The Most Mennonite Verse in the Bible

I hope my title intrigued you. I hope it had you guessing. If you haven’t guessed, pause to take a guess. What do you think the most Mennonite verse in the Bible is? You might remember the Mennonites came from the Anabaptists, and Anabaptists mean “re-baptizers,” so it must be some verse that has to deal with baptism. It isn’t. Well, you might remember how the Mennonites were one of the first to view communion as a symbol, so the most Mennonite verse must be when Jesus says, “Do this in remembrance of me.” It isn’t. You might know the Mennonite have always took a stand of peace, pacifism and non-violence over a position of violence and war, so maybe the verse is in Matthew 5:44, when Jesus says to love your enemies, or Romans 12:17-21, when Paul commands to not repay evil with evil, but evil with good, or Psalm 34:14, in which David advises to seek peace and pursue it. Nope, nope and nope. The Mennonite have always been concerned with social justice. Could the most Mennonite verse be a prophet commanding social justice, like in Isaiah or Amos? Not what I have in mind. Then what is the most Mennonite verse in the Bible? Drumroll please. I believe the most Mennonite verse in Bible is Acts 5:29, where Peter and the apostle say, “We must obey God rather than man!” I hope to show you that this belief began with the apostles in 1^st century, continued with Anabaptist forefathers in the 16^th century, and has big implications for today.

Before diving into the verse, let’s look at the verse in context. The context of this verse starts all the back in the previous chapters, chapter 3 and 4, for those chapters show us that this is not the first time. In Acts 3, a miracle happens. Peter and John are walking in the temple courts when they walk by a lame man. Peter takes the lame man by the hand, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the man can walk (3:1-10). This miracle lands them right in front of the Sanhedrin, the acting Supreme Court, to testify (4:1-7). Naturally, Peter gives all the credit to Jesus (4:8-12). When the members of the Sanhedrin come together to convene, they are completely befuddled! For starters, here they see two uneducated, untrained, common, ordinary men speaking with the authority, boldness and confidence of a scholar, and they don’t know how to deal with that alone. Furthermore, and even worse for them, they have a formerly lame man literally standing before them, too. All the people acknowledge this miracle, so much that even the Sanhedrin can’t deny what they see (4:13-17). So all the Sanhedrin can do is command them to not preach in the name of Jesus anymore (4:18). In Acts 4:19,20, Peter and John answer them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” To me, this is a passive statement. If I may paraphrase what Peter and John said in Acts 4:19,20, they are saying, “You have to decide on your own what’s the right thing to do, but we know the right thing to do.” After that, the Sanhedrin let them go. I suspect they thought, “Well, they technically didn’t say ‘no’”.

But then, a similar scene happens again. More miracles happen in the name of Jesus Christ (5:12-16). Out of jealousy, the Sadducees have the apostles arrested (5:17,18). The Sadducees might have thought this put an end to miracles, but it only causes another miracle to happen. An angel of the Lord frees the apostles from being behind bars, commanding them to return to the temple grounds to preach the gospel message (5:19-21a). When the Sanhedrin finally convenes and is ready to call the apostles forward, the officers cannot find them in their cells. The Sanhedrin launches an investigation, but the investigation leaves them befuddled again! The doors are locked and guarded, but the apostles are nowhere to be seen. Finally, someone discovers the apostles preaching in the temple court (5:21b-25). Once again, the captain and the officers bring the twelve apostles before the Sanhedrin for questioning (5:26,27), and once again, the Sanhedrin commands the twelve apostles to stop preaching about Jesus (5:28). Now Peter, John and the rest of the apostles answer more aggressively than before. They realize that the Sanhedrin had backed them into a corner in choosing between the submitting to their religious authorities and preaching what their rabbi Jesus taught them to do. For the apostles, the real moral choice was clear, and they answer with a strong, direct answer.

When I studied Acts 5:29 in my commentaries, the commentators approached this verse with fear and caution, and rightfully so, for this verse contains great power. In the wrong hands and with wrong intentions, Acts 5:29 can be misused. It can be used for anarchy. An anarchist might say, “In Acts 5:29, Jesus, through the mouth of Peter, tears down all government by inspiring his disciples to revolt in revolution!” On the flip side, religious leaders can misquote and skew this verse to get the average church layman to blindly follow his leadership, even if sinful. Indeed, some of the most wicked popes in church history have gotten Christians to submissively obey them because the pope told the Christians this his acts were acts of God, not as a man, the pope. Both sides would fall in error because the Bible has safeguards against such interpretation in what Bible Hermeneutics calls the immediate context, the near context and the far context.

The far context, or the verse in context to the other passages of the Bible, does not support this. The apostle Peter, the same Peter who boldly proclaims in Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men!” will later on say in 1 Peter 2:12,13, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” Soon after the story in Acts 5, the church will gain another apostle, named Paul. Eventually, the apostle Paul will write to the church in Rome, Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” Together, 1 Peter 2:12,13 and Romans 13:1,2 show the Christian that Peter’s statement in Acts 5:29 is not a proclamation of anarchy.

The near context, or the verse in context to other verses in the chapter, does not support such bad interpretation. In Acts 5:30-32, Peter goes on to say, “The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” I personally bolded some words and phrases in those verses for emphasis. I like to call them “juicy nuggets.” These juicy nuggets demonstrate Peter is not pushing an anarchist agenda. First, Peter wisely uses the phrase “God of our fathers.” By doing so, Peter explains to the Sanhedrin that the apostles do not worship a new God or a different God. They were obeying the same God the Sanhedrin worshiped and the same God that both the apostles’ and the Sanhedrin’s ancestors worshipped. The difference was the apostles began following Jesus as God’s promised messiah, and Peter invites the Sanhedrin to accept Jesus as Messiah, too. Second, Peter gives Jesus the title “Prince.” This word has a heavy leadership connotation, especially in regards to government. The apostles may not be submitting to the Sanhedrin’s leadership, but they are submitting to Christ’s kingship. Third, Peter clarifies that God pours out the Holy Spirit to “those who obey him.” For Peter, and the reader as well, the Holy Spirit stands as proof of an apostle living a life of obedience, for the Holy Spirit indwells in Christians who live a life of obedience. (And just to clarify on my part, that obedience is not a list of commands, but rather that obedience is accepting and receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior)

The immediate context, or the context of the words and phrases within the verse, safeguards the passage from bad interpretation. This one a little harder to see without reading the original Greek text. The word used for obey in Acts 5:29 is πειθαρχειν (peitharchein), which is not the common word used to define obedience, which is the Greek word ὑπακούω (hupakoúō). Once again, Peter carefully choses his wording in his defense. The word starts out with peith, deriving from the Greek word peitho, meaning to persuade. The middle part, arch, you might recognize from words like “archbishop” or “archenemy.” The Greek word arche, most literally means “first,” but can mean “first” as in supremacy, the highest. Therefore, the Greeks would commonly use the word for a leader or a ruler. Put it all together. The obedience that peitharchein talks about is an obedience out of persuasion by higher authority, such a ruler or an expert. Honestly, that “persuasion” could simply a ruler exerting his power, as in, “Obey my laws or suffer the consequences.” But I believe it was different for Peter and the other disciples. The disciples had spent the past few years listening to Jesus teach. They heard Jesus teach with authority, and such powerful teaching persuaded the disciples that Jesus had the way, the truth and the life from God. Then the Holy Spirit comes down on Pentecost, and when the disciples listen to the Holy Spirit speaking in their hearts, the Holy Spirits reaffirms the truths Jesus taught and persuades the disciples even more. For Peter and the disciples, they are persuaded by the Holy Spirit that they are not living a life of rebellion, but a life of obedience to a higher authority.

Still, as we read Acts 5:29, we have to stand in awe at the boldness and confidence of Peter and the apostles. Keep in the mind that the high priest and the Sanhedrin was the highest religious governing body of the day. They ruled on all matters religious and spiritual. They determined the difference between the godly and the ungodly, the righteous and the unrighteous, the clean and the sinful. And the Sanhedrin would tell you that God instituted them for that role. Peter and the apostles had been raised all their lives believing that. So when that governing body of 70 men tells them that one rabbi they listened to was off his rocker and a little crazy in the head, How could Peter and the apostles find the courage to stand so boldly and confidently to reply to the Sanhedrin, “No, you’re crazy for not listening to Christ Jesus”? I’ve already mentioned how Jesus taught with authority, and I went over how the Holy Spirit speaking the in apostles’ hearts, but I believe there’s more to it than that. I believe that piece is the Scriptures. We all know that famous verses 2 Timothy 3:16, which reads, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” What we all have a habit of forgetting is that the “Scriptures” that Paul is referring to what we call the Old Testament, the books from Genesis to Malachi. They did not have the New Testament yet. Luke 24:35 tells that after Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus “opened their mind to the Scriptures,” once again referring to the Old Testament. When the apostles read the Old Testament, they did not see the Sanhedrin’s interpretation; they saw Jesus.

But don’t think that the 1st century understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 should be the same for the 21^st century. For us in the 21^st century, 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to New Testament Scripture, too. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter puts Paul’s letters on the same level as the Old Testament Scripture. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul starts out by saying, “The Scriptures say,” and then quotes the Gospel of Luke. Already by the 1^st century, the apostles recognized that their words were not the words of their own heart and their own will, but rather, their words were the words were the words of God the Holy Spirit speaking through them. So when a few generations later, when the Early Church Fathers convened to officially the create the New Testament canon of Scriptures, for the most part, they did the with great ease. Christians of generations past had already recognized those 27 books as God-inspired revelation, not just because the teaching had authority, but also because these had been equipping, edifying and encouraging the church for decades.

So why do I think Acts 5:29 is the most Mennonite verse in the Bible? Let’s fast forward in history to the 1500s for some Anabaptist history (for those of you who don’t know, the Mennonites would come from the Anabaptists). Actually, let’s start with some Anabaptist pre-history. Ulrich Zwingli had begun a Reformation in Zurich, Switzerland, question both Catholic doctrine and Catholic church practices. In fact, the Anabaptist forefathers George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz were disciples of Ulrich Zwingli. They looked up to him, but they saw that he had one big flaw, which Zwingli did not see as a flaw at all! Zwingli had a high view of church and state. Therefore, Zwingli would always ask the city council for permission before making a reform, and Zwingli would only go through with it if he received the city council’s stamp of approval. The Anabaptist forefathers, Blaurock, Grebel and Manz sharply disagreed with Zwingli on this practice. They believed the city council had no authority to make decisions for the Christian or for the church. They believed only the Bible had the authority to do so. This caused the early Anabaptists to hold their own Bible studies, in which they read and re-read the Bible in order to learn how to live life as the Bible says to live life, not as any governing body said so.

 

 

At the time, the pressing issue just happened to be infant baptism. Ulrich Zwingli had actually played around with the thought of removing infant baptism, but when the council refused to get rid of infant baptism because they used the infant baptism as their method of taking census, Zwingli submitted and ceased to play around with the idea anymore.

 

 

 

 

The Anabaptist forefathers, Blaurock, Grebel and Manz could not submit so easily. When they read the Bible, they could not find infants being baptized, but they saw adults being baptized as a symbol of voluntarily joining the church and the kingdom. Therefore, Conrad Grebel refused to baptized his daughter, and George Blaurock had Conrad Grebel baptize him as an adult, for Grebel and Blaurock believed that they followed the Bible more closely by doing so. So let me make a big and bold interpretation of history, for all history is interpreted. The initiation and foundation of the Anabaptism is not adult baptism, as the name hints. If big issue of the day would have been communion, we would have been known as the memorialists. If the big issue of the day would have been war, we would have been known as the pacifists. The initiation, foundation and driving force behind the Anabaptists and the Mennonites is the belief that the Bible, as God’s inspired Word, is the ultimate authority on truth and righteous living not man. To sum it up, I would use our verse, Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men!”

 

 

 

If you need anymore, listen to this quote by Anabaptist forefather Felix Manz. At his trial, he gave this simple defense, “I wish to bring together those who were willing to accept Christ, obey the Word, and follow in His footsteps, to unite with these by baptism, and to purchase the rest in their present conviction.” As simple as Manz’s defense is, it’s also complex. Not only does Felix give the obedience of the Word a priority in his belief, he also recognize the only way a person can transition from accepting Jesus to following in Christ’s footsteps is obeying his word.

Let’s catch to the present day, to the 21^st century. How do we can continue on the tradition of acknowledging God’s Word as the authority on how to live our life, just like the apostles did in the 1^st century and the Anabaptist forefathers did the 16^th century? First, we have to know the Word. We cannot follow the Word unless we know the Word. This involves reading our Bible on a daily basis. This involves reading that Bible story for the hundredth time, if not more. That means taking to the time read and listen on what other Christians had to say about that passage, in both the past and present. And it involves taking the time to meditate and reflect on the Scriptures that are read. We cannot obey and follow unless we know what to obey and follow.

 

 

If you’re a teacher, or even took one teaching class in college, you’ll know there was this guy with the last name Bloom, who had a taxonomy, famously called Bloom’s Taxonomy. On Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom's taxonomy displays the levels of learning. On the lower end, the base of the pyramid, you have lower end learning, "knowledge," which is as simple as remembering, even if it's by rote memorization. On the higher end, the top of the pyramid, you have higher learning, like analysis (breaking things down), synthesis (putting things together), and evaluation. The reason for the pyramid shape is that higher end learning cannot happen without a base of lower end thinking. Let's look at an example. Consider the question, "Would Augustine have justified World War II with his Just War Theory?" That's a high-end learning evaluation question. In order to answer that question, you needed a base of lower-level thinking knowledge. From the question alone, you need to know who Augustine was, what his Just War Theory was, and what World War II was. After finding out those answers, you'd have to build another base of knowledge and comprehension by making connections. After learning that Augustine's Just War Theory says that all other possible means must be exhausted before declaring war, you'd have to look into what other nations attempted to do to stop Hitler prior to World War II. After learning that Augustine's Just War Theory states the least destructive methods have to be used, you'd have to learn about the weapons and armor used in World War II, from the H-bomb to the fire bombings of Tokyo. See what I mean? If we want this generation of Christians, and the future generations of Christians, to live out a Christian lifestyle, we must start by building a foundation of Biblical knowledge. Without that foundation of Biblical knowledge, how can we expect future Christians to know how to apply a Christian lifestyle to the world that they live in?

 

 

If you still need convincing, you need to read unChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. In most of the book unChristian, Kinnaman and Lyons focuses on surveying non-Christians to understand how they see Christians, but a few times, they survey Christians, and those surveys are quite eye-opening. When surveying Christians, David and Gabe wanted to make sure they were really surveying Christians, not just people who said they were Christian. So in order to qualify as Christian, the person had to call himself or her a “born again Christian,” a “fully devout Christian” or a Christian who “accepted/received Jesus as Lord/Savior.” I think we can agree that those people are indeed genuine Christians. They then wanted to see if those Christians had a Biblical worldview, meaning that they saw the world as the Bible sees the word. In order to have a Biblical worldview, the Christian had to believe that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the universe, Jesus was sinless, Satan is real, salvation is a gift from God than cannot be earned, a Christian has the responsibility of sharing his/her faith with other people, the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches, there is such thing as unchanging moral truths, and the Bible tells us what those moral truths are. Once again, I believe we can all agree this is the bare minimum of a Biblical worldview. Guess how many Christian could say they have a Biblical worldview because they hold to all 7 beliefs. It’s not half of the Christians at 50%. It’s not a third of Christians at 33.3%. It’s 25%, 20%, 17.6%, 12.5% or even 10%. It’s 3-9%. Among Christians between the ages of 20 to 40, only 3% had a Biblical worldview. That’s roughly 1 out of 33. Among Christians over the age 40, only 9% of Christians had a Biblical worldview. That’s roughly 1 out of 11. Wow.

That’s the not even the shocking part! After determining which Christians had Biblical worldview, Kinnaman and Lyons asked all the Christians in their survey about their lifestyle choices. David and Gabe found that the Christians who signed off on all 7 beliefs of a Biblical worldview live a lifestyle completely counter cultural to the world around. The Christians who could not sign off on any of those beliefs, and the Christians who signed off on only a couple or a few of those beliefs, lived lifestyles very similar to the world and the culture around. We need to realize that the way we think does affect the way we act. It all starts in our brain and in our hearts, and it flows out of our hands. If we want to live out a Biblical worldview, we need to start by thinking a Biblical worldview.

But as the Parable of Wise Builder and the Foolish Builder reminds us, it’s no good to just listen to God’s Words. We must apply it, and we must obey it. I could say so much about that. Of course, if the Bible says do it, you do it. If the Bible says don’t do it, then don’t do it. If you’re unsure, consider doing whatever is counter culture. Sure, it might be sinful, Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians, that while it may not be sinful, we still need to consider if it helps or hinders our spiritual growth and relationship with God. Most often than not, when we choose to live counter-cultural to world around us, we grow spiritual and become closer to God.

Speaking of counter culture, one of the best way to continue the tradition of Biblical obedience that the apostles started in the 1st century and the Anabaptist forefathers continued in the 16^th century is to be a witness by your counter-cultural obedience. When we talk about being a witness, we usually think of Christians witnessing to non-Christians, and rightfully so, for this is where our priority should be. But I believe that Christian denominations can be witnesses to other Christian denominations that certain beliefs work. And what a witness the Mennonite church has been!

Indeed, the Mennonites have influenced the church in the past, and the Mennonites are influencing the church in the present. Don’t believe me? In the United States of American, a majority of the churches (dare I say “most”)  practice adult baptism; only a minority still practice infant baptism. Who began that? The Mennonites. In many American churches (dare I say “most” again?), if you ask the pastor about the church’s view of communion, or read the booklet or pamphlet on church beliefs, you’ll discover that they hold a symbolic view of communion, most similar to what the Mennonites belief. Who started that? The Mennonites. And the Mennonites died over such issues! Those other American churches didn’t start agreeing with the Mennonites until it was safe to come out of hiding.

But the Mennonites’ influence does not cease in the past. The Mennonite still witness to other denominations in the present day. As a seminary student, I try to stay up-to-date with what pastors and theologians. I can’t count the number evangelical pastors who are beginning to say, “You know what? Christians joining the military to fight in a war doesn’t make sense. I can’t see Jesus enlisting to fight, nor can I see any Jesus wanting anyone to enlist. It would contradict what Jesus preached on the Sermon on the Mount.” And these are the most patriotic evangelical pastors, the ones who preach from a pulpit that stands next to the American flag! I can’t help but wonder if the Mennonites gave these evangelical pastors that idea. I’ve read many emergent pastors talk about bringing about the kingdom of God with social justice and social reform. The talk and language they are using is very similar to what I heard Mennonite pastors preach decades earlier. I can’t help but wonder if the Mennonites gave those emergent pastors these ideas. And churches all around the nation are beginning to introduce foot washing into their church practices. It began sneaking in as something a couple would do in a marriage ceremony. But as the pastors would prepare for the wedding ceremony and the foot washing, they began reading John 13, and they realized that this was a practice everyone was involved in, right alongside communion. And so pastors are beginning to introduce this idea of foot washing into the church. Now, they have to introduce it slowly and safely. Some churches are doing hand washing instead of foot washing; other churches have only the pastor administer the washing to the congregation. Still, the Mennonite witness proved that this practice spiritual benefited the church, and now other churches in America are having the same experience.

And I believe the Mennonite church can continue to be that faithful witness. I am slow to mention on how we can because it is a hot topic issue, but it recently has become very relevant in the Mennonite church. The Mennonite church is become more divided over the topic of homosexuality. At the last national conference, the Pink Mennonites (pro-gay Mennonites) were aggressively pushing the Mennonite church as whole to accept homosexuality and reject the idea that homosexuality is a sin. And so Mennonite USA passed a forbearance resolution. If I may be so bold, let me boldly proclaim that I believe our Anabaptist forefathers would be embarrassed to see what we become. Honestly, if I woke tomorrow morning, and I heard the news say, “The federal government has passed a law requiring all church to practice infant baptism. Anyone found baptizing adults will be imprisoned, tortured and killed.”, I would have to pause and ask myself, “Is that really worth dying over?” Our Anabaptist fathers thought it was. They were willing to be imprisoned, tortured and killed in order to Bible exactly to the letter. And here were are, in the 21^st century, falling in and conforming just because we don’t want to be ridiculed, made of fun, or appear as unloving. We have a wonderful opportunity to be that witness again! What an amazing witness it could be, too. Imagine all the other Christian denominations looking upon us and thinking, “Wow, those Mennonites believe homosexuality is a sin, but they are still a loving people, being nice and kind to everyone, even the gays and lesbians. I guess you really can be loving and opposing homosexuality as sinful.” We can be that, but we must stand our ground, despite what our surrounding culture says, both Christian and non-Christian.

Lord, thank you for the Bible. Thank you for your Word. Thank you for wanting to talk to us. May we receive it and show how much we appreciate it. May we use your Word to love and uplift one another, and most importantly, may we use your Word to love you and glorify you. Amen.

3 Cultures of Head Coverings

Introduction

Going to a Mennonite church for the past fifteen years, I knew about head coverings. Most of the women there, especially the older women, wore them every time they went to church. At first, head coverings struck me as strange because I never saw women in other Christian denominations wear any head coverings. The more I thought about it, though, I did know of a religious rule that stretched across all denominations. Ever since I could remember, church taught me, as a man, to take off my hat during prayer time. I became confused on why I had to uncover my head while women had to cover their head. I became even more confused upon a clear, straightforward reading of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. I wondered why most church denominations follow Paul’s command for men to keep their heads uncovered, but so few denominations, like the Mennonites, followed through on Paul’s command for the women to keep their heads covered.

When it comes to the issue of head coverings, to get the best interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the cultural context of first headwear needs to be considered. Figuring out that culture does not come easily, though. Corinth began as a Greek city, became a Roman colony upon the Roman Empire conquering it, and the city also had a heavy Jewish population. The culture of Corinth is multifaceted; it cannot be contained to one culture. Therefore, in order to fully understand head coverings in Corinth, first must come an understanding of head wear from the Jewish perspective, the Greek perspective, and the Roman perspective.

The Jews and Head Coverings

No verse in the Old Testament commands women to wear head coverings, nor does any verse even hint that head coverings were a regular practice. This does not mean that women did not decorate their head at all. On the contrary, the Old Testament does record decorating the hair. For example, Isaiah 3:18-24 lists headbands, headdresses, turbans and veils as items the Lord will take away from the women’s heads. By the time of the New Testament, not much had changed in the Jewish stance on head coverings. Women felt no pressure to wear a head covering or a veil. This did not change for a few centuries after the New Testament, when Rabbis began interpreting an early rule from the Mishna that an uncovered head could lead to grounds for divorce. The same goes for men. The famous skull cap which modern-day Jews wear did not become a practice until centuries after Paul’s lifetime.

While Jewish people did not see it disgraceful to not wear a cloth head covering, the Jews saw it as disgraceful for women to wear their hair down. Most, if not all, women wore their hair up with the help of a hair net. Women with their hair down brought shame upon themselves. In Numbers 5:18, a priest would let down a woman’s hair to reveal her as an adulteress. Rabbinic laws does not allow women to let their hair flow loosely because the rabbis believed that men only had the right to free, loose hair. The punishment for any wife with loose hair would be divorce from her husband. Any man who loosed a woman’s hair in public had to pay a fine. The Jewish rabbis carefully made sure women wore their hair up. Therefore, in the first century Jewish mindset, a woman covering her head might simply be her hair up on her head.

The Greeks and Head Coverings

The Greeks did not use head coverings during worship. The concept of head coverings during worship was so foreign to them that they did not understand why other religions did require head coverings. The closest prohibition was the ban of face veils in the pagan temples, as well as any jewelry meant for the hair. Even outside the temple and religious worship, Greek art rarely depicts Greek women wearing any kind of head covering in public. When they do, it depicts them wearing hair nets in order to keep their hair up. The few examples are portraits of noblewomen on coins. Since the coins only depict women of high status wearing the head covering, the head covering in Greek culture might symbolize ruling power. The same goes for veils. Women rarely wore veils in public, too.

The Greeks also had cultural beliefs about hair, and women should wear their hair. At the temple of Dionysus in Corinth, the prophetesses would perform multiple duties, such as engage in sexual acts and prophesying. In all their duties, the prophetesses would always wear their hair down, free flowing. This free-flowing hair practice lies deep with the doctrine of the Dionysiac cult. Dionysus was the Greek god of grapes, vineyards and wine. Because of the alcoholic properties of wine, Dionysus became known as a god all about setting people free. Dionysus set his worshippers free from the daily grind of life. Dionysus set them free from sexual restraints that society put on them. Dionysus set them free from the male oppression brought on by their fathers and husbands. All this became symbolized by letting the hair down and flow freely, another act of freedom. Loose hair to the Dionysiac cult worshipper meant getting far away from social norms and reconnecting with nature. After all, Greek mythology stated that Dionysus always worked with his hair down. While the female worshippers of the Dionysiac cult found freedom in letting their hair down, some Greek men found this to be offensive.

The Romans and Head Coverings

Romans art visually helps Bible readers understand the Roman culture of head coverings. A statue of Caesar Augustus making a sacrifice shows Augustus wearing a part of his toga over his head when making a sacrifice. The head of Nero, which most likely came from a similar statue, also displays the toga over the head. Many marble statues of women have been recovered from the sites of ruins. In almost all of these statues, all the women have their hair pulled back, and none of them have their head covered. Not only does art show what people look like, but all the currency of the day also depicts what people looked like. A coin with the head of Augustus shows the head of Augustus with no head covering or any head gear for that matter. Livia, the wife of Augustus, has appeared on a couple different coins. On one coin, Livia has her hair back, pinned in a knot. On another coin, Livia wears a cloth covering over her head. Augustus’s successor, Nero, appears on coins during his reign. His coins display him wearing a laurel wreath around his head. Another Roman emperor, Emperor Hadrian, is also depicted wearing a laurel wreathe on a coin. These two emperors probably established the idea that laurel wreathes on the head as a sign of an emperor.

 

 

Head coverings were not foreign to the Romans at all. The most famous head gear of the Romans is the wreath they would wear around their head. Most commonly they were laurel wreathes, but they could also be made from celery, pine and olive trees. These crowns were given to royalty and military leaders. Winners of sports games would also receive these wreathes when they won. Occasionally they would be worn in religious rituals.

In the Roman culture, worshippers did wear head coverings. These head coverings were not separate pieces of cloth. The Roman worshippers would simply pull his or her toga over his or her head. Both men and women wore this head covering in worship. While this practice was custom in worship, no rule required worshippers to wear a head covering. The only time when worshippers of the Roman gods needed to wear head coverings were during special sacrifices. These sacrifices were rare, though. Only priests would perform these sacrifices, as well, possibly hinting that only religious leaders would need to cover their heads.

More often than head coverings, Roman art displays Roman women wearing their hair up on their heads. Women hairstyles ranged between braided up and tied up, but they are always up and never covered with a head covering. Sometimes women did wear head coverings. They had special head coverings for special events. For example, brides had a wedding head covering, which was a red veil. At the same time, special events like weddings and funerals would allow women to let their hair down in a socially acceptable fashion, usually with a head covering. Men, however, kept their head uncovered at all times, even through these special events.

Conclusion

 

Despite three different cultures living in Corinth all the people of Corinth probably shared similar views on head coverings because of the similar stances on head coverings between the Jews, Greeks and Romans. Neither Jews nor Greeks nor Romans had any rule, law or command in the political realm or the spiritual realm that required men or women to cover their heads. In all three societies, most men and women kept their heads uncovered, and those who did wear coverings on their head were few. In all three cultures, women wore their hair up as the cultural norm. On the flip side, all three cultures frowned upon women who wore their hair down in a free-flowing fashion. Women who did so could bring shame and embarrassed on themselves and anyone close to them.

With a better cultural understand of head coverings and hair styles in first century Corinth, a Christian can make a better interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and can better understand the message Paul attempted to get across to his readers. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 could serve as another call from Paul to be counter culturally, just as Paul does in Romans 12:2. From this cultural study of head coverings and hairstyles, a Christian can safely conclude that when Paul calls for women to cover their heads, Paul calls for them to put their hair, or on the flip side, Paul speaks against worshipping with their hair down and free-flowing. Such worship the people of Corinth associated with worship of Dionysus. Worship of Dionysus included sexual revelry and liberal lifestyles. Therefore, by transitive property, women who wear their hair down got associated with sexual revelry and liberal lifestyles. Paul wanted the Christians or Corinth to display to the rest of Corinth that Jesus was nothing like Dionysus by living lifestyles completely different from the pagan worship of Dionysus. God would not tolerate such sin in worshipping him. The Christians in Corinth were to worship the Holy One in a holy manner during worship.

Today, Christians still debate how to interpret this passage. The literalists still want women to cover their heads, whether it is a skull cap or a bandana. If they really wanted to go literally, this cultural study would tell them to cover the woman’s head, the woman should wear her hair up, not apply cloth to the skull. Yet this literal interpretation still misses the point Paul tries to communicate with the Corinthian Christians and Christians around the world. This is where the literalist answer is not the best answer, but rather the contextual literalist answer is. Paul wants to Christians to live lives counter-cultural to the world, especially in worship. Paul doesn’t want Christians merely “Christianize” a pagan religion, but rather worship in a way that is set apart as holy to the Lord. In the first century Roman Empire, it looked like women wearing their hair up, but it wouldn’t look like that in twenty-first century. To accurately apply this passage, Christians would need to figure out a way to worship God that does not conform to every other religion, including atheism, but really set them apart as Christian. For starters, this could mean rejecting styles of worship that were borrowed from other religions. Simply adding the adjective “Christian” to eastern practices like yoga and meditation that empties the mind to find inner peace does not make them Christian. After rejecting foreign worship rituals, Christian can further set apart their worship by focusing on the doctrines that make Christianity unique to other religions and find out ways to live them out. For example, since Christians believe Jesus is God Incarnate, they could worship in ways that involve both the physical body, as well as mind and spirit. Since Christians believe in the resurrection, Christians should live out a lifestyle that has them focusing on and preparing for their second life. Since Christians believe they are co-heirs with Christ, Christians can practice it by taking care of the earth they will co-reign with Christ. By practicing Christianity in this way, instead of focusing on what men and women put on top of their heads at church, Christians can truly live out Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

Book Review: Road Signs for the Journey - Chapter Review: 2. God's People Then

Good Bible Hermeneutics takes a deeper look at the Bible passage by understanding everything about it: history, geography, culture, the people and everything else. If Conrad L. Kanagy wants to use Jeremiah to examine the Mennonite Church in the USA, he's got to help the reader fully understand Jeremiah's message in the first place. This includes understanding Jeremiah as a prophet and understing the people he's prophecying to, like what they believe politically and religiously.

The interesting thing about Conrad Kanagy's backround information is that he flip flops on its importance. On one hand, Kanagy says that "scholary views of the book of Jeremiah do no matter" (p.35), is not part of the task at hand(p .34). He also says it's more important to focus on what it means now then what it meant back then (p. 34-35). On the other hand, Conrad does go into detail about the book's background information. He lists all the kings Jeremiah prophecied under. He draws up a map of Israel, Judah and the surrounding territories. He describes where the people of Israel and Judah are religiously and politically during that time. While it may seem like Conrad Kanagy is contradicting himself, I'm glad he did. His background information on the book provides a fuller understanding of Jeremiah's role as prophet and the message he'll deliver.

Conrad Kanagy helps set the message of the book by explaining the all-encompassing roles of a prophet. The roles Conrad Kanagy gives Jeremiah as prophet is a futurist, a time keeper, a social analyst, an activist and a blasphemer. I had two favorites from this list. The first was the social analyst. As prophet, Jeremiah was called to make the people aware of where they were religiously and politically. Sometimes when people become so enamored in their culture, it's hard to realize where they truly are and whether they are doing the right or wrong thing. A prophet must tell it like it is, whether the people like it or not. Perhaps Conrad sees himself as a prophet in this way. His statistics will tell the Mennonite congregations, "This is they way it is, whether you like it or not." The other favorite I had was activist. As a prophet, "Jeremiah not only spoke prophetically for the truth, but also acted prophetically on behalf of the truth" (p. 41). I once heard that stating a problem without providing a solution is just complaining. Jeremiah is not just a complainer about the people falling away from God. He's going to do his to contribute to the people turning to God.

There are two roles that Conrad Kanagy gives a prophet in which I agree with the concept, but I believe he could have chosen a better word. On the lighter end, instead of calling Jeremiah a futurist, I would have called him a visionary. Jeremiah did not merely see the future, but he also saw what it meant in terms of the people moving forward spiritually. For example, not only did Jeremiah foresee the destruction of the temple, but he knew that meant it was sign of hope for the future, for the people would be able to have relationship with God without the temple, holy of holies or the ark of the covenant. On the heavier side, I really don't like Kanagy calling prophets "blasphemers." Blasphemy is the worst sin in the Old Testament, if not the whole Bible. Blasphemy is detestable and unforgivable to God. Why? Because of its definition itself. Blasphemy is speaking lies about God as if it is the truth. It is a misrepresentation of God. Prophets is no way misprespresented God. What they really did was get the people back to the true meaning. The easiest example would be Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus, God the Son, spoke fervently against what the high priest, chief priests, and all the other religious rabbis taught. It wasn't the Scriptures that the religious leaders were teaching from that Jesus spoke against, but rather their intepretation of it. Jesus saw the Pharisees and Sadducees using God's Law to uplift themselves and weigh down those "sinners" not like them. That's what Jesus spoke against. What Jesus really is doing is getting them back to the true meaning of the Scriptres. Certainly Jesus, God the Son, is not a blasphemer. In the same way, Jeremiah is no blasphemer. He is in no way speaking lies about God. Instead, Jeremiah is attempting to get the people back to the true meaning of God, the Scriptures, and the temple. Maybe Kanagy should have chosen the term "revivalist" instead of "blasphemer." Jeremiah is truly a revivalist, reviving the people from an idolatrous faith to a real faith with the true God. I understand why Kanagy might have chosen the term "blasphemer," for it might have seem like blasphemy to the people. But this is in no way a call for Christians as or a whole or Mennonites specifically to be blasphemers. It's a call for Mennonites specifically but to Christians a whole to return to the true meaning of Scripture, instead of emotions or tradition.

Conrad Kanagy concludes with a conclusion that could easily serve as an introduction for the next chapter. Conrad Kanagy already starts to connect the Mennonites of today to the people of Jeremiah's time. Conrad states some of the sins of the Mennonites as the same as the people in Jeremiah's time: apathy, disobedience and idolatry (p. 43). As Jeremiah stated to his people, judgment will come if Mennonites do not turn from this sin. But Jeremiah's message is double-edged, and in a good way. If the Mennonites repent of their sin, God will deliver them and bless them. The question that remains is, "Are Mennonite really guilty of such sins?" The next chapter will reveal if this is true.

1 John 5: Water + Blood + Spirit = Baptism

If you look about halfway down the 1 John 5 in the NIV, you’ll notice that the last section is titled “Concluding Remarks.” This section title could be an accurate title for the whole chapter because it seems like John is simply repeating and summarizing what he’s taught so far into a nice conclusion. Yet John does have morsels of new information in this chapter. I’m not going to spend on reviewing the old information because I’m saving that for a grand conclusion on the epistle of 1 John. Instead, I’m going to pick out one of the morsels of new information and expound on that. I’m really excited about the morsel I picked because it centers around my Mennonite beliefs. The verses I have chosen are 1 John 5:6-8.

1 John 5:6–8-

This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The Mennonites believe heavily the Jesus to show the way how to live and bring about God’s Kingdom in our behavior. To them, Christ’s life on earth is a demonstration on how Christians should live their lives. I also firmly believe in this, believing that Jesus never asked His disciples to talk or act differently than He did. Jesus walked the walk as much as Jesus talked the talk. This doctrine provides a wonderful answer to the question, “Why did Jesus get baptized?” Most Christian denominations recognize baptism as a public sign that shows confession and repentance of sins, dying to the old, sinful self, believing in the Lord Jesus, and rising up to new life in him. If baptism has a lot to do with rejecting sins and the sinful nature, then why did Jesus, who perfectly sinless, have to get baptized? The Mennonite doctrine gives us a simple answer. Jesus was setting up an example. Jesus wanted his followers to live exactly as he did. So if Jesus wanted his followers to get baptized, he needed to get baptized as well. Jesus did get baptized, and therefore Christians need to be baptized, too.

When most people think of baptism, they think of water. The thought of baptism might even spark a debate among Christians on which method is the right method to baptize someone (sprinkling, anointing, dunking, etc.). The Mennonite Confession of Faith chooses not to debate those methods of baptism, but it does look at 3 different types of baptism. It is a baptism of water, a baptism of blood and a baptism of Spirit, as written in 1 John 5:6-8. Jesus got baptized in all 3 ways, and so Christians need to also be baptized in these 3 different ways.

Let’s start with Jesus because Jesus is our example. Jesus received all 3 baptisms. The first and obvious baptism is the baptism of water. Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River by his second cousin John the Baptist at the age of 30. This baptism signified the start of Christ’s ministry. When Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit rested on him in the form of a dove. This is the baptism of the Spirit, the Spirit testifying about Christ’s baptism. If this is not enough proof, throughout Christ’s ministry, Jesus preached on how the Holy Spirit testifies about him. Even after Christ’s earthly life, the Holy Spirit continued to testify about Jesus in the same way. So without a doubt, Jesus had baptism of the Spirit. The third baptism was the baptism of blood. This event is also an obvious one. Christ’s baptism of blood was his crucifixion on the cross. 1 John 5:6-8 says that these 3 baptisms serve as a testimony that Jesus was the Christ. The book of Deuteronomy states that a testimony needs 2 or 3 witnesses to verify the testimony as truth. John declares that the baptism of water, Spirit and blood testify that Jesus is the Christ. Considering the context, John has once again shot down the heretical false teachers that deny Jesus is human, God or the Christ, for John has provided 3 witnesses that say differently.

Now just as Jesus was baptized 3 ways, the Christian life calls Christians to also be baptized in those 3 different ways. First of all, there’s water baptism. Just like the Lord’s Supper, the Mennonites see baptism as a symbolic. I’ve noticed that the more symbolic something comes, the less emphasis is put on it. I also see baptism as a symbolic sign, so I therefore also see that baptism is not required for salvation. Once again, I will always point you to the criminal on the cross who recognized he was a sinner and that Jesus was the holy God. He did not get baptized, yet Jesus said he would be in paradise. Water baptism is not required for salvation, but it is highly recommended for those who can to do so. Why? First of all, Jesus did it, and if we are able to, we need to follow His example and do exactly what He did. Second, the symbolism behind it displays who we are as Christians and what it means to be Christian. Just as we “bury” ourselves in the water when we perform baptism by dunking, so we die to our old lives of sin. Just as we anoint ourselves with water to when we performing baptism by pouring, so we set ourselves apart for serving the Lord (in Old Testament times, anointing was a symbolic sign to show that the person was consecrated and dedicated to the Lord for His service). Just as water cleans things (dishes, laundry, etc.), so baptism represents that we have been cleansed of our sin. Third, baptism displays the person’s faith publicly, to the church and to the world. Baptism becomes an action that defends the belief. In a way, it is proof to the belief. If the baptism is done in a really public place, like an outdoor place, it can even be an evangelistic witness to the world. Fourth and finally, baptism can be identification in the church. When a person is baptized, the person shows that he or she is one and the same as all the other people in the church. The similarity is that they’ve all been baptized. It’s a spiritual take on the saying, “Blood is thicker than water.” If blood is what connects the physical family, then water baptism is what connects the spiritual family.

Second of all, there’s the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This baptism is a required baptism because it is the “proof of purchase” that the person has been saved. All Christians receive the Holy Spirit when they are saved. If someone does not have the Holy Spirit, they are not saved. The Holy Spirit is needed in the person’s life, for the Holy Spirit is the one who makes the person a new creation. The Holy Spirit baptism literally does what the water baptism symbolically does. The Holy Spirit kills the sin within us. The Holy Spirit washes us clean of sin. The Holy Spirit sets us apart and makes a new creation for the service of God. The Holy Spirit unites a Christian with the rest of the body of Christ. What is the relation between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism? Do a read through of the book of Acts, or at least a quick skim. You’ll find out that people received the Holy Spirit before, during and after water baptism. It is never too late for either water baptism or Holy Spirit baptism.

Last of all, there’s the baptism of blood. The baptism of blood has a rich history with the Mennonites. Back when the Anabaptist movement (which would birth the Mennonite denomination) began, the Anabaptist beliefs weren’t accepted by other church denominations. These churches would persecute, even martyr, Anabaptists who didn’t agree with their faith statements. Yeah, that’s right, Anabaptists were being tortured, even killed for baptizing adults, calling the Lord’s Supper symbolic, and putting God and His Law over the government and its laws. After all, heresy and treason were one and the same during medieval times. Thus, the Anabaptists, and later on, the Mennonites, held strongly to the baptism of blood. Just as Jesus was persecuted and martyred for his teachings, so Christians must also be willing to accept persecution and martyrdom for holding on to the true teachings of Jesus. Just as Jesus was baptized by blood in his crucifixion, Christians must also be willing to give up their lives in the same way.

When the rest of the Christian world finally figured out that the Mennonites had it right the whole time (notice how most evangelical Christians, who are the majority of Christianity today, practice adult baptism and hold communion to be symbolic), the persecution of Mennonites decreased greatly, and Mennonites no longer were killed or tortured for their faith. So what was to become of the baptism of blood? Was it only to be conditional? Was it to be voluntarily or optional? The Mennonites turned to verses like Romans 12:1. In Romans 12:1, Paul calls Christians to become “living sacrifices.” The paradoxical term simply means to yield your personal wants and needs in life and to give them up for the sake of God and His kingdom. The Gospel accounts further continue this idea, when Jesus tells the disciples to “take up their cross” (see Matthew 10:38 and Mark 8:34). Once again, the term simply means to give you all to God. Just like you are dead to your sins and alive in righteousness because of Jesus, you are now dead your personal needs and wants and you’re now alive to glorifying God and advancing His kingdom. The baptism of blood means that you reject the ways of the world and accept the ways of God, even if it comes to your own personal life. This also still retains its original meaning, for if rejecting the world and accepting Jesus means persecution and death, the Christian must willingly face it. A Christian who has been baptized by blood has willingly taken on the life of the suffering servant, just like Jesus lived out. This also unites fellow Christians.

Baptism is not as simple as being one-fold. Baptism is three-fold. Baptism consists of a baptism of water, a baptism of the Holy Spirit and a baptism of blood. These 3 baptisms serve as witness. Jesus received all 3 baptisms. They witnessed that Jesus was the Christ. Anyone who also receives the same 3 baptisms has witnesses that declare that the person is a Christian. Whether you’re a Mennonite or not, I encourage everyone to receive these 3 baptisms. Be baptized with the Holy Spirit by accepting Jesus and being saved from your sins. Be baptized with water, and make your faith public to the church and to the world. Be baptized by blood, and adopt a life where you’re willing to do anything for God and His kingdom, even if it means suffering.