Female Head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Part 2 of 5): The Setting and the Nature of the Covering

     The original text of 1 Corinthians had no chapter or verse divisions and certainly no chapter headings like, “The Christian Assembly” or “The Behavior of Women in Public Worship.” What is recognized today as chapter 11 could just as easily have been started at 10:14, 10:23, 11:2, or 11:17, but it is almost unanimously agreed that it was a mistake to mark the beginning of the chapter at 11:1.

     Since a Christian assembly is not specifically mentioned until 11:17-18, there is no legitimate reason to reverse this context to incorporate the previous discussion. The contrasting statements of commendation in v. 2 and of rebuke in v. 17 clearly demonstrate that a new section begins at v. 17.

The Setting:

     One of the more prevalent assumptions among commentators and other interpreters is that the corporate worship assembly is the setting under consideration in 11:2-16. While the acts of “praying” (communicating to God) and “prophesying” (proclaiming divine revelation) were part of the early first-century church services, they were by no means restricted to them. Praying was done individually in private (Matthew 6:6) as well as in public (Luke 18:10-13), collectively in small groups (Acts 12:12; 20:36), and in the presence of both believers (Luke 11:1; 22:39-41) and unbelievers (Acts 27:35). Prophesying took place at special gatherings (Acts 15:30-32), at informal settings (Acts 21:10-11), and in the presence of individuals (Acts 24:25), small groups (Acts 19:6), crowds (Luke 2:3 ff.), believers (1 Corinthians 14:22), and unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:24; Revelation 10:11).

     Since prophesying was not done individually in private, the praying in 1 Corinthians 11 probably does refer to group prayer. Nevertheless, whatever men are said to be doing in v. 4, the same is attributed to women in v. 5. And Paul goes on in 14:34-35 to forbid women from leading in these activities in the public assembly. Instead of specifying a particular environment, Paul merely identifies the act of praying or prophesying in 11:2-16.

     In the first-century church, women as well as men were endowed with the miraculous gift of prophecy (Acts 2:17; 21:9). Women were expected to be teachers (Titus 2:3-4) and workers in the Christian community (Romans 16:1; Philippians 4:2-3). At the same time, there were restrictions placed upon Christian women. They were not permitted to teach or have authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12), nor were they allowed to speak as to lead the public assembly (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

     Since the women in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are said to be praying or prophesying the same as men, and only men are authorized to lead in the public meetings of the church, and assuming Paul is consistent in his teachings, the sensible conclusion is that the apostle is not pointing his directives here to the corporate assembly. His observations would therefore apply to any situation where praying or prophesying was done, such as all female gatherings (cf. Acts 2:17; 16:13; 21:9; Titus 2:3-4).

     In context, Paul has been discussing a Christian’s influence “in all things” – social and religious, toward both believers and unbelievers (8:1–11:1). In 11:2-16 he does not employ the church-assembly phraseology that is repeatedly emphasized later on (11:17, 18, 20; 14:23, 26). One should not presume that it was inconsequential to discard the emblems of modesty and decorum in gatherings restricted to women, especially in the context of spiritual activity.¹

The Nature of the Covering:

     The expression akatakaluptō (“uncovered”) in v. 5 does not inherently reveal that which covered the head before it became uncovered. Accordingly some have argued that the covering under consideration is the natural covering of hair (cf. v. 15),² and to be “uncovered” means to have the hair removed. This interpretation, however, is improbable considering Paul’s argument in v. 6. It would be senseless for him to have said that if a woman’s head is not covered with hair, let her “also” (kai) have her hair cut off.

     Seeing that there is no object in the phrase kata kephalēs echōn (lit. “having down upon the head”) in v. 4, could this be referring to long hair? There is no known precedent for this phrase being used in relation to hair, but there are examples of an artificial covering depicted this way. In the LXX version of Esther 6:12, Haman is described as mourning with his “head covered” (kata kephalēs). In Plutarch’s Moralia 200.13, Scipio the Younger is said to have “his toga covering his head,” and the phrase kata kephalēs echōn is identical to the wording of 1 Corinthians 11:4.

     The noun peribolaion (“a [wrap-around] covering”) in v. 15 does not correspond to the verb katakaluptō (to “cover”) used five times in vv. 5-13. Paul did not use kalumma (the noun form of katakaluptō) in v. 15, neither did he use periballō (the verb form of peribolaion) in vv. 5-13. It stands to reason that the covering mentioned in v. 15 is different from the covering alluded to in vv. 5-13. The apostle affirms that a woman’s long hair is a peribolaion, whereas there is something else that serves to katakaluptō her head. Moreover, an artificial headdress in addition to the woman’s hair is consistent with what is known about the societal norms of the time.

     Some will argue that the statement in 1 Timothy 2:9, which discourages a particular hair style, shows that there were women who did not wear garments covering their hair. Despite the fact that Ephesus is in view here rather than Corinth, this conclusion is still not definitive. While Jewish women typically concealed all of their hair, other women, particularly among the Greeks and Romans, generally wore loose-fitting headdresses exposing at least some of the hair (see, e.g., vol. 11 of E. R. Goodenough’s Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period).

     Different types of head-coverings were worn in ancient times. Some concealed the head and face, others covered the hair but not the face, while others were loosely worn, exposing the face and part of the hair. Taking into account the cultural diversity of Corinth’s population, a variety of fashions would be expected. It is interesting that Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is somewhat ambiguous with reference to the type of covering. His ambiguity suggests that he is dealing with the head-covering in general without regard for any particular style.

--Kevin L. Moore    

Endnotes:

     ¹ The present imperative in v. 6, “let her continue to have her head covered,” indicates further that the limited setting of a corporate worship assembly is not the exclusive focus. At whatever times it was considered indecorous for a Corinthian woman to have short hair or to be shaved, a respectable Corinthian woman was to have her head covered as often.

     ² The NIV marginal note offers the following alternative version of vv. 4-7: “Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head – she is just like one of the ‘shorn women.’ If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. A man ought not to have long hair.” Gordon Fee responds to this unconventional rendering: “How this option made the NIV margin is a great puzzle. It does disservice to the Greek at too many places to be viable. One might allow any one of these, but their cumulative effect requires the acceptance of too many contingent improbabilities” (First Corinthians 499 n. 28).

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings Part 1

Image credit: http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/130013547 rpp=20&pg=8&rndkey=20130530&ft=*&what=Figures%7cMarble&pos=148

Female Head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Part 1 of 5): Context and Translation

     Nearly every student of the Bible is aware of the discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 concerning women praying or prophesying with covered heads. But when it comes to understanding the meaning and application of this passage, most will have to admit that they haven’t really studied it in detail, at least not beyond examining one or two English translations and perhaps a few commentaries.

     This fifteen-verse paragraph has been the subject of considerable debate over the centuries, and a sizeable mountain of literature has been written about it, much of which has hardly contributed to clarifying its complexities. In fact, the difficulties have been accentuated by multiple and varying translations, interpretations, and applications that are often at variance with the inspired writer’s original purpose.

Literary Context:

     The passage in question is just a small section of a larger literary unit. It forms part of a letter that was occasioned by special circumstances and must therefore be viewed, not in isolation, but in relation to the entire document. From 7:1 to 16:12 Paul is responding to correspondence he had received from the Corinth church, addressing issues such as (a) marriage and related matters (7:1-40); (b) limits of exousia (“liberty”): food sacrificed to idols and ministerial support (8:1–11:1); (c) woman’s exousia and covering the head (11:2-16); (d) abuse of the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34); (e) spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40); etc.

     In trying to understand any biblical passage, the interpreter must be alert to what is said (content), how it is said (form), and in what situation it is said (life setting). In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul seems to be employing a common literary device known as chiasmus, i.e. an inverted parallelism in which the center line receives the emphasis. The following arrangement shows the chiastic structure of the text:

A (2-3) Introduction

B     (4-7) woman, praying, uncovered head, man, glory

C          (8a) man is not out of woman

D               (8b) woman is out of man

E                    (9a) man was not created for woman

F                         (9b) woman was created for man

X                              (10) woman ought to have exousia over her head

F’                         (11a) woman is not without man

E’                    (11b) man is not without woman

D’               (12a) woman is out of the man

C’          (12b) man is through the woman

B’     (13-15) woman, praying, uncovered, man, glory

A’ (16) Conclusion

     Failure to recognize this structure and its implications can contribute to overlooking the main point and drawing faulty conclusions. While v. 10 is admittedly the most problematic verse in the paragraph, it appears to be the central point. What it means and how it relates to the other lines of argumentation is fundamental to understanding the whole passage.

Historical/Cultural Context:

     First Corinthians was written early in 56 from Ephesus by the apostle Paul to the church of God at Corinth (1:2; 4:19; 16:8). At the time Corinth was a Roman colony, the seat of the Roman proconsul, and the capital of the Roman province of Achaia. The church was predominantly Gentile, the majority of whom were of lower social status, along with Jewish and upper class minorities (1:26; 6:9-11; 7:18-24; 12:13; cf. Acts 18:1-18).¹

     Evidently it was the customary practice among nearly all cultures at the time for respectable ladies to wear long hair and to regularly have their heads covered in public; reputable men, on the other hand, ordinarily kept their hair short and did not routinely cover their heads (see, e.g., Plutarch, Roman Questions 14; Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 12.15; 33.51-52; 35.2; 72.2). Since the chief concern of this study is what was regarded as morally decent in mid-first-century Corinthian society, the wide-ranging depictions of ancient pagan rituals, goddesses, prostitutes, and other immoral persons and acts are of little consequence.

     For a woman to have short hair or to appear in public without the customary headdress was considered inappropriate, for various reasons, typically causing derision. Some pagan religious practices may have deviated from the normal standards of decency, but this does not represent the general state of affairs in everyday life. Paul’s directives in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 were not innovative, as some have alleged, but appear to be consistent with the social conventions of the time in that part of the world.²

English Translation:

     The aim of the following translation is not ease of reading but an attempt to render the text as literally as the translation process will allow so that it essentially corresponds to what the apostle originally wrote. Added words and a single textual variant are in [square brackets].³

     ⁽²⁾ Now I am commending you because you remember all things of me and are retaining the precepts just as I delivered [them] to you. ⁽³⁾ But I am desiring you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is head of woman, and God is head of Christ. ⁽⁴⁾ Every man praying or prophesying having [something] down upon his head disgraces his head. ⁽⁵⁾ But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered is disgracing her head; for she is one and the same [thing] as the one having been shaved. ⁽⁶⁾ For if a woman is not being covered, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is dishonorable to a woman to have her hair cut or to be shaved, let her continue to have her [head] covered. ⁽⁷⁾ For indeed a man is not obliged to be covered continually, being the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ⁽⁸⁾ For man is not out of woman but woman is out of man; ⁽⁹⁾ for also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. ⁽¹⁰⁾ On account of this the woman ought to have authority over her head: on account of the angels. ⁽¹¹⁾ Nevertheless woman is not without man and man is not without woman in the Lord; ⁽¹²⁾ for just as the woman is out of the man, thus also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God. ⁽¹³⁾ You judge among yourselves; is it proper for a woman to be praying to God uncovered? ⁽¹⁴⁾ Is not even the nature itself teaching you that, on the one hand, if a man has long hair it is a shame to him, ⁽¹⁵⁾ but on the other hand, if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her? For the hair corresponds to a covering having been given [to her]. ⁽¹⁶⁾ But if anyone seems to be contentious, we do not have such a custom nor [do] the churches of God.

Explanatory Notes on the Above Translation:

     V. 3: Of the three occurrences of the term kephalē (“head”) in this verse, the first is preceded by the article (“the head”), whereas the other two are not.

     V. 4: There is no object in the phrase kata kephalēs echōn (lit. “having down upon the head”), so it must be supplied by the context. While the word “something” is inserted here, the noun kalumma (“a covering”) would be a valid inference seeing that it corresponds to the verb katakaluptō used five times in verses 5-13.

     V. 5: The gender of to auto (“the same”) is neuter, pointing to a general quality rather than a person, thus the translation, “she is one and the same [thing].”

     Vv. 6-7: The translation reflects the continual or ongoing action of the present tense: “is not being covered . . . let her continue to have her head covered” (v. 6); “to be covered continually” (v. 7). Since there is no equivalent in English to the third person imperative, it is difficult to translate and must therefore be somewhat idiomatic, typically rendered “let her …” The context determines how much stress the imperative mood carries, though the present imperative is far less pressing than the aorist (cf. v. 13).

     V. 7: The significance of the term opheilō with a negative can be either “bound not to” or “not bound to.” The only other time opheilō occurs with a negative in Paul’s extant correspondence to Corinth is 2 Corinthians 12:14 (using almost identical wording), where there is no obligation to do a certain thing rather than an obligation not to do it.

     V. 10: The word exousia means (a) freedom of choice, right; (b) ability, capability; (c) authority; (d) power (BAGD 277-78). Whenever this term occurs elsewhere in scripture with the preposition epi, it always means “authority over.” The words “a veil” (RSV), “a sign of” (ASV), “a symbol of” (NKJV), or “subjection” (Moffatt) do not appear in the original text, and the insertion of any of these significantly alters the sense of what the inspired writer has stated.

     V. 13: The verb krinate (“judge”) is an aorist imperative and constitutes the only real command in this whole paragraph. “You . . . yourselves” is emphatic, stressing to the readers that the decision must be their own.

     V. 15: The dative pronoun autē (“to her”) is absent from a number of manuscripts and is variously positioned in others. The preposition anti, originally meaning “facing, over against,” does not always mean “instead of” but also carries the sense of “equivalence” and is thus rendered here, “corresponds to.”

     V. 16: The NASB, NIV, and RSV rendering of toiauten as “other” is an unfortunate mistranslation; it actually means “such” (cf. ASV, ESV, N/KJV). The word sunetheia denotes more than a mere “practice” (prassō); it means “custom," "habit," or "customary usage.”

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ For further background on 1 Corinthians, see the author’s A Critical Introduction to the New Testament 138-44.

     ² For further information from primary sources about ancient cultural practices relating to the head covering, hair length, and worship conventions, see the author’s We Have No Such Custom 9-26. Misinformation and confusion are almost guaranteed if one relies too heavily on secondary sources. For example, nearly all women wore veils in public (F. H. Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands 98-99) vs. the veil was exceptional in ancient times (Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary 719); Jewish women were always veiled in public (C. K. Barrett, First Corinthians 251) vs. they were usually not veiled in public (Encyclopedia Biblia 4:5247); reputable Greek and Roman women wore veils in public (ISBE 4:3047) vs. Greek women were not compelled to wear veils in public (TDNT 3:562)???

     ³ Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation. The underlying Greek text is the UBS The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (1994).

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings Part 2

Image credit: http://suite101.com/article/appearance-of-the-veil-in-the-bible-a184260

The Angel of the LORD

     There are numerous references in the Bible to “the angel of the LORD,” and over the years much discussion and speculation have arisen concerning his identity. At times in scripture the angel of the LORD is referred to as “the LORD”¹ or “God” (cf. Gen. 22:9-18; 31:11-13). When the angel of the LORD spoke, sometimes it is stated that “the LORD” was speaking (cf. Gen. 16:10-13; Ex. 3:2-18). When individuals saw the angel of the LORD, they claimed to have seen “God” (cf. Gen. 32:30; Judg. 13:21-22). Who was this extraordinary personality? 

     These remarkable accounts have led some to conclude that the angel of the LORD was actually the pre-incarnate Christ, manifesting himself long before his virgin-birth. Because of this, some Bible translators (e.g. NKJV) have taken it upon themselves to make a distinction between ordinary angels of God and “the Angel [capital A] of the LORD.” One popular argument is that the angel of the LORD said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM . . . I AM has sent you” (Ex. 3:2, 14), and later Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58), therefore Jesus must have been the angel of the LORD. Another argument is that Jesus is identified as “that spiritual Rock that followed [Israel]” (1 Cor. 10:4), and the angel of the LORD accompanied and provided for Israel (Ex. 14:19-20), therefore Jesus must have been the angel of the LORD. 

     However, these arguments are less than conclusive. If the angel of the LORD was simply speaking God’s message in Exodus 3:14, then he himself is not identified as “I AM” but only God is. The statement in John 8:58 shows Jesus’ timeless existence (an attribute of God), but it does not automatically equate him with the angel of the LORD any more than the same words spoken in John 9:9 equate the former blind man with the angel of the LORD. It is true that the angel of the LORD accompanied Israel from Egypt (Ex. 14:19), but so did Moses (Ex. 12:31), and no one thinks that Moses was the pre-incarnate Christ! The LORD God led the Israelites from Egypt (Ex. 12:51; 13:18, 21), the angel of God led the Israelites from Egypt (Ex. 14:19; cf. Num. 20:16; Judg. 2:1), and Moses led the Israelites from Egypt (Ex. 3:10). This does not mean that the angel of God was actually the LORD himself any more than Moses was the LORD himself. There appears to have been a chain of authority in accomplishing this mission. Moreover, in Deut. 32:3-4 ff. the designation “the Rock” is attributed to the LORD God who provided for the Israelites, so it seems more reasonable to identify Jesus (1 Cor. 10:4) as the LORD God rather than the LORD’s angel. 

     There is a much more plausible explanation of these unusual accounts. Without getting into the complicated and sometimes subjective debate over so-called “theophanies” (i.e. visible appearances of God to man), consider the fact that God regularly spoke through various mediums or representatives. This does not mean that God himself was actually taking on human form, but he was simply being represented by his special delegates who acted and spoke on his behalf. No one could have truly seen the LORD God himself and survived (Ex. 33:20; 1 Tim. 6:16; cf. Judg. 6:22-23; 13:21-23). But when the fullness of the time had come (Gal. 4:4), the eternal Logos emptied himself of the privileges and glory of deity in becoming a man (John 1:1-14; 17:5; Phil. 2:5-9; Heb. 2:10-18) and was manifested as God in the flesh (Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16). But the Bible does not suggest an actual incarnation of the Lord prior to this.

     When all of the biblical information is taken into account, it seems evident that the many references to “the angel of the LORD” are not necessarily referring to an individual by that name. Whenever God sent an angel to accomplish a specific mission, he was the angel of the LORD on that particular occasion. To illustrate, consider the fact that there were many “prophets of God” (Ezra 5:2), and each was “a prophet of the LORD” (2 Chron. 18:6; 28:9). But when a single prophet was accomplishing a designated task, he could legitimately be referred to as “the prophet” on that particular occasion (cf. 1 Kgs. 20:22, 28). There is a plurality of “the angels of God” (Gen. 28:12; 32:1; Matt. 22:30; Luke 12:8-9; John 1:51), and when only one is operating in a given context, he is, on that occasion, the angel of God.

     “The angel of the LORD” who appeared to Moses in a burning bush (Ex. 3:2) was later identified by an inspired spokesman as “an angel” (Acts 7:30). God promised to send “an angel” to lead and protect the Israelites, whom he described as “My angel” [i.e. the angel of the LORD] (Ex. 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2; cf. Dan. 6:22; Acts 12:7, 11). Elijah was comforted by “the angel of the LORD,” but this was simply “an angel” (1 Kings 19:5-7). “The angel of the LORD” whom God sent to punish Israel (1 Chron. 21:9-30) was nothing more than “an angel” (v. 15). “The angel of the LORD” who destroyed the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19:35; Isa. 37:36) was merely “an angel” (2 Chron. 32:21). Joseph hearkened unto “the angel of the Lord” (Matt. 1:24) who was simply “an angel of the Lord” (v. 20) and obviously not the same person who was in Mary’s womb (v. 18).  

     In short, the angel of the LORD was a special messenger or representative sent by the LORD on any given occasion to speak and act on the LORD’s behalf. Often a distinction is made between the angel of the LORD and the LORD God himself, showing they are not one and the same (cf. Gen. 16:11; 18:14, 19; Judg. 13:5-9; 2 Sam. 24:16-17; Zech. 1:12-13). The LORD said of his angel: “for My name is in him. But if you indeed obey his voice and do all that I speak . . .” (Ex. 23:21-22); i.e. the angel of the LORD, as God’s delegate, spoke with the authority of God. The Israelites were protected by “the angel of God’s presence” (Isa. 63:9), i.e. he represented the presence of God among God’s people, therefore to see “the angel of the LORD face to face” (Judg. 6:22) was to see “God face to face” (Gen. 32:30) in proxy.

     This may be further illustrated by the fact that the LORD said he had come down to deliver his people from Egypt to the land of promise (Ex. 3:8, 17), but it was actually by the hands of his servant Moses that God was to deliver his people (Ex. 3:10). Furthermore, the LORD God said, “I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt . . .” (Ex. 3:20), but it was through his representative Moses that the signs were to be performed (Ex. 4:17; 14:13-16). God said to Moses, “So [Aaron] shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God” (Ex. 4:16). Again the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you [as] God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you. And Aaron your brother shall tell Pharaoh to send the children of Israel out of his land” (Ex. 7:1-2). When Aaron functioned as Moses’ spokesman, it was as if Moses himself were speaking. When Moses acted as God’s representative, it was as if God himself were acting. Later when individuals stood before God’s priests and judges, they were ultimately standing before “the LORD” (Deut. 19:17).

     Jesus was not the angel of the LORD. He is far superior to any angel and is clearly distinguished from the angels of God (Hebrews 1:4-14; 2:1-16). Angels cannot be acceptably worshipped (Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9), thus the angel of the LORD directed worship away from himself (Judg. 13:15-16).² But Jesus regularly received worship (Matthew 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:17).

     Let us learn from these extraordinary accounts of the angel of the LORD that God cares for his people and through the centuries has always provided for their needs in many different ways, even when they did not fully understand how God was accomplishing it. “I sought the LORD, and He heard me, and delivered me from all my fears . . . . The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear Him, and delivers them” (Psalm 34:4-7).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes: 

  ¹ Throughout this article, "the LORD" = Hebrew Yahweh or Jehovah; "Lord" = Hebrew adonai or Greek kurios.     

   ² Contrary to what some have alleged, no angel of the LORD was ever acceptably worshipped (cf. Col. 2:18-19). Abraham “bowed himself to the ground” before the three heavenly messengers (Gen. 18:2), but this was a customary sign of respect rather than an act of worship (cf. 19:1; 33:3; 42:6; 43:26, 28; 44:14). Balaam “bowed his head and fell flat on his face” evidently out of fear (Num. 22:31; cf. Dan. 8:17), and Samson’s parents “fell on their faces to the ground” apparently in awe (Judg. 13:20; cf. Lev. 9:24). Manoah, not knowing who his visitor really was, wanted to prepare a young goat for the angel of the LORD as a meal, and the LORD’s angel told him that he wouldn’t eat Manoah’s food but to offer a burnt offering to the LORD, which Manoah did (Judg. 13:15-21). Gideon brought the angel of the LORD an “offering” [minchah] of meat, broth and bread (Judg. 6:18-21), but this was intended as a meal or a customary gift (cf. 3:15-18; Gen. 32:13-21; 33:10; 43:11-26) rather than an offering of worship. When Joshua “fell on his face to the earth and worshipped” (Josh. 5:14), the text does not specify whom he worshipped, and to suggest that he worshipped the commander of the LORD’s army is an unnecessary assumption. Only God is to be worshipped (Matt. 4:10), and God’s angels are our fellow servants who are not worthy of worship (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9).

Related Posts: Questions About Angels

Originally appearing in The Exhorter 4:3 (July-Sept. 2001).

Image Credit: http://www.gospelgifs.com/art_pages_01/angel-of-the-lord.htm

Questions About Angels

Does the Bible teach that each person has a guardian angel?

      The concept of guardian angels became popular among the Jews during the intertestamental period (cf. Tobit 5.6, 21; Testament of Levi 5.6) but has no clear precedent in the New Testament.
     In Matthew 18 Jesus taught that his disciples must be “as little children” to enter the kingdom of heaven and the Lord does not want a single one to be lost (vv. 1-14). In the midst of this discourse, Jesus said: “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven” (v. 10 NKJV). However, the reference to “their angels” [plural] does not indicate that each Christian has his/her own guardian angel, and whatever these angels are doing is taking place in heaven instead of on earth. The NEB rendering "their guardian angels" is without justification. This passage is addressing eternal salvation rather than temporal guidance or protection on earth (cf. Luke 12:8-9; 15:7, 10; 16:22; Revelation 3:5). The point seems to be that maltreatment of "these little ones" does not escape the notice of the heavenly throne (cf. Luke 1:19).

      An angel of the Lord released Peter from prison (Acts 12:7-11), and when the brethren did not believe Rhoda’s report that Peter was standing at the gate, they replied, “It is his angel” (v. 15). However, their mistaken assumption does not prove that Peter actually had a “guardian angel,” and they may have been presupposing that Peter was killed and his spirit (cf. 23:8) had spoken to Rhoda. Later Paul was comforted by “an angel of God” (Acts 27:23 f.), but again, this does not support a “guardian angel” theory. Hebrews 1:14 acknowledges that angels (in general) are ministering spirits for the heirs of salvation, but this does not suggest that each Christian has his/her own guardian angel.

What is the function of angels today?

      Angels are referred to as “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:13-14). The Greek word apostellomena in this verse [from apostellô, “to send forth”] is a present tense participle, meaning that angels are currently and continually being sent by God to minister to the needs of God’s people. This is consistent with how God has operated in the past (Psalm 91:11-12; 103:20-21; Matthew 4:11; 24:31; Luke 22:43), and there is no reason to suppose that angels are no longer active as God’s providential agents. “Some have argued that with the conclusion of the miraculous age angels also ceased to function, but in view of the fact that angelic activity is not restricted to the miraculous, there is no reason to believe that this is the case” (Rex Banks, The Exhorter [July-Sept. 2001]: 4). Wayne Jackson comments on Hebrews 1:14, “Since the supernatural era is gone, and only God’s providential activity (i.e. the divine manipulation of natural law) remains, one must conclude, I think, that somehow God employs angels in the implementation of His providential will on behalf of His saints in today’s world . . . . but beyond this we should not speculate” (VOTI 29:94). God providentially works in the lives of Christians (Romans 8:28; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Corinthians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 3:11), and his angels appear to be the instruments through which he works.  

What is meant by the statement, “some have unwittingly entertained angels” (Hebrews 13:2)?

      In this verse the writer of Hebrews is admonishing his readers to remember to be hospitable to strangers, and the motivation he offers is that “some have unwittingly entertained angels.” Since the epistle to the Hebrews is filled with allusions, references, and quotes from the Old Testament, the inspired writer no doubt had in mind Old Testament examples of angelic visitations with which his initial readers would have been familiar (e.g. Genesis 18-19; Judges 6:11 ff.; 13:2 ff.). This does not necessarily mean that we should expect angels to personally visit us today, but the point is that hospitality should be practiced (cf. Romans 12:13; 1 Peter 4:9) because (as biblical accounts illustrate) there are unexpected benefits to be gained.

How do some popular myths about angels compare to the biblical record?

      Angels are often depicted in modern art as blonde-haired females, but in the Bible they always appear in masculine form (Genesis 19:1, 10; Mark 16:5; et al.) and nothing is said about their hair or its color. With the exception of the seraphim and cherubim, angels in the Bible are never portrayed with wings. They do not play harps or have halos suspended over their heads. Although angels have the ability to speak, they are not mentioned in the Bible as singing (with the possible exception of Job 38:7). The Bible does not teach that angels are departed saints or that saints will someday become angels. As a matter of fact, Paul says that “we shall judge angels” (1 Corinthians 6:3). While much of the angels’ work in the Bible is described in a positive manner, they often evoke fear (Numbers 22:31; Matthew 28:2-5; et al.) and administer harsh judgment (2 Kings 19:35; Psalm 78:49; Matthew 13:41-42; Revelation 8:5-13; et al.). One with a biblical perspective on angels does not deny their existence (Acts 23:8) or activity (Hebrews 1:14), or misapply scripture references about them (Matthew 4:5-6), or ascribe to them attributes and functions beyond the scope of God’s revealed word.

Are angels aware of what is happening in our lives?

      Jesus said “there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10). The lives of the apostles were “a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men” (1 Corinthians 4:9). Jesus (in the flesh) was “seen by angels” (1 Timothy 3:16), and concerning Timothy’s conduct, Paul admonished him “before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels” (1 Timothy 5:21).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: The Angel of the Lord

Image Credit: http://shieldoffaith62.blogspot.com/2012/12/guardian-angels-among-us.html

Lifting Up Holy Hands

     In light of 1 Timothy 2:8, should Christians lift their hands as they worship God? At least three things need to be considered here: what this passage actually says, what it means, and how it applies. Paul wrote to the young evangelist in Ephesus: “Therefore I desire that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (NKVJ). Notice first of all that this admonition is addressed to “the men” (tous andras = adult males) in contrast to “the women” (tas gunaikas, v. 9), therefore this was something enjoined on the male Christians who pray rather than everyone in the worship assembly. Furthermore, notice that Paul does not simply refer to lifting up hands, but rather “lifting up holy hands.” This raises the question: is Paul addressing one’s physical posture (i.e. the position of his hands) when he prays or something else? If the focus is on what a man does with his literal hands, in what sense are they to be “holy”?

      The Bible describes a number of different physical positions for prayer: e.g. standing (Mark 11:25), kneeling (Dan. 6:10), sitting (Luke 22:14, 17), lying down (2 Sam. 12:16), prostrate (Matt. 26:39), bowed head (Ex. 4:31), eyes looking upward (John 17:1), facing a wall (2 Kgs. 20:2), lifted hands with bowed head (Neh. 8:6), standing with lifted hands (1 Kgs. 8:22), kneeling with lifted hands (1 Kgs. 8:54), etc. It is evident that there is no prescribed posture for prayer. However, God’s word consistently emphasizes that the condition of a man’s heart and life is essential when he prays. “Let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil” (1 Pet. 3:11-12; cf. 1 John 3:22; 5:11-15; Prov. 15:29; 28:9; Isa. 59:1-2; et al.). Therefore the key word in 1 Timothy 2:8, in connection with prayer, is “holy” rather than “hands.”

      Since a person uses his hands for most physical activities, the hands symbolize one’s actions (cf. Gen. 16:12; Job 14:15; 20:10; Matt. 6:3; Mark 9:43). And a person’s actions (good or bad) are directly related to the condition of his heart (Matt. 12:34-35; Mark 7:20-23). Those guilty of sin (as opposed to being “holy”) are metaphorically depicted in the Bible as having dirty “hands” (Isa. 1:15; Ezek. 3:18, 20; Jas. 4:8), and thus the removal of sin from one’s heart/life is symbolized as cleansing the “hands” (Deut. 21:6-9; Job 17:9; Psa. 24:4; 26:6; Jas. 4:8). When Pilate wanted to proclaim his innocence in condemning Jesus, he “washed his hands” (Matt. 27:24). David wrote: “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me” (Psa. 18:20). Obviously there is much more in view here than personal hygiene!

      In the Bible the actual lifting of one’s hands in prayer symbolized that a pure life was being offered to God and thus the prayer should be unhindered. But the same could be accomplished without the literal raising of one’s hands (cf. Matt. 26:39). Whether a person’s hands are lifted or not, dirty or clean, has nothing to do with the acceptability of his prayers.  It is the condition of one’s heart and life that matters to God. Sin (the “dirt” of the soul) causes one’s prayers to be hindered (Isa. 59:1-2; Psa. 66:18), not the condition or position of his physical hands. 

      God directed Isaiah to write: “And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you: yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil” (1:15-16). It is clear that “lifting hands” is a metonymy for prayer, just like “bowing the knees” (Eph. 3:14) is a metonymy for reverence and humility of heart.  To lift up your hands in prayer is to lift up and present your heart, soul, and life to God (cf. Psa. 63:4; 86:4; Lam. 3:41). If your spiritual “hands” are stained with sin, God will not hearken unto your prayers (Psa. 66:18). But if your spiritual “hands” are cleansed from sin (Psa. 18:20, 24; 24:4), your prayers will be acceptable to God (1 Pet. 3:12). “If you would prepare your heart, and stretch out your hands toward Him; If iniquity were in your hand, and you put it far away, and would not let wickedness dwell in your tents; Then surely you could lift up your face without spot; Yes, you could be steadfast, and not fear” (Job 11:13-15).

      In 1 Timothy 2:8 the emphasis is not on the position of men’s hands but rather the holy lives of the men who pray (or lead prayers in the assembly). A Christian mechanic with grease-stained hands or a Christian amputee with no hands at all can still lift “holy hands” in prayer as long as his heart and life are set apart in faithful service to the Lord. Regardless of physical posture, when men pray God wants their hearts and lives to be holy (Rom. 12:1; Eph. 1:4). A praying man can raise his hands in the air if he chooses (or kneel or stand, etc.). But if an unrighteous man prays with hands lifted and a righteous man prays with unlifted hands, only the latter is in harmony with Paul’s sentiment in 1 Timothy 2:8.

--Kevin L. Moore

Addendum:
     With respect to those who feel compelled to wave their arms in the air during worship, please consider the following. (1) If the intention is to comply with 1 Timothy 2:8, the point of Paul's directive has been missed, and there is no other passage in the New Testament to which an appeal can be made. (2) The men who pray are singled out in the text, not the women (vv. 9-15) or even the entire assembly. (3) If the practice is borrowed from our charismatic neighbors (many of whom, incidentally, ignore or dismiss or explain away vv. 11-12), the standard of worship is all wrong. (4) If the purpose is to generate a special feeling, or it results in drawing undue attention to the one(s) doing it, the focus of worship is all wrong. (5) If it causes a distraction to others who are trying to worship, or even a potential distraction, how is this practice, which is not legitimately based in scripture, justifiable? On the other hand, if everyone in the assembly is reverently and discreetly lifting hands simply as a customary worship posture (cf. Neh. 8:6) with which all are comfortable and no one stands out (similar to bowing heads or sitting or standing), there is no biblical teaching that would be at variance with it as long as the above five points are taken into account.