loved, and I meditate on Your statutes" (Ps 119:48). It was probably always an integral part of communal worship, "And Ezra blessed Yahweh, the great God, and all the people answer, 'Amen, Amen,' with lifting up of their hands, and they bow and do homage to Yahweh&emdash;faces to the ground" (Neh 8:6); and individual worship, "Hear the voice of my supplications, in my crying to You, in my lifting up my hands toward Your holy oracle" (Ps 28:2); "Lo, bless Yahweh, all servants of Yahweh, who are standing in the house of Yahweh by night. Lift up your hands in the sanctuary and bless Yahweh" (Ps 134:2); and "My prayer is prepared as incense before You; the lifting up of my hands as the evening present" (Ps 141:2).
The practice of spreading out the hands as a sign of worship was probably universal. "If we have forgotten the name of our God, and spread our hands to a strange god, does not God search this out?" (Ps 44:20)
In times of intense emotion especially in times of repentance and heart-rending pleas the hands would go out to Yahweh, "And at the evening-sacrifice I rose from my affliction, and from rendering my garment and my upper robe, and I bowed down on my knees, and spread out my hands to Yahweh my God, and say, 'O my God, I am ashamed . . . .'" ( Ezra 9:5). "Zion spreads out her hands; there is no comforter for her" (Lam 1:17).
Stretching out the hands horizontally toward someone is also an appeal gesture, compare Isa 65:2, "I [Yahweh] have spread out my hands all the day toward an apostate people, who are going in an unprofitable way&emdash;after their own thoughts."
We can conclude from these examples that lifting up the hands when praying was probably a very common sight. Consequently, when Paul said to Timothy, "I desire. therefore, men to pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, apart from anger and disputes" (1 Tim 2:8), he was not introducing a new tradition, but making a plea that Christian theology should infuse the centuries old convention. The convention (or religious custom) preceded the institution of the Christian Church. It does not have the force of law behind it. It has the sanction of Scripture only because it is an aid to prayer.
Now since Paul is not introducing a new Christian custom this particular case fits into the category of inherited conventions. It is in the same category as those that a missionary would find in another culture. If there is nothing incompatible with the Gospel or Christian ethics then such neutral conventions can be utilised to build up the Church. Because Paul accepted a pre-existing custom this does not mean that it is binding on the Church for all time. But the teaching that men should pray without anger and dispute is permanent and binding. The form that prayer takes will vary from nation to nation but there will be some connection between it and the type of prayer offered to God. An acute awareness of God often results in prostration as the instinctive position to adopt in His presence. David sat before the Lord when he prayed (1 Chr 17:16) suggesting a more contemplative prayer. Kneeling, standing, prostrating, with hands raised, drooped, clasped or clapping will all reflect the mood of the person praying. There should be a direct connection between the expression and the mood of the person praying as there is between the thought and the words used to convey it. There is body language and there is speech language. A slouching posture of the body while one is addressing the Creator suggests a contradiction between the two "languages." It is the encounter of the human with Deity that produces its own impact on the human frame resulting in an "appropriate" posture as the body, mind, and soul comes to terms with the awesome experience. However, there can be a remembrance of what happened to the body in such an awesome encounter and this can be reproduced mechanically by others as an aid to inducing the coveted experience. Kneeling is often the outward expression of an inward state of feeling humble. But there can sometimes be a dislocation between the outward and the inward, between the visible expression and the inward reality. Here Paul takes up the outward expression and encourages the men to ensure that it matches the inward state of the soul. We can learn from this example that if there are outward expressions that are related to a spiritual experience then we can use them as an aid to faith. This means that "lifting up the hands" remains to this day as a legitimate option and aid to prayer even if it is not used very widely in the Western Churches. But we cannot dismiss the expression of lifting up the hands as a purely man-made, arbitrary, unconnected pantomime piece. When Jesus said, "when you stand praying" (Mk 11:25), we are not to infer that that is the only legitimate way to pray, or that it is wrong to sit or kneel to pray. The example of Peter (Acts 9:40) and Paul suggests that they preferred to kneel to pray (Acts 20:36; 21:5). In Acts 7:60 Stephen knelt down before his martyrdom.
Jesus prayed with his eyes open (not closed), head tilted back (not bowed)(Jn 11:41), he prayed with his face in the dust (Mt 26:39), he knelt down to pray (Lk 22:41), he sat (1 Cor 11:24), he reclined (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22), and he stood (Jn 6:11; Mt 14:19; Mk 8:7). Jesus lifted up his hands and was blessing his apostles as he ascended into heaven (Lk 24:50). No doubt each posture was well-suited to the kind of prayer he made.
Our body language is just as eloquent as our tongue, and may be more so when we cannot find words to express our deepest thoughts, as in the publican's case who stood afar off and would not so much as lift his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast as he murmured the words, "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Lk 18:13). Distance, direction of gaze, distress (smiting his breast continuously), were as much a part of his prayer as the half dozen words he uttered. The expression and the prayer are inseparable in this case. The language of mind and body harmonised, and were more complete and eloquent, than either on its own could be.
So this example does not support the thesis that praying and its expression are not intimately connected. It can be argued that God sees the thought before He hears it, so why clothe our thoughts in words? What words are to the thought so lifting-up of the hands are to the desire to speak to God. The action and the desire say the same thing; they complement one another: body and spirit acting in unison. Neither words or actions are essential to prayer, but we are human beings who require hands and voices to express our love and concerns to God. If we can profitably do away with words or lifting up of our hands in our prayers then let the strong do so, but weaker mortals may require both and they should not be denied them. They are optional to fulfil the command that men pray without anger and dispute, but they are as much aids to faith as the water of baptism and the bread and wine are.
In contrast to the optional convention of lifting up our hands when praying to God, the gender-specific commands to women in vv. 11-12 are based directly on Scripture (Gen 2-3), and take their foundation in events both before and during the Fall, and so are not optional but compulsory, permanent and universal.
4.8.2. WOMEN'S ADORNMENT (1 TIM 2:9-10)
When we examine the second example it is said that Paul places a ban on women wearing braided hair, wearing expensive jewellery, and wearing expensive clothes in 1 Timothy 2:9-10. What Paul is suppressing here is surely the top range in hairdos, jewellery and clothes. Paul recognises that in the worldly woman her inner world is faithfully reflected in her outer adornment: the focus is placed on the physical (fading) beauty of woman. In the case of the spiritual woman the focus is placed on the spiritual (abiding) beauty of woman. Paul's theology tells him that outward adornment can add nothing to spiritual adornment. There is no connection between them. His advice to cut down the excessive feminine urge to attract attention to herself does not exclude plaiting of the hair which is modest, or wearing jewellery which is not ostentatious, or wearing becoming clothes. His advice to cut out the constant universal danger facing every woman in every age to pay more attention to the outward woman than to the inner woman, by urging her to concentrate on good works, makes good sense. Here there is no dichotomy between ethics and expression in the case of the Christian woman. The Christian woman will have a different set of values to the worldly woman which will work itself out in a distinctively Christian approach to life and a different culture as regards dress fashion, expenditure on cosmetics, and so on. 1 Timothy 2:9-10, if taken seriously by Christian women, would lead to a distinctively Christian feminine culture. That is how revolutionary these two verses are. It should be possible to recognise a Christian woman by a modesty that pervades everything about her: her modest clothing, the attention given to her hair, her looks, etc., when compared to the woman who has never read 1 Timothy 2:9-10. Excessive attention to, and pride in, outward adornment reflects an inner disposition which is unbecoming in a Christian woman, just about sums up Paul's teaching here. His advice is not optional: it is essential: it is perennial. There is nothing here which is local and transient. An anonymous wit noted, "Women's styles may change, but their designs remain the same." The danger to follow the fleshly culture of the world is constant and universal in every generation. It is a danger peculiar to every women&emdash;Christian and non-Christian&emdash;to the day of their death.
Note that Paul is thinking of the woman only as an individual in that the three areas of ostentation concern her hair, her jewellery, and her clothes&emdash;all personal to her as she appears in public. But ostentation went further than just her public appearance when assembled for worship. No doubt ostentation extended to her beautiful home, its furnishings, her banquets, her children, her mode of transport, her servants, etc., but Paul does not address these areas here. Presumably if his teaching is acted upon as regards her personal public appearance then it would apply by extension to the rest of her life, home and family.
But there may be another reason why Paul concentrates on the visual appearance of the woman after she has stepped out through her front-door (on any day of the week, not just to go to church). Ostentation could be infectious and contaminate the whole female section of the Christian community, who would be very susceptible to fashion changes. By pointing out the danger he could save each family a lot of expenditure and wasted effort and time, which would be better spent on good works.
To sum up these two alleged examples of cultural transformation. In the case of the men's prayer, Paul inherited a centuries-old tradition of lifting up the hands when praying which he retained, because he altered it by associating the lifting up of the hands with the absence of anger and dispute in the minds of all men who are responsible for praying.
In the case of women, Paul addresses the area of danger peculiar to them, namely, the attention to their outward appearance. This was not a centuries-old inherited tradition which Paul was trying to suppress, but a genetic danger that every woman in every generation and nation is born with. It is peculiar to women, and like our old nature, it must be crucified. In every age and nation the ostentation will take a form unique to it, but the universal danger to focus attention on the outward to the detriment of the inner remains with every woman until the day she dies. It is part of her fallen nature. There is nothing that is local or transient in Paul's teaching. Only the form of the ostentation can change from age to age. The danger, and Paul's prescription to counter it are permanent.
It is mischievous to read Paul's prohibition on braided hair, etc. as an absolute ban and then to point out that it cannot be taken in an absolute sense today because there cannot be something intrinsically evil in plaiting the hair, or wearing expensive jewellery or clothes, as these are all relative today. And then from this step to argue that the prohibition on women speaking in Church, teaching and ruling men, is likewise not an absolute ban even though it appeared to be so at that time because it was anchored in creation theology.
First, in the context of 1 Timothy 2:9-10 Paul is contrasting two completely different modes of dressing (modesty versus ostentation) and contrasting two completely different life-styles (worldly verse godly piety). The difference between what constitutes ostentatious adornment today and what constituted ostentatious adornment in Paul's day will be a matter of judgment but the contrast itself&emdash;the ostentation&emdash;will live on as long as women exist. The contrast in life-styles might take on a local colouring but, here again, the contrast between the Christian and the non-Christian woman is as permanent as the enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. The contrasts between the adornments and the life-styles are here to stay until the end of time. The woman professing godly piety through her preoccupation with good works is a world apart from a woman whose mind is preoccupied with her outward appearance.
Second, the absolute ban on women speaking in Church and teaching and ruling/leading men is not based on local culture but on the Headship of Man and on Scripture. These activities are incompatible with Woman's submissive role and since Man's headship is rooted in his genes, it is as permanent as life on earth.
We should note that the modesty in dress and the non-participation in public meetings expected of women in Roman society is close to what Paul is advocating and can best be summed up in Plutarch's essay Advice to a Bride and Groom:
It is not gold or precious stones or scarlet that makes her [i.e., a woman adorned], but whatever betokens dignity, good behaviour, and modesty (26)
. . . . and most women, if you take from them gold-embroidered shoes, bracelets, anklets, purple and pearls, stay indoors.
. . . . Not only the arm of the virtuous women, but her speech as well, ought to be not for the public . . . . For a woman ought to do her talking through her husband . . . (30-32).
What made the Gospel attractive wherever it was preached was the near convergence of its standards of modesty and behaviour with the very best ideals in Greek and Roman cultures. Greek, Roman and Hebrew cultures were also patriarchal, and this must have facilitated the attractiveness of Christianity. Until recent times most civilised societies were patriarchal in structure. No doubt the Creator knew best when He appointed man as head of women, but modern man thinks he knows better.
4.8.3. WOMEN'S SUBMISSION (1 TIM 2:11-15)
The argument here is that the principle of submission is permanent but not its expression. It is suggested that silence in the church was alright for the age in which Paul lived but it is no longer considered an expression of submission today. Likewise in Paul's day teaching men or being in a position of leadership was considered unwomanly conduct, but this, too, is no longer relevant today.
First, those who argue this way, when pressed for an appropriate expression of submission by women today to replace the expressions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, are either silent or openly declare that the whole idea of submission is itself also out of date.
Second, those who argue this way do not take into account that in the three creation theology passages (1 Cor 11:3-116; 14:33-38; 1 Tim 2:11-15) the teaching is not peculiar to the local church but to the church universal on the grounds that Man is the head of Woman.
Third, those who argue this way do not take into account that in these three creation passages Paul goes back to texts relating to the pre-Fall (as well as the Fall) situation on which to base his commands, and not to local customs.
Paul handles this third, so-called, cultural transformation example differently than the other two examples considered above in that he makes a direct appeal to Scripture&emdash;to theology, for support. This shows that the principle of Man's headship was established by God before the Fall and so it was intended to be a permanent feature of the Man-Woman relationship which has been restored in Christ Jesus, the new head of Man.
Even if Paul's admonitions concerning "lifting up hands" while praying or wearing "braided hair" are in some sense culturally conditioned, his prohibition regarding women teaching and exercising authority over men is normative for all ages precisely because Paul grounds his injunction in the universally applicable facts of Genesis 2-3.
On the issue of head-covering I have shown above (4.4) that this is based on the analogy of nature, not nurture, which has provided woman with a covering of hair to hide the shame of her baldness. It is also used to distinguish male and female worshippers because they have been given different authorities by God. To Man was given headship of Woman, and to Woman was given her own authority derived from her position in God's creation to be Man's helpmeet.
If head-covering (as distinct from veiling the face, which Scripture nowhere commands women to do, either in the Old or New Testaments) was practised in New Testament times then it had a secular significance, not a religious one. Veiling and covering the head in public was a cultural convention connected with female modesty. This cultural significance must not be confused with the new, spiritual significance that this convention received through Christ's apostles. There is no suggestion in Paul that the Church head-covering had anything to do with female codes of modesty. He points out its spiritual or theological significance which is grounded in creation theology, namely, Man's headship of Woman, and the different authorities that God has given to Man and Woman.
To ignore the new, spiritual significance given to women wearing a head-covering when in the presence of God, and to revert to giving it a secular/cultural meaning and then throwing that out because it is deemed local and transient is mischievous. It would be on a par with a Jew throwing out the rite of circumcision (which was given to Abraham with a new, spiritual meaning) on the grounds that it had previously been a secular rite whose significance was now deemed to be local and transient! The rainbow had no significance until one was attached to it by God; there were many types of baptisms in Jesus' day but the water of baptism had no significance until it received it from Christ Himself; similarly the bread and wine have no inherent spiritual significance. In none of these Christian symbols or those of the Old Testament Covenants (the Noachic Covenant with its rainbow promise; and Abraham's Covenant of Circumcision) is the spiritual significance obvious. The meaning is brought to the symbol by revelation and has to be constantly brought to it otherwise the symbol takes over and becomes an end in itself. When men remove their head-covering when entering the presence of God they should constantly remind themselves why Jesus has commanded them to appear in this manner. In this way the symbol of an uncovered head will have an abiding influence on his life and remind him of his creation responsibilities before God. It is not without good sound spiritual reasons that Jesus, the Head of the Church, has given different symbols to men and women to remind them of their different status and different powers which he has given to each of them for the upbuilding of the Church and to maintain good order in His Church and Kingdom. The symbols are not local (and so transient) but universal (and so permanent). They do not come from man (with only man's authority behind them) but from God (with God's authority behind them).
Nowhere does God tell men to lift up their hands when praying to Him. Nowhere does God tell women to put on jewellery or comb their hair when they appear before Him. But He does tell them&emdash;men and women&emdash;how they are to appear before Him: one covered and the other uncovered.
Another way round 1 Timothy 2:8-11 is to deny that these words belong to Paul. By suggesting that the Pastoral Epistles are non-Pauline the reader is encouraged to treat them as non-Apostolic writings. The Pastorals are said to have been written in the second century AD. This is a favourite ploy of feminists to exclude these Epistles from the doctrine of Headship. The Pastorals are said to overturn the Apostolic situation which was non-patriarchal, and which permitted women to be teachers and preachers of the Gospel. This "freedom" was lost, they claim, when the Church became more patriarchal in the second century AD. The argument runs:
The inculturation of Christianity, which necessitated an accommodation to the patriarchal environment, is accepted as one of the principal reasons for this change [in women's roles]. This is said to have led to an ecclesiastical praxis that assigned women a role in the house and excluded them from general Church activity.
The Pastorals set out the qualifications of a Bishop, but this is oddly sidelined by feminists with the observation that, "No woman is attested with this title in the New Testament, but neither is any man." Greek grammar is ignored. Feminists argue that there were women bishops in New Testament times and quote 1 Cor 16:19 for Prisca and Col 4:15 for Nympha, because they were heads of houses and bishops were heads of houses.
Section Conclusion
I conclude that in the case of men's prayers we can retain the original permanent teaching but not necessarily its local form or expression every time we pray. The expression, however, is still as viable and spiritually useful today as it was in Paul's day, and Christians today, individually and corporately, will find lifting up their hands to God in prayer to be the only appropriate action to accompany their intense emotions on occasions. So the expression, while optional, is always available among a catalogue of other expressions not listed by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:8. We must not think that because Paul mentions one expression that it is this or nothing. We must not treat the Bible as if it were an encyclopaedia: all is not written down but what is sufficient for our guidance, and from which we may deduce other truths.
The fact that Paul took up an existing religious practice from the Old Testament Church means that we may take up other such practices, by extension of Paul's hermeneutic, if they are compatible with the Gospel. Similarly, in a missionary situation local practices and customs may be taken over and given a distinctively Christian touch as Paul did with lifting up hands adding "without anger and dispute." But we must be sure that the "cultural transformation" is thoroughly Christian and not syncretistic.
In the case of women's adornment we can retain the original permanent teaching but since the exact hairstyle fashion (braided hair elaborately decorated with gold thread), which was current in Ephesus in Timothy's day, may not be repeated over the centuries then this aspect of Paul's prohibition may not be relevant in some parts of the world today. However, since it is the nature of fashion to be constantly on the move this is no problem because what Paul's is subverting is the attention itself that is given to following worldly attitudes toward fashion. The attention is the problem because it reflects a wrong evaluation of hair and one's appearance. The woman must ask herself, Why do I (compared to men) spend so much more time and expense on outward adornment? Paul and every man could appreciate the admiration, the praise, and being the centre of attraction that hairdos, expensive jewellery and clothes, were intended to invoke in others. Is this attention-seeking in keeping with the Christian gospel? Apparently not in Paul's evaluation. Is it vain? Yes, because outward adornment can add nothing to spiritual adornment.
Paul is not suggesting that women be dowdy in dress, look dishevelled, avoid jewellery and disdain make-up. He positively encourages them to adorn themselves but "with modesty and seriousness" and this is a universal and permanent injunction. Peter likewise throws the emphasis on the inner, not the outer, beauty (1 Pet 3:4). The danger both are pointing out is that undue attention to, and showing off the physical aspects of her body reflect directly and badly on women who profess to live a godly and pious life. There is a latent contradiction in her activities.
If modest dress is essential in Church how much more so on the beach? Christian women must have consistent standards of modesty in all areas of their life. They cannot follow one standard in Church and another on holiday. Modesty must be in the mind as much as in the appearance.
4.8.4. RABBINICAL TEACHING ON THE PLACE OF WOMEN
On the attitude of Jewish men toward women we have some remarkable cultural insights in the following extracts from rabbinic writings. They were of the view that looking and talking to a woman could lead to the sin of adultery, or even worse&emdash;the birth of bastard children. Theoretically, adultery carried the death penalty. Because of this danger a need was felt to "construct a fence around the Torah," that is, to institute safeguards against coming too close to the opportunity to transgress. They introduced two "fences."
The first fence was the admonition against a man's speaking with a woman not related to him: "A man should not speak with a woman in the market, even if she is his wife, much less another woman, because the public may misinterpret it" (Abot de Rabbi Nathan), or speak to a woman through the agency of a third party (B.M. 87a; Kidd. 70b).
The second fence was the admonition not to look at another woman in public. Ben Sira is adamant that men should not look at women other than one's wife (9:5; 8; 41:21). "Our rabbis taught: He who pays a woman by counting out coins from his hand to hers in order to gaze at her, even if the level of his Torah-knowledge and good deeds has reached that of Moses our teacher, he will not escape the punishment of Gehenna" (bBer. 61a). A man is forbidden to walk behind a woman, even if she is his wife, for the same reason. A man was always to walk ahead of a woman in order to prevent his indulging in lascivious thoughts through observation of the female form. If one did find himself walking behind a woman, the law obliged him either to turn in another direction or hurry to get ahead, or to fall back to such a distance that scrutiny of her figure was no longer possible. The prohibition on walking behind a woman applied even to the married couple, for otherwise people might suspect that the husband was following a stranger to some illicit rendezvous. In the opinion of the Talmud: "It is better to walk behind a lion than behind a woman" (Erub. 18b; Kidd. 81a; Ber. 61a). The advice to men was that when they saw a woman in the street they were immediately to avert their gaze, the reason being that, "The heart and the eye are two agents of sin; the eye sees and the heart desires." Ben Sira (9:8; cf. 41.21c; T. Reub. 3.10.) urged:
Hide your eyes from a lovely woman
And gaze not upon beauty which is not yours;
By the comeliness of a woman, many have been ruined,
And this way passion flames like fire.
It was held that, "He who looks at a woman's heels, it is as if he looked at the place of her pudenda, and if he looks there, it is as if he had intercourse with her" (yHal. 2.4, 58c). Voyeurism is equated with adultery. Not dissimilar is the teaching of Jesus, "You have heard that it was said by the ancients, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:27-28).
A man prevented his wife and daughters from public gaze so as to protect his brothers from falling into sin. Consequently, a woman was expected to remain concealed within her house.
In one suspected of adultery, Philo notes the procedure, "The priest . . . removes her kerchief in order that she may be judged with her head bared and stripped of the symbol of modesty regularly worn by women who are wholly innocent" (Spec. Leg. 3.56). Also Josephus, "As for the woman, one of the priests stations her at the gates which face the Temple and after removing the veil from her head, inscribes the name of God upon a skin . . ." (Ant. 3.270). As these quotes show, the veil served as a symbol of modesty, but according to some this was a secondary characteristic/development to the subordination element, because if it were for modesty then we would have expected a face covering.
Ket. 7.6 lists seven offences for which a woman could be divorced. One was to go out in public with an uncovered head. Indeed, so serious was this act of defiance that the Shammaites, who recognised no cause for divorce other than adultery saw it as legitimate grounds for divorce, regarding the deed as equal to unfaithfulness by the wife (y. Sot. 16b).
Men expected their women to observe certain standards of modesty and women expected these standards of other women. Above all, wives and daughters were to do nothing which would attract undue attention to themselves. They were encouraged whenever possible to go about their business at quiet times of the day when men would be occupied elsewhere. Philo urged women to make their visits to the synagogue after the markets had closed for the day. They were not to dawdle in the streets but were to go directly to their destination. Women who loitered in public places were assumed to be harlots (Prov 7:10f; Sir 9.6-7; Sac. 21f.; 4Q184.17-18).
Contrary to common assumption the veil did not cover the face but only the head. Had it covered the face then the various warnings to men not to gaze upon a woman's beauty would have been meaningless. Note also that Josephus records as a peculiar law among the Persians that they forbade their women to be seen by strangers (Ant. 11.191). See also Ket. 72a-b where the rabbis, while advocating the traditional use of the veil, agreed that it was in accordance with the Torah if the woman's head was covered by her work basket when she was out in public. It was not until the time of the Amoraim that veiling the face, as an extreme of modesty, became more general. The veil then, which covered the head (but never the face in New Testament times), was a sign of demure behaviour; bareheadedness being interpreted as haughty, arrogant, and provocative, that is, contrary to the behaviour demanded of a woman subject to the authority of her husband.
Apart from serving visitors, wives did not participate in social functions which took place within the home. The only time when they sat with male guests was on the occasion of a religious feast such as Passover. In the main they ate in their own quarters, often only joining their husbands for a communal meal once a week (see Ket. 5.9).
The most important rule of conduct for women when moving in public was that they should never, under any circumstances, speak to a man. To do so was to invite instant divorce (Ket. 7.6). The rabbinical attitude was, "If God had meant women to rove, He would have created her out of Adam's foot instead of from his rib" (Gen. Rab. 18.2). Also: "He considered well from what part to create her. Said He: 'I will not create her from [Adam's] head, lest she be swell-headed; nor from the eye, lest she be a coquette; nor from the ear, lest she be an eavesdropper; nor from the mouth, lest she be a gossip; nor from the heart, lest she be prone to jealousy; nor from the hand, lest she be a gadabout; but from the modest part of man, for even when he stands naked that part is covered." And as He created each limb He ordered her, "Be a modest woman." Yet in spite of all this . . .she is swell-headed, as it is written, They walk with stretched-forth necks (Isa 3.16) . . . she is a coquette, with wanton eyes (ibid.), she is an eavesdropper, Now Sarah listened in the tent door (Gen. 18:10) . . . she is prone to jealousy, Rachel envied her sister (Gen 30:1) . . . she is light-fingered, And Rachel stole the teraphim (Gen 31.19) . . . she is a gadabout, And Dinah went out (Gen 34.1)(Gen. Rab. 30.1).
Philo would like to see in the ideal wife, "her moral nature free from guile, her conduct from stain, her will from craft, her speech from falsehood . . . in her company come piety, holiness, truth . . . self-control, temperance, orderliness, continence, meekness, frugality . . . modesty, a quiet temper, . . . . A silent woman is a gift from the Lord (Sir. 26.14, cf. 2 Pet 3:4).
Given the more secluded world in which a woman was expected to live a life of modesty and faithfulness toward her husband and the good management of her home in both the Greco-Roman and Jewish/Hellenistic worlds, it is hardly surprising that when Paul said it was a "disgraceful thing for a woman to speak in church" he was reflecting both the prevailing sensibility of the age in which he lived and his own finely-tuned theological position which was the universal custom of the Apostolic Church. Unfortunately, these two do not come together today except, maybe, in Orthodox Jewry. In the modern church it is no longer a disgrace because the prevailing customs of the world have long since swept through it driving out its biblical values of modesty in dress, and any concern for the will of its Head.
Before we can ask, What does this passage of Scripture mean for us today? we have to ask a prior question: What did it mean to those who first heard it or read it? This means getting a good grasp of the cultural background against which all Scripture was given. Once having acquired that background, and understood the theological principles involved in each teaching, story, or event, then and only then, can we ask the hermeneutical question: "What does this mean for us today?" And that question ought to have been asked by every generation, in order to safeguard the teaching of every word of God. If that practice had been carefully followed from the time of the Apostles there would have been continuity of understanding and less chance for confusion to set it. There would also have been Church unity from the beginning to the present day. As it was, the Church allowed itself to be swallowed up by the world and it became worldly, with the consequent loss of its heritage. Since the Reformation the phoenix-like Church has been attempting the difficult task of, first of all, reconstructing the ancient world culture of the Bible in order to understand the text, and then, seeking to understand how it may be applied in contemporary life.
This work has shown something of the background against which Paul's teaching regarding the place of women can be placed, appreciated, and understood. Because his teaching was based solely on theological principles and sound, spiritual reasoning there can be no question that the practices the Lord set up (through men like Paul and Peter) in all the churches of God are the same that ought to prevail today. If Paul was wrong to convey the Lord's commandment that women should keep silent in the churches using theological principles and the Law, then he cannot be trusted in any other instance where he uses the same method.
4.8.5. THE NON-PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN THE SERVICE
Some modern commentators, ignorant of the original cultural setting in which Paul delivered his injunctions concerning women's place in the worship service, have read into his words limitations on what he meant by, "Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the Law says." Virtually every commentator will permit woman to speak in some fashion. Their starting point is the present-day practice of permitting women to speak in church. This is both a methodological and hermeneutical mistake. All exegesis should come through the Bible from Genesis 1. This is the correct method or approach to understanding the New Covenant Scriptures. The correct hermeneutic is to reconstruct the exact circumstances under which an epistle was written; to get inside the mind of the writer, his circumstances, his culture, and anything that will throw light on what he says and why he says it. This research will include, crucially, who is being addressed. In all of Paul's epistles he is addressing the male members in the first place, and if the women want to know what is going on then let them ask their husbands at home. The primary focus is on all the male members of the church because they have control of their families who are to obey them in everything. When Christ controls the men He controls their families. So logically, the Epistles are aimed directly at the "brethren."
The suggestion that Paul is quite clear that women are to take no individual part in the worship service clashes with modern day culture which modern commentators have uncritically assumed to be biblical, so that they fail to think about the issue from Paul's perspective and theological viewpoint. All sorts of exegetical contortions are explored to permit what Paul forbid in an attempt to justify modern practices. The idea that modern practices could be unbiblical does not occur to them because theirs is an unbiblical hermeneutic. The battle is won or lost at the methodological and hermeneutic levels.
The question is: Would it have been revolutionary and shocking had Paul permitted women to pray and prophesy in church? The answer is clearly Yes. "If there is anything they want to know let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." Paul was not prepared to permit such a revolutionary and shocking practice in the churches of God, not because it was against the prevailing culture of Greece and Rome (which it was), but because of theological reasons: reasons deeply embedded in the heart of the Christian religion&emdash;the headships of Man, Christ and God.
A useful study setting out a broad comparative social analysis of the role of women in agrarian societies around the Mediterranean basin is that by Stuart Love. Love's task was descriptive so no consideration was given to the hermeneutical question, "What does this mean today?" The model he uses centres on three aspects of the role of women growing out of the social structure of agrarian households: (1) the care of households; (2) the bearing of children, and, (3) the public and private behavioural expectations of women.
In all the main cultures the domestic care of the household is the wife's own world through which she pleases her husband by feeding, clothing and enhancing his standing among his peers. A woman's place is within the household. The public realm belongs to men. Women, especially unmarried daughters, lived in semi-seclusion. At home special corridors, rooms, and doors were designed to protect a woman's privacy, especially when the husband entertained guests.
He noted that due to the separation of the public and private realms women do not usually participate or have major roles in political, educational, and religious functions.
Further, since a wife is "embedded in her husband" (Love's expression) she usually lacks authority to intrude into the economic and property decisions outside of the household. Therefore, wage-earning by a wife would bring public dishonour on her husband whose responsibility it was to provide for and protect his family.
S. Love asks, What about women leaders such as Mary, the mother of Mark in Acts 12:12; Lydia in Acts 16:14f.; and Chloe in 1 Cor 1:11? How would the culture of the time have seen their roles? He concluded from his comparative study that these women were exceptional, and along with Tabitha (Acts 9:36-41), Phoebe (Rom 16:1f.) and Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom 16:12) they were probably widows. Their circumstance is exceptional in two ways: (1) they are not disadvantaged or oppressed; and (2) they are not subordinated within their husband's family. Stählin believed that they were well-to-do, which may partially explain their exceptional status. Finally, they seem to fit Paul's conviction concerning widows, "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband" (Rom 7:2).
In the Epistles there are three examples of domestic or household codes (Col 3:18&emdash;4:1; Eph 5:21&emdash;6:9; 1 Pet 2:13&emdash;3:7) similar to the Greco-Roman or Jewish-Hellenistic model. All follow the hierarchical structure for ordering family life. In Colossians and Ephesians a complete agrarian household is described composed of three dyads&emdash;wives/husbands, children/fathers, slaves/masters. Each dyad mentions the weaker or inferior member first. Following the agrarian model, children are mentioned in relation to their fathers. Thus, the superior member of the household is the husband, father, or master. Peter's code evinces an even stronger tie to the agrarian model.
S. Love examined the boundaries between "public" and "private" spheres in the Greco-Roman world and in the book of Acts. These spheres were clearly delineated in the cultures he examined. Love notes all the texts in Acts covering public and private events. Although generic terms such as "men" and "brethren" might include women (who were out of their homes at the time), the audiences and speakers are men (cf. Mt 14:21; 15:38; with Mk 6:44; 8:9). In fact, he noted that the application of generic references to the male gender is so prominent that when women are included the author states so specifically (Acts 5:14; cf. 1:14; 8:3, 12; 9:2; 13:50; 17:4, 12, 34; 21:5; 22:4). The author's social sensitivity to women is evident, but their role is circumscribed by agrarian social realities.
There are only three private settings where women are present: Acts 1:12-14; 12:12 in the house of Mary a widow; 16:13-14 group of women (including Lydia) but they are not met for prayer (cf. v. 16). None of these examples violate agrarian expectations. Women are noted for their help to the church but in ways acceptable to agrarian norms.
S. Love concluded from his survey that the evidence of the book of Acts supports the public/private role distinction for men and women among Christian, Jewish, and Greco-Roman settings. Christian households constituted the focus, locus and nucleus of the ministry and mission of the Christian movement, and subordination to authority is a characteristic feature of household structure and conduct (cf. 1 Cor 14:32; 1 Pet 5:5; Heb 13:17; 1 Cor 16:16; 1 Thess 5:12). The Christian man's duty is to proclaim salvation, to teach and pray in public, and so to save himself and others (1 Tim 2:8; 4:16). The Christian woman's role is to be the faithful mother of a family.
S. Love examined the role of five women who served with Paul to see if they fitted into the agrarian model used all over the known world at that time. The women are Phoebe (Rom 16:2), Mary the mother of Rufus (Rom 16:13), Prisca (Acts 18:2, 28, 26; Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19); Nympha (Col 4:15) and Lydia (Acts 16:14-15). Four women, Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom 16:6, 12) are extolled for their hard work. In Romans 16:1-16 eight women are mentioned for greeting and/or special commendation by Paul. In light of the agrarian model it is probable that their assistance is similar to the service women rendered to Jesus (Lk 8:1-3). He concluded that it is problematic that these women's ministries were centred in the public proclamation of the gospel.
Given Love's study of the agrarian model and the almost complete lack of a public role for women he makes the significant remark, "If women prophesied in church in 1 Corinthians 11 then it is the exception to the agrarian model." This would support the conclusion, arrived at on other grounds, that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has its setting in the domestic or private sphere. Love's study can be backed up with countless studies on the clear distinction in Greek, Roman and Jewish societies between the private and the public contribution of women. Given the agrarian model of those times there is just no way that a woman would be seen, never mind heard, speaking in a public assembly. This appreciation of the universal background to Paul's missionary journeys helps us to grasp the significance of his statement that it was/is a disgrace for a women to speak in the public assembly of the Church. Not only would it have been a disgrace and a scandal in the eyes of the world but such a spectacle cut right across the Apostolic understanding of Man's headship responsibilities.
Because the evidence is so clear and strong concerning the conditions under which women were kept secluded from public life, and this cannot be denied, then the evidence is turned around to argue that Paul could not have written 2 Timothy 2:11-12 any other way because to do so would have been against the culture of the time. Consequently his command to be silent and submissive was the only option open to him.
All the things in this chapter are mere temporary regulations to meet a given situation. If we want Paul's permanent view on this matter, we get it in Galatians 3:28 . . . . In Christ the differences of place and honour and function within the Church are all wiped out.
. . . . We must not read this passage as a barrier to all women's service within the Church, but in the light of its Jewish and its Greek background. And we must look for Paul's permanent views in the passage where he tells us that the differences are wiped out, and that men and women, slaves and freedmen, Jews and Gentiles, are all eligible to serve Christ.
The respectable Greek woman led a very confined life. She lived in her own quarters into which no one but her husband came. She did not even appear at meals. She never at any time appeared on the street alone; she never went to any public assembly, still less did she ever speak or take any active part in such an assembly. The fact is that if in a Greek town Christian women had taken an active and a speaking and a teaching part in the work of the Christian Church, the Church would inevitably have gained the reputation of being the resort of loose and immoral women. The plain fact of the situation was that in any Greek society no other regulations than these could have been laid down.
The implication of this line of reasoning is that Paul was wrong to use theological arguments to establish permanent Church practices. Given the totally different educational achievements of women today, and the greater freedom that she has achieved by force for women in general, and given the full swing of the pendulum for full emancipation for all women in every sphere of living, we are assured that Paul, if he were writing 2 Timothy 2:11-12 today, would endorse the new situation with the words of Galatians 3:28.
The fault with this argument is that it overlooks the fact that Paul worked from the universal practices of "all the churches of God" to the specific situation in Corinth, not the other way round. Hence silence and head-covering were to be practised in Corinth because they were practised in every other church throughout the world. There is no concession to the many different cultures over which the Gospel spread. There was a distinctive world-wide Christian culture because the Gospel had gone out into all the world in a very short space of time (Rom 1:8; Col 1:6; 1 Tim 3:16).
This argument also fails to come to terms with Paul's inspiration. It reveals a low view of the Apostle and a deep scepticism about his claim to be inspired. He is presented as dysfunctional&emdash;unable to see that what he said in Galatians 3:28 was the "truth," and what he said in 1 Corinthians 11:4-15; 14:33b-35 and 2 Timothy 2:11-14 was "passing away." He is like the proverbial curate's egg&emdash;good in parts. He attached theological significance to something that was socially conditioned which was a bad mistake for the Apostle to the Gentiles to make, because it revealed that he was not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he wrote those passages. Paul did not see the "emancipation of women" that Galatians 3:28 envisaged and so he wrote as a Jew and not as a Christian. The proof of this is that the Holy Spirit has overruled what Paul commanded, because the world-wide trend today is to recognise that Paul was wrong to command women to be silent and covered in church. The present trend would not be received with joy throughout the world if the Holy Spirit were not behind it, feminists argue. Therefore the trend itself is the evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church out of the "slavery" that Paul imprisoned it in for 2000 years. To go against the present trend is to fight against the Holy Spirit.
Would those who argue for the above also argue that the present trend to admit practising homosexuals and lesbians into the ministry and eldership of the Church is also the work of the Holy Spirit? Is every trend Spirit led?
If Paul was only inspired now and again how are we to know which parts are inspired and which are not? Is all Scripture given by inspiration of God or only parts of it?
This argument overlooks the reason why Jesus and Paul go back to Genesis 1-3 to establish the New Kingdom truths of the Gospel. It fails to see the headship connection between 1 Corinthians 11:7-7; 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:13-14.
4.8.6. TRANSPOSING FIRST-CENTURY CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS
The world Jesus lived in was very different to the one we live in today as regards means of communication, food, hygiene, education, work and transport, but human nature has not changed. Common to all mankind is our need for the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, family life, work, etc. These basics will take diverse expressions but these are to be expected given the God-like nature of man. Consequently we must bear in mind that God's Word is given within an already established culture (one established by Himself in all its essentials) and perfectly fitted to convey His will. This is seen supremely in Jesus Christ who came in human form and lived as a first-century Jew.
The attitude of some toward the gap that separates first century Christianity from twenty-first century Christianity is that the twenty-first century is far superior to Paul's Christianity. Hence Barclay could write concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
No man ever rose completely above the background of the age in which he lived and the society in which he grew up; and Paul, in his conception of the place of women within the Church, was unable to rise above the ideas which he had known all his life. . . . It would certainly be very wrong to take these words out of their context and make them a universal rule for the Church.
Yet the same author could go on to observe:
Paul goes on to speak with a certain sternness. He is quite certain that, even if a man has spiritual gifts, that gives him no right to be a rebel against authority. He is conscious that the advice he has given and the rules he has laid down have come to him from Jesus Christ and his Spirit, and if a man refuses to understand them he must be left in his wilful ignorance.
How can the rule that a woman is to be silent in the assemblies be from Jesus and yet Paul be a man of his own age?
Concerning the head-covering in 1 Corinthians 11 this is conveniently side-stepped by placing it in a particular cultural capsule and thereby avoiding its relevance today. A good example is William Barclay's treatment of the passage:
This is one of these passages which have a purely local and temporary significance; they look at first sight as if they had only an antiquarian interest because they deal with a situation which has long ceased to have any relevance to us; and yet such passages have a very great interest because they shed a flood of light on the domestic affairs and problems of the early Church; and, for him who has eyes to see, they have a very great importance, because Paul solves the problems by principles which are eternal.
The problem was whether or not in the Christian Church a woman had the right to take part in the service unveiled. Paul's answer was bluntly this&emdash;the veil is always a sign of subjection, worn by an inferior in the presence of a superior; now woman is inferior to man, in the sense that man is head of the household; therefore it is wrong for a man to appear at public worship veiled and equally wrong for a woman to appear unveiled. It is very improbable that in the twentieth century we are likely to accept this view of the inferiority and subordination of women. But we must read this chapter in the light not of the twentieth century but of the first, . . . .
Barclay then confuses the issue by assuming that Paul is talking about the veil in eastern culture, the yashmak, a long veil leaving only the forehead and eyes uncovered and reaching down almost to the feet. He understands the veil as conveying two things, (a) it was a sign of inferiority, and (b) it was a form of protection for the woman. Consequently he translates 11:10 as: "For this reason a woman ought to retain upon her head the sign that she is under someone else's authority."
He next disparages the culture of the Old Testament by noting that under Jewish law woman was vastly inferior to man. She was a thing, and was part of the property of her husband over which he had complete rights of disposal. By placing the passage in a cultural capsule Barclay conveniently assumed it to be irrelevant for the Church today. He could then argue: "It would be quite wrong to make this passage of universal application; it was intensely relevant to the Church of Corinth but it has nothing to do with whether or not women should wear hats in church at the present day." But despite its local significance and apparent irrelevance to the Church today Barclay extracts "three great permanent truths" from the passage. (i) Paul's point of view was that in such a situation it was far better to err on the side of being too modest and too strict rather than to do anything which might give the heathen a chance to criticize the Christians as being too lax or be a cause of temptation to the Christians themselves. (ii) Even after he has stressed the subordination of women, Paul goes on to stress even more directly the essential partnership of man and woman. (iii) Paul finishes the passage with a rebuke to the man who argues for the sake of argument.
One wonders if this is all the Holy Spirit intended to teach in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and if it was, whether it could not have been said in fewer words and without the unnecessary digression into the Adam and Eve story, and superfluous talk about headships.
It is often asserted that Paul's purpose was to make the church conform to local standards of decency, such as head-covering or keeping silence and that his teaching may have relevance for us in that the principle of seeking to avoid offence is applicable to us, but that the specific details are not binding on us. Hence in the case of oriental veiling, which was not universal, according W. M. Ramsey, who cites Dion Chrysostom to the effect that the custom of women going veiled in Tarsus was an oriental and not a Greek custom. Ramsey sees Paul's teaching as arising out of the influence of his upbringing in Tarsus. Paul never advocated Christian women or men wearing a veil. In any case Paul is able to appeal to the uniform practice of the churches (11:16) and not to local custom.
We must distinguish between what is permanent and universal (because grounded in creation, see 1 Tim 2:13-14; 1 Cor 14:34; 11:8-9; or grounded in Jesus' teaching), and what is a first-century cultural expression of it, which is therefore not necessarily applicable to every culture, but open to cultural transformation into each.
An Icelandic traveller would not appreciate having his feet put in a basin of cold water when he arrived home after a long trek, but in the hot, dusty climate of the Near East a foot-sore traveller would welcome it with relish. When Jesus was invited to a meal in the house of a Simon the Pharisee he pointed out that he did not provide the customary water to wash his feet, or oil to anoint his head, nor did he give him the customary welcoming greeting of a kiss (Lk 7:44).
At the Last Supper Jesus took on the servant's task of washing the guests' feet. When he finished he told his disciples that they ought to wash one another's feet after his example (Jn 13:14-15). Does this mean we have to adopt this environmentally conditioned custom, even in Iceland, as a universal Church practice to be performed just before we observe the Lord's Supper? Common sense tells us that the hot environment of the Near East brought about this particular and necessary custom with its dusty, unmade roads. So this custom is environment-specific and may still be operative where the same conditions prevail. However, if we look behind the practice to the thought then we might see hygiene and personal comfort as the expression of love toward a guest taking this particular form due to the environment. Can these concerns be met in our culture using a different form because the environment is different? If so, then we have the equivalent duty to provide these for our guests.
Simon the Pharisee did not provide water for Jesus to wash his feet, or oil, or a personal greeting, which suggests that he was deliberately keeping his distance from Jesus while at the same time curious to meet him. So, looking after the welfare of each other (which may be environmentally conditioned), greeting, and showing affection will be the cultural equivalents of washing, anointing, and kissing, in any culture.
The head-covering has also been regarded as another legitimate case for cultural transformation. In this case due to the changing social role of women since Paul's day it is suggested that Paul should not be seen as placing any restrictions on women.
4.8.7. GREET ONE ANOTHER WITH A HOLY KISS
When we look at non-biblical cultures we find that it was most unusual for men to greet another man's wife, never mind kiss her. Greco-Roman society treated the public kiss, both hetero- and homosexual, with considerable reticence. In Roman society the elder Cato threw Manilius out of the Senate because he kissed his own wife in the presence of his daughters.
Pliny describes an infection brought from Asia Minor by a quaestor's secretary in the middle of the principate of Tiberius Claudius Caesar. "Women were not liable to the disease, or slaves and the lower and middle classes, but the nobles were very much infected through the momentary contact of a kiss." One can only conclude that the nobility kissed more than the other groups mentioned. Dio Chrysostom portrays the return of a young lad from the hunt who gives his betrothed a kiss along with the hare he has caught (Orat. 7.67). But later when Dio approached and kissed two hunters with whom he had been reunited he was ridiculed and he "understood that in the cities people do not kiss one another" (Orat. 7.59).
In Plutarch's Fabius Maximus two armies are reconciled and the men kiss one another as a sign of reconciliation (Section 18). In the time of Claudius men are said to have kissed each other when they met on the streets. It may have become the fashion in the early imperial period.
Josephus mentions kissing only four times; the only time he used filhvma is in the death scene at Masada when the fathers bid farewell to their loved ones before they massacre them (Jewish War 7.321). He portrays the infamous feigned kiss of Amasa (Ant. 7.284) which led to murder and the kiss of encouragement, obeisance and reconciliation between Achab and Adabos (Ant. 8.387). The pagan king, Darius, kisses the guardsman, Zorobabelos, who had given the winning answer to the question, "What is the strongest?" and thereby makes him his kinsman, although the kiss comes only after he has asked for permission to rebuild the temple (following 1 Esdras 4.47; Ant. 11.59). Under these conditions it was only natural for the pagan king to seal his covenant by kissing the devout Jew.
Jacob kissed Rachel at their first meeting (Gen 29:11; cf. Ant. 1.288-91). This was puzzling to the Jewish rabbis. John Calvin was forced to assume that, "The order of events, however, is inverted in the narration of Moses; for Jacob did not kiss Rachel till he had informed her that he was her relative."
In Judaism three types of kisses were apparently considered valid. Genesis Rabbah 70 [45b] states: "In general kissing leads to immorality: there are however three exceptions, namely kissing someone to honour that person (Samuel kissing Saul, 1 Sam 10.5), or kissing upon seeing someone after a long absence (Aaron kissed Moses, Exod 4.27) and the farewell kiss as when Orpah kissed Naomi (Ruth 1.14)."
The awareness that kissing between "brothers" was open to abuse is referred to in 1 Clement (AD 95-97), "Seeing then that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all things that pertain to holiness, forsaking slander, disgusting and impure embraces, drunkenness and rioting and detestable lusts, abominable adultery, detestable pride" (30.1).
In Joseph and Asenath, which is a pre-Christian document but with Christian interpolations, when Joseph arrives Asenath's father urges her to greet Joseph. As she moves toward Joseph to kiss him Joseph stretches forth his right hand and says, "It is not fitting for a God-fearing man who blesses the living God with his lips . . . to kiss a foreign woman . . ." (8:4-5). But he goes on to say, "But a God-fearing man will kiss his mother, and his sisters born of his mother, and the sisters related to him, and the wife he sleeps with, who bless the living God with their mouth. Similarly it is not proper for a God-fearing woman to kiss a strange man, for it is an abomination before God" (8.6-7). There is no evidence that non-relatives could kiss each other.
"There is no basis in ancient texts, Jewish and Greco-Roman, outside the NT for the transformation of the kiss into a sign of religious community. There is no analogy in any body of religious literature to this practice commended by two writers of the NT." A general admonition to kiss each other is not found in Jewish sources. It is unique to the Christian Church.
But in the early church Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 3.12) ruled that one is never to kiss his wife in the presence of domestics and never to greet her in the presence of slaves.
In the light of this strict cultural background to what extent can our present "anything goes" culture be read back into the text of the Apostolic codes of behaviour? For example, it is quite common to see vicars greet other men's wives, and young men and young women greeting each other in church with a so-called "holy kiss." When this questionable practice is challenged the justification is given that Scripture says: "Greet one another with a holy kiss."
But the apostolic writers were addressing men when they said, "Greet one another with a holy kiss (filhvma aJgivon)" (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14 "kiss of love [filhvma ajgavph]"). The grammatical gender is masculine. The Good News Bible consistently translates it as a "brotherly kiss" in Paul's texts, and "the kiss of Christian love" in 1 Peter 5:14. Given the known culture of the time and the separation of male and female worshippers that God introduced into His Old Testament Church, it would have been against proper decorum for Peter and Paul to introduce a completely new custom of kissing women. Women greeted women and men greeted men. There would not have been any cross-gender kissing or physical contact between men and women.
Ignorance of the contemporary situation in Paul's day led the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities to state concerning the "holy kiss:"
No limitation is expressed or implied. The Christians were simply bidden to "greet one another." Nor is there any doubt that the primitive usage was for the "holy kiss" to be given promiscuously, without any restriction as to sexes or ranks, among those who were all one in Christ Jesus; . . .
Similar ignorance lies behind the statement that the kiss was "indicative of the strong bond of brotherhood which bound Christian brothers and sisters to each other." This indiscriminate kissing is then used as "proof" of the "complete spiritual equality of men and women."
The abuse that the misapplication of these texts has led the modern church into, where younger women in particular are singled out for this treatment, is well known. Its origins are not found in biblical culture but in a culture that is anti-Christian; from the contrived "affection" of the stage world, and popularised by television celebrity shows. The text tells men to kiss men but this is conveniently forgotten. Kissing the opposite sex under the guise that Scripture commands it is to take advantage of another person's innocency. The practice ought to be dropped because it is based on a false understanding of Scripture. There is not a shred of evidence of Jewish men greeting women&emdash;not even their wives in public&emdash;with a kiss; indeed, Near Eastern culture as a whole is against such a practice.
The equivalent of the "kiss" in our culture is shaking hands and men should be content with that lest it leads on to sin. The principle of greeting one another is the important thing, the form that it takes will vary from culture to culture (rubbing noses or bowing toward one another, etc.).
In the two explicit cases where men are said to have kissed each other (Paul and the Ephesian elders, and the prodigal son and his father) the men embraced each other with their heads on each other's shoulders, and, presumably, kissed each other's neck or cheek while in that embrace. Such a warm, full frontal embrace and kiss between men and women would be frowned on today, never mind then. Given the Jewish culture of the time, Paul never intended his injunction to kiss one another to be taken outside the specific context in which it was originally given, as it has been done indiscriminately today.
This example illustrates that we must be careful not to lift something which is descriptive and culturally conditioned, and make it prescriptive without taking into account the original setting in life in which the practice was in vogue. If it had been understood that the culture of Paul's day did not permit men and women to kiss one another, then the injunction, "Greet one another with a holy kiss," would never have been taken in the modern way by the original hearers/listeners. It would have been shocking and a scandal in Greek and Roman culture.
In the light of the cultural facts and also that Paul addressed his admonition to men it is surprising to find a twentieth-century writer say:
He [Paul] was certainly the first popular ethical teacher known to instruct members of a mixed social group to continue to greet each other with a kiss whenever or wherever they meet. . . . The imperative is not limited to one's own gender for the protection of the holy kiss resides in what it communicates. It was not an erotic act, but an act meant to express ajgavph&emdash;that 1 Peter 5.14 saw clearly. Paul is as liberated in attitudes towards women as Jesus himself had been, and in comparison with Jewish and Hellenistic moralists only Musonius Rufus comes close to him. . . . Paul invites a situation in which a woman will give a man unrelated to her, except in the household of God, a holy kiss in public.
If Paul had introduced a completely unheard of practice of women kissing men in what non-Christians would have considered a new social group they risked the slander of those who were on the outside looking in. But how would this sexual scandal fit into Paul's exhortation that Christians were not to give offence? "Become offenceless, both to Jews and Greeks, and to the church of God" (1 Cor 10:32). Would it attract prostitutes to become "Christians" in order to enjoy the new innovation and get new trade?
The first recorded criticism came from Athenagoras in ca. AD 175 who invoked an unknown scripture against kissing a second time because it was enjoyable (Supplicatio 32). Clement of Alexandria warned against the shameless use of the kiss "which occasions foul suspicions and evil reports." He warned that "love is not proved by a kiss" and complained that there were those "who do nothing but make the churches resound with a kiss." On the manner of kissing he advised: "We dispense the affection of the soul by a chaste and closed mouth, by which chiefly gentle manners are expressed." Tertullian (De oratione 18) said that no public prayer was complete without the members of the congregation kissing each other. But he also displayed keen sensitivities to the pagan husband who was offended by the knowledge that his own wife kissed other men in public.
Because it is not clear whether women and men were divided into separate physical areas of the pagan temples in Greek and Roman public worship, as was the case in Jewish worship, it is possible that the injunction to greet one another with a holy kiss may have been misapplied in a cross gender situation.
END OF SECTION