From Belknap777@aol.comFri Apr 5 23:24:48 1996 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 17:22:52 -0600 From: Belknap777@aol.com Reply to: garyslist@jackson.freenet.org To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Head Covering The Covering I Cor. 11:2-16 Ironically and unfortunately, the one specific subject that inspiration reminds brethren not to be contentious over (I Cor. 11:16), is one of the very subjects which arouses contention in the kingdom. However, in preaching and teaching "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), one must include the subject of the covering. The fifteen verses of this chapter in first Corinthians were not revealed and preserved to be ignored. As we approach this study, we must remember that even the "hard" things that Paul wrote (II PET 3:16) can be understood if we continue to study them (Jn. 8:31-32; Eph.3:3-5; 5:17). Since it is imperative for the sake of our souls that we live by "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Mt. 4:4), I ask that you will give diligence in your Bible study (especially on this neglected subject). If I have misrepresented the truth in any way, please show me, with scripture, the more accurate way of the Lord and I will be more than grateful to correct my error and change my teaching. First of all, a context doesn't always start or end at a chapter division (chapter divisions began about 600 yrs. ago and verse divisions began about 300 yrs. ago). Men added the divisions, and sometimes did not divide the chapters at the best place (cp. II Cor. 7:1 with the last context of II Cor. 6). Verse 1 of I Corinthians chapter eleven goes best with the last context of chapter ten. I Corinthians chapter eleven, verse two begins with, "Now I praise you, brethren...". This is similar to the way he began other topics in first Corinthians. Cp. with I Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 11:17; 12:1; 16:1 Note: These instructions are not specific in application to the assembly. PROOF - Verse 5 says, " 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." The covering was to be specifically worn by a woman while she "prophesieth," and we know that she didn't do this in the church (I Tim. 2:11-12; I Cor. 14:34-35). The conclusion is unavoidable: this text applies in, as well as out of the public assembly. Verse 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (# 3862 "paradosis;" NKJV, NASV traditions), as I delivered them to you. Thayer's Greek - English Lexicon (pg. 481) says, "paradosis: a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing...of the particular injuctions of Paul's instruction, I Cor. xi. 2." Apostolic teaching cp. with II Thess. 2:15; 3:6 As we will see in verse 16, "custom" is not equivalent to "ordinance". The ordinances which he will specify in the following verses are to be kept, while the custom or habit of seeming (being "disposed to be") contentious is not. Verse 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man (# 435 "aner") is Christ; and the head of the woman (# 1135 "gune") is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Thayer's Greek - English Lexicon (pg. 45) says, "aner: a man; with reference to sex, and so to distinguish a man from a woman." Thayer's Greek - English Lexicon (pg. 123) says, "gune: a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow; a wife." Because woman came from man's side (v. 8), man is the head of woman. However, because God created them male and female, God is the head of both. Jesus has also placed himself under the Father in the plan of redemption. The topic is discussing the line of subjection, which is just as true today as it was in the first century, and thus applicable for us today. Verse 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (NASV, who has something on his head), dishonoureth his head. Vines Expository Dictionary (pg. 254) says, "'having his head covered' is, lit., 'having (something) down the head.'" We don't know what thing (the noun) does the action of covering or veiling (the verb); whether it's long hair or an artificial covering / veil, but the emphasis is something down the head. We will acknowledge this further in the next few verses. Dishonoureth (#2617 Kataischuno) from this text, according to Strong's (pg. 40) means "to shame down, i.e. disgrace or (by impl.) put to the blush: - confound, dishonor, (be a-, make a-) shame (-d). If the covering was only a custom at Corinth as some contend, this verse wouldn't be applicable to those outside of Corinth. But isn't the order of man to Christ, and woman to man something that applies worldwide? Can anyone, anywhere, at any time dishonor (shame) Christ and be pleasing to Him? (John 5:23). Is Christ not worthy (Rom. 13:7) of our honor? It is true that this verse is forbidding a man from having something on his head when praying or prophesying. However, we do not know from this verse what that "something" is, nor if he could have it on his head at other times. When we consider the entire context (especially vs. 14-15), "long hair" is the "covering" this passage of scripture specifies that he is NOT to have. Therefore, since long hair is the named covering that man is not to have, it is necessarily inferred that he is not to have such at any time (when praying or prophesying included). This inference will be made manifest in the following verses. Verse 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (# 177 "akatakaluptos") dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. The point here is the same as in the previous verse. Can a woman violate scripture by dishonoring her head (man), and still be pleasing to God? There is more than "just a local custom at Corinth" being considered here. Secondly, even though their prophesying may have been inspired, as far as my studies are concerned, I have never found an instance in the Bible where that prayer was a spiritual gift. It certainly isn't listed among the named gifts of I Cor. 12:4-10. In I Cor. 14:14, the tongue was the gift, not the prayer. Therefore there are two separate areas of activity in which the covering is required. Women prophesied (Acts 2:17; 21:9) Note: As stated in the introduction, this verse is proof that this context also deals with settings outside the assembly, since it would have been a violation of I Tim. 2:11-12 & I Cor. 14:34-35 for women to prophesy in the church. The assembly is not the focus of this context (there is nothing in this context specifying the assembly). The line of subjectivity IS the heart of this passage of scripture. Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon (pg. 29) says, "akatakaluptos: uncovered with unc. head I Cor. 11:5. In short, a woman without head-covering vs. 13." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (pg. 21) says, "akatakaluptos: not covered, unveiled: I Cor. xi. 5, 13." The distinction is between covered [# 2619 "katakalupto" (see verses 6-7, and definition)] vs. uncovered [# 177 "akatakaluptos" (in verses 7, 13)], is that one covering is long and the other is not. Every woman is to be covered, whereas every man is not to be covered. Every woman is to "have (something) down the head." Every man is not to "have (something) down the head." What that something is, we haven't been told...YET! Sometimes people ask: "Why is she only told to be covered while praying or prophesying?" ANSWER: To be covered at this time was and is to be covered at all times. They did, and we are also to "pray without ceasing" (I Thess. 5:17), and we have not ceased to teach and preach Jesus Christ (Acts 5:42). Even though prophesying may have very well meant under the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, this passage still says - "praying OR prophesying" and not "praying AND prophesying." Therefore there are two separate areas of activity in which the covering is required. Again, I have been unable to find evidence that this "praying" was under the direct operation of the Holy Spirit. Verse 6 For if the woman be not covered (# 2619 "katakalupto"), let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (# 2619 "katakalupto"). It is important to especially note right here, that the reason a woman should not be shorn or shaven is because it is a shame. There is no specific application to praying or prophesying uncovered as a cause for her shame, but the inference is that it would be shameful at any time for a woman to be uncovered. Vines Expository Dictionary (pg. 254) says, "Verb. Katakalupto, to cover up (kata, intensive), in the middle voice, to cover oneself, is used in I Cor. 11:6, 7 (R.V., 'veiled')." Katakalupto is a compound word: from "kata" which means: Thayer's Greek - English Lexicon (pgs. 326-327) says, "kata: down from, down." Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon (pg. 405) says, "kata: of place - down from someth. lit. hanging down fr. head, as a veil. 1 Cor. 11:4" and from "Kalupto" which means: Vines Expository Dictionary (pg. 254) says, "Verb. Kalupto, signifies to cover, Mt. 8:24; 10::26; Lk. 8:16; 23:30; Jas. 5:20; I P. 4:8" Compare some Scriptures using the Greek verb "kalupto": Mt. 8:24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. Lk. 8:16 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light. Lk. 23:30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. 1 P. 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. As we can see, "kalupto" is a verb which simply means "to cover." Each context must specify the thing (noun) which does the covering. Whether it be waves, a vessel, the hills, or love, something does the covering when "kalupto" is used. However, in I Cor. 11:4-7 "kata" is joined to "kalupto" which means that the context is referring to a "down; lit. hanging down fr. head" covering. A man is not to have a "down; lit. hanging down fr. head" covering, but a woman is to have a "down; lit. hanging down fr. head" covering. I believe that one of the major misunderstandings of this context exists (some brethren believe this verse reveals two coverings), because some brethren do not realize that the veiling in this context is a compound word [KATA (down; lit. hanging down fr. head) KALUPTO (covering)]. Yes, the man has hair on his head, but the man with short hair does not have "down, lit. hanging down fr. head" as the type of hair a woman is to have on her head. Long hair is certainly "something" down and hanging from the head. The covering is to be down; hanging from the head. Some contend that verse 6 indicates that more than the hair is involved, because it wouldn't make sense to say: "For if the woman be not covered (have her hair cut off), let her be shorn (have her hair cut off): But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven (have her hair cut off), let her be covered (have long hair)." Well, I agree that such does not make sense. However, such a statement misrepresents what this verse reveals! Remember that the covering we're talking about in this context is a "down" covering, or "long hair." I believe that the idea being expressed by Paul in this verse is similar to what Jesus said to the Laodiceans in Rev. 3:15 concerning their works: He said, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot." He desired their works to be hot or cold; their lukewarm works were sickening to the Master. Men's hair length may be short without being shorn or shaven, just as a woman's hair length may be short with out being shorn or shaven. Therefore I believe that Paul says, "For if the woman be not covered (have not long hair), let her be shorn [have her hair cut off (buzz-style)]: But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven [have her cut off (buzz-style or clean shaven)], let her be covered (have long hair)." In other words, if she desires hair length equal to the men, let her make her shame complete by cutting her hair completely off. Lukewarm hair length is not acceptable with God. Consider verse 5. It says that if she prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (# 177 akatakaluptos; "uncovered, not covered") it is the same as if she were shorn or shaven. The same as if.. . If she does not have this "down" covering (long hair) it's just as bad as if she was shorn or shaven. The NIV says, "it is just as though her head were shaved." Man's head may still be covered (kalupto) with hair, however, what is forbidden is a "down" covering (katakalupto) or long hair. The woman's hair must fully cover, or hang down the head, clearly distinguishing her from the man. I believe that some are making a mistake when they write: "Man, while praying or prophesying, is to have NOTHING on his head..." Nowhere does the text say or infer that he is to have nothing on his head! It says, he is not to be covered (katakalupto)! He isn't forbidden to be "kalupto" (covered), but rather "katakalupto" (covered). What's the difference? One covering is a "hanging down" covering, the other is not. In Rev. 9:8 John portrays strange creatures by writing: "And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions." What picture do we see when we see "hair as the hair of women?" Men's hair is just as thick, thin, curly and / or straight as women's hair; and just as brown, red, brunette, black and /or blond as women's hair. So what is the significance of "hair as the hair of women"? The vision is creatures with "long hair". Where some can and do get confused, is when they add words to the text like: "put on" and "take off". Nowhere in this context is "put on" or "take off" mentioned, or necessarily implied. Some may say it is, but that doesn't make it so. A close study and proper understanding of verse 15 of this chapter ought to clearly erase the idea of an artificial covering being put on and / or taken off. A man may be shorn or shaven, but it's a shame for a women to do so. Apostle Paul was shaven in Acts 18:18. Verse 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover (# 2619 "katakalupto") his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. This verse clearly reveals to us that a man ought NOT to cover his head (WHY?), because he is the image and glory of God. Vines Expository Dictionary (pg. 254) says, "Verb. Katakalupto, to cover up (kata, intensive), in the middle voice, to cover oneself, is used in I Cor. 11:6, 7 (R.V., 'veiled')." Webster defines "hair" as: "A slender thread like outgrowth of the epidermis of an animal. Coat of a mammal. The hairy covering of an animal, or body part, esp. the coating of hairs on a human head (emp. mine)." The man's covering (hair) is not to be a (kata) "down; lit. hanging down fr. head" covering, whereas a woman's covering (hair) is to be a (kata) "down; lit. hanging down fr. head" covering. If a woman does not need (today) to cover her head (have long hair) but may have short hair, then may a man have long hair? If not, why not? If it's OK for the one to go contrary to this passage of scripture today, why not for the other? I believe that this is a key verse in this context. Paul does not say that man ought not to cover his head because he's praying or prophesying, or even because he is in the assembly; but because "he is the image and glory of God". Therefore this is not just an issue when praying or prophesying, but at all times, whether praying, prophesying or whatever! Just so, the woman is to cover her head forasmuch as she is the glory of man, not because she is praying or prophesying or in the assembly. The man is NOT to cover his head, forasmuch as he is "the image and glory of God." The woman is to cover her head, because she is "the glory of the man." Is this a universal truth, or was this just a custom at Corinth? If she chooses not to be scripturally covered, she may as well not pray to God; for Jehovah will not hear (Prov. 28:9; Isa. 59:1-2; Jn. 15:7; I P. 3:12). Verse 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. In Gen. 2:21-22 we learn that God made woman from the side of man. Cp. this with I Tim. 2:13 Verse 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. In Gen. 1:18 we learn that the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (suited) for him." Verse 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power (NASV, a symbol of authority) on her head because of the angels. The very reason why a woman is to have this outward sign / symbol (i.e. long hair) on her head, is because as verses 8 & 9 says; "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 an outward indication of acceptance of our place in the line of authority because of / before the angels (cp. with I Tim. 5:21). A man is not to wear that which pertains to the woman, and a woman is not to wear that which pertains to a man according to this context (vs. 14-15). Cp. with Deut. 22:5 Some have concluded that this context was done away simultaneously with miraculous gifts. However, we learn here that the covering is not because of spiritual gifts; it's a sign of subjection. Moreover, since we have established that the context differentiates between "prayeth or prophesieth," we cannot assume that just because the spiritual gift of prophesy was discontinued, that the context does not address that which remains: prayer. Verse 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without (NIV independent of) the woman, neither the woman without (NIV independent of) the man, in the Lord. According to God's will, we compliment each other and are here to help each other in many ways. Compare this with the next verse. Verse 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Woman originated from man's side, and since the time of creation, man is born of woman, but God created both man and woman, and therefore deserves the honor He requests. Verse 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered (# 177 "akatakaluptos")? Here, the covering is mentioned during prayer, separate and apart from prophesying. After all that Paul has written, how could anybody answer this question in the negative? If a woman praying or prophesying uncovered dishonors her head, man (since she originated from him) how much more would it dishonor the God of Heaven who created them both and inspired the scripture which commands our obedience. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (pg. 21) says, "akatakaluptos, not covered, unveiled: I Cor. xi. 5, 13." The question that must be answered is: What is a woman's head to possess that will cover or veil her head, while hanging down? Cp. this thought with the following verses. Verse 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? This is a hanging down covering ("katakalupto") which would be a shame for man to possess, nature itself (the flesh) affirming this as so. I believe Paul was saying that it was commonly accepted by human wisdom that it was shameful for a man to have long hair. Verse 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for (# 473 "anti") a covering (# 4018 "peribolaion"). for (# 473 "anti; avti") Kittel's Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, (Vol. 1, pg. 372) says, avti: "In its basic meaning of 'over against' it does not occur in the NT, but is mostly used in the sense of a. 'in the place of, ....In this respect it makes little difference whether the word denotes an actual replacement, an intended replacement, or a mere equivalent in estimation, or similarity (I Cor. 11:15...)." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (pg. 49) says, "avti, it seems to have signified over against, opposite to, before, in a local sense. Hence, indicating exchange, succession, for, instead of, in place of (something). a. univ. instead of: to serve as a covering. I Cor. xi:15." Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon (pg. 73) says, "avti, in order to indicate that one thing is equiv. to another for, as, in place of, hair as a covering i Cor. 11:15." New Englishman's Greek Concordance & Lexicon (pg. 63) says, "avti; prep. with gen.., against, opposite, instead of, because of." covering (# 4018 "peribolaion") Vines Expository Dictionary (pg. 254) says, Noun "Peribolaion, lit. denotes something thrown down around; hence, a veil, covering, I Cor. 11:15" Vines Expository Dictionary (pg. 202) says, "Peribolaion, from periballo, It is used in I Cor. 11:15, of the hair of a woman which is given to her as a veil." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (pg. 502) says, "Peribolaion: a veil [A.V. a covering]: 1 Cor. xi.15" Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon (pg. 646) says, "Peribolaion: her (the woman's) hair is given to her as a covering 1 Cor. 11:15" The NIV translates this verse: "for long hair is given to her as a covering" Paul says her hair has been given to her "instead of" a "veil" (noun). Therefore we can KNOW with assurance that the covering (verb) mentioned several times earlier in this context is not an artificial covering (a veil), but rather it is the God-given covering of her "long hair." How long is long? Anything which hangs down the head! The man is not to have what the woman is to have, and vice-versa. Whatever would be considered "long hair" on a man ought to be considered "long hair" on a woman. If not, why not? May she get her hair cut? Of course, as many times as she likes -- just as long as she possesses "long hair". May he let his hair grow? Of course, as long as he doesn't allow his hair to grow long enough to hang down (kata) the head. Sometimes women attempt to justify their short hair by reasoning that since it is cut in a woman's style, it distinguishes her from man, and therefore is not that which "pertains to a man." However, if the above human reasoning is valid, a man would be equally justified in having long (hanging-down) hair, as long as it was fashioned in a man's style. If we (rightfully) believe that a man's long hair dishonors his head (Christ), we must agree that a woman's short hair dishonors her head (man), as well. Length (not style) is what's emphasized in this context. Verses 3-15 are referring to a covering that man is not to have because he is the image and glory of God, and the covering woman is to have because she is the glory of man. Remember that the core of this context is about headship. Verse 14 reveals that the covering a man is not to have is long hair. Verse 15 shows the covering a woman is to have is long hair (specifically, "instead [place] of" an artificial covering; i.e. a veil). Verses 14 & 15 conclude by naming long hair as the katakalupto, yet some think that Paul was referring to an artificial covering (a veil) in this context. Because of this inaccurate conclusion, derived from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "covering," confusion on this subject abounds. Verse 16 But if any man seem (#1380) to be contentious (#5380), we have no such custom (#4914), neither the churches of God. Contentious (#5380) New Englishman's Greek Concordance & Lexicon (pg. 902) says, # 5380 means: "loving strife, quarrelsome, 1 Co 11:16" Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (pg. 654) says, # 5380 means: "fond of strife, contentious: 1 Co. xi. 16" Custom (#4914) New Englishman's Greek Concordance & Lexicon (pg. 816) says, # 4914 means: "a shared custom, Jn. 18:39; 1 Co 11:16" Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon (pg. 789) says, # 4914 means: "objectively custom, habit, usage, 1 Cor 11:16" Seem (#1380) Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon (pg. 201) says (from the literal Greek), "if anyone is disposed to be contentious 11:16." Verse 16 says, "If any man (not we; jhb) seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Was Corinth not a church "of God" (I Cor. 1:2)? The terms "any man" and "we" are not synonymous in this passage. The term "any man" is simply a noun, whereas "we" is a personal pronoun. Paul appears to make a distinction between "any man" at Corinth who would be "disposed" (see definition) to be contentious, quarrelsome or ungodly, from those who were faithful (Paul himself, and the churches of God). The church at Corinth had contentions, at least at the time of the writing of this epistle (I Cor. 1:11). After the apostle's illumination on the covering (vs. 2-15), God may have foreseen contentiousness arising among them over this issue as well, hence Paul wrote "we have no such custom neither the churches of God." The custom (habit, usage) they did not have was also one that the churches of God were not and are not to have: a disposition to contentiousness. After fourteen verses of apostolic instruction, and serious admonitions as to how hair length honors or dishonors our head(s), we cannot conclude that these instructions were all just "a custom" that could be discarded if there were contentions over the subject! NESTLE'S ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK, "if but anyone thinks contentious to be, we such a custom have not, neither the churches of God." NEB - "However, if you insist on arguing, let me tell you, there is no such custom among us, or in any of the congregations of God's people." LENSKI - "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we for our part have no such custom, neither the churches of God." If you look closely, I think you'll agree that these translations are the closest to the Greek. There are also several translations which say, "we have no other practice"; indicating the covering as the practice being referred to. However, these are unacceptable, because they're not true to the Greek. The word "other" is NOT found in the original language! Paul was saying that they were not to be contentious over this matter. It was shameful and a dishonor to man's head for him to have long hair, and it was shameful and a dishonor to woman's head for her to have short hair. I believe Carrol Sutton stated it well: "Paul is simply stating that regardless of what any contentious person might say to try to offset the truth as set forth by Paul, that neither he nor the churches of God anywhere would recognize that for which the contentious man was arguing. He and the churches of God generally would continue to respect, believe and practice God's will in these matters." (Lecture at Pleasant Grove, AL. summer of 1975). The word "covering" (katakalupto) is simply a verb which is accomplished by the noun of this context i.e. "long hair" (vs. 14-15). I know that I changed some of the words in the following, but I don't believe that I misrepresented the truth, if the "long hair" is "the covering" that women are to have on their heads, and that the man is not to have on his. 1 Corinthians 11:2-15 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 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. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having long hair, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without long hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman have not long hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have long hair on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God without long hair? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for (instead of, in the place of) a covering (a veil; an artificial covering)." >From my whole heart I submit this study, your servant, Jeff Belknap From srudd@wchat.on.caFri Apr 5 23:25:13 1996 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 19:36:07 -0600 From: srudd@wchat.on.ca Reply to: garyslist@jackson.freenet.org To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Covering = Hair (Jenkins) THE WOMAN'S COVERING 1 Cor 11:2-16 by Jesse G. Jenkins First Corinthians 11:3-16 is a much disagreed upon passage. It is misunderstood and neglected. Its instructions, however, are greatly needed. In the lines that follow I will attempt to direct an objective study of the passage inasmuch as limited space permits. Divine Revelation The instructions of 1 Cor. 11:3-16 are a matter of divine revela-tion and not just a matter of custom. Verse 16 teaches that the rules Paul had given are binding and any other practice relative to his subject is not recognized. The verse is simply saying that if anyone is contentious about what Paul has herein taught, neither the apostles nor the churches of God have or recognize such a practice. Verses 4 and 5 show that when a man and woman do not follow the instructions herein given the man dishonors his head, which is Christ, and the woman dishonors her head. which is man. Now, since to violate the passage dishonors Christ, it must be a matter of revelation, and not just custom. Applicable Today The instructions are applicable today, and not just when men and women had spiritual gifts. Paul is not here discussing spiritual gifts; he is discussing the line of subjectivity; that is, God is head of Christ, who is head of man, who is head of woman. He then develops the idea of woman's subjection to man. Since the very point being stressed is as needed today as it was then, we must conclude that the instructions are also applicable today. Further, in verse 7 we read: 'For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is in the image and glory of God." Thus, the reason a man is not to cover his head is not that he had spiritual gifts, but that he is in the image and glory of God. Also, the woman is to cover her head because she is of man, not because she had spiritual gifts (verses 9--10). Man with spiritual gifts was in the image and glory of God, and man without spiritual gifts was in the image and glory of God. Woman with spiritual gifts was of man, and woman without spiritual gifts is of man. Thus, men and women with spiritual gifts and men and women without spiritual gifts were and are to obey the passage. "Every man praying ( that gets the one without spiritual gifts) or ( not "and") prophesying (that gets the one with spiritual gifts) having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." As long as man is in the image and glory of God and as long as woman is of man, the passage will be applicable. Instructions General in application The instructions are general in application, and not just limited to the assembly. The assembly is not named, mentioned, nor implied in the passage. And wherever the women with spiritual gifts were pro-phesying, it was not in the assembly; for she is commanded to be in silence there (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Further, as the point under consider-ation was not spiritual gifts, but woman's subjection to man, and as woman is to be subject to man in the assembly and out of the assembly, the conclusion is inevitable that the instructions are applicable in or out of the assembly. They are general; regulating woman's behaviour in relation to man; her place is one of subjection. Covering of long Hair The covering of the passage is long hair, and not an artificial covering. After talking about the covering for ten verses, Paul asked a question about it. Then he answered. Now, Paul's answer to his own question ought to give some light on what covering he was talking about. In verse 13 he asked: 'judge in yourselves, is it comely (befitting) that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" His answer: 'Doth not even nature itself teach you, if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair ~s given her for a covering." He asked about the covering and then answered with long hair, not a veil. Thus, Paul tells us what kind of covering he is talking about. If he had asked the question of verse 13 and then answered: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have a veil it is a shame to him? But if a woman have a veil it is a shame to him? But if a woman have a veil, it is a glory to her: for her veil is given her for a covering," I would make myself look absurd to argue that he was not talking about a veil, but about long hair. Just so, as he answered with long hair instead of a veil, one looks absurd to argue that he was not talking about long hair, but about a veil. Then verse 15 clinches it by saying that a woman's long hair is given her for a covering. What About the Greek? At this point someone usually objects by saying: "But the Greek will not bear you out in this." Well, let us see about that. In verses 5, 6, 7, and 13 the word for covering is "katakalupto; " for uncovered it is "akatakalupto." (Verse 4 does not have a word for covering in the Greek. It is implied, but not stated.) 'Kata" is a preposition meaning "down." "Alpha [a]" prefixed negates - instead of covered it is uncovered. "Kalupto" is the general word for covering, it does not have identity. It could be a covering of a veil, of long hair, or of a toe sack and still be "kalupto." "Kalupto" is the word used in Matt. 8:24 where the ship was covered fkaluptesthai) with waves. It is the word used in 1 Pet. 4:8 where love covers (ka-lupsai) a multitude of sins. It is the word in Luke 8:16 where no man lights a candle and covers (kalupei) it with a vessel. So we see that 'kalupto" is just a covering, and can be any kind. From the word one cannot tell what the element of the covering in any passage is. The context must identify the element of the covering. Now, the context, of our passage shows that the covering is not love, waves, or some vessel' but that it is "long hair.') In verse 13 Paul asked: "Is it fitting that a woman pray unto God uncovered (akatakalupton)?" He answered with the element of "long hair.'' In verse 15 we have a different Greek word for covering. Here it is "peribolainon", This word means an artificial covering; it has identity. It is defined: "A covering thrown around, a wrapper, a mantle." (Thayer). The preposition 'for' in the phrase "for a cover-ing': is "anti." "Anti" means: "instead of, in place of, to serve as a covering." (Thayer). Thus, we have Paul saying that a woman's long hair is given her instead of an artificial covering. It seems as though inspiration might have foreseen that men would try to get an artificial covering from the passage! Berry's Interlinear reads: "But if a woman have long hair, glory to her it is: for the long hair instead of a covering is given her." Nestle's reads: 'But a woman if she wears her hair long it its a glory to her because the long hair instead of a veil has been given her." Now, if Paul had talked for ten verses about the Lord's Supper and then concluded by telling us that unleavened bread and fruit of the vine were the elements of the Supper, I would look pretty foolish to argue that some other elements were meant in the first ten verses. Just so, as he did talk about the covering for ten verses and then concluded by telling us that long hair is the element of the covering, does not one make himself look foolish to argue that some other element was meant in the first ten verses? When Paul said that long hair was given a woman instead of an artificial covering, that should settle the matter of the element of the covering under consideration. And he said that in Greek! So the Greek does bear out my exegesis of the passage. Four Lengths of Hair In verse 6 four lengths of hair are under consideration, not a veil and two lengths of hair. "For if a woman be not covered (hair cut like mine), let her also be shorn (cropped): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven let her be covered." Thus, we have: [1] the covered state - long hair, [2] the uncovered state - hair cut like mine, [3] shorn - a "burr," and [4] shaved - like a man's face. Paul is saying that if a woman is going to cut her hair short and look like a man, let her make her shame complete by cropping or shaving her head. Why Did Paul Just Demand the Covering When Praying or Prophesying? As long hair is the covering, to have long hair when praying or prophesying is to have the covering all the time. A woman's hair is not something she puts on and off. If she has long hair when praying she has long hair all the time. Thus, Paul just said when praying or prophesying. Now we have no women who prophesy today, but we do have women who pray. And if their prayers are very consistent, and if they have the covering of long hair when they pray, they have the covering the passage enjoins all the time. It would be impossible for our women to be covered with long hair when they pray and then not have the covering at other times. Therefore, if our women have long hair when they pray, they cannot appear any place or any time with out the covering Paul enjoins In other words, when he enjoined the covering of long hair when praying, that too: complete care of the situation; nothing further need to be specified. How Long Is long? This is determined by both the context and the word Paul used. >From the context we see: 1. Woman is to be in submission to man. 2. A covering of long hair is the token of this submission 3. Thus, a woman must have the token of submission, that is, hair long enough to clearly distinguish between her and a man. >From the word "katakalupto" we see: 1. The covering is to fully cover or be down the head. 2. Long hair is the covering under consideration. 3. Thus, woman's hair must be long enough to fully cover or hang down the head. The conclusion is that a woman's hair must be long enough to fully cover or hang down the head and to clearly distinguish between her and man. And conversely, man's hair must be short enough to not hang down the head and to clearly distinguish between him and woman. Does this mean that it is wrong for a woman to cut her hair? tiot necessarily so, for a woman can cut her hair and still have hair down the head that distinguishes between her and a man. If a man had hair down to his waist and then cut off four inches, would he have hair short enough to satisfy the demands of the passage or would he still have "long hair"? All agree that he would still have "long hair." Just so, when a woman has hair down to her waist and then cuts off four inches, she still has "long hair." She still satisfies the de-mands of the passage and has not sinned. Needed Applications Woman sins when she cuts her hair too short to satisfy the meaning of "katakalupto" - that is to be a covering long enough to fully cover or hang down the head, and she sins when she cuts her hair so short that it does not clearly distinguish her from man. Man sins (dishonors his head - Christ) when he lets his hair grow too long to satisfy the meaning of "akatakalupto" - that is when it is long enough to hang down the head; and he sins when he lets his hair grow so long that it does not clearly distinguish him from a woman who has hair long enough to satisfy the demands of the passage. ____________________________________________ Steve Rudd 33 Highcliffe Ave. Hamilton, Ont. Canada L9A 3L3 905-575-8437 Fax: 575-8814 srudd@worldchat.com The Interactive Bible Study Library http://worldchat.com/public/bible/bible.htm