"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (Jn.17:20-21).

 

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor.1:10).

 

"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" (1 John 4:20).

 

The attitude of Paul toward the church at Corinth confutes the flawed thinking of many modern Christians. This body of baptized believers (Acts 18:8) was infested with violations of the apostles' doctrine, yet, contrary to popular thinking, we find Paul sending preachers to them for the purpose of improving their spiritual condition. This is in stark contrast to some whom this writer has observed, who strictly forbid Christians from attending a congregation, simply for a difference of opinion on some Bible subject. This writer is left wondering how Christians are ever to fulfill the plea of Christ and the apostles for unity when they persistently withdraw fellowship from everyone who lacks total concurrence with them. These church leaders have imposed their ideology on Christians, and keep them mired in ignorance by their derogatory remarks against any other line of thought, regardless of the amount of scripture presented, and while any material other than scripture is held in mockery, their opinion, when thoroughly sought out, is found to be based on secular writings. Common sense implores us to be consistent, in addition to harmonizing all information which does not contradict the main thrust of the holy writ. An exegetical analysis of scripture produces knowledge, and knowledge is the highway out of the abyss of ignorance. Logic demands that we study meticulously the subject(s) with which we are divided, laying aside ego and pride, and striving to help one another become more like our Savior.

 

Division exists within the body of Christ on a number of Bible subjects: some are quite trivial, while the import of others is paramount. The subject matter of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is one such subject that warrants our utmost attention because it deals with the submissiveness of the sisterhood, both to God, and man, exemplifying God's divine order.

 

It seems that the majority of preachers in the churches of Christ adopt the position that the head covering of this text was merely a local custom, and that Paul's instructions were only relevant to their cultural practices. This argument is flawed in that it is based on a misinterpretation of the term custom in verse 16, and leaves other facts in the text expunged. The term sunetheia has only two other occurrences in the New Testament:

 

"But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover:" (Jn. 18:39).

 

Its usage here seems to indicate the practice of releasing a prisoner during the Passover observance.

 

1 Cor. 8:7 "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled." (KJV)

"...but some, being used until now to the idol..." (ASV).

"...But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols..." (RSV).

 

Those who had learned of the one true and living God were to use love in edifying the new converts who, lacking this knowledge, were still accustomed to idols. Paul was condemning the custom of eating the idol's sacrificial meat, and he taught the spiritually mature Christians, who could eat the meat simply for physical nourishment, to use their liberty cautiously so they wouldn't offend those who were weak. Thus, in both of these instances, the custom was not binding, so when one looks solely at verse 16 and suggests that the practice of women wearing a head covering in the early church was no more than a cultural habit, it seems pretty convincing, but, the term sunetheia is much less pliable when it is harmonized (2 Tim. 2:15) with the terms paradosis and paradidomi used in verse 2. Here, Paul says, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (KJV).

"Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you" (ASV).

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (RSV).

This term, paradidomi (delivered), is used by Paul several times with regards to handing down Biblical truths to the next generation:

 

Rom. 6:17 "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you."

1 Cor. 15:3 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received..."

1 Cor. 11:23 "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you..."

2 Pet. 2:21 "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

Acts 16:4 "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem."

 

Paul's use of this term, in its positive sense, consistently carries the force of doctrinal commitment. It's no strain on the mind to comprehend that Paul was handing down the package of Christian teachings which they were to perpetuate.

 

Jude 3 "...I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

 

The theological implications of paradosis (ordinances) are quite impressive as well. "In reference to the rule of faith it is never used in the New Testament, except for the immediate instructions of inspired men" (Hodges). When Paul used this term in reference to the traditions which he embraced as a Christian, they were intended to be binding upon all the believers.

 

2 Thess. 2:15 - "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

2 Thess. 3:6 - "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

1 Cor. 11:2 - "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you." (ASV)

 

Paul's use of paradosis does not suggest an optional practice in which one can 'take it or leave it' as the modern usage of the term "traditions" is perceived. These traditions which were handed down to the church at Corinth by word of mouth, as well as the epistles written by Paul, were the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor 14:37). One must see through the coincidence of there being a local custom of women veiling themselves in public, and realize that because the practice handed down by Paul was a paradosis, it was a God-breathed commandment (2 Tim. 3:16), so when verse 2 is harmonized with verse 16, it becomes obvious why Paul refers to what other congregations were already doing, especially in view of the fact that he taught the same thing in all the other congregations (1 Cor. 4:17). "This would be like saying, 'Christ died for you; therefore, you should observe the Lord's Supper. Besides, other Christians are already doing this and none have a different practice'" (D. B. Wallace).

 

The thesis of most Christians today relegates this practice to nothing more than a cultural application of the headship principle. This theory precludes basic contextual facts, and ignores the comprehensive nature of this letter.

 

1 Cor. 1:2 "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:"

"If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God" (RSV).

 

One fact unseen by most is that Paul's instructions could not have been merely a cultural application of the headship principle, because they were opposed to the current practice of his contemporaries. Consider the following quotes:

"Paul's instructions do not agree precisely with current practice; Jewish men covered their heads; amongst the Greeks both sexes worshipped with uncovered heads." (Expositor's Greek Testament).

 

"...men and women worshipped bareheaded in Greek rites" (Moffat Series).

 

"...the Jewish worshipper in praying always covered his head" (Pulpit Commentary)

 

"This decision of the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was veiled..." (Adam Clarke).

 

"The Romans, like the Jews, prayed with the head veiled…The Greeks remained bareheaded during prayer or sacrifice..." (Vincent's Word Studies).

 

"The Greeks (both men and women) remained bareheaded in public prayer..." (Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament).

 

"Note the remarkable fact that the practice that is here enjoined is neither Jewish, which required men to be veiled in prayer, nor Greek, which required both men and women to be unveiled, but particularly to Christians" (Cambridge Greek Testament).

 

The unbiased reader should find it very enlightening to note that it was customary for a Jewish man to cover his head, while the Greek men did not. Likewise, a Jewish woman covered her head, while the Greek women did not, hence, even the local customs were in opposition to each other. Paul settled these conflicts when he said man is to pray uncovered, and woman is to be covered.

 

There are several reasons why the head covering cannot be simply a cultural application of the headship principle. 1) because of the creation order (verses 7-12); 2) because of the angels (verse 7).

 

The creation:

Paul gives us the headship order in verse 3: "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."

Just as Christ is under the authority of the Father, and man is under the authority of Christ, the woman is to be in subjection to the man. For Christ, man, or woman to step outside the sphere of their God ordained role is to violate this unchanging order of headship. The apostle said plainly, "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God..." (verse 7). Paul clearly states here that the reason man is not to cover his head is because he was created in the image of God, therefore it is impossible for there to be more than one application of the headship principle, i.e., the man is not to cover his head, and the woman is to cover her head. For man to be able to cover his head while praying or prophesying, the creation order would of necessity have to be changed. The fact that man was created in the image of God is irreversible, therefore the commands for man to be not covered, and the woman to be covered, transcends all cultures, as well as the era of spiritual gifts, (2 Tim.2:2). The man indeed ought not to cover his head because he was created in the image and glory of God, so logic and consistency demands that the woman should cover her head because woman, "...is the glory of the man" (verse 7).

 

Then, when you will consider what Paul says in verses 8 and 9, two additional reasons emerge as to why man is not to cover his head, and the woman is to cover her head.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man."

 

Paul says the man is not to cover his head because he is not of the woman. The logical conclusion then is that the woman is to cover her head because she is of, or was created from, man.

 

"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

 

In this verse, the apostle teaches us that man is not to cover his head because he was not created for the woman, so it follows then that the woman is to cover her head because she was created for man. From the facts just stated, i.e., because: 1) man is the image and glory of God; 2) man is not of the woman; 3) man was not created for the woman, then he is not to cover his head; and for the exact same reasons, i.e., because woman: 1) is the glory of the man; 2) was created from man; 3) was created for man, she disgraces her head when she prays or prophesies with her head uncovered; reasons which are just as binding and unchangeable today as they were when Paul wrote this epistle (1 Thess. 2:15).

 

"...because of the angels."

The theories are nearly as plentiful as there are writers as to what Paul meant by the phrase, "...because of the angels." If you the reader never acquire an acceptable explanation of the true meaning of this phrase, would that allow the exclusion of this reason for woman to wear a token of subjection on her head? If one could successfully negate this reason, would not the reason of the creation order still stand? Let us also acknowledge the fact that Paul did not say she is to have a sign of authority on her head "because of the local custom" nor did he say, "because she is exercising her spiritual gift"!

 

One might scoff at the relation of a 'piece of cloth' in any way affecting angelic beings, but consider this: Acts 19:12 "So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." In this instance, a physical piece of cloth certainly had a dramatic effect on the evil spirits.

One doesn't have to understand the physics of a florescent light in order to benefit from its luminescence. Likewise, it isn't necessary to have a perfect understanding of the spiritual 'mechanics' linking the covering to the angels, in order to practice it by faith based on the remainder of the text. After toiling all night to no avail, Peter's empty nets were filled to the breaking point when he cast them merely at the Lord's request (Lk. 5:1-9). Perhaps if we exhibited the same faith and resolve, God's blessings would abound toward us!

 

Another prominent view alleges that the hair is the head covering. This theory revolves around verse 15 (...for her hair is given her for a covering), and forces an eisogesis with the previous verses. Consider what some scholars have to say concerning what the covering was that covered the head and hanged down:

 

A. T. Robertson says, "Literally, having a veil (kalumma understood) down from the head..." (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 4, pg. 159).

 

Nicoll says, "'Wearing down from the head (a veil, 'kalumma understood')" (Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. 2, pg. 872).

 

W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, points out that it is the term kalumma (veil, noun, cf. 2 Cor.3:13-14) that is the corresponding noun to the verb kalupto which is the obvious reason that some versions use the word veil, or veil covering, and never refer to hair.

 

To this agrees Mr. Thayer, one of the most widely recognized Greek scholars. In his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, under the term kata, he says, "...κατά́ κεφαλης́ (a veil hanging down from his head) ἔχωv, 1 Co. xi. 4 ([A. V. having his head covered]) cf. καταπέ̓τασμα [or rather κάλυμμα (q.v.), but see ἔχω, I. 1 b.])." (pg.327).

 

Note the translation of the phrase κατά́ κεφαλης́ ἔχωv given by Mr. Thayer: "a veil hanging down from his head." Then, notice the three words he invites the reader to compare (cf. = compare):

1) καταπέ̓τασμα "is the term used for instance in Mt.27:51 referring to the veil of the temple;"

2) "or rather κάλυμμα (q.v.)" Here, he says to see (q.v. = which see) kalumma (a veil) which as Mr. Vine pointed out is the corresponding noun to the verb kalupto that is used in succeeding verses of the text (coupled with the prefix kata) as katakalupto;

3) ἔχω - echo (which Nicoll translated as wearing) says Mr. Thayer on page 266 of his celebrated work is, "in the sense of wearing...of garments, arms, and the like...Mt.iii.4; xxii.12; κατά́ κεφαλης́ ἔχωv ...having a covering hanging down from the head, i.e., having the head covered...1 Co.xi.4"

 

The point of this analysis is to find some shard of evidence that will support the idea that the hair is the head covering. There is none! Furthermore, God's word does not require a Master's degree in theology for one to comprehend it!! If the Holy Spirit had intended to convey the idea that the hair is the katakalupto, then the statement should read: "...for her hair is given her for a katakalupto," or perhaps because the word used in verse 15 is a noun, it should read, "...for her hair is given her for a kalumma." The fact that the Holy Spirit used neither of these words proves He has two coverings under consideration. Further proof of this fact is seen in verse 6 where Paul says, "If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn." When one avows that the hair is the covering, then he is faced with an impossibility, i.e., two consecutive removals of the hair. If the hair is the covering and she is not covered, then the hair has already been removed. How then could she, "...also be shorn"? What would be left to cut off? Yet another consideration is this: If the only covering under discussion is the hair, the Christian man would have to shave his head in order to be not covered. The hair is not a covering that can be applied and removed at will, which is the inference of the cover/uncover command while praying or prophesying.

 

Again, to suggest that long hair is the covering, then for her to be not covered, the hair has been cut, and this would accuse the Holy Spirit of a tautology: "If the woman has cut her hair, let her also cut her hair." The Holy Spirit is not guilty of useless repetition! What this verse logically means is this: A woman ought to wear both (the one nature has endow her with, and the headship covering which she supplies) or neither. Those who do not cut their hair, and do not cover their heads are guilty of dual disobedience. "For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil " (RSV). If she lays aside the visible token of her subjection, she might as well remove her God-given covering also, but since both are shameful, she should cover her head.

 

Throughout this text, the apostle points out the similarities of long hair with the katakalupto. By doing so, Paul clearly indicates that the two are not the same, i.e., for the very reason they are similar, they cannot be the same!

11:5 "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

11:6 "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."

11:7 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head..."

11:10 "Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." (NASB).

"That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels" (RSV).

"For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (NKJV).

 

11:13 "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"

11:15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her..."

 

Consider this: if long hair is the covering, then verse 10 would have to be saying the same thing as verse 15, but just the opposite is true. Verse 10 teaches that the woman is to wear, "a symbol of authority on her head." Paul states that she is to wear this symbol because woman was created for man's sake (verse 9), which shows that this symbol of authority represents her subjection, but in verse 15, Paul plainly states that her long hair is her glory!

 

"The Greek is even more emphatic: the dative aujth'/ is a dative of advantage. A literal translation would be: 'it is a glory to her,' or 'a glory accruing her,' or 'to her advantage.' Surely this is not the point of v 10!" (D. B. Wallace).

 

"To argue, then, that long hair is the woman's head covering seems to miss the very point of the function of the head covering and of the long hair: one shows her submission while the other shows her glory." (Ibid.)

 

"The role of women has become a battleground in society during the last several decades. The struggle for women's rights has escalated to a place of imbalance in society that threatens the future. In our day, the efforts of the enemy began with secular society and worked back into the church, which so often catches the world's diseases and adopts the spirit of the age. Some leaders and writers, in the name of Christianity, have gone so far as to teach principles that attempt to redefine, or even alter, biblical truths to accommodate the standards of contemporary thinking in the world. To do that, of course, they have to believe that Paul, Peter, and other scriptural writers added some of their own opinions to God's revealed truth or that the apostles sometimes taught culturally determined customs rather than divinely revealed standards. When that approach is taken, man must decide for himself what part of Scripture is revealed and what is not—making him the judge over God's Word. Satan feverishly tries to upset the divine order in any way he can, and one foundational way is by perverting male-female roles and relationships." (MacArthur)

 

During the short time God has blessed me to be a member of His kingdom, I have observed a gradual deterioration of Christian principles within the Lord's church. If you the reader could somehow peer into a church assembly 100 years ago, I'm quite confident you would be shocked by our promiscuity, and since this degradation of modesty and subjection occurs slowly, we hardly notice that we are drifting away from God. The media has successfully desensitized us to the world's sin and debauchery, and Christians seem to exhibit the attitude that as long as we're not as bad as the world, God will be pleased, but the principles of godliness, modesty, shamefacedness, and subjection are not relative to contemporary values, they are forever settled in heaven! (Psa. 119:89)

 

My prayer is that you will study carefully these commands revealed to Paul by our Savior (Gal. 1:12), and pray earnestly for understanding and wisdom, so that we as Christians can better fulfill the plea of Christ for unity.