A couple of years ago I was introduced, through Michael Heiser’s excellent “Naked Bible Podcast,” to a very convincing interpretive framework for Paul’s 1st Corinthians “head covering” passages. Below is a quoted section from the podcast shownotes (the papers in question and the podcast itself can be accessed here).
Martin summarizes his approach as follows: “This article interprets Paul’s argument from nature in 1 Cor. 11:13-15 against the background of ancient physiology. The Greek and Roman medical texts provide useful information for interpreting not only Paul’s letters but also other NT texts.” The article (and the author’s subsequent responses to criticism, also published in academic literature) presents a compelling case and is, to Dr. Heiser’s knowledge, the only approach that provides a coherent explanation as to why the head covering warnings are important, in the words of Paul “because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11:10). This warning ultimately takes readers back to the incident with the Watchers (sons of God) in Gen. 6:1-4. One of Martin’s concluding application thoughts is also important: “Since the physiological conceptions of the body have changed, however, no physiological reason remains for continuing the practice of covering women’s heads in public worship, and many Christian communities reasonably abandon this practice.” In other words, Paul’s rationale for what he says here is no longer coherent today — but his teaching points are (modesty, sexual fidelity). As such, wearing veils (in church or elsewhere) is a conscience issue, not a point of doctrine.
I’ll be straightforward: the idea that Paul’s admonition for women to cover their hair came from antiquated (and technically falsified) beliefs about physiology hit me pretty hard, as I hold a very high view of scripture, and as such its “inerrancy.” Adding this data point to my overall framework caused me to have to dig deeper, considering different ways to approach the subject to either retain my existing model as-is, or adapt it in a way that was intellectually honest, while retaining the highest view of scripture possible.
For the first time in my life, I had to face the same conundrum that I expect fundamentalist believers who become convinced of an Old Earth (and evolution) must face. Do I adapt my view of Scripture to conform to a new scientific consensus? Do I doggedly hold scripture to be “right” and modern science “wrong,” trusting that the consensus will shift as the scientific data is multiplied and the picture becomes more clear?
Or are those even the right questions? Am I missing another way to think about this subject—an altogether better, richer paradigm—that is consistent with all of the facts and produces an intellectually honest/satisfying outcome?
Now, as to the question of an Old Earth and the doctrine of biological evolution, it seems to me that the progress of scientific understanding has completely ruled out the need to “fit” those things with the Bible, such is the extent to which those ideas have been discredited. 50 years ago, when the jury was still out, a Bible believing Christian with a desire to be honest about the evidences present in the natural sciences would have had a harder time than I do now. Could it be that those who doggedly hold that scripture cannot ever utter words affirming a scientific view that does not correspond with demonstrable reality will be vindicated in the end in this instance, as well, just as they have with evolutionary theory and Old Earthism?
Suffice it to say: I still hold an impeccably high view of scripture. As for how I would describe my philosophical framework vis a vis inspiration these days… Frankly, I’m still working through how to articulate those conclusions. It may be that new data is on the horizon that changes the equation again, so I choose to hold fast to Scripture as it has been vindicated time and time (and time and time) again as to its claims. What would such vindication look like regarding this passage? Well, I cannot say what it WILL look like, but there are a variety of ways it COULD go—some of which I mention below.
That all said, I firmly believe that this data (on interpreting the passages according to ancient, “outdated” medical knowledge) needs to be presented for consideration in any debate about head coverings which make use of these passages. Therefore, when the topic was brought up in a theological Facebook group I float in, I linked to Dr. Heiser’s podcast for interested parties.
A subsequent challenge to the veracity of that viewpoint led me to share some thoughts I’ve developed, and it was enough typing that I’d hate for it to just disappear into the online ether. Hence, I’m reproducing it below via copy-and-paste, with names and any personal details redacted.
As I continue to think, and get older and wiser, I hope to be able to share a more systematically articulated viewpoint. This is what I have for now.
Questioner A:
I skimmed this article yesterday. An honest question about this thesis: if this interpretation is true, doesn’t it conflict with holding the Bible as inerrant?
Questioner B:
Questioner A, yeah. Those were my initial thoughts reading through it as well. Don’t get me wrong, I always appreciate the laboring they do over the text and history, but this would seem to imply that.
Thomas Lemke:
That’s the obvious question, isn’t it?
But I’m not convinced that it’s the right one. That said, I’m still working through the implications myself.
That said, one of the right questions about the head covering interpretation (being related to ancient beliefs about physiology) is: is it true? I think the evidence is strong that it is.
Another question one could ask is: is this ancient belief about physiology correct in some way that current scientific thought does not account for? If you’re as fed up with the hubris of modern scientism (particularly in the area of medicine) as I am, it’s tempting to think so, even if we would not articulate it the same way as the ancients when you get down to technical brass tacks.
Point being, there are a variety of ways we can react to this information. What we should not do is knee-jerk decide it can’t have any bearing on what Paul had in mind because the implications make us squeamish.
At the same time, scripture has been vindicated against doubters on all sides so many times through the ages, I choose to put my full trust in it to be vindicated one way or another in the end. What that looks like, I don’t know for sure.
I’ll try to offer some more thoughts later when I’m not blocking the grocery store aisle. Lol
Questioner A:
Thomas Lemke you’re right on the “is it true” question. If Christians can’t honestly examine Scripture, then our faith is a lie. However, there are unavoidable conclusions from this view.
What does it say about our God that such, if not psuedo-science, then certainly malarkey, was inspired by the Holy Spirit? What do we say when the knowledge of man outplayed Scripture? Perhaps the Catholics are right on the Bible?
I like your thought on Scripture being vindicated and the ancients knowing something we don’t. However, you can’t put that kind of hope in the passage and at the same time tell Christians not to abide by it. Either we can disregard the passage now or we trust that there’s something meaningful there, even if we don’t understand it.
Also, regarding exegesis, of this view is correct, 1 Cor 11:13-15 is a strange passage. Why would God put down a command to dress modesty in the most oblique fashion possible? Why would God go out of His way to tell people don’t be sexually provocative in church? Going off other passages on dressing modestly, doesn’t it obviously translate that you need to dress modestly in church as well?
Lastly, I’m incredulous that proper exegesis didn’t occur until 2018 on this passage. Surely, other theologians and scholars knew about this ancient medical belief. How did no one connect these dots before?
Please don’t take this as me being abrasive. I have some serious qualms with their conclusions, but mean no disrespect toward you or them. I look forward to reading your response!
Thomas Lemke
Nah, serious questions aren’t abrasive. Good on ya for asking them! A few thoughts now, and a few more to follow after work.
The black-and-white matrix on this looks like this:
1. It is true (that this was what informed Paul’s thinking/argument), and we accept it as true
2. It is false, but we accept it as true
3. It is true, but we accept it as false
4. It is false, and we accept it as falseGiven this set of choices, only 2 are acceptable for those who value truth. But if we zoom out, more choices become evident. For instance:
5. It is true, but we remain ambivalent
6. It is false, but we remain ambivalentIn the end, options 1 and 4 are still preferable, but if the data is not yet sufficient to show one of them as correct beyond reasonable doubt, then options 5/6 are justifiable.
What is not justifiable, given the data we do have, is having a debate about head coverings without acknowledging that this set of data exists. There are people with strong opinions on both sides who will argue vociferously about the matter, but cannot answer the question as to what Paul means by “because of the angels.” If Paul is basing his case on this “because,” then anyone arguing one way or the other should be able to present a compelling rationale for why, or else their case for or against head coverings using this passage should be rejected as baseless since it does not deal with the actual argument Paul is making in the text. Therefore, again, when debating this matter this data deserves attention – hence why I posted it in both places this has come up.
That said, we can turn back to our matrix and expand it even more with:
7. It is true, but not in an unqualified sense
8. It is false, but not in an unqualified senseAn example of 7 is what I gave last time. The thinking of “it is true” tends to be, “this ancient concept of physiology did inform Paul’s thinking/argument in this text, but science knows better now.” When qualified according to option 7 is becomes, “this ancient concept of physiology did inform Paul’s thinking/argument in this text, but though science purports to know better now, the concept holds true in some sense allowing Paul’s argument to still be coherent.”
I have money on 7, and not necessarily for the medical science example reason (though, who knows?), but because I am both convinced by the evidence that this physiology concept was on Paul’s mind, and I also hold an impeccably high view of scripture.
One last note for now, on your expressed incredulity that proper exegesis of this passage could have been so elusive for so long.
It used to be a popular interpretation that it was better to be against God than apathetic about Him, based on the letter to the Church in Laodicea found in the book of Revelation, where Christ holds hot and cold water to be tolerable, but lukewarm water worth spitting out. This was the interpretation I myself was given in confirmation class.
Laodicea and the surrounding areas were excavated relatively recently, and it was discovered that Laodicea had to get water from 2 other municipalities nearby, one with a hot water source, and one with cold water. Both of these sources were fresh water, as compared to water that sat in Laodicea, stagnant and lukewarm. Water that runs cold keeps microbes at bay, hot water kills them. Both are safe to drink, unlike the lukewarm stuff the Laodiceans would have known to avoid (and probably been familiar with the putrid taste of, that makes one want to spew).
In light of this, we see that the correct interpretation has more to do with good water (hot OR cold) and bad water (lukewarm), and reflects a dichotomy, not a tri-chotomy. As Jesus says in the gospels: he who is not with me, is against me – it is he who is spewed.
Exegesis is kinda like science, you gotta tweak your model a little bit when new data arises that doesn’t fit the existing one. And that’s ok. That realization doesn’t have to detract from a high view of scripture. Besides, the gospel is so abundantly clear and straightforward and understandable that the most important part of it all (and it’s not even close) has remained intact for lo these past 2 millennia.
This other stuff is just tweaking things on the periphery, for the most part.
Thomas Lemke:
Oh, another example of exegesis going off the rails is where most pastors use Matt 22 to preach about taxes and tithing. But that doesn’t affect the gospel at its core, so no huge deal.
Even if I do like making comics that razz them, like the one I put up today, LOL.
Thomas Lemke:
Couple things to listen to and process. I don’t claim to agree with the way Heiser puts everything, and I know I’ve been pimping him a lot, but he really is the clearest thinker on these issues who is both alive today and actually sharing his thoughts.
Start here.
Thomas Lemke:
Then go here.
It’s good you’re digging into this and asking these questions now, it’ll set you up for a very well-examined though process in the future.
Starting at 22 I had my assumptions from my religious upbringing that I just took for granted challenged hard, and it seems as though I’ve averaged 2 “earthquakes” a year where the framework of understanding I’d so tenderly and carefully built was shaken to the ground.
The foundation has always held, though, and I would commend the experience of rebuilding over and over again to others.
I’d like to think someday my school of hard knocks education of building will be useful to someone else. Yours could be, too.
Thomas Lemke:
I haven’t ended up having the time I thought I would tonight to give further musings, but let me at least address one statement you made and try to do more as I get more extended periods of time.
“Why would God put down a command to dress modesty in the most oblique fashion possible?”
This is where we have to remember that, while scripture was written for us, it was not written TO us. And no, this is not a distinction without a difference.
For the Corinthians, this passage was not oblique. In fact, one might assume that this was the best possible way to get the message across to them. The meaning would have been clear, easily apprehended, and easily retained thanks to the mnemonic qualities of Paul’s argument from the science of the day and the popular interpretation of Gen 6:1-4.
On what basis can we assert that the inspired text should have been slightly more oblique to its original recipients, but crystal clear to us moderns? Particularly when other exhortations to modesty do exist in scripture, from which we have derived a “doctrine of modesty” of sorts for our own use.
Again, it’s not to say that the argument could not have been worded differently by Paul, but the fact that he argued as he did convinces me that he, as someone who knew the Corinthians, deduced that they would find this more persuasive than other potential methods.
Similarly, Paul could have used other, more philosophically advanced proofs for the Creator God (such as we have now with the kalam cosmological argument [sp?]) when he stood before the Mars Hill assembly, but instead he chose sources close at hand that would have more swaying power for that people at that time.
More as I’m able.
Thomas Lemke:
A few more thoughts to finish up.
“What do we say when the knowledge of man outplayed Scripture?”
This is where we have to examine how we speak about Scripture. Do we say that God turned men into meat-typewriters to transcribe his thoughts, word-for-word? In which case, Paul as a meat-typewriter must have thrown off the Holy Spirit for a second and asserted independent thought?
Or would we say that Scripture is a “cooperative” act between human and divine, in some sense? And, if we accept that definition, then the assertion that “the knowledge of man outplayed scripture” becomes unintelligible, a false dichotomy of sorts.
For the matter of that, where does the original recipient(s) of the message factor in? Is God allowed to speak, through the inspired writer, in terms that communicate well to them, or is he restricted to language that we would prefer, 2000 years later? Can he make an inside joke that, say, the Corinthians would get, but we wouldn’t because we don’t live in 1st Century Corinth and weren’t at the table when the joke got started?
All that is to say, there’s more to the question of how we look at the dynamic of inspiration than often gets fair mention, and I fear our understanding can be flattened and, thus, needlessly challenged at times as a result.
“I like your thought on Scripture being vindicated and the ancients knowing something we don’t. However, you can’t put that kind of hope in the passage and at the same time tell Christians not to abide by it. Either we can disregard the passage now or we trust that there’s something meaningful there, even if we don’t understand it.”
I agree with this 100%.
“Also, regarding exegesis, of this view is correct, 1 Cor 11:13-15 is a strange passage. Why would God put down a command to dress modesty in the most oblique fashion possible?”
No more strange than many things we find on Christ’s lips in the Gospels. Why does Christ tell his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords in Luke’s account of the Last Supper? Hebraisms abound, because that’s the context of the events, and the writing about them.
But let’s be fair: rejecting the above linked interpretation does not make the “strangeness” of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 disappear, so we have to contend with this problem either way. See my previous comments on the “oblique” aspect for my thoughts on that.
“Why would God go out of His way to tell people don’t be sexually provocative in church? Going off other passages on dressing modestly, doesn’t it obviously translate that you need to dress modestly in church as well?”
Why would God have Ezekiel do weird pantomimed prophesies instead of just coming right out with it?
Besides, it wasn’t just a message about modesty, there was a vital theological point involved (woman submits to man submits to Christ submits to God) that Paul was illustrating with the head covering talk. So the better question might be, “why did God illustrate a theological point using the science of the day that was known to the Corinthians?”
I will submit that, when you ask the question like that, it tends to answer itself more easily.
And with that, I’m spent on the matter for now. I’m sure there are stones I’ve left unturned, so I will do my best to answer any follow ups you have as I’m able.
The post Thoughts on Scriptural Inspiration and Inerrancy appeared first on The Chi Files.