NO MORE EXCUSES! A SYSTEMATIC REFUTATION OF THE CREEDS THAT DISCOURAGE THE COVERING OF WOMEN TAUGHT IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 *** BY: A. A. BIELER

Introduction “But they all with one accord began to •This study started out as a short make excuses…” assignment for a hermeneutics class: make (LUKE 14:18) sense out of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. But, as I started to apply the hermeneutic principles How can a group of men who believe I had learned in the class, I began to deduce different things each come to the same that this was a commandment that conclusion? Justifications are the key. What somehow wasn’t being taught in the Lord’s is a justification? Webster defines it as “the church. But, could a lowly novice be right act of defending or explaining or making and a thousand churches be wrong? excuses for by reasoning.” What is an I immediately started quizzing gospel excuse? Again the dictionary tells us that an preachers, investigating why they didn’t excuse is “a defense of some behavior.” teach headcovering for women. Their When men and women who study the responses and casual remarks were Bible find this passage, they naturally begin shocking: no two men gave me the same to wonder why it isn’t being obeyed. Those reasoning, and some stated beliefs that who actually care what the Bible teaches strongly contradicted the others! One begin to seek out men to explain these preacher claimed that covering was a passages and to “defend or explain” why cultural practice of the first-century and is covering isn’t being done. What do they find no longer binding, while another claimed when they ask these priests, pastors, and that headcovering is indeed binding, but ministers why it isn’t being obeyed? One of that the covering is long hair! Even worse, I literally dozens of various complementary found some preachers teaching these and contradicting responses. This Baptist contradictory doctrines at the same time! disagrees with that Lutheran. This Catholic (Several of these men have since claimed disagrees with that Mormon. This that I have misrepresented them, Presbyterian disagrees with that apparently because you are being Pentecostal. This gospel preacher disagrees “presumptuous” if you believe a preacher with that gospel preacher. Yet they all means what he says, or if you believe what somehow agree to not teach women to his relatives tell you. My advice to you is to cover their heads. get your preacher to commit his beliefs In the parable of the Wedding Feast, the about this topic to paper, if he will.) master gave one simple order: “Come, for The only common thread I found was that all things are now ready.” The men so each preacher offered a different reason offered didn’t want to come! Instead, they why this commandment wasn’t relevant for made “a defense.” One man used oxen as the church. Only one commentary I found his defense, another used land, another a had the courage to admit the evidences new wife. But they were all defending the supplied in other commentaries were same unlawful behavior. The lame excuses inadequate. If you search out the various satisfied those men, but they enraged the commentaries and sermon outline books for master. yourself, you will see the same things. Jesus combated uncritical “common NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 knowledge” with the truth in Matthew 5 & 6, The “Purposes & Substitutes” Problem when he challenged the doctrines of the • It is true that the washing of feet and the Jews who had “heard it said.” The veiling of women were both ancient justifications of the false-teachers excused customs, and it is true that Christians rarely such sins as dishonoring parents, abuse of wash another’s feet today. It has, however, the poor, using the temple as a money- been persuasively argued that we continue making business, swearing false oaths, and to keep the spirit of the example. worse. In each case, the Law of Moses gave Foot-washing was a function of an ordinance for the Hebrews to follow, and hospitality; bare feet get filthy from the these men found a way to “defend or road. The purpose for cleaning dirty feet explain” why they did not follow those laws was, for a widow, part of several activities as they were given. The Scribes and that show a history of hospitality to others. Pharisees preached a self-serving doctrine This is also indicated by her helping the sick, that could not bear the weight of God’s lodging strangers, and other good works (1 truth, but relied solely upon their position as Tim 5:10). Since most nations now have religious leaders and intimidation to justify access to socks and shoes, feet rarely get their disobedience. that filthy from travel, and washing clean As will be shown in the following study, feet is simply pointless. But there are still these “defenses and explanations” are other practical ways to be hospitable today undermined by one inescapable flaw: they that are just as humbling and useful (like cannot be taught from the Bible. This washing dirty socks), and true Christian apparently cannot be stressed enough. To widows will perform these acts. It should hold a positive position on headcovering, also be said that there is no good reason for one needs only open the Bible and read the any Christian today to refuse washing feet, passage aloud. The Spirit gave us all the especially if they need cleaning (in fact, this timeless and sacred reasons we’ll ever need author personally saw to the blistered feet of to understand this ordinance. Only for the another at the time of this writing). The only men and women who do not wish to cover reason that could be offered for refusing the do these plain passages of the Bible become act is “pride,” an unsatisfactory response at “difficult.” Only by invoking the failures of best (Proverbs 13:10). human wisdom (itching-ears, poor If we wish to compare headcovering to commentaries, uninspired scraps of ancient foot-washing, we must now ask: “What is literature, proof-text, the liberal the purpose of covering or uncovering the hermeneutics of culture-vs-Christ, word-of- head?” According to Scripture, a man must mouth doctrines) do these creeds of not have something on his head when he disobedience find any support in the prays or prophesies because men are the churches. “image and glory of God” (1 Corinthians 11:7) and that every man “dishonors Christ” if he covers his head when he prays or 1. “I heard the veiling of women was prophesies (1 Corinthians 11:4). Likewise, it just an ancient custom we no longer is written that a woman should be covered keep, like ‘foot-washing.’” because women are instead the “glory of man” and that she would dishonor her man Summary: Those who offer up this excuse (husband, father, guardian, etc.) to go are attempting to equate headcovering with the ancient custom of washing a uncovered in prayer or prophesy (1 traveler’s feet (John 12:3), which is no Corinthians 11:5). So Paul has revealed that longer widely observed. the purpose of a man keeping his head 2 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 uncovered is to reveal God’s image and Egyptians.b Even the officiating minister is a glory, and thus honor Christ before His continuation of a traditional “priestly” role head, God the Father. The reason a woman the Catholics acquired from the heathens.c covers her head is to cover man’s glory It should go without saying that there before God, and thus honor her authority. is absolutely no New Testament This begs another important question: commandment (explicit or implied), nor a “What modern custom can replace the act of single practical reason, to observe any of uncovering or covering the head while these archaic traditions, some of which simultaneously keeping the purpose of predate the Law of Moses. covering? What custom can replace the It is true that in areas where the Scripture exposure of God’s image and glory (a man’s is silent on personal behavior, we are free to head) to honor Christ and the concealment exercise customs that do not contradict the of man’s glory (a woman’s head)?” The law of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:23), but answer is “none.” Logic concludes that, whereas the Scripture is silent on these unlike with the case of foot-washing, there is traditions, it is not silent on the role of no satisfactory substitute for women headcovering. So Christians are using the covering, nor for men taking covers off, nor age of headcovering to disregard the a practical reason to find one. Once again, commandments, while maintaining other the only real reason that could be offered is aged traditions that have no place in the “pride.” Bible. To associate Christ’s religion with antiquated seating or primitive marriage traditions, while at the same time stripping The “Everything is Ancient” Problem religious significance from an “old” God • As is seen in the first flaw, it isn’t the given ordinance is just plain hypocrisy. extreme oldness of foot-washing that Even more significant to this argument discourages it, but the practicality. The are the reasons Paul gives us for a woman custom of headcovering may be ancient, but being covered: there are plenty of ancient customs churches still keep, and worse, there is no • Men with Covered Heads Dishonor Biblical precedence for many of them. Christ (1 Corinthians 11:4; John 5:22- One relic kept in the churches today is the 23): May men decide how to honor installment of pews in buildings, the pew Christ? being invented in the 14th century and • Men are the Image and Glory of God popularized in the 15th.a Even though far (1 Corinthians 11:7; Gen 1:26): Are more comfortable, economical, and practical men no longer the image and glory of group seating has developed over the past God? 600 years, and despite the lack of Scriptural • Women Are Glory to Men; Women support, the tradition of pews continues to Cover to Honor Their Heads (1 be consciously associated with worship well Corinthians 11:5,7; Eph 5:22-25): Are into the 21st century. Likewise, our churches women no longer a glory to men? Do frequently celebrate weddings between women no longer need to be concerned young Christians. But the special dress, the with honoring men? bridesmaids, the rings, the flowers, the • The Shame of Baldness Should Be flower girls and ring bearers, the cake, the Felt When Uncovered (1 Corinthians candles, and the vows are all ancient 11:6; Isa 3:24): Are women no longer traditions of the Hebrews, Pagan Greeks, ashamed of being bald? Babylonians, Arabs, Romans, and • Woman was created for man and 3 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

should show the angels a symbol of but behavior associated with the way men authority (1 Corinthians 11:9-10; 1 and women come before the Father in Peter 1:12): Are angels no longer the worship. Hospitality is apples and acts of servants of God? worship are oranges—they cannot be • A Woman’s Hair is a Glory for Herself, equated. This is very significant. Not God (1 Corinthians 11:15a; Song Let us imagine that a teacher came into 7:5): Is a woman’s hair no longer a your congregation and said, glory for her? • Creation Teaches that Women Should Jesus only used grape juice and Be Covered (1 Corinthians 11:15b; unleavened bread because of the Rom 1:20-21): Do we no longer look Passover traditions of the Jews; it’s into creation to find God’s handiwork? simply all He had around at the time. It • Everyone With Paul and Every is more important to have the ‘cup’ Faithful Church Rejected the Custom of with some ‘bread.’ Therefore, when Uncovered Women (1 Corinthians observing the modern Lord’s Supper, 11:13,16; Eph 4:4-6): Is the re- we can safely replace the outdated creation of first-century churches no grape juice with a culturally-acceptable longer our goal? coffee drink, and replace the outdated unleavened bread with the inexpensive Contrary to the idea that each of these white bread of our culture. reasons for covering are conditional to a particular time, each reason given by the Then he boldly states, Spirit of God is truly timeless. ______Let’s face it, people think we are weird a. The History of Pews (Cambridge, 1841) b. Carry Me Over the Threshold: A Christian Guide to Wedding because we sing hymns. The singing of Traditions; Seleshanko (Zondervan, 2006) c. Ritual in Early Modern Europe; Muir (Cambridge, 1997) hymns is an ancient custom that developed before mankind invented the far more popular compact discs The “Apples & Oranges” Problem and iPods. So in order to keep up with • In addition to the previous flaws, there is the customs of the 21st century, we a still more important “apples and oranges” will now end the practice of issue with this excuse. When discussing the congregational singing and instead Biblical significance of the washing of feet, observe the modern custom of careful study will show that it is a function of listening to recorded music. fellowship and a matter of showing hospitality. But can the same be said of And to top it off, headcovering? In 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, Paul reveals to When Paul told those Christians that us when the head is to be uncovered or they should be benevolent, they were covered; while a man or woman prays or living in a society that had no charities prophesies. Neither praying nor proclaiming or food stamps. Christians were the the inspired word of God can be considered only people who cared for the poor and matters of hospitality, but as any serious sick. But we now live in a world where study will reveal, these are indeed acts of governments do care, and are much worship (See: Introducing the church of better equipped to aid the poor and the Christ; Star Publishing, 2004). We are no sick. That frees us from the burden of longer speaking of ordinary social customs, giving. 4 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

One can only imagine the outcry from the The “Which Witch” Problem brethren at the declaration of such heretical • It is no stretch of the imagination to doctrines, yet here we have the identical believe that Paul and the other apostles teaching! Because covering is an “ancient” would be opposed to Pagan worship, making custom it is fine to disregard the Scriptures, this a convincing argument for many. But despite the rules of covering (for males and which system of heathenism was Paul females) being a requirement of an act of supposed to be contradicting? It is a gross worship in the exact same way as the oversimplification to assume that there was “ancient” elements are associated to the a single set of “Pagan” worship customs in Table (Matt 26:26-28), as the “ancient” the first-century. When someone states that participation of the congregation is to the Paul was opposing “Pagans,” they are in fact nature of worshipful singing (Eph 5:19; Col throwing a net over literally hundreds of 3:16), and as “ancient” benevolence is to cults and superstitions, from an equally pure religion (James 1:27). Where is the varied number of nations. outcry? Our brethren don’t seem to believe Ancient Corinth was a Greek city, ravaged praying properly is a big deal. in 146 B.C. by Rome, and rebuilt in 46 B.C. One who wishes to discard nearly as a Roman colony. Under Roman rule, anything found in Scripture on the basis of Corinth became a major center of trade by “antiquity” could do so just as easily as Paul’s time, having one harbor to Asia and many have done with 1 Corinthians 11. another to Italy. Like all cities specializing in Sadly, our brethren are compelled to discard international commerce, it became a something so basic to the life of a Christian. melting pot of cultures, akin to modern-day What could be more important than Rotterdam or New York City.a To clai m th ere presenting ourselves before God in prayer was a single style of worship favored by the exactly how he tells us to? We are supposed heathens ignores not only the superstitions to be recreating the first-century church. of the various tribes that made Corinth their What possible thing could a man scrounge home, but also the variety of worship styles out of the history books to justify modifying within the official Greco-Roman cults the worship of our Lord as shown to us in themselves. One may as well claim there is the Bible? Comparing ancient acts of only one type of worship in modern-day San worship with ancient customs of hospitality Diego. (or fellowship, or greetings, etc.) is clearly a It is true that some cults once uncovered faulty method for determining religious their female priestesses and mystics, but commandment. there were also many cults that required coverings for women during times of worship. The virgin priestesses of Vesta 2. “I was told Paul was only trying to (“Vestal virgins”) wore a square piece of establish worship customs directly cloth that covered their heads, or a opposed to contemporary Pagan headband. Devotees of Demeter wore a gray worship customs.” woolen covering upon their heads, Athena’s Amazon worshippers wore helmets, and the Summary: This excuse is an attempt to keepers of Saturn’s temple wore cloaks of associate the teaching of headcovering as Galatian scarlet over their heads.b Added to opposition to the uncovered women of this was the religious complexity of first-century Pagans, thereby claiming immigrant Egyptians, Barbarian slaves, that since first-century Pagan worship has Asians, Africans, Jews, Spartans, largely ended, the need for covering has Samaritans, Armenians, and other ethnic ended. 5 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 groups, plus the Gnostic (and similar) their girls into public places unveiled, mystery religions, not to mention the but their married women veiled, he assorted teachings of popular philosophers.c said, “Because the girls have to find The strongest blow to this excuse is that husbands, and the married women Paul never mentions any Pagans at all! So, have to keep to those who have them!” given the complexity of first-century religion in Corinth, and the first-century world in Clever readers will have already noticed that general, this excuse has been rendered Plutarch, instead of making a statement moot. about headcovering being a fact, is inquiring ______about the customs himself. He was a. The Urban Development of Ancient Corinth; Schroeder (University of Michigan, 1965) conjecturing that perhaps they were doing b. Apologetic and Practical Treatises, Vol. 1; Tertullian/Dodgson something, but he was as unsure as we are! (Parker, 1842) c. From Religion to Philosophy: A Study in the Origins of Western Furthermore, these quotes were penned by Speculation; Cornford (Courier Dover, 2004) a Pagan priest around A.D. 110, fifty years after the Corinthian epistle in question. So this argument is based on a quote taken out 3. “I thought Paul was only of time and out of context. Sounds silly now, requiring the rebellious Corinthian doesn’t it? What makes Plutarch’s quotes women to keep a Corinthian custom, even more useless to the issue (if possible) not anyone else.” is the fact that he is making inquiries into second-century Roman funeral customs and Summary: Those who offer up this excuse female Spartan fashions, not the daily believe that uncovered women were ignoring a cultural taboo of the clothing customs of first-century Corinthian Corinthians, thus Paul was only chastising women. women who were challenging social The so-called scholars who rely on norms, not revealing an ordinance for the Plutarch’s quote about Roman and Spartan modern church. women in the Moralia also conveniently ignore another tidbit about the Romans in The “Poor Scholarship” Problem the “Moralia” and another of the Spartans • The only evidence that ancient women of from his “The Comparison of Numa with Corinth were required to be covered in Lycurgus”: public anyone typically bothers to provide is taken from just two passages by Plutarch. For in fact the skirts of the frock worn by unmarried girls were not sewn From his work “Moralia, The Roman together at the lower part, but used to Questions 14,” Plutarch asks the reader: fly back and show the whole thigh bare Why do sons cover their heads when as they walked. The thing is most they escort their parents to the grave, distinctly given by Sophocles: “She, while daughters go with uncovered also, the young maid, Whose frock, no heads and hair unbound?… Or is it that robe yet o’er it laid, Folding back, the unusual is proper in mourning, and leaves her bare thigh free, Hermione.” it is more usual for women to go forth And so their women, it is said, were in public with their heads covered and bold and masculine, overbearing to men with their heads uncovered? their husbands in the first place, absolute mistresses in their houses, giving their opinions about public In his “Sayings of Spartans” he pens: matters freely, and speaking openly When someone inquired why they took even on the most important subjects.

6 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

But formerly women were not the worship of chthonic [underworld] allowed to cover the head at all… deities (in the form of a garment drawn the second [to divorce his wife] was over the head). But it is quite wrong Sulpicius Gallus, because he saw his that Greek women were under wife pull her cloak over her head. some kind of compulsion to wear a veil in public.b Women were not formerly allowed to cover the head at all! Headcovering was so It is hard to see how being uncovered in offensive that a man divorced his wife! How worship would be shameful in the cultural amazing that this tidbit never makes it into context, Mr. Hays, but not in the religious the commentaries! And as for the Spartan context. The veil was a matter of fashion for women, do they sound like any women you the Greeks, akin to the modern necktie or know? Despite the myths perpetuated by scarf. This differs greatly from the observant feminists of headcovering being a “universal Jews and other Oriental peoples who also symbol of ancient modesty and male made their home in Corinth and usually oppression,” of women being practically covered their women as a matter of slaves, and (as was shown by the flaws of modesty (see: Babylonian Talmud; the “The ‘Which Witch’ Problem”) the truth is Mishnah; Dio Chrysostom’s Orationes). The that Corinth was a social melting pot with a difference of customs shows that there was great many cultural ideas of propriety and no grand compulsory headcovering for fashion. The Jew, the Greek, the Roman, the women, especially in Ancient Greece. So in Barbarian, and every other man in Corinth truth, no one can make a reliable statement would each have his own cultural and about the supposed cultural taboos of personal biases regarding the dress and Corinth. Thanks to our study of Greco- behavior of women. Just as the wide Roman cults, evidence indicates that first- religious gaps of Corinth makes blanket century Roman men and women probably statements about heathenism false, the approved the fashion of covered heads for wide ethnic gaps of Corinth makes blanket both sexes in religious or temporal contexts. statements about culture or the treatment Conversely, Greek men and women probably of women plainly false. The Greeks of had no problem with uncovered heads in Corinth, for instance, had no desire for any context, and Oriental men may have constant veiling: been covered in temporal and religious contexts, while Oriental women probably It was not the normal custom for covered their heads anytime they went women in Greek and Roman outside of the home. Anyone may guess how cultures to be veiled; thus, it is hard Barbarian tribes could have dressed their to see how their being unveiled in females! Since there is no true literary worship could be regarded as evidence for Corinth’s compulsory covering controversial or shameful.a of women, it is better to trust in the Bible It used to be asserted by theologians over the scant, uninspired quips of dead that Paul was simply endorsing the Pagan priests. unwritten law of hellenic and hellenistic ______a. Interpretation: First Corinthians; Hays (Westminster, 1997) feeling for what was proper. But this b. Theological Dictionary “KATAKALUPTO”; Oepke (Kittel, 1964) view is untenable. To be sure, the veil was not unknown in Greece. It was worn partly as adornment and partly The “Which Culture is Best” Problem on such special occasions as match- • Now that we have actually investigated the making and marriage, mourning, and 7 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 culture of Ancient Corinth and discovered a the only times covering or uncovering multitude of differences by race, it is no becomes a requirement? Why was the surprise that we find Paul dealing with the uncovering of men mentioned if a culture of issue of headcoverings for men and women. covered women was at issue? The answer is Members of each culture in the church would simple. Because, despite the custom of the be unsure of when to cover and when not to Semitics, a woman could go without cover in their new religion. This is where the covering when not praying or telling forth Scripture really shines, as opposed to the God’s inspired word, thus having her hair “wisdom” of men. exposed at other times, and a Semitic man As we look at the probable cultural make- would need to remove his usual covering up of the Corinthian church, we find men when doing the same. Despite the customs with totally different ideas of modesty and of Romans, men should no longer cover fashion. The Romans covered male and their heads with a toga, yet women would female alike, or not, as styles ebbed and need to be covered. Despite the flowed. The Greeks were more interested in unconcerned attitude of Greeks toward intellectual and physical improvement, clothing, men and women must now be giving very little thought to dress. The conscious of modesty and what covers their Semitic tribes, including Hebrews, had a head when they pray. In all of recorded long-standing tradition of admiring fine history, including the Old Testament, not clothes and covering women from head to one culture can be shown to have both toe, even covering their faces so much as to required men to be uncovered and women expose only one eye. One may only to be covered only when praying or speaking speculate upon the dress of Barbarian on behalf of deity. Paul is not endorsing any women, but archaeology shows that one nation’s practice at all, but is revealing Germanian, Celtic, and Scythian women a single custom for a nation that supplants probably wore the same clothing as men, them all: Christ’s Kingdom. and that none but Sarmatae women wore ______a a. The Dictionary of Art; Turner (Grove, 1996); COWA Surveys and dresses up to the Middle Ages. Slaves of Bibliographies (University of Michigan, 2006) any race could only wear whatever their masters (or Christian brothers) would supply. Why is this significant? Because the The “Archeological” Problem Bible is very specific about when the • Besides the lack of literary evidence in headcovering is to be removed or worn— compulsory covering of women, there is the when praying and prophesying (1 fact that not one bit of archeological Corinthians 11:14-15). evidence from Corinth, Greece, or Rome This just makes more sense when we look supports the doctrine that first-century at 1 Timothy 2:9 & 1 Peter 3:2 and the rules women were covered as a rule either— no of modest hair-dressing. Why would a urns, nor busts, nor mosaics, nor statues, woman’s coiffure be an issue if she was nor frescos. Yes, there are artworks of compelled to wear a veil all the time? covered women, but there are just as many Whatever she may have done to her hair (or more) that show women uncovered. would go unseen, since that customary veil Those who would make of a case that the would cover it up. Furthermore, why would women of Corinth always went covered she bother working so hard on fancy braids must explain all this uncovered artwork! The when a veil would hide her glorious locks? If reason for all this uncovered art is clear Paul was so concerned with the taboos of when one makes even a brief study of Corinth, why were preaching and praying Rome’s “Julio-Claudian” and “Flavian” 8 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 dynasties. custom where women covered, but was The Julio-Claudian dynasty is a reckoning clearly opposed to a custom that would of the Roman Empire from 27 B.C. to A.D. permit many women to go uncovered in 68 (precisely when the church of Christ was prayer and prophesy. being established), named for the ______a a. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Roman Empire; Nelson (Alpha descendants of Caesar Augustus. It is Books, 2001) during this period that we see an explosion of artwork depicting important Roman women and “goddesses.” In her book The “Liberal Hermeneutics” Problem “Imperial Women: A Study in Public Images, • As was already discussed in the flaws of 40 B.C.-A.D. 68,” S. E. Wood catalogs an the “Pagan Worship excuse,” we have with impressive number of images and quotes this excuse another case of adding to the about the tastes of these trend-setters. As Bible. What makes this flaw particularly would not surprise any Hollywood heinous requires an understanding of hairdresser, the writings, the statues, the Biblical hermeneutics, a science of literary urns, the paintings, even the coinage from interpretation, and a science too few put to the Julio-Claudian mints, each show these use. women proudly displaying bare heads. This When logically studying Scripture, one of was, of course, because the women wanted the fundamental rules is that, if the Bible is to display their marvelously intricate braids indeed the inspired truth of God, it must and curls, woven with jewels and pearls. harmonize with itself.a This means if an This display of vanity is proof that at least interpretation of a particular passage is true, the wealthy female citizens in first-century then passages dealing with the same Roman cities (including Corinth) dictated subject matter must agree with that what went upon their own heads, not men. interpretation. So in order to test the idea This can also be confirmed by Scripture. that Paul was only concerned with the Paul tells the Christian women of Ephesus (a culture of Corinth, the first thing we must do Roman city) to “…adorn themselves in is find another passage that deals with the modest apparel, with propriety and same subject as 1 Corinthians 11. moderation, not with braided hair or gold 1 Corinthians 14 should do well. In verses or pearls or costly clothing…” (1 Timothy 34 & 35, Paul tells us to “Let your women 2:9), and Peter similarly says to Christian keep silent in the churches, for they are not wives “Do not adorn yourselves permitted to speak…” and that, “…it is outwardly by braiding your hair, and by shameful for women to speak in church.” wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing…” Here is a passage that deals with Corinthian (1 Peter 3:2). It was a choice a true women, how they are to behave in worship, Christian woman made correctly, and a male/female relationships, the order of choice Gentile women made poorly, but it creation, shameful behavior, and an ancient was (and is) the woman’s choice culture. Now let’s see if the same cultural nonetheless. The vain self-adornment by argument against headcovering can be Gentile women condemned by Paul and applied to women speaking in the church: Peter continued into the Flavian dynasty, and well into Constantine’s rule. These In the Greek culture, women were women were walking around with their discouraged from saying anything in heads uncovered to display braided and public, and they were certainly not styled hair. Thus Paul, contrary to today’s allowed to confront or question men popular opinion, wasn’t an advocate of a publicly… In addition, women of that day did not receive formal religious 9 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

education as did the men… In this rather than something which is instance, Paul was asking the permanently binding on all Corinthian women not to flaunt their Christians.e Christian freedom during worship. The purpose of Paul’s writing was to As for the passages now found in the promote unity, not to teach about the New Testament epistles of Paul, role of women in the church.b concerning women's non-equality with men and duty of subjection, there is In groups, I have jokingly been no room to doubt that they are reminded that “women are to be bare-faced forgeries, interpolated silent” but have seldom been assured by unscrupulous bishops, during the that women and men are equal. In this early period in which a combined and enlightened age, some people still determined effort was made to reduce don’t believe that women and men women to silent submission, not only in are equal, and many feel a woman the Church, but also in the home and in has no business speaking in church.c the State. A most laudably intended attempt to excuse Paul for the Paul may have wanted to “gradual inexcusable passages attributed to into” the equality that he talked about his authorship has been made by a in Galatians. Remember that the clergyman, who, accepting them women were still the property of their as genuine Pauline utterances, husbands, under Roman law. Paul was endeavors to show that they were very sensitive to the culture in which meant to apply only to Greek he and the early Corinthians lived. female converts, natives of Living the Christian life, then even Corinth, and that the command to more than now, involved walking a cover the head and to keep silent tightrope between the freedom that in public was warranted, both they had in Christ and the constraints because veiling the head and face of their society. Also, Paul possibly was a Grecian custom, and may not have been ready, personally, because the women of Corinth for the social revolution that the full were of notoriously bad character.f practice of freedom in Christ would have brought.d “How,” asked a conference participant, “do you deal with the fact that women The early Christians chose not to dilute are told to be silent in First Corinthians the gospel message, but attempted to fourteen?” …In responding to this demonstrate the social acceptability of question, I reminded the audience of Christianity. Inevitably, this meant the eleventh chapter of that same bringing Christian attitudes toward letter where the apostle Paul gives women more into line with those which instructions on hair… Paul argues prevailed in the wider community. By that women should not pray with the end of the fourth century such uncovered heads, a rule that none social presures [sic] seem to have led of the conference participants to the neglect, or perhaps even were following. My intent in this suppression, of the ministerial roles of response was to show the women within the church. But this is to difficulties of lifting rules out of the be regarded as a response to a set of Bible and applying them directly to specific historical circumstances contemporary life. There are many encountered during this early period rules and laws in the Scripture that in the development of the church, are so bound to the customs and 10 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

the culture of the time that they custom of Corinth? First Corinthians Eleven are inapplicable today…g indeed “makes a fundamental argument for the headship of man over the woman,” but Women preachers, prayer leaders, teachers, why? Just as the “fundamental argument for and song leaders can be found usurping the headship of man over the woman” made men in nearly every Protestant in 1 Timothy 2 is the reason why women denomination, including so-called churches must not have authority over men, male of Christ. Furthermore, governments, headship and the order of creation are the schools, companies, and families are now exact same reason for women being covered commonly overseen by women alone. You in prayer and prophesy: must now acknowledge that it is no longer a shame for a woman to rule or speak publicly “For man is not from woman, but to the churches of Western society, but is woman from man. Nor was man instead considered a sign of enlightenment. created for the woman, but woman Worldly women flock to preachers who can for the man. For this reason the find ways to modify unpopular Scripture in woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head…” their favor. Therefore, if it is true that the (1 Corinthians 11:8-10) changes in popular culture override Scriptural arguments not bound to culture, The reason women exist is because God then women may indeed preach and pray made them for men. Let that soak in a little. aloud in churches today. But if women are Feminists HATE the very idea, and therefore never to be preachers to men, based on the HATE following the Bible. But just as the reasons given in Scripture, then they must remainder of Scripture denies a liberal also be covered in prayer and prophesy. interpretation of Chapter Fourteen by Whatever is true for one is true for the other. appealing to the immutable creation (1 Was Paul only concerned with a temporary Timothy 2:11-15), it also denies a liberal cultural rebellion in Chapter Eleven? Then interpretation of Chapter Eleven by applying that was his concern in Chapter Fourteen! the same rule. Headcovering is not subject Was Chapter Fourteen meant to be binding to culture, it is subject to the fact that for all time? Then so too was Chapter women were created for men. A fact that Eleven: has not changed. A fact that will never The first reason given for the change, no matter how hated it is. If a restrictions on women is the order of Christian is applying the arguments of creation, “For Adam was formed first, creation only to Chapter Fourteen, but not to then Eve” ([1 Timothy] 2:13, NKJV). Eleven, he is practicing the hypocrisy of a This certainly cannot be said to “double-minded, double-tongued man” (1 deal with just a local, temporary Timothy 3:8, James 1:6). cultural situation or with a grumpy ______a. Hermeneutics, a Text Book; Dungan (Gospel Light, 1888) old man. This goes all the way back b. Life Application Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Corinthians; Barton, to the sixth day of creation and Osborne & Veerman (Tyndale House, 1999) c. A New Testament View of Women; Stephens (Authors Book Nook, makes a fundamental argument for 1980) the headship of man over the d. If My People Who Are Called Baptists…: A Layman’s Challenge; Dodd (Self-Published, 1996) woman – “Adam was formed first, e. An Introduction to Christianity; MacGrath (Blackwell, 1997) then Eve” (cf. I Corinthians 11:8-9)h f. The Woman's Bible; Stanton (Revising Committee, 1898) g. Reformed and Feminist: A Challenge to the Church; Van Wijk-Bos (Westminster John Knox, 1991) h. The Role of Women in the Lord’s Church; Ted Clarke (Fulton Why did Paul refer to the creation order in 1 County Gospel News, Nov 1997) Corinthians 11:8-9 if this is simply a cultural

11 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

The “Every Church” Problem That’s ruinous to the “Culture of Corinth” • Once again, we find the Scriptures have excuse, but what if the opposite is true? If provided a simple yet powerful way to every single faithful Christian and church eliminate this false doctrine in one little DID have a custom of covering their women, verse. After asking if it is a proper activity then Paul was telling the contentious that for women to pray uncovered, he states: regardless of whatever culture Christians “and if anyone seems to be contentious, we may be found in, a true Christian church is have no such custom, nor do the churches always expected to keep women covered in of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:16). Although prayer and prophesy. This also destroys the some will argue this verse means that idea that Paul was limiting his remarks to headcovering wasn’t the custom, and others Corinth alone, since it is a custom that all say it shows it was once a universal custom, faithful churches in every sort of culture those arguments are immaterial to this flaw, (including the vain, uncovered Roman, so the meaning of that verse will be dealt Greek, and Egyptian cultures) were keeping, with in another section. Of more importance as taught by Paul’s statement. Either way, to us is what this verse implies. It is a whatever the culture of Corinth may have declaration that everyone Paul associates been, it clearly meant nothing compared to with and every faithful church all agree on the universal custom of the church of Christ. one thing; either they all kept the custom of covering, or none of them did. There is no middle ground, and that is the significant 4. “I was told that Corinthian point. prostitutes went uncovered, so Paul Why is this significant? If every single was telling Corinthian women not to faithful Christian and church DID NOT have look like prostitutes.” a custom of covering their women, then no faithful Christian in the world was keeping Summary: Those who offer up this excuse the custom of headcovering at all. This believe that, unlike proper ladies, only would by necessity include churches among prostitutes went uncovered in the first- nations we know for a fact required women century. Thus Paul was only chastising to always be covered, nations such as women who were dressing like Corinthian Tarsus, Jerusalem, Armenia, Persia, etc. So prostitutes, not revealing an ordinance for the modern church. if we believe that no church anywhere covered their women (even ones located in The “More Poor Scholarship” Problem societies that definitely covered women), it • Probably the most common rationalization was therefore fine for those Christian offered up by the brethren and the women to ignore their cultures. But here denominationalist alike, this excuse is the was Paul, telling the women in Corinth not to ideological twin of the previous excuse of rebel against culture and instead be the “Culture of Corinth” that has been well covered. That is a glaring contradiction! refuted, and has many of the same flaws. Either Paul wants Christian women in Case in point, just as there is a dearth of Corinth to keep the Corinthian culture and literary evidence to support the claim of be the only church that breaks the Christian compulsory veiling of women in Corinth, custom, or Paul wants them to be like every also severely lacking is any evidence for other church and flaunt the supposed unveiled women being considered headcovering culture of Corinth. There is Corinthian prostitutes. only one church, or there are culture- For decades, the “logic” of preachers and defined denominations. Which is it? teachers has been that (1) the temple of 12 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

Aphrodite in Corinth had “a thousand centuries before it was even conquered by temple-courtesans” as slaves,a (2) Pagan Rome. This history was based on word-of- cults required priestesses to worship with mouth, since no one from that time still their heads uncovered, (3) prostitutes in lived, nor does he quote any documents Corinthian cults must also have been himself. Strabo also states that the priestesses, so (4) decent “non-harlot” contemporary temple of Aphrodite of his day Christian women always wore a veil to be was small and relatively poor, not a palace opposite of them. These teachers, asserting full of courtesans, which is also confirmed by that prostitution was a common practice in archaeology.c Did the temples employ the rites connected with Aphrodite (also prostitutes? Certainly, but certainly as a Artemis), particularly at Ephesus and means to provide cultists with wealth or Corinth, have used these prostitutes as pleasure-- there is no evidence that they proof Paul was more concerned with women served as priestesses. coming out of such immoral cults bringing Along with the common myth of Paul’s their immoral cultic ways into the body of interest in temple prostitutes being Christ than creating an ordinance for the perpetuated by poor commentaries and modern church. Furthermore, it is taught word-of-mouth, there is only one literary that Christian women were only told to indication of the lack of headcovering ever cover as to not be confused with the Pagan being linked directly with prostitution. From harlots that continued in these cults and the 12th century B.C. Assyria, in the time of society as a whole. Tiglath-Pileser, the Middle Assyrian Laws This would seem right if true, but it is not preserved on clay tablets contain a law true. Professor S. M. Baugh found that requiring all Assyrian women to cover their ancient sources on such prostitution have heads in public, with the exception of been greatly misinterpreted as prostitutes, who are forbidden to cover their contemporary Greco-Roman practices. heads.d So here is the original source for the Baugh found no evidence for cultic myth that only a prostitute in Corinth went prostitution being practiced at Ephesus or uncovered, yet it is useless as evidence Corinth at all.b He reviewed inscriptions since (1) it is dated over one-thousand naming priestesses of Artemis at Ephesus years before the time the Corinthian epistle and concluded these inscriptions offer not was written, and (2) it was an Assyrian law, only zero evidence of cultic prostitution by not a Greek law. priestesses but, on the contrary, indicate What makes all this so significant is the that the priestesses were daughters of fact that human knowledge is so terribly Ephesian nobility that served the goddess unreliable. The excellent research of (since the inscriptions state “in purity”). The Professor Baugh shows that the doctrine of ancient sources quoted by advocates of this Corinthian cult priestess-prostitution, doctrine actually discuss cultic prostitution already widely disseminated in churches being practiced in foreign countries several today without any Scriptural support, is centuries before the first-century, such as unsupported by historic documents as well. was done in ancient Armenia. Combined with this is the fact that there is Worse, the quote taken from “Strabo’s also no evidence of standardized heathen Atlas” concerning Corinth’s “thousand worship between Greco-Roman cults that courtesans” was written thirty years before would show the prostitutes of every cult Paul’s epistle. It also was not written went uncovered as a rule, or even if any did. concerning the current state of first-century As was already shown in the flaws of the Corinth, but the history of Corinth four “Culture of Corinth” there simply is no

13 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 literary evidence that any Greeks or Romans portraiture throughout the imperial wore veils in public as a function of law or period. Because imitation of imperial modesty, nor to prevent association with portraiture was so prevalent in prostitution. Naturally, if this is not the case, privately commissioned portraits, then proponents of this excuse should be modern scholars are able to date able to easily provide us with historic proof. otherwise unidentifiable portraits by ______making stylistic comparisons of the a. The Geography of Strabo; Strabo/Sons (William Heinemann Ltd., treatment of the hair with well- 1966) b. Cult Prostitution In New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal; Baugh documented and datable imperial (Evangelical Theological Society, 1999) examples.”a c. Corinth: The First City of Greece; Rothaus (Brill Academic, 2000) d. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament; Pritchard (Princeton University, 1954) This is the method used by archaeologists to date both male and female artwork to the first-century. For specifically Corinthian The “Uncovered Artworks” Problem examples of this nature, we can now look to • When deconstructing the “Culture of the museums. Corinth” myth, the evidence of archaeology On the bronze coins struck in Corinth, was very useful. Indeed, the abundance of Agrippina Major is shown in profile, proudly bare-headed females in the art of Julio- showing us her elaborate braids, a hairstyle Claudian Corinth is even more devastating which dates her coin at around A.D. 20. Her to the “Corinthian Prostitution” excuse. daughter, Agrippina Minor, follows suit When looking through the various around A.D. 50 on a coin of her own, with museums and catalogs of first-century another fine batch of curls. In the journal women uncovered in Corinthian artwork, “Corinth: Results of Excavations Conducted women depicted in flattering statues, relief by the American School of Classical Studies work of women carved into family tombs, in at Athens. Volume XII, The Minor Objects,” frescos, in artwork on urns, in mosaics, Gladys Davidson catalogs nineteen different stamped on coins and intaglio, or cast in female heads from the first- and second- bronze, all appear with no veil and with century Corinth (artifact numbers 395-415). finely styled hair. Each one is bareheaded, displaying the The identity of these women is usually a same elaborate curls of their Italian mystery, such as the “Portrait Bust of a counterparts. In fact, most of the uncovered Roman Matron” from A.D. 41–68 on display artwork we find is made in the image of at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, found on some woman in government, or at least the Italian Peninsula. But the archaeology very wealthy ladies. So not only are there department is confident that: many examples empire-wide that show …the imitation of imperial hairstyles by women going without headcovering, the contemporary Roman women was women of Corinth do the same, as these common throughout the Roman women are proudly going without them. Are period, and this work is one of many these women, honored mothers, wives, examples in which private portraits sisters, and cousins of noblemen, the were strongly influenced by official characterizations of revered “goddesses,” images of the imperial family. are these ladies being depicted as prostitutes? It does not really matter how Furthermore, many pieces of art show covered women, the ridiculousness of the idea that any noble distinctive and elaborate hairstyles women would display themselves as were a major aspect of female common harlots, along with the well- 14 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 documented information from Rome and also dealt with in Roman law: Greece concerning the hairstyles of first- century women, has demolished the fictional If anyone accosts young girls, even doctrine that uncovered Corinthian women ones dressed as slaves, he would seem were viewed to be prostitutes. to have committed only a minor ______offense– and it is even less serious if a. Timeline of Art History (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000) they are got up as prostitutes and not From the Staatliche Museen, Berlin (inv. no. 1802) dressed like respectable matrons. Still, if a woman was not dressed in matronly clothes, anyone who calls out The “Roman Laws” Problem to her or who entices away her • Beyond the flaws in this excuse pertaining chaperon is liable to an action for to historical literature and archaeology, injustice.b there is the actual legal dress codes for prostitutes given for subjects of the Roman Ulpianus doesn’t feel a bit sorry for young Empire, of which Corinth was subject. girls who dress like tramps and foreign Prostitutes were expected to register with slaves, nor is he surprised such would be the state and pay taxes, and were forbidden harassed by ruttish males. We also find that by law from wearing the stola (the usual many prostitutes went unregistered to avoid dress of freeborn women). Also banned paying the high taxes, and disguised were shoes, purple robes, jewelry, and the themselves to hide from diligent publicans. colorful ribbons that Roman women used to Publicans were therefore constantly on the decorate their hair. The law instead required look-out for women who may be harlots to wear sandals (how odd Paul never unregistered harlots, making it unlikely that condemns sandal-wearing!), and to wear Christian women would dress in a way that the togas of men, but togas made with a would attract unwanted legal problems. It floral-pattern. They were also expected to clearly took much more than a missing dye their hair yellow, red, or blue. There is headcovering for a woman to be identified no mention of headcoverings whatsoever, as a harlot by Roman society, and we see and the few laws that existed were seldom that women of the Roman Empire, prostitute enforced. Many harlots wore prohibited or otherwise, so blurred the lines of fashion clothing. Others wore their togas in that there really was no such thing as a hard outrageously bright colors, while others and fast “prostitute’s uniform.” Most ironic wore nearly transparent robes of gauze. Still and fitting is this quote from John Calvin, a others chose to wear no clothing at all, poor theologian to be sure, but an rather they sat outside of their brothels in astoundingly accurate sociologist: the nude, waiting for customers while tanning in the sun. Unlike the common So, when it is permissible for the brothel slaves, the expensive and glorified women to uncover their heads, one will courtesans of the nobility wore clothes as say, “Well, what harm in uncovering fine as any lady, and dressed how they the stomach also?” And then after that wished.a On the other hand, women who one will plead [for] something else: “Now if the women go bareheaded, weren’t harlots would frequently wear the why not also [bare] this and [bare] revealing togas of men, dye their hair yellow that?” Then the men, for their part, will or red, or wear red and blonde wigs made of break loose too. …So if women are thus slave-hair to look more like the attractive permitted to have their heads young girls captured from Gaul, Germania, uncovered and to show their hair, they and Britannia. This issue of wantonness is will eventually be allowed to expose 15 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

their entire breasts, and they will come like a prostitute, or is Paul concerned with a to make their exhibitions as if it were a woman covering her head during worship to tavern show… In short, there will be no honor her male authority? One can draw decency left, unless people contain only three logical conclusions from this themselves and respect what is proper verse: (1) Paul didn’t know anything about and fitting, so as not to go headlong supposed Corinthian prostitution customs, c overboard. because he never mentions them and advocates a custom that would permit John Calvin’s “Girls Gone Wild” sermon, c. women to go uncovered like harlots outside 1540. How did Calvin know what the women of worship, (2) Paul is aware of supposed th st of the 20 and 21 centuries would be uncovered prostitutes, but never mentions getting up to? Because unrighteous women them and condones looking like a harlot at blurred the lines of decency in century-one, any other time but prayer or prophesy, or in century-sixteen, and it still takes baring a (3) Paul is teaching Corinthians an lot more than a head to make a girl look like honorable worship ordinance that has a prostitute. nothing to do with how Corinthian ______a. History of Prostitution; Sanger (Eugenics Publishing, 1937) prostitutes may dress. b. The Digest, 47.10.15.15 (Ulpianus) c. Men, Women and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin; Skolnitsky (Presbyterian Heritage, 1992) The “Source of Shame” Problem • As was examined in the “Ancient Custom” The “Time to Cover” Problem excuse, Paul gave several timeless reasons • Once again, a study of the flaws of the why a man should have his head uncovered “Which Culture is Best” and the “Apples & in prayer and prophesy, and why a woman Oranges” problems have given us the key to should cover in the same acts of worship. another flaw. Those who teach that Paul was One of these important reasons dealt with is condemning women for looking like shame. But is it the shame associated with prostitutes are ignoring the Bible, which playing the harlot? Is it the shame of clearly says women only need to cover when dressing immodestly in the sight of God? Is praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians it the shame of appearing evil or mocking 11:5,13). Where is the verse that reads “But societal decency? No, it is the shame of every woman who walks in the way with her baldness: head uncovered dishonors her head,” or the verse that reads “Judge among yourselves. “For if a woman is not covered, let her Is it proper for a woman to leave the house also be shorn. But if it is shameful with her head uncovered like a prostitute?” for a woman to be shorn or shaved, The diligent student has already discerned let her be covered.” that Paul makes no mention of daily (1 Corinthians 11:6) headcovering customs or prostitutes, but has only associated headcovering to acts of Commentators and commentaries try worship. desperately to confuse the meaning of this Apply this logic to 1 Corinthians 11:5 - verse, claiming “difficulty” and attempting to “…every woman who prays or prophesies distract Christians with notions of slave with her head uncovered dishonors her women or prostitutes being bald, head…” In reading this statement, would associations with cults, or times of mourning you say Paul is concerned with a woman for Pagans. This is unscriptural, always covering her head to avoid looking unsupportable nonsense right from the

16 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 devil, obfuscating what is perfectly clear: is translated from the Greek word keiro, meaning cut closely, to shear, as sheep.c shav'-ing (in Job 1:20, gazaz, usually Paul gives the reader two choices: either a galach; in Acts 21:24, xurao): Customs woman covers her hair or it gets shorn off as to shaving differ in different like a sheep in spring. countries, and in ancient and modern So if there is no evidence that baldness is times. Among the Egyptians it was associated with societal shame, why is shorn customary to shave the whole body or shaved hair shameful? Ask a woman! [including the heads of both sexes] According to Global Cosmetic Industry (compare Gen 41:14). With the researchers, in 2005 women worldwide Israelites, shaving the head was a sign spent 51 billion dollars on hair care of mourning (Dt 21:12; Job 1:20); products. That’s billion with a “b” and it ordinarily the hair was allowed to grow doesn’t count appliances like curling irons or long, and was only cut at intervals blow dryers, just lotions, dyes, and soaps. (compare Absalom, 2 Sam 14:26). Women world-wide love their hair! Nazirites [male and female] were forbidden to use a razor, but when • Fashion Magazines are endlessly their vow was expired, or if they were devoted to articles, photographs, and defiled, they were to shave the whole advertising for hair-care or the latest head (Nu 6:5,9,18 ff; compare Acts hair trends of popular culture. 21:24)a • Women in the American Armed Forces have been allowed to keep long There is also a very good chance that some hair when their male counterparts have of the women of the Corinth church were not. slaves, and slaves were regularly shaved by • Women suffering from diseases or their Greek and Roman masters: medical treatments that cause baldness and hair-loss frequently The slave also assumed the toga or employ wigs and hats to hide the dress of a Roman citizen, shaved his symptoms and cover their shame. head and put on a pileus: this last • Female celebrities who shave their circumstance explains the expression “ heads are mocked by comedians as servos ad pileuin vocare “ (Liv. xxiv. being crazy or “taking drugs.” 32), which means to invite the slaves • A bald woman is a shocking device to join in some civil disturbance by used frequently in the comedies and promising them liberty. At the time dramas of popular entertainment. when Gains wrote, the peculiar rights of Roman citizens were of less In his excellent book “Wimples and Crisping importance than they had been under Pins: Being Studies in the Coiffure and the republic. He states that all slaves Ornaments of Women,” Theodore Child who were manumitted in the gives a grand history of women’s love of proper form and under the proper hairstyles and hair decorations throughout legal conditions, became complete the ages. A woman’s hair is her glory. Shorn Roman citizens.b hair is shameful for a woman because shorn hair makes her look strange and feel Shaving was something a slave did as a ashamed. Isn’t this what Paul tells us in mark of freedom, and there is nothing verses 7 & 15? Does he not confirm that shameful about freedom! The word “shorn” women are a glory to men, and a woman’s

17 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 long hair is her personal glory? 5. “I thought that long hair is the This idea that a woman who refuses to covering Paul writes about.” wear a covering to pray should be shorn is comparable to Christ’s dialog on sinning: Summary: Those who use this excuse believe that Paul indeed wanted women to “And if your eye causes you to sin, be covered, but that the covering was long pluck it out. It is better for you to enter hair, not clothing. the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast The “Katakaluptos” Problem into hell fire.” • The greatest problem for those who wish (Mark 9:47) to substitute “long hair” as the covering Scripture demands of women is the Does Christ advocate self-mutilation, or is etymology of the Koine Greek words He illustrating the seriousness of sin? Paul is translated “covered” and “uncovered.” In clearly saying the same thing— if you can’t this passage, Paul utilizes “kata” and get a woman to cover normally, then give “kaluptos” extensively. her the option of going bald and see if she The first problem with trying to make hair makes the right choice, since women who go the covering is the usage of “kata” and bald tend to cover their shame. Two choices “kaluptos.” In both cases, these words are are given; a sensible one and a crazy one. verbs, not nouns or adjectives. Why is this For a woman, being uncovered in prayer and significant? Paul is not speaking of a prophesy should be as shameful as having particular object, including “hair,” but of an her hair shorn: action. This means that, despite what is popular to teach, neither “first-century veils” “But every woman who prays or nor “hair styles” are important to Paul, only prophesies with her head uncovered concealing and revealing the head are dishonors her head, for that is one and important. the same as if her head were shaved.” Suppose Mary told her daughter, “Cover (1 Corinthians 11:5) your head when you go to the hockey game.” Would you think Mary was telling her The shame isn’t in being associated with daughter to have long hair, or was she prostitution, it’s the timeless shame of telling her daughter to put on a warm hat? looking like a “weirdo.” If women come If this really were a matter of a woman before God in prayer uncovered, they look being required to grow her hair long, then as shameful to Him as they would to their there would be no need for words to husbands if they went out with a shaved describe any action other than the growing head. Don’t believe a woman would be of hair, which Paul never uses. In fact, he ashamed to be shorn? If you are a husband uses the opposite. He declares that that does not believe, offer to shear your uncovered women be shorn (1 Corinthians wife’s hair for her. If you are a woman, go 11:6), quite a stupid commandment for ahead and shave your scalp to prove Paul women whose supposed sin is having short wrong. hair. One may as well expect Paul to demand ______a thief of ten drachma be commanded to a. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “SHAVING”; Orr (1915) b. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, MANUMISSIO; Smith steal 100 drachma as a punishment. And (John Murray, 1875) when does one stop shaving this woman? c. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, “KEIRW”; Vine (1940) Her hair would be man-like again before it would be woman-like.

18 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

Women are to “be covered” and men are confirmed by examining the Septuagint and to “be uncovered.” Being a long-haired contemporary Greek literature. In the LXX woman or being a short-haired woman is [Greek Septuagint], usage of “kalupto” not a function of verbs, but of adjectives. As (also: “apokalupto,” “katakalumma,” has already been proven several times “katakalupto,” “kalumma,” “krupto” before, we know that the covering is “sunkalumma,” and “sunkalupto”) refers to external, because it is for specific occasions: an external fabric covering that totally when a woman prays or prophesies. A conceals over 80 times, but never once to woman cannot “cover herself with long hair” long hair: when she prays, then “uncover herself” by cutting her hair when she cooks dinner, then • Gen 38:15 - “…she had covered her “cover herself with hair” again if she wishes face…” (with a veil - Gen 38:14) to pray before bed. Furthermore, how could • Exo 28:42 - “…make them linen a woman with short hair “be covered” in breeches to cover their nakedness…” • Num 5:18 - “And the priest shall set order to be compliant with the epistle? She the woman before the Lord, and would need to wait in disobedient and uncover the woman’s head…” (her hair tedious shame until her hair grew enough to also uncovered) be considered “long.” And what of women • Ruth 3:4,7 - “…and you shall go in, who cannot grow long hair, for whatever uncover his feet…; “…she came softly, reason? A cloth covering (including a handy uncovered his feet…” (a blanket) towel or blanket) never incurs these sort of • Est 6:12 - “…and having his head problems, and fits the word “katakaluptos” covered…” (his hair also covered) perfectly. The second problem to this idea of hair is Plutarch, in his “Sayings of the Romans” the usage of the word “kalupto” in other (which other scholars quote so poorly), places in Scripture. Everywhere in the Bible, speaks of Scipio the Younger walking when the word kalupto (or a derivative) is through Alexandria “having the garment utilized, it refers to an external object being down the head” (kata kephales), meaning the object that conceals, whether literal or that he concealed his head with part of his figurative: toga to avoid being recognized by the people. In verse four, Paul uses the exact • Matt 8:24 - “…the ship was covered same phrase: “kata kephales echon…” also with the waves…” meaning an object covering the head. • Luke 8:16 - “No one, when he has lit Since this covering is external, hair a lamp, covers it with a vessel…” cannot be the covering; it is a part of the • Luke 23:30 - “Then they will begin to say to the mountains… ‘Cover us!’” head (Matt 5:36, Luke 7:44, Luke 12:7, Acts • 1 Peter 4:8 - “…love will cover a 21:24). Hair is always covered when the multitude of sins.” head is “katakalupto” (concealed). The contemporary Greek- and Hebrew-speaking Kata means “down” or “about” and kalupto translators of the Law and Prophets means “to hide,”a together indicating “hiding understood the meaning of katakaluptos to down” or “concealment.” This word, be an external covering of some sort. although translated as “cover,” is clearly Likewise the students of the LXX and Greek- indicating total concealment by some other speaking Christians in first-century Corinth thing: a light blacked-out by a pot, men would recognize Paul’s usage of the totally hidden from sight by mountains, sins common Greek idiom referring to an obscured by love, etc. This is further external covering, thus precluding long hair 19 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 from being the covering in question. or tooth as an equalizer. The word “for” is ______used again in this case, but can someone a. Strong’s [G2596] & [G2572]; See also: [G2813] & [G2928], cause another’s lost eye or tooth “to be” or “as” a missing part? Was Jesus saying “an eye as an eye?” The other man’s eye, once The “Anti-Peribolaion-Komao” Problem removed, will not return vision to another • The primary source of the “Hair as blinded eye. If your teeth get knocked out, Covering” myth is found in the typical knocking out another man’s teeth will not fill English translation of 1 Corinthians 11:15 - your empty gums. It is clear that anti is “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory used in this case to illustrate that there was to her: for her hair is given her for a a perceived compensational value between covering.” It is not difficult to see how this the different eyes or teeth of the victim and reading would lead people to believe that the attacker. long hair is the covering God expects. In Ephesians 5:31, Paul is speaking of the The first problem is the translation of the church’s relationship to Christ, and he uses word “for” in the “for a covering” portion of anti in a very enlightening way. A man and the verse. When many Christians see the woman becoming one flesh in marriage is word “for” being used, it is natural to anti to the body of Christ. The bride and assume it is the same English “for” as found groom of a Scriptural marriage, although in the statement “for the remission of sins” fundamentally different from the church, are of Acts 2:38. We are baptized “to be” saved; similar to Christ and His church. It teaches a women were given hair “to be” covered. The powerful lesson on how the church is to New International Version even “helps” us regard her Head, and how spouses should believe this by translating it “as a covering.” regard each other. It is seriously doubtful The Greek word translated “for” and “as” that preachers who teach hair as a covering in Acts is not the same Greek word found in would teach that a marriage between a man First Corinthians. In Acts, the word is “eis,” and a woman was given “as” the church. but in the Corinthian Epistle, it is “anti.” Our final and most powerful example Greek anti is a very special word in the New comes from Hebrews 12:2, where the Testament, utilized by the Spirit for one inspired writer tells us “Jesus, the author specific task. Words like “anti-Christ,” “anti- and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that type,” “adversary (anti-keimenos),” was set before Him endured the cross.” “contradiction (anti-thesis),” all speak of Once again, the “for” is “anti”; Jesus Christ conflict and contrast. In the Septuagint, anti suffered on the cross “for” the joy set before is most often used in matters of Him. Only by enduring that horrible compensation— one object’s value being punishment could Christ later receive that compared to a different object’s value. Anti joy he sought for us all. Although almost is a word of comparison, always used to exact opposites, the joy is compensation for illustrate similarities between different His obedience to the point of painful and subjects and differences between similar humiliating death. Who now will dare to say subjects, as a short study will demonstrate. that suffering on the cross was filling Christ In Matthew 5:38, Jesus is quoted as with pain “as” joy? The anti teaches here saying “…ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai and elsewhere that the value of joy was odonta anti odontos,” or in English “…an eye worth the suffering on the cross as an for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” This was exchange. Clearly this word is used by the apparently a common teaching for the Jews, Holy Spirit to show how two very different meaning when someone caused an eye or objects can be related, especially when used tooth to be lost, they also should lose an eye 20 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 to teach a spiritual principle. The word anti “outer-garment,” so to speak. Although placed before peribolaion is not meant to styles of these garments varied by date and mean “to be” or “as,” but “in the place of,” the sex of the wearer, they all shared three “against,” or “compared to.” The classic things in common: (1) a peribolaion was a French-language “Louis Segond” Bible of square piece of cloth that protected at least 1910 correctly translates the “anti” in verse the neck and shoulders (sometimes the back fifteen “…la chevelure lui a été donnée and chest), (2) it added color to the typically comme voile,” or “…the hair was given to plain “inner-garment,” and (3) it was used her like a veil.” as a blanket or luggage when traveling.a In one last attempt to show the danger of While the Spirit directs us to have our heads believing anti can be translated to mean “displayed” or “hidden” by using the verbs “as,” please look at the term “anti-Christ” akatakaluptos and katakaluptos, He once more. If anti allows for an even trade, compares the long hair of a woman to a that would mean an anti-Christ and Christ garment which is cast about the body, not are equals. That alone should be enough to the head. A kaluma (veil; 2 Corinthians give a reader pause. 3:13, ) and a peribolaion (cloak) are two The second problem is related to the first, different items with two different purposes, since they both produce an outcome and they are not interchangeable. Yet by use opposite of the intended message delivered of anti, we can see how a woman’s hair, by Paul. The translators have usually made although different from clothing, can be katakalupto, which actually means “to hide positively compared to a warm and lovely down,” say “cover” or “veil,” That translation shawl. This makes even more sense when is not a horrible mistake, but the real trouble we again compare peribolaion with arrives with the translation of peribolaion, parabole. The purpose of a parable wasn’t to which is also written as “covering” or “veil.” conceal, but to complement. By “casting To say the translation of peribolaion is down beside” a parable when teaching, misleading is a huge understatement. Jesus revealed the truth. His parables didn’t Students of Greek may recognize conceal the ideas, but instead emphasized peribolaion as being similar to parabole, our them by encouraging scrutiny. The natural English “parable.” Both peribolaion and cast-around peribolaion of a woman doesn’t parabole come from two Greek words conceal her glory, it emphasizes it. meaning “something thrown” and “around” Next are the Greek words “kome” and or “near.” The word peribolaion literally “komao,” which are mistranslated in the means “a thing thrown around or near,” and King James and later english versions as is used to describe an article of clothing like merely “hair” and “long hair,” (likely because a shawl or cloak. Ironically, this is precisely of the utilization of the Latin translation, what the English translators of Hebrews which used “comam” [“hair of the head”] 1:12 translate peribolaion to be: vesture, and “capilli” [“hair”]b). mantle, coat, or cloak (strange they forgot These Greek words for hair are singular to how to do this in the Corinthian epistle…). 1 Corinthians and the entire Bible. For The word peribolaion also appears in the centuries, theologians have tried to figure Septuagint, always used to describe a cloak out why nature would teach that long hair (or garment) or figurative garment (Exo on a man is shameful, not bothering to 22:26, Deu 22:12, Psa 102:26, Isa 59:17). investigate the Greek words. So what precisely is this peribolaion, or Everywhere else in Scripture where cloak? Archaeology teaches it was a piece of ordinary male or female hair is meant, long clothing that went over the basic tunic, an or short (also including the mundane fur of

21 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 animals), the Holy Spirit uses “thrix” (Matt length. Paul could have easily used “khaite,” 3:4; Luke 7:38; Acts 27:34; Rev 1:14). Yet the actual Greek word for long hair, or the when posing the question of nature’s lesson, present subjunctive active verb-form of this Paul asks the reader if “komao” (not thrix) word for having loose, flowing hair. The does indeed bring shame to a man. What is words used by Paul do not indicate long hair the difference? or ordinary hair, but the ornamental hair Both kome and komao are derived from typical of women. Paul is simply reminding the Greek word “komeo.”c The following is a the reader that styled hair looks shameful list of Greek words derived from this root: on a man, but glorious on a woman. Is it a cause of shame in our culture for a • komeo - “care for” man to have long hair? No, it is often a • komizo - Luke 7:37 - “bring” measure of attractiveness, as it was for • kompsoteron - John 4:52 - “improve” David’s son Absalom (2 Sam 14:25). This is • kosmeo - Titus 2:10 - “adorn” true of many cultures, both historical and • kosmetikos - “skilled in adorning” contemporary: • kosmios - 1 Tim 2:9 - “decorous” • kosmos - 1 Pet 3:3 - “arrange” • American Indian - American Indian men wore long hair before the arrival All of these words are variations on the western influences on their culture. (In theme of tending and improvement, so it is Cherokee legends, for example, males no surprise that kome has a similar said to be handsome were often meaning. As Strong puts it, kome is “locks, described as having “long hair as ornamental, and thus differing from almost to the ground”e) [thrix].”d In fact, by using the word kome, there is more emphasis of the ornamental • Asian - Chinese men adopted a over the hair itself, and komao is nothing hairstyle in the 1600’s called a queue, more than a verb-form of kome, akin to the basically a long braid. This style lasted verb komeo. well into the nineteenth-century.f Because komao is a verb, and not a noun, Common Buddhists have long hair.g it is very improper to translate it as such. Among the Punjab Sikhs, Kesh is the This verb is written as a present subjunctive practice of allowing one's hair to grow active, which is better expressed by the naturally as a symbol of devotion to phrase “if has *expressed action* hair.” God and lack of worldliness.h “Long” is an adjective and is thus not accurate. The fact that it is a present tense • European - In the middle ages, verb must not be overlooked. The present shorter hair signified servitude and tense is described thus: The present tense peasantry. Long hair was often represents a simple statement of action attributed to freemen, such as the viewed as occurring in actual time. This man Germanic Goths and Merovingians. In is doing something shameful. Why would Ireland, English colonists who wore nature teach us it is a shame for a man to their hair long in the back were lengthen hair? All men do it! Are only considered to be rejecting their role as balding men right with God? Since kome is English subjects and giving in to the the basis for this present subjunctive active Irish life. Irishman, in turn, scolded verb, the only action availible is the common others of their race who moved into action of all komeo-based words: tending, English culture by cutting their hair. improving, adorning, or caring for, not Thus, hair length was one of the most

22 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

common ways of judging a true “Those serving are slaves of the most Englishman in this period.i comely form and beauty, so that one might think that they have come not so • Grecian - Spartan men prided much to serve as to please the eyes of themselves upon their long hair, calling their beholders by their very it the “cheapest of ornaments” (ton presence… having been washed and kosmen adaranotatos).j smoothly rubbed with unguents and with their faces smeared with As history shows, nature must be a terrible cosmetics, their lower eyelids painted, teacher if long hair on a man is so obviously and the hair of their head nicely shameful. Yet, if you ask a typical male on plaited in some way being tightly the street if it would be a cause of shame for bound up.”k him to have the elaborately styled hair of a contemporary female from his culture, the These poor boys were not merely “long- answer invariably is “yes”: haired,” but had hairstyles similar to women. Nature does indeed teach that a As we shall see, the hairstyles of man (of any culture) having a woman’s female members of the Imperial attributes is shameful for him, from coiffure family seem to have influenced and clothing to sexual behavior, but nature slave boys' hairstyles that I have already already taught us this long ago. characterized as feminized. It is There is little doubt that Paul would find this important to note, however, that these custom shameful, but it is still not a custom servile hairstyles generally do not copy limited to the Ancient Greeks or Romans. female coiffures in all details but only When we take into account the errors of adapt certain elements of them… the English translators, we can better Feminized servile hairstyles not understand the passage and eliminate only clearly distinguished slave “difficulty.” The English translation of 11:14- boys from freeborn Roman boys 15 should properly read: but also served to heighten the androgynous look that Greek and Does not even nature itself teach you Roman men found so appealing… that if a man has tended hair, it is a As we have seen, his feminized dishonor to him? But if a woman has tended hair, it is a glory to her: hairstyle is very similar to that because ornamental tresses are given commonly worn by slave boys in the to her in place of a cloak. later Julio-Claudian period. It is particularly like that worn by slave Why does nature teach us that hair brings a boys described by Philo of Alexandria woman glory? Because unlike a man’s hair, in his De Vita Contemplativa (A.D. 50- her tresses (kome) were given to her like a 52), written around the time of colorful garment, cast around her neck and Claudius. In his highly moralizing shoulders by the Creator to give her discussion of the contemporary distinctively feminine beauty. So how does a banqueting customs of the Romans, woman spending hours on beautification Philo distinguishes slaves of three honor a man before the Father? Is this the different age groups and comments on intended purpose of the verb katakalupto? their appearance and functions at No, the decoration of women is never given some of the more opulent banquets. as a cover in prayer, but it is a good reason He relates the following: to be covered— because a woman should 23 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 glorify God when she prays or teaches, not If “uncovered” means “not having long hair,” herself. Why is it that in all the decades of then men must never have long hair, and American fashion since the 1920’s, the women must never have short hair. In order modest headcovering has never come into to qualify as “uncovered,” woman’s hair style? Because it hides a woman’s glorious would need to be equal in length (or hair! By mistranslating these words, a great shorter) than the hair of a proper Christian confusion has been created where there man. should be none. That is a real problem: why would Paul ______command them to shave the heads of a. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible “CLOTHING”; Beck & Myers (Erdmans, 2000) women with short hair? If “uncovered” b. A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon…; Riddle (Oxford University, 1850) means having the short hair of men who are c. Strong’s [G2865] “uncovered” before God, then that would d. Strong’s [G2864] e. Cherokee Myths & Legends; Kirk (Tellico Plains Mountain Press, mean that Paul was commanding women 1999) f. The Asian Mystique; Prasso, Sheridan (Public Affairs Press, 2005) who were already “uncovered” to remain g. Magical Hair; Leach (Royal Anthropological Institute, 1958) uncovered by shearing or shaving her. What h. World Religions; Fowler (Sussex Academic Press, 1997) i. Symbolic Meanings of Hair in the Middle Ages; Bartlett (Royal would be accomplished by shaving the Historical Society, 1994) j. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, COMA; Smith (John heads of women whose sin is not having Murray, 1875) enough hair? If I find a woman in the church k. The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver; Pollini (The Gale Group, 1999) wearing an immodest blouse, should I remove it and expose more of her skin? Paul even says that it is a shame for a woman to The “Metonymy” Problem be shaved. If long hair is the covering, it • Metonymy is another tool of hermeneutics would be impossible to shave her AND let used to understand meanings, very similar her be long-haired at the same time! to metaphor or allegory. It is defined as a If hair is indeed the covering women must “figure of speech in which one word or have, it is ridiculous to believe Paul would be phrase is substituted for another with which advocating the removal of it. Metonymy it is closely associated…”a and used rules that “having long hair” and “being frequently; the “Law & Prophets” means covered” are not logically interchangeable. Scripture (Matt 22:40), the “Body of Christ” ______a. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4E means the church (1 Corinthians 12:27), “METONYMY” (Houghton Mifflin, 2006) and so forth. So if the proponents of hair as b. The Christian Catacombs of Rome; Fasola (Istituto Salesiano, a covering are correct that the covering Paul 2004) writes about in the first part of 1 Corinthians 11 is indeed the hair, then metonymy will allow us to exchange “covered” with “long The “Law of Exclusion” Problem hair,” and show an agreement. • Many preachers teach soundly on the place of instruments of music in the church Every man praying or prophesying, of Christ. One of the pieces of logic utilized having long hair, dishonors his head. by these men is called the “law of But every woman who prays or exclusion.” This law simply states that prophesies with short hair dishonors “when God specifies a certain thing to be her head, for that is one and the same done, by the act of being specific He as if her head were shaved. For if a excludes all other things never mentioned.”a woman is not long-haired, let her also There are two types of commands which fall be shorn. But if it is shameful for a under these guidelines, a general command woman to be shorn or shaved, let her and a specific command. be long-haired. A good example of the general and 24 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 specific commands is found in Matthew excluded by “covered” would be 28:19, where Christ commands his disciples “uncovered.” to “go” and “make disciples.” The “going” is However, if long hair is indeed the a general command, meaning how the men covering prescribed by Paul for proper accomplish this task is up to them; by ship, worship, the requirement is no longer a by chariot, by hovercraft, by bicycle, general command, but a specific command. however they can “go” is acceptable, so long If you teach that hair is the covering, then as they “go.” On the other hand, Jesus gave all women are to be covered with long hair, a specific command for how He wishes them and only long hair, during prayer. If men to “make disciples”: by “baptizing them in wish to make long hair the covering the name of the Father and of the Son and specified by Paul, then the law of exclusion of the Holy Spirit” and “teaching them to forbids women from wearing any external observe all things” that He commanded coverings during prayer, or having short them. That excluded the disciples from hair, and those preachers must teach making more disciples in any other way. We women it is a sin to be covered by clothing now know, thanks to these principles, that in prayer or to have short hair. This also is the specific command to “sing” given to the true for the women with short hair who are Ephesians and Colossians by Paul (Eph to be “shorn or shaven.” If being uncovered 5:19; Col 3:16) excludes adding musical with long hair in prayer is a sin for women, instruments to worshipful singing. Since then Paul would be teaching them to sin Paul is also clearly concerned with other acts even more by shaving her, since she still of worship (prayer and prophesy), we now lacks long hair, and cloth coverings are must apply the same principle here as well. forbidden. According to the law of exclusion, “…let her be covered.” Paul states that a it must be long hair only or an external woman must cover her head. But with what? covering only, but it cannot be both. There is no specific item named as a ______a. Instrumental Music in Worship to God; Clarke (Self-Published, covering, only that she be covered. This is a 19??) general command, akin to “go.” The Holy Spirit used a word that literally means “to hide something with something else.” When The “How Long is Long” Problem speaking of being covered, Paul never says • One of the biggest problems of teaching “be covered with a veil.” Indeed, instead of long hair to be the covering is the ambiguity mentioning a covering tied to a specific of length, that is to say, “How long is long?” culture’s fashions, by not being specific, the Must it be the prevailing societal concept of “something else” which “hides down” is left long? Must it be longer than the men of the subject to fashion and styles from culture to church keep their hair? Is it Greek long, or culture. The only rules that apply are the Hebrew long? Just how does one determine ones already established for Christian length? This sort of problem with the “long clothing: it must be modest, inexpensive, hair” doctrine has created unscriptural sects and it must hide the head (including hair) of the Lord’s church who insist women never during prayer and prophesy. One woman be allowed to cut their hair, forcing women may wear a store-bought woolen shawl, to have hair to their feet, and there is another a tan polyester snood, another a another problem with this doctrine, as we gifted silk kerchief from China, another a shall soon see. homemade denim bonnet, and none need Kome means ornamental hair and not wear a first-century linen veil. Just like “go” long hair. The “long hair” translation is excludes only “not going,” the only thing shown to be false, yet there is little doubt

25 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 that people will trust in their versions rather the subject of 1 Corinthians (and women in than the Word. So for the sake of the general). If one takes the time to study the discussion, long hair will be the assumed various commentaries on the subject of meaning Paul gives. Since the Bible is the headcovering, an interesting fact emerges: first and best way to determine the length of the long hair of a woman was never hair acceptable to God, that must be the considered by any author of a historical first place to look. commentary to be the covering of which As has already been established in verse Paul writes. Not Irenaeus, not Tertullian, not sixteen, Paul says a woman’s hair is Clement of Alexandria, not Hippolytus, not comparable (anti) to a cloak (peribolaion). John Chrysostom, not Jerome, not Also established is the description of the Augustine, not even Knox, Henry, or Calvin. peribolaion, an article of clothing that Neither do they ever argue against such a covered the neck, shoulders, and back of proposition— it simply isn’t an issue. the wearer. This translation of peribolaion is Tertullian in fact mocks the women who: borne by Hebrews 1:12. If this is true, then Paul’s meaning is that a woman’s hair …amid [the recital of] the Psalms, and (unlike a man’s) covers her neck, shoulders, at any mention of [the name of] God, and back-- like a cloak. According to the law continue uncovered; [who] even when about to spend time in prayer itself, of exclusion, that description would be the with the utmost readiness place a only length of hair acceptable as the fringe, or a tuft, or any thread covering for prayer and prophesying. whatever, on the crown of their heads, Those who teach hair is the covering now and suppose themselves to be have a problem; what to do with the women covered. Of so small extent do they whose hair isn’t that long. It is highly falsely imagine their head to be!”a doubtful that there is a single church in the United States where every female member He shows us that some of the women of his has cloak-like hair. Even if this definition of day were placing tokens of the covering length is disputed, there is an indisputably upon their heads in a vain attempt to barely large measure of women coming to prayer keep this commandment, yet none of them with hair lengths equal-to or shorter-than ever dared to say long hair was their men’s hair. Teaching that long hair is the covering. Some ancient writers speak of the covering necessary for prayer while ignoring continuance of covering by the Corinthian those women with hair too short to be women even to their time as weight to the compliant is hypocrisy. Once again, we have passage, others reject the “new” gauzy a man with the pretenses of a “double- fabrics in favor of opaque coverings. From minded, double-tongued man” (1 Timothy the early church and through the centuries, 3:8, James 1:6). not one commentator in the history of theology can be shown to issue the “hair-as- covering” excuse, nor can one be found The “History of Commentaries” Problem disputing it. Not one can be found that is, • One thing that both Christians and until the mid-1800’s. denominationalists have in common is Almost overnight, hair as a covering literature. From those taught by inspired became an issue to be discussed, covered in men, to the beginnings of the Gnostic and various commentaries and periodicals. What Catholic denominations, and to the various is so significant about the 19th century that Protestant denominations of today, there this issue should suddenly arise? Those who comes a wealth of commentaries written on study the Industrial Revolution will know 26 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 precisely why that time is significant. It is “liberation of women” entered church dialog. the period in American and European history ______a. On the Veiling of Virgins, Tertullian/Thelwall (160-ca. 230) when women began to organize and b. Appeal to the Women of New York; Stanton, Mott, Rose, Wright, & demand the political rights of men. How this Anthony (Document, 1860) affected the Restoration Movement is evident in a letter written in 1860 and signed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lydia 6. “I heard that the veil is a symbol Mott, Ernestine Rose, Martha C. Wright, and of marriage, or that Paul was only Susan B. Anthony: worried about male headship.”

The religion of our day teaches that, in Summary: Those who use this excuse the most sacred relations of the race, the believe that Paul is more concerned with a woman must ever be subject to the man; proper marriage relationship than with that in the husband centres all power and clothing. learning; that the difference in position between husband and wife is as vast as The “Andros Dia Gune” Problem that between Christ and the Church; and • Some translations and commentaries have woman struggles to hold the noble used Paul’s statements about the impulses of her nature in abeyance to relationship of men being the head of opinions uttered by a Jewish teacher, women to redefine this chapter into a matter which, alas! the mass believe to be the of husbands and wives. Ironically, this poor will of God… We now demand the ballot, method of interpretation allows Theologian- trial by jury of our peers, and an equal A to demand headcovering as a universal right to the joint earnings of the marriage symbol of wifely obedience to the husband, copartnership.”b and allows Theologian-B to advise a women to forgo the covering if her husband doesn’t What a blasphemy against Christ! The wish to press the issue. Clearly, there is suffrage committees were attacking Christ something wrong with a method that results Himself, because He demands wives be in two opposite conclusions. something these women were unwilling to Although “andros” can be translated as be; humble and obedient (Titus 2:3-5). “husband,” and “gune” can be translated as Every commentary that attempts to teach “wife,” both fundamentally mean simply that the covering decreed by Paul was “long “man” and “woman” respectively. How do hair” has been written in this sort of shrill, we know this? Verse 12: “For as woman atheistic political climate, a climate we came from man, even so man also comes endure to this day. In fact, there is a good through woman…” The only way a husband chance that many female readers will even could come through his wife is if he married now bristle at the thought of being his mother! No, this is a matter for all “covered” or being a “good wife,” thanks to believing men and women. the godless philosophy of feminism deeply This sort of misunderstanding is the result implanted in our modern Western society. of the damage done to our society by Because denominational leaders were feminism, both of accepting it and trying to worried about the mass exodus of use proof-text to combat it. Even the worldly suffragettes from their churches, they began women who rebel against their God-given to adjust their doctrines. Yet all the politics role must answer to male policemen, and liberal commentaries in the world won’t soldiers, judges, rulers, and ultimately, change the fact that long hair was never Christ. There is no such thing as a woman offered up as a excuse to go uncovered until not under the authority of a man; it is her 27 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 part in creation. Unmarried girls are under Instead, this is something that both the authority of their fathers or other male Christian men and Christian women do for guardians (1 Corinthians 7:36-38, Eph 6:2- the reasons given in Scripture, and none 4), whether the father exercises it or not. other. When reading the Scripture, pay Wives are the responsibility of the husbands attention to the “since’s,” the “but if’s,” the (1 Peter 3:7; Eph 5:25-28), whether the “because’s,” and the “for this reason’s” to husband takes it or not. Widows are the find out why we should do what God tells us. burden of sons, grandsons, or sons-in-law (1 Timothy 5:4,16), whether sons bear it or not. All Christian women are the charges of 7. “I was told that Paul gave us the the elders (1 Timothy 2:11,5:1; 1 Peter 5:2- choice to cover or not to cover.” 5), whether elders lead or not. This is not an Summary: Because a single verse reads issue of husbands and wives, it is an issue of “judge for yourself,” some believe Paul covering and uncovering in prayer. was giving Christians a choice to cover or not to cover.

The “Uncovered Man” Problem The “Righteous Judgement” Problem • Although some may try to make this • It is incredible how often this excuse is covering simply a matter of marriage, as in used as a reason not to cover. Why would the veil is a symbol of marriage, one large anyone judge not to cover after reading the fact is overlooked: men are to be uncovered. many good reasons to cover given by Paul? One can see a bit of logic in arguing women In fact, that alone is a good enough reason were trying to pass as unmarried in the for women to cover; the majority judges not assembly, and that Paul would find that to obey for selfish reasons, despite the unseemly, but where then would the spiritual logic given by Christ, and the command for men to uncover come into that majority is hellbound! (Matt 7:13-14; Luke argument? While it isn’t a stretch to 13:24-28) But the final judgement aside, associate a veil to a symbol of marriage for there is a very logical Biblical precedent that a woman, how does a man being uncovered proves this passage isn’t giving women any symbolize marriage for him? And if the veil option but the one Paul already argued in is indeed a symbol of marriage that a favor of. woman would need to display to others to When speaking to the Children of Israel, show her status, wouldn’t that forbid Joshua also gives the followers of God an married men from ever wearing a hat for the “option”: same reasons? There is absolutely no And if it seems evil to you to serve the evidence, Biblical or historical, to support LORD, choose for yourselves this day the idea that married men customarily went whom you will serve, whether the gods without headcovering as proof of their which your fathers served that were on marriage, nor is there any evidence women the other side of the River, or the gods wearing a covering was proof of marriage of the Amorites, in whose land you (men who covered their women covered ALL dwell. But as for me and my house, we their women, including the virgins, and the will serve the LORD. bright-red Greco-Roman wedding veil was (Josh 24:15) only worn during the ceremony, not after). By including men in this statute, Paul has What if our hypothetical Mary was an ruined every sort of excuse that tries to ancient Hebrew given this option, and she make this about first-century wife customs. followed the same logic as those who

28 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 believe Paul gives two equally valid choices one righteous choice: cover your head in in 1 Corinthians 11:13? If she chose to prayer and the proclamation of God’s follow the gods of the Amorites, how do you inspired word. That is the very essence of believe God would regard her? If you believe Christianity; making the righteous choices. God will save unrepentant idolaters, you are in serious trouble. After Christ established the church, he 8. “I heard that the churches had ‘no sent His disciples out to make more such custom’ as head covering.” disciples. Upon hearing the gospel being taught at the temple, the Jewish leaders Summary: Since Paul says neither he nor became disturbed and demanded that Peter the church have such a custom, some and John preach no longer in the name of assume this refers to the custom of covering. Jesus. The apostles had a response for that command: The “Parenthetical” Problem Peter and John answered and said to • It should be said, lest anyone confuse the them, “Whether it is right in the sight word “tradition” used in verse two with the of God to listen to you more than to traditions of mere men, that these traditions God, you judge.” include the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:20), a (Acts 4:19) tradition from Christ. The Greek word for tradition is “paradosis,” and it literally So in keeping the same mindset of our means “an ordinance.”a Paul is about to uncovered sisters, may we now judge that it explain one of the basic practices of the is right to listen to men rather than to God? church fully, so that the Corinthians might Isn’t Peter giving mankind that choice by understand and observe it more willingly. telling us to judge? Paul is not interested in traditional customs, Now here is the best one, saved for last. but is teaching the church. As an example, In 1 Corinthians 10, just a few sentences Paul warns the Colossians against those who back from the passage on headcovering, would have them follow the philosophical Paul was writing on the topic of idolatry. In traditions of men rather than Christ (Col giving the reasons to not eat things 2:8), showing that Christ’s traditions are sacrificed to idol, he writes: superior ordinances, and are to be observed properly. I speak as to wise men; judge for Paul proceeds in giving several sound yourselves what I say. The cup of reasons why women should be covered, not blessing which we bless, is it not the the least of which is the order of creation. communion of the blood of Christ? The At this point, Paul tells us in verse sixteen, bread which we break, is it not the “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we communion of the body of Christ? have no such custom, nor do the churches (1 Corinthians 10:15-16) of God.” Did Paul really make all those sound spiritual and physical arguments for Well ladies, shall we judge that the cup of headcovering, only to negate them in just blessing is not the communion? That is the one verse? consequence of claiming verse thirteen Using this verse to claim that the custom allows a freedom of choice. The rhetorical of headcovering was not practiced by the questions given by these men of God do churches of Christ is a textbook case of indeed allow choice, but only one righteous proof-texting, the sinful art of picking verses choice. So too does verse thirteen allow only that seemingly support whatever doctrine 29 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 one wishes to uphold. bearing witness, and between For example, our imaginary friend Mary themselves their thoughts accusing or has decided that no one needs to repent or else excusing them) in the day when be baptized for the remission of sins. She God will judge the secrets of men by looks for a verse to prove this, and finds one Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. which reads: “These things I have written to (Romans 2:12-16) you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have Paul interrupts that statement with eternal life, and that you may continue to parenthetical facts midway, then finishes the believe in the name of the Son of God” (1 sentence. He does the same thing here. He John 5:13). By proof-texting, she has has a question and he answers it: Is it chosen a verse which she claims teaches proper for a woman to pray to God with belief alone is sufficient for salvation. But in her head uncovered? …we have no such so doing, she ignores Luke 13:3-5 and 1 custom, nor do the churches of God.” Peter 3:21, which contradict her ideas, thus Verse sixteen isn’t a conclusion to the creating an unsatisfactory doctrine. How entire subject of headcovering, but it is does quoting verse sixteen to claim answering the rhetorical question with an headcovering wasn’t a custom of the argument-destroying fact. “Is it proper for churches qualify as an act of proof-texting? her to pray with her head uncovered?” Paul Because it ignores the verses that come asks. Are uncovered, praying women proper, before it, especially verse thirteen. yes or no? Paul says that, regardless of In verse thirteen, Paul asks, “Is it proper however we may judge, allowing uncovered, for a woman to pray to God with her head praying women is a custom the faithful uncovered?” Paul has started a new churches of God do not observe. ______thought, going from a lecture on the various a. Strong’s [G3862] reasons why women should be covered to a rhetorical exercise to remind the reader of the physical differences God created The “Contentious Ones” Problem __ between men and women. Verses fourteen • The word “philoneikos” translated as and fifteen form a parenthetic statement “contentious” means “a lover of strife,”a that between the question asked in verse is, someone who makes excuses even thirteen and an answer given in verse though he is wrong because he wishes he sixteen. We can observe another example were correct. The disciples were given to of Paul’s parenthetical expression from such a childish “dispute” over which of them Scripture: was the “best” in Luke 22:24. A good For as many as have sinned without comparison of this behavior would be a law will also perish without law, and as spoiled child who noisily and persistently many as have sinned in the law will be demands a toy, even though her parents judged by the law (for not the hearers have given several logical and reasonable of the law are just in the sight of God, reasons why she cannot have her own way. but the doers of the law will be It is a waste of time to attempt to reason justified; for when Gentiles, who do not with such an obstinate person (Proverbs have the law, by nature do the things 14:16). Just as is the only way to end a in the law, these, although not having futile argument with a spoiled child, the only the law, are a law to themselves, who thing left to do after the logical arguments show the work of the law written in have been exhausted is rely on the basis of their hearts, their conscience also final authority: “Because I said ‘No!’” After 30 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 giving all the good reasons to cover, and their mouth, And honor Me with their giving the wise men one more appeal to lips, But their heart is far from Me. And nature, Paul gives his ammunition for those in vain they worship Me, Teaching as who must deal with the contentious: “Is it a doctrines the commandments of proper custom for a woman to pray men.’” uncovered? None of the churches or inspired (Matthew 15:3-9) teachers observe it.” Those who would continue to argue for uncovered women, for The true sin of the Pharisee, no matter what whatever reasons, would now know that century he lives in, is the failure to abide by only one practice was recognized among the the truth. The Pharisees and scribes churches— faithful brothers uncover their believed themselves to be experts in the heads and faithful sisters cover their heads Law. They relied upon tradition and the in prayer and prophesy. In addition, the obedient masses as evidence that they were practice of uncovered women was rejected indeed righteous. They looked to the by the other apostles and disciples inspired commentaries of famous rabbis for their by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 4:9-13,9:5), the guidance. Their excuses and allowances only real basis for authority in church filled volumes. practices. ______“Why do you also transgress the a. Strong’s [G5380] commandment of God because of your tradition?” Concluding Thoughts This paper made no attempt to challenge • The offering of excuses and justifications every excuse people can generate to avoid is not new to sinners. In fact, this was the response to the very first sins of mankind; obedience; there are literally dozens more. both Adam and Eve attempted to excuse At the end of the day, this debate comes their own sins before God by blaming down to just one contest: The Bible says women need to be covered, women don’t another for the transgressions. The want to cover. Because women don’t want to Pharisees transgressed nearly every hear it, preachers created these commandment of God, justifying these sins justifications, and more. What could any with the artificial doctrines of their Talmud: man possibly say to convince you that it is [Jesus] answered and said to them, better to find ways to discard a Scripture “Why do you also transgress the than to accept it at face value? What could I commandment of God because of your possibly say to convince you to stop looking tradition? For God commanded, saying, for reasons to avoid doing what the Lord ‘Honor your father and your mother’; commands, and to start looking for reasons and, ‘He who curses father or mother, to keep His word? let him be put to death.’ But you say, This paper will no doubt have little ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, influence on the modern Pharisee, if only “Whatever profit you might have because evidence has little influence on received from me is a gift to God”; those who aren’t willing to put their own then he need not honor his father or beliefs and behavior on trial. My only hope, mother.’ Thus you have made the albeit slim, is that there are still men and commandment of God of no effect by women who will do what the Father your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did commands, without making any excuses. Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with 31