Please feel free to reproduce any of these studies as long as they are not altered in any way, and credit is given.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pants on Women by Mitchell Brittain
For years it has been tradition and even doctrine in some circles that Scripture forbids pants on women. The passage that has been used is Deut 22:5 and it is found nowhere in the NT. In fact, there in Deuteronomy is the only place that the subject is spoken of. What does it actually say?
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
John Wesley’s Commentary: Shall not wear - Namely, ordinarily or unnecessarily, for in some cases this may be lawful, as to make an escape for one's life. Now this is forbidden, both for decency sake, that men might not confound those sexes which God hath distinguished, that all appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a manifest sign of effeminacy in the man, of arrogance in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both; and also to cut off all suspicions and occasions of evil, which this practice opens a wide door to.
According to Manners and Customs of Bible Lands by Fred H. Wight, chapter 9, page 97: The Law of Moses forbade a man to wear a woman’s clothing, and a woman to wear a man’s clothing (Deut. 22:5). Among the Bedouin Arabs of Palestine there is great care that either sex shall not imitate the other in manners of dress. A traveler one day discovered a Bedouin man who had put on a woman’s garment while doing some rough work. He was hired as a guide, but the man was very careful that none of his countrymen should see him in a woman’s garb, and hurried away as soon as possible to change into a man’s apparel.17
17John D. Whiting, “Bedouin Life in Bible Lands,” The National Geographic Magazine, January 1937, p.79
The difference between the dress of women and men needs to be noted carefully. The dress of women was different in detail rather than in kind. They too wore tunic and cloak. We may suppose that in every case their dress was a little more elaborate. Doubtless they word longer tunics, larger mantles than their menfolk. And if they did, they may be said to have had every right to them, for they generally made not only their own clothes, but those of their lords.18
18Max Radin, The Life of the People in Biblical Times, p. 131, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1929).
In the last century, the Scripture in Deuteronomy has been used to beat women over the head countless times, especially when women wear “blue jeans.” The sad part about this tradition is that it has no basis in Scripture what-so-ever. Blue jeans were not invented until 1873 by Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss, and women were not portrayed wearing them until they were first featured in Vogue magazine in 1935.
Pants or trousers, were probably invented about 6,000 years ago by the horsemen on the Steppes of Ukraine. Pants were the typical dress of the Scythian warriors of ancient Scythia-Ukraine 2,600 years ago. Pants are particularly suited to a northern climate and to horsemen which places the logical origin on the steppes or prairies of Eastern Europe, or Ukraine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The doctrine of Eternal
Security: “once saved, always saved.” by Mitchell Brittain
In simple form the doctrine is this: that if a person has ever been saved, he
can never be eternally lost again.
Regardless of how evil, wicked and corrupt that a person becomes, this
doctrine says that he will make it to heaven.
The question that needs to be asked is this: did Jesus Christ die so that man could make a
confession, be delivered from the bondage of sin, just to go back where he came
from? I think not! That makes the God we serve a weak God. We serve a God that is able to save and keep
us until the day of judgment.
There are those who tell us that the soul is saved but the body continues to sin. They tell us that the inner man is saved and will eternally be saved, no matter what the body chooses to do. Whatever the body chooses to do will have no effect upon the eternal destiny of our soul, and so goes the false doctrine that has deceived many a person, and continues to deceive to this day and beyond.
1 Corinthians 6:19 tells us that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. If that false doctrine would be correct, then according to this verse, there would be sin in the temple, in the presence of God. The fact is: there can be NO sin in the presence of God, never has been, never will. It is impossible for sin and God to dwell in the same location.
1 Corinthians 6:20 says to glorify God in your body, and in your spirit. If we say our soul is saved and our body continues to sin, how can we glorify God thru sin? How can we be living a life of sin and ungodliness and somehow glorify Him at the same time?
2 Corinthians 5:10 tells us that we will receive the things done in the body, whether good, or bad, according to what he/she has done. The things that this body does, we will have to answer for. We cannot allow sin to reign and rule this body!
Read Romans 6:1-23
v1. Shall we continue in sin?
v12.
Do not let sin reign in your mortal body
v14.
Sin shall not have dominion over you
v16.
Slaves of one or the other
v19.
Slaves of sin vs. slaves of righteousness
Compare this verse with John 8:34
1 Thessalonians 5:23 : may your spirit, soul, body, be preserved blameless. Not just your soul, not just your body, not just your spirit, but the entire being. We serve a God who is able to preserve us, to keep us, and empower us, and fill us with enough of God to live a victorious life IN Christ Jesus. God supplies what we need to live a life free of sin, not a slave of sin, and not in bondage to sin.
John 5:14, 8:11 Jesus said, “sin no more.” He did not say, “Do the best that you can, and you can slide under the wire.” He did not say, “I saved your soul, so your body can do as it pleases.” But He said, “go, and sin NO more.” Not another lie, not another lustful moment, not another day serving sin. But He said, “SIN NO MORE.” That is what He meant, and if the power to do just that was not there, He would not have said that. But the power is there, the victory is there, because the blood is there!
Hebrews 10:26 If we have received the truth, and have been saved, then the last and final sacrifice has been made on our behalf. There remains no additional sacrifice. Jesus Christ was the last and final sacrifice for the sins of mankind. The blood of bulls and goats could not blot out sins, but only the blood of Jesus Christ. There is no church that we could join to gain salvation. There is no baptism that could be performed that we could gain salvation. There is no roll book anywhere on this earth that might possibly contain our name that would ensure us a place in heaven.
On the flip side, Revelation 3:2,5, Jesus has
found our works perfect before God. How
can our works be perfect? If they are according to the will of God. If we are living a straight and narrow life according
to scripture. If we are overcomers, then
our name will NOT be blotted out of the Book of Life. This passage indeed has the principle that
our name can be blotted out. It will not
always be engraved in the Book of Life, but is there written in the blood of
Jesus Christ, and He, and only He is able to blot out that name that sins.
Points to consider:
Judas was a disciple; did he
make it to heaven?
The 6th commandment says
“do not kill” yet Judas did just that
What does 1 John 3 really say?
v7.
He who practices righteousness is righteous
v8. He who sins is of the devil
v9. Whosoever is born of God does not
sin
v10. Whoever does not practice
righteousness is not of God.
What does Colossians 1:21-23 say?
v23.
If indeed you continue in the faith, and are not moved away from
the gospel . . .
What does 1 John 2:3 really say? If we keep His commandments, we know Him. And it implies that if we do not keep His commandments, then we do NOT know Him.
Perplexing thought:
1 John 1:8 is said to say
that we always have sin, yet the context tells us that in our natural state, we
will have sin, but if we confess that sin, we are cleansed. According to John Darby’s Commentary, He
who practices sin is of the devil, has morally the same nature as the devil;
for he sinneth from the beginning: it is his original character as the devil.
Now Christ was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil; how
then can one who shares the character of this enemy of souls be with Christ?
On the other hand, he who is born of God does not practice sin. The reason is evident; he is made a partaker of the nature of God; he derives his life from Him. This principle of divine life is in him. the seed of God remains in him; he cannot sin, because he is born of God. This new nature had not in it the principle of sin, so as to commit it. How could it be that the divine nature should sin?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Origin of Satan by Earl R. Wilson
1.Many sincere people hold to the belief that the devil was at one time an angel of light in heaven but became proud and lifted up and sinned against God resulting in his being cast down to the earth where he became the adversary of God and His people. This view of the origin of Satan presents difficulties that simply cannot be justified thru the Scriptures.
2. Some perplexing questions for your thought:
A. If the devil was cast out of heaven, when did this take place? He was certainly present in the Garden of Eden in the beginning. Genesis
3:1 tells us that God made the serpent, who was in fact the devil.
B. If the devil was cast out of heaven, why was he cast out? The
only possible reason would be sin and this presents a whole list of
unanswered questions:
I. According to Matthew 6:10,
the only thing going on in heaven is the will of God.
II. Was there sin in heaven? Is there still sin in heaven? When
did it enter and must we face sin there also?
III. Why did God have to withdraw
Himself when Jesus took the sins of mankind upon Himself? Because God cannot look at sin—never
could—never will.
C. To commit sin, one must first be
tempted. Is there sin in heaven to tempt us?
3. The next point is: can
angels sin? Many quote Jude 6
and 2 Peter 2:4 as proof but let us carefully examine these passages and
we will find that they have some common points.
A. The context of both passages
concern itself with false preachers and
teachers, and not heavenly beings of some kind.
B. Angels are used to denote ministers
sometimes in a symbolic sense. Revelation 22:8-9 is a good example.
4. The next thing that we need to note about the passages in
Jude and 2 Peter is that these angels were to be judged.
A. The Bible states that angels are
ministering spirits and never once even
hints that they are creatures of choice. There is no plan of salvation for
angels. If they have no choice, how
could they repent and how could they choose
to sin? 1 Peter 1:12 tells us
that the angels desire to look into God’s plan of salvation for humans.
5. Let’s look at Isaiah 14:1-23
A. In this passage is the only
place in the whole Bible where the word Lucifer
appears. We should be fully aware that
the word Lucifer as it is now used is
not a correct translation of the original Hebrew text. How did this come to be?
B. In The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume
7, page 56 under the article titled
Lucifer we read as follows: “A term
applied by Isaiah to the king of Babylon (Is. 14:12) and not occurring
elsewhere in the Bible. By Tertullian,
Jerome, and others the name applied to Satan, and in the Middle Ages it became
common in this sense.”
C. From Clarke’s Commentary, and Adam Clarke, volume 4, page 82, commenting
on Isaiah 14:12 “Although the context speaks explicitly concerning
Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of
fallen angels, who is most imcongruously denominated Lucifer (the brighter of
light) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and the devil, … strange
indeed. But the truth is, the text
speaks nothing at all concerning Satan, nor his fall, not the occasion of that
fall, but of the pride, arrogance, and fall of Nebuchadnezzar.”
D. From The Pulpit Commentary, volume 10, page 265 under comments on Isaiah
14:12, we read “the word ‘Lucifer’
means, “light bringer” and so has been
in modern times associated with our matches.
As standing in this text, it has often been taken as a symbol for Satan;
but it really is a highly poetical description of the King of Babylon, and the
Babylonian Empire is in scripture represented as a type of ambitious, aspiring,
tyrannical, and self-idolizing power.”
E. Why would a word that is
translated “light-bringer” come to be referenced to the prince of
darkness?
6. History tells us that it was not until AD 405 when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, that the word Lucifer was used in Isaiah 14:12. As strange as it may seem there is no trace of any such usage of Lucifer referring to Satan previous to that time.
7. In verse 4, Lucifer was a proverbial name applied to the King of Babylon . . . not an angel.
a. Verse 12 depicts the fall of this
king while verse 13 depicts his desire
to rise to great heights. This is
not a picture of the fall of an angel previous to human history.
b. Verse 16 is a prophesy about a man, not an angel. Someone you can see and touch.
c. The connection of Isaiah 14 with
Satan was begun by Tertullian who died around AD 230 and was later continued by
Origen who died around AD 254. Later
Jerome used the word Lucifer in his
translation around AD 405.
d. In 1611, the King James
translators did not even translate the Hebrew word heylel. They simply brought the word Lucifer over from Jerome's translation.
e. In 1667, John Milton wrote his
famous book. Paradise Lost, in which
he depicted Lucifer as an angel who sinned and was cast out of heaven. Since that time the view has been widely
believed. You can read the book in its
entirety at www.books.google.com. Just Google the title and you will find it.
8. Where did the word Lucifer come from anyway? The word which appears in the original Hebrew is heylel which simply means “brightness, signifying the morning star” and when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin he used the Latin equivalent – Lucifer.
9. Isaiah 45:7 tells us that God “creates evil.” Colossians 1:16 tells us that by Him all things were created. The fact is that the devil was necessary for us to be a creature of choice!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hair Issue
The eleventh chapter of First
Corinthians is one of the most difficult passages of Paul’s Epistles. As a
result, it is perhaps one of the most frequently misinterpreted. One common
misinterpretation is that it teaches that women should not cut their hair, but
is that what this passage is really saying?
Interestingly, there is no consistent explanation given by those that believe
that 1 Corinthians 11 requires women to keep their hair uncut. Some teach that
Paul is instructing women not to cut their hair based on the belief that the
word shorn in this passage means “cut at all.” Others believe that the
word uncovered describes the head of a woman who has cut her hair. Still
others teach that the words long hair in verses 14 and 15 or that the
word hair by itself in the latter part of verse 15 means uncut
hair. In practice, most adopt some combination of the above interpretations. In
this, we will examine each of these assertions in light of scriptural and
historical evidence.
The word shorn used in 1 Corinthians 11:6 has been
translated from the Greek word keiro, which means “to sheer: a sheep, to
get or let be shorn, of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head.”1 Keiro is used in two other places in the New
Testament. The word is translated shearer in Acts 8:32
that reads, “… He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb
dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth…”
In this verse, keiro is
used in reference to the shearing of sheep, which suggests more than just a
simple trimming of the hair. Instead, it suggests a complete or near complete
removal of hair from the skin. No one would suggest that a sheep has been shorn
if only one lock of hair has been cut from the sheep, yet that is what those
that maintain that shorn means “cut at all” are suggesting by saying
that if a woman trims her hair (even unnoticeably), she is shorn.
Another place we see this word is in Acts 18:18, “And
Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the
brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila;
having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” Here we see that
Paul had taken the Nazarene vow. Those who took the Nazarene vow (both men and
women) were required to cut off all of their hair at its completion (Num
6:18; cf. 6:2, 6:5), not simply trim it.
Clearly, neither the definition of shorn nor the context in which it is
used in the Bible ever refers to merely trimming or shortening one’s hair
through cutting but always implies a near complete removal of hair. To further
illustrate this point, let’s look at the relevant verses in question more
closely. 1 Cor
11:5-6 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. 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.”
Suggesting that shorn means
“cut at all” fails to address what Paul means by covered and uncovered
in these verses. As a result, those that have adopted this
definition (cut at all) must then argue that when Paul refers to an uncovered
head, he is describing the head of a person from which hair has been cut. In
this scenario, shorn would refer to hair that has been cut and uncovered
would refer to a head that has had hair cut from it. If this were the case,
verse 6 would read, “For if the woman
[has cut hair from her head], let her also [cut her hair]…” Obviously, this interpretation would render the reading of
this verse illogical. As a result, anyone that takes the “uncut hair” position
must abandon his original definition of shorn.
In order to maintain the argument that this passage teaches strictly uncut hair
for women, one must concede that shorn does not mean “to cut at all” but
means “to cut shortly” or “nearly shaved,” which is the correct definition.
With uncovered defined as a word describing a head from which any hair
has been cut and shorn defined as “to cut shortly,” the verse would then
read more logically: “For if the woman [has
cut hair from her head], let her also [cut the rest off]…”
It could then be argued that Paul
is saying that if a woman even trims her hair, she might as well cut off all
off it. Looking at verse 6 in isolation, it is conceivable that this is
what Paul is saying. This interpretation, however, is dependent upon two
things. First, it must be shown that the word uncovered describes a head
from which hair has been cut, and secondly, such an interpretation must be
logically consistent within the text.
The word uncovered comes from the Greek word akatakaluptos and is
used only twice in the New Testament -- both times in 1 Corinthians 11.
It means “not covered, unveiled”2 and is a
compound word derived from the Greek words kata meaning “down from,
throughout, according to, toward, along”3
and kalupto, which means “to hide, veil.”4 It is apparent that Paul is referring to the practice of
veiling. A few have suggested that akatakaluptos is merely describing
the way hair covers a woman’s head. This is highly unlikely considering the
prevalence of veiling among women in first century Greco-Roman culture, and
such suggestions have been rejected by most Bible scholars.
Though the definition of uncovered by itself illustrates that Paul is
referring to veils and not hair, the strongest argument against the uncut hair
interpretation comes from within the scriptures themselves. Even though
defining uncovered to describe a head from which hair has been cut and shorn
to mean “nearly shaved” makes verse 6 more readable, such definitions
render the remaining verses illogical.
If one defines uncovered as a head from which any hair has been cut, the
following conclusions must be drawn: If a woman that has long hair trims even
an inch, she is uncovered. Similarly, if a man has long hair and trims it an
inch, he too would be uncovered. Therefore, since a man is to pray or prophesy
uncovered (vs. 4, 7), then it would be perfectly acceptable under these definitions
for a man to have hair down to his waist as long as he periodically trimmed it
because that would make him uncovered.
This brings us to the next argument made by some who advocate totally uncut
hair on women -- that the word long hair in verses 14 and 15 or
simply the word hair the last part of verse 15 refers to
completely uncut hair. As before, let’s first examine the meaning of the words
and then illustrate how such a definition would also render the reading of
these passages illogical.
The word translated long hair in 1 Cor 11:14 and 15 is the Greek
word komao. Komao means “to let the hair grow, to have long
hair.”5 At first glance, this definition might seem to
suggest uncut hair as some assert. However, if this definition is put to the
test by reading it into the passage, it logically fails for the same reasons
the “uncovered” argument does. If indeed long hair in these verses means
“completely uncut,” then if a woman had hair to her knees yet trimmed the dead
ends she would no longer have “long hair.” Similarly, if a man had hair to his
knees and trimmed the dead ends, he would be scripturally sound because he
would not have “long hair.” These assertions are illogical, of course, but are
necessitated by anyone defining long hair to mean “totally uncut.”
Kome is the Greek word for hair in the second half of verse 15
and simply means “hair or head of hair.”6
Obviously, there is nothing in this definition that even implies uncut hair,
but some suggest that it does.
In the book, “Why? A Study of Christian Standards,” Paul Ferguson, M.Div, of
the United Pentecostal Church states that, “According to the
passages cited by Bauer and Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of Greek New
Testament 'kome' is uncut hair. The passages cited by these works where this
word occurs in Greek literature demand a meaning of 'uncut hair.'”7
Ferguson then states that kome is used in Greek literature in relation to the Nazarite vow, but read Ferguson’s statement carefully. He never directly states that Bauer, Moulton and Milligan defined kome to mean “uncut hair,” because they never have. Yet that seems to be the impression he is trying to give. However, to suggest that kome means “uncut hair” is to ignore the fact that this same word can be used to describe cut hair. Just as the English word hair is used to mean “uncut” in this phrase: “The hair of John the Baptist, a Nazarite from birth....”
Hair can also be used to mean “cut shortly” as seen in the
following phrase: “The hair of Samson, after Delilah caused his fall...”
The futility
of trying to find a teaching of strictly uncut hair for women in these passages
is now seen. It is worthwhile, though, to examine a few more problems with the
teaching that I Corinthians 11 requires strictly uncut hair on women.
Consider the lack of consistency among those that teach that it is wrong for
women to cut their hair. As previously mentioned, some say the word shorn
means “cut at all,” citing 1 Cor 11:6. Some say that uncovered
describes a head from which hair has been cut, citing 1 Cor 11:5. This
inconsistency and disagreement illustrates that those holding to these
teachings are basing the scriptures on their beliefs instead of basing their
beliefs on the scriptures.
Consider also the question that Paul asks in verse 13, “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
Since the word comely
refers to a woman’s appearance, the only way one can determine that it is not
“comely” for a woman to pray uncovered is if being uncovered is visible. Often
a woman can trim her bangs or her dead ends, and it is not visible to anyone.
If Paul is referring to a woman cutting or trimming her hair, why does he ask
this question when her cut or trimmed hair may not be visible? Apparently, Paul
is saying that being uncovered is visible – to the point of being
uncomely.
Additionally, Paul is specific in his admonition saying that a woman is to be
covered while “praying or prophesying.” This suggests a temporal nature to the
covering – something that can be taken off and put back on. If uncovered
refers to a head from which hair has been cut, then why does Paul state that
this is only forbidden while praying or prophesying? Why does he even mention
praying or prophesying? Why doesn't he simply say in verse 5, “But every
woman who has an uncovered head dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one
as if she were shaven,” leaving out “while praying or prophesying”
altogether? Clearly, hair is not something that can be put on prior to
church and then taken off after the service, which indicates that Paul is
referring to a temporal covering.
Furthermore, teaching that women are forbidden to cut their hair fails to
consider the Nazarite vow, which was carried into the New Testament. John the
Baptist was a Nazarite for his entire life, which means that he never cut his
hair. In all likelihood, his hair was very long. As pointed out earlier, Paul
himself took the Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18), and there were four
disciples in Acts that did as well (Acts 21:23). The important part is
that the Nazarite vow could be taken by both men and women (Num 6:2). If
a woman took the vow, she, like a man, would be required to shave her head at
the end of the vow. How could this be if a woman was absolutely forbidden from
cutting her hair?
Perhaps more than anything else, the history and culture that surrounded the Corinthian church of the first century can illuminate Paul's subject and intention when writing eleventh chapter of First Corinthians. Corinth was not only under the political control of the Roman Empire at the time the epistle was written but was also greatly influenced by the culture and religions of the Roman Empire, much of which was borrowed from the Greeks. The predominant religious practice of that day was the cult worship of the Greco-Roman gods.
One of the most prominent gods was
Dionysus, the god of wine, which was especially popular among women. It was
believed by his followers that Dionysus was a homosexual, she-male sort of
character that had been raised as a female though born a male. As part of their
worship, his followers would kill live animals by ripping them limb from limb
and then drink the animal’s blood while eating the raw meat (cf. Acts 15:28-29).
Worshipping the god of wine, they would also drink wine to the point of
incoherence and engage in lewd homosexual acts with one another. It is the way
these pagan worshippers dressed, however, that offers the most valuable
insights into Paul's teachings in I Corinthians 11.
According to researchers, the female worshippers of Dionysus would frequently
dress like men. They would remove their veils and either cut their hair
very short or completely shave their heads. The men, attempting to imitate
women, would grow their hair long and don veils during the worship
ceremonies.
In an article published in the “Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society,” Catherine Clark writes that when women worshipped the god Dionysus,
that the “...uncovered head and bound
hair was to signify both commitment to the strange god of wine and at the same
time repudiation of male injustice.”
In describing the practices of similar cults, Clark further states that, “A relief from Rome shows a high priest of Cybele. The castrated priest wears veil, necklaces, earrings and feminine dress.”8 A telling artifact that was discovered is a vase painting from Corinth that depicts a woman dancing before Dionysus with a shaved head. 9
Jimmilea Berryhill, M.A., adds additional insight: “In the Dionysiac cult, as well as other Greco-Roman mystery rites, transvestitism was a specific distinction and by the second century A.D. was considered to be indispensable. Veils and long hair were worn by men as sign of dedication to their god while the women used unveiling and shorn hair. Men masqueraded as women and women as men.”10
It seems apparent, then, that the
focus of Paul’s writings was to admonish the Corinthians to avoid paganistic
and counter-culture practices. Essentially, the veiling of women was the
cultural norm in Corinth and pagan worshippers rejected this practice out of
rebellion against “the establishment.” Paul was merely instructing the women of
Corinth not to remove their veils during worship either because they too were
rebelling or because they would be inappropriately identified with pagan
practices, or both. By admonishing the women to wear veils and the men not to
wear veils during worship, he was instructing the church to not engage in or be
identified with the rebellious cross-dressing practices of the pagans that
included female unveiling and male veiling. Furthermore, Paul's reference
to shorn and shaven heads as being shameful in 1 Cor 11:6 also seems to
be directly related to the practices of the pagan women in and around Corinth.
Some suggest that in 11:15, which says, “But if a woman have long
hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” that
Paul was stating that a woman’s hair is given to her instead of a
covering. Considering the cultural surroundings of the Corinthian church, this
is highly unlikely. If Paul is indeed saying that hair replaces a man-made
covering, or veil, then he would be giving license to rebel against the
cultural norm in Corinth. This would not only contradict the common
preaching and practice of Paul that Christians should be sensitive to the
culture and customs surrounding them (cf. Acts 16:3, 1 Cor 8, 1 Cor 10:33,
Romans 14) but would also cause the Corinthian women to be associated with
paganism.
That 1 Corinthians 11 refers to the practice of veiling was universally agreed upon by the early church as evidenced in their writings. Not one single early church writer ever wrote that 1 Corinthians 11 taught strictly uncut hair.
If these verses are primarily dealing with the practice of veiling, then what implications does this have for the church today? To fully understand Paul’s teachings and their implications, it is best to read the entire passage in context, verse by verse.
11:3 – “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.”
This is perhaps the most important verse in this chapter, for it is the basis of the entire passage. Paul is teaching that there is a spiritually ordained, hierarchical arrangement between man, woman, Christ and God. God is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of the woman. It must be noted that woman in these passages does not refer to the female sex in general, but a wife.11 These passages define the relationship between a man, his wife (woman) and God. This arrangement is one of spiritual leadership. Jesus Christ was not an authoritarian, but a servant-leader and as such, this is the role that the man should play in the household and in the church. He, in following the example of Christ, should be a servant-leader to his family and to the church. A true servant-leader, as Christ was, never takes a heavy-handed, dictatorial approach to those in his charge but leads by example in love.
11:4 – “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
A man wearing a veil is effeminate and dishonors his head, Jesus Christ (v. 3), because he is rejecting the spiritually ordained hierarchy by rebelling against the role that he has been placed in by God.
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.”
Likewise, any woman that refused to wear a veil was also rejecting God’s spiritually ordained hierarchy by rebelling against a custom of that day that showed her submission to her husband. In fact, she was committing the same sin of rebellion committed by the pagan women who cast off their veils and shaved their heads in protest against “male dominance.” Veiling was a custom practiced by women to show their commitment to their husbands in the ancient Greco-Roman world.
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.”
If a woman refused to wear a veil as the pagan women did, she might as well shave her head as the pagan women did. However, since such pagan practices were shameful, then the women should have put on a veil while worshipping.
11:7-9 – “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.”
At this point, we begin to see that Paul is speaking as much about spiritual coverings as he is about physical coverings. God, through Jesus Christ, is man’s spiritual “covering,” and man is woman’s spiritual “covering.” Again, this is a reflection of the servant-leader role played by Christ to mankind and of the servant-leader role played by man to his wife. A man is to act as a spiritual protector, or covering, for his wife as Christ does for us. The man-made covering (the veil) was a symbol of this relationship, providing a sign of spiritual submission by the wife to the husband. By refusing to wear a veil, the Corinthian women were showing a rebellion towards this Godly relationship. Verses 8 and 9 tell us that just man was created for God, woman was created for man. As such, the spiritually ordained hierarchy has been in place since the creation of mankind.
11:10 – “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”
The word power in this verse is the Greek word exousia and refers to hierarchical authority.12 Since woman was created for man, then a woman should have “power on her head” or, in other words, authority over her.
11:11, 12 – “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.”
Though woman was created for man,
man also exists today because the woman gives birth to man. Paul is teaching
that there is a check and balance. Man does not have sovereign authority over a
woman, for both were made by God. God alone is the sovereign authority.
It is important to understand that these passages are not giving permission to
men to be authoritarian or dictatorial towards their wives and families. Paul
expressly states that man is not the ultimate authority over the woman, but God
is. God requires man to fill a role in the family as a servant-leader and as a
provider. Being a provider is much more than bringing home a paycheck. Man must
also be a provider of spiritual and emotional needs. Just as a woman must
recognize the institution of family and her role therein, a man must also
recognize his role to provide financial, emotional and spiritual support for
his family (1 Tim 5:8).
The man who rebels against these responsibilities is also in sin. The man that rebels against this God-given role is out of the order of God and will never be the man that God designed him to be.
11:13 – “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
Since veiling of women was commonplace in the Corinthian culture as a sign of submission, any woman seen praying without a veil would have been repugnant to the observer. To them, the women would be praying to God while simultaneously rebelling against Him.
11:14 – “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
In the pagan culture of Corinth, men often wore long hair to appear feminine. The “shame” here is not so much the long hair itself, as many men in the Bible including John the Baptist had long hair (e.g. the Nazarite vow), but the attempt to appear feminine and reject the male role.
11:15 – “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
A woman’s long hair is a glory in that it is a natural covering that, like the veil, reflects her acceptance of her husband as her spiritual covering. In reflecting her acceptance of her husband's role, God is also glorified. Paul is not saying that her hair is given instead of a covering. He is merely reinforcing his original argument for female veiling, not contradicting it by saying that a woman’s hair replaces the veil.
11:16 – “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
While this verse is translated as
saying, “no such custom,” most Bible scholars agree that it would be more
appropriately translated, “no other custom.” Paul is saying that if anyone
wishes to be divisive over this, tell them that we accept nothing less than
veiling in the church of God. It is unlikely that Paul would have gone through
such a lengthy discourse only to say in the end, “Well, if you disagree, that’s
okay because we don’t have such a custom anyway.” Neither is Paul referring to
being contentious as not being a custom in the church. Veiling is indeed a
custom, but it would be inaccurate to call contentiousness a custom.
Veiling was a custom in much of the Roman Empire and Paul frequently upheld
customs, even when they weren’t laws, just as he does here. In Acts 16:3, Paul
saw to it that Timothy was circumcised, not because it was law, but because
Paul was culturally sensitive to those he was witnessing to. This is one of the
reasons Paul wrote to the Corinthians about veiling. Veiling isn’t a law or a
requirement, but Paul admonished the Corinthians to continue in the practice,
or else they could have been identified with paganism and become a stumbling
block to believers and unbelievers alike. In cultures today that
still practice veiling, it is only appropriate for Christians in those
societies to continue in their custom. In cultures that do not veil, no
requirement is placed upon them by this passage.
1 Corinthians 11 is a complex chapter in the Bible, but it provides
great insights into Christian conduct, and it can be understood. Once a person
recognizes the core issue that Paul is writing about, it becomes apparent that
hair is the least of Paul’s concerns. For that matter, veiling itself is
somewhat secondary.
In the early Gentile church, as it is in many cultures today, veiling was a
symbol representing submission to authority. By women removing their veils,
they (at the very least) were mimicking the rebellious pagan women of their day
that removed their veils to show their disdain for male headship. It is
likely that some of the Corinthian women weren't just mimicking a fad, though,
but were actually showing their own disdain for male headship. In doing so, they
were revealing a rebellion in their hearts toward their husbands and toward God.
While the veil was merely a symbolic custom, the rebellion in the heart that
led to rejecting its use was quite real. Paul's actual concern here is
not about hair, or even veils for that matter, but about spiritual authority
and the necessity of recognizing it in the Christian life.
Bibliography:
1-Thayer and
Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Keiro". "The KJV New Testament
Greek Lexicon". Strong's # 2751.
2-Ibid. "Greek Lexicon entry for Akatakaluptos". Strong's # 177.
3-Ibid. "Greek Lexicon entry for Kata". Strong's # 2596.
4-Ibid. "Greek Lexicon entry for Kalupto". Strong's # 2572.
5-Ibid. "Greek Lexicon entry for Komao". Strong's # 2863.
6-Ibid. "Greek Lexicon entry for Kome". Strong's # 2864.
7-Paul Ferguson. "Why? A Study of Christian Standards". Word Aflame
Press.
8-Catherine Clark Kroeger. "The Apostle Paul And The Greco-Roman Cults Of
Women". " Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society".
March, 1987.
9-L. R. Farnell." Cults of the Greek States". 5, 275-280.
Published by Oxford.
10-Rev. Jimmilea Berryhill, M.A. "First Century Woman - Hellenic and Latin
Influences on Western Views of Women". Published at:
www.restorationfoundation.org.
11-Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for
Gune". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon". Strong's #
1135.
12-Ibid. "Greek Lexicon entry for Exousia". Strong's # 1849.
___________________________________________________________________________________
more to come