Is it ever correct to dismiss textual content on the basis of 'historical context'?

Question

Recently, Paul's argument in regard to covering the head, in Corinth, was chosen as an example upon which, it was suggested that, 'some instructions may have been tailored to the culture of that time'.

---

When one comes to examine Paul's argument in detail, however, the text of the passage indicates that Paul does not comment on any local, geographical, cultural or historical matters.

Paul begins this series of corrections (11:3 to 12:31 - Covering, Division, Supper, Self-Judgment, Gifts and Orders of Office) with the heading of keeping ' the ordinances as I delivered to you'.

Thus he is correcting what had already been delivered for them to keep as ordinances.

Paul's argument follows in regard to covering of the head :-

• Dishonour of Headship (vs 3-5)

• Shameful behaviour (v 6)

• the Image and Glory of God as expressed in Creation (v 7)

• Precedence of creation (v 8)

• Purpose of creation (v 9)

• Angelic witness (v 10)

• Comeliness (v 13)

• Nature, as it teaches (v 14)

• Glory (v 15)

• Established Custom, as corrective in the face of contention (v 16)

There is no appeal, and no foundation of argument, based on anything that could be considered social, or geographical, or locative, or temporary.

Every single one of Paul's ten corrective statements is aligned to the Headship of Christ, the Image and Glory of God, the Creation, the Angels, Nature and Established Custom within the Churches.

Thus, this example, once examined hermeneutically, indicates that 'historical context' is, in fact, in this instance, irrelevant.

Thus an hermeneutic approach was necessary to come to that conclusion, upon due consideration of the evidence, which consists of ten reasons which Paul sets forth.

That no other mention appears in scripture does not preclude that this ordinance is to be received and adhered to. As well discard the doctrine of 'reconciliation', apokatallasso, which is Pauline doctrine. As well discard most of Romans and Galatians. As well discard the book of Revelation as being 'Johannine'.

The argument that Paul lays out in ten explanations, is nowhere, by Paul, specified to Corinthian Gentiles.

---

So I would like to widen the scope of the question, in recognition that this passage is not an example of 'historical context' giving hermeneutical licence for it to be disregarded as to one's own personal behaviour in one's own lifetime.

And I would like to ask if it is ever justifiable, hermeneutically, to dismiss a commandment or an instruction on the grounds of 'historical context'.

Are there any examples which would truly justify such an interpretative action ?

Answer 1

The injunction about head coverings in the 1st letter of Paul's to the Corinthians, chapter 11, was something I dismissed for decades after becoming a Christian, purely because others argued that 'historical context' meant it was not applicable in the 20th and 21st centuries. Their argument sounded reasonable to me, a woman in her mid-20s, so I thought no more about it. Besides, the number of ladies who used to come to worship and prayer with a head covering on back then seemed to be declining by the year, until hardly a woman in sight could be seen with a head-covering at worship.

Ah, but when in my early 70s, I realised I had been evading the issues, and that I needed to square up to them myself, and to decide for myself - no matter what others said or did. The outcome was that I started to wear a head-covering when gathered in worship where brothers were present. This was noticed but nobody said a word. Two other ladies had been doing the same for years. But this morning, at a prayer meeting, it was when I took my head-covering off at the end that a lady made a comment, almost as a statement: "Your hat is coming off as you're too hot!" It certainly was warm in the heated room, but I just smiled and said, with a knowing look to the retired minister in our group, "No, that is not the reason." He said nothing.

Forgive me telling a little story, as Hermeneutics frowns on such things, but it's a sort of modern-day event that speaks to the situation of dismissing the principle of headship in Paul's letter. It demonstrates a (usually) unspoken dis-ease when some choose to visibly show recognition that "the head of the woman is the man" and that "every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head."

The principle of Christian women honouring their head (the man) with a visible sign of honour in gatherings of worship is timeless. It began in Eden and continues in every century. Visible signs proliferate the Bible, and a sign signifies something. It points to a reality that is (usually) invisible. In the case of Paul's letter to the Corinthian Christians, the head-covering on Christian women silently pointed to God's arrangement of headship in the Church, including that of Christian men, with the men's avoidance of any head covering pointing to the headship of Christ over them.

This is why my answer to the question is, "No, it is never correct to dismiss textual content on the basis of historical context." The other reasons Paul also stated are equally applicable in every century: Creation, Original Church Custom, Apostolic Ordinance, Precedence, Purpose, Angelic Witness. But if the first reason is deemed insufficient, the other nine will also be easily dismissed too, as being 'merely' historic, and thus the textual content can just be dismissed. How could any Christian feel dis-ease at abiding by a silent demonstration of the head-covering principle that points to God's arrangement?

Answer 2

And I would like to ask if it is ever justifiable, hermeneutically, to dismiss a commandment or an instruction on the grounds of 'historical context'.

That's the question being asked, and my response is that it creates a false division. It's not about using historical context to dismiss a commandment. It's about using historical context to understand a commandment.

Everything is historical. Everything is cultural. The most obvious example is language. 1 Corinthians is written in Greek; we are having this conversation in English. We can't reach any view about the passage until we have at least done the cultural and historical work of understanding correctly what Paul was saying on his own terms. And for most of us that depends on the work of experienced Biblical scholars who do that study and translation work for us.

And then there is the question of how, and to what extent, the command applies to us in a new historical time and culture. This part is not a question of interpretation, it's a question of application. And it has to be done with everything we read in the Bible.

To take two simple examples, think about baptism and communion. Those sacraments are far more clearly continuing commands for all Christians, and from Jesus himself. And yet the Christian church has performed them in a wide range of forms and rituals over the centuries. My own local church does communion regularly. In format it bears very little relationship to the way Jesus held the Last Supper before he was crucified. But it's still communion, and it's still following the commandment. Likewise with baptism. Jesus was baptised in the Jordan River as an example for us to follow. Does this mean all Christians need to be baptised in the Jordan River?

It's entirely reasonable to treat the question of head coverings the same way. What was Paul saying, and why? And once we have our best possible answer to that question (using all the tools of interpretation available to us) then we are ready to consider the second level issue: how and to what extent might this apply to us in our time and place?

Answer 3

First, I do not see "10 corrective statements" in 1 Cor 11 - I see just two discussions:

• Propriety in worship V3-16, examining head coverings
• The lord's supper, V17-34, examining decorum and deferring to others (see especially Rom 12:10.

The key to understanding V3-16 is Paul's concluding sentence where he uses an unusual word in V16 -

Now if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

The highlighted word here is συνήθεια (sunétheia) which only occurs in John 18:39, 1 Cor 8:7, 11:16. It simply means what is a "custom, habit, practice". Its uses in the NT shows how this word demonstrates God's attitude about "practices".

• John 18:39 talks about Pilate's "habit/practice" of releasing a prisoner - this was clearly a very bad habit
• 1 Cor 8:7 talks about the habit of idol worship and how this habit/custom infected ideas about the meaning and significance of the communion service. This needed to change in the church
• 1 Cor 11:16 talks about the custom of head coverings and the local distinction between the customs of men vs women. Paul is clearly saying that the local custom was acceptable and did not need to change.

[I wonder what Paul might have said about some modern practices of religious garb and regalia used in some places today???]

Thus, I see nothing in 1 Cor 11:16 about enforcing a local custom forever on the church. Some modern churches still enforce these head covering rules. many do not.

Answer 4

As a Traditional Catholic, I always interpreted this as that woman covering of head is Recognition of Right Order of Authority, as defined in Natural Law integrated and further defined through the Church.

Modernist anti-rational cancerous philosophy which brought insanity into critical thinking, and for which the West has embraced, the Godlessness and embracing and practice of policies and thinking that disregards the Nature Law and Christion values, including the denial of any differences between men & women, and other disOrdering of 'common sense.'

Instead of allowing such Doctrines to change - excused because it was only 'the culture of that time' - we should instead be concerned that even the Church has allowed 'The World' to Sicken it.