Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. —Isaiah 55:1-2
Paul is often difficult. For example, his teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 has been frequently interpreted and applied, or pointedly not applied, in a very reactionary manner. Some Christians see something in the text about a head covering and go on to think how much women with doilies on top would stand out and be d by our current culture, and still further, that if the world would it, then it must be good. Another group looks at the situation and thinks that, well, the world would that, therefore, we probably shouldn't apply that passage; it had to have been a cultural thing. Best not to ask too many questions; best for all concerned.
The passage in question is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. In the course of his discussion, Paul makes it clear three times that his teaching is not confined, or defined, by a particular culture. The context of the head covering issue is the relationship between God, Christ, man and woman in v. 3, which does not change from culture to culture. He goes on to appeal to "nature itself" in v. 14 and explains that none of the churches of God differ on this teaching (v. 16). So whether this passage applies to us or not is therefore not really the question. It is very clear that what ever principle Paul is teaching about head coverings applies to us. A question does remain, however. How is the passage to be understood?
Once the principle of head coverings has been accepted, the next question to be answered is, "what is a head covering?" The simple and clear answer of this passage is that it is hair. "...if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him" (v. 14), because his head is uncovered (v.4). "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering" (v. 15).
The reason for the covering is that the relationship between a man and a woman reflects the relationship between Christ and His church. This teaching is explained more in depth in Ephesians 5, but we may notice here how the 1 Cor. 11 passage begins with a reference to how Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ (v. 3). The doctrine of headship is, not surprisingly, related to Paul's doctrine of hair.
In Ephesians 5, Paul discusses the creation ordinance of a man and a woman coming together, and then says: "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church" (v. 32). The mystery of marriage is a reflection of Christ and His church. This understanding is emphasized from a different angle here in 1 Corinthians 11. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man" (v. 7). Here we learn that in the area of head coverings, the male is to reflect God's relationship to mankind, while the female is to reflect mankind's relationship with God.
This does not set up a "spiritual worthiness" pecking order. It is simply a reflection of the order of creation. In the first chapter of Genesis, the creation of mankind is described for us. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He made him; male and female He created them" (v. 27). Both man and woman are created in God's image, and both together are described as man. So in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is not teaching that men are deities and women are mortals; we are both created in God's image. Men, however, analogically reflect God's authority in the marriage, and women analogically reflect mankind's submission to Him. Thus, in a very important way, women are the representatives of men.
This understanding of headship is crucial to this passage. When a man and a woman come together they are picture of Christ and His church; therefore, they reflect this in an outward sign, which is the way they wear their hair. Long hair on a woman is a sign that she is in submission. Short hair on a man is a sign that he is leading. These two together are a picture to the outside world of Christ and His church. A man, of course, is also in submission to the authorities over him, but that is not the relationship depicted here.
A common question then asked is, "what about the Nazaritic vow?" One of the features of a Nazaritic vow was that the man did not cut his hair (Num. 6:5-6). Given the principle already described, we could reason that this is simply a special situation where a man reflects another relationship, which is his submission to God. But in this special situation, long hair means the same thing--submission.
Another difficulty that comes up is the understanding of v. 6. "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." A shaved head on a woman was a sign that the woman was a temple , a common practice in Corinth. The temple to Aphrodite in that city was staffed with a thousand such s.
A difficulty with this reply arises when one notices that being uncovered and being shaved signify the same thing. Yet, being uncovered doesn't necessarily mean that the woman is already shaved, or else there would be no need for Paul's ironic order to go all the way and shave her head. Being uncovered therefore cannot just mean not having long hair.
This problem is often used by Christians who believe that their women should be wearing a cloth or a shawl while praying. Their point is that this passage teaches that a woman's long hair is a sign to show us that women need an additional covering--her shawl, a napkin or whatever. A woman who then prays without her additional covering should then have her primary covering (her hair) removed (shaved).
However, the Bible gives a better explanation elsewhere of another understanding of what it is for a woman to be uncovered.
Numbers 5 describes the bitter water ceremony, which is a test for women charged with ery. The process begins with the priest uncovering the woman's head (v. 18). This refers to the woman's hair being let down. Women at that time customarily wore their hair either up, or, if it was down, tied behind the head. When a woman's head was uncovered it meant that the hair was unloosed and disheveled, which was taken as a sign to the world that the woman was not in submission to her husband.
The principle here is that a woman can wear her hair down and loose in such a way that it signifies that she is in rebellion. This principle is also very dear in ancient Greek literature. Commonly, whenever the women rebel against their husbands, especially when their rebellion involved demonic worship, there were continual references in classical literature to their hair being let loose and wild.
This principle was dear in ancient Israel, classical Greece, during Paul's life, and, not surprisingly, is still evident today. The current grunge movement is an obvious example. When a woman wears her hair down in front of her face and leaves it unkempt, or has her head shaved, the whole world knows that she is saying that she is in rebellion. Both styles seem to say the same thing. When a man has short hair, we say he is "clean cut". This carries the connotation of a nice, responsible, young man. Whether he truly is responsible or is an Eddy Haskel is really not the question. The question is what does his hair say about him?
In the same way, whether the woman is truly in rebellion or not is not the question. Frequently the is a sweet , not at all in rebellion, but that is not what her hair is saying about her.
So the principle taught is that a man ought to have short hair that reflects his leadership. The woman ought to have long hair done nicely in a way that reflects her submission. Her hair is a glory to her (v. 15).
Invariably, after reaching this conclusion someone asks, "How long is long, and how short is short?" Well, it is interesting that people don't usually have a difficult time distinguishing between these two outside the context of this passage. Whatever youhave previously called short hair, is probably what is short hair, and likewise with long.
In examining this passage closely, however, it is interesting to note that Paul does not spend time addressing this question. He doesn't give any length requirements in inches or cubits. We do not have here a Pauline "dress code." The problem he is addressing is masculinity and femininity reflected in hair length and style, and what someone's hair says about that particular person.
In this sense, this passage definitely reflects cultural practices, because hair style is a cultural category. Culture may determine variations in the length of long hair, or variations in the length of short hair. However, if a culture is the outward manifestation of a society's beliefs, if culture is religion externalized, then the culture of those that believe in the gospel should look radically different from the unbelieving cultures.
And in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is telling us of one way that God has prescribed for His people to look different. Our religion reaches our hair. shouldn't apply that passage; it had to have been a cultural thing. Best not to ask too many questions; best for all concerned.
The passage in question is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. In the course of his discussion, Paul makes it clear three times that his teaching is not confined, or defined, by a particular culture. The context of the head covering issue is the relationship between God, Christ, man and woman in v. 3, which does not change from culture to culture. He goes on to appeal to "nature itself" in v. 14 and explains that none of the churches of God differ on this teaching (v. 16). So whether this passage applies to us or not is therefore not really the question. It is very clear that what ever principle Paul is teaching about head coverings applies to us. A question does remain, however.
nvariably, after reaching this conclusion someone asks, "How long is long, and how short is short?" Well, it is interesting that people don't usually have a difficult time distinguishing between these two outside the context of this passage. Whatever youhave previously called short hair, is probably what is short hair, and likewise with long.
And in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is telling us of one way that God has prescribed for His people to look different. Our religion reaches our hair.
May I ask simply a few questions? Do you believe that a woman, based on your interesting interpretation, ought to wear her hair ‘up’ in public worship? I suspect that having got rid of cloth coverings by your interpretation - which was the historic position of the Church - you really don't care whether women cover in the sense you claim this passage speaks of. Just saying that they ought not to have it in a 'wild' manner will not do. A nice neat style, not too short, not down in front of the face, etc all fall short of what you say Paul is referring to. I don’t see Paul saying, ‘when I say uncovered I mean what some say is referred to in Numbers [though they do not get that from the Numbers passage itself, which I would have thought, based on other Scriptures, meant a vial.] namely, letting the hair hang down rather than gathered up, and thus you in public worship must do likewise, that is - for you in your day - don’t let your women have very short or extremely untidy hair.’
I also suspect that these general principles for women’s hair would not be enforced to much – especially since it would be very subjective debates that would take place. Furthermore, since this is an additional requirement for public worship does that mean that outside worship a woman can have wild hair-styles as long as it is ‘long[ish]’? This would be strange since gathered-up hair – or your ‘tidy’ - is a mark of submission to her husband or father. Is she allowed to abandon the visible sign of submission? Indeed, if gathered-up hair is a sign of submission generally as your interpretation claims it to be, how does it become an additional covering to show specific male leadership in the public worship of God.
In other words, either she can abandon this sign of general submission in daily life – thus bearing a bad testimony before the world – and put it on for public worship as you say Paul commands, or, she can always have this sign of submission and thus have no additional sign to place on for public worship.
Paul is speaking of an additional sign, more than the creation sign of long hair; gathered-up hair can not be the sign he refers to since it is a general sign, and not something that is put on for public worship and taken off again afterwards. I think the fact that men are told to have uncovered heads in public worship – but not outside – also spoils your novel theory.
I have not time to get into this debate with you any further just now, though if you wish to debate hair as a covering come to my site and David Silversides may give you a response.
May I just also mention one more thing sincerely without trying to be offensive? I would have had more ease in understanding your position if your post was not as filled as it was with spelling mistakes and typing errors. I know how easy it is to miss such errors, but the number in this post made it very difficult to entirely follow your argumentation. You may no doubt find many errors of this kind on my site, though I labour to correct all such before publishing.
I should perhaps also note that I am sure you desire to follow the teaching of this passage as all of Scripture, but my point is that your interpretation has a built-in-looseness to it that encourages at least the virtual ignoring of it. And as I said to enforce it in any manner would be extremely difficult due to each persons idea of what is 'wild' and what is not. Nor do I see how this causes Christians to stand out to the world, since the requirement is only for times of public worship.
May I suggest a reconsideration of this interpretation? Can I also invite you to read Mr. Silversides’ series looking at the Historic practice of the Church, which by looking at how worthies of the past viewed this passage will also give a good defense of my position. Mr. Silversides also deals a little with the passage directly himself, both in the posts themselves and some of the comments. http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/05/31/is-headcovering-biblical-1/ or, via my profile.
G.M., The spelling mistakes and typing errors are more likely the fault of some sort of hyperactive filter Pastor Lawyer has installed (and it is he, not Mr. Merkle, who posted this, though the latter wrote it). This filter blocks words like prostitute and, it would seem, ridicule from escaping the confines of the computer to wreak mischief upon the world. As a side effect, it makes for challenging reading.
I have similar objections: How do we know that "Women at that time customarily wore their hair either up, or, if it was down, tied behind the head" and that uncovering in Numbers 5 means letting down? Why does the church seem to have been of one mind about the need for additional covering until the last few decades or so? And why do we seem to have first let the culture drive our decision to go without an additional covering, and then suddenly found ways to explain away the need of it? (I'm not accusing Mr. Merkle individually of being dishonest about this, but I find it awfully suspicious in general.) Why the seeming attention to the issue of headcovering in worship as opposed to everyday life unless St. Paul had something different in mind? And my perennial question about this passage: What's so glorious about hair, anyway?
I wear an additional covering because, despite Mr. Merkle's fine arguments, that still seems the plainest reading of the passage to me. (And besides, I own a fabulous snood collection, and whatever else would I do with them?) But please, someone shoot me if I ever start thinking that the covering is The Main Thing.
Before anything else I like the look of your blog, though I have not read much yet. I usually get some idea of the theology of a blog by the list of links!
Sorry for not understanding who wrote the post. And also for not guessing that it was more than just a little careless editing - though some just type and publish without editing when it comes to blogging and commenting.
I was trying to think of a way of stating some of the objections you have raised but had to leave them due to time restraints. The others about first throwing off the practice due to feminism and then inventing ingenious interpretations is spot on - though this is general and does not personally apply to every objector to additional head covering.
While the subject is important, you are right, it is not the main thing. However I think that an attitude goes with the abandoning of the practice that often affects the home, society and the Church - I mean when the sign of submission goes in worship, often the submission goes, in part at least, in general. Would you agree?
"...when the sign of submission goes in worship, often the submission goes, in part at least, in general. Would you agree?"
I can only go by my observations on that one, so I really don't have enough evidence to agree. But I would have to say that I believe the focus should be on restoring the biblical ordering of the sexes in the church an in the family rather than directly on restoring the sign. Also, as I've told a few women here and there, headcovering is, by and large, not a women's issue. A wife is to be about the business of submitting to her husband, and this is just one area where she needs to seek and accept his direction.
Some of the most godly, submissive wives I know do not cover. I'm sure they would if their husbands wanted them to do so. I have one friend who really wanted to cover, and her husband said no, and she argued with him for ages before it finally occurred to her that she was being an idiot and knocked it off. I'm single, so I made the decision on my own, but I've counseled other single women to chat with their elders about it.
And as soon as headcovering becomes a contentious issue in the body of Christ, we've all gone off the rails. Wives should submit to their own husbands. Husbands should tend the gardens of their own families. Everybody should mind his own business. I think it unwise for congregations or denominations to set hard and fast rules on issues such as this (though shepherds should unabashedly preach their understanding of scriptural teaching on the matter). There is good thinking to be found on both sides, and it's not worth disrupting the peace over an issue that can be left to individual consciences without devastating consequences.
First I should say that many - usually non-reformed - churches that practice additional headcovering neither know why they cover, nor, exemplify submission. And, conversely many who do not cover in this way know why they don't, and do exemplify submission. My point was that often the sign was, and is being, abandoned due to a general change in the attitudes of women, or more particularly due to the men who fear offending them. (Just as an aside modern men generally have become useless wimps how have abdicated most of their God-given responsibilities. And I perhaps do not differ as much as I would like to, or even as much as I think I do.) When it is restored in Reformed churches, as it was in mine, it is due to a desire to recover both the purity of worship, and the glorious role of women in the church and family. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the general submission begins to go, and the sign often follows. Thus the abandonment of the sign is a sign, and the recovery of it is often a sign. And thus it should have some importance placed upon it.
I agree that the husband is responsible to God for his wife not covering. But I believe that she is also responsible; and because she is not to obey her husband when he asks her to sin, she must obey God and cover in public worship. I would be interested to know how many men believe it sinful for a woman to wear an additional covering; because if they do not believe it to be so, then they should not try to stop her from doing what she believes to be right. But then many men are more feministic than their wives, and are thus greatly incensed at Paul's teaching.
Since covering is an issue of public worship I believe it falls under the regulative principle of worship, and so is a matter for the church and not just personal conscience. It is also an offence to Christian men, and thus a woman who does not believe it to be a sin to conform - as I believe few do - ought to do so for her brothers in Christ, and the peace of the church. And if they have husbands, then they ought to tell them to do so. Remember, Paul says it is a sign of rebellion against male leadership in public worship, and thus the order of God's Church and God himself. Unlike many other sins, this is by its very nature public and contentious; let those who refuse to conform ask if it is worth such consequences to display their 'freedom'. They of course should also consider that the plainest sense of the passage, and the weight of Church history is thoroughly against their interpretation. This, or rather, the host of novel explanations of this passage have followed, and sit snug with, rebellion in the Church, not reformation. However it is not a just reason for causing a schism in a church as the Ulster Free Presbyterians and some fundamentalists hold.
G.M., thank you for the graciousness of your conversation. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on a couple points, though.
"...because she is not to obey her husband when he asks her to sin, she must obey God and cover in public worship."
It is a fundamental rule of hermeneutics that clearer passages must be used to interpret less clear passages, and not the other way around. Scripture is repeatedly clear about a wife's call to submit to her husband. We have numerous passages exhorting her to do so, which no one but the most dishonest of readers disputes. With regard to many other sins -- murder, blasphemy, adultery, gossip and so on -- we likewise have a multitude of clear scriptural teaching. But with regard to headcovering, we have only the one passage -- 1 Corinthians 11 -- which is hardly crystal clear.
While a woman may and must disobey her husband if he directs her to a clear infraction of God's law ("I'm sorry, dear, but I must decline to rob the bank for you"), she may not discard the clear command to submit in favor of the much vaguer directive to cover. If the Lord's gracious providence ever does include marriage for me, and my husband believes there is no need for a woman to cover, and prefers that I not do so, I will leave my snoods and scarves in their drawer with the clearest of consciences, trusting that God honors my obedience to my husband as the higher obedience to Him.
"Since covering is an issue of public worship I believe it falls under the regulative principle of worship, and so is a matter for the church and not just personal conscience."
First, as I am not, nor ever shall be, a ruler in Christ's church, I offer these thoughts with trepidation, but they are my sincere and strong beliefs. I hope that Pastor Lawyer will at some point join the conversation and offer his views, as well.
If the shepherds of the church have strong convictions about headcovering, they should certainly teach those convictions. But an an issue such as this, on which faithful Christians with a high esteem for Scripture hold differing views, I believe it would be foolish for a session of elders to attempt to enforce a standard with regard to headcovering -- either in favor or in opposition to the practice. At least under our current circumstances, with many faithful Christians on either side of the issue, the thought of excommunicating anyone over such a matter is abhorrent to me. And when we discuss whether or not a church should require something, let's make no mistake that we are talking about whether or not someone should be cut off from Christ's body for failure to adhere to the requirement. With regard to headcoverings, perish the thought!
I suppose we are unlikely to come to full agreement since I believe the passage to be both crystal clear and enough to make it part of the desired reformation of the church. Because I believe this I can not agree that a wife should not cover because her husband asks her to. It is simply sin, and she must never obey a call to sin. But don't misunderstand me I have a high view of the husbands authority, and I do think she ought only to disobey when she is fully convinced that to obey would mean her committing a transgression of God’s law. (This of course means that a woman should only marry a man she has confidence will lead her in paths of righteousness – though evidently not infallibly.
It is obvious that this also causes me to differ on how local elders should handle refusal to conform. I think that a lady - or her husband - who wishes to be contentious by removing the sign should find another congregation where such is not offensive. I think however that she and her husband, if she has one, should be reasoned with from the scriptures privately before any decision is made on either side. If someone persisted in non-covering, and refused to attend somewhere that did not feel offence at such – and remember refused to conform for the peace of the church – and had been counseled over a period of time on the issue, they would be guilty of obstinate rebelliousness, unteachableness, and failure to act in a peaceful fashion. It would be this that would bring discipline and not differing on the interpretation of Corinthians chapter eleven as such. In my congregation one may worship without headcovering, but they can not partake of the Lord’s table while they remain in open rebellion.
There are few symbols in the simple pattern of New Testament public worship, but such as there are must be important. The elders are responsible to keep the Worship of God pure and entire, thus they may not change the symbols of the Lord’s Supper or Baptism; and they may not treat this one as unimportant either. Like the, essentially, one command for women to keep silence in the church of God this one is clear and plain. Unlike many issues that can privately be differed on - that is from the church officers and standards - this one is public by its very nature. It thus causes continued public offence to the saints, to God who says how he is to be worshiped, and to the angels who love to see redeemed men glorify God in obeying his commands (See 1st Corinthians 11).
I likewise appreciate the gracious nature of your responses. If I come across at all in a manner other than humble and gracious please accept my apology; I certainly do not mean to do so.