Continued - Final - Part 3
LONG HAIR AND GLORY
Paul returns to his central thrust with a rhetorical question,
asking them to judge the matter for themselves (in the light of
what he has said; 11:13). He then goes on to a final set of
remarks which shift the focus somewhat. He says,
"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it
is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is
her glory? Her long hair is given to her instead of a veil. And
if anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such
custom - nor do the churches of God" (11:14-16).
Many contemporary readers of Paul wonder just how 'nature'
teaches these things. It is likely that Paul is using 'nature'
(physis) here in the same sense that he used it in Romans 1:26;
2:14, 27, etc, where it means God's design for nature rather than
simply the way things happen to be or what society is doing. He
may be thinking of the discussion of the purpose of hair
(according to God's design) which he has just completed, i.e.
'Does not nature, as I have just explained it, teach. . . .' If
he had not mentioned nature, we would understand him simply to be
calling them to notice that long hair was in fact a disgrace to a
man in that time. He was no doubt aware that convention was in
conformity with his point.
We do well, however, to remember his earlier discussion. He has
explained that a man with a woman's hair dishonours his 'head'.
He has also discussed 'glory'. The man points to the station of
God (is his glory); the woman points to the station of the man
(is his glory); here we learn that a woman's hair points to her
station (is her glory). This, of course, stands in line with his
earlier remark that what she has on her head is a sign of her
authority, that her hair marks her as vicegerent of creation. Not
only by social custom, but also by divine design, a woman's hair
marks her high role in the creation of God.
VEILS
The final sentence of verse 15, 'Her long hair is given to her
instead of a veil', has already been mentioned but requires
somewhat further comment. Paul's Corinthian congregation was a
sea of contrasts. Some wished to divorce their wives to avoid
ceremonial defilement through intercourse (7:1-14); others felt
free to use prostitutes (6:12-20) or to marry their father's wife
(5:1-3). Some felt free to enjoy meat at idol-feasts (10:14-22);
others had scruples about the butcher's meat (10:25-30). In the
chapter at hand we have seen that some felt free to discard signs
of marital authority. What might have caused Paul to follow his
words about a woman's hair being her glory with a strong command
that she needs no veil because her hair is given to her instead
of one? The word which is translated as 'veil' is peribolaion. It
means 'a thing which is wrapped or thrown around'. It does not
mean a facial veil or a light head-covering such as hat. It would
be used of a cloak, a shawl or the garment known as a himation, a
long lightweight rectangular shawl which could be draped over the
arms and head of its wearer. Paul is specifically rejecting, the
idea that women must have an additional covering over their hair.
So strong was his feeling about the sufficiency of hair that he
went on to say that if anyone wished to argue about it, neither
he nor the churches of God had any such custom (toiauten
sunetheian). Most translations substitute 'other' for 'such'
because they think that Paul required veils rather than forbade
that they be required. It may be that Paul's remarks have a
broader reference than just verse 15. He may have in view the
custom of uncovering the head by letting the hair down as well as
that of adding to the hair by requiring a shawl as a covering.
His use of the singular noun ('custom' instead of 'customs')
argues against this. I would suggest that Paul's strong closing
remarks are directed to a very conservative group which sought to
impose not only distinctive hair, but also veiling upon the
women. This group may perhaps have been ultra-Jewish, or perhaps
simply over-zealous as were those who supported divorce and
required celibacy. At any rate, Paul denied them their stance.
WHICH WOMEN ARE IN VIEW?
This exposition has thus far avoided dealing specifically with an
important issue: which women did Paul expect to wear long hair? I
have generally illustrated with husbands and wives. This is
appropriate, as the vast majority of the women will have been
wives, married from their early teens. We must, however, consider
other women as well. This is particularly fitting for the
Corinthian congregation, which had some who were single for the
sake of devotion to the Lord. Did Paul expect single women to
have long hair? What about widows?
A careful reading, of the chapter shows that his discussion may
be applied to married persons, but it is difficult to restrict it
to them. This raises another question: exactly who is the 'head'
of the a widow or of a single woman? In tribal life a newly
single woman would generally have reverted to the protection of
her paternal household or married into that of her husband. This
was not the case in urban first-century Greece. From the point of
view of marital authority, single adult women had no male
'heads'. Would their conduct in this matter of veils have
mattered? A recent parallel is helpful. Think back to the period
(say) of the 1890s and consider the impact of a woman joining the
football team, or putting on a man's suit and hat. Her behaviour
would be seen as a blatant rebellion against her sexual identity.
Consider, for instance, the impact of her having her hair cut
like a man's. That too would have been a clear-cut rebellion.
Although we may or may not wish to have women adopt the social
roles of women in the 1890s, it should be clear that actions have
implications beyond one's immediate marital situation. A specific
woman's actions can make a general statement about the role of
her sex.
Although appropriate, this line of thought is not finally
convincing or sufficient. Paul was not speaking about the attire
of women on the street (although he does do so in 1 Tim. 2:9).
His specific discussion related to a situation in which women
were praying and prophesying, to some sort of meeting of the
church. The setting is relevant and to explain its relevance we
must here anticipate material which will receive more careful
discussion later.
We have seen that Paul clearly understood the husband to be
the one appointed to be head of the family. From other passages I
conclude that he saw male headship as appropriate within the
formal structure of the church as well. We shall discuss this at
greater length when we discuss 1 Timothy 2 and 3. If this be
accepted as Paul's view (I know none who challenges this except
by denying the Pauline authorship of 1 Cor. 14:33-36 and of the
pastoral epistles; many, however, feel that Paul's view should
not be applied today), then this helps us to see why Paul's
language is not restricted to marital situations alone. The
women's rejection of the appointed headship role of men was
apparently focused in worship service, or at least in a time
when the group was praying and prophesying (cf. 1 Cor. 14 for
Paul's desire to have careful regulation of other excesses at
such times). It is easy to see how these women and the men who
supported them could feel that, especially at such times of
charismatic expression, sexual differentiation was irrelevant.
However understandable, Paul considered it wrong. If the
leadership of the congregation was divinely placed in the hands
of men, a rejection of sexual differentiation was a rejection of
the divine pattern. I conclude, then, that Paul spoke, in 1
Corinthians 11, to a situation which had several fronts. Headship
in marriage and in the church were at issue. His discussion
reflects primarily upon the situation of a married couple, the
situation of the majority of his readers then (as now), but it
also affects the generic situation of women in worship. In his
answer he was concerned to set out his understanding, to curb the
behaviours resulting from Corinthian misunderstanding of the
present stage in the arrival of the kingdom, and to prevent the
formalists from imposing shawls in addition to long hair.
THE RELEVANCE OF PAUL'S INSTRUCTION TODAY
What is the 'cash value' of Paul's instructions today? An answer
to this question is crucial, but ought not to be given in a
single, easily mis-quotable sentence. Biblical ethics do come to
specific application; a variety of considerations must, however,
enter in.
Even a basic decision about (1) the divine principles (God's com-
mands) must be accompanied by understanding of (2) the history
of redemption (Are we under the Mosaic regulations for the state
of Israel? Or has the kingdom begun? Or is the kingdom fully
realized?),of (3) the social context of an action (Will my action
be perceived as dishonouring to my parents?), and of (4) personal
motives (Am I honest in my expression of love to my parents or
am I seething inside?). Most people take these into account more
or less automatically. Such considerations do not lead to
'relativism', in the sense that there are no standards, but to
precise application of biblical truth. It should, however, be
noted that history, social structure and individual personality
enter in. How do these apply to the question of hair?
Let us begin with the question of principles. 1. The basic
command or principle at issue is the appointive headship of men
in certain situations. Paul argues his case from the creational
relation of Adam and Eve and from a headship hierarchy which
includes God, Christ and believers of both sexes. These
considerations were considered relevant for first-century
believers. Are they to be so today? 2. The church of the
twentieth century stands alongside the church of the first
century in the history of redemption. Both are after the
resurrection and Pentecost, and both await the return of the
Lord. 3. Paul's setting out of the hierarchy which includes
Christ (11:3) gives no hint that it is in any way tied to its
culture alone. ThERE is no reason within, the text itself to set
it aside as 'culture bound'. A effort to do so would have to
import reasons at which the text does not hint. The references to
the creation of Adam and Eve are also as relevant today as they
were then. They have the additional support of the pattern to
which Jesus appealed. As we saw, he considered that the kingdom
which he brought would renew the ability of mankind to obey the
creational patterns for marriage. The question of the,
idiosyncrasies of our particular society does not affect the
relevance of Adam or of Christ either. 4. What of individual
motive? Paul applied his view both to people sympathetic to him
and to persons committed to an opposite course; so motive is not
an issue. We conclude that none of these suggests another
conclusion than that Paul's principle is applicable today.
How is the principle of headship to be applied? Should we ask
women to wear long hair or veils? The answer to this question is
largely dependent on whether Paul saw long hair as a matter of
divine principle, as he did view the headship/submission issue,
or as a cultural expression of the principles involved in
headship and submission. Paul has answered the question of veils
directly: No, her hair is given to her instead of a veil. Veils
are not a requisite (although other factors might lead
individuals to choose to express their relation to their husbands
by wearing a veil).
What of longhair, distinctively styled? The following points to
need be made:
1. Paul appeals to 'nature' as showing that women should have
longer hair and says that it is a woman's glory. If 'nature'
means 'social custom', Paul's comment is cultural and may or may
not be relevant in a given culture, depending on the attitude of
that culture toward men with long hair and women with short. If
he means 'God's design for nature' as explained in his teaching
and reflected in the culture of his day, then longer hair for
women ought not to be seen as culturally relevant. In the former
case, we could look for a parallel social symbol which would mark
a man as man and a woman as woman. The new sign, rather than her
hair, would then be her 'glory'. In the latter case, we should
urge believers to adopt this particular symbol, noting carefully
that relative rather than absolute length is in view and that
styles are not stipulated. Absolute length and styles may vary as
they will from group to group and time to time. Christians will
disagree as to this matter. It is my opinion that a study of
Paul's use of 'nature' strongly favours the latter alternative.
2. The earlier portions of the chapter appeal to the Jewish
background of Paul's congregation (shorn woman) and to their
sense of social embarrassment (If it is shameful... ). This
first-century Jewish background is clearly socially and
culturally relative. The shorn hair remark and the idea of
embarrassment are thus illustrative rather than normative. They
are particularly effective for people with such backgrounds, and
less so for those without. However, the lessened impact of these
points does not affect the principles which Paul sought to
establish.
3. If one decides that Paul was employing hair as a useful
cultural symbol of a relationship rather than commanding that
only that symbol should be used, it becomes crucial to consider
carefully the culture in which one lives. If, in our culture,
certain hair-styles are distinctively male or female, their
gender association should be respected. If certain other signs
are in common use, they too should be respected in order to
maintain the clear distinction between the sexes which both
Testaments call for.
4. If Christians live in a culture which lacks such signs or in
which they are fading, it would be well worth considering the
establishment of (tasteful) distinctive marks. Christians should
not be fearful of being cultural innovators, especially as we are
convinced that God's pattern is that which is right. The
manufacturer's instructions are worth following.
5. Attitude and motivation are important to Christian obedience.
Strong convictions about hair and veils do exist. Christians
holding differing views must explore the Scripture together and
beware both of forcing external conformity without commitment
and of tempting one another to act against conscience. Romans 14
speaks to such an issue, as do 1 Corinthians 8-10.
6. The points which have been made above would still be basically
applicable if one were to hold that the chapter is discussing
veils rather than hair. Although it seems less likely to me, such
a conclusion would not affect the principal points which Paul
made about the basic relation of men and women, nor would it make
more than incidental changes regarding the relevance of the
practice in view.
CONCLUSION
Our examination of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has shown a continuity
between Paul's words to marriage partners about their relation in
the home and about their relation in church. The headship which
we saw in Ephesians 5 stands as the background for 1 Corinthians
11. Paul taught the Corinthians that the appointive headship of
the man applied in worship as well as in the home. The new
freedom of the Christian women during times of worship did not
overthrow, but rather stood alongside a structured marital
relationship and also alongside a pattern of male leadership in
the
church itself. The newness of the kingdom did not do away with
the creational patterns but called for their genuine fulfilment.
Upon examination, we found that the basis of Paul's view of the
headship of men was not in an area which is culturally relative.
His appeal to a Christological hierarchy and to the creational
relation of Adam and Eve are independent of the actual cultural
setting of the Corinthians. He does not, for instance, indicate
that the women's lack of training or the possibility of offending
certain cultural groups influenced his hierarchical teaching. His
specific application of the hierarchy involved the women and men
of his congregation in practical ways. The two were to retain
their appointed roles and the symbols thereof. This, in my
understanding, directed to the women who had begun to wear their
hair in the manner of the men.
Paul understood this rejection of their relation to men as
rejection of a divine structuring of relations. Its consequence
was not the pride of equality but the shame of rejection of
divine ordinance. A woman's hair, he directed, should continue to
be a sign of her place within the creational hierarchy of God,
Christ, man, woman (and then angels and the rest of creation). In
addition, he directed that her hair is a sufficient sign; no
shawls are needed.
................
END
|
