|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion You were what you wore in Roman lawDecoding dress codes in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2The impact of Roman law on ancient society, and therefore on the emerging Christian church, is not sufficiently appreciated today, but it was enormous, and it is not always possible to grasp what was really going on in the New Testament churches without taking the law into account and its intrusive impact on all aspects of daily life. It was a fact that you were what you wore in Roman law. Indeed, everyone in Roman society could be identified by what they wore; whether it was a person walking into a gathering or someone in the street, the way they dressed was an indication of their class. This was true of both men and women. In the Roman empire, a man’s rank and status could be determined by what he wore. Fine clothes, sandals and a gold ring immediately signalled that the wearer was a senator; and so the rank and status of the man ‘wearing a gold ring and fine clothing’ who entered the church in James 2.2-3 was obvious to all present. To veil or not to veil?It was also true that a woman was what she chose to wear or even how she styled her hair in Roman society. A married woman could be identified immediately because she wore a veil. On the day of her wedding the mantle she had draped around her shoulders when in a public setting was put over the top of her head and she literally ‘took the veil’. That signalled she was a married woman. Fashions in clothes and hairstyles were promoted across the empire by way of statue types. Many examples survive today, some representing the married woman (and known as the larger Herculaneum statue) show clearly how the marriage veil was worn. The smaller Herculaneum statue represented the unmarried woman whose veil was held on her arm covering the upper part of her body as it fell from her shoulders. Statues of the emperor’s wife were reproduced throughout the empire, showing in detail the hairstyle for the modest woman. The high-class prostitute wore elaborate braided hair piled high on the top of her head and with gold and pearls worn over expensive ‘see-through’ clothes. Seneca the Younger, writing at the same time as Paul, complained that in some cases you couldn’t distinguish whether a woman had her clothes on or off — a dilemma not unfamiliar on the cat-walk of to-day’s fashion shows. ‘Modesty’ was the term that identified the chaste married woman. There are very moving inscriptions found on a large numbers of graves both in Rome and other parts of the ancient world about married women where the term ‘modesty’ dominates. They commend the virtuous wife who had loved her husband, cared for her children and managed her household (Titus 2.4). Thus, together, we have evidence from the legislation of Augustus, from the Stoic and neo-Pythagorian philosophical schools and also from inscriptions on tombstones that modesty epitomised the virtuous wife. Augustus brought in two pieces of legislation — one aiming to restrain the adulterous woman and make adultery an explicit criminal offence for the first time in Roman law; the other offering incentives to marry and have children. This is but one surviving piece of evidence pointing to the fact that there were numbers of avant-garde married women whom ancient historians refer to as the ‘new’ women. If a married woman were convicted of adultery under Roman law her hair would be cropped as a sign of her disgrace. She could not wear the marriage veil again, even though she might re-marry. Consequently the status of women of the first century was clearly identifiable by their appearance. We know from the documents of Stoic and neo-Pythagoreans philosophers in the first century that society was trying to cope with the problem of the ‘new’ woman; they were concerned about how women and wives connected to the philosophical schools behaved and dressed. The Stoic philosopher, Musonius Rufus, discusses at length the virtuous woman. He also was opposed, like the New Testament, to sexual immorality. Men and women who followed Stoicism were required to maintain a certain standard of morality. An ancient historian reading 1 Timothy 2.9-15 would see here a description which contrasts the ‘new’ woman with the modest married woman. 1 Timothy asserts that a wife should dress respectably with modesty and self-control. So how do you decode the dress code? Here are some of the key phrases: not with braided hair or gold or pearls (these were associated with prostitutes) or costly attire (this usually meant ‘see-through’ clothing which was more expensive). The adornment of the married woman was her modesty and good works (v.9). To bear or abort?Much has been written about the enigmatic phrase ‘being saved through child-bearing’, but it is interesting to note that in the first century there were women who didn’t want to have children because it spoilt the shape of their bodies and left them with stretch-marks. Then, as now, a beautiful body was all important. If they did have children they would send them out to a wet nurse until they were weaned. Adoption became a common feature of the first century. The woman who did not wish to have children either had an abortion or used severe contraceptives. Both were dangerous and often resulted in death. Evidence survives that some doctors refused to carry out abortions. In this context it seems that the Greek text is saying that women will be saved by seeing the pregnancy through and not aborting the child if they continue in faith, love, and holiness — Christian characteristics to which is added ‘with modesty’ (1 Timothy 2.15). Christians and head coveringsIn 1 Corinthians 11.4, 7 we read about the veiling of men. In the first century when a high-class man was acting as a priest in one of the many cults that existed then, he would pull his toga over the top of his head. In Corinth there is a statue of Augustus the Emperor as the Pontifex Maximus with the toga drawn over his head — this statue type was sent all around the ancient world and there are many still in existence. This is an important context for 1 Corinthians 11 — a man in the church should not cover his head because he dishonours his head, who is Christ, by drawing attention to his social status. Rank and status, which determined what you were outside, had no place within the church. A wife, however, was not to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered for in deliberately taking off her veil when she prayed she dishonoured her head, referring to her husband. If a woman removed her marriage veil, it was a sign that she was moving out of her marriage — a strange thing to do which would send the wrong signal to the outsider coming into church. But there was a group of wives in the church who were determined to demonstrate that they were as liberated as the ‘new’ woman. This is what Paul is referring to when he says, in effect, it is the same as if she were behaving like an adulteress. She might as well shave off her hair if she wants to behave like a woman who is walking out of marriage. What is the concern in the passage? In verse 10 the wife is under obligation to have this symbol of her marriage on her head because of the angels (that is how the Greek word angelos is often translated). However, as it is the same word, found in other passages, which is translated ‘messengers’ (e.g. Matthew 11.10, Luke 7.24), I think it is referring to messengers in this context. In the first century, there were official ‘dress wardens’. One of their duties was to monitor religious processions, looking at what women were wearing in the public domain. If they noticed a woman who was scantily dressed or without her marriage veil, they were hauled out of the procession which was considered a sacred affair. Sometimes they sent messengers to religious gatherings to check things out, to look in the public domain to see that women were dressed in respectable way. One of the concerns in the New Testament is how the church looked to the outsider. Imagine going to this service as a messenger sent to observe. What sort of information would be coming back from the Corinthian church? If there were wives who are doing this, what would you think? In verse 13, Paul says, ‘Judge for yourself, is it proper…?’ Roman culture was concerned with what was proper in all aspects of life. The question is, was it proper for a wife (wife because woman + veil = married woman) to pray with her head uncovered? It was a disgrace, and Paul said, if anyone was inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. Contemporary evidence external to the New Testament can help illuminate what is being said in the Word of God and bring us to a better understanding of the text. The true concern of the church was that some men and women were sending inappropriate signals by what they chose to wear. Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 10.32 was to give no offence to either Jew or Greek or the church of God. It was important, therefore, that outsiders should not misread the gospel by what Christians wore, for they were what they wore. The Rev. Dr. Bruce Winter is Director of the Institute of Early Christianity and Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge. ROMAN WIVES, ROMAN WIDOWS © Evangelicals Now - December 2005 |
|
