For anyone who has seen the third Spiderman movie, this is hilarious.

HT Dan Phillips

This post has long been in the pipeline (no pun intended).  In fact, I had written the first draft only a day before John Piper wrote about David Instone-Brewer’s work on divorce.  Then Andreas Kostenberger added his voice to the discussion.  So I wish to state I am not jumping on the bandwagon, merely carrying on with what I was intending to do anyway.

Quick Summary of John Piper’s Argument.

John Piper’s path to his present position on divorce and remarriage began from his desire to take Jesus’ words in Luke 16:18 seriously.  I appreciate that desire.  Unfortunately, his foundational assumption is that Jesus’ statement is absolute, i.e. any remarriage after divorce is adultery, with no exceptions.  It is that understanding that became the controlling thought for his exegesis.  That means that when he approaches other texts, Dr. Piper is not trying to find out what they say so much as how they fit into that initial statement.  That also means: prove an exception and the argument fails.

Now this is not an illegitimate way to study the Bible.  The idea that there is an overall consistency in the teaching of the Bible is an important part of evangelical studies.  However problems come if your understanding of one verse or passage blinds you to what other passages are actually saying.  This is what seems to happen when Dr. Piper approaches Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-12.  His intention is to try to find the chinks in these Matthean passages in order to fit it into Luke 16:18 and the like.  The result is an interpretation that does not faithfully communicate Jesus’ words in Matthew. Continue Reading »

A friend related recently how he didn’t want people to lie at his funeral.  After attending the funeral of a business associate and marvelling at the saintly and totally alien portrait the dead man’s family drew of deceased husband and father, he gave his wife specific instructions for his own funeral - no sugar-coating, let everything, good and bad, be remembered.

I didn’t realise how unwilling I am to look squarely at my faults.  There are many I’m happy to admit, but my reactions to things show that I’m not truly willing to see just how far from perfection I actually am.  At the moment, however, I seem to be going through another season of recognising how bad I am.  Lazy, lacking passion, theoretical without the practical (a dangerous combination) - it’s enough to make me despise myself!  But I’m getting better (and pray God will continue to get better) at remembering that Jesus is the basis of my self-esteem.  It’s a renewed experience of the gospel - Jesus loves me not because of what I have done, say or am, but just because he loves me and he has died on the cross to make all my shameful failings of no account.

This has meant I am better at admitting to myself the bad in myself, and the depth of that badness seems to be going deeper and deeper to the point where I’m recognising even my good points are really not worth a hill of beans.  This is comforting, and while it’s two steps forward and 1.99 steps back, I trust Jesus will continue to reveal my self-deception and be gracious enough to allow me continuous rest in his love and forgiveness.

[In the comments below, Andrew has alerted me to Bruce Winter's work on ancient culture which adds weight to the argument that headcoverings are a culturally bound command.  I haven't had time to have a good look, but in case you are interested, go to his ELF page and his Tyndale page.]

My position on headcoverings for quite some time has been: “I’m not sure why but I’m not sure why not”.  The common position amongst Churches today is that it is a cultural command.  I like the way Kathy Keller explained it, i.e., that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16* is still applicable and only needs translation into a culturally comprehensible form.  Exactly what that form might be, Kathy hadn’t yet figured out, but I was glad to hear her clearly state that the passage itself was not redundant.

However, I’m not convinced that the case for headcoverings being a cultural symbol is as easy a conclusion to come to as many think.  My reasons are as follows:

1. Normally, physical actions or objects with a symbolic meaning are considered to be culturally bound.  A number of these are found in the New Testament: the holy kiss, braided hair and jewelery, raising hands in prayer, short hair on men and long hair on women, foot washing, and of course, headcoverings.

Now, this is all very well, but my question is, What about baptism and the Lord’s Supper?  Both of these were culturally understood physical symbols in the New Testament.  Why should they not be put in the same category?  I am happy to agree that some of those physical actions/objects are culturally bound to New Testament times, but there needs to be a better explanation than merely the fact that they were physical symbols or else we have no reason to keep baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

2. Historically Roman men wore a covering over their head at prayer, Jewish men possibly did and Greek men didn’t.  There is also reputedly some variety among the everyday wear of headcoverings of women among these people groups.  This leads me to ask, If Paul was using a merely cultural symbol, which culture was he following?  And remember, in verse 16 he say all Churches everywhere follow the same headcovering tradition, so we cannot say he is following local customs.  He either chose one above the others for all churches everywhere, or he did not envisage headcoverings as a merely cultural symbol.

3. Paul links headcoverings very closely with the concept of headship.  While this is not necessarily proof that he did not consider headcoverings cultural, it does seem difficult to be able to use another symbol that has the such a close meaning to what is symbolised.

4. It is clear that headcoverings were to be used in a context of prayer and prophecy - most likely a weekly meeting.  There is no reference to outsiders.  The symbolism seems to be “in-house” in much the same way baptism and the Lord’s Supper symbolic meanings are “in-house” i.e. it is not necessary for the culture outside the Church to understand it or reflect it.

5. There is an appeal to Creation as a reason for headcoverings not to be worn by men and for authority to be specifically on a women’s head (not anywhere else).

6. Paul also appeals to the angels - not a culturally conditioned sort of reason.

7. Throughout history, comparative hair length for men and women has been fairly consistent.  A man has shorter hair than a woman; a woman longer hair than a man.  To have closely cropped hair or a shaved head is not considered appropriate for a woman.  Therefore, this reasoning still applies today.

The only thing that makes me consider that this may be a cultural symbol is the statement in verse 15 that says long hair is a woman’s covering.  The only way this statement makes sense to me at the moment is if Paul is thinking of hair long enough to cover a woman’s breasts.  (It is a different word for covering in the Greek, meaning “to wrap around”).  Certainly, while it’s always lovely to see hair that long on a woman, our culture does not necesitate that women wear hair that long.  That reasoning behind a woman wearing a headcovering, therefore, would seem cultural.  This doesn’t need to mean that a headcovering is a culturally bound symbol - especially in light of the other points - but it is something worth noting.  Besides, my understanding of that statement might be quite wrong.

Do I consider this a big deal?  No.  Whether headcoverings are a cultural symbol or not, they are still a symbol, and it is what they are a symbol of that is important.

*Sadly, the ESV departed from it’s translation policy of translating the ambiguity that is found in Greek into English in this passage.  In the heady rush of finding some evidence that headcoverings were worn by wives in Roman culture at the time of the New Testament, the translators decided to translate the Greek word gune as “wife” at some places and as “women” at others, and the Greek word aner as “husband” in verse 8 and “man” everywhere else.  The result is that you have to read it according to their opinion.  So I have linked to the NET Bible instead of the ESV for this post.