Paul’s advice to the Corinthian believers on the subject of womens behaviour is the cause of a great deal of controversy and even of confusion. This controversy has become more acute in recent years, as women in general have cast off the shackles of prejudice which had made this a male-dominated world. But the questions dealt with by Paul are not to be solved by a simple rejection of them as chauvinistic. Whilst it is reasonable on the part of women to claim the right to disagree with traditions and conventional usages, on this issue we should never lose sight of the spiritual values which made it necessary for the apostle to write these words; and the effort should be made to seek out the reasoning behind them.
It is unfortunate that in the modern atmosphere of rejection of traditional impositions upon the liberty of the individual, many extreme points of view are espoused and, in particular, young persons are encouraged by their schooling to claim freedom from both filial and moral restraints. We are now experiencing a clamorous outcry by Sisters (not all of them of tender years) in a spirit of rejection of Scriptural advice as being unreasonable in the light of present-day enlightenment or, to be more blunt, of modern-day thought.
In the face of this claimant, almost unheeding, opposition to the Word, it becomes necessary to ask for a halt, to give time for consideration of the words of the apostle, an attempt to disclose the significance of the ideas expressed thereby and an acknowledgement that here we have the inspired Word, itself making a claim upon the understanding, being by its nature and its origin superior to our natural thought and habit.
Once such an acknowledgement is made, it can be recognised that this subject is deeper than the mere question of the wearing of hats or of the notion that the A.B.’s are imposing their will upon the sisters’ behaviour.
Paul In Corinthians
Paul’s argument requires the expression of several related concepts, and takes up 14 verses of his eleventh chapter. To obtain benefit from his discussion, it is demanded of us that we traverse the whole of his philosophy as expressed within these relevant limits — anything short of this full reasoning of the apostle is likely to leave us with only partial understanding.
Paul begins with his discussion of “heads” in V.3. It seems strange that in this context he has used the word “kephale” (which has the meaning of the physical head atop our shoulders) when he might have used some such word as “archon” to express the notion of relationship (e.g. the head of the ecclesia). Liddell and Scott give no example of “kephale” being used in this sense in classical Greek. However, the Jerusalem Bible gives an interesting marginal comment on this passage, suggesting the use of “kephale” as “a Greek pun”.
It suffices to note that Paul postulates three heads or “superiors” –
God, the head of Christ.
Christ, the head of man.
Man, the head of woman.
We should note the further occasions where “head” is used in Paul’s argument; and the four such uses are:
- v. 4 a man praying with his head covered dishonours his head (Christ).
- v. 5 a woman praying with her head uncovered dishonours her head (a man; her husband).
- v. 7 a man should not veil his head, for he is the image and glory of God (eikon = likeness: see Emph. Diagl. ‘God’s glorious likeness’).
- v.10 a woman ought to have power upon her head (interpreted as a veil worn by women as an acknowledgement of the man’s higher rank and authority, hence womens lower and subject position).
In passing we note that it is this last item which arouses women’s ire. We offer the suggestion that this was an eastern custom and that, as our study proceeds, the indignity felt by women on this score may disappear.
A further comment upon this point: “because of the angels” in v.10 has been construed as being in the sense of angels in Rev. 2 and 3, the “messengers” or “governors” of the ecclesia, the sense being that such uniformity of practice reflects upon the good order of the body. This may not be accepted by some as a good rendition of the intent of the passage; and comment is invited.
Moving to v.13, we are required to give an answer to Paul’s question: Is it comely for a woman to approach God unveiled? Today, there are many who would give the reply, Yes, if her spirit and her heart are right!
But is Paul likely to accept that answer? We think not, and that Paul would say, Unless she covers her head, her spirit is not right and her heart is in revolt!
Paul’s argument reaches its climax in vs. 14-15. First, he says it is unnatural for a man to have a woman’s long hair and here, I believe, Paul includes the notion of such hair being dressed as a woman’s is.
The second premise is of great significance and has been, in my understanding, wrongly construed by nearly all commentators. It demands careful examination. The apostle states that a woman’s long hair is a glory unto her does he not mean “her crowning glory”! What man among us would deny that a woman’s hair, when properly dressed, is one of her most appealing assets? Certainly the professional hairdressers think so, even if we fail to notice.
Not to be indelicate, but to make the point clear, it is suggested that long hair braided, curled or swept up is her special sexual attraction and when Paul says a woman’s hair is her glory, this is his general meaning.
Further, when the apostle writes that a woman’s hair is given her for a covering, it is a denial of the trend of his whole thesis to assume that he intends to suggest that her hair will suffice for a veil or covering: rather the whole tenor of his argument is against her head being left uncovered. The Greek word “peribolaion”, translated ‘covering’, has a root meaning of ‘a thing thrown around’, such as a shawl or mantle; in fact ‘mantle’ is used where the LXX use this root word in Ps. 109, 29. It is clear that the sense in which Paul intends the word to be used is in the sense of an adornment such as a goodly garment would be. Her hair, he says, is her glory, an adornment to increase her attraction, no less than her gowns.
With this understanding of the verse, the need for covering is apparent. That glory was given her as part of that “meet” relationship to the man: it is in the intimacy between them that this beauty or glory has its place. To make his meaning plan, Paul has pointed out (vs8 & 9) the relationship of man and woman in God’s purpose. She was made to be a help “meet” (suitable: especially qualified) for him. Paul further makes it clear that this does not make woman inferior in God’s scheme (v. 11) for they are alike necessary for His purpose; and salvation comes alike to each.
But the man only was made in God’s image — the first creation. The woman — a second creation — has never had this said of her for, though of his bone and flesh, she was made with her essential differences so that she might be his sufficient helper.
Thus Paul’s advice is that a man should appear before God with uncovered head thus exposing, declaring and acknowledging God’s glorious likeness. But the woman’s glory is such that, in natural terms, it excels that of the man: in appearing before God she passes from a natural to a spiritual plane, into a context in which that excellence is an unacceptable intrusion (v.12 seen as ‘of God’).
Thus the discerning and godly woman is meant by Paul to acknowledge that her “glory” is of another kind and is expected to gladly cover it so that it presents no challenge to the likeness of God (and also of Christ—v.3) seen in the man’s face.
Many women in the past have given this acknowledgement, covering their heads for the giving of thanks at the table as well as for ecclesial prayers. And on the basis of what Paul has written, their hearts are right. Should not their example be followed?
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One