Head-covering & Uncovering
Verse by Verse
We will now consider every thought and phrase in this passage of Scripture verse by verse...
Verse1 – Follow Good Examples
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”
Take note of people who really do follow Christ, those who seek only the
praises of God and not the praises of men. Follow their example and think
seriously about the things that such people say.
Verse 2 - An Ordinance
“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the
ordinances (*PARADOSEIS – see below), as I delivered them to you.”
The word ‘ordinance’
Before we proceed any further I have to make something plain concerning the
translation of this word (PARADOSEIS). Elsewhere in the New Testament (A.V.)
this word is translated as ‘tradition’. In other Bible versions I think this is
the more usual word. Why the Authorized translation committee chose ‘ordinance’
instead I do not know for sure. Maybe they were trying to make the point I am
about to make? Although the word has a meaning of ‘tradition’ it is clear, to my
mind at least, that what Paul is talking about here is neither a local ‘custom’
nor a ‘vain tradition of men’. So, if we do read a translation that says,
‘tradition’, we must bear in mind that it is talking about an apostolic
tradition, a precedent being set for the churches. I trust that the universal
nature of this practice will become clear as we progress through the study.
I shall continue with the A.V. term ‘ordinance’ throughout the study, but you
may prefer to think of this, in this instance, as standing for ‘an authoritative
apostolic instruction/tradition’ (which has been handed down to the churches).
‘Ordinance’ may not be technically the best word for this (?) but it does
however, whether inadvertently, or by design, open to us the so obvious
association with other symbolic practices in the Bible. For it is evident that
symbolism is what we are dealing with in this subject. I trust that the
associations that this particular word, ‘ordinance’, has with ‘symbolism’ will
actually make certain elements of this topic easier to understand.
What is an ‘ordinance’?
The word ‘ordinance’ commonly means a ‘statute,’ a ‘decree’. Looking at the
various instances where this word occurs in the Old Testament we find that it is
often used in relation to feasts, ceremonial rites and priesthood matters. In
view of this you could say, in simple terms, that: an ordinance is: “an outward
act that demonstrates an ‘inward’ (or, spiritual) reality.” Such would be my
best attempt to summarise this in a way that relates to the topic in hand.
For example, the first instance in the Authorized Version of the Bible where
the word ‘ordinance’ occurs is in reference to the feast of Passover (Ex.
12:14). As you will probably know, both the original event and the annual feast
of Passover were full of symbolic meaning. It was, as all of the Old Testament
feasts and rituals were, a foreshadowing of Christ and His work (see Colossians
2:17 & Hebrews 8:5). Such was the seriousness of failure to observe (and that
correctly) the ordinances of the Old Testament, that a person could be ‘cut-off’
from the nation if he/she did not participate in the prescribed manner (see
Exodus 12:15 as just one example). Suffice it to say that whatever ‘cut-off’
means in all its implications, none who fear God would want that to happen to
them!
God takes pleasure in those who keep His ordinances
“Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon his
name; they called upon the LORD, and he answered them. He spake unto them in the
cloudy pillar: they kept his testimonies, and the ordinance that he gave them.”
(Psalm 99:6 & 7)
“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named
Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron,
and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in
all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” (Luke 1:6)
Along with the many other rebukes given to a backsliding nation in the book
of Malachi, the Lord also points out His displeasure in those who forsake His
ordinances:
“Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances,
and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the
LORD of hosts…” (Malachi 3:7)
New Testament ordinances
It has already been mentioned that the Old Testament (i.e. the Old Covenant
period) was full of ordinances (symbolic acts). It was God’s good pleasure and
plan to show-forth the Gospel through all of these beautiful illustrations. In
the New Testament Christ fulfilled all of these illustrative pictures from Old
Testament times and at the same time therefore did away with them (see Eph 2:15,
Col 2:14, Heb 9:1-10). However, it was God’s good pleasure and will to institute
a very select few new ones for the purposes of the New Covenant era. Compared
with the Old Testament the number of them really is minimal. The main difference
between Old and New ordinances is that the Old ‘looked forward’ to the spiritual
work of Christ and the New simply expresses what is now a living, spiritual
reality for the children of God. If my simple definition of an ordinance is
accepted (an outward sign of an inward/spiritual reality) then there are at
least three, and possibly four or five in place in the New Covenant period. We
shall not be considering all these in this study we are only concerned with the
one at present.
We know that there must be a minimum of three that are considered
‘ordinances’ because Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping the ordinances
(plural – must be minimum of two) and then goes immediately on to explain this
one, hence there are at least three. I will just list the three that are
obvious, but it may be possible to add to this list depending on one’s exact
definition of an ordinance:
Water Baptism – signifying a person’s new birth by immersion (the word
‘baptize’ means ‘to immerse’) into God’s Spirit. At the same time showing a
picture of death (of the ‘old man’), burial (of him and all our sins) and
resurrection (into the newness of life in Christ Jesus).
Head Covering/Uncovering – showing the nature, authority and order of the
Godhead and that we, His Church, are restored to our proper place in God’s
creation.
The Lord’s Supper (also called in Scripture ‘The Lord’s Table’ and
‘Communion’) – signifying that as believers, restored to our proper order in
Christ and walking in His Spirit, we constantly eat and drink of His life.
Without this we cannot live as Christians.
So we have:
- Regeneration, bringing us into the life of God.
- We are restored to the proper order, which crumbled at the fall.*
- We may now (indeed must) partake of the life of God’s Son continually in
order to live aright.
Verse 3 - Headship and Pictorial Roles
“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.”
Head or head?
The word translated as ‘head’ (Gk. KEPHALE) is used both figuratively and
literally. Perhaps there are some modern translations that make this distinction
clearer. I know from my attempts at reading the French Bible (Louis Segond
Version) that it distinguishes between ‘la tete’ (physical head) and ‘le chef’
(head, as in, ‘one in charge’, ‘leader’). However, a careful reading of the A.V.
should make it quite clear by slowly following the context.
Who is in the picture?
Some simple arithmetic should tell us that there are four ‘persons’ to start
with (if one can call God a person) and three times we read of someone being the
‘Head’ (le chef) of someone else. It is therefore clear from this verse that
one, namely the woman is not placed in a position of ‘Headship’ over anyone
else. Already we can see that this ordinance is to do with God, Christ, man &
woman – so far. A little further on we shall see that it also involves angels
(verse 10) and Adam and Eve (we will see this when we come to verses 7, 8 &9).
In a moment we’ll branch out a little further to look at an associated passage
of Scripture in the letter to the Ephesian church where we will see also that
there is a picture of the Church in this too. So to give a simple breakdown of
who is involved by the time we come to the end of the study we shall be
encountering:
- God (when used in a passage with Christ, this denotes God The Father).
- Christ (the Son, also ‘Husband’ to The Church).
- Man (men generally).
- Woman (women generally).
- Adam (the first man).
- Eve (the first woman).
- Angels (rebellious and non rebellious).
- The Church (which is the Bride of Christ).
This is most definitely not a localised/cultural teaching!
A similar picture
Let’s see where this picture of the Church fits into this. It should not be
difficult to recognise in the Scripture passage below that here we have a very
similar analogy.
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the
husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and
he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ,
so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your
wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he
might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or
any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to
love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even
as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his
bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be
joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery:
but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you
in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she
reverence her husband.”
(Ephesians 5:22 – 33)
This allegory used in Ephesians 5 shows a beautiful picture of the
relationship between Christ and the Church and is important to our study. Here
we are told, that in marriage, the man represents Christ and the woman, the
Church. Isn’t that lovely? So, as Christ is to the Church so should the Husband
be to his Wife and as the Church should be to Christ so should the Wife be to
her Husband. This is an end to EVERY marital breakdown for Christians if both
partners take their respective roles seriously. God does, and any attempt to
live outside of these roles will never allow the fullness of our Father’s
blessing on the marriage.
Before we go on to talk about headship and authority let’s make one thing
clear, as the passage above does. Men must love, nourish and cherish their
wives. To behave in any lesser way than this would be to completely fail in our
first purpose of being men - that of being a reflection of the nature of God.
Show me a man who does not so care for and consider his wife and you have before
you a man of flesh who walks not after the Spirit of Christ. We cannot stop and
examine all the aspects of husband and wife relationships because we are in many
ways ahead of that in this study. The ordinance of head covering and uncovering
is the final icing on the cake of that much bigger study.
Two allegories in one
Returning now to our passage in 1 Co 11 we can actually see two pictures, not
just one. Firstly, we see the same picture that we just saw in Ephesians 5.
Look, as Christ is to the man so is the man to the woman and vice versa. That
is, Christ is the ‘Head’ of the man and man is the ‘Head’ of the woman. In this
picture we see headship ONLY. But look again, there is a second picture – As God
(the Father) is to Christ (His Head) so is the man to the woman and again vice
versa. So what’s different in this picture? Although it again reflects headship
it also shows us an extra aspect in those relationships - equality.
In this second picture, the man represents God (The Father) and the woman
represents Christ. Yes, that’s right. Just because Jesus is called ‘The Son’ it
doesn’t mean that a woman cannot somehow reflect something of His Nature. I am a
man and yet I am a part of the Bride of Christ. Though the woman mirrors
something of the Church in Ephesians 5 and something of Christ in 1 Corinthians
11, in the creation story we can see that she reflected an aspect of the Holy
Spirit. “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved (fluttered, brooded) upon the face
of the waters” (Gen 1:2). It is indeed true to say that there is an aspect of
the nature of God that is Motherly (never carry this farther than Scripture
actually shows). Remember also the words of the Lord Jesus: “O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee;
how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her
brood under her wings, and ye would not!” (Luke 13:34). Jesus did not seem to
shun the idea of portraying Himself as having an element of Motherly caring.
This is a lesson to any Christian man who wishes to express the true life of
Christ. It most certainly involves caring sensitivity.
Authority with Equality (Is that possible?)
The short answer to our sub-heading here is: Of course it is! Don’t you know
the triune God?
In this second picture where we are looking at the relationship between God
and Christ, we have a clear statement of authority. Any who know the Lord will
know that Jesus in none other than God Himself. Many a time Jesus confirmed His
position as being ‘sent’ and ‘under’ His Father’s instruction. But there is no
doubt about the fact that Jesus was co-equal with the Father. The following is
just one simple statement on the matter:
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”
(Phil 2:6)
How can this be? How can someone be equal and at the same time under/over in
authority? Welcome to the Kingdom of God! Things are not like they are in this
fallen world. In this very ordinance we are considering it is God’s great master
plan in dealing with men and angels to show them the principles of the Kingdom
of Heaven. Such will be demonstrated in the lives of humble men and women who
will obey His statutes and be a ‘living’ testimony (in picture form) of the
Nature of the Godhead. Later I will use an analogy of my own to try to
illustrate the principle of Headship and Equality in harmony.
In summary of the above...
If this all seems confusing, I’m sorry. But think of it as the most amazing
‘family’ in the universe, because that is what you belong to if you are a child
of God. There are books written on the Trinity. No doubt some say some very good
and useful things but at the end of the day we can’t rationalize God to a point
of being able to say “I completely understand Him.” Here we are in the realms of
the things of God where it does not always make immediate sense to our ‘natural’
thinking. I love the portions of John 14 &16 where Jesus is talking of Himself,
His Father and The Holy Spirit. The Three just become so ‘merged’ that it is
impossible to separate them. ‘Intertwined’ would perhaps be the better way of
expressing this *. We shall see that in 1 Cor 11 we have a scenario where God
and God, and man and God, and man and woman are intertwined in an inseparable
family.
There’s so much involved here! There are so many pictures all going on at
once. Let’s bring this back to the most fundamental and simple facts now:
- In God there is order (albeit with equality too).
- When He created man and woman, in His image, He set them in order too.
- God (the Father) is the Head of Christ.
- Christ is the Head of the man and the Head of the church.
- The man is the Head of the woman.
- God has ordained that there should be a ‘sign’ of this order.
Verse 4 (part 1) - A Man’s Responsibility
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head (la tete) covered,
dishonoureth his head (le chef).”
A man’s responsibilities for himself
You must realise that this ordinance has as much to do with men as it does
with women. Let’s first look at the man’s responsibility for himself.
It just so happens that we live in a culture where it is not common for men
to wear headdress. If it were the norm for a man to wear a hat or some form of
covering on his head, then he would be under obligation to remove it before he
“prays or prophesies.” A good example of this is a man named Rees Howells. He
lived at the beginning of the 1900’s and he was a man given to much prayer. In
those days it was common for a man to wear a hat in England. In fact in most
parts, particularly London, it was unthinkable that a man should be seen without
his ‘covering’. He broke all the social customs by not wearing his hat because
he considered himself to be in ‘a constant state of prayer’. It caused both Mr
Howells, and at times, his hosts, acute embarrassment, but he walked according
to what God had spoken to him without regard for man might say or think. I
mention this to illustrate a point. Let’s not get sidetracked on the question of
the life of Rees Howells or his ‘constant state of prayer’. Scripture is clear,
when a man engages in prayer if he does not uncover his head, he dishonours
Christ. Think also for a moment of some Eastern and Middle Eastern countries
where it is still common for both men and women to wear head attire of some sort
as the daily norm. The onus is much more on the men to ‘uncover’, the women may
continue as they are. We’ll come to the meaning of what covering/uncovering the
head symbolically represents in the next section.
A man’s responsibilities overall
A man not only has to account for his own proper behaviour in this but, in
the case of a married man or an elder in a church, he will also have to give
account for his instruction, or lack of it, to those in his charge. Adam clearly
failed in this responsibility and did not pass on to the woman the fullness of
instruction, which he had received from God. As a result she was deceived and
transgressed (1 Tim 2:14) and yet we read “by one man sin entered into the
world” (Rom 5:12). As with all spiritual matters, failure to comply with God’s
instructions will not only bring God’s displeasure on the individual who doesn’t
comply but also, perhaps more so, on any man who has neglected his
responsibility to instruct those entrusted to him. Remember, with all authority
there is responsibility and accountability. In Christian marriage and in the
Church the man is the one that God has placed in charge whether he wishes it or
not.
Verse 4 (part 2) - Questions On Context
For those who wish to please God in every detail there will naturally arise
two small enquiries at some point. Is this ordinance only relevant in the
context of prayer and prophecy specifically? And does this only apply to a
church meeting, or is it relevant to any situation where we find ourselves in
‘prayer and prophecy’? Perhaps these questions would have been best saved until
after we have explored all of the significance of head covering/uncovering, but
they do naturally arise at this point because we have just read the verse in
this passage that simply says, “every man praying or prophesying…”
Question re ‘prayer and prophecy’
Is Paul being very specific in singling out these two activities in
particular? Or, is he using these in a representative way just meaning when we
engage in obvious, outward spiritual activities? Could we add to this list and
say, when you speak in tongues or interpret, or when you sing and praise the
Lord? What about if someone else is praying verbally and you are silently
joining with them?
I think we can see from the above questions that we could be entering a
minefield if we attempt to take these two points as being the literal only
situations where this applies. In view of the things we have already covered,
i.e. men and women being created with representative roles etc. it would seem
strange if the ordinance were to be only employed for some of our spiritual
activities and not all. Just think for a moment about a ‘proper’ New Testament
gathering of God’s people. We are told precisely the nature and form that a
normal church meeting should take: “How is it then, brethren? when ye come
together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a
revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying” (1Cor
14:26). I think it would be rather odd looking if in an assembly meeting all the
sisters covered their heads while prayer was taking place while all the brothers
were uncovered and then, someone begins to speak in an unknown tongue (or give a
word of exhortation or whatever), and so all the ladies think, “oh, this is just
a message in tongues now, I may as well remove my covering,” and the men say,
“we might as well put our hats back on now.” Next, and quite without warning, an
elder asks everyone to join him in praying for something. There’s a flurry of
activity and… oops!… one lady has inadvertently picked up her husband’s
headdress! Point taken I trust! Whilst I would have full respect for anyone who
in the integrity of his or her heart takes this very pedantic view I do not
think that this would be very consistent with the overall picture and meaning or
this ordinance. Not to mention the highly impracticable arrangements that could
easily build up around such a view.
Question re the context/environment
Is this ordinance reserved for the gathering together of a church or should
it be employed on any occasion where we ‘pray and prophesy’?
Paul didn’t state explicitly that the context of this was if someone were
present at a church gathering. The whole of the letter to the Corinthian
believers contains matters that relate to both ‘gathering together’ and many
parts that obviously apply to Christian life in general. Some have taken the
view that this only relates to occasions when there is a church gathering. I
cannot agree with that. For a number of reasons:
The overall ‘pictorial’ roles of male and female are the same whether we are
in a meeting of the whole church, having fellowship with just a few friends,
praying with our husband or wife or even on our own. We shall later see how that
a woman’s hair is considered to be “her glory.” This doesn’t change dependant on
whether or not she is in a church gathering. Again later we shall read of
‘Angels’ being present with us. This is true whether we are in a local church
meeting or fellowshipping with a few somewhere or alone. Thank God they are our
ministers in many situations not only when we gather together with the saints
where we already have one another for support.
Once again, I can respect the person who only practices this ordinance in a
church meeting if it is their considered opinion that that is what is being
taught. However, I would ask such a one to please meditate prayerfully on the
above three points. Besides those, you are also left with the difficult
situations where it must be very hard to decide whether or not a particular
gathering constitutes a ‘church meeting’ or not. Remember, there is no such
place as ‘a church’ (i.e. a building) so we cannot use that as our determining
factor. That is, when we’re in the ‘church’ (meaning a building) we practise
head covering and when we pray in our homes then we don’t. In the New Testament,
all church meetings were held in homes so there was no dividing line there.
A personal testimony
In respect of this latter issue of ‘where and when’ to cover/uncover I would
like to finish with this small testimony from my wife.
She was a member of a church where head covering was the normal practise for
the women there. She adopted this practise in obedience to God as soon as she
was shown this passage of Scripture. However, it was not taught at that church
that this should be our practise at all times – only at a ‘church meeting’. One
day while alone with the Lord in prayer, she suddenly felt very ‘naked’ without
her covering. When she wondered why, the Lord spoke to her in her heart from
this passage of Scripture – the part that says, “a woman’s hair is her glory.”
Her understanding was quickened and she realised that if she covered her hair in
the meetings in order to give glory to God then shouldn’t she always want to
give God all of the glory in this way? Also, being aware of this passage of
Scripture, the thought came to her regarding the angels. Is their presence not
as much a reality when we are alone as when we are gathered with a church? In
simple response to this prompting of the Holy Spirit she covered her head and
continued in prayer. A short while after, two other young ladies from that
church testified that God had also spoken to them quite separately on the same
thing.
A testimony alone is not sufficient to form into a doctrine, but where it is
borne out “In the mouth of two or three witnesses” we really should look again
to see what God’s Word has to say on the matter. That this ordinance should be
our practise at all times is completely consistent with all of the revelation of
its meaning.
Verses 5 & 6 - A Woman’s Responsibility
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (la tete)
uncovered dishonoureth her head (le chef – the man vs.3): for that is even all
one as if she were shaven. 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.”
So it is simply the other way round for the woman. She is told to cover her
head, as opposed to the man who is instructed to uncover.
What does this signify?
Why cover/uncover the head though? Remember we are looking at a symbolic
ordinance here. In the Old Testament a priest or king was anointed with oil
(poured on his head) to signify his authority. The ‘oil’ speaks of the Holy
Spirit and the ‘head’ speaks of authority.
In this New Testament picture of order and authority, we symbolise the fact
that Christ has redeemed us all back to the proper order of creation. I don’t
mean just solely male and female order, but everything is brought back into its
proper subjection to God. So, the man removes any covering from his head to
signify that he is in authority (he is ‘the Head’) and, a very important ‘and’,
is taking responsibility for the situation. Yes, we’re back to Adam in the
garden who failed to use the authority God had given him as he stood by and said
nothing while his wife was being seduced by the wicked one. The woman places a
covering upon her head in order to signify the reverse; she is under the
authority of the man thus representing the subjection of the Church to Christ.
The second part of this verse simply means: “if she won’t do it, then she
might as well cut her hair short and look like a man!” I don’t think for one
minute that the apostle was advocating pinning a woman down and force-shaving
her! I suspect this is more of an idiomatic expression of exasperation like –
“if he won’t listen to this he might as well chop off his ears!” Under the Old
Covenant and in many societies and cultures it has been the practise at times to
shave a woman as a punishment for infidelity. As I say, I don’t believe this is
mentioned here as an instruction to do such, however, it is very relevant to
note that it was obviously considered to be an extremely serious misconduct to
not obey this ordinance. Soon we’ll look at how precious a woman’s hair is.
Verses 7,8 & 9 - Back To Creation
“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. For the man is not of
the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man.”
This is all simple Genesis 1 & 2 teaching here. Adam was the original creation
of God, made in His (God’s) image. The woman (woman means: ‘out of man’) was
created from him, as his perfect partner. She was the complementary creation. He
directly reflected God’s image (this of course is not a physical thing) and she
directly reflected the man’s image. Also it is important to know that combined
together they reflected the image of God too. “So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen
1:27). As human beings in a normal family set-up Father, Mother and
child/children (three entities yet one family) are a reflection of the triune
God. Yet again, we are not in the realms of culture here but in realms of
heavenly things. Just as with God, Christ and the Angels I mentioned earlier,
Adam and Eve are not cultural fantasies. They are bedrocks of Christian belief.
Verse 10 – Power & Angels
“For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the
angels.”
“Power on her head” is I grant you a strange sounding phrase. Other
renderings are along the lines of “a sign of authority” or similar. The word
translated as ‘power’ (EXOUSIA) can be also translated as ‘authority’.
Amazingly, in view of many men and women’s hatred of this teaching, part of the
meaning of EXOUSIA is ‘privilege’. It is her privilege to bear the ‘sign’ of
God’s order of creation, and one very important reason is: “because of the
angels.”
This latter expression could lead us to think in two ways:
It is a sign directly to angelic beings. Because angels have been sent forth
to minister to the human children of God: “But to which of the angels said he at
any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are
they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be
heirs of salvation?” (Heb 1:13,14). Also, fallen angelic beings (known as
demons) plainly wander this world seeking whom they may inhabit or trouble in
some way. (See Luke 11:24 for example).It could simply be taken to mean:
“because of what happened to the angels.” You will have no doubt discovered by
now that the Bible speaks of an angelic revolt. It doesn’t say that much about
it, but it is alluded to in a number of places.
In the two points above there exists a common link, which is the fact that
there once was an angelic rebellion against God’s order and authority. This is
most definitely one reason for the institution of an ordinance in God’s Church
that signifies order and authority. We’ll consider this angelic rebellion just
briefly:
Jude 1:6 “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their
own habitation” - (they rebelled against God’s heavenly order).
There are several other references to this subject; but we will not attempt a
full research of this now. Suffice it to say that once already God’s creation
had rebelled before Adam sinned on earth. Now the fallen one’s from that
rebellion look at us hopeful of seeing mankind on their side in their ‘war
against God’. In ‘the world’ they’re winning hands down of course. Not only in
realms of male and female relationships but in everything. Even though there are
cultures that still recognise male authority, often it’s confused with the
belief that women are somehow inferior beings. Female submission is only half
the picture of course. Remember again our Ephesians passage: “Husbands, love
your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph
5:25). If a man does not love, cherish, honour and lay down his life for her
then he mars the image of Christ – he indeed dishonours his Head.
Satan (who is an angelic being) is the god (small ‘g’) of this world and all
the while a man or woman lives according to the fashions of this world, in
whatever culture they’re found, the devil is not concerned with them. The issue
in hand is, will the Church continue in God’s ways? Or can the wicked one
distract, corrupt, malign, anything to keep us from obedience to Christ? We,
Christian Men and Women together, have the privilege and responsibility of
showing rebellious angels (who are made “a little higher than man”) that WE are
the children of God. We love Him, we fear Him, we obey His order.
Verses 11 & 12 – Our Interdependence
“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without
the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by
the woman; but all things of God.”
Here, the apostle is very careful to emphasise the mutual dependency and
equality of value and worth of male and female, just in case there are
imbalanced men who start getting the idea that headship somehow makes them
superior. I've already stated that men and women are equal in their ‘value and
worth’ to God but we have differing roles. This is consistent with the whole of
biblical revelation not just Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Just to express
this again I’ll use one more analogy:
An analogy of equality and order
Let’s say you work in an office. You have a manger over you. You are no less
a person than that manager; you are equal in your worth to God. Let’s just say
your employers consider you both to be of equal value to them. Your manager may
have more skills than you or you may possess more skills than him/her. That’s
not the point; your employers have given the role of manager to one and not the
other. That’s their decision and prerogative. Let’s say you have a good manager,
he will treat you with courtesy, even though he is the officially ‘in charge’
one. He will listen to you knowing that often you come up with solutions and
suggestions that are good, yet, your manager still takes the decision whether or
not to implement your ideas, that’s his privilege … BUT… it is, at the same,
time his responsibility. If it all goes wrong he is to blame from the employers
standpoint. Do you see the picture? The two are equal in their value and worth
and yet, at the same time, one has been given responsibilities that the other
hasn’t. Just because headship is often abused, that does not make it any less
the truth of God.
Interdependence does not replace individual fellowship with God
There is one more point which must be made clear here, just in case there is
any doubt or confusion over this. Just because a man is the ’head’ in a marriage
it does not mean that the woman has no personal and direct communion with God;
on the contrary. We see the same principle in the local church. The elders have
collective responsibility for all matters that relate to that assembly but that
does not mean that the individual Christians who meet together in that assembly
do not continue in their own daily walk of fellowship with God. The elders must
take responsibility before God for all things in that church. The others in that
church should pray to God to guide them. It does not necessarily follow that
God’s Word for that church will always come directly to the elders. It may come
from any God-given source, and most certainly it will, at times, come from the
other members of that congregation. Even so, in marriage, the woman should pray
for the husband to receive God’s Word and guidance in all matters that relate to
their lives. Also the same principle applies that God may not always speak
directly to the man; He may at times speak through the wife. Here we are back to
our office analogy again. Though the Word may come through the wife, the husband
must make the decision as to whether it is God’s voice or not. If it is and he
rejects it he is in sin. If it isn’t and he follows it he (not she) is yet again
the one held accountable. That’s the negative side, but really God wants the
‘two’ (husband and wife) to be so ‘one’ that He can speak to whom He wishes
knowing that they will both agree and that all things will be done in their
proper order – God takes pleasure in order.
Verse 13 - Now Make Your own Assessment
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
In view of all that’s been said – no. Nor would it be comely for a man to
pray with his head covered.
Verses 14 &15 - A Lesson From Nature
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is
a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her
hair is given her for a covering.”
We need to deal with argument ‘2’ here (do you remember in the introduction?)
- “the hair is the covering” – let’s see.
This argument as I’ve heard it says: “It (these 16 verses of Scripture)
doesn’t mean a scarf or hat or anything like that. It says the hair is the
covering*.” O.K. please cross out (figuratively, I’m not asking you to ruin your
Bible!) the word ‘cover’ and all its derivatives in this passage and replace it
with the word, or sense of ‘hair’. Now reread the whole passage. Come on, admit
it, that does sound rather odd, e.g. especially verse 4, “Every man praying or
prophesying with hair on his head…!”
There is a subtler and less funny version of ‘the hair is the covering’
argument. The argument being that long hair (with the emphasis on ‘long’) is the
covering. Therefore: “Every man praying or prophesying with long hair dishonours
his head.” This seems a little more sensible until we read the part about the
woman having short hair being “shaven” or “shorn:”
“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...”
In the above instance if “not covered” means having short hair then why on
earth would Paul say: “any woman praying with short hair should have her hair
shaved off or cut short!” Even if one of these words (‘shaven’ and ‘shorn’) was
to mean complete baldness (and I don’t know that either of them do mean that?)
the other one can only at best mean ‘cut short’. This would not make any sense
at all.
In these two verses (14 & 15) we simply have, as my title in this section
suggests, ‘a lesson from nature’. It is common throughout the whole of the Bible
for spiritual instruction to be backed up/illustrated by principles from the
natural world. However, this does further make clear though that it is God’s
intention that a woman’s hair be long and a man’s short.+ I don’t think that it
would be chosen as an illustration of this if this were not the case. As to the
question of, how long? Or how short? It is like asking, “how long is acceptable
as a length for a Christian woman’s skirt?” The answer is not found in a tape
measure, but by the HOLY Spirit who resides within us. The principles of the
matter are plain. Any God-fearing Christian woman should look feminine and be
holy unto the Lord. Any God-fearing Christian man should look masculine and be
holy unto the Lord. “Without holiness we shall not see the Lord” (Heb 12:14).
What type of covering?
Whilst we are on the topic of ‘precise measurements’, we should just pause
for a moment and consider a practical aspect of this. We have just read that a
woman’s hair should be long, and that her hair is her glory. In the earlier
parts of this passage we read of a woman’s head being covered; the various
derivatives of ‘covered’ (KATAKALUPTO) mean ‘veiled’. In view of both of these
two points I think it is pretty clear that what is in view here is some kind of
fairly full covering of the head and the hair. Once again, I do not think the
precise details of this can be determined by a tape measure, but if a woman
wishes to practice this ordinance in the manner that properly portrays the
intended meanings, then a hat or miniature hair adornment does not entirely
fulfil it. Many would not doubt that water baptism should be by a full
immersion. Why? Because that is what Scripture teaches and the reason is,
because that is what properly fulfils the picture of our immersion (baptism)
into God. In the case of this ordinance, which we are now considering, a
veiling/full covering is what is in view. I emphasise ‘head’ and ‘hair’, I do
not think that this in any way implies the face too.
Verse 16 - Never Argue With A Genuine Apostle
“But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the
churches of God.”
So we come to the end, but not without one last fight. Argument ‘3’ says: “He
said (that’s Paul) that if it was going to cause any problem that we needn’t do
it.” Such is the interpretation of, “we have no such custom.”
First of all, I have already abundantly emphasised that this passage of God’s
Word speaks of God, Christ, angels and alludes to Adam and Eve and the Church.
Such beliefs are not the unique idea of one little local church. These are facts
of the whole biblical revelation. The word ‘custom’ here is not the same as the
word translated as ‘ordinance’ at the outset of the passage. It is clear that
the subject in hand is an ordinance not a social custom. It is sandwiched
between Paul’s teachings on the Lord’s Supper (chapter 10 and the rest of
chapter 11). There is no doubt that he is on the subject of ordinances.
This verse is quite self-explanatory if it is read without prejudice and
simply in the order it is written: “if any man seem to be contentious - we have
no such custom.” ‘Custom’ does not refer to the ordinance that the writer has
just spent 15 verses carefully explaining - he is referring to people being
'contentious' about it. It should not be the custom (the manner, the habit) of
humble children of God to argue about something that His apostles have stated as
being God’s will and good pleasure. By the by - the word ‘custom’ isn’t even
used in some translations. It just means – “its not our habit to argue about
these things.”
Read
The Conclusion...
[use your 'home' key to go to top of page]
