The Sociocultural Context of the New Testament (Part 4): Individualism Vs. Collectivism

A notable difference between our contemporary westernized culture and ancient Mediterranean societies concerns the individual in relation to the group. Autonomy, individualism, personal identity, personal belongings, personal space, self-esteem, self-determination, and self-sufficiency are all highly valued and embraced in our world. But in the world of the New Testament (like many non-western cultures today), consideration of the group takes precedence. 

Someone from an individualistic society (like N. America), privately reading Ephesians 6:10-18 in English translation, is more likely to interpret the second-person pronouns as singular and assume the paragraph is about how an individual Christian is to guard against Satan’s personal attacks. But is this how the passage was originally intended and received? Second-person terminology in reference to the reading audience is plural throughout the entire epistle, with much emphasis on “the church” as a whole (1:18, 22-23; 2:16, 19-22; 3:6, 10, 15, 18, 21; 4:4, 12, 16; 5:3, 23-32; 6:18), as well as “one another” (4:2, 25, 32; 5:19, 21). Irrespective of personal struggles each Christian might experience, this passage is about the spiritual warfare we all face together in a collaborative effort. See Putting on God's Whole Armor.

The primary emphasis in idiosyncratic religious cultures tends to be placed on personal salvation, with religion often viewed as a private experience. Yet a key term in God’s salvific plan is ekklēsia (“church”), occurring about 114 times in the Greek New Testament and always referring to a collectivity of people.¹ The reciprocal pronoun allēlōn (“one another”) is found no less than 100 times and simply cannot apply to one person. Despite the modern inclination to think of the individual Christian as being “in Christ,” the biblical emphasis is mutual inclusion in Christ (cf. Gal. 1:22b; Eph. 1:1-14; 1 Thess. 2:14). Penitent baptized believers enter Christ and abide in him as part of and inseparably linked to his emblematic body—the basis of unity among all faithful disciples (Rom. 6:3; 12:5, 10, 12; 1 Cor. 12:13-14, 20, 27; Gal. 3:26-28; Eph. 5:23).

While individual conversions are documented in the New Testament,² these are almost always special circumstances rather than the norm. We mostly read of group responses,³ including households.⁴ The book of Acts gives much more attention to corporate evangelism, reporting outreach efforts both publicly and “from house to house” (5:42; 20:20). 

W. A. Meeks goes too far by suggesting the “centrality of the household … shows our modern, individualistic conceptions of evangelism and conversion to be quite inappropriate” (First Urban Christians 77). This criticism fails to appreciate the fundamental concept of contextualization and the need to adapt one’s approach to the circumstances (see 1 Cor. 9:19-23). In addition to group evangelism (Acts 17:1-4), Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy worked with individuals in Thessalonica, while bringing them all together in a unified entity: “Just as you [all] know how each one [héna ékaston] of you [all], as a father his own children, [we were] exhorting and comforting and charging you [all] to walk worthily of God, who calls you [all] into his own kingdom and glory” (1 Thess. 2:11-12).⁵ 

Each person is accountable to God,⁶ and the gospel is to be obeyed on an individual basis,⁷ irrespective of how many others may or may not respond. Nonetheless, every baptized believer is expected to look beyond self as part of a larger community of God’s people (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 10:24; Phil. 2:4; Heb. 3:13; 1 Pet. 4:10). 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The noun ekklēsia essentially means ‘”called out [ones],” in most NT uses in reference to the community of the saved. In secular Greek this term was applied to a political body assembled to conduct the affairs of the state (Acts 19:39; Josephus, Ant.12.164; 19.332) or to any general gathering (Acts 19:32, 40; 1 Macc. 3.13; Sir. 26.5). In the LXX it was regularly used to translate qahal in reference to the assembly of the Israelites, especially when gathered for religious purposes (Deut. 31:30; Judg. 20:2; cf. Heb. 2:12; Acts 7:38; Josephus, Ant. 4.309). J. Murphy-O’Connor insists that any contemporary of Paul would have understood this term in a secular, political sense (Letter-Writer 50). But G. D. Fee argues that the word ekklēsia was ready-made for the Christian communities because “Paul saw the church not only as in continuity with the old covenant people of God, but as in the true succession of that people” (First Corinthians 31-32; Paul, the Spirit 65). See The Church of the NT.

     ² Acts 8:38; 9:18; [13:7, 12?]; 18:26; cf. Rom. 16:5.

     ³ Acts 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 8:12-13; 9:35, 42; 11:21; 13:43, 48; 14:21; 17:4, 11-12, 34; 18:8b; 19:5, 18; see also Acts 2:47; 6:7; 9:31; 19:26.

     ⁴ Acts 10:24, 48; 11:14; 16:15, 33-34; 18:8a; 1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15; cf. Phil. 4:22; 2 John 1-4.

     ⁵ Author's own translation, emp. added. While Christianity is very much a communal religion (1 Thess. 3:12; 4:9, 18; 5:11), inclusive of “all” the redeemed (1 Thess. 1:2, 7; 3:13; 4:10; 5:5, 26, 27), there is also the responsibility, contribution, and involvement of “each” member of the church (1 Thess. 2:11; 4:4; cf. Acts 20:31). Due to the collectivist nature and accompanying pressure of the surrounding culture, perhaps these subtle allusions to individuality serve to promote a more balanced perspective.

     ⁶ Matt. 16:27; 18:35; 25:15; Rom. 2:6; 14:5, 12; 1 Cor. 3:8, 13; 4:5; 7:17, 20, 24; 12:11; 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 6:4-5; Eph. 4:16, 25; 6:8; 2 Thess. 1:3; Heb. 3:13; 6:11; Jas. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 2:23; 6:11; 20:13; 22:12.

     ⁷ Acts 2:38; 3:26; 1 Cor. 7:24; Eph. 4:7; cf. Acts 17:27.

Related Posts: Sociocultural Context Part 1: Introduction, Part 2: Honor vs Shame, Part 5: Households and Slavery, Part 6: House Churches, Part 7: Hospitality

Image credit: https://starofmysore.com/communal-harmony-one-kilometre-long-human-chain-formation-jan-30/

The Bible’s Radical View on Women

From her earliest days a girl in contemporary western society is bombarded with images, characterizations, advice, and expectations about how she’s supposed to look, think, and act. Of course we should all be aiming for mutual respect, fairness, and recognition of intrinsic value. But the ideology of gender equality, while reacting to woeful abuses, can veer to an unhealthy extreme. Fundamental differences between the sexes are now being blurred or denied. Masculinity is demonized, as militant feminism dictates popular opinion. 

In such an atmosphere the biblical model of gender roles is dismissed outright or modified to conform to modern sensibilities. Conservative Christian ideals are attacked and ridiculed as archaic and misogynistic. But may I suggest a more reasonable approach? What if we read the Bible in context? What if we consider the intended message of scripture? How would biblical directives have been received and understood by those to whom they were originally addressed? By removing our tainted 21st-century westernized spectacles and viewing scripture as the good news it was meant to be, we will have a much clearer perspective. 

The Context of the Bible 

The Bible emerged in an ancient Mediterranean environment. While its message is timeless, each inspired author through whom the divine will has been conveyed (and targeted audience) lived in a particular historical-sociocultural-real-life setting. To better appreciate the true state of affairs, we need to examine these teachings in view of the general plight of women in antiquity. 

The Greek Context

Among the Greeks, females were considered by nature inferior to males and hardly afforded any rights (see Aristotle, Politics 1.1259b). Since at least the early Classical period (5th century BC), boys attended school but girls did not. The “education” of females was pretty much limited to the home, where only domestic duties were learned.¹ Violence was endemic in Greek society, so men were valued as fighters. Women were valued for reproduction and as a means of demonstrating male control through physical abuse.²

The Roman Context

Since the early Roman Republic, a female was under the authority and control of her father or husband and deemed incapable of acting for herself. An educated woman was the exception rather than the rule.³ The choice of whether or not to have children was not hers to make, and the husband decided whether to keep or discard a newborn. Many baby girls were exposed to the elements simply because they couldn’t carry on the family name.⁴ A culture of violence against women was not uncommon in Rome, especially among those outside the socially elite.⁵

The Jewish Context

A very different scenario emerges in ancient Judaism, although we need to distinguish between what was taught in their sacred writings and what was sometimes practiced.⁶ Jewish law elevated women to a unique status. Any injustice, contempt, or maltreatment was contrary to and in violation of the divine will. Israelite women were not second-class citizens to be suppressed and victimized. Wives, mothers, and widows were to be honored, protected, and treated with dignity and respect (Ex. 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16; 10:18; 27:16; Psa. 146:9; Prov. 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-31; et al.). 

Sons and daughters alike were educated in their respective households (Deut. 6:6-7; 11:19). During and after the Babylonian exile, synagogues functioned as schools, where both boys and girls attended from age 5 or 6; girls continued until marriage at a relatively young age.⁷ Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a good example of an educated Jewish young lady. In her song recorded in Luke 1:46-55, she quotes and alludes to copious passages from all three sections of the Hebrew Bible. Thanks to the biblical knowledge and faith of a Jewish mother and grandmother, Timothy learned the holy scriptures from childhood (1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 1:5). 

The Christian Context

Although the pivotal value of honor vs. shame was firmly embedded in the male-dominated Greco-Roman world,⁸ the NT consistently challenges society’s status quo and reconfigures the boundaries of honor and shame. All who might be dishonored because of ethnicity, social standing, or gender can now be unashamed in Christ, where no one is considered inferior to anyone else (1 Cor. 12:12-27; Gal. 3:26-29; Col. 3:9-11). In this regard NT writers are seen as deviants and radicals, swimming against the current of popular culture. 

The “Controversial” Passages

Bible students and most Bible critics are familiar with the apostle Paul’s directives to the mid-1st-century church at Corinth: “the women are to keep silence in the assemblies, for it is not allowed for them to publicly speak but to be in submission … but if they desire to learn anything …” (1 Cor. 14:34-35a).⁹ A similar prohibition is included in Paul’s letter to the young evangelist in mid-1st-century Ephesus: “Let a woman learn in quietness, in all submissiveness. But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness” (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Historically these passages have been interpreted in at least four different ways. (1) Paul is a confirmed chauvinistic woman-hater (John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism 100-101). (2) A pseudepigrapher is responsible for these non-Pauline texts (James Veitch, Faith for a New Age 165-66). (3) The directives are culturally limited and no longer relevant to modern times (Glenn Rogers, The Bible Culturally Speaking 196-214). (4) Distinct gender roles are divinely enjoined with ongoing applicability (F. LaGard Smith, Male Spiritual Leadership 252-64). 

A Contextual Approach

What would instructions like this have communicated to a Christian woman in mid-1st-century Corinth or Ephesus? Seeing that she would have heard the document read aloud in the corporate assembly, this in itself is quite remarkable. In the pagan world women were isolated from most public gatherings.¹⁰ In the fellowship of Jesus Christ they are welcomed into the church where social, ethnic, and gender differences remain, yet barriers are removed (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2-11; 12:12-13; 14:23a; 15:1-2; 1 Tim. 5:1-2).

Modern readers, perhaps with embarrassment or consternation, tend to hone in on words like “silence,” “submission,” and “do not permit.” But in the 1st-century Greco-Roman environment of the early church, the same words would have seemed rather innocuous in relation to the radical appeal, “if they desire to learn anything …. let a woman learn …”¹¹ Talk about revolutionary! In their culture a woman wasn’t supposed to learn. Her intellectual capacity was questioned, educational prospects were rare, and she certainly wasn’t encouraged to pursue knowledge.¹² Contrary to the societal arena into which it entered, Christianity afforded women opportunities to learn and to be accepted (Acts 1:14; 2:41; 5:14; 8:12; 16:13-18; 17:4, 11-12, 34).

The Biblical Perspective

The Bible has consistently clashed with the secular world’s entrenched standards – past and present. The cultural pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, whereas the biblical model of male-female complementarity goes all the way back to creation and remains unchanged (Gen. 1:27; 2:18-23; 1 Cor. 11:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:13).

According to God’s design, men and women are not the same. There are about 100 gender differences in the human brain,¹³ not to mention anatomical, emotional, and a host of other distinctions any married couple can verify. Neither gender is superior to the other (Gal. 3:28; 1 Pet. 3:7). Both are equally valued and mutually dependent (1 Cor. 11:11; 12:18-25). And the Creator has assigned each a specific role (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33). 

The “silence” enjoined on women in the church assembly is no more demeaning than the silence enjoined on male tongue-speakers and prophets in the same assembly (1 Cor. 14:27-35). The “submission” of women is no more oppressive or devaluing than Christ’s submission to the Father (Phil. 2:5-8; 1 Cor. 15:28), the church’s submission to Christ (Eph. 5:23-24), the submission of church members to local leaders (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-5), or our mutual submission to one another (Gal. 5:13; Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:3). 

The oft-cited examples of women serving the Lord (e.g. Luke 2:36-38; John 4:28-29; 20:1-2; Acts 2:17-18; 21:9; Rom. 16:1-3; Phil. 4:2-3) are a far anachronistic cry from the modern concept of female authority figures. Christian activity is by no means limited to public leadership, and women are among the finest examples of faith, generosity, and service recorded in scripture.¹⁴ Men are not exempt from fulfilling their God-given role or from treating women with anything less than dignity, respect, and gratitude.

Conclusion

Suffice it to say that the true intent of any biblical text is rarely if ever discovered by agenda-driven hermeneutics. To claim the Bible is misogynistic and degrading toward women is to demonstrate ignorance of what it actually says in the context in which it is said. If scriptural teachings result in a woman experiencing shame, low self-esteem, or prideful envy, the Bible is not to blame. It is the ravenous influence of our sinful world that produces such a distorted perception. A godly woman with the Christ-like spirit of humility does not decry her gender assignment at birth or bemoan the special role God himself has allocated. Rather, she embraces her honored status and meekly devotes her unique qualities to HIS glory. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Aleksander Wolicki, “The Education of Women in Ancient Greece,” in A Companion to Ancient Education, ed. W. Martin Bloomer (W. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2015): 305-320.

     ² Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, “Domestic Abuse and Violence Against Women in Ancient Greece,” in Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour in Honour of Nick Fisher, ed. S. Lambert (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2011): 231-66.

     ³ William Smith, William Wayte, and G. E. Marindin, eds. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1890); E. A. Hemelrijk, “The Education of Women in Ancient Rome,” in A Companion to Ancient Education, ed. W. Martin Bloomer (W. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2015): 292-304.

     ⁴ Jo-Ann Shelton, As the Romans Did (New York: Oxford, 1988): 27-28.

     ⁵ Serena S. Witzke, “Violence Against Women in Ancient Rome: Ideology versus Reality,” in Topographies of Ancient Greek and Roman Violence, eds. Garrett G. Fagan and Werner Riess (University of Michigan Press, 2015): 248-74.

     ⁶ When divorce became prevalent among the Israelites (Deut. 22:19, 29; Lev. 21:7, 13, 14), it was permitted only because of “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8), serving to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery (Deut. 24:1-4; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). In the Jewish Talmud, a written record of oral tradition, men offered the daily prayer: “Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman, or a slave” (Menachot 43b-44a). But this is not biblical.

     ⁷ Note the Mishnah: Judah ben Tema, Avot 5.21.

     ⁸ Literature on this is plethoric. See, e.g., B. J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology 3rd ed. (Louiville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001): xii, 27-57; B. J. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. J. H. Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991): 25-66; H. Moxnes, “The Quest for Honor and the Unity of the Community,” in Paul in His Hellenistic Context, ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995): 203-230; W. Mischke, “Honor-Status Reversal,” Orality Journal 4:1 (2015): 11-36.

     ⁹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. For a more thorough discussion of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, see Let the Women Keep Silent. For a more thorough discussion of 1 Tim. 2:11-12, see Jesus Couldn't Be a Priest.

     ¹⁰ A. Wolicki, op. cit. 310.

     ¹¹ Thanks to Derek McNamara for this insight at Freed-Hardeman University’s Scholars Day, 26 Oct. 2018. Craig L. Blomberg calls our attention to “what would have stood out to the initial readers as unique and therefore distinctively Christian. One thinks, for example, of the conventional commands to slaves, children, and women to submit to those in authority over them as compared with the highly countercultural calls to masters, fathers, and husbands to love and serve those under them and to use their authority in a sacrificial, self-giving way” (Handbook of NT Exegesis 104).

     ¹² See also Gary K. Clabaugh, “A History of Male Attitudes toward Educating Women,” Educational Horizons (Spring 2010): 166-69, <Link>; Mark Cartwright, “Women in Ancient Greece,” Ancient History Encyclopedia (27 July 2016), <Link>; Craig Keener, “Women’s Education and Public Speech in Antiquity,” JETS 50/4 (Dec. 2007): 747-50 <Link>. Keener observes, “men normally being more educated than women should be clear to anyone who reads through ancient literature and not just collections of exceptions” (748 n. 4).

     ¹³ Gregory L. Jantz, “Brain Differences Between Genders,” in Psychology Today (27 Feb. 2014), <Link>. See also Leonard Sax, "A New Study," in Psychology Today (27 March 2019), <Link>.

     ¹⁴ In the NT alone, see, e.g., Matt. 9:20-22; 15:22-28; 27:55-56; 28:1-10; Mark 12:41-44; 14:8-9; Luke 1:28-30; John 4:28-30, 39-42; Acts 1:14; 2:17-18; 5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:2, 36; 17:4, 12, 34; 17:11-12; 16:13-18, 40; 21:9; 22:4; Rom. 16:1-4, 6, 12; 1 Cor. 7:34; 11:5; Phil. 4:2-3; 1 Tim. 5:5, 10; 2 Tim. 1:5; Tit. 2:3; Heb. 11:11, 23, 31; 1 Pet. 3:3-5; 2 John 1. 

Related posts: A Woman's Service in the Church, Noah and Her Sisters, Sarah Andrews, Phoebe: Servant of the Church, Prisca & Aquilla, Andronicus & Junia(s) 

Related articles: Hans Fiene’s Toxic Masculinity; Wes McAdams’ People Demeaning Women; Helen Hennig's A high school student speaks out on feminism; Kyle Butt's Biblical View of Women; Tyler Boyd's Do Paul's Instructions Apply?; Patrick Swayne's Submission is a Two-Way Street 

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1276&bih=688&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=y650XJfDJvzI0PEP29Ot0A0&q=shocked+face&oq=shocked&gs_l=img.1.2.0i131i67j0j0i67j0l7.165515.167719..170573...0.0..0.157.1075.0j7......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.d5Y6pTlncXU#imgrc=P47JdULKcjHHAM:

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, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

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