by Mark Bailey
Preacher's Study Notes 1992
The subject matter that Paul deals with in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 concerns headship or authority between men and women; however, usually when we deal with this passage we do so, as we will be doing today, not to study authority or headship, but with the determination to figure out what the sign of authority is. In other words, we are generally looking for what constitutes the "power" that Paul mentions in verse 10 when he says, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."
Basically, the teaching found in I Corinthians 11:2-16 is in an outline form. In verse 3, Paul gives the ladder of authority: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." This ladder of authority places God as supreme, followed by Christ, then man and finally woman.
The contention within the Corinthian church was not concerning whether Christ was over man or whether God was over Christ --- they understood these facts. The contention was concerning whether man is, in fact, over woman in the church. Therefore after clearly stating the correct authoritative positions concerning man and woman, Paul deals only with this part and explains in verses 4-6 what men and women are to do to show others that they recognize and are practicing God's teaching concerning this ladder of authority. Not only does Paul state (as in verse 3) that man is over woman, but in verses 7-10 he continues by explaining why man has authority over the woman. Next, in verses 11-12 Paul, parenthetically gives words of caution by stating that even though man is over woman, as far as authority is concerned, that he does not have absolute control because the Lord is supreme over both man and woman.
Finally, in verses 13-16 Paul concludes by comparing the authoritative position of men and women to the sign representing this authority and by noticing, even in the midst of contentious brethren, that the law of nature teaches that this "covering" is suitable for being the "sign of authority." The purpose of giving this outline is that we might understand that this passage is teaching one subject and that is headship. The correct understanding of this passage depends entirely upon keeping the teachings in context regardless of preconceived ideas.
We will begin our study in search of identifying the covering by noticing verse 4: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonereth his head." In verse 3, Paul clearly states that "the head of every man is Christ." Christ, therefore, is man's supreme which man dishonors by having his physical head covered when "praying or prophesying."
We should also notice that there is absolutely nothing here to indicate that the terms "praying or prophesying" are restricted only to the worship services; therefore, we must understand that Paul is instructing that man is to be uncovered any time that he is praying or prophesying. Obviously, if Paul had wanted his readers to understand that he was speaking of actions only in the church he could have easily done so. For example, he could have restricted his teaching to the church only by saying, as he did in verse 18, " ... when ye come together in the church" or, as found in I Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches." In other words, Paul could have said, "Every man praying or prophesying in the church dishonors his head," but he did not. However, I think that we should notice that Paul is, in fact, speaking of these authoritative positions in this chapter in relation to the assembly. He does this due to the abuse of these things in the assembly, but still, the same teaching would apply out of the assembly as well. As an everyday example, a child may be disrespectful to a teacher; therefore, the parents may tell the child: "Act like a Christian while at school." Would this statement indicate that he does not have to act like a Christian if he is not at school? Of course not! However, school is mentioned simply because school is the place where the violation took place. Likewise, "the assembly" is the place under consideration where women were dishonoring their heads that the Corinthians had written Paul about.
Regardless, if this has reference to "worship only," or all times while praying or prophesying we still must be conscious of the fact that a specific time is referred to. In short, if man is "praying or prophesying" he cannot be covered. To violate this would be an act of dishonoring Christ. However, if he is not "praying or prophesying" he can be covered, since he would be able to "uncover" himself before he enters into the specific acts of "praying or prophesying" again.
What does Paul mean by the words "having his head covered"? The term "having" (echo), according to Mayer (266) is used in the sense of "wearing." Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (332) says that "having his head covered" indicates "while he wears (a covering) on his head." The word "head" as used here refers to man's physical head; therefore, Paul has reference to man's having his physical head "covered" with anything. Vincent says these words literally mean "having something hanging down from the head" In his Critical Lexicon and Concordance, Bullinger says: "having [anything] depending from the head." Therefore, in reference to man, Paul is not speaking of a specific covering; instead, he is teaching that if man has "anything" that is, any type of covering or any type of ornament on his head while "praying or prophesying" he dishonors Christ. Since the word "covered" in this verse indicates "anything" on the head, it would include any type of ornament regardless if it is a man-made artificial covering (hat, shawl etc.) or if it is a God-given covering (long hair).
In I Corinthians 11:15 Paul said, ". . . hair is given her for a covering." Thayer (354) says that long hair is "as an ornament." Therefore, man's covering is not limited to, nor does it exclude something artificial. On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that man would sin, if he wears some type of ornament on his head if he is not praying or prophesying. For example, some jobs or sport activities may necessitate some fashion of a head covering (for example, a hat) and nothing is wrong with such since they are not praying or prophesying. Since long hair is mentioned as a covering in verse 15, does this mean that man may have long hair if he is not praying or prophesying? No! Such an act would be a violation of I Corinthians 11:14 "... if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him" Meyer(193) says that "Long hair on the head is a disgrace to a man ... because it is regarded as a sign of human subjection."
Now, concerning man's covering, which is anything on the head, Paul says that if he wears this covering while praying or prophesying that he "dishonors his head." The term "dishonoureth" (kataischuno) is defined by Strong's Dictionary as "to shame." In other words, if man wears "anything" on his head when praying or prophesying he shames his authoritative head which is Jesus Christ. Likewise, we find in verse 5 that if woman fails to wear her covering that she shames her head which is man. Now, the question of concern is: What constitutes the covering that Paul speaks of that brings forth "shame"? The answer is found in the context of I Corinthians 11.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Now let us consider the covering of woman. In verses 5 and 13 we find the term "uncovered" (akatakaluptos) which is defined by Thayer (21) as being "not covered, unveiled." Arndt and Gingrich (29) says that an uncovered woman is simply "a woman without (a) head-covering."
Notice that the idea of "anything on the head" is not found here, as it is concerning the man in verse 4; therefore, a particular thing is under consideration and not just "anything." In other words, as Humphry says, The Greek (for uncovered or covered concerning woman) is not the same as (man) at verse 4, which is literally, "having (anything) on the head." Since it is not the same as the word "covered" in verse 4, what is the covering referred to here that, if not worn, dishonors man? Again, some believe that Paul has reference to an artificial veil, while others believe that he is speaking of long hair. However, it seems more correct, due to the context of I Corinthians 11:2-16 to understand that Paul has reference to long (uncut) hair. Notice, in the context, that every statement having reference to women and their being "covered" or "uncovered" implies "long hair" within the same statement.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Many errors are made, in trying to understand God's instructions as found here, by not keeping the teachings in the proper context. If we keep the thoughts in context, how can Paul mean anything besides hair? Verse 15 clearly states that long hair is given for a covering. This verse not only implies what the covering is, but it also strengthens and defines the covering as "long" hair. Thayer (354) states that "hair," in this verse, is "as an ornament."
In the last phrase of verse 5, Paul tells us that the "head uncovered"
is "even all one" or "the same as" or "equal to" the head being shaven. The Greek term xurao translated "if she were shaven" is defined "to shear, shave" (Mayer 432). When woman is "uncovered," that is, when her hair is not left as nature gives it (uncut), she shames man by the act, and here Paul says that such an act is the same as having the hair shaved. As noticed in verse 3, the subject under consideration is "headship." Verse 5 is simply teaching that if a woman prays or prophesies "with her head uncovered," that is, without a complete covering of long hair, she dishonors man, and subsequently disobeys God.
The question that we are confronted with is: Why is the uncovered head the same as being shaved? How is the head uncovered? In the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), the "head uncovered" always refers to removing the hair. A study of the word "uncovered," as found in verse 5 of the Greek Old Testament, proves that it refers to cut hair or hair that has been shortened and not to an artificial veil. (See chart 3.)
Consequently, the uncut hair is a glory to woman (v. 15). It is a gift (or ornament) to woman from God. I suppose this could be the reason that Thayer (354) states "hair" in verses 14-15: "differs from thrix (the anatomical or physical term) by designating the hair as an ornament." In other words, the long hair referred to in I Corinthians 11:14-15 has reference to an "ornament" and not simply to hair. Again, Thayer (292) defines thrix as: "the hair of the head." While praying or prophesying women must have this "ornament," that is, long hair as a sign of authority (v. 10). In order for woman not to dishonor man, she must preserve this God-given ornament (long hair) by never removing any part of it. Concerning the woman's head being uncovered, Charles Hodge states:
"She puts herself in the same class with women whose hair has been cut off. Cutting off the hair, which is the principal natural ornament of women, was either a sign of grief, Deuteronomy 21:12, or a disgraceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is: she is one and the same thing with one who is shaven. She assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman."
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
As stated earlier, the reason that the "head uncovered" is one and the same as being shaven is simply that they both refer to hair that has been cut. The Greek word katakalupto ("covered," I Corinthians 11:6) is a compound word made up of kata and kalupto. The prefix kata primarily means "down"; however (according to a study made at the University of South Africa Bible School): "When prefixed to a verb, its most usual meaning is 'completely.' " Also, in his Lexicon of New Testament words, W. J. Hickie says that katakalupto (covered)-means: "to completely cover." Therefore, we should understand that God's desire for woman is that she honors man by wearing her sign of authority, that is uncut hair.
When the hair is shortened even in the least measure the head is no longer "completely" covered. For example: If I were to cover my house with roofing and then remove or cut away a small amount of the covering --- during the first rain, I would quickly understand that my house is not properly or "completely covered." Likewise, when women remove or cut away part of their covering (long hair) they are not properly or completely covered; therefore, they are considered "uncovered" regardless of how much hair they may have left.
I am aware of the contention of some people who try to defend their practice of cutting their hair by saying, "I only trim my hair, it's not shorn, that is, it's not cut dose to the scalp; therefore, I still have long hair." The point being misunderstood here is that the covering of hair has no reference to the length (in inches) of the hair, but to the uncut hair as an ornament. Concerning this ornament, Thayer (54) informs us: The notion of length being only secondary and suggested. Consider it this way, if a woman can cut her hair and still be covered, then a man will have long hair and therefore be covered when he cuts his hair. The consequence of this argument would require every man to be completely shaved. In order for woman to obey the apostle's teaching and not dishonor man, she must keep this "ornament," this "sign of authority" which nature teaches is a "glory" to her, that is, long hair.
Often, instead of cut hair, people understand the words "head uncovered" to be referring to some foreign object (cap, hat, or some type of artificial veil) being taken off the head. However, it is necessary for a proper understanding of this subject to realize that every time the expression "uncover the head" occurs in the Greek Old Testament, it means to remove the hair. For an example notice Numbers 5:18 where the same Hebrew word para is used of a woman accused of adultery: "And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head. . ."
The Septuagint translates Numbers 5:18 with the Greek word apokalupto, the same root form (kalupto) we have in I Corinthians 11 for "uncover." Wycliffe, in his Commentary, tells us that in Numbers 5:18 the phrase "uncover the woman's head" is from the Hebrew word para meaning: "to unbind the hair, not uncover the head. As one under suspicion, she was deprived of this sign of dignity; her hair was unbound." Also, the truth is clearly stated in the definition as given by Gesenius (690) when he says that the Greek apo-kalupto means "to make naked, especially by shaving." It is also of interest and important to notice that the noun form of para (pehra) is simply defined as "hair." Gesenius states that it is "from the idea of shaving. Leveticus. 10:6; 21:10; Numbers. 5:18." Notice from the following translations that the uncovered (apo-kalupto) head has reference to the hair.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the phrase "uncover the head" from the Hebrew verb para and the noun pehra refers to the hair when we realize that it is the same word used for uncovering the head in grief. The Old Testament makes clear that the "hair" itself was removed in times of grief. In Deuteronomy 21:12 an Israelite is forbidden to take a captive woman for his wife until she has first shaven her head and mourned for her father and mother a full month. In Job 1:20, Job shaves his head upon hearing that his children are all dead. Concerning this term, Strong's Lexicon says, Para "a primary root; to loosen; by implication to expose, dismiss;" "pera from para, the hair (as dishevelled): locks." Speaking of pera, Young's Concordance says, "Locks or other part of the hair of the head, Numbers 6:5; Ezekiel. 44:20"; "Para --- To free, keep or make bare."
Notice also that the grammatical forms of katakalupto (covered) as found in I Corinthians 11:5, 6, 13 can and do refer to hair. Notice Ezekiel 44:20 --- the Septuagint translates: "And they shall not shave their heads, nor shall they pluck off their hair; they shall carefully cover their heads." Special attention should be given to the word "cover" which comes from a form of the Greek term katakalupto. Also, notice from the following translations (in chart 5) that the word "cover' has reference to hair.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
As can be seen simply from the spelling, kaluptontes and kalupsosi are grammatical forms of kalupto and katakalupto ("covered") as found in I Corinthians 11:5,6,13, and are translated as having reference to the hair even though it is translated by the Septuagint as "cover." The point is, when we read the word "cover" or "covered" it does not necessarily refer to something artificial. The context must make the distinction. Notice the following comments from scholars:
Keil & Delitzsch (vol. 9, 315), concerning the word "cover":" meaning to cut the hair, is obvious from the context."
Adam Clarke (vol.4, 544): "To let the hair grow long would have been impropertherefore the Lord commands them to poll --- cut the hair short, but not to shave.; "
The word "poll," "cover," or kaluptontes is defined by Strong (56) as "a primary root (indicating) to shear." Gesenius (408) defines the terms as "to shave, to shear (the head); found once, Ezekiel 44:20." Without a doubt the meaning is simply that they shall "poll" "cover" with reference to "hair."
Next, let's notice verse 6 where Paul says, "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
Notice, first of all, the condition of the woman referred to in this verse. She no longer has her "ornament" (long hair). Her hair is no longer as "nature" would have it. She is "not covered," that is, she is not "completely covered" (as is defined by W. J. Hickie) due to having removed a portion of her hair. She did not cut her hair enough to be shorn, she merely trimmed it, but Paul continues to show the sinfulness of this act of trimming by saying, in order to be consistent, "let her also be shorn."
The word "also" (kai) is defined by Thayer (316) as "likewise" and he says that this term "marks something added to what has already been said, or that of which something already said holds good;.. In this use it generally throws an emphasis upon the word which immediately follows it." Notice that the following emphasized word is keiro ("be shorn") having reference to "sheared" hair (Strong) or "hair cut close" (Vincent). In other words, Paul is saying that if she is going to remove a small portion of her hair, for example, if she going to trim her hair, she may as well go further and be shorn, or even a step further than that and be shaved. Vincent tells us that shorn or shaven means: "To have the hair cut close, or to be entirely shaved as with a razor."
Paul concludes verse 6 by relating to the known knowledge of the Corinthians concerning the fact that it is "a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven." The word "shame" (alscbron) means "dishonorable" or sin (Thayer 17). Both the Jews and Gentiles knew that it was sinful for women to be "shorn or shaven"; therefore, Paul says, since this is the case "let her be covered" --- let her be completely covered. In the first part of this verse Paul is simply teaching that if they consider it permissible to cut their hair a small amount they may as well shave their heads. Just as a man today is to keep his hair cut, he may also shave his head, if he desires. This is only consistency! However, in the last part of this verse Paul is saying "if" or since you consider it a "shame" for a woman to be "shorn or shaven" (as they all did), let her be covered --- let her retain her natural hair, that is, hair as nature gave it --- uncut.
Now, we will notice verse 7 where Paul says, "a man indeed ought not to cover his head . . ." The term "ought not" (opheilo) means "one must not" (Bauer, Amdt, and Gingrich). In other words, man "must not" "cover his head" with "anything." In verse 4 Paul's message to man was that he could not have "anything" on his head while praying or prophesying. It seems now that he wants to make it clear that man cannot have "anything" covering his head, no, not even "long hair." Paul continues to give reasons why man must not wear a "sign of subjection" on his physical head. It is important to understand that the reasons given for man to not be covered are also the reasons that woman must be completely covered.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
It is essential that we consider the reasons given by Paul as to why long hair is to be worn by women and not by men. Many today, mistakenly, believe that the long hair is no longer an issue simply because, they claim, "it was a custom of the day." And now that it is not a recognized custom, they feel that it is no longer necessary. However, notice that the reasons given for the covering had nothing to do with "custom."Man being created as the origin of the human race stands in the position of leadership, only under God and Christ. He is not to cover his head with "anything" because the covered head is "a sign of subjection." Woman, being created for the man, while man, not being created for anyone (earthly) shows that man is supreme in authority; therefore, he is not to wear the sign of submission, that is, long hair or any type of covering while praying or prophesying.
Now, let's notice verse 10 where Paul says, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." We have just noticed in chart 6 that three reasons are given, by Paul, as to why a woman must be covered. Paul ties these three reasons together in verse 10 by saying: "For this cause" ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Question? For what cause? Because of the order in which woman was created, because she was created both "of" and "for" the man and due to being created for the glory of man. Notice, she is to have "power on her head" because of creation and not because of custom. Customs may have changed over the years but creation did not.
Verse 10 is often overlooked and omitted because of the difficulties surrounding it. However, it is one of the most important verses within this context and one which needs to be thought through carefully. Let's notice some of the key words of this verse. The term "ought" (opheilo) used here in reference to women, as in verse 7 in reference to man, means "must." In other words, Paul is saying that woman "must" have "power" on her head. Thayer (469) says that women are "under obligation, bound by duty or necessity, to do something." Notice that the instruction given is not followed simply because the woman may desire to do so, nor because of custom; instead, it is to be followed because of a sense of duty or necessity in obeying the inspired Scriptures.
Now, we must ask, what is the instruction given for Christian women that she "must" do? Paul said that the instruction is "to have power on her head . . .", that is, the "sign" of subjection which is long hair. The term "power" as used by the apostle in this verse is a metonymy (a figure of speech where the name of one thing is used to suggest another). Thayer defines "power" as: "a sign of the husband's authority over his wife." Notice now, the woman's "headcover" in this verse is called "power" (exousia). The American Standard Version renders: "a sign of authority" Paul's instructions for the woman is that she must wear a "sign" as a sign of her subordination to man.
We should also understand that for a woman to submit herself to her husband is not a sign of spiritual weakness, it is recognizing the fact that has existed since the creation. Also, remember, as we have just noticed, that this is not done by compulsion but obligation. Vincent says that the term power is: "used here of the symbol of power, i.e., the covering upon the head as a sign of her husband's authority." Therefore, the Christian woman is under obligation to the Scriptures "to have power, that is, the sign of authority on her head because of the angels." The question that concerns us at this time is: "What is this power or sign?"
John records in Revelation 9:8 "They had hair as the hair of woman." This passage, first of all, indicate that the woman's hair is different from the man's hair. W.E. Vine says:
"The long hair of the spirit-beings described as locusts in Revelation 9:8 is perhaps indicative of their subjection to their Satanic master (compare
I Corinthians 11:10, R.V.)."
Here Vine is plainly telling us that this "power" the "sign of subjection" in I Corinthians 11:10 has reference to "the hair as the hair of woman," that is, "long hair" as referred to in Revelation 9:8. Concerning 362) refers to a statement of "Callistratus (who) twice uses exousia of "abundance of hair" .. . resembling the Irish expression 'a power of hair.' " Bloomfield quotes commentators who "regard the ("power") exousia as the name of a female ornament for the head, formed of braids of hair set with jewels." The word "power" indicating authority refers to the long hair. The opposite of long hair (or power) is cut hair which is a sign of destruction. Vincent says that "The cutting off of the hair is used by Isaiah as a figure of the entire destruction of a people by divine retribution." Here he has reference to Isaiah 7:20 where it says, "In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard." Long hair has always been a sign of anthers authority and cut hair on women has always been a sign of weakness (destruction --- Isaiah 7:20, mourning --- Deuteronomy 21:12, harlotry, etc)
At this time we also need to consider the fact that many scholars state that the word "power" refers to a veil. However, it is important to understand that the words "hair" and "veil" are used at times interchangeably; therefore, the distinction between the two words is not always clear. For example, the Hebrew word tsaminah, which is the Greek word katakalumma (this is a Greek noun form of the verb katakalupto in 1 Corinthians 11) is translated as "hair" and "veil" by different translators; Examples can be found in Isaiah 47:2 where the King James Version translates "uncover thy locks"; and the American Standard Version translates "remove thy veil." However, this does not mean to remove an artificial veil because it is defined (Gesenius 170) as: "to make naked; hence, to disclose, reveal, to uncover; to make. bare, to uncover any one's ear by taking away the hair." This same word is also used in other passages where some translators render "locks" and others "veil."
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
As we can easily see in this chart, in every case, the King James Version translates "locks," the American Standard Version, "veil." Has either mistranslated the word? No, it simply appears that the two words were used interchangeably since the hair was considered to be a veil. "Locks" (KJV) is defined by Gesemus (712) as: "tsamniah fem. a woman's veil." Sometimes tsaniniah is called a veil and other times it is called locks (hair). Young's Analytical Concordance says, tsammah is "a lock of hair, veil," Song of Solomon 4:1,3; 6:7; Isaiah 47:2."
There are some that will argue that in today's society the "sign" of authority is not the same thing as it was in the days of Paul. Some believe the wedding ring on their finger is the "sign" today and therefore conclude that the covering on the head, that is, the ornamental hair, is not necessary. However, we must realize that just because the world or even the members of the church do not believe or recognize what God has commanded does not do away with the command. For example, just because some people do not recognize immersion as a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, does not do away with the commandment to be immersed in baptism. Likewise, just because people may not recognize long hair as a "sign of subjection" does not do away with the command (1 Corinthians 11:6, RSV).
We also need to consider the word "because of the angels." The word "angels" (aggelos) according to Thayer (5) refers to a "messenger," that is, "one who is sent." It is difficult to know the exact purpose of the angels. There are many mysteries concerning what part they may have in our lives; however, it appears, according to Paul's teachings, that angels are in some way associated with Christians, while in the acts of praying or prophesying, as mentioned in verses 4 and 5. McGarvey indicates that Paul has reference to angels "who, though unseen, are always present with you in your places of worship." Psalms 138:1 proves that angels were present during worship "I will praise thee with my whole heart before the gods (angels) will I sing praise unto thee." However, worship is not the only place where angels are found, for Paul speaks of them as being a witness of the sufferings that both he and other apostles had faced (1 Corinthians 4:9) Jesus warns us to be careful how we deal with others due to the fact that "in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven" Paul charged Timothy, in I Timothy 5:21, not only before God and Jesus Christ, but also before "the elect angels to observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."
There are different views held as to who these angels are Some understand that Paul had reference to evil angels, that is, to devils which are called angels as found in I Corinthians 6:3: "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" This view contends that the evil angels will lust after women when they do not have their God given covering --- in other words, when they are disobedient.
A second view is that the angels refer to ministers. This view is often taken by those believing that the terms "praying or prophesying" in verses 4 and 5 refer only to worship. The contention is that women are to be covered in front of ministers, that they may know that the woman considers herself under subjection to man.
A third view is that angels refer to good angels. This view seems more correct because, it seems, every time the Scriptures refer to angels without specifying "good" or "bad" it refers to good angels. However, there is still much confusion concerning why Paul would make reference to the angels. In his comments, Mayer (5) supposes that Paul has reference to good angels "invisibly present in the religious assemblies of Christians," and therefore, women are to be covered where they will "not displease them." Another possibility is that Paul made reference to "because of the angels" because the angels were known to have been an example of covering their faces when they were before God. Notice Isaiah 6:1-2: "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." Sometimes this view is rejected because Paul only stated it in reference to women and not to men. However, this objection is not valid because the teachings found in this passage are basically for improprieties of Christian women and not of men.
The words found in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 are said in order to correct any misunderstanding of Paul's words. Man is indeed the "head," (in an authoritative position), of the woman; however, this does not give man the right to despise nor to treat the woman as a slave. While man is superior to woman in the line of headship, they are also equal in many ways. In Galatians 3:28 Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Here, we see that man is cautioned to understand that he is incomplete without the woman, just as the woman is incomplete without the man. In verse 12 Paul gives an example of this concerning reproduction. In the beginning woman was made from man (Genesis 2:21-23); however, now man is taken from woman—through birth. They are both dependent upon each other because, as Paul concludes, "all things (are) of God" that is, as Vine says, "all is by His counsels." God, through His mighty wisdom, created the human race in such a way that both man and woman are dependent upon the other. Proper respect is essential between men and women, as Paul taught in Ephesians 5:22-33.
We should now notice the question posed by Paul in verse 13: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul has already given his reasons based upon creation as to why women should wear a sign of subjection. Now he tells the Corinthians to judge or "consider" for yourselves concerning the appropriateness of woman praying uncovered. In other words, he is simply asking for their opinion. The word "comely" (prepo) as used in this verse has nothing to do with the idea of custom. He is not asking for their opinion of customs, but their opinions concerning the sign of authority in relation to creation. Paul is merely asking them to consider the matter based upon creation, and then give their honest opinion whether or not it is, as Mayer (535) says, "becoming, seemly, (or) fit" for women to be 'uncovered.' " Their honesty would cause them to realize that by being uncovered, that is, having their hair cut, women would be putting themselves on the same level of authority as men.
Again, we must ask: What are women to be "covered" with --- what is this "sign of authority?" In this verse Paul asks: "Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" It seems that even before they had a chance to answer the question that Paul stated the answer in verses 14 and 15. (See chart 8.)
Obviously, Paul explains that the answer must be "NO." No, it is not fitting for a woman to be without her covering. Why is it not fitting? Paul says that the reason is because her "long hair" (uncut hair) is "a glory" and a "covering" to her.
In verses 14 and 15 Paul plainly declares that man was intended to be uncovered and woman covered. As indicated here, woman is covered by having "long hair," and man is uncovered by having cut hair. Dean Alford explains this same truth by saying: "the mere fact of one sex being by nature unveiled, that is, having short hair --- the other, veiled, that is, having long hair."
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
The question that is asked by some is "How long is long?" The answer to this question is important, because man must not have this covering of long hair or else he "dishonors" Christ. On the other hand, woman must have this covering or else she "dishonors" man. How long is long? The answer is simply that long hair is hair that is not shortened. The term "long hair" is translated from the Greek word komao which Thayer (354) defines as "to let the hair grow." When men or women do not let their hair grow, but instead shorten it by cutting, trimming, breaking, burning, or giving perms, or any other method --- it is not long. I realize some women will say "When I trim the 'dead ends' my hair will grow longer." The truth of this statement is immaterial. It does not matter if it will grow longer once it is shortened. Mayer states that "the notion of length (is) only secondary and suggested." The proper question to be asked is: "When the hair is cut has it been shortened?" Obviously, the answer is "Yes," therefore, it is not long and she loses her "glory?' The contention of some is that long hair is simply hair that is not cut very short. However, let's go to the Scriptures to see if this is correct. (See chart 9.)CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Another point of interest is that in this context, the term "glory" is found three times. Notice chart 10.
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Today, we should consider the fact that if woman has the right to do away with her "glory," which verse 15 tells us is "long hair"; then man would be just as right to do away with his "glory," which is "woman," and, therefore, God will do away with His "glory," which is "man."Next, notice the last phrase of verse 15: "for her hair is given her for a covering." The word "hair" as found here is translated from the Greek word kome and Thayer (354) defines this term as "hair, head of hair: 1 Corinthians 11:15 it differs from thrix (the anatomical or, physical term) by designating the hair as an ornament." The hair as used here has reference to the "ornamental hair." This hair, as an ornament, is given for (instead of or answering to) a "covering" (peribolaion). The term "hair" has reference to the "sign of subjection" in verses 1-10, as is explained by W. E. Vine (189). He says:"The word (kome, hair) is found in 1 Corinthians 11:15, where the context shows that the 'covering' provided in the long hair of the woman is as a veil, a sign of subjection to authority, as indicated in the headship spoken of in verses 1-10."
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Objections are sometimes made to the idea that the "covering" of verse 15 is speaking of the same covering referred to in verses 5, 6, and 13. This objection is based upon the fact that different Greek words are used and the contention is that the verbs katakalupto and akatakalupto ("covered" and "uncovered" in verses 5,6,7, 13) cannot be correctly used with the noun peribolalon ("covering" in verse 15.) However, this objection is based upon theory (Notice chart 11.)While it may be correct to say the verbs and the noun cannot specifically be found being used together in the New Testament, it is of interest to notice that in the Greek Old Testament that forms of the two verbs (katakalupto & periballo) are used interchangeably. Notice chart 12.
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
For Christian women today to violate the instructions of the Apostle Paul by refusing to wear long (uncut) hair is of serious consequence. The Apostle has taken the time to give several reasons for the necessity of the long hair. As a very brief review, the reasons given are given in chart 13:CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Many people attempt to erase all of Paul's teachings found in verses 2-15 by quoting verse 16 which reads: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." However, such efforts are vain because, as we have already noticed, Paul was not speaking about the "custom" of the day concerning the "sign of authority." Furthermore, he is certainly not teaching that if they are having contention over his teaching to forget that he wrote the words. Instead his message is that his spoken words are truth and cannot be altered. He later wrote, "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you..."
Well, what does Paul mean by saying "we have no such custom"? First of all, the pronoun "we," according to Bloomfield, refers to "(Paul) and the other Apostles." The term "such" (toioutos) is defined by Thayer
(627) as "such as this, of this kind or sort." In other words, Paul is saying none of the apostles share in this sort of custom as the Corinthians practiced.
There are three views concerning what sort of "custom" Paul had in mind. First, some say that Paul was referring to women being not covered when praying or prophesying. The problem with this view is that the pronoun "we" does not include women, but refers only to the apostles. Second, others say that Paul had reference to the custom of being contentious. In other words none of the apostle maintained a contentious spirit. This view is very likely and should not be ruled out. A third view, that I also cannot completely rule out is that verse 16 applies to the subject which follows and not to verses 2-16.
The long (uncut) hair on women is the covering referred to in I Corinthians 11:2-15. It is a "sign of subjection," and is essential today and must be accepted and worn with pride for "her hair is given her for a covering" (v. 15).
1001 Westwood Dr., Piedmont, SC 29673
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. London: Rivingtons, Waterloo Place; and Deighton, Bell, and Co., Cambridge, 1861.
Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, The University of Chicago Press, London, 1957.
Bloomfield, S. T., Critical Digest and Synoptical Arrangement of the most Important Annotations on the New Testament. C. and J. Rivington, London, 1828.
Bullinger, Ethelbert W. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, London, ninth edition 1969.
Farrar, Archdeacon. The Pulpit Commentary. Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York and Toronto.
Gesenius. Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Baker Book House, Grand Rapid, Michigan, 1979.
Hickie, W. J. Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament. The MacMillan Company, London 1948.
McGarvey, J. W. The Standard Bible Commentary Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. Standard Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Thayer, J. H. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977.
Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha. Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Corinthians. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884.
Strong, James. Exhaustive Concordance. Regal Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. MacDonald Publishing Company, McLean, Virginia.
Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1966.
Wyciffe. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. The Southwestern Company, Nashville, Tennessee, 1962.
Young, Robert. Analytical Concordance to the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970.
No comments:
Post a Comment