The eleventh chapter of I Corinthians presents two major topics which
may, at first glance, seem unrelated. But upon closer examination, it
becomes apparent that the teaching concerning head covering and the
Lord's Supper contain at least one common theme. Each teaching is
concerned with symbols which are divinely appointed to represent a holy
reality.
In the first section of the chapter (verses 3-16), the length of one's
hair symbolizes and represents his relationship to God and to the
immediate authority God has placed over him.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the
image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man (I
Corinthians 11:7).
Without here entering into a discussion of what is meant by the phrase
"cover his head," it is noted that this prohibition is based
on the fact that the man is the image and glory of God. Although the
issue is not addressed in this verse, the implication is that a woman
ought to cover her head, for she is the glory of the man.
Whatever is meant by covering the head, its basis is in the divine
reality that man is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory
of man. The woman is not said to be the image of man; she too is the
image of God (Genesis 1:27). But she is the glory of man. (See Proverbs
12:4.)
The woman is to complete and complement the man (Genesis 2:18). God, in
a sovereign choice, determined that a woman's long hair would be a glory
to her and a sign of her submission to her husband (I Corinthians 11:10,
15). The long hair is not itself submission; it is a symbol of
submission. The man's uncovered head is not itself submission; it is a
symbol of his submission to Christ.
In like manner, I Corinthians 11:17-34 introduces a new set of symbols.
Here, the bread and cup of the Lord's Supper represent, or symbolize,
the body and blood of our Lord (I Corinthians 11:23-25). The bread is
not the flesh of Christ; it symbolizes the flesh of Christ. The fruit of
the vine is not the blood of Christ; it symbolizes the blood of Christ.
Can we, since these are but symbols, disregard or treat lightly the
bread and the cup? No, for to disregard the symbol is to disregard the
thing symbolized. Paul addressed this issue when he said,
"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of
the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord" (I Corinthians 11:27).
The key word here is unworthily. This does not address the personal
worthiness of the one partaking of the Lord's Supper; it addresses the
manner in which he partakes of it. One who partakes of the Lord's Supper
unworthily partakes of it irreverently That is, he does not give due
regard to the sacredness of the moment. If one, in partaking of the
Lord's Supper, does not give the bread and cup the reverence due them as
symbols of the body and blood of our Lord, he shall "be guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord."
Similarly, though the length of one's hair is but a symbol of a
spiritual reality, to disregard or cast away the symbol is to directly
attack that which is represented by the symbol.
Why did God judge Moses so severely for smiting the rock in the
wilderness after having been commanded to speak to it? Had He not
previously commanded him to smite it? Water was provided by smiting the
rock the first time (Exodus 17:6). But on the second occurrence God
commanded Moses to speak to the rock (Numbers 20:7-11). Water did come
forth when Moses disobediently smote the rock, but God reproved him and
prevented Moses from entering the promised land.
The apparent reason for the severity of the judgment of God is that the
rock was a symbol of a far greater reality to come. "That Rock was
Christ" (I Corinthians 10:4). When Moses was first commanded to
smite the rock, it evidently typified the smiting of Christ at His
crucifixion, a smiting which produced a river of living water. But it
was in the divine plan of God for the Rock, Christ, to be smitten but
once. There was no provision for a second Calvary. "For by one
offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified"
(Hebrews 10:14). The plan of God provided for one smiting. From that
time forward, men would receive of the Living Water by speaking to the
Rock, or by calling on the Name of the Lord. When Moses disobediently
smote the rock the second time, he broke the divine typology
predetermined by God. The rock itself was only a symbol, but to break
the symbol was to attack that which was symbolized.
In a consideration of I Corinthians 11:3-16, several clear truths are
noted which should be considered before proceeding to those which are
thought by some to be more obscure:
1 . A man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his
head (verse 4).
2. A woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors
her head. This dishonor is equivalent to the dishonor which would occur
if she were shaven (verse 5).
3. For a woman to be uncovered is the moral equivalent to being shorn.
It is equally a shame for her to be shorn, shaven, or uncovered (verse
6).
4. Inasmuch as a man is the image and glory of God, he should not cover
his head. It is implied, however, that since the woman is the glory of
man, she should cover her head (verse 7).
5. In the beginning, the man was not made for the woman, nor was he
made of the woman. The woman, however, was created for the man and of
the man (verses 8-9).
6. The matter of the woman's covering is so significant that the
angelic realm takes notice of it (verse 10).
7. After having said all the previous, it must be admitted that
following the initial creative act, the man is now by the woman, even as
the woman is of the man (verses 11-12).
8. The Corinthians clearly understood that it was uncomely, or
inappropriate, for a woman to pray uncovered (verse 13).
9. Nature taught the Corinthians that long hair is a shame to a man
(verse 14).
10. Long hair is a glory to a woman. It is given her for a covering
(verse 16).
11. Those who may be contentious are assured that the church has no
other custom than that just described by Paul (verse 16).
It would be correct to sum up the above as follows: While it is a
dishonor for a man to pray or prophesy with a covered head, it is a
dishonor for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered. Not
only would this be a dishonor, it would be a shame. Long hair for a man
is shameful; for a woman it is a glory.
To the above many Bible believers will agree. The disagreement on this
passage centers on the following questions:
1. What is the covering of verses 4-7?
2. What does it mean to be "shorn"?
3. How long must one's hair be to fit the Biblical definition of
long"?
In response to the first point of disagreement, Bruce
K. Waltke sees a garment veil in verses 5 and 6. He says,
[I]t seems probable to suppose that some of the individualistic
Corinthians were proposing that their women throw off their traditional
veils which symbolized their subordination to the men.1
Waltke further quotes Morna Hooker, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity
at Cambridge University: "According to Jewish custom a bride went
bareheaded until her marriage, as a symbol of her freedom; when married,
she wore a veil as a sign that she was under the authority of her
husband."2
It should be noted, however, that Paul does not address husbands and
wives in I Corinthians 11; he addresses men and women. Thus an unmarried
Jewish girl who followed Jewish custom by remaining bareheaded would
dishonor her head if she, as a Christian convert, prayed or prophesied.
This view would also be questionable in that the Jewish male wears a
skull cap when praying. It is doubtful that Jewish custom, whatever it
may have been, had any bearing on the situation among the Christians at
Corinth. This is seen further in that Waltke quotes Jeremias as he
describes this Jewish veil: "Her face was hidden by an arrangement
of two head veils, a headband on the forehead with bands to the chin,
and a hairnet with ribbons and knots, so that her features could not be
recognized."3
Though Waltke concludes, "[I]t would be well for Christian women to
wear head coverings at church meetings as a symbol of an abiding
theological truth,"4 he does not suggest that such head coverings
fit the description given by Jeremias!
It is, however, by no means agreed that a garment veil is in view in
verses 5 and 6. William J. Martin points out:
Several indications show beyond reasonable doubt that Paul is using the
term "covered" to refer to long hair. First, he uses it in
contra-distinction to the state of the man who is debarred from
"having the (hair) hanging down" (verse 4). To make the
wearing of a head-covering the opposite of short hair would be a false
antithesis. It would have been pharisaical casuistry, and sheer
quibbling to say that wearing a head-covering compensated for being
shorn. To annul the state of being shorn you must be the opposite. To be
transparently honest Paul would have had to say there is only one way,
one simple, plain, unambiguous, right way to efface the shame of being
shorn and that is to have long hair; and that is surely what Paul is
saying. Second, nowhere in the passage is any word ever used for a
material veil or head-dress. Third, as the forms of the verb
KaTaKaAUttTw (to cover) found here (verses 6 and 7) are not construed
with an indirect object, it is best to take them as passive. Fourth, in
v. 15 Paul states unequivocally that a woman's long hair takes the place
of an item of dress. Besides, one would expect Paul to use some more
explicit term for "unveiled."5
Martin has given four salient points as to why the verses in question
must be speaking of long hair, not of a garment veil. His first point
hinges on the Greek words "KaTaKeOaAns". The preposition 'Kata'
a is apparently in the ablative case and signifies "down
from." For this reason Martin translates the phrase "KaTa
KeoaAns Exwv" as "having the (hair) hanging down." He
supplies the word "hair," believing it is implied.
Martin's second point is that no word is used in the passage of a
material veil or head-dress. The efforts of some to find a garment veil
in the passage are ill-conceived. For example, a pamphlet entitled The
Significance of the Christian Woman's Veiling states:
The word cover, as employed in verses 4-7, is derived from the Greek
Katakalupto and means veil." . The word translated covering in
verse 15 is not Katakalupto, as in the earlier verses, but Peribolaion.
If in God's reckoning the hair is the veiling, we could rightfully
expect this statement to read thus: "Her hair is given her for a
Katakalupto" (veil).6
Assertions such as these reveal a lack of familiarity with the Greek
language. Katakalupto does not mean "veil." It is formed of
two words, kata, a preposition meaning "down from" or
"down upon," and kalupto, a verb meaning "to cover, hide,
or conceal." The Greek of verses 4-7 indicates that the woman is to
be covered; with what it does not say. It is erroneous to read into this
passage a demand for a garment veil.
The passage above quoted suggests that, had God meant to indicate that
the woman's hair was her covering, verse 15 could be expected to read,
"Her hair is given her for a Katakalupto." This is again
flawed by a lack of awareness of elementary distinctions in the Greek
language. Katakalupto is an adjective; peribolaion is a noun. They
cannot be interchanged. Katakalupto modifies the noun (verse 6);
peribolaidn is the object of the preposition (verse 15).
I quote now from an unpublished pamphlet on the subject given me by a
minister friend. Neither author nor publisher are mentioned, and I have
corrected grammatical errors for the sake of clarity:
The word "covering" in verse 15 comes from the Greek word
Peribolaion, which means "something covering the body or thrown
around anyone." This covering is different from the covering of
verse 5. By nature a woman has a covering over her head (hair); it's her
glory from God. This is why she should not cut it. But Paul is speaking
about nature, that the woman has a natural covering, but must put on a
covering to show her place of subjection. Otherwise verses 5 and 6 would
contradict themselves.
These statements are rife with error and misunderstanding. There is no
Greek word for "covering" in verse 5. The word is uncovered.
Covering is a noun; covered is an adjective. The anonymous author says a
woman must "put on a covering." This is not, however, found in
verses 5 and 6. These verses imply that she must be covered (adjective).
If she has her natural covering of hair (verse 15), she need not put on
anything; she is covered. If she does not have her natural covering
(noun) of hair, she can cover herself with an artificial covering if she
wishes, but she is still in shame, for it is a shame for her to have her
hair shorn (cut).
Martin is correct; a material or garment veil is seen nowhere in the
Greek of the passage. It is found only in a misunderstanding of the
distinction between nouns and adjectives and a lack of knowledge of the
Greek language.
Martin's third point is that the verb KaTaKaAuTTw) (verses 6 and 7) has
no indirect object and that it is therefore better to understand it as
passive. In other words, it does not speak of that with which the women
is covered, but of the fact that she is covered. This is a valid point
and should be well considered.
The fourth point given by Martin is that "Paul states unequivocally
that a woman's long hair takes the place of an item of dress." This
point is crucial to the passage. If this is not admitted, sound exegesis
demands that we admit that the passage never defines a covering with
which a woman can be covered. Martin's point is based on Paul's
statement "for her hair is given her for a covering" (verse
15). The English word "for" is translated from the Greek word
anti, a preposition which means "against" or "instead
of." Clearly, a woman's hair is given her for, against, or instead
of, a covering. In other words, her long hair serves as her covering.
The Greek word peribolaion, here translated "covering," is the
only such noun in the passage. Thus, a woman's long hair is the only
actual covering mentioned in the entire passage.
The second point of disagreement in this passage centers on the meaning
of the word "shorn." This is the past participle of the word
"shear," and it is translated from the Greek word keiro, which
means "to shear," or, in the middle voice, as here, "to
have one's hair cut."7
To demand that "shorn" mean "closely cropped" is in
error. The word is a simple Greek word which describes the use of shears
for the purpose of cutting, without specifying how much. It means, as
Gingrich points out, "to have one's hair cut."
This point ties in perfectly with the answer to the third question:
"How long must one's hair be to fit the Biblical definition of
'long?'" The discussion here must center on the meaning of the
Greek words Koua (a verb) and Koun (a noun).
Koua is translated "have long hair" both in verses 14 and 15.
According to Gingrich, the word means, "wear long hair, let one's
hair grow long." Thayer renders it, "to let the hair grow,
have long hair." Obviously, one cannot allow hair to grow and cut
it, at the same time.
Koun (a noun) is the word translated "hair" in the phrase
"for her hair is given her for a covering" (verse 15). Paul
Ferguson, M. Div. (Ph.D. candidate) reports, "According to the
passages cited by Bauer and Moulton and Miligan's Vocabulary of [the]
Greek New Testament kome is uncut hair. The passages cited by these
works where this word occurs in Greek literature demand a meaning 'uncut
hair! " Ferguson goes on to point out that the word kome is used to
describe the Nazarites, who were forbidden to cut their hair.8
Long hair is hair which has not been shorn, or cut; it has been allowed
to grow. It obviously does not speak of specific length, or it would be
necessary for Paul to specify that length to insure conformity. Such an
artificial measurement would, without doubt, exclude some women from the
privilege of ever having long hair, since due to physical and hereditary
factors the length of women's uncut hair varies greatly. The only way
all women could be assured of being able to fulfill the admonition to be
covered with long hair is if the definition of long is
"uncut."
What if a woman has already cut her hair? Martin responds to this
problem:
It would be unthinkable that among Paul's many converts there were not
women of the "shorn woman" class. What then was to be done
about their inability to conform with the requirement of having long
hair? Were they to be excluded until such time as nature would remedy
their lack? Certainly not. It would have been monstrous to exclude any
believer from the immediate enjoyment of the privileges of church
fellowship... The problem of such converts could be the situation dealt
with here, in what is, in all probability, a parenthesis. This (verse
6). . ."For if a woman is not covered (has not long hair), then let
her remain cropped (for the time being; Keipa'ow aoristimperative with
cessative force, referring to a particular situation), but since it is a
shame for a woman to be cropped or shorn let her become 'covered' "
(i.e. let her hair grow again; KaTaKaAuttTeoOw [present imperative for
non-terminative, inchoative action]).9
If a woman has previously cut her hair, but has now surrendered to the
Lordship of Christ, she is not to be excluded from fellowship. Rather,
she is to be accepted even while she allows her hair to grow.
In part, Martin summarizes woman's expected response in this way:
(a) she should comply-otherwise she would dishonour her Head (verse 5);
(b) she could comply-far from making any impossible demands on her, by
conforming she avoids bringing shame on her womanhood (verse 6);
(c) she would comply-because it would be nonnatural not to (verse 13
ff.)10
I Corinthians 11:3-16 deals with the clear symbolism in which the length
of one's hair represents his relationship to God's divine structure of
authority. A material headdress is not in view in the Greek text,
although it is possible that propriety in Corinth at the time demanded
that modest women wear a veil. Paul carefully avoided, however,
including any words which could have been construed as demanding garment
veils on Christian women of all eras. As a Christian woman allows her
hair to grow, uncut, she fulfills the symbolism addressed in the
passage. As she has an inner heart to submit to her husband or father,
she fulfills the reality.
Notes
1. Bruce K. Waltke, "I Corinthians 11:2-16: An
Interpretation," Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 135, Number 537
(January-March 1978): 46.
2. Ibid., p. 50.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p. 57.
5. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, ed., Apostolic History
and the Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1970), p. 233.
6. Merle Ruth, The Significance of the Christian Woman's Veiling
(Millersburg, OH: Calvary Publications, Inc., n.d.), pp. 8, 13.
7. F. Wilbur Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
(Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 114.
8. Paul Ferguson, "New Light From the Greek Text of I Corinthians
11," Real Truth Journal (1975).
9. Gasque and Martin, Apostolic History, pp. 238-239.
10. Ibid., p. 239.
Back |