Taya Smith’s New Boy Look – Haircut Celebrating the Androgynous

To Mike and Daniel

I re-enter the conversation…..

Please note the consistent thoughts throughout these commentators, including David Guzik who sees no variance from the Pauline teaching today. In other words modern culture doesn’t void truth as we would expect.

See the various comments from each man on verse 16.

Head Covering – A Biblical Mandate

1 Corinthians 11

Adam Clarke
v 4
Praying, or prophesying – Any person who engages in public acts in the worship of God, whether prayer, singing, or exhortation: for we learn, from the apostle himself, that προφητευειν, to prophesy, signifies to speak unto men to edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1 Corinthians 14:3. And this comprehends all that we understand by exhortation, or even preaching.

Having his head covered – With his cap or turban on, dishonours his head; because the head being covered was a sign of subjection; and while he was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be considered as a representative of Christ, and on this account his being veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason. “He should veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold him.” See much in Lightfoot on this point.

Verse 5
Whatever may be the meaning of praying and prophesying, in respect to the man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman.

The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil.
This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonour her head – her husband. And she must appear like to those women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or adultery.

This part is most striking;

Tacitus informs us, Germ. 19, that, considering the greatness of the population, adulteries were very rare among the Germans; and when any woman was found guilty she was punished in the following way: accisis crinibus, nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus; “having cut off her hair, and stripped her before her relatives, her husband turned her out of doors.” And we know that the woman suspected of adultery was ordered by the law of Moses to be stripped of her veil, Numbers 5:18. Women reduced to a state of servitude, or slavery, had their hair cut off: so we learn from Achilles Tatius.

Clitophon says, concerning Leucippe, who was reduced to a state of slavery: πεπραται, δεδουλευκεν, γην εσκαψεν, σεσυληται της κεφαλης το καλλος, την κουραν ὁρᾳς· lib. viii. cap. 6, “she was sold for a slave, she dug in the ground, and her hair being shorn off, her head was deprived of its ornament,” etc. It was also the custom among the Greeks to cut off their hair in time of mourning. See Euripides in Alcest., ver. 426. Admetus, ordering a common mourning for his wife Alcestis, says: πενθος γυναικος της δε κοινουσθαι λεγω, κουρᾳ ξυρηκει και μελαμπεπλῳ στολῃ· “I order a general mourning for this woman! let the hair be shorn off, and a black garment put on.”

Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the apostle seems to have more especially in view. As a woman who dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals; so in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be considered in the same light.

Verse 6
For if the woman be not covered – If she will not wear a veil in the public assemblies, let her be shorn – let her carry a public badge of infamy: but if it be a shame – if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered – let her by all means wear a veil.

Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says: ειδετε παρ ‘ακρας ὡς απεθρισεν τριχας, σωζουσα καλλος, εστι δε ἡ παλαι γυνη : “see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before.” See the note on 1 Corinthians 11:5.

In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they appear in the streets. – Ward’s Customs.

Verse 7
But the woman is the glory of the man – As the man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that the fear of him and the dread of him are on every beast of the field, etc.; so the woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man. I believe this to be the meaning of the apostle; and that he is speaking here principally concerning power and authority, and skill to use them. It is certainly not the moral image of God, nor his celestial glory, of which he speaks in this verse.

Verse 8
His meaning is, that the man does not belong to the woman, as if she was the principal; but the woman belongs to the man in that view.

Verse 10
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels –

Bishop Pearce, have written best on the subject, in which they allow that there are many difficulties.
That the original should be read, Wherefore the woman ought to have A power upon her head, that is, the power of the husband over the wife; the word power standing for the sign or token of that power which was a covering or veil.

Theophylact explains the word, το του εξουσιαζεσθαι συμβολον, τουτεστι, το καλυμμα, “the symbol of being under power, that is, a veil, or covering.” And Photius explains it thus: της υποταγης συμβολον το επι της κεφαλης καλυμμα φερειν ; to wear a veil on the head is a symbol of subjection. It is no unusual thing, in the Old and New Testament, for the signs and tokens of things to be called by the names of the things themselves, for thus circumcision is called the covenant, in Genesis 17:10, Genesis 17:13, though it was only the sign of it.

On the whole, the bishop’s sense of the passage and paraphrase stands thus: “And because of this superiority in the man, I conclude that the woman should have on her head a veil, the mark of her husband’s power over her, especially in the religious assemblies, where the angels are supposed to be invisibly present.”

Verse 13
Judge in yourselves – Consider the subject in your own common sense, and then say whether it be decent for a woman to pray in public without a veil on her head? The heathen priestesses prayed or delivered their oracles bare-headed or with dishevelled hair, non comptae mansere comae, as in the case of the Cumaean Sibyl, Aen. vi., ver. 48, and otherwise in great disorder: to be conformed to them would be very disgraceful to Christian women. And in reference to such things as these, the apostle appeals to their sense of honour and decency.

Verse 14
Does not – nature – teach you, that, if a man have long hair – Nature certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for women to have long hair; and it is not so with men.
The hair of the male rarely grows like that of a female, unless art is used, and even then it bears but a scanty proportion to the former.

Hence it is truly womanish to have long hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it. In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great variety of places, καρηκομοωντες Αχαιοι, the long-haired Greeks, or Achaeans. Soldiers, in different countries, have been distinguished for their long hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or blame, or whether Homer uses it always as a term of respect, when he applies it to the Greeks, I shall not wait here to inquire.

Long hair was certainly not in repute among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was as a token of humiliation; and it is possible that St. Paul had this in view. There were consequently two reasons why the apostle should condemn this practice: –

Because it was a sign of humiliation;….Because it was womanish.
After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to dressed, frizzled and curled hair, which shallow and effeminate men might have affected in that time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.

Verse 15
But if a woman have long hair – It is a certain fact that a man’s long hair renders him contemptible, and a woman’s long hair renders her more amiable. Nature and the apostle speak the same language; we may account for it as we please.

Verse 16
But if any man seem to be contentious – Ει δε τις δοκει φιλονεικος ειναι· If any person sets himself up as a wrangler – puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles.

We have already seen that the verb δοκειν, which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.

John Gill

Chapter Summary – 1 Cor 11

1 Corinthians 11:2. And in order to make way for what he had on his mind to reprove them for, and admonish them about, he observes, that as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of every man, so the man is the head of the woman, 1 Corinthians 11:3 wherefore for him to appear, and join in public worship, with his head covered, is to dishonour his head, 1 Corinthians 11:4 as, on the other hand, for a woman to have her head uncovered in divine service, is to dishonour her head, it being all one as if her head was shaved, 1 Corinthians 11:5 wherefore it is concluded, that if it is a shame for her to be shaved or shorn, she ought to be covered when attending the worship of God, 1 Corinthians 11:6. The reason why a man should be uncovered at such a time is, because he is the image and glory of God; and the reason why the woman should be covered is, because she is the glory of the man, is made for his glory, and to be in subjection to him, of which the covering is a token, 1 Corinthians 11:7 and that she is so, is argued from the order of the creation, man being not of the woman, but the woman of the man, 1 Corinthians 11:8 and from the end of the creation, man being not for the woman, but the woman for the man, 1 Corinthians 11:9. Another reason why the woman should be covered at the time of public worship is, because of the angels then present,

1 Corinthians 11:10 but lest on this account the woman should be treated with contempt by the man, the apostle observes, that they are not, and cannot be without one another; and that they are from each other in different senses, and both from the Lord, 1 Corinthians 11:11, and then proceeds to other arguments, showing that women should not appear uncovered in the house of God: one is taken from the uncomeliness of it, which must be so judged by everyone, 1 Corinthians 11:13 and another is taken from nature and custom, and the contrary in men, which is disagreeable and shameful; for, if, the dictates of nature, it is shameful in men to wear long hair, it must be comely and decent in women, and what is for their glory, to wear such hair, since it is their covering,

1 Corinthians 11:14.
But if, after all the apostle had said on this subject, there should be any contentious persons disposed to wrangle about it, he observes, that they were not proper persons to be continued in the church, 1 Corinthians 11:16

Verse 4
it seems that a different custom had now prevailed; now from this Gentile or judaizing practice, the apostle would dissuade them by observing, that such an one that uses it, “dishonoureth his head”; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship;…..Christ, the believer’s head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, ….man who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman’s veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable.

Verse 5

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,…
Not that a woman was allowed to pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to preach or explain the word, for these things were not permitted them: see 1 Corinthians 14:34 but it designs any woman that joins in public worship with the minister in prayer, and attends on the hearing of the word preached, or sings the praises of God with the congregation, as we have seen, the word prophesying signifies,with her head uncovered.

It may seem strange from whom the Corinthian women should take up this custom, since the Jewish women were not allowed to go into the streets, or into any open and public place, unveiledF21. It was a Jewish law, that they should go out no where bare headedF23: yea, it was reckoned scandalous and ignominious to do so. Hence it is said,F24 שגלוי הראש גנאי להם, “that uncovering of the head is a reproach” to the daughters of Israel: and concerning the adulterous woman, it is represented as said by the priestF25,

“thou hast separated from the way of the daughters of Israel; for the way or custom of the daughters of Israel is להיות מכוסות ראשיהן, “to have their heads covered”; but thou hast gone “in the ways of the Gentiles”, who walk with head bare.’

So that their it should seem that these Corinthians followed the examples of the Heathens: but then, though it might be the custom of some nations for women to go abroad bare headed; yet at their solemnities, where and when they were admitted, for they were not everywhere and always, they used to attend with their heads veiled and coveredF26.

Mr. Mede takes notice indeed of some Heathen priestesses, who used to perform their religious rites and sacrifices with open face, and their hair hanging down, and locks spreading, in imitation of whom these women at Corinth are thought to act. However, whoever behaved in this uncomely manner, whose example soever she followed, the apostle says, dishonoureth her head; not her husband, who is her head in a figurative sense, and is dishonoured by her not being covered; as if she was not subject to him, or because more beautiful than he, and therefore shows herself; but her natural head, as appears from the reason given:
for that is even all one as if she were shaven;

To be without a veil, or some sort of covering on her head, according to the custom of the country, is the same thing as if her head was shaved; and everyone knows how dishonourable and scandalous it is for a woman to have her head shaved; and if this is the same, then it is dishonourable and scandalous to her to be without covering in public worship. And this shows, that the natural head of the man is meant in the preceding verse, since the natural head of the woman is meant in this.

Verse 6

For if the woman be not covered,…. That is, if her head is not covered with some sort of covering, as is the custom of the place where she lives,let her also be shorn; let her hair be cut short; let her wear it as men do theirs; and let her see how she will look, and how she will like that, and how she will be looked upon, and liked by others; everybody will laugh at her, and she will be ashamed of herself:

but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven: as it is accounted in all civilized nations: the very HeathensF1 speak of it as a thing abominable, and of which there should not be one single dreadful example: then let her be covered; with a veil, or any sort of covering in common use.

Ellicott’s Commentary

Verse 6

(6) Let her also be shorn.—The force of this argument depends on the fact that a woman’s head being uncovered would be regarded by others as implying the same shame as was indicated by a woman’s hair being cut short (i.e., shorn), or altogether removed (i.e., shaven). It is as if the Apostle said—If a woman insists on her right to pray and speak in an assembly with uncovered head, let her carry out this principle to its logical result; let her insist on her right to have her hair cut short, so as to show her equality with man—and what would be thought of her then! No woman with a spark of shame in her would think of doing that. Accordingly you admit that this principle of sexual equality does not apply in all such matters; and it is illogical to argue in favour of any general principle as if it were of universal obligation, when you yourselves admit that it is not applicable in some cases.

Verse 7

(7) For a man indeed.—In 1 Corinthians 11:4-7 the argument against the woman’s head being uncovered was based upon (a) the woman’s relation to man, and (b) the man’s relation to Christ in the Church. In the three following verses, 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, the ground of the argument is changed, and the same conclusion is arrived at from a review of (a) the woman’s relation to man, and (b) man’s relation to God in the physical Creation.

The external form of this argument is the same as that adopted previously. The Apostle first states what the man must not do, and then conversely what the woman must do. The Apostle here takes up the order of creation mentioned in Genesis 1, 2, and the argument runs thus:—Man was made in the image of God, and is the glory of God; but woman is the glory of the man (for woman was made out of man, and also man was not created for woman, but woman for—i.e., as a help-meet for—man).

The spiritual equality of man and wife does not upset this relationship, and therefore an attempt to destroy the outward expression of it is to be condemned, as it would soon lead to an obliteration of the fact itself.

It is to be remembered all through this passage (and it gives a further emphasis to the allusion to Adam and Eve) that St. Paul is only speaking of married women—it is most unlikely that any case had occurred of an unmarried woman attempting such an outrage upon social feeling and national custom. The Greek women when in public (except those of avowedly bad character) either wore a veil or drew the peplum, or shawl, over their heads.

John Gill ((contd)….

Verse 7
It is to be observed, that it is in the presence and worship of God that the one is to be uncovered, and the other covered; the one (man) being the glory of God, and therefore to be uncovered before him; and the other the glory of man, and therefore to be covered before God; and especially, since being first in the transgression, she who is man’s glory has been the means of his shame and disgrace. The Jews seem to make this the reason of the difference; they askF4,
“why does a man go out with his head uncovered, and a woman with her head covered? it is answered, it is like to one that has committed a sin, and he is ashamed of the children of men, therefore she goes וראשהמכוסה, “with her head covered”.’

Verse 10
Because of the angels; …
Various are the senses given of these words, some taking them in a proper, others in a figurative sense: some in a proper sense of angels, and these either good or bad.

TertullianF5 understands them of evil angels,but it is better to understand them of good angels, who attend the assemblies of the saints, and observe the air and behaviour of the worshippers; wherefore women should cover their heads with respect to them, and not give offence to those pure spirits, by an indecent appearance: it is agreeable to the notions of the Jews, that angels attend public prayers, and at the expounding of the word; they often speakF6 of an angel, הממונה על התפלות “that is appointed over prayers”; henceF7

Moreover, this veiling of the woman in public worship because of angels, may be an imitation of the good angels, who when they sung the praises of God, and adored and glorified his perfections, covered their faces and their feet with their wings, Isaiah 6:1

Verse 13

Judge in yourselves,….
The apostle having gone through a variety of reasoning and arguments, ….and appeals to the common sense and understanding of the Corinthians, and makes them themselves judges of the matter; suggesting that the thing was so clear, and he so certain of what he had advanced being right, that he leaves it with them, not doubting but that they would, upon a little reflection within themselves, join with him in this point:

is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? …. and his meaning is, that it is an uncomely thing in a woman to appear in public service with her head uncovered, whether it be in joining in the public prayers, or in singing of psalms, or in hearing the word expounded; and though the apostle does not put the case of the man’s praying to God, or prophesying in his name with his head covered, yet his sense is the same of that, as of the woman’s.

Verse 14
Doth not even nature itself teach you,….By nature is either meant, the law and light of nature, reason in man, common sense, or rather custom, which is second nature; and which, in this case, must be restrained to the Greeks and Jews; for though among the Grecians the men cut their hair, and did not suffer it to grow long, as also did the Jews, yet there were many nationsF11 who did not, even at that time, observe such a rule or custom; but as the Jews and Greeks were the persons chiefly, if not solely, known to the Corinthians, the apostle signifies, that the usages of these people might direct and inform them in this matter:
that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him; he looks unmanly and womanish, and exposes himself to ridicule and contempt.

Verse 15
But if a woman have long hair,…. And wears it, without cutting it, as men do:
it is a glory to her; it is comely and beautiful; it is agreeable to her sex, she looks like herself; it becomes and adorns her: ….for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other: we read indeed of the daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion, that she was obliged to make use of her hair for a covering in such a senseF12;

“one woman, whose name was Kimchith, had seven sons, and they all ministered in the high priesthood; the wise men said unto her, what hast thou done, that thou art so worthy? she replied to them, all my days the beams of my house never saw קלעי שערי, “the plaits of my hair”F13;’
that is, they were never seen by any one, even within her house.

Verse 16
But if any man seem to be contentious,…. That is, if anyone will not be satisfied with reasons given, for men’s praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered, and women’s praying and prophesying with their heads covered; but will go on to raise objections, and continue carping and cavilling, showing that they contend not for truth, but victory, can they but obtain it any way; for my part, as if the apostle should say, I shall not think it worth my while to continue the dispute any longer; enough has been said to satisfy any wise and good man, anyone that is serious, thoughtful, and modest; and shall only add,

We have no such custom, nor the churches of God; meaning, either that men should appear covered, and women uncovered in public service, and which should have some weight with all those that have any regard to churches and their examples; or that men should be indulged in a captious and contentious spirit; a man that is always contending for contention sake, and is continually cavilling and carping at everything that is said and done in churches, and is always quarrelling with one person or another, or on account of one thing or another, and is constantly giving uneasiness, is not fit to be a church member; nor ought he to be suffered to continue in the communion of the church, to the disturbance of the peace of it. This puts me in mind of a passage in the TalmudF14.

“The Rabbans teach, that after the departure of R. Meir, R. Judah said to his disciples, do not let the disciples of R. Meir enter here, מפני שקנתרנין הן, “because they are contentious”.’

John and Jacob Abbott – 1800’s

Verse 16
Seem to be contentious; is not satisfied with the considerations above presented, but still resists.–We have no such custom, &c.; that is, the settled practice of the churches forbids that a woman should appear in public, in the bold and open manner which is proper for man. The principle established by the apostle may be generally stated thus,–that when woman appears before the assemblies of Christians as a speaker at all, she must do it in a modest and unassuming manner, suited to her subordinate position, and according to the forms prescribed by the established usages of society.

David Guzik

On the same principle, for a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered is saying, “I am not under authority here.” And because God has established that the head of woman is man (1 Corinthians 11:3), it would be dishonoring to men (her head) for a woman to say this with the refusal to wear a head covering.

i. Under these words of Paul, women are free to pray or prophesy, but only when as they demonstrate that they are under the authority of the male leadership of the church.

e. That is one and the same as if her head was shaved:

In essence, Paul says to these women: “If you are going to forsake your head covering, go all the way and shave your head, and identify yourself with the women of the world, in all their shame.”

4. (1 Corinthians 11:7-10) Why is it important to respect the principle of headship in the church?

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

a. The reason first stated is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3 : the head of woman is man. God has established an order of authority, the principle of male headship, both in the church (1 Corinthians 11:1-34 and 1 Timothy 2:1-15) and the home (Ephesians 5:23).

b. He is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. A second reason is found in the order of creation: God created Adam first, and gave Him responsibility over Eve.

i. Since one reason for male headship is the order and manner in which God created man and woman – something which was present before the fall – this passage makes it clear that before and after the fall, God has ordained there be a difference in the roles between genders, even in the church. Difference in gender roles (in the church and in the home) are not the result of the fall, and are not erased by our new life in Jesus.

ii. Trapp on woman is the glory of the man: “Either because he may glory in her, if she be good; or because she is to honour him, and give glory to him.” Clarke also observes: “As the man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that the fear of him and dread of him are in every beast of the field . . . so the woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man.” Poole adds: “But the woman is the glory of the man, created for the honour of the man, and for his help and assistance, and originally made out of man, so as man may glory of her, as Adam did of Eve, Gen. Ii. 23, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.”

iii. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man: Simply put, Adam was created for Eve, but Eve was created for Adam

c. Because of the angels: A third reason God has established male headship in the church is the presence of angels in corporate worship.
i. Angels are present at any assembly of Christians for worship and note any departure from reverent order; and apparently, angels are offended by any violation of propriety.
ii. Passages such as this remind us that our struggle is bigger than ourselves. God has eternal things to teach the universe through us (Ephesians 3:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 1 Peter 1:12).
iii. John Stott, commenting on Ephesians 3:1-21, explains the broader idea: “It is as if a great drama is being enacted. History is the theatre, the world is the stage, and the church members in every land are the actors. (Stott)

iv. “And so it teaches us, that the good angels, who are ministering spirits for the good of God’s elect, at all times have a special ministration, or at least are more particularly present, in the assemblies of people for religious worship, observing the persons, carriage, and demeanour; the sense of which ought to awe all persons attending those services, from any incident and unworthy behaviour.” (Poole)

d. Significantly, none of these reasons are culture-dependent.

The order and manner of creation and the presence of angels do not depend on culture.

We cannot say, “Paul said this just because of the thinking of the Corinthian culture or the place of women in that culture.”

The principles are eternal, but the out-working of the principles may differ according to culture.

e. In this, we see God has established a clear chain of authority in both the home and in the church, and in those spheres, God has ordained that men are the “head” – that is, that they have the place of authority and responsibility.

SUMMARY:

1 – Our culture, having rejected the idea in a difference in role between men and women, now rejects the idea of any difference between men and women! The driving trends in our culture point towards men who are more like women, and women who are more like men – and styles, clothes, perfumes, and all the rest are pushing this thought.
2 – The Bible is just as specific: there is no general submission of women unto men commanded in society; only in the spheres of the home and in the church. God has not commanded in His word that men have exclusive authority in the areas of politics, business, education, and so on.
3 – It also does not mean that every woman in the church is under the authority of every man. Instead it means that those who lead the church – pastors and ruling elders – must be men, and women must respect their authority.
4- The failure of men to lead in the home and in the church, and to lead in the way Jesus would lead, has been a chief cause of the rejection of male authority – and is inexcusable.
5 – Some feel this recognition and submission to authority is an unbearable burden; that it means, “I have to say that I’m inferior, I’m nothing, and I have to recognize this other person as being superior.” Not at all! Inferiority or superiority has nothing to do with it! Remember the relationship between God the Father and God the Son – they are completely equal in their being, but have different roles when it comes to authority.
6 – Some may say that the church cannot work, or cannot work well, unless we get along with the times and put women into positions of spiritual and doctrinal authority in the church. From the standpoint of what works in our culture, they may be right. But how can such a church say they are led by the word of God?
7- The issues of headship and submission should be seen in their broader context – not just as a struggle between men and women, but as a struggle with the issue of authority in general. Since the 1960’s, there has been a massive change in the way we see and accept authority.
8- Citizens do not have the same respect for government’s authority, students do not have the same respect for teacher’s authority, women do not have the same respect for men’s authority, and Christians no longer have the same respect for church authority.
9 – It’s important to ask: have the changes been good? Do we feel safer? Are we more confident in our culture? Have television and other entertainment gotten better or worse? In fact, our society is presently in, and rushing towards, complete anarchy – the state where no authority is accepted, and the only thing that matters is what I want to do.
10 – It is fair to describe our present moral state as one of anarchy. There is no moral authority in our culture. When it comes to morality, the only thing that matters is what one wants to do.
11 – We must see the broader attack on authority as a direct Satanic strategy to destroy our society and millions of individual lives. The devil is accomplishing this with two main attacks: first, the corruption of authority; second, the rejection of authority.
12 – This idea of authority and submission to authority are so important to God that they are part of His very being.

The First Person of the Holy Trinity is called the Father; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is called the Son. Inherent in those titles is a relationship of authority and submission to authority. The Father exercises authority over the Son, and the Son submits to the Father’s authority – and this is in the very nature and being of God!

Our failure to exercise Biblical authority, and our failure to submit to Biblical authority, isn’t just wrong and sad – it sins against the very nature of God. Remember 1 Samuel 15:23 : For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

(1 Corinthians 11:11-12) Headship in light of the interdependence of men and women.

Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

a. Nevertheless: On top of all Paul has said about male headship in the church, it would be wrong to consider headship as the only dynamic at work between men and women in the church. They must also remember neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man. Men and women need each other, so there is no place for a “lording over” of the men over the women.

(1 Corinthians 11:13-16) Appealing to experience, nature, common sense, and apostolic authority.
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

a. Judge among yourselves: Paul appeals to something the Corinthian Christians should be able to figure out on their own.
b. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Here, Paul speaks to those Christians who come from a Jewish environment. In the Jewish community, even men would cover their heads while praying. It was therefore inconceivable for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. Their own experience taught them that women should observe the custom of the head covering when the church meets.
c. Does not even nature itself teach: In both Jewish and Greek cultures, short hair was common for men. Therefore it was a dishonour for a man to wear long hair, because it was considered feminine.

i.- In some cultures and at some times, men have worn their hair longer than others, but no matter how long men have worn their hair, women have always worn their hair longer.

ii. Based on this verse, many people have thought that it is a sin for a man to wear long hair – or, at least hair that is considered long by the culture. But long hair in itself can be no sin; after all, Paul apparently had long hair for a time in Corinth as a part of a vow (Acts 18:18). But, the vow would not have meant anything if long hair was the norm; that’s what Paul is getting at!

iii. While it is true that it is wrong for a man to take the appearance of a woman (Deuteronomy 22:5), longer hair on a man is not necessarily an indication of this. It is far better for most preachers to be concerned about the length of their sermons instead of the length of people’s hair!

Her hair is given to her for a covering: Because women wear their hair longer than men, Paul thinks of this longer hair as “nature’s veil. So, if nature has given women long hair as a covering, that in itself points to their need to be covered (according to the ancient Corinthian custom).

verse 16
If anyone seem to be contentious, we have no such custom: In this appeal to apostolic authority, Paul is telling the Corinthian Christians to not be contentious – especially because the other churches of God have adopted their custom according to God’s truth.