A friend asked me what I thought about some of passages in the Bible regarding women that she said we don't follow anymore. A few examples:
1 Cor 11:5. "... Every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven."
1 Tim 2:9. “… Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire…"
1 Cor 14:34,35. "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but a should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
What is going on here? Does God have something against women? The answer, of course, is no. God created both man and woman. That's not the issue. The issue is one of contextualisation.
Recently I listened to a lecture series by Dr Mark Strauss of Bethel Seminary and he gave a very insightful lecture on contextualisation. He used the metaphor of a bridge. I'll try and do justice and explain it.
Understanding the Bible is like trying to cross a bridge. On one side is us and on the other side is the biblical writer. Between us there is a chasm. We need to build a bridge and cross over to get to the meaning that the writer originally intended. This is the process of exegesis. But that's only half the process because we have to cross back over to our side, bringing along with us useful and relevant application of the biblical truth. This process we called contextualisation.
Contextualisation means that we do not imitate biblical culture exactly. I know that seems to be going against what believers try to achieve but think about it for a moment. We need to recognise that not every passage in the Bible was meant to be applied to all believers for all time. Take for example Exodus 29:38 where it says, “Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two lambs a year old day by day regularly." It's obvious we don't obey this today.
How about Deut 21:18-21a which says, “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones." We definitely don't obey that one!
What about 1 Peter 5:14 where it says, "Greet one another with the kiss of love." Do we obey this command to the letter and kiss each other when we meet? Are we bad Christians if we don't? Or how about this: "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." (1 Tim 5:23.) What if I don't like wine?
And when it comes to imitating Jesus, do we follow everything that he did? John 13:12 says, "When he [Jesus] had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you?" When was the last time you washed someone else's feet?
I think it's pretty obvious from these examples that imitating biblical culture exactly isn't the way to go. How then should we handle Scripture? The principle we need to remember is that some passages in the Bible are meant to be applied for all time and some for a particular cultural context.
We therefore need proper contextualisation. How do we do this? Here are four steps.
1. Proper contextualisation begins with sound exegesis. A text cannot mean what it never meant. The application has to be drawn directly from the meaning of the text. When we read a text, we should ask ourselves:
- What is the original intent?
- What is the historical and cultural setting?
- What did the text mean in its original context?
2. The second principle of proper contextualisation is that all Scripture is authoritative. In other words, no word of Scripture is to be regarded as less than any other. Having recognise that, we then need to look at a command and ask: is the command inherently moral? Moral is directly related to the character of God and not based on culture or external facts. The question is how to apply a moral command to our context.
3. Scripture can be applied at the surface level or the principle level. Let's look at 1 Peter 5:14 again: “Greet one another with the kiss of love.” What's the principle behind this verse? It is to show Christian affection to one another. In Peter's time, kissing was a sign of familial love. He is commanding us to show brothers and sisters in Christ the same love we show family members. How do we show familial love today? A hug perhaps? A warm greeting? Genuine concern for their well-being? That is what Peter commanded us to do with fellow believers. Treat each other like family members.
4. To apply correctly, we must distinguish between the cultural which is relative and the supercultural which is absolute. In other words, is it a biblical command for all time or just for that time and culture?
Now let's take a look at one of the verses about women. 1 Cor 11:5, "... Every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven."
In Paul's time, a married woman who uncovered her head in public would have brought shame to her husband. The action may have connoted sexual availability or may simply have been a sign of being unmarried. Aha! Do you see what a difference context plays in understanding the intent behind Paul's command? In the culture of the day, married women covered their heads. Even brides-to-be covered their heads to signal that they were spoken for. To be married and to walk around with an uncovered head was to be brazen. This is clearly not true today (at least in most parts of the world). In addition, a shaven head was considered shameful for a woman in first-century Corinth and long hair was considered a woman's "glory".
So what is the modern equivalent? Standards vary but in some cultures married women would wear rings to indicate they are married. But it's not about the ring. Paul is saying that married women should behave married and not lead men into thinking they were not. That's the all-time command that spans time and culture and so the application for us is not to focus on head covering but on modesty.
What about 1 Tim 2:9. “… Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire…"
In the Greek culture of the time, women flaunted their wealth and sexuality with braided hair piled high on their heads. Woven into their hair were pearls and gold jewellery. Moreover, they decked themselves out in expensive clothes. Paul was instructing women to be more modest and avoid such displays of wealth and vanity.
So being modest is the moral command. The equivalent today would be don’t wear midriff-bearing clothes, or short suggestive skirts or come into service looking like you spent a million dollars getting dressed. Be modest.
Now let's look at 1 Cor 14:34, 35. "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but a should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
To get a better handle on this verses, we need to back up and start at verse 26. Paul was trying to establish order in the church services conducted at Corinth. He disapproved of a rowdy and out-of-control service. He gave instructions to those who spoke in tongues (vv 27, 28) and then he gave similar instructions to those who had the gift of prophecy (vv 29-33). The directions were similar: only two or three with prophecies could speak at each service, if they were more who wanted to share, they had to wait for another occasion. For tongues, he also wanted someone who could interpret the tongue to be present. If no one who was there could interpret, then it was better not to let the person speak.
Almost in the same breath, Paul immediately goes on to instruct women not to speak. Now we know Paul permits women to pray and prophesy. He implies this in 1 Cor 11:5 and 13. Now, taking into context what he just instructed about having a peaceful service dedicated to building one another up in the Lord, it would seem he is simply forbidding women to speak up and judge prophecies. In fact, the phrase "their husbands" in verse 35 seems to indicate Paul was referring just to married women. Under the Law, they ought to submit themselves to their husbands and let him, as the spokesperson for the family, be the speaker. (Compare this to 1 Cor 7:34 where Paul says a single woman can be concerned about the things of the Lord but a married woman is mostly concerned about husband and family. Paul clearly in that section has equal regard for single men and women.)
So what is the moral imperative here? It is Paul’s desire that any gathering should serve to strengthen others in their faith and it’s not an occasion to show off one’s spiritual gifts.
As we can see, contextualisation helps in bringing relevant understanding to so-called difficult passages of Scripture. We need to first cross that bridge and understand what the biblical writer intended to say, then we need to bring back a relevant message and apply it in our lives.
