The Custom is Consonant with Nature
After asserting the codependence of man and woman in order to guard his teaching from being taken advantage of against women, the apostle takes up his next argument. Verse 13: “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” The woman is naturally more modest than man. It is natural for her to assume an appearance and mien of subjection. A haughty woman is more naturally repellent than a proud man because she was specially created for obeisance. To ‘love, honor, and obey,’ is as natural a formula for the woman to vow as it is biblical. In worship, it is the homely woman who is the most comely. The compliant woman is best, and the shamefaced woman most pretty. This verse appeals to reason also—even by itself considered: “Judge in yourselves.” Reason is part of human nature; therefore I will not set it apart as a point on its own, though I will remark on it later.
This argument continues in the two verses following. Verses 14, 15: “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” So here a contrast is given to strengthen the argument from nature. That her hair in verse 15 is not the only covering that woman needs in church is proven by the fact that verse 6 would involve a redundancy if this were the case. Look at verse 6 for a minute: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” If ‘covered’ referred to hair in verse 6, the communication there would be: if the woman has no hair, then let her be shorn. Moreover, ‘covering’ in verse 15 and ‘covered’ in verse 6 are translated from two different Greek words. Therefore there are two coverings spoken of in the text: woman’s hair in verse 15, and her veil in verse 6. According to the definitions of these two words, the woman’s long hair in verse 15 covers the head ‘wholly,’ while the covering in verse 6 is a ‘mantle.’ So the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11.2-16 essentially is that a woman’s head should be mantled in worship. I point out the distinction because some do argue that the only covering spoken of in the text is the hair on a woman’s head. In reality, there is a natural veil, and there is a symbolical veil. The woman’s natural covering exemplifies the one that she should wear in church. And consonant with the short hair of man is his uncovered head. Images on the walls of catacombs feature men with short hair. It is natural for a woman to nurse her hair. But it is unnatural for a man to be preoccupied with his own. By doing so, he may bring discrimination upon himself. Because of his long hair, an employer might not hire him; and if he is hired he risks being mocked. “It is a shame unto him” (1 Corinthians 11.14.) Imagine the man who grows his hair long. There he is, caught in inclement weather, and soon reduced to embarrassment as the wind lashes his ungodly mane against his face and into his eyes. Have we all not witnessed this? The wind and rain put his hair in a tangle, and he goes home looking like a castaway and smelling like a mongrel. But imagine a woman caught in the same storm. The wind and rain come down upon her, tussling and frizzing her hair, serving only to render her more enticing, and she goes home looking like the ‘rose of Sharon’ and smelling like the ‘vineyards of Engedi.’ Long hair is glorious on woman, but odious on man. A woman’s natural covering looks fair in public; her veil is seemly in worship.
It should seem as natural for a woman to be veiled in church as it is to have her hair for a covering of glory. She has glory on her head naturally: her long hair; she should have power on her head spiritually: her veil. She has a covering on her head in private: her long hair. She should have this covered in public worship because both her glory (her hair) and man’s glory (the woman) must be covered in order for God’s glory (the man) to be without rival in the church.
Some women do not value long hair. Others who wear their hair long would never consider it their glory. But generally speaking—almost universally speaking—women obsess about their hair. If this were not true, a rebellious woman would not shave her head to make a statement. If this were not true, a whole wall would not be set aside in the drugstore to market shampoos and conditioners for every conceivable problem known to afflict women’s hair. If this were not the case, the other side of the aisle would not be set apart to showcase products and contraptions for drying, curling, straightening, platting, piling, growing, coloring, cutting, combing, brushing, and plumping women’s hair. “If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.” Even though churchgoing women are supposed to be the meekest women on the face of the earth, many of them—probably most of them—hate this verse passionately, along with the passage that it is couched in. I know this hatred from personal experience, even in connection with a Brethren church that draws one of its ‘distinctives’ from the half-chapter in question. I know how to interpret gnashing of teeth, as in Acts 7.54; and ‘whisperings’ and ‘backbitings,’ as in 2 Corinthians 12.20, on account of this subject. These trespasses are committed by women who think that to obey a New Testament tradition is beneath their stature and bother. No matter how much women hate to admit it, and no matter how much they hate to have the Bible confirm it, they treat their hair as if it were their one and only glory. One of the most lucrative tactics to draw money for cancer ‘research’ is to line bald women up in a commercial. They don’t try this with bald men because men don’t treat their hair like it’s their glory. Well, some of them do, like a friend of mine and our primping prime minister. But exceptions prove the rule. Churchgoing women, as a general rule, do not like to obey anything associated with their gender. Even among those who choose to wear long hair, only few of them would consider their long hair as a mark of obedience or a blessing from God. If shown the verse, most women would wave it off as an outdated thing to read, much less pay attention to. Nevertheless, the verse says that ‘if’ a woman has long hair, it is her glory.
I have shown the reasons why this passage in 1 Corinthians is not obsolete, but perennially relevant. Here I wish to show some of the supporting evidence in the Bible for the assertion that women should wear their hair long and have themselves a glory to speak of. In first Corinthians (verse 6) it is made plain that it is a shame for a woman’s hair to be shorn or shaved. There is no verse in the Bible that remotely contradicts that statement, while verses in support of its opposite (long hair) are numerous. In the Bible, long hair for women is not only encouraged and insisted on, it is taken as granted. In the book of Revelation the apostle John describes a plague of locusts: “And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions” (9.8.) He takes it for granted that people can visualize both the teeth and hair in his figure of speech. If the norm had been for women to wear their hair short, the illustration would make no sense. Long hair is as natural on a woman as fangs are in a lion’s mouth. The LORD often refers to his chosen people as his bride, like in Jeremiah 2.32. Several chapters later (7.29-31) he challenges the kingdom of Judah to cut off her hair and to cast it away as preliminary to a lamentation for having committed idolatry and infanticide. The charge is that Judah has played the harlot; the command is that Judah own up to her sin by, figuratively, shearing her hair. (Harlots were customarily bald or at least had short hair.) It was a shame for a woman to be bald, but glorious for a woman to wear long hair. Otherwise the challenge and charge would not be reasonable. In Ezekiel, Israel is described like so: “I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare” (16.7.) Israel is here imagined so beautiful in appearance that she is compared to a woman fully attired with natural splendor. Her obedience should be as attractive as her outward endowments. This is the teaching. No sensible person will assume that this figurative woman is ornamented with hair that is barely grown. The assumption is that a woman has long hair and that her hair forms a large part of her ornamentation.
Despite what the Bible says about what, by nature, a woman is furnished with, and what, according to God’s word, she should look like, some men, even pastors, are glad to have it some other way. Weak, worldly pastors do not like being around whatever reminds them of their weaknesses and prejudices. I was in a car once with a pastor and his wife when his wife told him that a certain woman in church had cut her long hair off up by her ears. She was almost breathless with glee as she told him the ‘good news.’ When he heard this news from his wife (who wore bobbed hair), his exclamation and smile filled the whole car. When I expressed my disapproval of the news, for to me the news was bad instead of good, they knew why, and they both showed their disdain by changing the subject.
There are two acts of worship recorded in the New Testament that would be far less moving, because virtually impossible, if the women in question had had short hair. In John 12.3, a certain woman named Mary anoints Jesus’ feet with costly oil and then wipes his feet with her hair. Both Matthew (26.13) and Mark (14.9) record the same account. Obviously, this woman does not wipe the Lord’s feet with hair that is short. In the Bible, feet are typically reckoned as parts of the body needing to be washed. The Lord’s feet, so holy, clean, and pure, deserve to be worshipped in the washing; yea, and wiped with nothing less than the woman’s glory. The second woman is recorded by Luke (chapter 7) to highlight a beautiful exhibition of repentance and forgiveness. As the story goes, this sinful woman, burdened by a sense of her guiltiness before God, cries on the Lord’s feet, thus washing his feet with her tears, which feet she then wipes with her hair, mixing in kisses and fragrant oil. Jesus, moved by this demonstration of contrition, tenderly, and with comforting authority, forgives her sins. She used her tears for water and her hair as a cloth. Without long hair, there had been no cloth, and no opportunity for this woman to submit her glory to its greatest use: worship.
The Song of Solomon is that part of the Old Testament which is dedicated to the manners of courtship and love between man and woman. Solomon describes his lover like so: “Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves’ eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead” (4.1.) Hair that is long enough to obscure the eyes is romantic. A woman should have hair that is long enough to entice from behind her locks; there should be ‘eyes within thy locks.’ A similar compliment drawn from goats occurs in chapter 6. Goats residing on mountains typically flaunt flowing hair. The statement would be ridiculous if a common short-haired goat were taken for the figure. In chapter 7, his lover is praised for having hair ‘like purple’ (verse 5.) The simile denotes two things: the purple hue that emanates from black hair when shone upon by rays of the sun, which is lovely to behold; and the color of royalty, which is meant to remind us of the flowing robe of a monarch. Suppose a woman were to sport a crew-cut. We don’t have to suppose, do we? Many women do nowadays. Does that crew-cut make her look better in the sun? No, it just highlights what appears to be a hairstyle fit for a sailor. Does the sunshine on her hair make her look queenly? No, it makes her look unseemly. While beauty without piety is vain, a woman with short hair looks more piteous than pious. Should a woman look radiant? Or should she appear repugnant? Though she should not glory in her glory, she should at least keep it, nurse it, and thank God for gifting it. Do men find short hair on a woman captivating? If they do, why is it so hard to find a poem about a woman with short hair? Where are the poetic sentiments about that? Where are they, not just in Scripture, but in literature of any kind? Actually, I managed to find a couple. The first one is from someone in the fashion industry in ‘Illonois’ (sic.) It is called, Girl with the Short Hair, and contains the following lines: “Broken girl with/The short hair, I want to/Hold your tears.” A woman with short hair: crying and broken—no surprise. The second poem is called, The Girl with Short Hair. This one is authored by Sarah Logan. It includes the lines: “They have no more pity for the girl with short hair/They just can’t seem to muster a single care.” So this poem is negative also. Short hair on a girl doesn’t seem to evoke anything but misery or pity. How different from the following lines: “I love your hair when the strands enmesh/Your kisses against my face” (Ella Wheeler Wilcox.) Poems about hair are usually about hair that is long—the kind that is praised in the Bible. Until a girl is indoctrinated to hate long hair, she will desire to wear her hair that way. It is a natural desire derived from God.
I could certainly gather more support for long hair being the rule for women in biblical times, which is the appropriate style for all times. A mop on the head makes a man look shiftless; bobbed hair on the head makes a woman look balky. Hippies and feminists do not make ideal citizens, much less decent disciples. Some Puritan men wore long hair; but they were not shiftless hippies. And again, exceptions prove the rule. Even the Puritans were not perfect on every point; we do not legislate based on exceptions, but based on the Bible alone.
Even in the midst of the cultural insanity that the Western world is presently suffering from, no one can fail to see, after what has been pointed out concerning a woman’s hair, that it is a natural covering of glory that has been gifted to her by God. However, I know that many persons claim to not be able to see what is obvious; and it is possible that not all of these persons are lying when they say so. Because our institutions have been taken over by radicals who deny the possibility of arriving at certain truth, our culture is on a slide of indefinite depth and duration. What is owned as a fact today will be disowned as soon as next week; and virtually every person has his ear cocked to hear what he is supposed to believe next. Therefore, it is becoming possible to be blind to things that are as plain as nature itself. It is no wonder that a woman with a green crew-cut does not shock anyone; we are so far down the road to ruin that genders are being invented to suit the fancy of each baffled soul. Thank God that his word does not change! For those who want to orient themselves to God’s natural order, they need only to set the Bible on the world as one would a map on the ground in order to find out where they are at and where they must go.
Long hair on a woman is her glory; it is a natural covering. This glory needs to be covered in worship; otherwise the woman’s head (the man) is dishonored and the glory of God (the man) is rivaled. It is natural for women to wear long hair. This is meant to teach us what is natural in worship. If it is natural for women to be covered with glorious hair, and for them to treat this covering as their glory, then it should be easy for them to understand that they and their glory, being a reflection of man (for woman is of man), should be covered during worship in order for the reflection of God (the man) to be apparent and exclusive. Indeed, the image of God must be exclusively betokened in order to be apparent. This betokening is accomplished by placing a token on the woman’s head. The argument from nature is compelling: “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” The apostle’s arguments are not hard to understand; they are simple, systematic, and solid. For this reason, the apostle will now label persons contentious who will not receive his doctrine.
No comments:
Post a Comment