Tackling the Interpretive Challenges of Revelation 20

The Thousand Years 

The “thousand years” of Rev. 20:2-7 is no more literal than the other symbols in the text, such as the key, bottomless pit, chain, dragon, beast, etc. Since Revelation makes frequent use of figurative language,¹ there is no reason to assume that the “thousand years” was meant in a literal sense. In fact, the number 1000 is a commonly used symbolic figure in scripture. 

Job affirms that a person cannot answer God “one time out of a thousand” (Job 9:3). Rather than limiting God, this hyperbolic comparison simply means that humans are totally incapable of contending with him. The psalmist acknowledges that “the cattle on a thousand hills” belong to God (Psa. 50:10). This is not to say that the cattle on more than a thousand hills do not belong to him, rather he owns the indefinite/complete number of cattle. To God “a thousand years” are like a single day (Psa. 90:4). To take this literally would mean that he can, to some degree, be bound by human time. But since God is eternal (Deut. 33:27), this is simply a metaphoric way of saying that time has no relevance to him. While “ten days” symbolizes a relatively short, yet complete, period of time from a human perspective (cf. Rev. 2:10), “a thousand years” symbolizes a relatively long and complete period. As a symbol it does not specify an exact number.

Since Christ began his reign in the first century AD (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:30-36; 1 Pet. 3:22), and Christians are now reigning as priestly servants with Christ in a spiritual sense (Rom. 5:17; 1 Pet. 2:5-9), and Christ’s reign certainly did not end in AD 1033, the “one thousand years” of Rev. 20 would then refer, not to linear time per se, but to the long, indefinite period of Christ’s reign in his spiritual kingdom—the church (John 18:36-37; Col. 1:13). It connotes an extended period of completion of God’s work on earth, serving as a symbol of ultimate victory. When Jesus returns, he will deliver the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:23-24).

The Binding and Release of Satan 

The chapter begins with a past event (as in 12:1-5) and ends with a future event. Note the symbols: the “key” symbolizing power to bind or loose (cf. Matt. 16:19; Rev. 1:18); the “chain” symbolizing whatever restricts the power of Satan; the “bottomless pit” symbolizing that which prevents the devil from deceiving and controlling the nations as he did before he was “bound.” Satan was bound and continues to be restricted by the power of the gospel (1 John 3:8; Heb. 2:14-15; Rom. 6:9-18; Jas. 4:7; Eph. 4:8). This does not, however, render him completely inactive (cf. 1 Pet. 5:8). Those who do not submit to or remain in the teaching of Christ essentially walk away from divine protection and into the devil’s grasp (2 Thess. 2:9-12). A vicious dog may be bound on a chain, locked behind a fence, and sealed with the warning: “Beware of Dog.” But the person who wanders into the dog’s domain will suffer the consequences.

Some have suggested the releasing of Satan “for a little while” may indicate a time when either the church will be hindered, by persecution or government restrictions, from freely preaching the gospel, or the gospel may lose its influence because of hardened hearts and rejection. Neither interpretation, however, is biblically necessitated.

The “little while” may be nothing more than the time it takes for all the events of the Lord’s return to transpire, including the resurrection of the dead and bodily transformation of the righteous snatched away from the earth (1 Thess. 4:15-18). These are the ones who have been proclaiming, obeying, and defending the gospel and thus restricting the devil’s work. This momentary release of Satan, concurrent with the events of Christ’s return, will happen “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Cor. 15:52). Jesus is coming with flaming fire and judgment, at which time the enigmatic “man of lawlessness” (personification of false religion as the work of Satan) will be revealed but immediately consumed by the Lord’s fiery vengeance (2 Thess. 1:7–2:10).²

Conclusion

The rest of Rev. 20 (vv. 11-15) continues with a vivid scene of God’s victory and judgment. Despite the challenging details of this chapter’s apocalyptic imagery, in the end the Lord’s people are victorious and our spiritual enemies are defeated and ultimately face divine retribution.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Confused By the Book of Revelation?,” Moore Perspective (3 Nov. 2021), <Link>.

     ² See K. L. Moore, “The Man of Lawlessness (Part 1),” Moore Perspective (12 July 2017), <Link>.

Related Posts: Introducing the Book of Revelation (Part 3), The Kingdom of God (Part 1) 

 

Image credit: https://practicallyknowntheology.com/2020/06/29/amillennialism-and-the-binding-of-satan/

“Think not that I came to nullify the law or the prophets …”

The Text

“Think not that I came to nullify the law or the prophets; I came not to nullify but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one pen stroke by no means will pass away from the law, until all things come to pass. If anyone therefore subverts one of the least of these commands and thus teaches others, he will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But if anyone does and teaches [them], he will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that if your righteousness does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-20, author’s own translation).

Commentary

As a small portion of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke the words recorded in Matthew 5:17-20 early in his ministry, at least two years before his new covenant was ratified. While it was not the time to teach exclusively Christian doctrine or set aside the Mosaic law, it was necessary to address the fallacies of the hypocritical Jewish leaders and prepare the way for the approaching kingdom. Jesus contrasts the traditional misinterpretations of the law with the loftier conduct expected in God’s kingdom. The law did not justify unrighteous anger, or lust, or divorce for any or no reason, or questionable oaths, or senseless retribution, or hatred, irrespective of what others had “said” to the contrary. 

The Lord assures his Jewish listeners that his purpose was not to nullify the law or the prophets. Jesus himself was an Israelite who was amenable to the Jewish law (Galatians 4:4; cf. Matthew 8:4), and he kept it perfectly. Rather, his purpose was to fulfill [plēroō = to fill up or make full] all that the law and the prophets had said concerning the promised Messiah. In fact, one of the primary aims of Matthew’s Gospel is to establish the fact that Jesus and all that was accomplished in his ministry were in fulfillment of the prophetic scriptures (Matthew 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9, 35). Accordingly, these things were not to remain unfulfilled for millennia after the Lord’s death, resurrection, and ascension. Once Jesus accomplished his mission on earth, the role that the law and the prophets had served for centuries was complete (see Galatians 3:16-25; Hebrews 8:6-13). In other words, when the intended purpose was fulfilled, that purpose then became obsolete.

Implications

Contrary to what many have inferred, the Lord did not say that the Mosaic law was to remain binding until the end of time. Twice in this passage Jesus uses the expression heōs an (“until”). From the standpoint of his contemporary Jewish audience, heaven and earth could pass away at any time. Yet the Lord affirms “until” that happens (whenever it might be), nothing will fail from the law or the prophets “until” all things come to pass. It is a statement of assurance, i.e., the law will unquestionably be vindicated and will have served its purpose when Jesus has completed his personal mission on earth (cf. John 4:34; 5:36; 17:4; 19:30).

In the meantime, the Lord’s Jewish disciples were expected to be faithful and to avoid the lax attitudes of their hypocritical leaders toward the moral issues discussed in the verses that follow. Thereafter, for citizens of the heavenly kingdom, righteousness is still equated with obeying and teaching the truth, not according to the old law of the Jews but according to Christ’s new covenant.

--Kevin L. Moore

 

Related Posts: Old Covenant and New Covenant

 

Image credit: https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/is-old-testament-as-important-as-new-testament/

Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms (Part 4 of 4)

Question #13: Is it still wrong for men to have long hair and for women to have short hair?

Response: In 1 Cor. 11:14-15, what constitutes “long hair” vs. “short hair”? The text does not give specific measurements, so how do we make this determination? How “long” can a man’s hair grow and how “short” can a woman’s hair be before the passage is violated? When Paul says, “You all judge among yourselves” (v. 13),¹ he is not speaking directly to present-day readers in a variety of cultural environments where hair length is assessed differently (e.g., long-haired Indigenous-Native-American men, or short-haired African tribal women), not to mention the connotations (or lack thereof) of the artificial headdress. He is speaking to mid-first-century Corinthians already accustomed to a standard of dress and hairstyles that would enable them to make their own judgment in relation to their particular circumstances.

     It was not always considered degrading or shameful for a man to have long hair. Jewish male Nazarites were not allowed to cut their hair (Num. 6:1-21). Solomon’s horsemen let their hair grow to considerable length (Josephus, Ant. 8.185). There was a time in history when Israelite men typically wore longer hair (2 Sam. 14:25-26; Song 5:2, 11; Ezek. 8:3; cf. Judg. 13:3-5; 16:13-22). In fact, the 9th-century BC Assyrian Black Obelisk of Shalmanezer III depicts Israelite men with shoulder-length hair.² The significance of hair length must be gauged by the societal norms of any given time and culture.

 

Question #14: Based on 1 Corinthians 11:15, are women with shorter hair going against what the Bible says?

Response: This depends on which women are under consideration. If the Christian women of mid-first-century Corinth are in view, then yes, because in their cultural environment it was disgraceful for a woman to appear in public without her customary headdress or with short hair, deemed immodest and shameful. If Christian women in modern-day western societies are in view, then no, as long as exposed hair or “short” hair (however that is to be measured) is not regarded as inappropriate or disreputable. 

 

Question #15: If a man wears a hairpiece and is thus “covering” his head, does he violate 1 Cor. 11:4, 7 when he prays? 

Response: No. As Paul penned these words, the men he had in mind, unless they were all completely bald, had their heads covered with hair, albeit with a Roman-style haircut. To forbid the wearing of a hairpiece in modern times is to force a meaning on the text that is foreign to its original purpose. Contextually these Christian men in mid-first-century Corinth were expected to refrain from covering their heads with a female garment while praying or prophesying.

 

Question #16: If one accepts the underlying principles of gender roles and appropriate dress and demeanor but rejects the literal female head-covering, isn’t this a non-literal view of the Bible?

Response: It is not a matter of literal vs. non-literal but discerning what the inspired writer was seeking to convey to his targeted audience and how they would have understood the directives in the context in which they were originally communicated. Once this is ascertained, we are in a much better position to comprehend and make application of the relevant teaching, albeit in a very different cultural environment with different connotations and expectations.

 

Question #17: If in Paul’s time men customarily wore short hair and it was disgraceful for them to wear it long, would it follow that Paul growing his hair for a vow (Acts 18:18) would have been disgraceful? Why would he continue to take such vows, especially since he had just been in Corinth?

Response: With respect to hair length, the concept of “long” is subjective. What constitutes “long”? Presumably this could vary from one culture to the next, not to mention individual perception.³ In the context of ancient Judaism, hair growth as part of a vow involved allowing the hair to grow for a specified period of time, whether or not it actually reached the point of being viewed as “long” (however that might be defined). Acts 18:18 does not say Paul cut his “long” hair in Cenchrea but had his hair sheared or shaved, irrespective of the length it had grown. The point about men customarily having short hair in Paul’s time needs to be qualified. We’re talking about a Greco-Roman context, particularly the mid-first-century Roman colony of Corinth. Paul was a Hellenized ethnic Jew writing 1 Corinthians to a predominantly Gentile congregation in a particular cultural setting. 

     We cannot be any more precise than the text allows. Cultural peculiarities (whether Jewish, Greek, Roman) and the distinctiveness of each must be taken into account, but also the inevitable blending of cultures throughout the first-century Mediterranean world. Other variables would include time periods, e.g., the different historical contexts of Rebekah (Gen. 24:65) and Tamar (Gen. 38:14-15), Samson (Judg. 13:5), Absalom (2 Sam. 14:25-26), and Paul (1 Cor. 11:13-15), as well as geography (western, central, eastern provinces). We should not assume that Palestinian Jews would share the same cultural views as Gentiles or even fellow-Jews in Corinth, or that a Jewish person in the eighth century BC would be representative of first-century Judaism.⁴ While Paul was not divorced from his ethnic heritage, he thoughtfully and strategically conformed to and communicated in a variety of cultural environments to most effectively advance the gospel (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19-23; 10:32-33).  

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² See Warren Reinsch, “The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser,” Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology (11 Dec. 2018), <Link>.

     ³ When I was a kid and buzz cuts, crew cuts, and flat tops were common hairstyles for most men, my older brother, whose hair merely touched the top of his ears, was criticized by a visiting missionary for having “long hair.” 

     ⁴ There were occasions in the distant past when Jewish men were expected to wear on their heads an artificial covering (Ex. 28:4, 37-40; 29:6, 9; 39:28; Lev. 8:9; 10:6; 21:10; Ezek. 24:17, 23; 44:18; Dan. 3:21).

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings: Questions & Criticisms Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

 

Image credit: https://www.pitara.com/non-fiction-for-kids/features-for-kids/roman-holiday/

Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms (Part 3 of 4)

Question #7: If 1 Cor. 11:2-16 merely involves a temporary social custom, how do you explain what appears to be a divine injunction according to the unchanging realities of apostolic tradition (v. 2), God’s hierarchal design (v. 3), creation order (vv. 8-9), angels (v. 10), “all things are from God” (v. 12), “nature … is given” (vv. 14-15), and the churches of God (v. 16)?

Response: There is no debate about the passage alluding to these scriptural concepts, but what is actually said about them and how are they used in Paul’s argumentation? To claim the directives are not culturally relevant is to ignore not only the original audience, their particular circumstances, and the occasional purpose of the letter, but the relationship at the time between gender roles (divinely enjoined) and Corinthian head-coverings and hair styles (culturally relevant), involving the societal implications of honor and shame (vv. 4-6, 14-15), collective judgment based on propriety (v. 13), and a “custom” [συνήθεια] that Paul says “we do not have,” neither apostolic nor congregational in its origin or significance (v. 16). There is also “the nature itself” [ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ] in relation to social decorum. Biblical examples (e.g., Judg. 13:5; 2 Sam. 14:25-26) and the realities of the natural world (a man’s hair can naturally grow long) make a convincing case that the shamefulness of which Paul speaks is based on the native sense of propriety in a particular cultural setting rather than some innate sense of shame inherent in all humans. In the broader context there is also Paul’s consistent use of ἐξουσία (“liberty,” “right,” “authority”) in the letter (v. 10; cf. 7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12, 18), along with synonymous expressions (7:39; 8:9; 9:1, 19; 10:29), serving as an inspired commentary that makes strained explanations and added modifiers unnecessary.

 

Question #8: If hair “is given” to a woman to be her covering, is it to remain uncut? 

Response: In 1 Cor. 11:15 Paul does not say “is given by God” or “is given by the natural world,” which would ignore the fact that a man’s hair can also grow long. In many societies beyond mid-first-century Corinth, long hair on a man was natural, normal, and acceptable. And in some cultures the given norm was for a woman’s hair to be cut short (e.g., married women in ancient Sparta) or shaved (e.g., Maasai women in Kenya). 

     Since a man’s hair can naturally grow long and there is no way for the natural world to define or quantify hair length, reference to “the nature itself” apparently applies to “the native sense of propriety,” i.e., “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (Thayer 660). Paul is not talking about what nature teaches just anybody, but what it teaches “you” (plural), viz. his first-century Corinthian audience. In the cultural context of this Greco-Roman society, hair length not only distinguished women from men but also respectable ladies and gentlemen from immoral persons.

     In this particular setting, a woman’s long hair served as a natural covering and demonstrated the appropriateness of her being covered. The significance of δέδοται (“having been given”)¹ cannot be that God has provided to the woman and not to the man the ability to grow long hair. A man’s hair can in fact grow long, and “God” is not even mentioned here. In view of the allusion to their natural sense of propriety (v. 14) and the admonition to “judge among yourselves” (v. 13), the point seems to be that the woman’s long hair is recognized as peculiarly hers and characteristic of normalcy and dignity among Corinthian ladies. Her long hair in this context “corresponds to” a covering. The preposition ἀντί may have signified “instead of” in Classical Greek but is not limited to this sense in the Koinē Greek of the NT.

 

Question #9: In regard to hair length and “nature,” what about the contention that biologically there appears to be some difference due to hormones and other factors in the length-potential of women vs men with head hair and facial hair, both indicating some biological differences, at least in growth-potential, as a normative rule?

Response: Length-potential of head hair as a biological difference between men and women is not factual (note, e.g., 2 Sam. 14:25-26). If modern-day hair growth is comparable to hair growth among the ancients, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry notes very little if any difference in growth rates between males and females <Link>, while studies have shown that male hair actually grows faster than female hair <Link>.² Moreover, the hair of the head [κεφαλή], not facial hair, is the topic of discussion in 1 Cor. 11:14-15.

     Women having longer hair than men is a gender distinction relevant to a cultural convention (see, e.g., Rev. 9:8), when men customarily cut their hair short, but is not a biological rule of nature. If φύσις (“nature”) in this passage refers to natural law, and if neither women nor men ever cut their hair, then hair length would not be a distinguishing feature between the sexes. Any observable distinction, then, would have to be culturally discerned (notwithstanding the normal and natural gender differences). Paul does not say the nature itself teaches you (the Corinthians) about hair growth potential but about “long” and “short” hair, which is subject to and defined by cultural perception.

 

Question #10: Could the difference between a man’s hair and a woman’s hair according to “nature” (1 Cor. 11:14) be an allusion to the more common tendency of hair loss and baldness among men? 

Response: Paul alludes to hair length, not hair loss. A man who is bald on the top of his head can still grow the rest of his hair long, while female hair loss and pattern-baldness are not uncommon plights of the natural world.

 

Question #11: Is Revelation 9:8 (“like women's hair”) a general statement without alluding to cultural context, thus standing against the cultural idea?

Response: Everything in the Bible is written in a particular context, and before anything in scripture says anything to present-day readers, it has already spoken to those to whom it was first addressed. The book of Revelation was written to real people comprising real congregations in a real geographical locality (western Asia Minor) in a real historical-cultural setting (late-first-century Greco-Roman cities) dealing with real issues (chiefly persecution by the Roman government). If chap. 9 is dealing with judgment against Rome, how would the late-first-century Greco-Roman provincial Asians have understood “hair like women’s hair”? If men typically had their hair cut short and women typically wore long hair in this setting, the description is understandable. If the so-called barbarian forces on the outskirts of the Roman Empire (which ultimately contributed to the empire’s downfall) typically had long hair, the original readers of John’s symbolism are thus provided insight into the prophecy’s fulfillment. If John had communicated the same words to the long-haired men of Rome’s enemies, it would have been nonsensical. Long hair on a woman cannot escape cultural perception nor establish a distinctive biological idiosyncrasy.

  

Question #12: Long hair given to a woman as a covering (1 Cor. 11:14) indicates the hair is analogically similar to the covering and demonstrates the propriety of the woman being covered rather than the man. Does Paul mean visually or functionally, or both? If visual similarity is the point, was it just a convenient happenstance in Paul’s day that he was able to utilize that as an analogy? Did culture and Paul’s purposes here just happen to merge because long hair, which is visually similar to a covering, happened to be a gender distinction and matter of shame and propriety for women in Paul’s setting? Does the ability to draw the analogy from the visual similarities of the hair and covering seem too convenient? If φύσις (“nature”) is understood from biology, the analogy was possible for Paul to utilize not by the convenience of the cultural moment but by design. Therefore, would it follow that visual similarity is not the analogy but the function?

Response: This line of inquiry seems to be looking for precision of meaning that is not explicit in the text. Whether visual or functional comparison or both served the intent of Paul’s point, in mid-first-century Corinth it was not necessarily just one to the exclusion of the other, i.e., respectable women customarily wore long hair with some type of headdress (cultural variation of styles notwithstanding) and respectable men customarily had short hair and no artificial covering, whether visual, perceptually functional, or both. This was no more “a convenient happenstance” than Jesus using the analogy of different types of soil affecting planted seeds. The Lord employed imagery already familiar to his listening audience, and Paul employed what was already familiar to his Corinthian reading audience to illustrate the point he wanted them to understand.  

Even if 1 Cor. 11:2-16 had never been penned, hair length and head-coverings still communicated the same thing in ancient Corinth. It wasn’t merely “too convenient” any more than the kiss-greeting was already customary in ancient Corinth (and elsewhere) when Paul gave directives about the “holy kiss,” or that feet-washing was already customary in ancient eastern cultures when Jesus used it as an object lesson (which some have interpreted as a binding religious ritual). Paul’s arguments are based on cultural design rather than biological design. Otherwise, why were men created with the natural ability to grow long hair? 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² The American Academy of Dermatology at one time published this finding, but it has since been removed from the site <Link>, presumably due to current transgender debates.

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings: Questions & Criticisms Part 1, Part 2, Part 4

 

Image credit: https://www.thoughtco.com/roman-dress-for-women-117821

Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms (Part 2 of 4)

Question #1: For those ignoring or dismissing the biblical requirement of women covering their heads in Christian assemblies today (1 Cor. 11:2-16), isn’t this a rejection of a straightforward reading of the text, subverting its clear teaching, and rationalizing disobedience?

Response: There is a considerable difference between a straightforward reading of the actual text, and a straightforward reading of a particular English translation of the text. Compare, for example, the respective renderings of 1 Cor. 11:16 in the ASV and the NASB, which set forth opposite, conflicting statements. Both cannot be correct. I have encountered individuals who apparently have their minds made up and attempt to explain each rendering to fit the position they have already embraced. But a more thorough investigation is necessary to discern what the inspired writer actually said before we can ascertain what he meant by what he said (in its original context).¹

A number of English versions have significantly altered the passage with unnecessary added words, mistranslation, paragraph headings, and interpretive commentary, not to mention the abundance of additional sources that promote further misconceptions. To insist that an artificial headdress is a biblical mandate for all women in all churches of all time not only misses the occasional nature of Paul’s letter and what it actually says and doesn’t say but seems to be reading the text through ahistorical interpretive lenses (see Part 1). 

Question #2: Female head-coverings in churches were practically universal until modern-day feminist movements, so it wasn't until fairly recent times that the head-covering went out of vogue and primarily in the West. How can we so readily dismiss a position held by the majority of Christendom for the past 2,000 years? 

Response: Historically both Christian and non-Christian women wore head-coverings, the former not only in church assemblies but generally in public, so consistency ought to accompany this line of reasoning. We should be wary of overgeneralizations about all churches in every culture worldwide since the apostolic age, seeing that head-coverings were not distinct among Christian women in all places through the centuries against their cultural environment.

In societies where head-coverings were not customary (e.g., African tribes, Pacific Island cultures, etc.), converts to Christianity have no doubt been influenced by the interpretations and cultural influences of European missionaries. In the North American culture of the 1950s, it was fashionable for women to wear hats, although it wasn’t considered inappropriate or shameful for a woman not to wear a hat. During this period in this particular cultural setting, sporting a hat as a fashion trend was very different than (and irrelevant to) the intended purpose of Paul’s message to the mid-first-century Greco-Roman readers of 1 Corinthians. 

     Irrespective of what people may or may not have believed and practiced through the ages, the crux of the matter is what Paul intended to communicate to his Corinthian audience, what he actually said, and how they would have understood the message in the context in which it was written. This cannot be adequately discerned without considering the real-life setting in which these directives were initially given, involving not only head-coverings and hair length, but also Greco-Roman idolatry, the preponderance and function of pagan temples, eating sacrificial meats, empire-wide slavery, miraculous gifts, et al. 

Question #3: Female head-coverings (at least in the assembly) have been understood through the ages to be binding, so wouldn’t it have been sinful when women first started removing them? As long as head-coverings are not worn by women (in the assembly), isn’t this blatant rebellion against God’s will?

Response: The question assumes Paul’s head-covering discussion constitutes a universal mandate for all churches of all time rather than a dialogue with a particular congregation grappling with its own questions and problems in a specific historical-sociocultural environment. Would the same reasoning apply to other culturally-relevant exhortations in 1 Corinthians? These addressees also practiced the customary kiss-greeting, and Paul instructs them to continue the practice in a holy manner (1 Cor. 16:20). Were Christians sinning whenever they stopped kissing each other and started shaking hands or hugging, and do we continue to disobey if we don’t practice the ancient Mediterranean kiss-greeting?  

How should we interpret other contextually-qualified directives, like, “Were you called as a slave?” (7:21a); “for if anyone sees you having knowledge eating in an idol’s temple …” (8:10); “but if anyone might say to you, ‘This is offered to an idol,’ do not eat …” (10:28); “be without offense both to Jews and Greeks …” (10:32); “Every man … prophesying …” (11:4); “every woman … prophesying …” (11:5); “eagerly desire the spiritual [gifts], but especially that you may prophesy” (14:1)?²

Question #4: If one rejects the biblical practice of women wearing head-coverings in Christian assemblies today, isn’t this explaining away and therefore negating biblical doctrine? 

Response: This line of reasoning, which assumes a particular article of female attire is divinely enjoined, impugns either the competency or the moral integrity of those who have reached a different conclusion, unlikely to generate productive dialogue. Nevertheless, lacking additional biblical information, it is a mistake to wrest a local directive from the circumstances in which it was given and transform it into a universal decree. Without questioning the competency or moral integrity of those who may disagree, it boils down to a matter of hermeneutics. What methodology is being employed to interpret and apply the scriptures? I have major reservations about conclusions drawn and decisions made without having seriously considered the full range of contextual factors. 

     Charismatics have accused me of negating the biblical doctrine of tongue-speaking, but I regard their assessment as misguided. We should always strive to understand the original intent and application of any passage of scripture and avoid misappropriation. To affirm that the wearing or not wearing of a head-covering is a matter of personal liberty [ἐξουσία] and not a collective work of the church neither explains away nor negates any valid biblical doctrine. 

Question #5: It is impossible to understand the cultural practices of first-century Corinth involving hair length and head-coverings, because so many sources give conflicting information. Therefore, shouldn’t we just stick to what the Bible says rather than relying on historical-cultural information that we can’t be certain about?

Response: The sources that conflict with one another (and there are many!) are mostly secondary sources (commentaries, encyclopedia articles, etc.).³ If we consider primary sources (ancient contemporary works) that are most relevant to the context of 1 Corinthians as per time, place, and genre, there is greater uniformity.⁴ 

Question #6: To insist on learning ancient history to understand the Bible implies that the Bible isn’t enough by itself. What other biblical teachings would require knowledge of historical-cultural information in order to understand them? 

Response: To name a few: feet washing, laying on of hands, oil anointing, kiss-greeting, braided hair, Aramaic in the NT, Hellenists, synagogues, Herodians, the Roman Empire, et al. Why wouldn’t a serious Bible student want to know as much as possible about whatever is relevant to the Bible? 

     In 1 Corinthians Paul is responding to reports he has heard and questions he has been asked (1:11; 7:1; 11:18; 16:17). While the mid-first-century disciples at Corinth already knew what the issues and questions were, the best we can do is to draw inferences, with less specificity, from Paul’s responses. We only get to hear one side of the conversation. Paul repeatedly reminded his original readers, either directly or rhetorically, of what they already knew or should have known (5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24; 12:2). 

     We were not present to hear all that the apostle and his coworkers had taught in person (3:2; 4:17) or in previous correspondence (5:9), so we cannot demand, force, or expect precision of meaning that is just not in the biblical text. Even so, as modern-day interpreters we are advantaged by having access to God’s complete revelation that helps fill in gaps of assumed knowledge (albeit without comparable head-covering legislation), supplemented by a wealth of historical data. Pertinent information at our disposal should not be disregarded if it helps to understand the text as the first readers would have understood it. The alternative is trying to figure it out from a 21st-century westernized perspective, far removed from the original setting and the inspired writer’s initial purpose.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Female Head-coverings (Part 1): Translation,” Moore Perspective (8 June 2013), <Link>.

     ² Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ³ Be aware of conflicting claims like the following: 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)???

    ⁴ For more 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.

 

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings: Questions & Criticisms Part 1, Part 3, Part 4

Image credit: https://myloview.com/poster-continuous-one-line-drawing-of-woman-with-earphone-girl-listening-no-A3AC6DF