UNPUBLISHED BOOK: GOOD ORDER IN THE CHURCH

Leslie McFall

CONTENTS

4.4.1. Greek and Roman Women and head-covering

4.4.2. Veil or head-covering?

4.4.2.1 The woman's "Bun" style is her covering

4.4.2.2 The woman's own hair is the covering

4.4.2.3 The woman's long swirling hair is called uncovered hair

4.4.2.4 Paul is referring to an artificial covering

4.4.3. Long or short hair? What is "nature"?

4.4.4. Symbol of husband's or wife's authority?

4.4.5. The Practice in the Synagogues

4.4.5.1 Modern Jewish practices and contemporary culture

_______________________________________________________

4.4 SURELY YOU ARE NOT ASKING WOMEN TO GO BACK TO COVERING THEIR HEADS IN CHURCH, ARE YOU?

Should women have their heads covered when they are "praying and prophesying"? The succinct answer is, Yes. At the theological level, the one thing that most evangelical scholars are agreed on is that according to the teaching of the New Testament, women in New Testament times had a covering on their heads when they prayed and prophesied. What has happened in the pew, however, is that women have gone with the prevailing fashion of the secular world and the covering slowly but surely slipped out of sight. Nothing was done about it at the leadership level (because the church lost its authoritative voice in the early part of the twentieth century, if not earlier) and this gave the practice the green light. Today it is a rare sight indeed to find a covered head in the mainline denominations, despite the knowledge at the scholarly level that the practice does not conform to the apostolic tradition that Paul handed on to all the churches he founded.

Now that the practice for women to worship bare-headed is almost universal in the Western church in the main denominations the trend has been to find (in some quarters) a theology that will justify the practice, because the thought of disciplining offenders is now unthinkable. The feeling is that somehow the new, pew practice must be right&emdash;must be given justification, and must be accepted by the leaders of the church, because the Church of Jesus Christ in the twenty-first century will no longer take any orders from its Head, or tolerate any form of discipline at any level against any person, gay, lesbian or straight. The church hierarchy has lost all credibility in the eyes of its members. Anything goes today: discipline is a dirty word. "Leave everyone alone to do what they want to do," is heard on all sides. "Let anyone be a minister if they want to, men or women&emdash;straight, homosexuals, gays, lesbians&emdash;anyone! Let anyone divorce and be remarried in Church, why not? It happens outside in the world, and that is acceptable, so why not in the church? What's wrong with abortion on demand? It happens outside and no one is sent to jail for it! It's not a crime, you know, to have an abortion."

"We are living in a free society now," we are told, "and this should be reflected in the life of the church." We are even warned that if the fashion in the church and the world does not keep in step then the church, not the world, will lose out, and it will be considered old-fashioned, and, "You don"t want that image do you?" "In any case," we are informed, "even if Jesus Christ himself came back tomorrow and confirmed Paul's teaching (and it is only Paul's teaching anyway, Jesus had more respect for women than him!) who would listen to Him? If He insisted on it He would lose all His followers, so there, even He will have to accept that He cannot change anything now: the people will determine how they will appear before Him, not Him or His Bishops. We're living in a democracy now, you know. In any case, He got it all wrong, didn't He, when He said that women shouldn't preach in His Church? We have had women preachers for years now and we see absolutely nothing wrong with it&emdash;absolutely nothing. It was stupid to have asked for it in the first place, wasn't it? So even He can get it wrong sometimes. Fancy asking His Church to go back to wearing hats in Church again." And with that there is an exasperated shake of the head, as if to say, What is the Church coming to when we hear stupid suggestions like this again?

Lowery suggested that the bare principle of subordination is all that need be extracted from the passage and the head-covering can be dispensed with. Wilson has proposed that we do away with the symbol altogether because it has now become an embarrassment but urges that we retain the principle behind it. He suggested that Paul told the Corinthians either to wear a head-covering as a sign of the God-ordained male-female role distinctions, or wear the proper cultural symbol of God-ordained male-female role distinctions. He then concedes that these two possibilities may have led to the same application for the Corinthians.

In reply it can be argued, but if the women were not theologically correct to remove the covering in the first place, then they were never right to remove it, since Paul sees it as a God-ordained, not a man-ordained, dress-code. No society ever gave the woman's head-covering the theological significance that Paul has given it. The head-covering of women in the Old Testament had no theological significance: it may have had a cultural one, we do not know. It is an irrelevance. The rainbow, circumcision, bread and wine, baptismal water, and head-covering/uncovering all belong to the same category of theological symbols. Without an explanation accompanying them they have only a human cultural significance, if any.

The whole drift of Wilson's argument is that to require women to wear head-coverings today in church is to ask them to do something abnormal rather than normal. But is not baptism "abnormal"? Is not the concept of eating a thumbnail of bread and a thimbleful of wine "abnormal"? Would not these also be "strange" to a visitor? If strangeness is the criterion for abandoning all Church practices, then the visitor sets the agenda and regulates the Church's worship and ordinances, not its Head. Wilson advocates that as long as men and women today are not communicating by their dress that the creative order and distinctions have not been done away with, they are being obedient to this passage. How do you communicate by "your dress"? Should all men wear ties? He advocates hair-pins as a substitute for the head-covering or that women wear a wedding ring to show that the male-female distinctions have not been done away with. What do unmarried women wear? Having abandoned the biblical symbol of head-covering he concluded: This results in the conclusion that no symbol is actually called for in the passage! In Paul's day there was a universal, theological dress-code in use. Disobedience threatened to isolate Corinth from the rest of the universal Church, but Paul brought it back into line. But the same forces that threatened it the first time round remained alive to come back and win the day. Can we be sure that Western culture is an advance on the ecclesiastical culture that obtained in all the churches of God that the Apostles founded?

With hindsight we can see that the Fall had a catastrophic effect on all relationships: between the Creator and Man, and between Man and Woman. For the duration of the Law, Man approached his Creator through a mediator (the Levitical priesthood) that covered its head. With the coming of the Lord Jesus&emdash;the new Mediator between God and Man&emdash;the pre-Fall situation was restored (potentially) in Christ Jesus who stands before His Father with an uncovered head. The "new man," like his brother (the Lord Jesus) can come before the Father with an uncovered head because his Mediator is uncovered. The original "glory" that Man had can once again shine forth in his "new life" with Christ. He becomes a "new Adam," and the Christian woman becomes a "new Eve"; each with their distinctive, God-given glory. Because, as we have seen in §1.2.1, God created Man and Woman with different functions in mind and placed Man over the works of His hands, this divine privilege placed on his shoulders the responsibility to fulfil His will and to bow down to Him. This was his primary responsibility, not his wife's. He was made "head" of his wife, and she has been commanded to obey him in everything so that he can carry out his God-given mandate&emdash;a mandate that was given to him before God created woman. It is as his helpmeet that she can fulfil her role to subdue the earth (Gen 1:26-28). Obedience is the key to good order at every level: within the Godhead; within human society (rulers and ruled); within the family; within institutions, clubs, etc., and in the workplace.

Corinth shows that disorder was and is not far below the surface in every church and family, because of the lack of knowledge or revelation. Right knowledge is needed to combat disorder. Unfortunately, unlike the animal world which is pre-programmed with sufficient knowledge/instincts to function adequately, mankind is born in ignorance and must acquire the correct knowledge if it is to function to the glory of God. Paul managed to restore good order in the church in Corinth but it was not easy.

4.4.1. GREEK AND ROMAN WOMEN AND HEAD-COVERING

There is some confusion among Christian writers regarding the custom of women wearing a head-covering in public in Greek society. It is assumed by some writers that women in Greek culture, and in particular women in Corinth, always covered their heads in public and especially in non-Christian temple worship, and that this custom was accepted by Paul so as not to offend Greeks. Guthrie could write: "Paul urges Christian women to respect the social custom of their time, in spite of their new-found freedom." W. M. Ramsay, on the other hand cites Dion Chrysostom that the custom of women going veiled in Tarsus, Paul's home city, was an oriental, not a Greek, custom.

There is also confusion in the terminology used. Some writers use "veil" when they mean "head-covering," and "veil" when they mean the oriental style with only the eyes visible.

What little evidence there is that Greek women were veiled up to the eyes (oriental fashion) has been collected by Caroline Galt. The evidence is not much nor is it convincing. However, as one comes forward from the fifth century BC the majority of the visual Greek evidence that she has collected shows that the face was exposed, with the himation or stola pulled up over the top of the head. She suspected that there was once a universal tradition of oriental veiling among all women going back to Assyrian times and quoted a 1500 BC Assyrian Code on veiling in support:

If she goes out . . . into the street during the day, she is to veil herself. The captive woman who without the mistress (of the house) goes out in the street is to be veiled. The hierodule who is married to a man is to be veiled in the street. The one who is not married to a man is to have her head uncovered in the street and is not to veil herself. The harlot is not to veil herself; her head is to be uncovered.

Here both the virgin and the harlot can display their beauty, one to attract a husband and the other to ply her trade. So, appearing in public unveiled was not in itself a provocative or indecent act. In early Hebrew culture the exact opposite culture obtained; here both the harlot (Tamar in Gen 38:15) and the virgin (Rebekah in Gen 24:65) put a veil over their faces. If there had been a universal oriental veiling then by the fifth century BC it was well on its way out in Greek culture. The only concession was a head-covering (a stola) leaving the full face exposed which Galt's evidence is useful as visual proof. Gill supplies some Corinthian evidence that women wore a head-covering (which he wrongly identifies as a veil). Greek women in going out of the house would throw the upper fold of her robe over her head so as to cover her hair which ended just above her eyes. Pictures of this general type of head-covering can be see in Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities. Among the Greeks only the hetæræ (mistresses, concubines), who were very numerous in Corinth, went about uncovered; slave-women had shaven heads which was also a punishment for adulteresses. Both sexes worshipped with uncovered heads whereas Roman men and women covered their heads in worship. Archaeological evidence, especially numismatic and statuary finds show Roman men wearing a headdress while at prayer. The Augustan Altar of Peace and Column of Trajan attest the same practice. Plutarch regarded the covered male head as having symbolic value, i.e., it symbolised the concealment of the soul by the body.

That Roman men covered their heads in worship is an established fact if Richard Oster's work is to be relied on. The phrase used by Paul to refer to a head-covering for the men in Corinth is "having something on the head" (kata; kefalh;" e1xwn), which has a parallel in Plutarch who refers to a certain Scipio the Younger (185-129 BC) who conquered Cartage in 147-146 BC. He was sent out by the Roman Senate as an inspector (ejpivskopon) of cities, peoples and kings:

and when he arrived at Alexandria and, after disembarking, was walking with his toga covering his head (kata; kefalh;" e1xwn to; iJmavtion), the Alexandrians quickly surrounded him, and insisted that he uncover (ajpokaluvyasqai) and show his face to their yearning eyes. And so he uncovered (ajpokaluyamevnou) amid shouting and applause.

The following is Plutarch's speculation why Romans covered their heads in worship. He asks:

Why is it that when they [the Romans] worship the gods, they cover [ejpikaluvptontai th;n kefalhvn] their heads, but when they meet any of their fellow-men worthy of honour, if they happen to have the toga over the head [ka]n tuvxwsin ejpi; th'" kefalh'" e1xonte" to; iJmation], they uncover [ajpokaluvpontai]?

This second fact seems to intensify the difficulty of the first. If, then, the tale told of Aeneas is true, that, when Diomedes [his enemy] passed by, he covered his head [ejpikaluvyameno"][in order not to be seen] and completed the sacrifice, it is reasonable and consistent with the covering of one's head [sugkaluvptesqai] in the presence of an enemy that men who meet good men and their friends should uncover [ajpokaluvptesqai].

For they [men] uncover [ajpokaluvptontai] their heads in the presence of men more influential than they: it is not to invest these men with additional honour, but rather to avert from them the jealousy of the gods, that these men may not seem to demand the same honours as the gods, . . . . But they thus worshipped the gods, either humbling themselves by concealing the head [th'/ ejpikruvyei th'" kefalh'"], or rather by pulling the toga over the ears as a precaution lest an ill-omened and baleful sound from without should reach them while they were praying.

Or, as Castor states when he is trying to bring Roman customs into relation with Pythagorean doctrine: the Spirit within us entreats and supplicates the gods without, and thus he symbolizes by the covering of the head [th'/ th'" kefalh'" ejpikaluvyei] the covering and concealment of the soul by the body.

Why do they sacrifice to Saturn with the head uncovered [ajparakaluvptw/ th'/ kefalh'/]?

Is it because Aeneas instituted the custom of covering the head [ejgkaluvyin], and the sacrifice to Saturn dates from long before that time?

Or is it that they cover the head [ejpikaluvptontai] before the heavenly deities, but they consider Saturn a god whose realm is beneath the earth? Or is it that no part of Truth is covered [ajpokrufon however, all mss but one read ejpivkrufon] or overshadowed, and the Romans consider Saturn father of Truth?

Why do they also sacrifice to the god called "Honor" with the head uncovered [ajparakaluvptw/ [ajkaluvptw/] th'/ kefalh'/]?

Is it because renown is a brilliant thing, conspicuous, and widespread, and for the reason that they uncover [ajpokaluvptontai] in the presence of good and honoured men, is it for this same reason that they also worship the god who is named for "honour"?]

Why do sons cover their heads [oiJ me;n uiJoi; sugkekaluvmmenoi] when they escort their parents to the grave, while daughters go with uncovered heads and hair unbound [aiJ de; qugatevre" gumnai'" tai'" kefalai'" kai; tai'" kovmai'" lelumevnai"]?. . . .

Or is it that the unusual is proper in mourning, and it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered [ejgkekalummevnai"] and men with their heads uncovered [ajkaluvptoi"]? So in Greece, whenever any misfortune comes, the women cut off their hair [komw'si] and the men let it grow, for it is usual for men to have their hair cut and for women to let it grow [keivrontai me;n aiJ gunai'ke" komwsi d� oiJ a1ndre", o{ti toi'" me;n to; keiresqai tai'" de; to; koma'n sunhqev" ejstin]. . . .

But formerly women were not allowed to cover the head at all. At least it is recorded that Spurius Carvilius was the first man to divorce his wife and the reason was her barrenness; the second was Sulpicius Gallus, because he saw his wife pull her cloak over her head; and the third was Publius Sempronius, because his wife had been present as a spectator at funeral games.

But over against this positive evidence must be set visual evidence where women are portrayed without a head-covering both in Greek and Roman culture. This would suggest that it depended on the function of the visual portrait (statue or painting). If the artist wanted to depict a domestic scene then the women are generally presented without a head-covering, or wear just a head-band, and their faces are visible. This appears to be the most popular form on painted pottery. But if the artist depicted a religious or formal event (such as a wedding scene) then the women are presented covered, but exceptions can always be found to this general observation. So, for example, according to Gill, "Public marble portraits of women at Corinth, presumably members of the wealthy and prestigious families are most frequently shown bare-headed."

There is inscriptional evidence of Roman women priests in Corinth. One inscription reads:

To Polyaena, daughter of Marcus, priestess of Victory. The high priest [Publius] Licinius Priscus Juventianus, [while still living, (set up this monument)] with the official sanction of the city council to (this) excellent woman.

There is evidence that there was a large contingent of Roman citizens in Corinth in Paul's time and that the Roman men and women covered their heads in religious duties. Consequently Paul commanded Roman men to remove their cultural head-covering, and commanded Greek women to adopt a head-covering which was contrary to their culture. There is no concession to either Greek or Roman cultures. Paul's approach is that the Lord Jesus Christ has His own distinctive culture for His people&emdash;the "Israel of God," which is to be universal and permanent. And it is a culture that is founded on theological principles based on the creation of man and women, and so it contrasts sharply with all other man-made cultures which generally have no theological significance.

The Corinth of Paul's day was founded as a Roman colony a century after it was destroyed by Mummius in 146 BC. It was re-established by Caesar in 44 BC and destroyed again in AD 396 by Alaric, leader of the Visigoths. Most of its public inscriptions are in Latin, not Greek.

If we are to understand the background or cultural context of these letters we need to read them against the backdrop of a Roman colony, not a Greek city. Institutions, legal procedures, social customs, architecture, public images and to some extent language owed more to Rome than to the Greek world.

In ancient Rome the custom obtained that both Roman men and women covered their heads in non-Christian temple worship when they were the active participants. But others suggest that, "The covering of heads is not a general form of dress adopted by people attending a [Roman] sacrifice; it is specific to those who are taking an active part."

Roman officials (from Emperors through to magistrates) could also be priests both in Rome and in Roman colonies throughout the empire. In which case they would perform priestly functions with their head covered. The cover was simply the toga drawn up over the head.

Jewish tradition required the priests to minister with covered heads (Ex 28:36-40; Ezek 44:18-20). No doubt there was a mixture of Greek, Roman and Jewish men in the church set up by Paul in Corinth next door to the synagogue whose leader was converted to Paul's teaching. "The Roman and Jewish practice was that men should pray with their heads covered; the traditional Greek custom was that men pray with heads uncovered. Within this context it may be a clash of customs that is the real issue in 11:2-16." This misses the theological principles behind Paul's revelation. Paul had no say over the formulation of the dress-code expected of all Christians everywhere throughout the world. The dress-code arises from the elevation of Christ to be the supreme head over everything, God Himself exempted.

Gill suggested that the problem with the men in 1 Corinthians 11:4 was that some members of the élite social class in Corinth were adopting or retaining the headdress associated with priestly status and this was causing a division among the men. This seems unlikely, first, because Paul set up the pattern of worship in Corinth and lived there for eighteen months (Acts 18:11). The problem did not arise in that time when the church was formed, or if it did it was dealt with by Paul.

Second, Paul says that "not many" of the church members belonged to the upper class (1 Cor 1:26), the majority were sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers (1 Cor 6:11), in other words, the lower classes.

Third, it is not clear whether the men who covered their heads were converted priests, or whether the poorer classes of men (who comprised the majority of the church membership) were attempting to copy the active participants in the pagan worship who were generally covered. In either case it does not say much for the power of the Gospel if they thought they could continue to practice their old pagan ways after their "conversion."

Fourth, if there was a problem it could have been solved by commanding all men to wear a head-covering; in other words, bring all the men up to the higher status in church, rather than bring all down to the lower status.

Fifth, Gill's identification of the problem (cultural) does not explain Paul's use of creation theology to resolve the problem (which is theological, because it touches on the headship of Man). Paul sets the issue of covering and uncovering in the context of God creating male and female and the need to keep a visible distinction between them because one was head of the other, so that they were not equal in the authority He gave each gender. If women had to be covered then the men had to be uncovered, or vice versa. The choice was settled in favour of women being covered because of the lesson from nature (see 4.4.4), consequently the men had to be uncovered. In any case Christ would not have been covered in His Father's presence, like a woman, and all Christian men are Christ's brothers. Gender has a theological significance.

Sixth, Paul is presented as giving two different reactions to Roman cultural conventions (as Gill sees it). On the one hand, the Roman women are to conform to their social conventions and return to covering their heads, but on the other hand, the Roman men are forbidden to conform to their social conventions and are commanded to uncover their heads in the Christian ecclesia. This is inconsistent, if not insensitive, handling of cultural conventions, if Paul was operating on a cultural plane.

Terry made the point well: "Rather than Paul pleading for respect of social customs, in 1 Corinthians 11 he is arguing for the maintenance of the Christian tradition (11:2). Some women were being influenced more by what society allowed than by what Christianity taught." Having noted that all Paul's answers are rooted in Christ for solving the various problems that were brought to his attention by Chloe's friends, and which were raised in the Church's letter to him, Terry sums up the message Paul wants to get across to the church in Corinth in the ten discourses that comprise 1 Corinthians as follows:

Obey Christ rather than follow social customs, such as boasting about men, committing fornication, suing one another, getting a divorce, eating meat offered to an idol, having women pray bareheaded, getting drunk, valuing ecstatic utterances, doubting the resurrection, and spending all your money on yourself.

4.4.2. VEIL OR HEAD-COVERING?

A common error in most commentaries on 1 Corinthians 11 is to interpret the "covering" in terms of local custom, and then go on to see in the veil covering the woman's head a sign that she is under the authority of her husband. There is hardly a commentary that does not accept this assumption. Neither suggestion is correct. First, the word "veil" (kalumma) does not occur in the chapter, and anyway it would not make sense to talk about men "veiling themselves" under any conditions, certainly not Jewish men! The only Hebrew man in Scripture who wore a veil (kavlumma) upon (ejpi) his face (not on his head) was Moses (Ex 34:33), and he only put it on in the presence of men so that the people would not see the glory of the Law fade (2 Cor 3:13). He took it off in the presence of God, because he was granted the privilege of speaking face to face with Him. Moses' veil had a theological significance, according to Paul.

It is, therefore, a red herring to talk about veils when the text is talking about men and women covering their heads, not their faces. Whether women wore veils then or now is another issue altogether, and an indifferent thing as far as the subject of "covering" is concerned. Veils belong to culture: coverings belong to worship. Veils belong to culture, just as men's ties do, and, so far as I know, Scripture nowhere prescribes these articles as essential when we come before God in worship. It does, however, very clearly prescribe that women should have a covering on their head, but nowhere does it specify the size, shape, or material, because that is not the most important thing.

The danger that talk of veils raises, is that veils were a social custom of the time and had relevance then but not now; hence the false conclusion that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has no relevance today.

Some commentators have assumed that the central issue in 11:2-16 was resistance to Paul's earlier introduction of the Jewish custom, when he founded the church, of having to wear a veil, contrary to local Greek custom. He had been away from the Church for some time and more local women converts had been added to the church creating tensions for the leaders by not wearing veils as they prayed. Heinrich Weinel suggested that as the veil covered the mouth and nose it was necessary to remove it in order to pray and prophesy in the Christian assembly.

Another writer assumes that men and women were equal in being able to pray and prophesy in the public meeting but, Paul,

Fearing that women who fulfil these prominent roles expose themselves to male erotic fantasy, Paul seeks to modify these shared practices by requiring women to cover their heads. . . . His [Paul's] anxiety is that the woman who prays or prophesies with uncovered head may become the object of the male erotic gaze: the problem to which female head-covering is the proposed solution is that of a male-oriented eros. As a woman articulates the word of God to the congregation, . . . her appearance may obstruct the reception of her word; or so Paul fears. . . . Paul's embarrassing contortions . . . . She is to cover her head so as to deflect the [male] look that would otherwise undermine her ministry. . . . the female head-covering is intended to ensure that this interdependence is preserved and is not distorted into covert eroticism.

It seems odd that Christian men should be so overwhelmed by erotic fantasies during their spiritual worship, that instead of condemning these fantasies, Paul requires women to cover their heads! But what about covering their faces and bodies, if these are the real cause of the "male erotic fantasies"? And why only cover their hair when speaking? Surely her beauty is a cause of "erotic fantasy" without having to speak. But Paul nowhere uses the term "veil" in this passage; it is something on the head that he requires, not a cultural veil.

The same writer draws an analogy between Susanna (Sus 31) and the women of Corinth. At Susanna's trial on a charge of adultery she appears before her accusers, the two elders who had attempted to seduce her. The text reads: And the wicked men commanded her to be unveiled&emdash;for she was veiled&emdash;so that they might be satisfied with her beauty" (31:32-33). The parallel is that, "When Corinthian women pray or prophesy, they occupy an equally public position in which (according to Paul) they expose themselves to the male erotic look. They must therefore follow Susanna's example and cover their heads (with a veil, as she did . . . .)."

Finally, the same writer believes that Paul retracts his command to the women to cover their heads, believing that he made a mistake and got it wrong (2 Cor 3:18), and the Corinthian women were right to throw away their head-coverings (which the writer thinks was the veil).

There are three other theories that interpret the "covering" as the woman's own hair.

4.4.2.1 THE WOMAN'S "BUN" STYLE IS HER COVERING

J. B. Hurley's theory is that the "covering" does not refer to a "veil" but to a certain hair style. This theory made its first(?) appearance in W. H. Mare's commentary. Hurley argued that&emdash;

. . . any man who prays or prophesies with his hair up as a woman's [i.e., in a "bun" fashion] announces that he is under the authority of a man and thereby dishonours both himself and Christ. Conversely, any woman who lets her hair hang loose [which Hurley equates with being "uncovered"] dishonours both herself and her husband. By letting her hair down she puts on herself the sign of the accused adulteress [Num 5:18]."

Yeo Khiok-khng presents the issue as, "Paul contends that a woman with an inappropriate hairstyle in worship will disrupt or dishonour the glory of God because the angels present at the assembly are concerned with the created order of God." Why have we not heard of this universal hair style among all the Christian women before? The Church Fathers are completely silent about it. The analogy with Numbers 5:18 is false because the woman is innocent until proved guilty, not the other way round as he assumes. In any case for a woman to wear long hair in any culture cannot be wrong.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the Roman emperors' wives, Livias and Octavia, wore their hair in a simple bun, while other women wore elaborate hair styles. All this teaches us is that the glory of a woman is her hair, something that Paul was to take up later on to show that hair functions differently on women than on men.

4.4.2.2 THE WOMAN'S OWN HAIR IS THE COVERING

A second theory that a number of scholars have put forward is the simple error of assuming that the covering mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:5 is the same as the covering mentioned in 11:15. Murphy-O"Connor wants to read "cover" as "bound hair" and "uncover" as "unbound hair." In v. 15b the peribolaion is her hair wrapped around her head in plaits. He puts his theory in the form of a new translation:

3b Christ is the source of every (believing) person's being, but man was the source of woman's being, and God is the source of Christ's being as Savior. 4 Every man praying and prophesying with an unmasculine hair-do shames himself. 5 Equally, every woman praying or prophesying with an unfeminine hair-do shames herself&emdash;it is the same as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not do her hair properly, she might as well cut it off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven as men are, she should do her hair in a womanly fashion. 7 A man, on the contrary, should not adopt a feminine hair-do.

Man and woman are different because they were created in different ways. In the Genesis narrative man is the glory of God, but woman is the glory of man, 8 because man was not made from woman, but woman from man, 9 and man was not created for woman but woman for man.

10 This difference must be respected in the new creation where woman has a power that she did not enjoy under the Law, but to convince the angels who watch for breaches of the Law she must appear as a woman by the way she dresses her hair.

11 In Christ man and woman enjoy the same power; 12 for as originally woman was made from man, so thereafter man came into being through woman, and this was also God's doing.

13 Judge for yourselves. Is it seemly for a woman to pray to God with an unfeminine hair-do? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that long hair dishonours a man, 15 whereas it is a woman's glory? For long hair is given her so that she may wind it around her head.

16 If any one is disposed to contest this, let me just say that we have no custom permitting men to appear womanish or woman mannish. All the churches agree that men should appear to be men and women appear to be women.

This is not a translation. It is a mixture of translation and theory. It hardly needs a refutation but see Delobel.

John Heading replied to earlier versions of this kind of theory: "Such a belief is absolutely invalid, and shows either the inability to follow an argument or else a refusal to own the authority of Christ. The word covering in this verse means something cast around, a veil."

Another theory sought to reconcile 1 Cor 11:5 and 14:34 (and 1 Tim 2:11-12) by postulating the "covering" to be the woman's own hair, but only if she prays and prophesies in "an authoritative position" (i.e., in the authoritative manner of a man) does Paul strongly disapprove of it, so much so that he demands she shave off her covering/hair.

The man cannot cover his head when he engages in an authoritative function. . . . How does a woman uncover her head? The logical equivalent of uncovering the head for a woman would be shaving the head. This is what Paul argues. If the woman is to seek to take the man's place, then she must uncover her head and thus be in the position of being shorn. . . . If she wants to pray or prophecy, then she should literally as well a symbolically uncover her head by shaving it.

The logic of this theory is that every man must be bald when "he engages in an authoritative function." In any case, when a woman prophet is delivering a prophecy from God she is giving an authoritative word to whoever it is intended for, because it is the Spirit speaking through her. Further, how is a woman prophet to know when she is engaged in an "authoritative function" and in a "non-authoritative function"? Who is going to set the criterion for her? Men? Granted that she is not permitted to deliver her prophecies in the church meeting, she can, nevertheless, be used of God to convey His message(s) to her family and friends. Only men can speak in the assembly.

4.4.2.3 THE WOMAN'S LONG SWIRLING HAIR IS CALLED UNCOVERED HAIR

A third theory is that Paul was condemning the practice of pagan priestesses and prophetesses who, in the course of public worship, took the band off their long hair and allowed it to swirl around their heads in prophetic ecstasy. This theory suggests that Paul is talking about "long" (=uncovered) and "short" (=covered) hair, which is very unlikely given the inconsistent way in which the same Greek words are translated. Baumert proposes the following translation:

Just as any man who, while praying or prophesying, makes motions with his head, dishonors his head (namely Christ), in the same way a woman who while praying (out loud) or in prophetic speech (in the assembly) loosens her hair, dishonors her head (namely, the man); it is indeed the same as if she had been shorn. That is, if a woman does not cover her head (with her hair), she should indeed cut off her hair. However, if it is unattractive (disfiguring) for a woman to cut her hair (shorter) or to shave her head, then she should have her head covered (with her hair arrangement).

As you know, a man is not required to keep his head covered, since he is the image and radiance (manifestation, visible brilliance) of God; however, the woman is the radiance ("brilliance" and glory) of the man. Indeed, the man is (exists) not from the woman (the masculine from the feminine nature), but rather the woman from the man (the feminine from the masculine); it is also known that a man was not created because of the woman, but rather a woman because of the man. For that reason a woman is obliged to keep her head under control, because of (the presence of) the angels.

Moreover, neither (is) woman without man nor man without woman in the Lord; for just as the woman (Eve) out of the man (Adam), so also the man (Christ) through the woman&emdash;the whole, however, from God.

Judge for yourselves! Is it proper that a woman with her hair loosened (in public) should pray to God? Nature also does not teach you that it is disgraceful (a disparagement) for a man to let his hair hang long, but on the other hand it is beautiful (an embellishment) for women to do the same; for the hair is given (to all!) as a cover (for protection).

Moreover, if someone disputes this: we do not have such a custom, nor do the communities of God.

4.4.2.4 PAUL IS REFERRING TO AN ARTIFICIAL COVERING

Rather than see Paul's requirement of a covering as representing the woman's subjection to her husband, it would appear that woman's hair was covered because of "nature," that is, because of&emdash;

its universal acceptance as a sign of sexual attractiveness. It was not merely that the head needed to be covered out of respect: it was because of the long tresses that it needed to be covered. It is certain that if a Hebrew woman untied her hair and uncovered it in public she was regarded as "shameless," and had no reputation whatever: this is said in so many words in the Mishnah. The person injured when a married woman uncovered her hair in public was her husband, who was put to shame. He had a right to his wife's hair being covered in public.

This is true as far as it goes, but Paul does not limit the covering to married women; it applies to all females, because of the headship relation that all females have vis-à-vis males.

Paul uses another argument in 11:13-15 in support of his theological case. It is the argument from the Church's universal tradition which was common to every church in Christendom from Jerusalem through to Rome. But the abrupt change of approach is disarming. In 11:2-12 he spoke with apostolic authority and weighty theological arguments, now he stands among them as a friend asking them, "Is it right for a woman to pray to God uncovered?" The fact that he can ask the question in this way indicates that he is sure the Corinthian men were used to seeing women praying at home with covered heads. (Or else they already know the theological significance of hair given in vv. 14-15.) So his appeal is to the status quo which some wanted to depart from. This appeal to an already established convention (or theological connection) shows that Paul is not appealing to standard Greek practice but to the origin of the convention which reflected the woman's own understanding of her relation to God. He prefaced the chapter by praising the men for keeping the conventions he had handed down to them, so they could not very well depart from this one!

The Western fashion of women wearing hats is not a full substitute for the head-covering that was the status quo in the Churches of God in Paul's day. In any case Paul would probably have been equally as shocked by modern hats as by bare heads. There were no hats in New Testament times, but a cloth or hood hung down from the crown of the head and covered the back of the neck, and thus very little of the woman's glory (her hair) was uncovered, and that is the crucial point. But since a visual distinction must be made between men and women when they appear before God in worship, it is at least a start in the right direction. Paul's main concern is that men and women should know the theological reasons why they are covered and uncovered. A distinction without a theology is worthless. Today the Church is in a good position to re-introduce a distinctive head-covering which would be given a clear theological significance and would not be confused with fashion. Jewish men have been wearing a distinctive Tallit, or prayer shawl, with which they cover their heads in worship for centuries and everyone knows its purpose when they see it.

In any case what is important is that man's glory&emdash;the woman, and the woman's glory, her beauty&emdash;is covered when she comes before God in worship in recognition that her glory was created out of Man for whom she was made, and in recognition that her womanly authority is not the same as that given to men. In the wisdom of God the covering has a double function. It distinguishes the male from the female worshippers (as opposed to free men versus slave/servant men, or some other class distinction), and it distinguishes two types of authority, that given to men and that given to women.

The covering served another incidental (but maybe not unintentional) purpose: it covered the woman's glory, her hair, her beauty, her power to attract men. This God-given power to attract men continues to operate after she is married. Her beauty continues to fascinate single and married men at all times and places. In the world it is a constant threat to every marriage: it cannot be turned off. The covering of her head to some extent lessens her unwitting power to attract/distract the attention of men during the most important function that men can ever enter into&emdash;the worship of God Almighty. Nothing should distract the worshippers from this duty. Her hair is her glory and this is not to be displayed in the worship service.

When the male Levites were consecrated for the work in the Tabernacle God commanded them to shave off all the hair of their body (Num 8:7). Nowhere are women commanded to shave off all their hair because that would result in shame, but it was no shame for a man to be bald. This was a one-off occasion. In Ezekiel 44:20 they are strictly forbidden to shave their heads, though they are to cut their hair (Heb. µsk, to shear or clip). Presumably this was to distinguish them from the Nazirites who had to let their hair grow long until their vow was completed. In other words, Yahweh expected his representatives to be clean, neat and tidy in appearance, and give no cause for contempt or criticism by onlookers.

4.4.3. LONG OR SHORT HAIR? WHAT IS "NATURE"?

The second difficulty occurs in those translations of 1 Corinthians 11:14 which take the Greek term kovmh to mean "long hair" as opposed to "short hair." In itself, the Greek word does not inherently mean long hair as opposed to short hair. Greek does not have a specific word for short hair but it does have a word for long hair which is karhkomovwnte". The fashion among the men of Athens was to wear short hair which is, nevertheless, called kovmh. And in other parts of Greece men, by custom, allowed their hair to grow long, but it too was called kovmh. "No abstract length of hair was in mind as much as male and female differentiation. The Spartans favoured shoulder-length hair for men, which they tied up for battle, and no one thought them effeminate (cf. Lucian The Runaways 27; Herodotus History 7.208-9)." Some suggest that behind 11:4-6 Paul has in mind the equations: long hair on a man = homosexual; and short hair on a woman = lesbian, and that Paul ironically suggested that the short-haired women should shave off all their hair and be overtly lesbian.

A case can be made out from 11:14 that where a man "makes hair" (i.e., behaves like a woman toward his hair) then he shames his sex; but 11:4-7 is addressing the issue of headship roles. Here Paul is arguing that it would be wrong for man to take the place of a woman in God's creation. The head-covering on the woman is the badge&emdash;the authority (11:10)&emdash;that she has from God to be in the position she is in, and man should not cross over into her position. That is where the shame of 11:4b comes in. The relative authority positions of men and women is based on gender.

So in itself, the word kovmh may denote the style it has by custom in each geographical location, and not by looking up a Greek dictionary. In Athens (which was just north of Corinth) they used the word koma'n to mean "to plume oneself," meaning, to be proud. Already in the 4th century Chrysostom supplied koma'n in v. 4.

Women have always paid more attention to their hair than men, but it too, is simply called kovmh, without stating whether it was long or short, or piled up on top of the head, or hanging loose. So here too, the term kovmh, could conceivably denote the fashion current at the time of writing, whether it was short or long hair.

The Greek words kovmh and qrivc are used of the hair of the head of both sexes. In the LXX qrivc is found more frequently (42 times) than kovmh (11 times). In the New Testament qrivc is found 16 times and kovmh is found only once (1 Cor 11:15) but twice as a verb (1 Cor 11:14). However, qrivc is by far the general term for hair per se. In Classical Greek literature it has a much wider application as it is used of a horse's tail and mane, of pig's bristles, of dog's hair, and even sheep's wool, but it is limited (except for goat's hair [Ex 25:4; 35:26]) in the Bible to human hair in the widest sense including any body hair (Lev 14:8-9) pubic hair (Isa 7:20) and beards (Ezr 9:3).

The uncut hair of the male Nazirite was not to be neglected. In Num 6:5 (LXX) the text reads: trevfwn kovmhn trivxa kefalh'", "caring [for] hair&emdash;hair of head." The participle comes from the verb "to tend, cherish, maintain." In this context it would mean grooming his hair, or looking after it, as it was to be presented to the Lord at the end of his vow because he was holy. There is a close association between "grooming" and kovmh in this text. The Hebrew can be translated as: "to increase [encourage?] the growth (Piel of ldg)of the locks of the hair of his head [through grooming?]."

Another difference between the two words for hair is that while qrivc always designates the substance itself, kovmh is found both as a noun and as a verb. The verb form suggests that the substance, qrivc, has something done to it and the result is called kovmh, possibly "groomed or decorated hair."

Qrivc is used of the hair on the head of men and women in Leviticus 13 as well as any body hair. The Nazirites' long hair is simply called trivxa" in Numbers 6:18. In the LXX addition to Esther 4:17 Esther cuts off her hair (called trixw'n) and throws it all over her royal apartments in grief. Revelation 9:8, "and they [army of locusts] had hair [trivxa"] as hair [trivxa"] of women." Luke 7:38, "she began to wet his feet with her tears, and with the hairs [qrici;n] of her head she was wiping, and was kissing his feet." John 11:2, "and it was Mary who . . . did wipe his feet with her hair [qrici;n]." John 12:3, "Mary, therefore, having taken a pound of ointment . . . and did wipe his feet with her hair [qrici;n]."

If either term was intended to convey the idea of length it would be trivxa (qrivc), but it is not the one used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:14. If we had more information on the attitude of Greek men and women toward hair then maybe we might be able to throw light on what Paul meant by the term kovmh. We can only work back from his use of the verb "making hair" that this was somehow a shameful thing for a man to do. What would cause shame? There are two possibilities. On the one hand, he could be referring to cross-over hair styles. There were probably recognised hair-styles for men and women. Here is a situation where "shame" could come in if men adopted the kovmh of the women. The term "nature (fusi", phusis)" in this context would then mean "custom;" a meaning it has in Classical Greek literature. It can even refer to style.

On the other hand, Paul may simply be referring to any man who starts paying attention to his hair (frequent washings, perming, dyeing, tying it up with ribbons, etc.). Such behaviour would be considered womanly. In this would lie his shame. Philo was disdainful of homosexuals:

Mark how conspicuously they braid and adorn the hair of their heads, (perifanw'" ou{tw" ta;" th'" kefalh'" trivxa" ajnaplekovmenoi kai; diakosmouvmenoi) and how they scrub and paint their faces with cosmetics and pigments and the like, and smother themselves with fragrant unguents. . . . In fact the transformation of the male nature to the female is practised by them as an art and does not raise a blush.

The Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus (who wrote a dissertation on hair) noted that since hair is given as "a covering by nature," it has only a utilitarian value for men: "the hair should be cut only to get rid of too much of it and not for looks, as some think they must . . . ." He then complains:

In fact that which seems to them good-looking is quite the opposite and does not differ from the efforts of women to make themselves beautiful. . . . So men who cut their hair [after a particular fashion] are obviously doing it out of a desire to appear handsome to those whom they wish to please . . . . Clearly such men have become slaves of luxurious living and are completely enervated, men who can endure being seen as womanish creatures, hermaphrodites, something which real men would avoid at all costs.

An encounter with a young man "whose hair was arranged too carefully" (Discourses 3.1.24-36; see also 3.1.14, 42-45; 3.22.10, 30; 4.1.116; Frag. 18) provided Epictetus (a disciple of Musonius Rufus) with the opportunity for a discourse on masculine beauty in which it becomes clear that for a man to give exaggerated care to his appearance, particularly to the hair of his head, is to blur nature's distinction between the sexes (Discourses 3.1.30-31).

The geographer Strabo noted that some men looked like women due to their hair fashion and observed: "speaking generally, the art of caring for the hair consists both in its nurture and in the way it is cut, and both are given special attention by girls and youths" (Geography 10.3.8).

Vigorous reactions against long and/or elaborate hair for men especially as it relates to homosexuality can be found in Hellenistic Jews like Philo who approves of their punishment by society for debasing "the sterling coin of nature" for disgracing himself, his family, his nation and the whole human race. A similar sense of violating "nature" was felt by Latin authors such as Juvenal (in his second Sature, 1. 96), and Horace (Epodes 11,28). Pseudo-Phocylides (ca. 30 BC&emdash;40 AD): "If a child is a boy do not let locks grow on his head. Do not braid his crown nor the cross knots at the top of his head. Long hair is not fit for boys, but for voluptuous women."

That women, by nature, treated their hair as their glory can be seen in probably one of the oldest love songs to survive. It was composed by the wife of King Shusin (2037-2029 BC, III Dynasty of Ur). She says:

My hair is lettuce, well-watered,

It is gakkul-lettuce, well-watered;

Its tangled coils were tightened,

My nursemaid has [piled them] high,

Has made my hair stag(-like) ,

Has tightened its small combs,

Straightened my "graceful crown,"

The "graceful crown," my hair, the lettuce is the fairest of plants.

Given the foregoing discussion, the interpretation of kovmh would refer to a well-groomed head of hair (such as you would expect to find naturally on a woman). A man with a similar head of carefully groomed hair would be regarded as effeminate in manly circles. Support for this view of "nature" comes from its other occurrences. The word is found eleven times in the New Testament, nine of which are in Paul's writings (Rom 1:26; 2:14, 27; 11:21, 24, 1 Cor 11:14; Gal 2:15; 4:8; Eph 2:3). The usage in Romans 1 and 2 most closely parallels the meaning here. In Romans 2:14, doing the things of the Law by "nature" is to reveal the law of God written in their hearts: it is written into the "image of God" in which all men are created. In Romans "nature" is God's "natural order," and to be against "nature" is to be against something that God has placed in His creation (1:26). God created male and female with all that that implies for securing sexual identity. In every age there is this awareness of identity and this is what Paul seems to be referring to here.

If kovmh meant long hair how would Paul's teaching apply in African cultures where women do not have long hair? A Western man with short back-and-sides would have very long hair by African standards. There can be no shame in having long hair per se since the Nazirites had long hair, as did Absalom, whose hair got caught up in the branches of a tree. Even his long hair may have been considered short by the standard of the women who wiped Jesus' feet with the hair of their heads. The Puritans wore hair much longer than most men do today, but it was "short" in relation to the length contemporary women wore theirs.

But presumably the attention give to hair among all women is universal and belongs to her instinct to groom it because it is her "glory." Paul is referring to some "barrier" that has been crossed. In his age when men delighted in being men and women were women, here was a gender "barrier" that could involve shame for men if they crossed it. I suspect that since it is "natural" or innate (inbred) for woman to groom her hair (as it is a powerful sexual signal), and "natural" for men not to pay that kind of attention to theirs (because hair does not function in the same way in men), that therein lies the "barrier" that some men crossed to the jeers of their fellow countrymen. If this is the solution then 1 Corinthians 11:14 would be better translated: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man, on the one hand, has [well-groomed] hair, it is a shame to him; but if, on the other hand, a woman has [well-groomed] hair, a glory it is to her, because hair&emdash;in place of a covering [of her baldness] &emdash;has been given to her [by God when He created her]."

What, however, must be avoided here is the suggestion that the whole passage (11:2-16) is to be seen in the light of Paul's contemporary culture. The sense of shame Paul is referring to belongs to the nature of men and women, and is therefore common to every generation from the beginning of creation to the end of time.

4.4.4. SYMBOL OF HUSBAND'S OR WIFE'S AUTHORITY?

The third difficulty propounded by the commentaries arose out of the first. Having assumed that "covering" meant "veiled," they went on to assume that "authority" in 11:10 must mean the authority the woman was under, that is, her husband's authority. This assumed exegesis was then strengthened by adding the word "sign" or "token" before "authority." The authority referred to in v. 10 is the woman's own authority, whether she is married or not.

By authority is meant her right to stand in God's presence when praying to Him. She has the authority that derives from also being in the moral image of God. However, in her origin she did not exist apart from her helpmeet role. She was created specifically for man and was made in the moral image of God in order to fulfil the helpmeet role that God designed her for. As a mother she has authority over her children. She will also one day judge the angels (1 Cor 5:3). It is one thing to say that a wife is under the authority of her husband but it is another, and different thing, to say that she has her own personal authority, which is what Paul is referring to in 11:10. Both are correct. Unfortunately, in the past the two things were not distinguished.

L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte suggested that in covering her head the woman was demonstrating that she has control (=authority) over her own head: "What Paul states here, then, is that a woman should have control over her own head, should control her head. Apparently she does so by covering it." But why should she need to have a visible sign to indicate to men and angels that she is not an imbecile? Men have no visible sign. Does this mean that all men have their own head under control? This is not the key to Paul's thought in 11:2-16.

David Lowery suggested that the principle, "everything is permissible" (6:12; 10:23; cf. 8:9) may have been the theological reason given for throwing off the woman's covering and the meaning associated with it. Paul regarded this act, not one of of liberation but of libertinism (11:5-6). She might as well shave her head. Woman's glory was derived from man and complementary to his. Man, then, was God's authoritative representative. If she abandoned this complementary role, she also abandoned her glory, and for Paul an uncovered woman's head gave symbolic expression to that spirit. For the woman to exercise her freedom to pray and prophesy without a head covering, the sign of her authority (exousia, a liberating term; cf. 7:37; 8:9; 9:4-6, 12, 18) would be to bring the wisdom of God (Eph 3:10) into disrepute.

Notice that the only time the woman is commanded to wear a covering is when she comes into direct relation with God, either when she prays to Him or when God chooses to reveal a prophecy through her. Likewise the only time a man is commanded not to have a covering on his head is when he is addressing God or when he is to reveal a prophecy from Him. Outside these spiritual times it does not matter if the woman has nothing on her head. She is free from her cultural environment as far as the writer of 1 Corinthians is concerned. His concern is to see that correct spiritual order is preserved when either sex approaches God in worship whether this is in private or public.

This is further borne out by his reference to the angels. The preceding context explains what this means. Three aspects of the fundamental difference between male and female are spelled out in verses 7-9:

1. They differ in glory. Man is the glory of God: woman is the glory of Man (11:7).

2. They differ in point of origin. Man's life came from God directly: Woman's came from Man's living body (11:8).

3. They differ in purpose. Man was created for God: Woman was created for Man (11:9).

Paul concludes his theological position in v. 10, "For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman [or, female] ought to have authority on her head." The angels know the facts about the origin of man and woman and why they were created, and also that man is the head of woman. They also know that man was created a little lower than themselves, therefore man came next to them in rank (as far as this age is concerned), followed by woman, who was created specifically for man. Here was an arrangement that they instantly recognised as meaning: Woman is subject to Man, therefore she ought to be silent as the Law says (1 Cor 14:34), and she ought not to rule over Man (1 Tim 2:12). Now if, and when, they see this arrangement turned upside down, and the Woman rules over the Man, and that in Christ's own Kingdom, they immediately recognise disorder if not open rebellion. And if angels do not die they also know what the punishment is for disobeying God's command and authority, since in their own life-time they witnessed something of His wrath against some of their own order when He mercilessly cast them out of the Kingdom to await the judgment of the great Day.

But all this still leaves one wondering why the woman needs to have an artificial covering when she is before God. Some commentators mistakenly think she must only veil (=cover?) herself when men are present. It is a sufficient reply to this to ask: Are men to uncover their heads only when women are present? Or: Are they not to cover their heads because they are the image and glory of God (11:7)? The qualification for not wearing a covering in God's presence covers any one who is "the glory of God." It does not matter whether this person is rich or poor, bound or free, married or single, Jew or Gentile, or whether the opposite sex is present or not. What settles the issue is: Who is "the image and glory of God"? Scripture settles the matter beyond dispute: "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

Similarly, the qualification for covering one's head covers anyone who is "the glory of man," or taken out of man, or created for man. It does not matter whether this person is rich or poor, married or single, or whether the opposite sex is present or not. What settles the issue is: Who is "the glory of man"? To which Scripture gives the unambiguous reply: The woman is the glory of man (11:7). We might simplify the issue as follows: Every male ought not to cover his head, and every female ought to cover her head. Gender, not marital status, is the criterion. It is irrelevant whether the opposite sex is present or not; what is relevant is whether God is present or not.

But why the need for a covering on the woman? Why cover the head as opposed to covering some other part of the body, or entering barefoot into God's presence? After all Moses was told to take his sandals off at the "burning bush" incident. So why cover the head? It has been suggested that because man experiences woman as his own glory that Paul expects man's glory to be covered in worship. And since woman's glory is focused in her hair then this accounts for that part being covered.

There may be something in this suggestion and the following figure will help to explain why.

PAUL's UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL WORLDS

[See Chart 18. Title: "The significance of the uncovered head in the presence of God."]

This figure sums up the substance of 1 Corinthians 11. In verse 5 Paul sets out his case: "And every woman who prays or prophesies [so we are now in the spiritual sphere] with her head uncovered [i.e., without an artificial covering of her beauty] dishonours her head [the dishonour is two-edged; it brings shame on herself and upon man in the spiritual world]&emdash;it is just as though her head were shaved [in the natural world]."

The shame that an uncovered woman evokes in the spirit world is similar to that that a bald woman evokes in the natural world. Hence Paul argues: "If a woman does not [artificially] cover her head [in the spiritual sphere], she should have her hair cut off [to reflect her spiritual shame]; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should [artificially] cover her head."

The argument is by analogy: that nature gives a woman a good head of hair as a covering teaching a woman to put something on her head as a covering. The analogy between the natural and spiritual spheres is very apt and extremely powerful. The writer takes up the fact that when God created woman shame was built-in to her baldness. In Deuteronomy 21:12, the glory or hair of a captive girl was removed in order to test the affection of the man for her after a month. The Creator therefore provided woman with a covering (peribolaivou/peribolaiou, v. 15) of natural hair which became her glory (doca/doxa ). The writer then moves on to the different functions that God has placed between hair on a man and hair on a woman (irrespective of length or style). Man does not look upon his covering of hair in the same way that a woman does. Man may do away completely with all of his covering (skin-head fashion) without shame. He may even look more attractive in the eyes of women with a shaved head, but not so in the case of a woman. When she is bald she looks ugly, not to say grotesque, and instead of attracting men she repels them because she is such a repulsive sight. Man would be ashamed to acknowledge that such a repulsive creature was taken from him. A bald woman, therefore, brings shame on her own head. On the other hand, a woman with a covering of beautifully groomed hair is attractive and man is naturally honoured to know that such beauty was fashioned out of his body: she therefore brings glory to man by being covered with hair; "the woman is the glory of man" (11:7).

Can a man pray in private to God with his head covered? No, because he is "the image and glory of God;" and because the angels are present at all times in all places ministering to his needs. Can a woman pray to God uncovered in private? No, because she is "the glory of man;" and angels are present.

Holmyard makes a distinction between public and private prayer and sees 11:2-16 as applying only to the public sphere and only if the prayer or prophecy is audible.

If 11:2-16 concerns nonchurch settings, as suggested in this article, Carson wonders whether a Christian wife at home would have had to put on her head covering before she prayed privately. The answer is that the coupling of prayer with prophecy in verse 4 implies a vocal activity; the issue of head coverings implies a public setting, not prayer in private. This is prayer or prophecy that others would hear.

Paul does not base his case on (1) silence versus audibility, or (2) on the presence of the opposite sex, or (3) on public versus private activity. He bases it squarely on the headship of Man (11:3). That single revelation sums up and pervades his whole theology. We noted earlier that it is only when men and women are in the presence of God, not in the presence of each other, that there is a fixed dress-code that they must abide by. They have no choice in the matter.

It is only a problem for women living in a culture that is far removed from the biblical culture that she experiences "culture shock" to learn that she should cover her head at all times when she is conscious of being in the presence of God. She is not left ignorant of how God expects her to appear before Him at all times and in all places. It was no culture shock to women living in Jesus' day to be informed by Him that they ought to cover their heads when praying to His Father, because at that time it was standard procedure always to cover the head when in public, consequently women lived with a ready means of being able to cover their heads at any moment of the day. The dress fashion was under the control of their religious beliefs and was servant to it. Head-covering was also the secular custom in the West until after World War II. This is no longer the case by those who control Western fashion houses&emdash;the trend setters. It is less of a culture shock for Christian men to accept 1 Corinthians 11:4 because even the secular culture has adopted the biblical norm.

In Near and Far Eastern societies newly converted women find it less of a culture shock to cover their heads in religious worship, so that 11:5 would present less difficulty to them. This also applies to their standards of modesty in dress when compared to the West. It is becoming fashionable for young women (in particular) to appear in skimpy holiday clothing at church services to the applause and encouragement of happy-clappy vicars and ministers who preach that God looks on the heart and not on the clothes, little realising the end that such a trend leads to.

The note of incredulity that 11:4-5 arouses when it is understood that it applies to all times (morning, noon and night) and in all places&emdash;private and public (because it is based on distinct creation roles for men and women, and on Man's headship) can be explained on the grounds that Christian women have grown so used to being bare-headed in Western churches that they have assumed that it is "right," and even "Christian," in spite of the fact that it is not in conformity with Christ's explicit command to be covered.

It comes as a shock to realise how imperceptibly secular fashion has muscled the Church to conform to its ways and standards of dress since the turn of the century. Women have taken their eyes off the Lord and unto the fashion of this world and have been gradually conformed to it. Secular society is very much in the driving seat of the Church in other areas, such as permissible sexual and moral standards of behaviour and practice. The Church hierarchy (local or national) is no longer the sole teacher of the moral standards in its own domain. The media (Press, TV programmers, etc.) is now the dominant moral trend-setter with its drip-feed methods of attacking Christ's teaching at all levels of doctrine and universal Christian conventions. The Church must face up to, and address, the dominant role that the secular media possesses over its followers. Unless it remains distinctive in all areas of its life and doctrine it will surely merge into humanism, and the human mind will become the final arbiter of what is right and wrong both inside and outside the Church meetings.

Lastly, Paul does not place the wearing of a covering alongside meats offered to idols as an indifferent thing. Nor does he finish with the advice, "Let every man [and woman] be fully persuaded in his [her] own mind" (RV). Rather, he tells the women either to keep both coverings on or take both coverings off. Her hair in the natural world is seemly; her artificial covering in the spirit world is likewise seemly. Her glory is to have a natural covering of hair; it is not a sign of subjection. Similarly, her "authority" in the spiritual world is to have an artificial covering on her head, and neither is it a sign of subjection. As the "glory" is hers so also is the "authority." If the Christian woman only knew that her uncovered head evoked a similar sort of reaction in the spirit world ("because of the angels") that the sight of a bald-headed woman does in this world, she would hasten to cover her head in the presence of God. From what has been said so far, one very clear fact emerges, namely, Paul is not one whit concerned with what is "seemly" in the culture at Corinth, but rather with what is "seemly" in the sight of God and His angels.

In the light of Paul's lesson from nature it does not make sense to say that the woman's long hair is the covering he is referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:4-7.

In covering her head the Christian woman is acknowledging that in the creation order God has made her female, and, therefore, she has been allocated a specific place in the hierarchy of powers and authorities that is different from man. The uncovered head denotes one kind of authority; the covered head denotes a different kind of authority. God has given to man and woman different kinds of authority, and the outward and visible token of these is represented in a covered head for women (to represent her God-given authority), and an uncovered head for man (to represent his God-given authority).

If a man covers his head in the presence of the angels (in the ecclesia, or formal gathering of the Church) it signals that he has only the authority allocated to women. This is not glorifying to Christ, his Head, who gave him authority belonging to Man.

Similarly, if a woman uncovers her head, she is declaring (by her uncovered head) that she has the authority given to Man. This is not glorifying to Christ either, because she is female. She is declaring that she is equal to Man. This is going against the created order of authority. She has been given her own authority, and she should be content to live within that ordained sphere, and not grasp for authority that God has not given to her.

The act of covering or uncovering the head is an important theological act. It does not represent the horizontal relationship between man and woman, but the vertical relationship between God, on the one hand, and male and female, on the other. When men and women display the symbol of their God-given authorities (in the covering or uncovering of their heads) they are, in fact, exulting in their respective callings, authorities, privileges, and responsibilities. The symbols remind each of them of their God-ordained stations in His creation order.

The phrase "the woman ought to" is an argument from theology, just as it is in the balancing phrase "a man ought to." The basis of "ought to" stems from the fact that each has been defined as the "glory" of a different "head." The logic consists of a parallel made up of four elements with one element on the man's line unspoken. Assuming the major premise that the head must always exhibit glory in worship (vv. 4-5), the argument in the man's case proceeds from conclusion (a man ought not to cover his head) back to the theological premise (being God's image and glory), whereas in the woman's case it proceeds from theological premise (but the woman is a man's glory) to conclusion (therefore the woman ought to have authority on her head). The conclusion we might have expected was that she ought to be covered this being the logical counterpart to men not covering their heads. In other words the text could grammatically be read as follows where A=cover/uncover, and B=glory, and the apodosis is indented:

READING 1

A1 On the one hand (mevn), man, indeed, ought not to cover [his] head,

B1 being the image and glory of God.

B2 But on the other hand (dev), woman is man's glory

A2 therefore she ought to have authority on [her] head (v. 10)

Here v. 10 supplies the apodosis (A2). But the apodosis only comes after two intervening verses which seems an unlikely occurrence.

Another way to read the text is to supply the missing protasis in the parallel, thus:

READING 2

A1 On the one hand, man (mevn), indeed, ought not to cover [his] head,

B1 being the image and glory of God.

A2 But on the other hand (dev), [woman ought to cover (her) head

B2 because] woman is man's glory.

This reading then gives the order: protasis followed by apodosis for both sets, with perfect symmetry in the contents of A and B. This means that v. 10 is not the apodosis but a new idea which is related to vv. 8- 9 and not to v. 7.

A variant on Reading 2 would be as follows:

READING 3

A1 On the one hand (mevn), man, indeed, ought not to cover [his] head,

B1 being the image and glory of God.

B2 But on the other hand (dev), woman is man's glory

A2 [therefore she ought to cover (her) head]

Here the ellipsis, or missing apodosis, has been supplied (=A2) but the balance in the content of the protases (A1 and B2) has not been kept the same. For this reason Reading 2 is to be preferred.

Paul has omitted (by ellipsis) the A2 words: "woman ought to cover (her) head because." The "ought to" in v. 10 could be Paul's way of making explicit the implied ellipsis in v. 7. However, since his mind has moved on from making that point in v. 7, it seems more probable that v. 10 relates to the matter in vv. 8-9. In verse 8 he makes the point that woman derived her being from man; and in verse 9 he makes the point that she was created for man. There is a heavy emphasis here on the priority of man and her dependency on him for her raison d'être. It is in this context that Paul reasons "she ought to have authority on the head." The authority he is referring to here refers to the authority she derives from her attachment to man. The angels are to understand that she shares in the authority given to man: and that that this explains where she fits into the complex system of principalities and powers. So her authority is a derived authority even though she is created in the moral image of God.

 [The following table is misaligned.&emdash;LMF]

GENDER PHYSICAL HEAD GLORY AUTHORITY

MAN UNCOVERED GOD'S GLORY GOD'S AUTHORITY

(REVERSE = SHAME) (SHARED WITH MAN)

WOMAN COVERED MAN's GLORY MAN's AUTHORITY

(REVERSE = SHAME) (SHARED WITH WOMAN)

Paul studiously avoids any hint of "putting down" women by ending on the bland note that she ought to be covered. Instead he switches the attention to the positive authority status (4th column) she has in God's created order: she has her own "derived authority" which is not quite the same as that given to man which Paul was going to point out from the logic of her different dress mode. Angels perform all sorts of ministering roles for the benefit of mankind and it is for their benefit that men and women ought to dress differently when they appear before God.

In his presentation Paul has left out the reference to man's "delegated authority" (4th column) as something that is self-evident from his logical presentation. It was this omission that misled commentators into concluding that the woman's covering represented the husband's authority which she was under. She is under that, but the cover does not represent that fact; rather it represents her own personal derived authority (derived because she was derived from man's body and re-united to him in marriage) in a cosmos of differing authorities ("because of the angels"). The four columns contain eight different concepts. We are given seven of them, and we can supply the remaining one, namely, man's authority, which is none other than God's authority which He shared with Adam when He created him.

Finally, after appealing to theology (11:2-12), and to local community convention (11:13-15), Paul appeals to apostolic, universal, church convention (11:16)&emdash;an extremely powerful argument. Earlier he had sharply rebuked them for the divisions they brought about among themselves. "Is Christ divided?" Of course not! But here they are bringing about another kind of division; that between themselves and all the other churches of Christ. The Church is one, just as there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

The phrase Wire translates as "if any think they want to make an issue of this" she says can be read:

"if any think they can win out on this" or, more literally, "if any think they are victory-lovers." This suggests Paul could be picking up a positive self-designation of the women and using it ironically. This is supported by the fact that in every other instance of this kind in this letter where Paul dissociates thought and reality, his challenges take up what seem to be their positive self-designations: they "think they are wise," "think they know something," "think they stand," and "think they are prophets or spiritual people." . . . If the women who prophesy see themselves as "issue-makers," "victory-lovers," or "contenders," this is further indication that their heads are uncovered due to some assertion or claim, not simply by custom. The designation also suggests the possibility that they have overcome some opposition to their uncovered prayer and prophesy, that they found the contention a positive experience, and that they welcome other challenges as a chance to prove their gifts.

Paul's rhetorical challenge turns into a rebuke: "we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." The custom referred to is the woman's praying and prophesying without covering their heads. "We" stands for Paul and all the churches he founded elsewhere as they are then coupled with all the other churches of God (presumably which he did not found). Paul makes two other appeals to church practice in 4:7 ("What have you that you did not receive? Cf. 11:2) and 7:17 ("and thus in all the churches do I direct").

4.4.5. THE PRACTICE IN THE SYNAGOGUES

It would appear that many of the early churches had the synagogue form of worship. Indeed, the Gospel was always preached to the Jew first and whole synagogues, no doubt, accepted Jesus as the Messiah they had been expecting. Since there was no blue-print to follow regarding the way they were to organise themselves, by default Jewish-Christians continued their well-established, and carefully thought out synagogue structures. The apostle James addressed his general epistle to these new Jewish congregations:

James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, a servant [dou'lo"] to the Twelve Tribes who are in the Diaspora: Greetings! . . . . if there should come into your synagogue [sunagwgh;n uJmw'n] . . . . (my translation).

The words of the epistle are addressed to the male members. He uses the term "brothers" four times (4:11; 5:7, 9, 19) but prefers the warmer expression, "my brothers" which he uses eleven times. In this respect he is no different from a contemporary rabbi addressing a similar congregation. James gives the impression of being "at home" with his Jewish brethren all over the Roman Empire.

We noted above (4.3.2) that Paul also addresses all his church epistles to the male members of the congregations. The missionary Church began in the synagogues throughout the world, and accepted its authority structure of Elders. Paul ordained Elders in most of the churches he set up. Only after the Jews had had an opportunity to accept Jesus as their Messiah did Paul feel obliged to set up a rival "synagogue," which he preferred to call an ecclesia, a term that is used in the LXX&emdash;alongside the term synagogue&emdash;to describe the Church of God in the Old Testament. Both terms equally referred to God's "called-out" people.

When James and Paul entered a synagogue how were God's people dressed with respect to head-covering and did the Jews give it any theological significance?

The short answer is that all the women were covered but the men were not unless they took an individual part in the service such as reading the Torah, praying, or speaking. In which case they put a head-covering on in the belief that they were in the very presence of&emdash;and addressing&emdash;the Most High. It was felt that a man should humble himself before God by putting a covering over his head. It was the deepest sign of respect that a Jew could show. It was the private experience of being in the presence of God that induced the scholars and rabbis to cover their heads both in the synagogue and at home, or out walking. That was the theological significance given to men wearing a head-covering. The women wore a covering out of modesty and were silent participants throughout the service. But it would not have been unusual to see men in the synagogue without a head-covering. A Jew was not forced by tradition or custom to wear a head-covering when he entered the synagogue, so neither James nor Paul would have been compelled out of respect for Jewish tradition to don a head-covering, and, given their new-found discovery that Jesus was their Head, they could take advantage of the option not to wear a head-covering.

The means for covering the head was the Tallit, which was a large piece of cloth which was draped round the shoulders and covered the entire body. It could be lifted up over the head and would hang down leaving only the face exposed. Scholars would wrap this around themselves during an act of devotion either inside or outside the synagogue.

Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai was one day journeying on his ass and he was asked by his fellow-traveller to explain the mystery of "the Chariot." He immediately got down from his ass, covered his head, and sat down under an olive tree on a stone before he would discourse on "the Chariot." His explanation was: "Should I ride upon an ass when, the discussion pertaining to "Matters of the Chariot," the Divine Presence (hnykv [Shekinah]) is with us and ministering angels attend us?" (139).

A head-covering worn only by scholars was the Sudar. It was a wrap-around piece of cloth like a turban (142). It could be used in place of the Tallit to cover the head. Putting on a Sudar before one was married was viewed as presumptuous (147).

The Babylonian rabbis deemed it commendable to keep their heads covered as a sign of humility in the presence of the Divine. Rabbi Huna would not walk as much as four paces with an uncovered head. His reason was: "The Shekinah is just above me" (147). Such a claim fits not any ordinary person, but only a man of exceptional learning and piety, firm and habituated in his communion with God. A belief in the presence of the Deity is presupposed in all cases which involve "wrapping oneself" in the Tallit which involves, at least in part, a covering of the face (147, 149).

The rabbis were held in such high esteem, especially by their pupils, that they were believed to be attended by the Shekinah. Their disciples covered their heads as a mark of respect when they met them or passed them in the street. Krauss comments, "This obviously indicates an affinity between the presence of scholars and the presence of God" (146). A story is told about Jesus in a scurrilous work called Toledot Jesu in which he is accused of not covering his head when passing two rabbis. This was thought to be a sign of arrogance (144-45).

The Talmud contains the provision that a man may recite the Shema' with uncovered head. The passage reads:

A Poheah (jjwp, that is, one whose legs are visible or whose garments are otherwise torn) or one whose head is bare (hlwgm) is permitted to recite the Shema'. Some say that one whose legs are visible or garments otherwise torn may do so but not one whose head is bare, for such a one may not pronounce the Tetragrammaton. In either case [whether a Poheah or bare-headed&emdash;Editor] one may render the Targum (the translation). But a Poheah may not do the public reading of the Pentateuch or officiate before the ark, or lift his hands in priestly blessing (152).

Hebrew men also covered their heads as a sign of mourning. David covered his head in shame when fleeing from Absalom (2 Sam 15:30; cf. Jer 14:3; Esth 6:12). They also covered their heads during the marriage ceremony, as if they were mourners (135).

In the pre-Christian religion of ancient Rome the priests had their heads covered while offering sacrifices (130), as did the priests in the Old Testament and Persian priests (130).

The manner in which head-covering became a universal practice in Jewry is explained by Krauss as follows:

The average individual is eager to put himself on a level with the high and mighty. A good example within Judaism is the popular wearing of the Tallit (fringed, of course, with Zizit) and the donning of Tefillin, both of which practices were originally limited to the Scribes, Pharisees, or Rabbis. Partly as a result of the striving to rise in the social scale, and partly under steady prompting by the Rabbis, the 'Amme' Ha-arez, the ignorant, at first loath to follow those rituals, became at length acquainted with them, fond of them, and zealous for them. . . . Originally a token of rank, eventually it became the attire of the multitude. (134)

We have no undisputed rabbinic tradition dating back to the time of Jesus which would settle the issue once and for all whether the ordinary male in the synagogue was covered or uncovered. What we do have is a picture of what was happening in Talmudic times. The Talmud contains a disparate collection of Jewish literature dating between AD 200 to 500 and is mainly a commentary on two-thirds of the Mishnah which is the written form of the Oral Law that existed at the end of the second century AD which was collected by Rabbi Judah the Prince. The picture that the Talmud gives is very confused. It contains statements that the men were covered but other statements that they were uncovered. What we cannot know is how the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 affected the head-covering. Covering the head would have been universal once the news got out, but we cannot say when they stopped mourning for its destruction. The Mishnah (Sotah IX, 15) states: "Since the Temple has been destroyed, the free born and the scholarly have had to cover their heads in shame" (132 n 41). Then there is the fact that the priests covered their heads when in the presence of God. How far did this practice influence synagogue practice once worship in the Temple ceased? Did the priests continue to wear their head-covering when they entered the synagogue to continue the worship of God, albeit in a non-sacrificial manner? Lauterbach's explanation that the Hebrew priests covered their heads to distinguish them from the priests of heathen deities is feeble, and does not explain how headgear any more than their special undergarments would achieve this, or why they covered their heads for nearly 1500 years without interruption.

Is there a hint in 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 that the Jewish men wore a veil (using this in the broadest sense that covering the head can mean covering the face also [see Krauss, 155 n. 122]) during the reading of the Torah? ". . . . for to this day the same veil [kavlumma] remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away." Most commentators take the veil in this context to be metaphorical, not literal. Could it be both? We noted above that synagogue males were uncovered except when they were reading the Torah, praying or prophesying, or otherwise engaged in a sacred act. How far back this custom goes is not known. If Krauss is right that the practice started at the top, with the rabbis and scholars, then Paul may have been alive when this was in vogue.

As far as the rabbinic data goes we have to allow that a good deal of freedom characterised the synagogue practice of covering and uncovering the male head in Jesus' day, and that there was no compulsion (as there is today in Orthodox Jewry) to wearing a covering. What, then, was the situation with the womenfolk in places of worship?

From the little evidence that we can glean from the Old Testament it would appear that the Hebrews knew nothing of the strict separation of men and women in their ordinary everyday life. The women wore veils only on certain occasions (Gen 24:65; 38:14). In the Old Assyrian Law Code it is ordained that married women and widows, when appearing in public places, are required to veil their faces (127). But harlots in early Hebrew society also covered their heads and faces, compare Tamar in Genesis 38:14. So there was no uniform custom throughout Semitic society.

On the specific question of covering the woman's head while in the synagogue the Talmud is virtually silent. Lowery accepted that the public head-covering of women was a universal custom in Jewish and Greco-Roman culture. The nature of the covering varied considerably, but it was commonly a portion of the outer garment drawn up over the head like a hood.

Most of the information in the Talmud has to do with the woman's appearance in the open market, in public. In general, Krauss (137) and Lauterbach are agreed that the situation as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5, would have obtained in the synagogue. Philo, who was a contemporary of Jesus, implies that Jewish women were covered in public (155). Tertullian (AD 200)(North Africa church father) wrote: "So sacred, among the Jews, is the covering of the women that by this they are recognisable" (155). The wicked man is one "who sees his wife go outside with her head uncovered" (tSot. 5.9; ySot. 1.7, 17a; bGitt. 90a).

At her wedding, the bride shows herself for the last time as an unmarried girl, wearing her hair loose. Having the hair loose and dropping to the shoulders is the token of the unmarried state, hence of virginity and chastity. Among conservative Jews, cutting off the bride's long tresses is part of the marriage ceremony. The reverse of this is the covering worn on the married woman's head (156). The married woman who walks abroad with her hair loose violates Jewish custom. Such was the manner among pagans.

Tal Ilan is adamant that Kraus is wrong to state that a woman could go bare-headed in public and refers to a very early Baraitha which warns that "the daughters of Israel should not go outdoors with loosened hair," meaning, "that they may cover their heads," implying a head-covering (bKet. 72a); and in Sifre he notes the following interpretation of the passage "and he shall let loose the hair on the woman's head" (Num 5.18): ". . . . of the daughters of Israel, that they cover their heads" (Sifre Num. 11, p. 17 ed Horovitz). He points out that in the aggadah there are examples of modest women who even covered their heads indoors. Thus Qimhit, when asked by the sages how it happened that seven of her sons served in the high priesthood, gave the following answer: "The beams of my house never saw the hair of my head" (yHor. 3.5, 47d; bYoma 47a). He points out that unbound hair is depicted as compromising a woman's modesty. The worst of Susanna's humiliations occurred when the elders, who were accusing her of adultery, demanded that her head be uncovered (Susanna 32).

The Jewish tradition in Babylonia was for men to cover their heads in private as well as in the public prayers of the synagogue. This shows that there was a consistency in their underlying attitude to Yahweh. We have shown that 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 applies to all time and all places and is not limited to the formal church meeting. Women could pray and prophesy for six and a half days in the week (or ninety-five per cent of the week) but when they do, Paul is directing them in chapter 11 how they are to do it&emdash;covered. In chapter 14 he tells them where they may not pray and prophesy&emdash;in church.

Krauss accepted the statement of the Mishnah that, as far as Babylonia was concerned, men had their heads sometimes uncovered and sometimes covered; that women had heads always covered; and that children's heads were never covered (143). In Palestine he thinks the custom was different: it was the usual custom for grown men to go bareheaded. The custom of covering the head began with scholars (indoors and outdoors) due to reverence. Over a long period of time this eventually was adopted by all males when entering the synagogue.

If this is how the custom developed then Jesus and the Apostles probably did not cover their heads when they went to the Temple or into the synagogue. James and Paul did not have to break with Jewish custom and neither did Christian women. So 1 Corinthians 11 reflected the standards of dress current in the synagogue at the time. However, Paul gave the uncovered male head a theological significance that prevented Christian men from following the change of practice that came over the Jewish synagogues where covering the head (not leaving it uncovered) became the sign par excellence of humbling oneself before God. Paul did not get this idea from Judaism but from dwelling on the revelation he had received that the head of man is Christ, whereas in the synagogue, the head of man was God. Because Jesus was a man and did not have his head covered in the presence of God (being the express image of the Father), so neither must His brothers cover their heads in the presence of God. It was this statement that crystallised the break with Judaism which knew only that the head of man is God, and the head of woman is man. Christianity and Judaism have the last statement in common, and therefore there was no change in status for women as regards man being her head. Consequently Christianity could take over this aspect of Judaism without much difficulty and could draw on the entire teaching, doctrine, and history of the Old Testament to guide them as to the role relationship between men and women. But for a woman under the Law (Moses) and a woman under Grace (Jesus) the difference in freedom was enormous. Out went all the ritual and ceremonial laws. Every day was a "clean" day for the Jewish-Christian woman. She could enter the Christian synagogue every Lord's Day. She could have fellowship with her brothers in Christ, never fearing that she could make them unclean. All foods and meats were lawful to eat. Taboo after taboo were joyfully broken. She could receive a personal sign of the Covenant she was entering&emdash;baptism, instead of being in a covenant on the strength of a sign given only to her husband. Only two things were carried over from Judaism into her new world which could not be altered. These were (1) she could not speak in the Christian synagogue. Worship was still the duty of her husband, and that responsibility was not to be shared or taken away from him, and (2) she must cover her head when praying or prophesying, which gift could be exercised anywhere except in the formal, public assembly of God's people. Outwardly there did not appear to be any change but inwardly she was a changed person&emdash;a lover of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only what came out of her mouth could defile her. She was made clean once and for all time by the blood of the Lamb.

4.4.5.1 MODERN JEWISH PRACTICES AND CONTEMPORARY CULTURE

The Daily Mail gave the insights of two Orthodox Jewish women. One made the point that in her religion, "A woman's modesty is fiercely guarded and she isn't supposed to be loud and showy in her looks or her manner" (cf. Peter's statement in 1 Pet 3:3, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewellery and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past . . . made themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master."). She goes on, "But just because I am expected to dress modestly doesn't mean I want to look unattractive. . . . We cannot show off our cleavage or wear short dresses, so I usually opt for loose cotton skirts, . . . . To dress appropriately, I am expected to wear conservative cuts which do not reveal my figure. We're not allowed to wear trousers for that reason. . . . When I get dressed in the morning, one of the first things I do is to cover my hair. A woman's hair is deemed to be the most beautiful and sacred part of her body and once you are married, only your husband is entitled to see it in its full glory. I have a wig for every day of the week with another one for special occasions. . . . People outside our faith consider rules such as that to be pointless, but these are practices we have grown up with."

"During our menstrual cycle there are 14 days when we are not permitted to have any physical contact with our husbands. If I have to pass the salt to Neville [her husband] . . . I have to leave it on the table in front of him to ensure that our hands don't touch. . . . Sometimes it can be hard, especially if you just want a cuddle after a bad day, . . . But I think it's important for a woman to have those two weeks to herself, not just because you don't particularly want to have any intimacy during that time but also because it enables you to keep a check on your self. I feel much more in tune with my body than many women because of the way I live.

"For the first five to seven days of the period you are bleeding. Then you spend the next seven days checking yourself to ensure that you are clean. Then, we go for a ritual bath at a Mikvah where there is a special pool of cleansing rainwater to bathe in. . . . After Mikvah, we are at our optimum time to conceive. . . . the weeks of abstinence enrich my marriage. (Cf. Peter who urges his male readership to "dwell with your wives according to knowledge" [1 Pet 3:7]). If Christian husbands are to be considerate towards their wives (Christian or not) they should follow the Law in these matters.

"I'm not saying our way is guaranteed to keep a marriage alive, but after having four children . . . I still feel a tingle when I see my husband and know we can be intimate again."

The second Orthodox Jewish woman commented, "Non-Jews generally perceive Orthodox women as subservient, but that is not the case. In many ways we are more advanced than Western women because traditionally, wives have always worked and earned their living while the men studied our religion. As long as the job comes second to being a wife and mother, this is just as acceptable today. I have never concentrated on my career to the exclusion of everything else. Teaching [her job] has always come second to my family and that is the way it should be. [Christian women take heed.]. . . . Though I would never judge someone else for the way they live their lives, it does seem that the family is too often undermined in modern society and that is a terrible thing."

In the case of both Orthodox and biblical Christianity it is the perception by the outsider that is false not the reality. Neither should change the perception just to please the outsider or they will lose the reality of a harmonious, marriage relationship. This is one area where both religions are in tune with the Creator's will for His people.

"Every aspect of my day-to-day existence is governed by my religion. . . . The 613 laws of the Torah . . . encompasses all areas of life . . . we follow them because that's what the law says. . . . There are stringent laws defining what we can eat and how we eat it. We can't eat pork or birds of prey&emdash;only animals with cloven hoofs that chew the cud, as the law describes. Shellfish isn't kosher either because the law says that anything that creeps is abominable. Any fish we eat has to have fins and scales. Similarly, we can't eat milk and meat together and, in our kitchens, we have separate dishes, sinks, fridges and dishwashers for meat and dairy products so that the two are never mixed. We do not question this and accept it along with the other rules."

"Our clothes also have to be kosher. It is forbidden for us to wear any outfit that has a wool and linen mix. There is no obvious explanation for this but that is what the law states, so we do not need any convincing."

"My children go to Jewish schools and socialise within the Jewish community. When they are on holidays, I allow the youngest to swim in mixed sessions if they want to, but I prefer the 14 and 16-year-olds to swim at separate times because it is unseemly for girls and boys of that age to see each other in such a state of undress." This is wise, in that it is taking into account the attraction that is embedded in their biological development but for which they are not yet ready to enter in a meaningful relationship. Knowledge and revelation is required to turn this "attraction" into a successful adult relationship.

"We don't believe in any physical relationship between the sexes before marriage&emdash;and that includes touching each other. This is something we are strict about and I try to protect my children from temptation by encouraging them to go out in single sex groups. It's impossible at that age to go out with someone you fancy and not touch them, so this is the best way. Just because we are strict about this doesn't mean they can't have fun."

"Sometimes, I do wonder what my life would be like if I hadn't been born an Orthodox Jew. But I think it's wonderful to know that my world is identical to my great-great-grandmother's, especially on the Sabbath or festivals. The Judaism that we practice is the same as the Judaism practised 5,000 years ago. The only difference is we are living in modern times and we have to adapt our lifestyles to the Torah. It can't be the other way round. We are not going to change our beliefs just because it is trendy to have mixed services. Orthodox Judaism never changes. . . . I'm proud of the way we live. Some would be too shy to speak out but I feel it is important to send out the message that we are modern women following an ancient path."

The trouble with Western Christianity, in particular, is that it has taken its eye off Christ's teaching and compromised with trendy changes. It does not have the steadfast loyalty to resist the influences of the world. The world and Jesus are opposites. One cannot tolerate the other because they represent two, diametrically opposed ways of living out one's life on this earth. They are continually competing and warring against one another. They have been at enmity from the beginning of Creation in one form or another. But some Christians cannot recognise what belongs to the world and what belongs to Christ. In Christ's Kingdom there is good order, and this is reflected in how His worshippers approach God in worship. It is the natural, instinctive trend of the world to introduce disorder into Christ's Church by reversing what Christ commanded His people to do.

For a woman to discard the head-covering means that she has cast away her allotted authority and position in God's order, which is a fixed part of the divine order. The symbols cannot be altered: they are fixed for all time. Fashions may come and go and may even coincide with these headship symbols but the Christian Church has no authority to change the symbols. Jewish and Moslem men are unashamed to wear a head-covering on their heads in public at all times out of respect for God or Allah, why should it be considered a shameful thing for women to wear a covering in public to show her respect for her Lord?

We are left in no doubt what the practice of the Apostolic and the post-Apostolic churches was because Clement of Alexandria (ca. AD 193) wrote in The Instructor that the woman should be covered when she goes to church, "since it is becoming for her to pray veiled." Prayer was silent prayer, as another Church Father, Ambrosiaster (4th cent.), indicates, "Women know, indeed, that in the house of God men have the first place and that women there ought to pray, keeping their tongues quiet, but opening their ears to learn . . . ." Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 386) did not permit women either to pray or sing aloud in church.

The world seeks to free women from the creation order by presenting the case as one of emancipation from male domination, from exploitation, from being subservient to their husbands. It is one thing to recognise that all men are sinners and the Law was often drafted for the specific purpose of controlling hard-hearted husbands from abusing their God-appointed place in His creation, on the one hand, and on the other, of recognising that no Christian husband can ever wilfully depart from the law of Christ to love his wife as himself and as devotedly as Christ loved and loves the Church. The call to women to be "free" from God's revealed will for them is a fatal call and can only lead to disorder and disharmony in their lives.

We can learn from the example of modern Jewish women that it possible to stick tenaciously to Christ's teaching, as they have done for 3,500 years to Moses' teaching, in the face of changing cultures, each "modern" in its own day, but each passing away or discarded by the next generation. The Church has, until the present time, followed the teaching of its Head as regards male leadership, but for the first time in its history it has given in to the passing "modern" culture through which it is living, and in the process has become embarrassed by the Gospel it is supposed to preach in all the world.

END OF SECTION