The shaved and shameful women of Corinth
Our scholars always find a way out of difficult Biblical passages. Verification of scholarly opinions is as varied as the scholars themselves, and often their conclusions come out very different from each other. So it is left for the believer to pick and choose the explanation that fits his taste, his culture, his preconceived ideas. Often pastors make their decisions based on what he is sure his church will be able to swallow.
If this sounds cynical to you, take a look at some of the findings of modern scholarship regarding the whole controversy swirling around the place of women in the church. Indeed, the even deeper question of authority and church government. But just before you do that, go to the original and perfect Scholar of the Church, Jesus Himself as manifested by His Holy Spirit, and as communicated in word form to one Apostle Paul. Read his words in I Corinthians 11 and 14, for example, with no commentary. No scholarship. I'll read it with you. Let's pretend we are supposed to read it as it is, and obey it as the writer intended.
No cheating now! Put Macarthur aside, though I know he is a heavyweight in the Scriptures. Put them all aside, and just read Paul. What do you get?
Do you get that Paul himself was a scholar? Schooled in the law of Moses? I think so. The Holy Spirit did not tell Paul to let Moses go in his thinking processes. We who are under the law of the Spirit have bought into all that God ever wanted from His people. Holiness and order are surely two of those things.
In dealing with women issues, Paul appeals to the creation and then the fall, as recorded in Genesis, a book which he includes in "the Law." Don't we also use these Old Covenant books as examples for issues we need to deal with on a regular basis? The courage of a David, the faith of an Abraham, the prophecies of Isaiah and the rest? Does God forbid or encourage use of the revelations before Jesus came to earth? I think the answer is obvious.
Most modern Western believers have given up on the idea of exclusive male leadership. Of those who remain firm on this issue, most have abandoned the head covering. I think it is safe to say that both teachings were united in Paul's mind. To have male authority is to have the wives of those men indicating their support of same by a visible symbol. Paul saw this as one issue, not two. Perhaps we should not divorce the two either.
What! Oh the groans coming up as a chorus from women of God. What!? Return to another century, when women were downtrodden and... Hold on, hold on. The only century I appeal to is the first century, the one when all the foundations were laid. Nor do I wish for women to be walked upon by men, only to return to a supreme respect of God-given authority and make that respect public.
Impossible! Women won't do it! Ask your wives this very day to start wearing a head covering in church. The response will be anywhere from ridicule to...You must fill in the blank.
But the question remains as to whether this teaching is from God, not whether a woman will yield to it. For there are women who do. In many nations. In some denominations. And individuals sprinkled here and there. Why do they do it? What translation are they reading?
Good that you bring up translation. Unfortunately, the translation you read about this matter, could be a determinant as to where you will go from here. KJV people, usually the most conservative of folks, point to I Corinthians 11:16, and end the matter right there. Does the Bible not say, did Paul not say, "Look, I don't want to argue about this, and I won't. No matter what I just said about nature and the book of Genesis and common sense and the angels and all the rest, it's really not that important, and none of the churches have made a rule about this, so go do what you want." ? (My paraphrase)
That surely is what KJV says, isn't it? This issue is dead. Not to be argued about. Just my opinion. Next issue, the Lord's Supper.
But what if the New American Standard Bible is true? This is Macarthur's favorite, and I think he is not alone in praising the accuracy of this translation. One word in the NASB is different. Only one. But if it is true, readers need to be going to the hat or scarf stores this very day.
The English word switches from such, "we have no such custom," to other, "we have no other practice."
In other words, you people who want to argue, and introduce some new teaching into the church, you need to understand that from the beginning women have showed respect in this way to their husbands, and we are not changing that now. No other custom has come along to replace the obvious, so cover your heads.
So everything is based on one Greek word? Not at all! Paul never forbids the covering. Even in the KJV, it is quite a permissible thing for a woman who "gets" the teaching that Paul is trying to share with the church. But not required.
In the NASB, (and NIV) there is suddenly a requirement added to his line of thought. I want to talk about the line of thought later, but for now, let's take a deeper look at the Greek. For non-scholars like myself, the best way to do that is to consult one Mr. Strong. Strong's concordance says that the word used, toyootos, means literally "truly this, of this sort." It is translated "like" or "such (an one)" in the KJV. Given that clear meaning, it is not yet obvious why modern translations, usually trying to clarify and update meanings for later English audiences, would have changed the very essence of the word.
Score one for the KJV thus far. "Such" fits the original Greek. So let's see how that word is used by Paul and others elsewhere in the New Testament. Slam dunk. In every case, Strong's meaning applies. Never is the text talking about some "other" class. Always it is "of this sort."
So what was going on in the minds of translators when they changed, in this one passage, the basic meaning of the word? A more modern translation, speaking to moderns who do not care for this doctrine in the least, would surely have left the original Strong/KJV meaning?
There is one more possibility for the text. To which "custom" does Paul refer? The old custom of covering the head? Or the new practice emerging , of leaving the head bare? Could Paul be saying, "You people who are trying to introduce new ways into the church of Jesus need to understand that we have no such custom and will not abide by your innovations. Cover your heads!"
In my mind, the issue is not settled. I have learned not to base my beliefs on what I see around me in the church, whether a "good" or "bad" one, whether conservative or liberal, my denomination or someone else's. The question is always, what did the apostles say, and why did they say it?
Let's tackle that question now. After looking carefully at all the text before verse 16, consider his teaching, and decide on your own, if you believe the KJV gives you that option, about what you will do about it.
The teaching begins in verse 3 of chapter 11, I Corinthians. The chain of command. The authority structure of Heaven as it links with God's people on earth. Especially the Christian family. Perhaps by extension, the Christian church.
Headship. Father is head in relation to His Son. The Son, Jesus, is the head in relation to the man. The man is the head in relation to the woman, or wife. ("Woman" and "wife" both translate the same Greek word. Seems that "wife" is a better word in the context here.)
Paul has already given his whole argument! Would that I Corinthians 11:3 would be in place in Christian church families! There would be no need to quibble about verse 16 if verse 3 were in place.
But we go to verse 4 anyway.
We have agreed down through the centuries that men should have their heads uncovered in church. This practice spilled out into the culture so much that it was just "normal" for men and boys to remove their hats or caps when entering a public indoor meeting of any kind.
Somehow the other side of the tradition, the female part, got lost.
Paul makes it clear here that there is to be a difference between the covering of the male and that of the female. Verse 4 is explained in verse 7. Since man, created in God's image and glory originally, was to be the very reflection of that glory, symbolically covering that glory with a hat would seem to stifle that reflection.
Verses 5-6 show just how different women - even women in Christ- are to be considered in the scheme of things. This passage is ignored on a regular basis because it is considered a part of an archaic cultural practice long since abandoned by liberated souls.
But as in the associated doctrine later in the chapter, Paul does not refer here to culture, but theology. To the book of Genesis, to be precise. It is an awful thing for a modern woman to hear, but hear it she must.
A woman that is uncovered, says Paul, is equal to a woman with no hair at all! Here we enter into double trouble. How many women have you seen of late who have no hair at all? Unfortunately, their tribe is increasing. Then there are the ones with so little hair as to be confused with the male pate. I speak with sympathy to those for whom sickness or old age has created problems that have curtailed hair growth. These in particular should see the need for covering, and would welcome such a thing, or so it would seem.
No hair at all is a disgrace! says Paul. And no covering is an equal disgrace. Why, if it were not for verse 16, you would think he was serious... What if he was, and what if the teaching is for our day?
Verses 7-9 take us deeper into the mystery, and deeper into political incorrectness. Pastors, do not read and believe this passage. Whatever you do, do not teach it. Your congregation will dwindle. Your people will turn on you. Oh how un-modern is this word...
Paul actually says that women were created to be the glory of man! (As man was created to be the glory of God!) A woman who is operating under the principle that she can be the glory of God directly, keeps her head bare, and basks in what she believes is the glory of God. A woman, though, who believes she is made to help and bless and make glorious this man at her side, will cover that glory on her head and show it only to him.
Have women forgotten that they were indeed created second, and for a specific purpose? Short answer: yes.
More, per Paul. Angels are watching. Bad angels? As in Genesis when the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" ? Those kinds of angels? Angels who are still looking around for uncovered, unprotected females whose purpose in life is not directed to their husband? Preying angels, vulnerable women? A match made in hell?
Or are these good angels about whom Paul speaks? Angels who know the order of Heaven, and weep when they see it disturbed by all these uncovered heads, women who simply refuse to acknowledge their place in the creation?
Whatever angels are meant, it was Paul who brought up this subject, not me. In the heavenlies, angelic beings watch for head coverings. A stunning thought. A Biblical thought. An ignored thought. That was verse 10.
At verses 11 and 12, the feminists all join in with us and point out that men must depend on women as much as women depend on men. Surely women originated from men. But every man was born of a woman! Wonderful, indeed, is the check God has put on human - male - pride. Knowing that we are first. In creation. In glory. In the very purposes of God. In leadership. In public. Knowing all this would lead us to think we don't even need these women at all, except that God has ordained that you, sir, will not even come into this world unless a woman supervises the event. You will most likely be trained by this woman, and meet several like her at your early days in school, and so on. You need woman.
But none of that changes Paul's point or his tone, and in verse 13 he dives back into the main conclusion he is making. It simply is not proper for a woman to pray with an uncovered head. Period.
Having argued from Scripture, he now argues from nature. It is unnatural to see a man with extremely long hair or a woman with extremely short hair. It just doesn't "seem" right. One of the evils of our day is the attempt to take away the natural and make it unnatural, and to make the absolutely bizarre look normal. Think gay, lesbian, transgender etc, and their slow rise to normalcy among the American people. The church unfortunately participates in the normalizations.
I used to bail out of this teaching at verse 15. A woman's hair is given her for a covering. She doesn't therefore need a scarf. God gave her a cover.
But that doesn't work. Paul's context in that verse is nature. God gave her a natural covering, and taught us that it is "natural" for her to be covered, by so doing. Taking a tip from nature, she needs to cover her head further. No, if only nature were meant by this lengthy passage, this lengthy passage would not have to be here! God would already have covered the woman, uncovered the man, and all preachers would have to deal with is the length of haircuts.
Can we not weep for our women today as we see the Muslim infusion into our culture? Wives who do not know Christ except as a great prophet, dutifully cover their heads and their whole bodies. It is just a matter of common sense for them. Why, of course you cover yourself when in public.
Yes, that brings up the whole subject of how some of our women dress for church. Or the beach, for that matter. Why is it fashionable among our people to bare parts of the body while the world looks on? This is a matter for another message, but the fact is, if we cannot get some women to cover their upper bodies and their legs, how indeed shall they ever have ears to hear about the covering of their heads?
The shaved women of Corinth. No, they were not really shaved, except in Paul's imagination. But they were virtually shaved, for they were disrespecting their husbands by not wearing a symbol of his authority on their heads. And what can be said of Corinth must be said of vast numbers of God's women today. May God cause us to take these things to heart. Too many things are changing, too much is being left behind.
