PART I, ARTICLE VII: THE CASTAWAY SCARE IN FIRST CORINTHIANS, SECTION I

 

A recurring realization that I have is how lightly the Christian Faith is taken by so many persons among us who call themselves Christians. It used to be that Christians could not be assured of salvation except through a series of sermons or pastoral sessions. Now it is rare to meet a professing Christian who doesn’t claim complete assurance of his saving state. This danger got to bothering me so much that I began to keep an eye on the subject during my reading and studies. This article is the fruit of that. 

“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Corinthians 9.27.)

A strong sense of duty will be accompanied by a principle of doubt concerning our works or character yielding evidence of saving faith, for we can never do enough nor be holy enough for him who died for us. We should expect to be accepted only if we do what God commands the accepted to do. Even were we to come up to as high a level as the apostle Paul, and maybe because of this attainment, a doubt concerning our security would exist. It is the Holy Spirit who threatens our sense of acceptation as he presses upon the Christian conscience the need to run into that very kingdom that has been planted in the heart. He does not cause doubt directly, but indirectly as we are made sensitive to our duty. The title for the verse above could be, The Christian’s Fear of God; or it could be, The Perseverance of the Saints. But these titles are not specific enough to address the suspense in the words, ‘lest…I myself should be a castaway.’ The apostle’s experience is that salvation, or his claim to it, is suspended on the hook of how well he does his work and how mortified he is to self and sin. We are not propelled to heaven on the steam of a languid life. Those who think they can be, or will be, are at special hazard of being falsely assured of where they are going. We persevere toward what has been procured for us by Christ. We fight to lay hold on that eternal life which was gifted to us when we believed (1 Timothy 6.12.) We are beseeched to not receive the grace of God in vain (2 Corinthians 6.1.) Both of these verses, in line with the text at the top, admonish us to prove ourselves by being sanctified. We do this by resisting sin and by walking in truth. And so: “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6.23); but “receive not the grace of God in vain” (2 Corinthians 6.1) and “lay hold on eternal life” (1 Timothy 6.12.) The apostle Paul feared that he ‘should be a castaway.’ This is another way of saying that he was scared of being cast away. As T. S. Eliot observes in the first sections of Pascal’s Pensees, ‘the demon of doubt’ is inseparable from ‘the spirit of belief’ (Blaise Pascal, Pensees, p. xv.)  

Verses 22 to 26 of 1 Corinthians 9 read as follows: “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air.”

The apostle’s drift in these verses—in these verses leading up to his final one in chapter nine—is a lesson on perseverance. The Christian is like the athlete in a sporting contest, whether running or boxing, striving to obtain the crown of victory. This crown is the crown of life, the imperishable crown. The Lord is the trainer; the Christian is the athlete. The athlete has been purchased from the slums, as it were. Both his person and rights are owned. The crown is in the Lord’s possession, to be presented to the rigorously trained athlete upon completion of the event. In verse 27, it is stated that the athlete keeps his body subdued because he fears being disqualified, or cast away: “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” The picture is given as a parallel to the Christian life. The Christian who is not mortified and motivated ought to fear disqualification from obtaining the spiritual crown (of eternal life), just as the Olympic competitor should fear disqualification for his lack of discipline. Recent Bible scholars avoid this interpretation. The definition of that word ‘castaway’ scares them. They think they might have a heresy on their hands if they take the apostle Paul seriously. Charles Ryrie says that this is a ‘reference to the possible loss of reward.’ C. I. Scofield believes the same. An old commentary that I have from 1880 (usually precious) intimates that the apostle could have fallen from grace, which is, I suppose, the false teaching that Ryrie and Scofield, by their understatement, are determined to dodge. A more honest treatment of the text constrains us to maintain that the apostle teaches that the Christian who does not subdue his carnal desires has just cause and good reason to doubt his salvation and that it is hazardous to his soul not to be of this mind. Paul’s message is not that he keeps his body disciplined for fear of losing rewards. His message is that he keeps under his body because he knows that intemperance (verse 25) is the mark of an infidel. There is a material difference between these two interpretations. The one which is correct is obvious from a fair treatment of the text. Which interpretation the professing Christian receives can mean more than a marginal difference, both in this life and hereafter. We should bear in mind that the apostle was addressing Corinthian converts, many of whom were courting carnal behavior. The possibility of being a castaway is the fair interpretation, and it is not an inconsequential one. Believing this interpretation may lead to salvation from being falsely assured; and this belief, at the least, should serve as a spur to both morality and ministry, and an aid to laying up treasures in heaven. The faithful interpretation of a text is the word of God explained and amplified—what the Puritans used to call ‘improved.’ It is not merely a design to make people behave. Salvation should be reckoned doubtful when disciples are immoral or when ministers are less than blameless in ministry; in the apostle’s case, such a doubt hangs in the air at the mere thought of a second-rate performance. We could, like Ryrie and Scofield do, attempt to instill a sense of duty by warning that rewards may be lost if the body is not kept under. If we take the text at face value, however, and give it the interpretation that it calls for, the incentive to prove ourselves is driven by an actual risk of being cast away; and then a sense of duty to persevere ought to follow. Some Christians would never risk going against what Ryrie and Scofield say. I used to fear the impulse of doing so myself. As far as scholars go, however, these two men are bantams, not heavyweights. 

I will prove my interpretation in three ways: by the definition of words, by the peripheral context, and by the proximate context. There is good reason to believe that even an apostle was scared of being cast away; and we have good reason to be glad that he had that scruple.

PART I, ARTICLE VI: THE SYMBOL OF POWER IN THE CHURCHES OF GOD, SECTION X

This Custom is Contested by no Other Church

The Corinthian church alone contested the symbol of power. “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (verse 16.) Those who look for a way around the ordinance often cast their eyes here for an escape. They bash the KJV for its old English; but they are positively wild about it here because of its peculiar diction and syntax. They try to suppose that Paul, who wrote ‘the commandments of the Lord’ (14.37), is now repealing all of his anterior arguments in order to accommodate a contentious temperament. Happy with this preposterous interpretation are contentious Christians who will be convinced by no argument, even one that says Paul would never prove the keeping of a tradition by brilliant argumentation, only to dismiss, in the last verse, the tradition that he labored to prove. At first glance the KJV seems to allow contentious Christians to never mind the tradition. But the definition of the word ‘custom’ proves that Paul is doing the opposite: pressuring the contentious to obey. ‘Ordinances’ in verse 2 means ‘traditions,’ while ‘custom’ in verse 16 means ‘mutual habituation,’ the entertaining of a moral or immoral habit. The same word is used in John 18.39 to identify another bad habit. Paul uses the Greek word translated ‘custom’ here in 1 Corinthians 11.16 to distinguish it from ‘ordinances’ in verse 2. Therefore, ‘we have no such custom’ does not mean ‘we have no such ordinance, or tradition.’ It means, ‘we have no such bad habit.’ And so the sense of the verse is, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such bad habit of being contentious, and neither do the churches of God.” The teaching is that Christians not in the habit to contend do not contest the tradition. The church at Corinth is being encouraged by peer pressure to imitate the other churches of God. The substance of verse 16, in modern translations, is, “We have no tradition other than the one just delivered.” This is surprising and good, given their liberal tendencies, for this interpretation at least admits that the tradition is not, at this place, left to one’s personal judgment.  But the more precise sense may be gleaned by a diligent study of words, as I have somewhat shown. The liberal sense of the verse is, “We do not necessarily hold to this tradition.” That this is wrong is plain, if only from the fact that this would mean that the apostle is granting an exemption to Christians who wish to be contentious.

The scope of the tradition is known by the word ‘churches.’ Paul’s frequent use of this word—fourteen times in his two epistles to this one church—conveys the universality of his orders. The symbol of power is meant for the churches of God then and now: them and us. No time limit is set down; it is for every church always. Even when he uses the word ‘church,’ he often means every church. The tradition, or ordinance, is one of Paul’s ‘ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church’ (4.17.) And notice that he addresses the men: ‘if any man seem to be contentious.’ He addresses the men; it is for them to enforce what the apostle has laid down, and to not be prevailed upon, or dominated, by women. There is little point in arguing with contentious women about the validity of Scripture. Paul knew that; and so he closes what he has to say on the matter by addressing the men. They have the mandate from God to be in charge and to take charge. The men are the principal ones to be confronted; the women are to be corrected and taught. Our churches are populated with chicken-hearted, henpecked men—weak men who are in cahoots with contentious women. They need to strengthen their weakened knees, for they are obliged to enforce the symbol of power. They are duty-bound to know it, to teach it, and to make sure that it is carried out. Militant feminism is in the visible church. This is abhorrent to members of the militant church, who, thankfully, upon becoming members of the church triumphant, will be separated forever, as wheat from chaff, from militant feminists and hypocrites generally. Weak-kneed pastors should remind themselves of this; they should be strengthened by the prophecy that all chaff will soon be driven away forever (Psalm 1.4.)  

Most men no doubt believe that they uncover their heads in church for no better reason than that a man is supposed to do it upon entering a room, like a library or a café, for example. But this is not a matter of etiquette; it is a matter of authority and glory. If a man uncovers his head for the right reason in church, and beside him sits a woman who has her head bare, he is dishonored, and the tradition, and therefore God, is disobeyed. If a man refuses to uncover his head in church, he is no more at fault than a woman who refuses to cover hers. Because churchgoers are ignorant, though, the covered man would be upbraided, while all the uncovered women would be let alone. But what about after it is known what this passage of Scripture teaches and requires? Churchgoers who are in the habit of being contentious will not receive the doctrine. But they ought to judge in themselves; that is, we hope, with their enlightened reason, whether or not the custom of debating what the Holy Ghost has written through the Lord’s apostle is holy conduct. 

Why are churches of God powerless today? Has it not got something to do with their disobedience to—even ignorance of—the symbol of power? Will authority proceed from pulpits when something as basic as God’s designated pattern of authority is in disarray? Will a church make mountains move when its faith won’t even heed God’s ladder of authority? How can a church move forward when its members won’t even line up in proper order? What kind of an army is that? ‘Onward Christian soldiers’ indeed! Churches that won’t march at God’s command are contentious; they need to be chastened more than blessed. Blessings must come through chastening when the church’s temperature is lukewarm. “I have no need of this symbol of power!” What is this attitude but the Laodicean claim to be in ‘need of nothing’? (Revelation 3.17.) Churches need what God says they must obey. This passage in 1 Corinthians on the symbol of power is so minutely explained by God’s apostle that it may be understood, I think, better than it was understood by Aaron that he had to wear a bonnet on his head during holy ministrations. He didn’t question the need of that; we should not question our need of this.  

In this marvelous, though neglected and even hated, passage of Scripture, the apostle has argued from the present to the past, delving back in time a little farther with each argument. He began with culture in verse 6, receded to the creative order of man and woman midway, then back still more to angels in verse 10. By verse 13 he was all the way back to reason, and challenged the Corinthians to use that to judge whether or not his position on this matter conformed to human nature (verses 14, 15.) The only argument we should need is the one in verse 13, the one that appeals to common sense: “Judge in yourselves” (verse 13.) By reason alone we should know that it is proper for a woman to wear long hair and that this hair is given to her as a glorious covering. From this common sense knowledge it should be easy to see that the veil is as spiritual as the woman’s hair is natural. The apostle’s arguments from creation, angelology, nature generally, and reason particularly, collapse the house that heretics have built on the foundation of culture. The symbol of power may not be dismissed on the basis that it is passé. If the matter were confined to first century culture, there would be no reason for the arguments that are used, and there would be no reason for the Holy Ghost to include the passage in the New Testament. 

One cannot go farther back than Saint Paul did in support of what he was moved by the Holy Ghost to commission. He argued in the sequence that he did in order to stack his arguments up in the most convincing manner possible. His main arguments for the maintenance of the tradition are not limited to culture nor epoch, for man is still made in the image and glory of God, the natural order still obtains, angels still exist and observe, nature still teaches, and human reason still informs us of what is proper. What is fundamental to each argument is the fact that the hierarchy established by God has not changed: God, Christ, man, woman. Until it changes, the symbol of power should be in effect. The apostle’s intention was to cement the tradition in the churches of God until the end of the age. There are great themes in this passage: honor, glory, equality. But the main theme is authority. Will the churches of God submit to their Almighty Father by respecting his order of authority? By having ‘power on her head,’ God’s authority design is honored, his glory is exposed and uplifted without rival, the angels are not offended but taught, and the churches of God are humbly bowed before the God that they owe adoration to. “In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short” (Marvin Vincent.) This is the picture that the first half of 1 Corinthians aims to paint in all the churches of God.

PART I, ARTICLE VI: THE SYMBOL OF POWER IN THE CHURCHES OF GOD, SECTION IX

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.

PART I, ARTICLE VI: THE SYMBOL OF POWER IN THE CHURCHES OF GOD, SECTION VIII

There is Codependence in the Lord for Consolation

Man is the glory of God and the head of woman. This glory should be displayed and this head should be prominent. Woman is the glory of man, under man’s authority, and this glory should be covered to symbolize her subordination. Glory is this way distributed, and authority is this way delegated, because woman originates from man, and is a helpmeet made for man. Though woman is required to advertise her subordinate station, man has no right from God to look down on her. Verses 11 and 12 are included in order to restrain man from abusing his position in the hierarchy. And so we have no argument here, but a safeguard to protect women. We might imagine these two verses in parentheses: “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” Yet again the apostle Paul comes to the rescue of women. He did not shy away from injecting this clause into a passage that was written to reprimand the disobedient sex. He balances the sexes fairly even among cultures to whom a tendency toward ‘equal rights’ would have seemed mad. He reminds the Corinthians of what is obvious. Woman is from man; but since then man is born of woman. The codependence that is taught in these verses is in harmony with the give and take that is necessary in the roles that are assigned to man and woman. According to the nature of each, each depends on the other, and both depend on God, from whom all blessings come. Mutual respect should be shown according to the codependence that naturally exists. Submission to husbands is conjoined with love for wives in Colossians, love for wives with reverence for husbands in Ephesians. The man needs a double dose of respect, while the woman craves a double dose of love. The man needs to be looked up to; the woman needs to be cherished. And each spouse has the right to the other (1 Corinthians 7.4.) This is equal rights according to the Bible. The equilibrium is beautiful under the headships of Christ and God. Man and woman have different roles and functions. The one leads, while the other assists, yet they are equal. They are mutually dependent. 

Spiritual life was first lost by woman when she was deceived by the devil. But it was to be regained through her: Mary gave birth to the Saviour. Natural life was first lost by the woman in the same way; but through childbirth it was continued through her. Woman committed the transgression that led to the fall of both her and man. But her consolation is that she bears the Seed that saves both. It may be that this is what the cryptic 1 Timothy 2.15 refers to: “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” Eve’s ‘sorrow and conception’ (Genesis 3.16) looked forward to the holy conception and Mary’s Magnificat: the conception by the Holy Spirit that caused the incarnation of the Son of God, and the estate of woman exalted to its highest pitch. “And Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden” (Luke 1.46-48.) By her low estate regarded, her soul is lifted to magnify the Lord. This is, by the way, an instance of the ‘joy unspeakable’ that Peter speaks of (1 Peter 1.8.) The first transgression is by woman, but all subsequent salvation, accomplished by the Seed prophesied of in Genesis 3.15, is obviously via woman, for Mary is the mother of Jesus. Salvation is by the Man Christ Jesus, but through a handmaiden. Man is not independent of woman, for through her salvation is come. The head of man is the Man she gave birth to. So even if man is a lord, he cannot, with justice, ‘lord it over,’ as we say. Man had no part in bringing the Saviour into the world. Jesus came through woman by conception of the Holy Ghost. Is this childbirth not the most dignifying deed in the history of the world? For certain that deed can never be outdone by any sinful mortal. Therefore we have the consolatory qualification regarding woman’s subordination to man: “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” The greatest Man, the sinless Man—the Man Christ Jesus, God in human flesh—is through the woman, not the man. 

PART I, ARTICLE VI: THE SYMBOL OF POWER IN THE CHURCHES OF GOD, SECTION VII

There is a Cloud of Witnesses to Watch Out For

Verse 10 is a strong argument; this argument depends on what comes before. Verse 10: “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” What is meant by ‘for this cause’? ‘For this cause’ points back to verses 7-9 particularly, and back to the passage generally. The argument is that out of respect for the angels who look on expecting to see the saints worshipping according to God’s command and created order, the token of authority, or symbol of subjection, should be in place. Angels know that God should be glorified, especially since a third of the angels fell on account of God being contemned instead. They know that woman is the glory of man, and that she was created from man and for man. They therefore can deduce that she is not the glory that should be exposed to view and that her glory (her hair) should be covered as well. As angels veil themselves when appearing before God, they expect women to veil themselves before the power that is immediately above them. Many churchgoing women claim to not understand 1 Corinthians 11.2-16. They grasp more than they let on, however. They realize that wearing a covering on the head is an act of submission. And this is why they recoil when it is suggested that they wear a veil or a bonnet during service in church. Stubborn women do not wear a covering because they perceive that wearing one has something to do with submission, which virtue they abhor. They do not understand the passage any better than the scribes and the judicially blind understood Jesus’ parables (Matthew 13.13.) But, like scribes upon hearing Jesus’ parabolic language, they understand the Corinthian passage enough to hate it. About the passage, they feel like the elders, the scribes, and the chief priests did about Jesus’ parables: that the truth is spoken ‘against them’ (Mark 12.12.) These are the same women who have angels on their necklaces, on their walls, and on the covers of the superstitious books they read. They are obsessed with angels. But when it comes to showing actual respect for these ministering spirits: by covering their heads—their fascination comes to a sudden stop. Wearing a veil is a visible mark of reverence for God’s word. Refusing to wear one is a visible mark of rebellion. On the one hand, we hope that uncovered women are not true Christians, for they make a shameful representation of Christianity. On the other hand, we hope that they are, for how few women must be saved if being uncovered means that they are lost. On a third hand, supposing we had a third, we try to believe that many uncovered women would don the veil if the reasons for doing so were competently and earnestly communicated to them—that they would not dwell on how the covering offends them, but on the offence that they are guilty of by not wearing one. After a person’s eyes are open to see the importance of this passage from 1 Corinthians, the uncovered woman will bear the appearance of a saucy woman, though her insubordination might merely be due to naïve ignorance or perhaps to lack of courage to resist the peer pressure to conform to the present condition of disobedience.     

In chapter 10 of 1 Corinthians we read, “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (verse 32.) We read that a person should not seek his own profit, nor advantage over others (verse 33.) Now, in verse 10 of chapter 11, the message is to give none offence to the angels and to seek the angels’ profit. Since angels are ministering spirits for saints, should saints not be grateful enough to avoid offending them? Professing Christians of the sassy sort love to speak of supernatural things. Sometimes they stretch the truth of what they have experienced of the unearthly. Some of them are guilty of inventing uncanny stories to tell. But take them to this passage on the symbol of power, and it is as if they don’t believe in the supernatural at all. 

Angels are interested in creatures of glory. They were created before man and have likely witnessed man being created in God’s image. They probably saw God make man from dust, breathe life into his nostrils, and fashion his rib into a woman. It is probable that they saw the image of God as it was marred by sin. And we now know that they desire to look into the matter of salvation (1 Peter 1.9, 12.) Irredeemable as they are, their sinless minds are stimulated to contemplate God’s work of grace in all of its incremental steps. They not only contemplate, they minister. They are ‘fellowservants’ with Christians (Revelation 22.9.) This is why, as described in the book of Revelation, they are so intimately connected with effectuating the consummation of Christianity. An angel announced to Mary that she would give birth to Jesus; an angel appeared to Joseph to warn him to flee to Egypt with Jesus and Mary to prevent the Holy Child from being murdered; angels were with the Lord in the wilderness when he was tempted; they were with him again in the garden when he agonized; they were at the ready when he hung upon the cross; and they were with him yet again at his resurrection and ascension. They are gospel-centered creatures because their Lord is central to the gospel. They are orderly creatures too; as such, they expect to witness order as they peer into the sanctuary where the Lord’s redeemed souls gather for worship. Speaking as large as we can, what did the Son of God die for if it wasn’t to restore order to a world of sin, death, and woe? What do angels think when authority is spurned and glory is shadowed in the house of God? Is the blood of Jesus not powerful enough to redeem unto obedience? Conversely, what profit to the angels when they observe an apostle being persecuted for his obedience so much as to be rendered a ‘spectacle’ and a ‘fool’ for Christ (1 Corinthians 4.) If they saw this concerning the apostle, it is not a stretch to believe that they saw Abel offer ‘a more excellent sacrifice’; Enoch translated because ‘he pleased God’; Noah prepare an ark where no water was; Abraham going out of Ur in obedience to God, ‘not knowing wither he went’; Moses ‘choosing to suffer affliction’ over a delicate life; faithful warriors ‘quench the violence of fire’ and ‘wax valiant in fight’; and God-fearing women ‘tortured, not accepting deliverance’ that they might ‘obtain a better resurrection.’ What knowledge all of this is to the profit of angels! But what a bar to knowledge have our churches become! When angels look down on us, what do they see? Do they see obedience and courage? Or do they see women who are supposed to be the daughters of Abraham acting arrogant and disrespectful? Is God asking too much, after giving his Son over to be crucified, when he, through his apostle, asks for a little token of obedience in return? Is it too much for women to wear a signet or a badge on their heads in order to announce that God’s authority and glory matter? What a shame to have to ask women to do something for the angels when they won’t even do it for God. Yet God condescends to use that inferior argument. “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12.1.) Hebrews 12.1 is a remark on the roster of faith in the previous chapter. The sense is that as Abel, Abraham, Moses, and company were surrounded by witnesses, so are we—‘we also are compassed about.’  

Angels are spirits, and many of them are near, looking into our affairs. We are not aware of their presence and visits, for our spirits are enclosed in a body fit for the earth, and thus restricted by our bodily senses that are made for the material world. If God, though, were to unhinge our spirits from the limitations of bodily sense for an instant, we would see these ministers round about us in our churches, even as Elisha and his servant saw them on the mountains many centuries ago (2 Kings 6.) Maybe a little boy or girl looking aimlessly about, as children do, would exclaim, “There they are, up in the rafters!” The doctrine of angels is not negated just because of our incapacity to see heavenly beings. Therefore “ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” We see heads covered or uncovered in the sanctuary; the angels see honor or dishonor. We see the matter of it; they see what the matter of it signifies. We see with eyes obscured by sin; they see with a sinless vision. Do angels, when observing the glory of God (man) beside the glory of man (woman), not see a distinction comparable to what we see between the male peacock and its female counterpart, or at least between the gold finch and its dull colored mate? Women may look shinier to us; not so to the angels of God. Man—peacock that he is—must be highlighted in church by a symbol of power upon his subordinate. “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

PART I, ARTICLE VI: THE SYMBOL OF POWER IN THE CHURCHES OF GOD, SECTION VI

There are Creatures of Glory to Consider

Verses 7-9 contain the principal argument: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” The argument is the nature of man, which argument is reasoned out by two facts: woman originates from man (coming from man’s rib), and she was created for him. Both facts disclose her subordinate standing. The man is even made to stand taller than the woman in order for God to showcase her subordination in all of her interactions with man, both inside and outside the church. The average height of a woman is five feet four inches, four or five inches less than the average height of a man. Woman was created to fill a supportive role, not a superior one. Man was made to be her authority; she was made to be his auxiliary.   

The creation of woman from man and the purpose of one for the other, are facts from the revelation in Genesis that lead to the reasonable deduction of whose glory should be displayed in the church. Man was created first; he is the glory of God; he is the substance from whom the woman was made. Woman was created second; she is the glory of man; she is the ‘weaker vessel,’ as Peter says. A print is not as fundamental as the painting that it is lifted from; man is the basis of woman. A painter would rather have his painting represent his work than his print; God’s glory is the man, not the woman. A print is the image of a painting; woman is the glory of man. 

The woman is from man and for man. She is made to attract him and to receive him. She pines for his affection and she needs his provision and protection. Her disposition is to revolve around man just as the moon revolves around the earth. God made her that way. And, incidentally, both man and woman are supposed to orbit God just as the moon and earth go around the sun. So perfect is woman for man that ‘the way of a man with a maid’ is spoken of as being ‘too wonderful,’ or inscrutable (Proverbs 30.18, 19.) A man in love or lust will go to any length to obtain the object of his desire or at least to get into her circle. We have all observed this. If not, we have all heard of it. Some men are inexplicably drawn to certain women. “Consult your own experience, and confess, whether you are not touched by almost everything they do, or say, or look; confess, whether their very foibles, and follies, do not often interest, sometimes please you?” (James Fordyce, The Character and Conduct of the Female Sex, and the Advantages to be Derived by Young Men from the Society of Virtuous Women, p. 11.) Nonetheless, woman is the glory of man as certainly as man is the glory of God. Woman was made for man. This is why she cannot help doing whatever she can to be resplendent in his eyes. Women are obsessed with men, and will be until the end of the world. When a woman can get a man, she wallows; when she is not wanted by a man, she wilts and wanes. She wants to be wanted by the one whom she is the glory of. “That Providence designed women for a state of dependance, and consequently of submission, I cannot doubt, when I consider…their incessant study, at every age, in every state, by every means, to engage our attention, and insure our regard” (Ibid., p. 39.)  

What is more intrinsic to God than that he emits glory? In the church his desire is to emit that glory from his first-created gender. Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1.27.) The woman, being created out of man, is created in the image of God at second hand. She is an image of an image. Both man and woman are endued with reason and moral awareness. But it comes to pass, more particularly, that man is the glory of God and that woman is the glory of man because the man was created directly while the woman was created indirectly through the man. The man was created for God. The woman was created through man and for man. Fundamentally, both man and woman were created for God, and in his image. But in a circumstantial sense and for practical reasons, the woman was created for man.     

Three glories are mentioned in the passage: the glory of God (man), the glory of man (woman), and the woman’s glory (her hair, verse 15.) The woman covers her head in order to cover the glories of man and woman: the woman and her hair. This is done in order that God’s glory (the man) is the one that is shown, and thereby is God glorified. God’s glory must be exposed, and that of man and woman concealed. It is misconceived that man is exalted and that woman is suppressed when the woman covers her head. The truth is that God is glorified. In order for God’s glory to be preeminent, his glory (the man) must be uncovered, while the glories of both man and woman (her and her hair) must be covered. When the woman’s glory is uncovered in the church, man’s glory (the woman, verse 7) and the woman’s glory (her hair, verse 15) compete with God’s glory (the man.)

These days in our churches the glories of man and woman compete with God’s glory for the preeminence. Is it right for man’s glory (the woman) and woman’s glory (her hair) to be exposed where their exposure are forbidden? “And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle” (Exodus 40.35.) There should be room for no glory but God’s in either tabernacle or church. I have been in assemblies where all the heads of women were covered according to New Testament tradition. These assemblies were not necessarily more doctrinally correct than others. But there was an atmosphere of peace in them that disobedient churches did not exhibit. Obedience to this tradition occasions order; and, where order is, there tends to be peace. When obedience and order are on account of obedience to an ordinance of God, the peace that follows is peace from God. The glory of God brings peace; and obedience is the way for God’s glory to permeate. Barring exceptions to the rule, this peace will not occur except women cover their heads in church. “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

PART I, ARTICLE VI: THE SYMBOL OF POWER IN THE CHURCHES OF GOD, SECTION V

There is a Comparable Shame to be Distanced From

By this time the apostle has laid the groundwork. There is a tradition, or custom, or ordinance, to keep. There is a hierarchy, or authority structure, to observe. And it must be observed for the sake of the honor of various heads. Now he comes to his leading arguments. His purpose is to restore order in the church, by which restoration the heads of authority are honored once again. 

The tail end of verse 5 and the whole of verse 6 make up his first argument. The uncovered woman is “even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” In other words, the woman’s uncovered head is no less a shame than a bald head is. A woman might as well have the latter if she will have the former. If a woman’s head is uncovered in church, why not shave her head bare and be done with all manner of covering? That is his argument. It may be that he argues similarly with the Galatians when he seems to suggest that those who would circumcise themselves ought to go so far as to cut off the whole (5.12.) John MacArthur thinks that may be the case. If the woman will cast aside the token of subjection that is assigned to her by God, why not take off the one that she is endowed with by nature as well? Paul’s rhetoric in verse 6 might seem anticlimactic to us. But it must have been the apex of horror to the churchgoing women in Corinth. The city was infamous for its modes of debauchery. In the temple of Aphrodite were employed priestesses, who were, in fact, temple prostitutes. These women could be identified by their shorn, or shaven, appearance. So verse 6 likens the appearance of uncovered women in church to that of bald prostitutes in heathen temples. Their saucy behaviors are similar. The latter women are the public shame; the former women are the shame of the church. The apostle’s comparison might seem scathing. But his doctrine is considerate. He only requires that women be covered during church services or functions during which worship services take place, for the letter is about order in the church. Women are not being forced to wear a burqa or sack over the entire body, only a veil on the head. Even during the time of the Old Testament patriarchs, women had more freedom than they presently have in Muslim societies. Rebekah, for example, was not veiled when she saw Isaac in the distance (Genesis 24.65.) And it may be that she veiled herself upon his approach only because she was betrothed to him. Furthermore, we read in Genesis 38.15 that it was ‘an harlot’ that ‘covered her face.’ This means that the women of Israel did not do so. As far back into Israel’s history as one can go, its treatment of women does not exhibit the extremes that oppressive Islam is infamous for. And edification and liberty, not oppression and bondage, mark the doctrines of Paul on the matter. The woman does not dignify herself by refusing to cover up; her sin of omission mirrors indecency. That is the teaching in verse 6 of 1 Corinthians 11.  

It is no longer common for women to cover their heads in evangelical churches. And if some do cover, few among these know why. Evangelical women know about this passage in the Bible. Based on what I have observed from both far and near, it is a passage that is generally abhorred by them. Can a person hate a passage of Scripture and be saved? Can that person who hates what the Bible teaches in one place be saved through its message in another place? Should a Christian not love what the word of God teaches? I love the doctrine of hell, not because I look forward to sinners and even loved ones going there. I love it instinctively on account of my new life in Christ, which is mine through regeneration. A child of God loves the things of God, whatever they are. Some women who know about this passage actually look into it, figure it out, and then obey it. I found a testimony of one such woman on the internet: “After my return home,” she says, from church, I guess, “Dad asked me what I thought God wanted me to do about it. That was all it took; I attacked the project, subdued it, wore it, and have been wearing it ever since. Now the veil is precious to me. I would not go anywhere [to any church, I presume] without that announcement of God’s protection. And it pleases him besides!” Far from feeling subjugated by a patriarchal system, this girl felt elated, exalted, and protected. The woman who obeys the word of God is happy and feels honored. It is to a woman’s advantage to obey. Any person who has been around for awhile will tell you that women have become increasingly unhappy and bitter since at least the 1950s. What an opportunity of obedience does the Christian woman have today! What blessing from God would she certainly receive by showing subjection by wearing the symbol of power! A woman who wants to be closer to God has an easy way, in obedience to this ordinance, to get that done. Especially pleasing to God would it be for her to obey in spite of the men in church who do not carry their place of authority well. Is it possible to find even five men in a church who are more biblically literate than the most knowledgeable woman there? Is it possible to find one pastor in ten churches who thinks the forepart of 1 Corinthians is comprehensible and applicable? The Christian woman who obeys in the current milieu will not lose her reward any more than the woman who put her two mites in the offering will lose hers.        

The uncovered women in the church at Corinth wanted emancipation on their own terms and according to their own design. The apostle stepped in to stop illicit trends from entering the church. He knew the dangers that a little leaven pose. But our churches do not listen to him much. The covering became a controversy in our churches only recently. Now it is no longer a controversy because practically no one bothers to enforce it. After the pope said that the covering was no longer necessary, Catholic churches began to disregard the symbol; then the evangelical churches, so weak as to be relieved for a way out of being thought discriminatory, obeyed the pope. So in the 1960s the veil started to come off in our churches. Added to the influence of the pope was the even more powerful sway of culture. The covering coming off was a symptom in religion of rebellion in the world. Women were cropping their hair in the 1920s, wearing pants by the 1940s, and did up the length of their skirts along the way. This is generally how feminism progressed. Dresses and skirts grew shorter in churches while women of the world were exchanging women’s attire for clothes that men wore. Before long, women were wearing pants in church as brazenly as that had been done in the world. Then when women began to occupy stations once reserved for men, churchgoing women copied that to become ministers in our churches. One sin led to another until, finally, women were wresting (perverting) the word of Almighty God from sacred pulpits (2 Peter 3.16.) Abyssus abyssum invocat. (Abyss calls to abyss)—: one depravity leads to another. Once the biblical standard is set aside, there follows improper attire from the head on down, then fornication, adultery, and illegitimate ordination, and then feminist propaganda from purloined pulpits—pulpits occupied by women who could pass for temple prostitutes, by the way. That is the situation presently. “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”