Women's Role in the Church Menu

1) Women's Role in the Church

2) Modest Apparal

3) The Head and It's Covering

4) Return to the Main Menu --- Home

Read more! Read more!

Modest Apparel; --- The Woman's Role

by Melvin Blalock
2000 Preacher's Study Notes

I have been asked to deal with several passages pertinent to modest apparel and the woman's role in the church. These may be viewed as separate topics, but they are certainly connected. It was with some trepidation that I agreed to accept this subject. With many, this is not a popular subject, whatever one might say will probably displease someone. However, I seek not to please men, but God. That being said, I am honored to participate in this study and to give consideration to the following passages in the order that was requested: Deuteronomy 22:5; 1 Peter 3:3; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; and 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

Deuteronomy 22:5"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."

This prohibition is not at all difficult to understand. These instructions were given to Old Testament Israel. It applied with equal force to both sexes and absolutely forbade cross-dressing. The woman was not to wear a man's garment, nor was the man to wear a woman's garment. This tells me that the unisex movement did not originate with God. God created men and women to be different, and He insisted upon that distinction being readily discernible. The clothing was to be such that would easily distinguish the sexes. To attempt to obliterate this distinction was contemptible to God. To use the wording of Deuteronomy, "it was an abomination."

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary (#844 1) defines this word to mean something "disgusting, an abhorrence." Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, offers the following definition: "an abominating; great hatred and disgust; loathing; anything hateful and disgusting."

God found this practice disgusting. My friends, that is pretty strong language. Some may feel we need not be concerned with this passage because is in the Old Testament, but I am always concerned when God says He abhors something. I cannot imagine our eternal and unchangeable God, who is so definite about something He finds disgusting, at a later time becoming acclimated to it and acceptant of it. While it is true that we are not amenable to the laws of the Old Testament, we do not discard principles that are clearly set forth there in God's dealings with man. We are reminded of this in the New Testament by the following passages:

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Romans 15:4).

"Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted" (1 Corinthians 10:6).

"Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come" (1 Corinthians 10:11).

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Many commentators say that "scriptures" in this passage refer to the Old Testament.

I like what Matthew Henry had to say in his commentary regarding Deuteronomy 22:5: "The distinction of the sexes by apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbor's chastity, v. 5."

There are New Testament passages that show plainly that God still wants men to look and act like men and women to look and act like women. Effeminacy in men is condemned. Jesus talked about soft or effeminate clothing on men in Matthew 11:7-8, saying that they who wear such are in king's houses.

Paul said that the effeminate would not inherit the kingdom of God
(1 Corinthians 6:9). Concerning the hair, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15:
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

In these passages. as well as those we have under consideration, we find that God has distinctive roles for men and women and that their wearing apparel is also to be distinctive of their gender.

Certainly there is much teaching about morality and righteousness in Deuteronomy 22. There are things recorded there for our admonition even in this last dispensation of time. In studying these issues, it has been my observation that God has not lowered moral standards since those words were given to Israel so long ago. God has not "loosened up" on any moral issues that I can think of. If anything, the standard is higher in the New Testament. Adultery is an example: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28). Divorce for any cause was tolerated under the Mosaic system, which is not so in this dispensation.

Let me say clearly that the unisex movement was clearly forbidden under the law, and I believe it is no less an abomination to God today. Lesbianism and homosexuality are often associated with cross-dressing. Homosexuality was also an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22). Like cross-dressing, homosexuality is not specifically called an abomination in the New Testament, but it is denounced plainly as sin. The point is that if either of these was an abomination then, we believe they are no less an abomination today. Homosexual will close the doors of heaven against its adherents (1 Corinthians 6:9). The Deutonomy passage has to do with the subject of the woman's role and her modesty, which is shown by not wearing that which pertains to a man.

I Peter 3:3-4"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price."

The Holy Spirit in this passage is de-emphasizing the outward adornment and exalting the inward beauty, the ornamentation of a gentle and quiet spirit. It should be understood that he does not forbid the wearing of certain ornaments, or that of apparel, but rather the inner person is where the emphasis is to be placed. Dr. James MacKnight offers the following comments:
"Let it not be the outward adorning only. The word 'only' is supplied here, agreeably to the known phraseology of scripture, and to the nature of precept. For we cannot suppose that the apostle forbids Christian women to adorn themselves with apparel suitable to their station, any more than the Lord forbade his disciples to labor for meat that perisheth, John vi.27. His meaning in that precept certainly was, that the disciples were not to labor for meat which perisheth only, but also for the meat that endureth to everlasting life..."

MacKnight used the Syriac version in his scripture reference. It reads as follows: "Of these, let the adorning be not what is outward only, of plaiting of hair, and of putting round golden chains, or of putting on clothes." The NKJV has a similar rendering: (1 Peter 3:3) "Do not let your adornment be merely outward --- arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel." The language contained in these verses is known as a Hebraism, which is common in sacred languages. Guy N. Woods makes the following significant observation:

So here Paul does not forbid women to wear jewels, or to adorn themselves with modest apparel; he does admonish them to regard such as utterly worthless in comparison with the graces which adorn the Christian character, and which alone determine one's worth in God's sight.. .Paul also gave attention to the vanity characteristic of worldly women in adorning themselves with 'braided hair, gold or pearls or costly raiment' (I Timothy 2:9), and from the historians of the period in which Peter wrote, we learn that women were disposed to go to extreme lengths in braiding and plaiting their hair, often arranging massive whorls of it several inches above the head into which had been woven twisted strands of gold and chains of pearls which glistened and scintillated in the light, thus making an impression of great brilliance.

I Timothy 2:9-10
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

Some argue that Paul is giving instruction for the woman's adornment in the public assembly of the church. While his instructions would certainly include the assemblies, I believe he was concerned for the Christian woman's adornment and behavior in general. I do not believe the verses in this text are limited to the assembly. I will later give you the reasons why I believe this to be true. In this passage, Paul is concerned with Christian women being adorned modestly. First, he speaks of modest apparel. It will be helpful to define some of the wording of this verse.

W. E. Vine defines the word "modest":
kosmios, orderly, well-arranged, decent, modest.

He defines the word "apparel":
katastole... connected with katastello, "to send or let down, to lower" (kata, "down," stello, "to send"), was primarily a garment let down; hence, "dress, attire," in general (cf. STOLE, a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank --- Eng., "stole");
<1 Timothy 2:9>, "apparel" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

Thayer defines katastole, "A garment let down, dress, and attire." Young defines this word, "long robe." katastello is found in no other text in the Bible. When I read this definition of apparel, my mind envisions our godly sisters with their beautiful uncut hair and their modest dresses. We should not overlook this significant word, katastello, meaning "to send or let down, to lower."

"It is evident that modest apparel means a woman's clothing should not be such as would expose her body in a way to suggest evil thoughts. Shamefacedness means womanliness; the opposite of brazenness." The Greek word for sobriety is also defined 'self-control' in Thayer's lexicon. (E. M. Zerr).

A woman may be so skimpily clad that she reveals her body, provoking lust, or she may be fully clothed, and yet her clothing be so tight that it reveals her anatomy to the point that she is no longer decent. Either is the opposite of "modest or seemly" attire. There are items of clothing that cannot be worn modestly in public. The woman may be attired so elaborately that it would calling attention to her and, hence, would not be modest.

Brother Mike Criswell gave the following good rules concerning modest apparel. He wrote of the three "L's" --- Lots, Loose, Long. He states:

This seems to be a good rule of thumb for both men and women. Lots, loose, and long, so it doesn't reveal the form and shape of the body so as to incite lust in the opposite sex.

What principles are Christians to follow in deciding what to wear?
a. The garment must distinguish the person from the opposite sex.
b. The garment must not be too flashy but must depict a heart of modesty.
c. The garment must not incite lust in the opposite sex.

"Shamefacedness" is defined by W. E. Vine: "Shamefastness: aidos, a of shame, modesty, is used regarding the demeanor of women in the church, I Timothy 2:9. Shamefastness is that modesty which is 'fast' or rooted in character" (Davies; Bible English, p. 12).

In our immoral world, so many have no sense of shame, and they openly show that to be true by their demeanor and their mode of dress. The Apostle is saying that a godly woman will have that inward modesty, "shamefastness," rooted in her character. By the indecent behavior and the improper attire worn by many, we are reminded of the words penned by Jeremiah: (8:12), "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush..." May God's people never become so like the world that they lose their ability to blush.

Sobriety is another quality that composes the godly woman's character. "Sobriety" is defined by W. E. Vine: sophrosune, denotes soundness of mind...Acts 26:25, "soberness;" 1 Timothy 2:9, 15, "sobriety;" 'sound judgment' practically expresses the meaning.

It is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, which would hinder the temptation to these from arising, or at all events from arising in such strength as would overbear the checks and barriers which aidos (shamefastness) opposed to it (Trench, Synonyms, pp. xx, end).

In the first part of verse 9, he discusses the importance of wearing modest clothing and the inward qualities of the godly woman that govern her choices in that clothing. In the latter part of the verse, he speaks of undue emphasis being placed upon outward ornamentation. As we noted from Guy N. Wood in his commentary on 1 Peter, it was a common practice at that time to weave strands of gold and pearls and other costly array in the hair, calling undue attention to one's self. Shamefastness and sobriety would rule against this practice. We should not conclude from this that all makeup and jewelry are forbidden, but moderation is the key. The real emphasis is not to be on the outward adornment. Paul says that the godly woman should adorn herself instead with good works (v. 10). This is not a contradiction of Peter when he said, "But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price" (1 Peter 3:4). Her meek and quiet spirit and her good works are the adornment that will make her truly attractive. When we study these verses, surely we are reminded of the "virtuous woman" in Proverbs. "Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates" (Proverbs 31:30-31). The "virtuous woman" dressed in a way that was becoming to her station: "She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple" (Proverbs 31:22).

There are several points that lead us to the conclusion that the verses in 1 Timothy 2 are not limited to the assembly. We will notice a couple of those at this point. It is absurd to think that Paul is only concerned with modest apparel in the assembly. Godly women are to dress always in a way that is indicative of inward modesty and sobriety. Further-more, her real adornment is to be that of good works that is becoming a woman professing godliness. Are we to suppose that these good works are only performed in the assemblies? Quite the opposite is true. Most good works performed by women are outside of the church assembly.

I Timothy 2:11-12
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

After instructing the woman on her apparel and adornment, Paul turns to the subject of the woman's role. I am indebted to Brother Alan Bonifay for the following information, along with a good outline explaining these two verses. Alan noted in his study:
I. Kinds of teachings:

1. There are three distinct kinds of teaching situations described in the Scripture.
2. The Word of God is to be taught in the worship assemblies of the church.
a. Whether such assemblies are public or private is immaterial.
b. When the church is called together for worship the rules of
1 Corinthians 14 apply.
c. In such situations, only faithful men may teach.
d. Women must remain silent.
3. The Word of God may also be taught in public situations.
a. When it is, it must be done by faithful men.
b. Women may not teach in such situations.
4. The Word of God may be taught in "house to house" situations which are narrowly circumscribed "private sessions" under the authority of the Christian home and generally comprising a group only as large as one might expect to encounter in a house --- in practical terms, it will probably be limited to less than a dozen participants on almost all such occasions.
a. The question remains as to who is authorized by Scriptures to teach in such situations.
b. In order to answer that question, we must examine another passage and its ramifications (1 Timothy 2:12).

II. What does the Bible say about women teaching God's Word?
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

A. What does this passage preclude?
1. Women are prohibited from teaching the Word of God.
2. Women are also prohibited from usurping authority over a man.
B. What does the passage teach women to do positively?
1. It teaches her to learn in silence.
2. Silence can mean "rest, quiet, tranquillity; a quiet tranquil life as it does in 2 Thessalonians 3:12, or it can mean silence as it does here and in Acts 22:2" (AGL, p. 189).
3. It also teaches that women are to learn "with all subjection."
4. Subjection means "to place or arrange under; to subordinate, 1 Corinthians 15:27; to bring under influence, Romans 8:20 passively, to be subordinate, 1 Corinthians 14:32; to be brought under a state or influence, Romans 8:20; in the middle voice it means to submit one's self, to render obedience, be submissive, Luke 2:51; 10:17" (AGL, p. 419). Here it conveys the idea of submissiveness as in 2 Corinthians 9:13 or Galatians 2:5.
C. Does this passage refer only to the assembly of the church for worship?
1. Many, if not most, commentaries say that it does.
2. Many study Bibles and Bibles, which are arranged in paragraph form with subheadings added, say so.
3. Notwithstanding such authority, we say that the answer is "No" for at least three reasons.
a. There is absolutely nothing in the text, the context or even the remote context, which indicates that the assembling of the congregation for worship is in view --- not one shred of evidence exists for such a notion.
b. Verse 8 instructs men to "pray every where." Obviously, Paul's command is not limited to church assemblies.
c. In verse 9, if the assembly were in view, then outside of the assembly, women would not be prohibited from wearing immodest apparel. Such a contrived position approaches the absurd.
4. Why, then, do many commentaries take the view that Paul references the worship assemblies of the church in this passage?
a. Roman Catholic and Protestant churches are so rife with error that this position is more convenient.
b. Likewise, digressive churches of Christ have their own agendas to sustain.
D. Then, does this passage teach that women are forbidden to teach God's Word at all?
1. If this were all the New Testament said about women teaching the Scriptures, the answer would be "yes." However, it is not all that is said.
a. In 2 Timothy 1:5 and 3:14-17, Timothy's mother and grandmother are commended for teaching Timothy the Scriptures from his infancy.
b. In Titus 2:3-5, older Christian women are commanded to be "teachers of good things" in order that they might equip or train the younger women concerning their Christian obligations as wives and mothers.
(1) kalodidaskalos --- teaching what is good, a teacher of good(AGL, p. 211).
(2) sophronizo --- properly to render any one.. .to restore to a right mind; to make sober-minded, to steady by exhortation and guidance" (AGL, p. 396).
c. Acts 21:9 — Philip had four daughters who possessed the gift of prophecy.
d. 1 Corinthians 11:5 — This passage gives regulation to women concerning praying and prophesying.
e. Acts 18:26 — Priscilla assisted her husband, Aquilla, in instructing Apollos.
3. In view of all of these passages instructing women to teach, what then does 1 Timothy 2:11-12 mean?
a. In light of verses 8-9, the scope of the passage is broader than the worship assembly.
b. It is not, however, so broad in scope as to be without limit, for women are instructed to teach God's Word in certain circumstances.
c. Acts 20:20 provides the clue, for Paul separates public teaching from that conducted on the intimate basis of "house to house" teaching.
1) "Publicly" here includes the teaching that is open to or accessible to the public.
(2) "House to house" teaching is that which occurs on the privacy level of someone's home.
d. Conclusively, then, what is forbidden to women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is any form of public teaching of God's Word.

Comments from OthersThough most commentators hold the public assembly view, commentator E. M. Zen is an exception. He writes beginning at 1 Timothy 2:1: Some commentators think this instruction has reference to the public services of the congregation. Doubtless it includes that, but verse 8 commands that men pray everywhere, which makes the exhortation general.

Matthew Henry writes concerning prayer in his comments on
I Timothy 2:8: "Men must pray everywhere: no place is amiss of prayer, no place more acceptable to God than another." Ellicott comments on the Greek word for "learn," manthano, and states that it is "in antithesis (contrast) to didasko." On the subject of Christianity changing the primal relationship of women to men, he also states:

While it animated and spiritualized their fellowship, it no less definitely assigned to them their respective spheres of action; teaching and preaching to men, 'mental receptivity and activity in family life to women' (Neander, Planting, vol. I, p. 147, [Bohn]).

"What grave arguments these few verses supply us with against some of the unnatural and unscriptural theories of modern times!" (Ellicott, p. 52). Thus, the role of the woman is 'in antithesis to' or in contrast to being a teacher. Thayer defines didasko as "to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses," while manthano is defined as "to learn, be appraised." Ellicott also says, "Every form of public address or teaching is clearly forbidden as at variance with the woman's proper duties and destination" (Ibid.).

Alford states on 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

Let a woman learn (in the congregation, and everywhere: see below) in silence in all (possible) subjection (the thought of the public assemblies has evidently given rise to the precept (see I Corinthians xiv. 34); but he carries it further than can be applied to them in the next verse): but (the contrast is to a suppressed hypothesis of a claim to do that which is forbidden; c. a similar de, I Corinthians xi. 16) to a woman I permit not to teach (in the church primarily), or, as the context shews, anywhere else (Alford, p. 319).

Before leaving this passage, we must discuss the clause, "usurp authority over the man." There are two things that the woman is prohibited from doing. She is prohibited from teaching (delivering a didactic discourse) and from usurping authority over the man. These are two independent phrases separated by the conjunction "nor." This Scripture does not say anything about "teaching over the man," as some allege. For obvious reasons, the Sunday School brethren want to give it that construction to sustain their unscriptural practice of women teaching a Bible class so long as men are not present.

Brother Jerry Cutter states the following in a tract called "The Teaching," pages 18-19:
"Usurp authority over" is.. .only one word in the Greek, and means "Exercise dominion over one . . ..I Timothy 2:12" (Thayer's Lexicon, p. 84). In short, "over" is not connected with "teach" in I Timothy 2:12, but only with having dominion over the man, or the second part of the verse. b. The Bible does not say, "I suffer not a woman to teach over the man!" The passage says nothing about "teach-over." Rather, it, says, "I suffer not a woman to teach," nor do something else. c. Compare these two parallel passages:
(1) I Timothy 2:12: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man." If "over the man" modifies both "teach" and "usurp authority," consider the following and see the contradiction:
(2) Leveticus 19:14: "Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind..." Shall we say that the prepositional phrase, "before the blind," modifies the first prohibition? If so, the passage merely means, "Thou shalt not curse the deaf before the blind." In other words, according to such logic, it would be perfectly all right to curse the deaf, provided it is not done before the blind."

What may we conclude from 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and the other passages concerning the woman teaching? First, we learn that a woman is prohibited from being a public teacher of God's Word, and in that sphere she is to remain silent. Second, we further learn that she is never to usurp authority over the man, but to be silent, or in subjection.

I Corinthians 14:34-35"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

There is nothing difficult to understand about the wording of this text. We have already shown by 1 Timothy 2 that the woman is not permitted to teach except in private situations. Obviously, in the assembly she is prohibited from doing such. Paul emphatically says that she "is not permitted to speak," but that she is to be "under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Corinthians 14:34). The NKJV reads, ". . .but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." I have wondered about the expression, "as also saith the law." MacKnight refers the reader to that law given in Genesis 3:16.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Paul shows that her role is one of submission. She is to be a learner in the assembly and not a teacher. She is not to ask questions in the assembly; but if she has questions, let her ask her husband at home. Paul says, "Let your women keep silence in the churches" (v. 34), and then in verse 35, ". . . for it is a, shame for women to speak in the church." Some have labored to explain away these strong prohibitions because they plainly condemn their women preachers and teachers. Some argue that this was written to the church at Corinth during the age of spiritual gifts and does not apply to the church today. First, we would point out that this message was not only for first-century Corinth. At the introduction of this epistle, Paul wrote, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1 Corinthians 1:2). In the present chapter, he wrote, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33). It is evident that these inspired words were for the benefit of the Lord's church throughout the whole world and for infinity.

Brother Bennie Cryer wrote the following in the O.P.A. April 1, 1988, under the caption, "Some Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14":
"WHAT 1 CORINTHIANS 14 IS NOT TEACHING. 1. Its main purpose is not teaching rules to be used to regulate the use of spiritual gifts only. It does teach rules for edifying an assembly when the church gathers for the purpose of rendering spiritual service to God. The reason spiritual gifts were regulated by the rules for edification found in this chapter is because these rules could be violated by one with spiritual gifts in the same fashion they could be by teaching using knowledge he had acquired through study and meditation. It is not considering how that knowledge got into the teacher's mind but how that knowledge is dispersed to the audience. It is to be done in such a way all may learn and all may be comforted. v. 31..."

Brother Cryer writes in his fourth point:
"It is not teaching that only the wives of inspired prophets were to keep silent in the assemblies. It is teaching that the prophets' wives were to keep silent in the assemblies, not because they were wives of prophets, but because they were women, 'For it is a shame for women to speak in the church,' " vv. 34—35.

These verses obviously regulate the woman's role when the church convenes an assembly. It is required that she remain silent in all such assemblies.

I Timothy 2:8-15
Now we wish to return to the verses recorded in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. In verse 8 he particularly addresses the men, telling them, "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." Some have concluded that since he addressed men in this verse, it shows that he has in mind the public church assembly. Nowhere in the entire chapter does he name the church assembly. He does say, "I will therefore that men pray every where..." "Every where" is surely more general than the assembly, athough the woman certainly would be excluded from leading a prayer or song in the assembly by this divine injunction. It is the men who are to taking the lead when public prayers are offered. My wife recently related a story to me about the time in a public gathering she was asked to return thanks for the meal by her supervisor. The supervisor, who was a woman, knew that Alberta was a preacher's wife. Alberta was probably the only Christian in the gathering, but she declined because there were men present. I firmly believe that she did the correct thing.

Let us look back to I Timothy 2:1-2: "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." He began this chapter with an exhortation to prayer. Should we conclude that the only times we are to pray for kings and all that are in authority is in the public assembly? E.M. Zen in his commentary says that the "every where" in verse 8 makes it general.

In verse 8, Paul wrote that men were to "pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." E. M. Zen makes the following observation regarding "lifting up holy hands":
LIFTING UP HOLY HANDS means hands of men who are living holy or righteous lives. The lifting of the hands is merely an allusion to the ancient practice of presenting the uplifted hands in respectful petition to God (Nehemiah 8:6; Psalms 141:2; Lamentations 3:4). The command pertains to the kind of hands being lifted up, and not as to the posture of the body during prayer: The Lord is not concerned about that matter..."
"Without wrath and doubting" are more qualifications to acceptable prayer wherever it is offered. Adam Clarke writes concerning "Without Wrath": "Having no vindictive feeling against any person; harbouring no Unforgiving spirit, while they are imploring pardon for their own offences."

Concerning "Doubting," W. E. Vine, page 337, offers the following: "diaogismos expresses reasoning or questioning hesitation, 1 Timothy 2:8, See Dispute, A, No. I." On page 324, W. E. Vine says "Dispute" denotes, primarily, an inward reasoning, an opinion."

Dr. James MacKnight writes: "dialogismos sometimes signifies reasoning in one's own mind, sometimes reasonings and disputings with others. See Luke ix. 46,47. The disputings of which the apostle speaks in this passage, are of those only about the times and places of prayer, but those about other points of religion, whereby bigots inflame themselves into rage against those who differ with them."

After his directive to men about prayer, Paul then turns his attention to the women. We notice that he begins his dialogue with women by writing "In like manner." E. M. Zen comments,

In like manner is all from the Greek word HOSAUTOS, and one word in Thayer's definition is 'likewise,' and that word does not necessarily mean a repetition of some previous action, but rather that the writer has something more to say. It is as if the apostle said, 'furthermore, I have something to say about the women.'

In the remaining verses of this chapter, the apostle discusses issues concerning modesty, adornment, and the woman's role. He finishes up by explaining why woman has been assigned a submissive role. He shows why it is that she may not be a public teacher. We have already discussed modesty, adornment, and her restriction concerning the teaching in verses 9-12. Without rehashing material that we have already covered, let us proceed to verses 13-15:
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

We read the following in the Gospel Advocate Commentary: For Adam was first formed, then Eve. The reasons for this teaching are here given, which show the reach or extent of the principles. Adam had priority in creation. He was the original human being. Eve was from him and subordinate to him, and was formed a help suited to him. The argument here based on priority of creation is much strengthened by the following statement: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." (1 Corinthians 11:9). This teaching of Paul respecting the public position of woman as regards man, in which he shows that she is to hold a subordinate place, is based upon no arbitrary human speculation, but upon God's original order in creation—that divine order which first created man and after man's creation formed woman as his help meet.

This provides one of the reasons that the woman is not to exercise authority over the man, but to be in submission. Furthermore, she is not to be a public teacher.

In verse 14, we are furnished with the second reason. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:14). MacKnight comments:

The serpent did not attempt to deceive Adam; but he attacked the woman knowing her to be the weaker of the two. Hence Eve, in extenuation of her fault, pleaded, Gen. iii. 13. "The serpent beguiled me and I did eat." Whereas Adam said, ver. 12. "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat;" insinuating, that as the woman had been given him for a companion and help, he had eaten of the tree out of affection to her.

Now let us look at the final verse in this discussion, verse 15: "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." There are at least four different ideas about the woman's salvation in childbearing. I believe that Dr. James MacKnight is correct in his translation of verse 15. It reads as follows:
However, though Eve was first in transgression, and brought death on herself, her husband, and her posterity, the female sex shall be saved equally with the male, through childbearing; through bringing forth the Saviour; if they live in faith, and love, and chastity, with that sobriety I have been recommending.

His comments on this verse are insightful:
The word saved, in this verse, refers to the woman in the foregoing verse who is certainly Eve. But the apostle did not mean to say, that she alone was to be saved through child-bearing; but that all her posterity, whether male or female, are to be saved through the childbearing of a woman; as is evident from his adding, "if they live in faith, and love, and holiness with sobriety." For safety in child- bearing doth not depend on that condition at all; since many pious women die in child-bearing, while others of a contrary character are preserved—the salvation of the human race through child-bearing was intimated in the sentence passed on the serpent, Gen. iii.l5. "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise they head." Accordingly, the Saviour being conceived in the womb of His mother by the power of the Holy Ghost, He is truly 'the seed of woman' who was to bruise the head of the serpent; and a woman, by bringing him forth, hath been the occasion of our salvation—Vulg.

Conclusion In conclusion, we have determined from these words of Holy Writ that God has assigned a distinctive role for the woman, one that we are bound to honor. It is perhaps significant to point out that none of the apostles, elders, deacons, and evangelists of the New Testament were women. This is not to say that woman is inferior in intelligence or talent, but that God made her to be a help mate to man and assigned her a role of submission. He has explained to us why she cannot be a public teacher of God's Word, and that matter should be settled. Not only does God expect her to behave in accordance with her femininity, but to look the part as well. Her wearing apparel is to be modest, and her adornment is to depict a character of shamefastness and sobriety. Truly the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit is of great price in the sight of God.

214 Pearl Street, Cleburne, TX 76031

Please Contact me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com or 253-396-0290 (cell)for comments, questions, further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.

Read more! Read more!

The Role of Women in the Church

PSN 1992
by Doug Edwards
In the fall of 1895, Brother J.W. McGarvey struggled with the question of the woman's work in the church. A young lady who hoped to become a foreign missionary enrolled in one of his classes at the College of the Bible. At first, McGarvey did not want to admit her. Be was forced to relent, however, because of an arrangement previously worked out with Kentucky University that any student who enrolled in the University could also enroll in the College of the Bible. McGarvey did place some hardships on the young lady by not allowing her to sit with or talk to the men. She was not allowed to attend on certain days when the studies would deal with subjects not meant for mixed audiences. By 1904, however, women were allowed to enter this college without discrimination. McGarvey seemed to accept these changes in policy without controversy.

If it appears that McGarvey struggled during this time with the question, "What is the role of women in the church?" It must be stated that he was not alone. This subject was a lively and interesting one during the Restoration period, and it remains the same today.

I suspect the subject of women's work within the church is controversial today because of the women's liberation movement of a few years ago. We are inheriting the consequences of that movement today when we see the rush toward the ordination of women to the priesthood of so many denominations. By 1980, some 80 denominations had ordained women as priests. I imagine the number is far greater now. The ordination of women to positions of authority in the religious world is now as modern as tomorrow morning's newspaper.

Because of this current interest, and so many false doctrines being taught on this subject, I welcome the opportunity to open the Bible and investigate this vital subject. There are three areas of study that I would like to notice:

1. The treatment of women in the ancient world.

2. A comparison of Paul's teachings on the status of women.

3. Some biblical examples of the type of work that women can do.

The Treatment of Women
in the Ancient World
The term "property" best describes the treatment of women in the ancient world. In societies such as those of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor, men were clearly the dominating force. In the Greek culture women continued to be treated as inferior to men. They received very little education, rarely went out in public, and lived in separate quarters. Their purpose was to bear sons for their husbands. In the Roman culture conditions improved for the woman. She began to receive education and was treated with more respect.

It was under Judaism that the equality of women began to be understood. In the creation accounts of Genesis, the woman is said to be the helper for the man (Genesis 2:18), not his slave. Adam said the woman is "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23). Also, by reading the account of the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31, one can see the high honor paid to the woman. Thus, the Jews could read their Scriptures and see the importance of the woman. Yet, as the case is so often, men do not always live by the Scriptures. In some ways the Jews continued to treat their wives like property. In Judges, a Levite is threatened by a group of homosexual men. He responds by turning his concubine over to these evil men who ravaged her all night and then left her dead on the doorway. The Levite then cuts her body into twelve pieces and sent them throughout the tribes of Israel. Some rabbis also maintained that a wife was a hindrance to one who planned to study the Torah. In spite of these abuses, however, the treatment of women under Judaism was much better than that of the surrounding nations.

It is under these difficult conditions for women that Jesus entered the world. Jesus did not accept the current belief that women were property. He treated them with respect and they responded by lovingly following Him (Luke 7:36-50; Mark 16:1). The Lord used illustrations from the common occurrences of women in many of His parables. He took the time to teach them when many of the rabbis of that day would ignore them (John 4; Luke 10:38-42). His treatment of women elevated them to a position that no other culture had yet accepted. The writings of His apostles and prophets portray this same attitude towards women. We have heard a lot in the recent years over the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights it would grant to women, but women were really granted their freedom in Christianity.

A Comparison of Paul's Writings
on the Status of Women
Critics have long attacked Paul for what he had to say about women. He is pictured as being either a woman-hater or confused and writing contradictory Scriptures. For instance, he writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Women are pictured as being equal with men in this passage. Yet he also says "women are to keep silence in the churches" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). In 1 Corinthians 11:3 Paul says that the man is the head of the woman. In I Timothy 2:11-12 women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. The question is often raised, how can the woman be equal with man if she has all of these restrictions placed upon her? How can she be in subjection to man if she is equal with him?

I believe that Paul has borne the brunt of a lot of unjust criticism. He is not a woman-hater or a male chauvinist as some claim. In fact, these alleged contradictions can be cleared up rather easily for the one who is looking for the truth. When Paul says "there is neither male nor female in Christ," he merely means that every person regardless of sex, race, social status, or whatever condition, can become a Christian. There are no second class citizens in the kingdom of heaven. There are no class distinctions in the church. Every person can obey the gospel and become a son of God. While the roles we perform may be different, all are equal in their relationships before God. People make a mistake when they try to make Galatians 3:28 deal with the roles of men and women in the church This verse does not deal with the roles that women perform within the church.

It would be appropriate to review what the Scriptures teach about the subjection of women to men and what that means. In the account of the creation, God says to the woman, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Genesis 3:16). This concept of subjection is appealed to by Scriptures such as I Corinthians 11:3-16, 14:34-35, and I Timothy 2:11-15. In any organization, whether it be political, social, military, or religious, there must be a head. When two or more people unite to accomplish some common goal, one must become the head of the organization. If no one recognizes this line of authority, confusion and a lack of efficiency will occur. When one submits in this type of situation, it does not mean the individual is inferior and lacking in mental ability. it only means that in this situation one is recognized as the head so the operation will go smoothly.

This is exactly where the difficulty begins on the subjection of women to men. To some, the idea of subjection conjures up the picture of slaves yielding to masters. We Americans love our freedom and the thought of being in subjection to someone is repugnant to many. But remember, to be in subjection according to the Bible, does not mean that one is inferior, only that one recognizes the authority of others in certain situations.

The Scriptures give several examples of different groups besides women and men that are said to subjection to others:

1. Young men are to submit to older men (1 Peter 5:5). Does that mean they are inferior?

2. Christians are to submit to the government (Romans 13:1). Does that mean they are inferior to elected officials?

3. Christians are to submit to one another (Ephesians 5:22). This verse means that Christians are to regard the rights of others and to seek to serve others. It does not imply either domination of others or inferiority. A judge one time said, "In my court room I am the authority, everyone must be in subjection to me. But when I leave I must be in subjection to others. When the small child crosses the street in front of me in the school crossing, I must yield to her." I think he understands how we are all in subjection to one another.

4. Jesus is said to be in subjection to God (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28). Does that mean that Jesus is inferior to God?

So there is no disgrace in subjection. What Paul emphasizes in his writings is that while men and women are equal, they have different roles to fulfill within the kingdom of heaven. When we understand there are different roles to be performed by men and women, then we can understand Paul's words.

Biblical Examples of the Work
Women Can Do
I want to emphasize each category of a woman's work with the word "active." While the Bible forbids her to work in such areas as church leadership and public teaching, she must still be active in the work that she can do. I am afraid that because women cannot work in certain areas that some men and women view the woman's work as passive. This concept is not true. It is also a fact that many women want to do more for the cause of Jesus Christ, but they are not quite sure what they can do.

Women have an active role in bringing others to Christ. Some of the most loyal followers of Jesus during His earthly ministry were women. Their zeal and loyalty spilled over into the early church. Women waited along with the apostles for the establishment of the church (Acts 1:13-14). They also worked with Paul in the mission field. Paul writes to the Philippians,

"I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life" (Philippians 4:2-3, NIV).

I do not know exactly what these women did, but it must have some type of active service. Paul singles out women in the book of Romans as being workers for the church (Romans 16:3, 6, 12). Again, we are not told exactly what these women did. Perhaps they helped with finances, perhaps they helped with food and lodging, perhaps they brought others to Paul for him to study with them. The point is, they rendered some active service. Christian women married to men who are not Christians may bring them to the Lord through their godly lives (1 Peter 3:1-2).. This type of life also involves active service to Christ. The Samaritan woman introduced many to Jesus Christ (John 4:28-30).

The question may be asked, can a woman teach the Word of God? The best answer that I can give is that it depends on where she is at the time. There are some places where a woman cannot teach, such as in the public assembly (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) and in public (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In these situations a woman cannot teach men, women, or even children. On the other hand, there are times when women can teach. Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9), the older women are to teach the younger women (Titus 2:2-5), Priscilla helped in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26), and Timothy was taught by his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15). It should also be pointed out that in some situations a woman can teach a man. 1 Timothy 2:9 does not say that a woman cannot "teach over a man" as so many in the Sunday School system like to point out. It teaches that in certain situations a woman cannot teach. So how do we harmonize these two different concepts of women teaching? Paul mentions in Acts 20:20 there are two different types of teaching --- public and house to house (private). When one harmonizes these different Scriptures he discovers that while women may not teach publicly they can teach privately. The teaching that is prohibited is public and the teaching that is allowed is private. Where a woman can teach, she may teach anyone, including a man, where a woman may not teach, she can teach no one, even a child.

Women have an active role in prayer. There are several examples of women praying in the Bible. As the apostles waited for the day of Pentecost, the Bible says, "They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers" (Acts 1:14, NIV). Paul discovered a group of women who had gathered by a river to pray in Philippi (Acts 16:13). Paul writes about the widow indeed who prays night and day (1 Timothy 5:5).

I think the older I become, the more I see that prayer is active work in our service to God. When we send our men and their families off into the mission fields, there is no greater encouragement to them than letting them know that we pray for them. When one goes off to do a work anywhere, it is a tremendous help to know there are others praying for you. When we grow sick and hear of others praying for us that boosts our spirits.

To our sisters I would like to say, make prayer a priority in your life. Be active in prayer. The Bible portrays prayer as an active and powerful tool. James says, "the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective" (James 5:16, NIV). Paul mentions that Epaphras "wrestled" in prayer (Colossians 4:12, NIV). Prayer is not the least one can do, it is the most one can do. We generally do not think of prayer as being one of the greatest works within the kingdom. We usually think of the evangelist who preaches to hundreds, or the missionary who goes overseas to start new works, or the church leaders who watch over congregations as being the ones who do the greatest works in the church. The truth of the matter is that no successful work of evangelism, mission work or local work can be successful without godly Christians praying for it. Paul certainly recognized the need of the prayers of Christians. He said, "I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me" (Romans 15:30, NW).

Women have an active role in performing works of service. Paul writes concerning Phoebe, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you" (Romans 16:1-2, NIV). I am sure that most of you are aware that the word "servant" comes from the Greek word from which we get the word "deacon." This fact has led some to believe she was a deaconess, and there was an official group of ladies within the church who held this office. I am not of this belief, yet there still remains the fact that in some way she was recognized as a servant in the church. She rendered some type of valuable service to Paul and others, and they recognized her as faithful.

What are some of the works of service that women can perform? In writing of the widows indeed, Paul mentions some of the good works they rendered, "And is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds" (1 Timothy 5:10, NW). These works, while not exhaustive, would be excellent for any Christian woman to imitate. Please note the works:

1. Bringing up children. This work will be covered in the next section.

2. Showing Hospitality. These words imply the receiving of guests into one's home and giving them lodging. Lydia exemplified the hospitality that the Bible commends when she invited Paul and Silas to stay in her home in Philippi (Acts 16:15). It must have come as a great relief to Paul to know there was a Christian woman there who would shelter and feed him. Every preacher knows the value of hospitable women who make his work easier. I want to encourage women to practice this service even more. Hospitality is a tremendous service that can greatly aid the church. A warm, friendly home helps to break the ice and allow Christians to become better acquainted and grow stronger spiritually.

3. Washing the feet of saints. This service indicates a humble spirit of service to others. The expression is figurative for rendering menial service and not being too proud to stoop.

4. Helping those in trouble. This quality refers to one who has a sympathetic nature and looks to assist others.

5. Devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. This woman does not selfishly look only to her own needs but to those who have problems. There are so many good deeds the Christian woman can do: sitting up with the sick, cooking and cleaning for them, and being available in times of emergency.

Women have an active role in the home. This realm is where she can do her greatest work and have the greatest influence. In 1 Timothy 2, after saying that men should be the ones who take part in the public worship of the church and that women should not teach in public, Paul says, "But women will be saved through childbearing --- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety" (1 Timothy 2:15). He does not mean that literal childbirth is necessary for a woman's salvation, but rather her service to Christ is domestic rather than public. There is presented in this chapter a contrast between the public work of the man and the domestic work of the woman. She is not a public teacher and she does not exercise authority over the man.

In other Scriptures, Paul emphasizes this domestic work of the woman. We have already seen in 1 Timothy 5:10 one of the good works of the widow was "bringing up children." In the same chapter he says concerning the younger widows, "So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity to slander" (1 Timothy 5:14, NIV). While these words were originally meant for younger widows, it should be obvious that Paul's words are based on a general teaching of God's will for all women. I can think of no one who influences the home more than the mother. She sees to the physical and spiritual needs of her family as no other person will. She can shape and mold the minds of her children better than anyone else. Paul also refers to Timothy being trained by Lois and Eunice (2 Timothy 1:5) and that as a child he had been taught the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15)

This domestic work of women is not just limited to her own immediate family. Paul says that older women are to be "teachers of good things." Then he says, "they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind and to be subject to their own husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God" (Titus 2:3-5, NIV). It is the responsibility of the older sisters to assist the younger sisters in how to be effective in domestic work. I wonder if this is a work that we have failed to accomplish over the years? In our determination to avoid the Sunday School method of teaching and women teachers, have we gone to the opposite extreme and kept our older sisters from teaching the younger? Obviously, these women cannot do this type of teaching in any public capacity, but they are limited to the private realm. How can this type of teaching be accomplished? Must it be only spontaneous and unplanned as some believe? While it can be spontaneous and unplanned, it does not have to be limited to this type of teaching. This teaching can also occur through the godly influence of these older women. I also believe an older woman taking younger women under her wing and teaching them in a private capacity on a regular basis does not violate the Scriptures.

In some circles, the importance of the housewife is minimized and to be avoided at all costs. It does not help when the wife of the President makes similar comments. Some will argue that being a homemaker is a boring, meaningless job and a woman cannot find fulfillment in this type of work. A casual reading of the virtuous woman described in Proverbs 31 will show this philosophy to be false. The Bible simply does not support the theory that being a housewife is an unimportant work. As preachers, we should point out that being a housewife and a mother is the greatest work a woman can do. There is no shame in domestic work.

What does the Bible say about women working? It is not the purpose of this study to go into detail concerning the subject of women working. I realize there may be times when women have to work, but even then her first priority should be her home and family. What do we sacrifice spiritually in order to gain materially? Are material things worth more than the quality time of mother?

We have seen in our study that equality has come to women through the teaching of the Bible. We have also seen that while she is seen as equal to man, she has different roles to perform. I would like to close with the words concerning the virtuous woman: "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all. Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate" (Proverbs 31:29-31, NIV).

Rt. 1 Box 201-C,
DePauw, IN 47115

Please Contact me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com or 253-396-0290 (cell)for comments, questions, further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.

Read more! Read more!

The Head and Its Covering

by George Battey
2000 Preacher Study Notes * Please note: This study is not only for the women, but for the men also as it relates not only to the hair, but also to submission to the authority of God! Please be patient, as this is a work in progress. pdc

This study involves an exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Before studing verse by verse, consider the following five points:

1) This passage is not merely a custom of the first century, nor is it a local custom peculiar to Corinth. It is assumed by many that Paul is regulating a custom already in practice. This is not true. Paul does not use argumentation that would indicate a first-century custom or a localized custom. He appeals to:
(a) the divine “chain of command” (v. 3
(b) the principles of creation (vv. 7—9);
(c) the angels (v. 10); (d) the law of nature (v. 14);
(e) the entire “apostolic college” (v. 16); (f) the common practice of all the churches of Christ (v. 16).


2) This passage is not specifically discussing a worship service. This is almost universally assumed, but it cannot be proven. No worship service is mentioned. In verses 17—18, there is clearly a worship service in view because Paul writes of “coming together as the church,” but there is no such indication in verses 1—16.

Additionally, women may not “prophesy” in a worship assembly (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), but verses 1-16 speak of women praying or prophesying. Women, of course, pray silently in their own hearts during worship assemblies (cf. 1 Samuel 1:13; 1 Corinthians 14:28), but it is impossible for mwoman to prophesy without violating the instructions to remain silent Hence, these instructions for women to be covered apply when they pray anywhere --- including worship assemblies --- or when they prophesy in private capacities (cf. Acts 21:9). The point is, while the passage includes the worship services of the church, it is not restricted to just the worship services.

3) Hair is the only covering being considered in this chapter. The idea that an artificial covering is being discussed is erroneous, as this study will point out.

4) These teachings did not expire with spiritual gifts. Though “prophsying” is mentioned, this does not necessarily imply spiritual gifts. Besides, “praying” is also mentioned, and praying is an activity of all Christians, not just a “gifted few.”

5) The covering for the woman is uncut hair, not simply hair alone, or some subjective length that measures “long” by a tape measure. This too, will be expounded upon during the course of this study.

With these thoughts in mind, let us look at the verses in detail.

Verse 1
“Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” Most feel this pertains to the previous chapter. The exhortation is to follow Paul’s example of foregoing liberties for the sake of the church.

Verse 2“Now I praise you...” Here is an obvious contrast with verse 17 when Paul will write, “I praise you not.” Paul takes advantage of the opportunity to praise the brethren while he can.
“...that you remember me in all things...” That they remembered Paul is evidenced by the fact that they had written him when questions and problems arose. As one observed, “There seemed to be a disposition on their part to abide by his teaching. Otherwise, why would they have written to him?” (Appleberry, p. 202).

“...[You] keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.” The word “traditions” refers to things handed down from generation to generation. This generally refers to things not found written in the law (Shaw, p. 81).
The two words “you keep” come from a single Greek verb. The verb is either in the indicative or imperative mood. Both moods take the same Greek ending in the second person plural. If the mood is taken as indicative, then Paul is giving another reason for praising the brethren; that is, he praises them

(a) because they remember him in all things, and
(b) he praises them because they keep the traditions delivered to them.

If the mood is taken as an imperative, then Paul is giving the brethren a command to keep; that is, he

(a) praises them for remembering him, and (b) then commands them to keep the tradition just as they were delivered.

The indicative mood seems to fit the context better.

Verse 3
“But I want you to know...” Here is the reason for keeping the traditions: because the ordinances delivered by Paul were based on divine authority.
“...the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” means “head of authority” (cf. Judges 11:11; 2 Samuel 22:44). The verse shows plainly that God submits to no one, Christ submits to God the Father (cf. John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28). Man must submit to the authority of Christ (Philippians 2:10-11). Finally, woman must submit to the authority of man (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). God is mentioned last in this verse so that it stays in our minds longer. If a man dishonors his head (of authority) he also dishonors all above his immediate head (i.e., God, also). If a woman dishonors her head (of authority), she also dishonors all above her immediate head (i.e., both Christ and God, for they placed the man over her). People cannot reject an authoritative figure without rejecting the One who placed that authority over them (Luke 10:16).

Verse 4
“Every man...” “Man” is from the Greek word aner rather than the more generic anthropos. It means man as opposed to woman. “Every” man means just that --- all men, not just married men. Keep this point in mind when looking at verse 5.

“...praying or prophesying...” “Praying” here is the ordinary word for praying. Nothing necessarily implies an “inspired prayer.”

“Prophesying” means to “

(a) proclaim a divine revelation,
(b) prophetically reveal what is hidden,
(c) foretell the future” (Arndt & Gingrich).

Though we do not often think about this, all aspects of “prophesying” still occur today.

(a) Men today still “proclaim the divine revelation” of God (the Scriptures). The difference is that men in the first century could “proclaim” without studying (cf. Matthew 10:19-20), whereas men today “proclaim” the same message naturally after studying.
(b) Men today still “reveal what is hidden,” but naturally after first studying the written Word.
(c) Men today still “foretell the future” when they preach about the second coming of Christ, the end of the world, and the Judgment Day.

Whereas first century “prophets” preached these things by direct inspiration, gospel preachers today proclaim the same message after much study in the written Word. Vine observes,
“In his measure the teacher has taken the place of the prophet, cp. the
significant change in 2 Peter 2:1. The difference is that, whereas the message of the prophet was a direct revelation of the mind of God for
the occasion, the message of the teacher is gathered from the com-
pleted revelation contained in the Scriptures."

Notice that praying and prophesying are mentioned together in 1 Corinthians 11:4. Whatever interpretation is applied to one must be applied to the other. In times past, elaborate theories were constructed to explain why awoman needed to have her head covered while praying and why a man should not have his head covered. Somehow these theories never took into consideration the “prophesying” that is also mentioned in this verse.

“...having his head covered...” The Greek construction (kata kephales echon) is unique in relation to the man. This wording is not used of the woman --- an important thing to remember. Echols observed correctly, “‘Having his head covered’ is a commentary, not a translation. Lenski translated the sense correctly: ‘having something down from his head.” (Echols, p. 2).

“...dishonors his head.” “Head” here refers to the man’s spiritual head --- Christ (v. 3). If “something” hangs down from the man’s head, it shames Christ. What is this “something” that, if it hangs down from the head, brings shame to the man and his spiritual head? “Hair that keeps on growing” (v. 14). More on this later. When a man’s hair gets so long that it begins to “hang down from” his head, it is too long and shames both him and his spiritual head --- Christ

Does this instruction include artificial coverings? Is it wrong for a man to pray or teach with a hat on his head? No. While it may be culturally inappropriate in the United States for a man to have a hat on when praying, it is not scripturally wrong. The covering being discussed in this chapter is clearly the hair (v. 15).

Consider the apostle Paul. He often went into the synagogue --- even in Corinth (Acts 18:4). It is common knowledge that in the synagogues Jewish men wore (wear) a skullcap or a “tallith.” Paul said, “To the Jew I became as a Jew that I might win the Jews” (1 Corinthians 9:20). This means that he conformed to Jewish customs, when possible, in order to have a converting influence upon the unbelieving Jews. The fact that the unbelieving Jewish leaders cheerfully and unhesitatingly called upon Paul to speak in the synagogue (Acts 13:15) points to the fact that He was conforming to the customs prevailing --- including the skull cap.

Romans 14 applies here. The Jew should not be required to remove his skull cap because it does not matter. In fact, if he has doubts about it, he must keep wearing it (Romans 14:23). Furthermore, we have Bible examples of godly men praying and prophesying with artificial veils upon their heads, and there is nothing inherently disgraceful about it. Moses prophesied with a veil on his head (2 Corinthians 3:14). David prayed with his head covered (2 Samuel 15:30 ff). While “nature itself teaches” that a man growing “long hair” is a disgrace (1 Corinthians 11:14), neither “nature” nor revelation teaches that a man with a hat on his head dishonors Christ when prayer or prophesying occurs. There is nothing inherently shameful for a man to pray or prophesy with a literal hat on his head.

For emphasis sake, we remember “praying and prophesying” are mentioned together. Whatever is said about one must be said about the other. If it is a shame for a man to pray with a hat on his head, the most natural question arises, “May a man prophesy with a hat on his head?” In Russia, our brethren meet people on the street and speak about the Scriptures. No one feels the brethren should remove their hats when it is -20f in order to disuss the Scriptures.

As a final comment on this verse, we merely observe that Paul is stating a fact of what constitutes shame and dishonor to the man and his head. How do we know it is shameful for a man to pray with hair long enough to hang down from his head? Because Paul is telling us in this passage it is a shame. no need to dig through all the artifacts of history to see if society in those days thought it was a shame. Paul declared that it was a shame --- a flat decree.

Verse 5
“But every woman...” Every sister in Christ is included in this expression --- not just married women. Just as every man is under the autotity of Christ (married or unmarried), every woman is under the authority of man (married or unmarried). The idea of a woman being “independent of man" and without authority is clearly refuted in verse 11.

“...praying or prophesying...” As observed in the “preliminary remarks,” this does not necessarily imply a worship assembly. In all likelihood Paul mentions these two items for two reasons.

First, praying and prophesying are the times when the shame of an uncovered woman becomes the most outrageous and the most noticeable --- when her “head” is most vulnerable to criticism and shame. Matthew 23 mentions “praying” and “prophesying” together, also, not because a worship service is occurring, but because sins were then most repulsive. The Pharisees "taught" others (23:2-4), but were not practicing what they preached. They weree “praying” (23:14), but hypocritically. (cf. Matthew 5:19). When women reject God-given authority, their attempts to pray or teach others become the more repulsive. (cf. Titus 2:5).

Second, “praying,” in this passage, carries with it the idea of “leading" a prayer orally (cf. 1 Timothy 2:8). When a woman prays orally or prophesies, it carries with it the appearance of being a “leader” in spiritual matters. Thus she wears long hair (her natural veil) to demonstrate that, though she appears to be leading, she acknowledges that man is the true spiritual leader in these matters. Does this imply that there are times when a woman does not have to be covered? Does this necessarily imply a removable covering? No, a removable covering is not necessarily implied just because praying and prophesying are specified. By way of illustration, the Scripture says, “Despise not your mother when she is old” (Proverbs 23:22). Does this mean we may despise our mother when she is young? Of course not. Again, “Remember your creator in the days of your youth” (Eccilasiates 12:1). Does this mean we do not have to remember the Creator when we get old? Obviously not. Just because a passage mentions a specific time (“when she is old,” “in the days of your youth,” or “while praying or prophesying”), it does not necessarily mean this is the only time the instructions apply. Such “time” indicators may merely be pointing out occasions when certain instructions are most critical. In I Corinthians 11, the point would be that a woman needs to be covered at all times, but especially when praying or prophesying. The woman’s head (man, Christ and God) is shamed at any time she does not have her head properly covered, but especially when she is praying or prophesying.

“...with her head uncovered...” The word “uncovered” in the Greek (akatakaluptos) is used only here and in verse 13. This rare adjective is used only once in the Septuagint (Leviticus 13:45). Smyth describes it as an “adjective of one ending” (p. 86) --- it looks masculine or neuter when declined, but it is actually a feminine adjective.

The woman of verse 5 is uncovered because of something she chose to do. In other words, this woman’s problem is not because she was not given a covering, for God gave her one (v. 15). Neither is her problem because her covering is inadequate, for had she cared for the covering given to her, it would have been adequate. Her problem is because of what she has done.

“...dishonors her head...” What covering will give glory to a woman and keep her from dishonoring her head? Is it some artificial veil? No, it is her hair which she keeps growing long (v. 15). She honors or dishonors her head because of something she does.

Some women do not understand these teachings and need to be taught. But some willfully disobey (cf. Luke 12:47-48). In either case, sin has occurred (cf. Leviticus 5:17-19); but in the latter case, the sin is willful, and the Scriptures abound with examples of the dire consequences of willful rebellion (cf. Numbers 12; Hebrews 10:26ff).

We are told here by Paul himself that a shaved head is a shame on a woman. There is no need to dig through all the artifacts of history to see if society in the first century thought it was a shame for women to have shorn or shaved heads. Paul declares the shame right here --- a fiat decree. This settles the question.

“...for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.” If a sister will not “fully cover” her head with the covering God has given her, she may as well shave her head --- she would be no worse off. She has shamed her head of authority, and she might as well shame herself by shaving her head completely.

Verse 6
“For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn.” This is the first occurrence of the verb katakalupto. The three English words “is not covered"
come from this one verb. Katakalupto is a compound word consisting of a prefix and verb (kata + kalupto). Katakalupto does not necessarily infçr an artificial veil, as some have argued in the past.1 This verb may imply a variety of coverings: God speaks of “fat that covers the inwards” (Exodus 29:22); “[Israel] covers the face of the earth” (Numbers 22:5); “waters cover the sea” (Habakuk 2:14) “with [two wings an angel] covered his face” (Isaiah 6:2); “shame covered our faces” (Jeremiah 51:51; 28:51 in Septuagint); “dust shall cover you” (Ezekial 26:10): “a cloud to cover the land” (Ezekial 38:9). All of these passages use the verb katakalupto in the Septuagint. Obviously, the type of covering (noun) does not indwell the verb.

To argue that katakalupto necessarily implies an artificial veil is to make the same mistake which some make in regard to the Greek verb psallo. Mechanical instrument advocates argue that psallo necessarily implies a stringed instrument because it means “to pluck” or “to twang.” However, the instrument being plucked must be named so that one knows what is being plucked. Robinson’s Lexicon points out that

(a) hair, (b) bowstrings, (c) stringed musical instruments (1 Samuel 16:16), and (d) cords of the heart (Ephesians 5:19) were all “plucked.” The instrument does not indwell the word, but must be named in addition to the word.

To summarize, the Greek verb katakalupto means simply “to cover.” The covering (noun) must be specifically named. A specific covering does not indwell the word itself. Verse 15 clearly teaches that hair is the covering under consideration.

Kata Intensifies
Because the preposition kata ordinarily means “down from,” many have concluded that Paul is speaking of a veil that “hangs down from the head.” The argument goes, “If this passage is speaking about an artificial veil, it would mean a veil that hangs down. A hat would not do. Likewise, if the hair is the covering, then it must be hair that hangs down. Wearing the hair up (e.g., in a bun) would not do.”

The problem with this argumentation is the assumption upon which it is built. The assumption is that, when the preposition kata is prefixed to a verb, the ordinary meaning of “down from” continues and attaches to the verb. Actually, kata only intensifies the verb rather than alter the meaning.

• “At times [kata] is emphatic; as Matthew 3:12, to de achuron katakausel, and he will burn completely the chaff” (Dana & Mantey, p. 107).
1 See the Miller-Lindsey Debate. E. H. Miller argued that katakalupto necessarily implied the noun kalumma (an artificial veil).
• Nearly every preposition may be prefixed to a word and thus add a new idea to the word or modify or even intensify the meaning of that particular word. A very frequent use of prepositions is in composition with words for the purpose of expressing emphasis or intensity. Grammarians term this the “ ‘perfective’ use of the preposition” (ibid., p. 98).

• “There is still another very common use of the preposition in composition. It is that of a mere adverb and intensifies or completes the idea of the verb” (Robertson, p. 563).

• katakalupto --- “to cover up (kata, intensive)” (Vine).

• katakalupto --- “to completely cover” (Hickie, p. 97)

The intensifying effect of the preposition means simply that a woman must be completely covered by her hair. Having some hair is not enough. At best, “some” hair would partially cover the head of the woman. The Lord used a word meaning the head must be completely covered by the covering He has given. Hence, cutting the hair in the slightest would render the woman only partially covered at best --- a violation of the command to be “completely covered.” Mark Bailey gave an excellent illustration of this very point: “If I were to cover my house with roofmg and then remove or cut away a small amount of the covering --- during the first rain, I would quickly understand that my house is not properly or ‘completely covered.’ Likewise, when women remove or cut away part of their covering (long hair), they are not properly or completely covered; therefore, they are considered ‘uncovered’ regardless of how much hair they may have left” (Bailey, p. 36).

“But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” Was it shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved? Yes! Verse 5 has already told us it was! If someone argues, “But today it’s not really a shame for a woman to shave her head,” the reply must be, “Yes, it is a shamebecause verse 5 said so.”

Verse 7
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head...” “Ought” signifies moral obligation. The man is morally obligated not to cover his head. These are not first-century customs of which Paul writes, but a higher law.

“...since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” By looking ahead to the fifteenth verse, we see now three things that give glory:

(a) man is the glory of God,
(b) woman is the glory of man, and
(c) hair is the glory of woman.

God respects, cares for, and loves His glory (man). The man will be warned in verses 11—12 not to abuse his authority over the woman. She is his glory, and he must respect that and care for her. The woman, likewise, will be taught in verse 15 to care for her glory (her hair).

Verses 8-9
“For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was the man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” The very order of creation established the fact that man would be the head over the woman. She was to be his helper, hence subordinate in authority and different in function. The idea that man became the woman’s head when God cursed the woman in Genesis 3:16 is missing the point of the passage. Adam was Eve’s head before sin entered.

Verse 10
“For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head...” “For this reason” --- a singular reason is being referenced. This looks back to verse 7. Because the woman is the “glory of the man,” she needs a “symbol of authority” upon her head.

“Symbol” is absent from the Greek, though thought by many to be “nessarily implied.”

The woman’s hair gives her authority to do what otherwise she may not do. She may not pray or teach without being fully covered by her hair.

“...because of the angels.” Here is an exhortation to remember what happened to the angels who refused submission to the authority of God (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6). If the angels were punished for rebelling against divine authority we too should fear!
(cf. 1 Timothy 3:6). “Because of the angels” should strike fear in the heart of every Christian woman. If God did not spare the angels who rebelled, He will certainly not spare mortals who rebel against their head of authority. “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” (1 Samuel 15:23).

Verses 11-12
“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 of God” The reason man is the head of woman is because of a previous choice made by God, not because of an inherent superiority of the man. Let it be remembered, though, that Deity did make that choice. The Christian’s place is not to question choices of God but to respect and honor His decisions.

Verses 13-14
“Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” Based on what has just been stated in verses 2-12, Paul appeals to these brethren to pass a judgment on the matter. He has presented enough sound reasoning to convince the church of the need for men to cut their hair and women to wear their hair long.

“Is it proper?” is a rhetorical question and the answer is understood to be, “No, it is not 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?” “Nature” is the “natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opposed to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law” (mayer, p. 660). God placed within each of us the ability to know that a man should not have long hair, but that a woman should.

Because “nature” taught this, Paul could use it as an appeal to the Gentiles at Corinth as well as the Jews --- because both Jews and Gentiles have the same “native instinct” of which Paul speaks.

When man refuses these instructions, it shames not only his head of authority (Christ—v. 4), but it shames the man personally.

Verse 15
“But if a woman has long hair...”

The Greek word to notice in this verse is the verb koma --- present, active, subjunctive, third person, singular of komao. Though one word in Greek, it requires three or more words to translate into English—”has long hair.” It is defined as follows:

1. Thayer: “to let the hair grow, have long hair” (p. 354).
2. Souter: “I wear the hair long, I allow the hair to grow long” (j,. 137).
3. Pickering: “to let the hair grow long, to abound with hair; to have long hair”
(p. 760).
4. Bullinger: “to let the hair grow long, wear long hair” (p. 349).
5. Liddell & Scott: “to let the hair grow long.”
6. Arndt & Gingrich: “to let one’s hair grow long” (p. 443).
7. Rienecker: “to have long hair, to let one’s hair grow long” (p. 424).
8. W. E. Vine: “to let the hair grow long, to wear long hair” (p. 189).
9. Louw & Nida: “to wear long hair as part of one’s attire—’to have long hair, to appear with long hair, to wear long hair,’ . . . In a number of languages it may be necessary to translate komao as ‘to let one’s hair grow long’ or ‘not to cut one’s hair.” (p. 527).

Here are eight Lexicons that all use “grow” as part of the defmition of komao. In addition, Louw & Nida say is means, “not to cut one’s hair.” Louw & Nida are regularly consulted by the United Bible Society for guidance.

The subjunctive mood is called a “potential” mood because the action only potential and not actually taking place. To illustrate:

• Indicative Mood would say, “Jack sees Spot.” This is the “mood” of reality. The action is actually occurring and not just “potential.”
• Subjunctive Mood would say, “If Jack sees Spot, he will kill him.” This is a “potential” mood. The action is not occurring yet. It may or may not occur. Everything depends on certain conditions being met.
• Imperative Mood would say, “Kill Spot.” This is also a “potential” mood. The action is not yet occurring. It may or may not occur. This is the form which commands take, hence the name “imperative.”

Let us focus on the subjunctive mood for a moment. In the subjunctive mood, there are two possible tenses:
• Present tense: to stress continuous action.
• Aorist tense to indicate action without any reference to duration
Proof of the foregoing is easily found I wish to belabor this for a moment for there are many who doubt the validity of the “continuous action” in the subjunctive mood.
• Carroll D. Osburn: “In moods other than the indicative, such as the imperative, subjunctive, and infmitive, the aorist tense is normally used regardless of the type of action involved. However, when the writer wishes to call special attention to the continuity of an action, he uses the present tense of those moods” (p. 237).

• Dana & Mantey: “The progressive force of the present tense should always be considered as primary, especially with reference to the potential moods ...“(p. 181).
• J. Gresham Machen: “The distinction between the present and the aorist concerns merely the manner in which the action is regarded. The aorist junctive refers to the action without saying anything about its continuance or repetition, while the present subjunctive refers to it as continuing or as being repeated” (p. 131).
• Perschbacher: (under “Subjunctive Mood: Present Tense”) “The tense does not indicate the time of the action, past or present, but the kind of action. The aorist tense refers to punctiliar or undefmed action, whereas the present tense refers to stative, durative, or repeated (iterative) action” (p. 340).
(Under the “Imperative Mood: Present Tense”) “The present tense denotes progressive, iterative, or stative action, rather than temporal action” (p. 357).

• Robertson: (under the heading of “Subjunctive”) “The rarity of the prcsent subjunctive (and optative, of course) has already been commented upon. The aorist is used as a matter of course here unless durative action is to be expressed ... The subjunctive is very common indeed but not in the present tense” (p. 889).
(Under “Imperative”) “The present imperative was found to be regulaly durative” (p. 890).

• Summers: “Except for some very rare occurrences in the perfect tense, the subjunctive mood is used only in the present and the aorist in New Testament Greek” (p. 105). “In previous study, it has been observed that two things are indicated in Greek tense: time of action and kind of action. Of these two only kind of action remains outside of the indicative mood. . . . The kind of action fmds its expression as linear in the present and punctiliar in the aorist” (p. l07).

• Williams: “The tenses of the subjunctive mood rarely have a temporal significance; it is rather their aspect that is significant, the present being used for continuous or repeated action or state, the aorist for a single act” (p. 100).
• Jackson: “The verb is present tense, middle voice, ‘let her keep on coving on herself”” (p. 3).
“HAVE LONG HAIR” is from the Greek koma, ‘to let the hair grow, have long hair,’ The present tense indicates a continuous process. . . . Again, koma is used in the present tense suggesting ‘If a woman lets her hair keep growing long...” (p. 5).
Crouch: Lexicographers do not delineate the meanings of verbs in all tenses and moods. They present the basic definition of the word and then show how it is used in various contexts. Thayer, Liddell, Gingrich, et al., define komao, “to have or wear long hair.” Some may respond, “The lexicographers only say that the hair must be long; they do not define komao “to continually grow long hair.” True. However, this is because the continuous action is emphasized by the tense and mood of the verb --- it is not inherent in the verb’s basic definition. This is an important point. Many people unwittingly misuse and abuse Greek lexicons because (1) they do not know how to use them properly, or (2) they do not know how to apply a word’s basic definition to a specific context or grammatical construction. The later error is especially true in respect to Greek verbs.

To illustrate the foregoing, some Bible passages would be helpful. Each of the following passages use the present tense, subjunctive mood, and each of them are stressing continuous action: “Just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them”— i.e., “you keep on doing to them” (Luke 6:31); “If we 1ive in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit”—i.e., “let us keep on walking in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:25); “I pray this, that your love may abound yet more and more”—i.e., “that your love may keep on abounding” (Philippians 1:9); “In order that we may live a quiet and peaceable life”—i.e., “that we may keep on living a quiet life” (1 Timothy 2:2); “I counsel you to put eye salve on your eyes in order that you may see”—i.e., “keep on seeing” (Revelation 3:18).

The point is, 1 Corinthians 11:15 is literally saying, “If a woman keep on growing her hair long, it is a glory to her.” She must “keep on” “continually doing this. She may not momentarily stop and get some of it cut off.

But the argument to “counteract” this goes as follows: “If continious growth is part of the definition of komao, then it immediately becomes impossible for a man to obey God --- for his hair is continually growing and he cannot stop it. Even after he dies, his hair will continue to grow for a while.” This argument does not “counteract” the fact that “continuous growth” is reqired for at least two reasons:

• The Holy Spirit used a present tense verb in the subjunctive mood. All the Greek grammars write that the purpose of the present tense in the subjunctive mood is to stress and emphasize continuous action. (See the quotations above on verb tenses.) The objection is saying the text does not mean what it says. For this weighty reason alone, the objection fails to override the plain meaning of the text.
• The objection being made is actually arguing from the standpoint of the perfect tense rather than present tense. Perfect tense means action that occurred in the past that carries abiding results. The argument says that in order to obey God, the man must stop his hair from growing completely --- once for all with abiding results. But the verb is not perfect tense. The verb is present tense. Present tense tells a man not to “continuously allow his hair to keep on growing long.” He obeys this by getting regular haircuts.

To illustrate, suppose a father told his son, “I’m going out of town for two weeks. I want you to just let the grass grow while I’m gone.” But the son resons similar to the objection above. He reasons with himself, “The grass is always growing. It is impossible to keep it from growing. Even if I mow the grass every day, it’s impossible to keep it from growing.” Will the son be obedient if he mows the grass every day? Of course not.

Look at Matthew 13:30. The landowner told his servants, “Let the tares and the wheat continue to grow together.” Suppose the servants reasoned like the objection above, “The wheat and the tares are always growing. It is a physical impossibility to keep them from growing. Even if we mow the field every day, they are still growing.” Will the servants be obeying their master if they attempt to mow the field --- even once? Of course not.

Putting the facts of the case together, we can clearly see that the woman’s hair is to remain uncut:

1. The covering is the hair that grows long (v. 15).
2. A woman can be “not covered” and still not be shorn or shaven (v. 6).
3. This shows four possibilities:
a. Hair that grows long (v. 15)
b. Hair that does not grow long, but is not shorn or shaved either (v. 6)
c. Hair that is shorn (v. 6)
d. Hair that is shaved off (v. 6)

Aaron Risener worded this well when he wrote:
It seems to me we can use this verse to prove the covering of verse 15 is uncut hair without ever grabbing a lexicon. Paul says, “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off but if it is disgracefiul for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head” (1 Corinthians 11:6, NA SB). Paul is speaking of a case where a woman is not covering her head, but she, at this point, is not shorn or shaved either (he says she might as well be, but she wasn’t ... she was merely without a covering). That implies that the woman had something less than the covering, but something more than “shorn or shaven.” Since we know the covering is her hair (v. 15), Paul seems to be describing a situation common, unfortunately, to many of our sisters today: trimmed or shortened hair. She may not be shaven or shorn, but she’s not covered.

The conclusion we draw is the only logical conclusion: “Having long hair” means not to cut the hair at all.

The Nazarite Vow
The Nazarite vow cannot be ignored. “All the days of the vow of his seperation no razor shall come upon his head; until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. Then he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow” (Numbers 6:5). Although the wording in the Septuagint is not identical to 1 Corinthians 11, the subject matter is too closely related to cast the passage aside completely. Both speak about the hair. Both say, “Let the hair grow long.” Notice the following translations of Numbers 6:5:

• NIV— “he must let the hair of his head grow long”
• NASV— “he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long”
• ASV— “he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long”
• Hebrew—English Interlinear: “he shall allow the locks of the hair of his head to grow long”
To “let the hair grow long” is a Bible way of saying, “do not touch the hair with a razor.” Furthermore, the Hebrew word naziyr (translated Nazarite in Numbers 6) is an interesting word. In Leviticus 25:5, the vines were to grow “untended” (naziyr). That is, they were not to be pruned, trimmed, or cut, for every seventh year was to be a sabbatical year for the land. In the same chapter, verse 11 reiterates that the vines were to grow “untended” (naziyr), uncut, because every fiftieth year was a Jubilee and the land rested again. In Judges 13:5, Samson was to be a Nazarite (naziyr) from birth and that meant “no razor was to come upon his head.” In 1 Samuel 1:11, Samuel was to be a Nazarite from birth, and it specifically said, “No razor shall come upon his head.”

Josephus wrote in Greek. When commenting on Numbers 6:5, he used the word komao to accurately describe what the passage was teaching. Robinson’s Lexicon cites this example from Josephus: “Moreover, when any have made a sacred vow, I mean those that are called Nazarites, that suffer thcir hair to grow long (komao)...” (Antiquities, 4.4.4). The point is, komao can be used to describe the Nazarite who does not “touch his hair with a razor” but merely allows it to “keep on growing long” (komao). What, then, are we to conclude when we see the same wording in regard to the Christian woman? Is it not natural to conclude they are to allow their hair to “keep on growing” without cutting their hair?

Again, the Lord told the prophet, “They must not shave their heads or let their hair grow long, but they are to keep the hair of their heads trimmed” (Ezekiel 44:20, NIV). There are three hair lengths here:

(a) shaved hair,
(b) trimmed hair, and
(c) hair that grows long.

The point is plain enough. When God told people in the Old Testament to “let your hair grow,” He meant by that, “Do not touch your hair with a razor.” What, then, are we to conclude when we read the same wording in the New Testament? It seems reasonable to conclude that komao, in 1 Corinthians 11:15, means simply that a Christian woman is to “continue to let her hair grow long,” which is the usual way of saying, “Do not cut your hair.”

Verbs
Komao is a verb. Verbs describe action. God is not so much concerned about something (noun) a woman possesses. He is concerned about what women do. When women “keep on letting their hair grow,” that is something they do. When God uses verbs, He is showing us that what women do is more important than what they possess (nouns). Thus, when a woman makes a confession or is baptized, if she allows her hair to “keep on growing,” it does not matter how much hair (noun) she possesses. God punished Samson for allowing his hair to be cut off (Judges. 16:19); but when he began to grow it again (Judges 16:22), God accepted him. God was more concerned with what Samson was doing (verb) than with what he was possessing (noun).

The English Bible may leave the impression that “long hair” is a woman’s gloiy --- as though length were primary. But in the Greek, the glory is an astion performed by the woman (a verb)—she must do something to receive glory from God --- she must “keep on growing her hair.” Her “hair is given to her for a covering” (v. 15). But she must do something with that hair --- “keep on growing it.

“... it is a glory to her; for...” “For” (hoti) explains why hair is a glory for the woman --- because it has been given to her by God. A “manmade” covering would not be a glory to a woman. Hair is a glory because it was madde and is given by God Himself.

“...her hair...” Note carefully, this did not say “long hair” is the woman’s covering --- as if length were the important factor. Thayer correctly said, “the notion of length being only secondary and suggested” (p. 354) the Holy Spirit wanted to emphasize length as measured by a ruler, He could have used “makra thrix” or “makra kome.” Both of these expressions would properly have been translated “long (adjective) hair (noun)” with emphasis on the length of the hair. But what the Spirit could have said, He did not say. He did not use wording to emphasize length per se (adjectives), but rather words emphasizing action (verbs), and He used present tense verbs to emphasize continuous action.

The question before us is, “What sort of hair is a glory?” The Scriptures tell us the answer very plainly, “The covering is hair that continues to grow long.” This leaves no room for trimming, cutting, burning off, plucking out and/or other ways of removing the hair.

“...is given to her...” “Given” (dedotai) is a perfect, passive, indicative verb, meaning “it has been divinely given and remains given” by God to serve “instead of a covering” (anti peribolaiou). Paul will use various forms of this word indicating something that is “given by God.” The “traditions” which the Corinthians were to keep were “given” by Paul (11:2). The Spirit had “givin” gifts to various people (12:7—8). Jesus will “give” the kingdom back to the Father (15:24). God “gives” a body to each one as He pleases (15:38). God “gives” us victory (15:57). Other expressions are used to indicate the idea of something “given” by God. Paul would “give” instructions concerning the communion (11:17). Paul would “receive” from the Lord what he “delivered” to them (11:23). When we read that “hair is given,” it means that continully growing hair is “required” or “commanded” (cf. 14:37). God required long hair, but He did not command an artificial covering.

“...for...” “For” (anti) in this case is a preposition which means “instead of.” To illustrate the idea of substitution found within this preposition, notice the following passages taken from the Septuagint. In Genesis 22:13, Abraham offers a ram “instead of” (anti) Isaac. He substituted the ram for his son. The ram only was actually sacrificed --- not both the son and the ram. In Genesis 44:33, Judah would stay in Egypt “instead of” (anti) Benjamin. Judah was not suggesting that both he and Benjamin together stay in Egypt, but that he would serve as a substitute for Benjamin and serve in Benjamin’s place. In Numbers 3:12, the Levites were taken “instead of” (anti) the firstborn. They took the place of the firstborn and served around the tabernacle of meeting. The Levites did not serve along with the firstborn, but they were substitutes for the firstborn. “These three sentences umnistakably deal with substitution” (Dana & Mantey, p. 100). The point is, continually growing hair is given to serve the purpose of a covering.

“...a covering.” “Covering” (peribolaion) is defined as “covering, wrap cloak, robe of an article of clothing” (Arndt & Gingrich). This refers to an artificial veil. The woman’s continually growing hair has been given to her (by God) to serve as a covering when praying or prophesying. The woman does not need an artificial veil when praying or prophesying because her hair was given by God to serve “in the place of” (anti) an artificial veil. The chapter never required a Christian woman to wear an artificial veil. All along, it envisioned hair as being a covering. But an action (verb) must be performed upon the hair for it to qualify as a covering that “fully covers” (kata + kalupto) the head. The action is to “let the hair keep on growing long.”

Verse 16
“But if anyone seems to be contentious...” “Contentious” (phiIoneikos) is literally “a lover of contention.” There are some brethren who are fond of contention. This verse tells us what to do with brethren like this. We need to remember this verse.

“...we have no such custom...” “We” refers to the apostolic college. Previously Paul wrote, “For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men” (1 Corinthians 4:9).

Paul is not saying that all of the instructions of this passage should be “tossed to the wind” if someone is going to argue over them. The apostles never hinged their instructions on the likes and dislikes of anyone. To understand the point of verse 16, we need only to recall the custom the apostles taught and the customs they did not have. The custom taught by the apostles was women being covered with uncut hair when praying or prophesying. The custom they did not have was women with cut hair. Hence, “We have no such custom as women cutting their hair. If someone wants to be contentious, just remind them of this fact.” This should remind us of 14:3 8, “If anyone ignces this, ignore them.”

“...nor do the churches of God.” Paul wanted unity among the churches. He wrote “to the church of God which is at Corinth, ... with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.., that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:2, l0) Again, “ For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church” (4:17). What Paul taught in chapter 11, he taught in every church he visited.

The Expositor’s Greek Testament summarized this final verse well: “If after all that the Apostle has advanced.., any one is still minded to debate, he must be put down by authority --- that of Paul himself and his colleagues, supported by universal Christendom” (Findlay, 2:876).
ConclusionMen are taught to show respect for their head of authority by keeping their physical head uncovered. Christian men may not wear hair that is long enough to hang down from their head (v. 4). However, men may wear an artificial covering when praying or prophesying --- for the covering under consideration is the hair only. No artificial veil is ever considered. The Bible clearly says that hair is the covering, not an artificial veil.

Women, on the other hand, must show respect for their head of authoity by having their physical heads “completely covered” with hair that “keeps on growing long.” They may not cut their hair at all. However, they may wear their hair up in a bun --- for the wording of the Greek points to “being covered completely.” The Greek does not require something that hangs down from the head of the woman. The following seven points should be remembered:

1. Women are specifically told to “keep on growing the hair long” (present tense).
2. “Let the hair grow long” is the Bible way of saying “do not touch the hair with a razor.”
3. Cut hair does not “fully cover” the woman (v. 6) (kata + kalupto).
4. Cut hair is a shame to the woman (v. 6).
5. Uncut hair is a sign of subjection (v. 10).
6. Uncut hair is a glory to the woman (v. 15).
7. Uncut hair has been divinely given (and remains thus) to serve the place of an artificial veil.

17 Woodlawn Ave., Hampton, GA 3O228


Please Contact me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com or 253-396-0290 (cell)for comments, questions, further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.

Read more! Read more!