fbpx

Navigate / search

Sources, Sources…What are your Sources?

Sources, Sources…Where are your Sources?
bible-transparent

Our Bible is a historical book. It was written thousands of years ago, by many different people who lived in many different regions. Since there are thousands of years that separate us from the Biblical events, Christians will always have a need to understand the past. Though it can be abused, understanding historical settings, cultures and geography can be immensely helpful to us in understanding our Bibles.

When a historical claim is made, biblical commentators usually add a footnote to alert the reader to where they found that information. After all, the commentator didn’t live in Biblical times so the ONLY way they can know about a past time or culture is if they have a historical source (written or archaeological). Sources help us determine what is true about the past and they help us to reject mere speculation and conjecture. Read more

Share via

What Did Ambrosiaster Believe About Head Covering?

Head Covering: Church History Profiles

[Series introduction: This post is part of a series that examines what certain leaders in church history believed about head covering. Their arguments, choice of language and conclusions should not be misconstrued as an endorsement from us. The purpose of this series is to faithfully show what they believed about covering rather than only selectively quoting the parts we agree with.]

Ambrosiaster (4th century) is the name given to the anonymous author of the earliest complete Latin commentary on the thirteen epistles of Paul. The commentaries were thought to have been written by Ambrose throughout the Middle Ages, but their authorship was challenged by Erasmus, whose arguments have proved decisive. Writing during the pontificate of Damasus (366-384), he is a witness to Nicene orthodoxy and often offers comments that reflect his knowledge of how the church had changed from the time of the apostles to his own day. His commentaries offer us insight into the thinking of a pre-Reformation church leader.
Ambrosiaster

Though we don’t know the identity of Ambrosiaster, his commentary gives us access into the mind and beliefs of a 4th century Christian theologian. We’re able to see that head covering had adherents and defenders from the early church and we can see how someone from that era understood Paul’s reasoning in the text. Since Ambrosiaster provides a line-by-line commentary of 1 Corinthians 11, we have a more complete picture of how he understood this doctrine.

First we see that Ambrosiaster was a complementarian. He understood that the structure of authority given in 1 Cor 11:3 did not indicate value or worth, but function. He said “Man is greater than she is by cause and order, not by substance”. The woman should not “be upset because of her state of subjection” and the man should not think “that he has some exalted position”. Read more

Share via

What About Men Like Samson Who Had Long Hair?

Head Covering Objections
The Objection: When Paul said that long hair on a man is disgraceful he must have being speaking about how it was viewed through the eyes of Corinthian culture. He couldn’t have been speaking about all men as those who took the Nazirite vow (like Samson) had long hair and that was approved by God.
Samson

Some object to the view that long hair should be worn only by women due to the fact that some men in the Bible had long hair too. Samson, a “Nazirite to God from the womb” (Judg 13:5) is one such example. His mother was told by an Angel of the LORD that “no razor shall come upon his head” (Judg 13:5). So if the Angel of the LORD told Samson’s mother that he was never to cut his hair, how can Paul say long hair on a man is disgraceful (1 Cor 11:14)? It’s a really good question. I believe this tension can be relieved by understanding that if God commands an exception for a specific purpose, it does not nullify the normal natural order. We can safely arrive at this harmonization by seeing God do this other times in the Scriptures. He has many times, for a specific purpose, told his people to do something that He is against. Let’s take a look at two such examples right now. Read more

Share via

What about Women Who Can’t Grow Their Hair Long?

Head Covering Objections
The Objection: It is not natural for all women to have long hair. Many women cannot grow their hair long even if they wanted to. Since entire people groups (African women for example) could leave their hair uncut and it still be short, it’s unfair to say all women should have it long.

It is often pointed out that some women don’t possess the ability to grow their hair long. If that is so, how can we say it’s natural for them to have long hair? First it’s important to establish that by “long hair” we don’t mean that all women worldwide must wear their hair long according to Western standards. “Long” must be understood culturally in contrast to the length of mens short hairstyles. Just like dressing modestly, there are some outfits which clearly do not fit the label no matter the culture. Likewise, there are some hairstyles which couldn’t be called ‘long’ no matter where one lives. However, there is a fair amount of subjectivity to it as well. A North American definition of modest attire for example, will actually be seen as immodest in some middle-Eastern countries. Likewise, we must not import our definition of “long” to other people groups where the texture of their hair differs or their short/long styles don’t parallel ours.

A Broken Picture

Once we’ve allowed some flexibility with our definition of long, there still remains the fact that some women cannot grow their hair to a length that would be considered “long” in their culture. Read more

Share via

Will You Stand Alone?: A Call to Be the First to Cover

Will You Stand Alone?: A Call to Be the First to Cover

To stand alone is hard, real hard. It’s tough to go against the grain and be different. There is comfort and safety in numbers. No one wants to be stared at, looked down upon, laughed at or left out. No one wants to be the crazy, different person. For many women who are convinced head covering is for today, taking the leap to practice it alone is often the scariest part. “If only there were others” is their cry.

The Lone Dancer

I remember watching a TED talk a few years back about how a movement is started. Read more

Share via

What Did John Knox Believe About Head Covering?

Head Covering: Church History Profiles

[Series introduction: This post is part of a series that will examine what certain leaders in church history believed about head covering. Their arguments, choice of language and conclusions should not be misconstrued as an endorsement from us. The purpose of this series is to faithfully show what they believe about covering rather than only selectively quoting the parts we agree with.]

John Knox (1514-1572) was a Scottish clergyman and leader in the Protestant Reformation. With five other reformers, Knox wrote the Scottish Confession of Faith and established the Reformed Presbyterian church, known as the Church of Scotland.
John Knox

In 1558 John Knox penned “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women“. This work which he published anonymously was a fiery case that female rule is contrary to Biblical teaching. His letter was aimed at the female sovereigns of England and Scotland during his time.

In his writing he quotes extensively from the Bible and appeals to various leaders throughout church history. He does this to demonstrate that women having a subordinate position is Biblical and has been taught by Christians throughout the ages. In this work he briefly stops on 1 Corinthians 11 and also quotes from a defense of head covering by John Chrysostom. His purpose in quoting these sections is not to teach on covering, but to prove his central point that women shouldn’t rule. However, when we look at these quotations we can gain some insights on his own view of head covering. Read more

Share via

Are Appropriate Hair Lengths Dictated by Culture?

Head Covering Objections
The Objection: Appropriate hair lengths are dictated by culture, not nature. In many cultures long hair on men is normative such as the Native American Indians. When Paul mentioned ‘nature’ he was appealing to their cultural perception of what was right to them.

One objection to calling long hair unnatural for men is the fact that in many cultures it isn’t seen as offensive. One example often cited is the Native American Indians in which many men wore their hair long. If in some cultures it’s acceptable for men to wear long hair, how can we say nature teaches the opposite?

Right In Their Own Eyes

First it’s important to establish that just because a culture embraces something does not make it right. A good example are the Mosuo people of China where the heads of their households are women. Though they probably see this as right in their own eyes, it is not how God designed it to be. It is the opposite of God’s created order (1 Cor 11:3).

Was Long Hair on Men Shameful?

Another misconception is a wrong view of Paul’s own culture. Since Paul called long hair on men “dishonorable” (1 Cor 11:14) those who advocate a cultural view of hair lengths assume that long hair on men would have been seen as shameful. The problem with this view is that solid literary evidence suggests otherwise. Read more

Share via
Send this to a friend