A STUDY OF I CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

King James Version

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4E ver y man pr aying or prophesying, having his

head covered, dishonoureth his head.5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman

of the man.9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power

on her head because of the angels.11 Nevertheless neither is the man without thewoman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the

man also by the woman; but all things of God.13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered ?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him ?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glor y to

her: for her hair is given her for a covering.16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

American Standard Version

1 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonor eth her head; for it is the one and the same thing as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: 10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. 13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Diverse views on Bible subjects ought to be discussed with frankness and candor. This is the onlway to ascertain the truth and sift out the error. Some questions are foolish and should be avoided because no revelation from God is available to settle the matter. "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes" (II Tim.2:23). The A.S.V. says, "But foolish and ignorant questions refuse ..." Other questions, however, can be settled by the word of God and should be fairlyand honestly discussed with a view to learning whatGod has revealed on the questions.

The question of whether or not a woman must cover her head in public worship has been discussed for many years. Devout and honest brethren stand on both sides of the question, and like some other controvertible subjects, it seems that a complete agreement of minds will be hard to attain, but withan open mind we should constantly strive to reach an understanding of God's will on the matter. To this end we have devoted this i ue of Searching TheScriptures.

Debates on religious subjects date from the days of the apostles. Debates when properly conducted, dogood. With many, however, the very word "debate" connotes an ugly wrangle between men who hateach other. This idea no doubt stems from the conduct of a few who refuse to discuss the subject andimmerse themselves in the personal reflection andr idicule of their opponents. I have absolutely noaversion to debates between honorable men on clear propositions that divide them. But because of limited space and the revulsion of many for debates, I havetried to arrange a profitable study of both sides of the question of the woman's covering in I Cor. 11: 1

16.

Several months ago I asked Hiram O. Hutto ofPeoria, Ill. and James P. Needham of Louisville, Kyto prepare objective studies on the Woman's covering in I Cor. 11. They readily agreed to undertake the difficult task. To be as fair as possible I suggested that each man read the other's paper and then make whatever changes he desired in his final paper for publication. This was done and both men,in my judgment, have approached the matter withkindne , candor and objectivity. These men are personal friends and have a great respect for each other. I have known them both for many years andbelieve them to be men of honor who love the truth and will not compromise it for any consideration. For this reason I believe these articles will providfood for study and will go far in helping us get together on this question.

I also asked Roy E. Cogdill of Orlando, Florida to prepare a study on some principles of interpretation relating to the question under discussion, which hwillingly agreed to do. His article is not intended to support or dispute either view of the passage under consideration. If anyone thinks that these three men have written with any animosity toward the others,I suggest you carefully read what all have said with an open mind and you will see that they are strivingfor the truth and nothing else. They have put a great deal of time and effort into the preparation of this study.

I know that many will want to write something more on one side or the other of this question afterthey have read the articles. Limited space will notpermit a long series of articles on the subject by number of men. For that reason we have tried to provide a study completely void of personalities bywhich the reader can study for himself and see where the truth lies. If you wish to correspond with any one of these men on the material they have presented, we urge you to do so. I am sure they will behappy to discuss any portion or all of what they have written with you by letter or in person. Po ibly ata later date these men will write more on the subject, but for the present time this i ue will suffice

I wish to express my genuine thanks for the wort of all three of these men. The order of the articles as they will appear in this paper is determined bthe alphabetical listings of their names. I could think of no better way to determine the order. This eliminates any idea that one is giving an answer to the others. Brother Cogdill did not see either of the articles by brother Hutto and brother Needhamwhen he prepared his article. They will appear in the following order: Roy E. Cogdill, Hiram O. Hutto and James P. Needham.

"HANDLING ARIGHT THE WORD OF TRUTH"

II TIM. 2:15

Roy E. Cogdill, Orlando, Fla.

One of the basic rules of Bible Study is: The correct meaning of the terms employed must be ascertained. Since the Bible reveals the mind of God in human language and therefore according to humanways of thinking and speaking, the first thing necessary in understanding it is to learn the meaning ofthe words employed

The object of speech is to convey thought. A word is the sign of an idea. The object of study is to learn and understand. The object in understanding is to ascertain the exact thought presented by the language used. The careful student will seek the aid ofgrammars, lexicons, languages, versions, and whatever other helps are available to gain a thoroughknowledge of the language. To these he will add all the internal light obtainable from a careful consideration of the context, the usage of terms, parallel passages, etc. While all essential truth can be ascertained from the translations of the scriptures bycompetent men into our own language, we can augment our knowledge and understanding of that truthby learning what we can concerning the peculiar dialect of Greek in which the new Testament was originally written. Words and expressions in the Bible are to be understood by the same rules by which language is to be understood anywhere else.

Another fundamental and primary rule is: Passages which are limited by context to special factsituations are limited in application and are not to be generally applied.

As an example of this rule and its importance, inI Cor. 7:26, Paul says, "I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is goodfor a man so to be" (that is, unmarried). This limits the application of the things Paul said, which are peculiar to this passage to the "present distress" or the particular circumstances to which this expression refers. In order to apply what this passage teaches to general situations it must occur in other scriptures where a general application is made.

Likewise, in I Cor. 14:34-35, the fact situation inthe context limits the application of the statement made. "Let your women keep silence in the churches;for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church."

We should observe that in this passage the themeunder discussion is spiritual gifts and how they are to be exercised in the assembly of the church. In these particular verses Paul is discu ing the fact that onewho had received a revelation from heaven was to be allowed to give that revelation when he received it without being interrupted for otherwise the revelation was lost. This passage cannot be given general application when the fact situation to which it was directed cannot be reproduced without wresting anmis-applying the passage. We can learn from it theprinciples laid down that apply to any fact situation,viz., 1) v. 26, "Let all things be done unto edifying," and 2) v. 40, "Let all things be done decently and inorder."

We can look to I Tim. 2:11-12 for a general prohibition precluding a woman from teaching a mixedassembly of any size. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Paul gives two basic reasons for this general rule, 1) Adam was first created, then Eve; 2) Eve was deceived and led in the transgression. These basic principles are the reason for God's law that the woman must be in subjection to man.

In I Cor. 11:1-16, Paul by the Holy Spirit was discussing the divine order of authority: God the headof Christ, Christ the head of man, and man the headof woman (v. 3). He also points out the reason forwoman's subjection to man in this passage, viz., man was not created for the woman but the woman for man (v. 9) ; also the fact that man is the glory of Godand woman is the glory of man (v. 7)

This passage has as its context or background the fact that in Corinth women were very evidently forgetting their subjection to man by the manner inwhich they were participating in the public assemblies of the church in violation of God's order. The whole chapter (I Cor. 11) is concerned with the abuse of the order that should prevail in the assembly of the saints. Spiritual gifts did not set aside God's law orgive license to violate it, nor does any other circumstance. The women of Corinth were not only abusingthese gifts, interrupting the assembly and interferingwith the exercise of the gifts given to others but were brazenly advertising their disregard for their obligation to be in subjection to man by violating their own long established customs and practices.

On this passage and concerning these practices we have this comment: "Others were turning even thespiritual gifts which they had received from the HolyGhost into occasions of vanity and display, not unaccompanied by fanatical delusion: the decent order of Christian worship was distributed by the tumultuary claims of rival ministrations; women had forgotten the modesty of their sex, and came forward,unveiled (contrary to the habit of their country), taddress the public assembly; and even the sanctityof the Holy Communion itself was profaned by scenes of revelling and debauch." The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Conybeare and Howson, page 378

From the same author we read, "It appears from this passage (I Cor. 11), that the Tallith which theJews put over their heads when they enter their synagogues (see page 137) was in the apostolic age removed by them when they officiated in the publicworship. Otherwise St. Paul could not, while writingto a church containing so many born Jews as the Corinthian, a ume it as evidently disgraceful to aman to officiate in the congregation with veiled head. It is true that the Greek practice was to keep the head uncovered at their religious rites (as Grotius andWetstein have remarked), but this custom would not have affected the Corinthian synagogue, nor have influenced the feeling of its members." Page 402 — Footnote.

These passages as all others are to be understood in the light of their context or setting and can beproperly applied only to the same or similar circumstances.

This brings us to still another rule of interpretation

that is fundamental to a proper understanding an

application of the truth: An interpretation must take

into consideration and allow for known laws, customs,

opinions, history, country, circumstances and char

acter of the author at the time.

We should remember that the writer intended his

message for contemporary readers, who were as

sumed to know many existing conditions which he

does not need to explain, but which greatly affect his

thought and composition. A writer in England today

or to the English citizenry would not be required to

state in full every English law or custom to which he

might allude. A person writing a letter to intimate

friends will rarely explain personal conditions which

his readers already well know; but he will probably

often refer to some conditions in a manner which

would be hard for a stranger to understand. In the

interpretation of the Bible or any other ancient liter

ature, careful attention must be given to the attend

ing circumstances.

In Matt. 28:14, the chief priests of the Jews who

had instructed the guards that watched the tomb of

Jesus to report that the disciples stole Him awa

while they slept, promise, "If this comes to the gov

ernor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of

care." Here the speaker has in mind the existing

Roman law that if guards are found asleep on dut

they shall be put to death; and the expression, "rid

you of care" is an allusion to their danger of exe

cution.

In John 18:31-32, Pilate told the Jews to take Jesus and judge Him according to their law, but they replied, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." This does not mean that the Jewish law had no death penalties, for it has many; but this refers to legal restrictions which the Romans had placed upon theJews (Jos. Ant. XVII :1,1). John adds, "That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying by what death he should die." T he Jewish and Roman manner of executing criminals was different. The Romans often crucified (Matt. 20:19)but the Jews would have stoned Him to death (Lev.24:16). Again the Roman law prohibited a Roman citizen from being scourged before being condemneand this explains why the magistrates at Philippiwere alarmed and besought Paul and Silas to leave their city (Acts 16:35). It likewise explains how Paul escaped scourging at Jerusalem after he had been bound to the whipping-post (Acts 22:24-28)

A knowledge of the customs of the various countries and peoples of Bible times often throws important light on the proper understanding and application of a passage. In Deut. 11:10, "Where thou sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs," is a reference to the Egyptian custom of turning the water from a reservoir intothe garden, and with the foot merely indenting thesoil on the side of the channel to lead the water amongthe vegetables. Also in Eccl. 11:1, "Cast thy breaupon the waters; for thou shalt find it after mandays," is a reference to the custom of casting seed upon the flooded field, which received with the seed a layer of fertile deposit. There the seed fell, andsprouting up after the water disappeared, brought a rich harvest to the sower.

The custom of brides to veil their faces carefullyfrom their bridegrooms till after their marriage, ex

plains the act of Rebecca, alighting from her camel

in the field and veiling her face before she meets Isaac

(Gen. 24:64-65). It also explains how Jacob could be

deceived by Laban, and not know that he had received

Leah instead of Rachel till the next morning (Gen

29:23-25)

The customs of the New Testament day throw a

great deal of light upon the meaning of a multitude

of passages in the New Testament Scriptures. John

3:29, "The friend of the bridegroom who stands

and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bride

groom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled."

Engagements for marriage among the Jews were

rarely made by the groom and bride, but by the

groom's agent, a friend, with the bride's father. The

friend of the bridegroom made all preparations for

the wedding; and after the bride had been brought

to the bridegroom's home and all ceremonies and

social festivities were concluded, the guests and ser

vants all retired from the room, the bride unveiled

her face to the bridegroom. The friend stood just out

side the door, and listened for the bridegroom's voice

and if he uttered an expression of satisfaction, th

friend "who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly."

His work was then considered to be a success and this

was the attitude of John the Baptist concerning the

Messiah for whom he had prepared the way

One of the difficulties of the Jews when Jesus came was that they had their human traditions all mixedup with the law of God until they did not know where the law ended and their customs and traditions began. Jesus spent much of his time teaching the multitudes the difference between their customs and traditions and the requirements of God's law. Anexample of this is found in Matt. 15. The traditions of the elders concerning the washing of hands before eating had become, in the minds of many, a religious law which they were binding on men. Their practice of excusing men from an obligation that God hadbound when they performed another service as a substitute brought their customs and traditions into conflict with the law of God also.

This is a difficulty today. Ancient customs like thewashing of the feet, the holy ki , the head cover-ingand many others are sometimes bound now. Theywere never religious laws and should never be given the force and effect of religious laws. The length of a man's hair and the wear ing of a covering on his head in the assembly for worship varied among thpeople of ancient times. "Difference of national customs furnished the solution of several alleged "discrepancies." For example, the wearing of long hair by men is allowed in Num. 6:5, and repudiated inI Cor. 11:14. But, then, the first passage refers to Jews, the second is addressed to Greeks at Corinth. Among the former, the wearing of long hair was counted honorable, even ornamental, rather than otherwise; among the latter, it indicated effeminacyand the indulgence of unnatural vices. See Stuart,Hist, of Canon of Old Test., p. 375 (Rev. Edition, p. 351)." — Alleged Discrepancies of The Bible— Haley,

p. 246.

A distinction between custom and human tradition and divine law is essential in a proper understandingand application of the truth. Paul became all things to all men that he might win some, but he did notviolate his conscience or compromise the truth and

righteousness in submitting to the customs wherever he went (I Cor. 9:22). We are exhorted to "Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints," (Jude 3), but to be contentious about our own opinions or human customs and traditions is condemned. I Cor. 1:11; Titus 3:9; I Cor.. 11:16; Rom. 14:23; IITim. 2:23-26.

35 West Par Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32804

CLUB RATE SUBSCRIPTIONSFOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR ONLY $10.00SEND THEM TODAY!

I CORINTHIANS 11:1-16

Hiram O. Hutto, Peoria, Illinois

The instructions given by Paul in his first letter to the church at Corinth (11:1-16) have been thecenter of much controversy and quite heated attimes, though I have never known of a church that divided over this question. That the passage teaches,

(1) A man must not cover his head when praying or prophesying, and (2) A woman is to cover hers while so doing, is beyond dispute, because the passage says plainly, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth withher head uncovered dishonoreth, her head " (11:4-5). He who denies this denies the word of God. So the controversy has not been so much over the general meaning of the passage, but there has been considerable controversy as to its application. While ther e are many questions that are raised in this connection, this article concerns itself with the two general questions that seem to be chief ones; namely, (1) Is the instruction given still applicable today, and (2) What kind of a covering is meant. It is the thesis of this article that there are two coverings under consideration in the passage: the hair, and an "artificial" one; and that today women are to cover their heads with this artificial covering when "praying or prophesying," and men are not to cover their heads when so doing.

TODAY

Is the teaching enjoined in this passage required today? If it is not required today, why wouldn't itbe required today? T he reasons that God gives in the passage to enforce the teaching certainly do not suggest that the requirement was limited to the city of Corinth or limited to the first century only. Please note the following considerations as to God's reasons concer ning "cover ed and uncover ed heads":

1. The foundation of the teaching here given is"the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (v. 3). This certainly was not limited to Corinth nor to the first century but applies even today. Since the very foundation of the requirements isnot limited to Corinth or the first century, it wouldbe unusual, to say the least, if the rest of the passage were so limited.
2. "A man indeed ought not to cover his head forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God" (v. 7). Is not man still TODAY in the image and glor y of God ? If he is, Paul says he "ought not to cover his head". Was man's being in the image and glor y of God limited to the men in Corinth or the first century? Of course not. It is still true today, and since this was given as a reason for man to uncover his head then, it ought to compel man to uncover his head now.
3. For a woman to pray to God uncovered is as shameful as she would be if she were to shave her head or get her hair sheared off (v. 5,6). Is this "shame" limited to the city of Corinth or to the first century? Be honest, brethren, would you not be ashamed for you wife today to have her head shaved or to get a "flat-top" haircut ? What about it, sisters,

would you not be ashamed to attend worship withyour head shaved or with a "flat-top" haircut, TODAY? If you would be ashamed, you are saying toyourself that the teaching of I Corinthians 11 still applies today. Since Paul says for a woman to prayto God uncovered is "all one as if she were shaven",and since you would be ashamed to have your head shaved, you ought to be ashamed to be uncovered or bare-headed "when praying or prophesying" today.

4. A woman ought to cover her head because she was created "for the man" and a man ought to cover his head because he "is not of the woman" (v. 8,9).This certainly was not limited to Corinth, but it is a reason God gives, and it still applies today 5. A woman ought to cover her head "because of the angels (v. 10). Angels certainly were not limited to Corinth nor to the first century. Angels exist today. As a matter of fact, angels cannot die (Luke 20:36). Since a woman ought to cover her head "because of the angels" and angels still exist today, a woman ought to cover her head today.
1. On the basis of what is said in verses 2-12,. theCorinthians are urged to "judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray to God uncovered" (v. 13).No doubt, prior to the instruction given in this passage, some at Corinth had already "judged" that itwas comely for a woman to pray to God uncovered;if they had not, why was the passage written in the first place? Even though they had thus "judged," their bad judgment did not make it right! And Paulcertainly does not "leave" the matter to their "judgment" just because he says "judge in yourselves"; nor does the expression "judge in yourselves" necessarily mean that he is not enjoining a commandmentof the Lord. When Jesus said, "Why, even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" did he mean that people are to judge of themselves what is right separate and apart from divine revelation? Of course not. Jeremiah 10:23 says, "It is not in man thatwalketh to direct his steps." Peter and John did not leave things to the judgment of the council just because they said, "Whether it be right in the sight ofGod to harken unto you more than unto God, judgeye" (Acts 4:19). Neither did Paul leave it to the Corinthians' judgment when he said in I Cor. 10:15,"Judge ye what I say. The cup of ble ing which weble , is it not the communion of the blood of Christ." In all of these instances "judgment" was to be controlled by God's instruction rather than custom and so it should be in I Corinthians 11. Their judgmentwas to be governed by God's instructions.

Nor will it do to say that the whole matter of the covering is simply a question of its "comeliness","seemliness". or good decorum or etiquette. The word "seemly" or "comely" has the connotation ofthat which is fit for a person in keeping with what that per son is and what that per son does. T he woman under consideration is verse 13 was not just any woman, nor even any Corinthian woman, but aparticular woman; namely, one that could pray, woman who was a Christian. It would not be comelyfor her to pray to God uncovered.

It ought to be noted that the same word that is here translated "comely" (v. 13) appears in I Tim.

2:10 where it is translated "becometh", and where women are told to dress modestly "as becometh women professing godline ." According to Paul it is not "comely" for a woman to pray to God uncovered (I Cor. 11:13), and according to the same apostle it is not "comely" for a woman to dress immodestly (I Tim. 2:10). Covering of the head is amatter of "comeliness", and dressing modestly is amatter of "comeliness". If covering of the head isnot required today because custom has dispensedwith it, dressing modestly is not required todayeither, because custom surely has dispensed with it

— the widespread practice of mixed swimming,shorts, etc., demonstrates it. Therefore, a person who would argue that it IS COMELY for a woman to pray uncovered today, ought also to argue that it IS COMELY for a woman to dress immodestlytoday! Brethren, if you are going to teach that awoman need not cover her head when she prays, youcannot consistently teach against her dressing immodestly. The same word "comely" is used in discussing both subjects. But Christians do not allowcustom to determine what is comely for them, buthe word of God. Thus today it is not comely for a woman to pray to God uncovered.

7. Nature's teaching about the hair should compel a woman to cover her head when she prays (v. 14,! 15). Paul is saying that the "natural" difference between the length of hair for men and women argues for a woman's being covered; that a woman ought tobe able to see her need for a covering. Sometimes it is urged that the word "nature" means "current practice" or "national custom" and that this rather than divine injunction required the covered head.But is this the case? First of all, the word "nature" has been given various meanings: (1) The regular law or order of nature; (2) Native instinct, or that which is inborn; (3) Woman's natural ability to grow more hair than man; (4) Practice or national custom. Thayer, Vine, Abbott-Smith, and Lange incline to the first definition; Harper to the second;Adam Clarke to the third; and Robinson perhaps to the fourth. For a person to select just one of these definitions and say "That's it," seems rather arbitrary. Most would seem to say that the verse is saying something like "It's just natural that long hair is a shame to a man and a glor y to a woman." It is pretty much a universal thing (whether from instinct, ability, regular constitution, or what) for awoman to have long hair and a man to have short hair; hence, "natural". While there may be exceptions to this, we ought to remember that people can"change the natural. . . into that which is against nature" (Rom. 1:26) ; and some have.

In the second place, even if "nature" means current practice, it is not the only reason that Paul gives. Several other reasons had already been givenin addition to this one. And, actually, is it not "current practice" today for women's hair to be longer than men's ? Where is the gospel preacher today thatwould want to preach with his hear long like thBeatles or the hippies ? Surely, they would bashamed of such. Well, Paul says that the difference between the hair of men and women argues for a covering. That difference still exists today, so today it argues for a covering for the woman and none for the man. Nature argues for a covering today,even as it did then.

8. The final reason given by Paul for a woman to cover her head when she prays and a man to uncover his is that any who taught otherwise, and therefore contentious, had no apostolic sanction and was without precedent in the churches of God. Clearly, this shows that the teaching here enjoined was not limited to Corinth for Paul appeals to other churches. It ought to be said again, if the teaching of I Corinthians 11:1-6 does not apply today, why does it not apply ? There is nothing stated in the passage itself that indicates that it was not meant to apply throughout this dispensation and to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 1,2). Any conclusion, therefore, that it does not apply today will have to come from some source outside the Bible and not from the Bible itself.

CUSTOM

It is sometimes argued that the teaching of this passage concerns the divine principle of "subjection" and that Paul illustrates this principle by a localcustom (covering the head). We object to this explanation on two counts: (1) Paul does not base hisarguments on "custom", and (2) I doubt seriously that any man can prove that it was the custom for men to always uncover their heads and women to cover their heads. I'm sure they cannot prove such from the Bible, and the evidence from outside thatBook does not prove it either. As a matter fact, the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicateotherwise.

No doubt there are some scholars who say that women always appeared in public with their heads cover ed; still ther e ar e other scholar s just as weighty, if not more so, who definitely do not. If scholars are going to be appealed to, why appeal just to those who say that women always appeared inpublic with their heads covered — and there are several — why not also appeal to those who say otherwise? Consider these quotations:

W. E . Vine: "Among the Jews the heads of the men were covered in the synagogue. Among theGreeks both men and women were uncovered." (Comm. on First Corinthians.)

Expositor's Greek Testament: "Paul's instructions do not agree precisely with current practice. Jewish men covered their heads; amongst the Greeks bothsexes worshipped with uncovered heads."

Morris in T yndale Ser ies: "Jewish men alwaysprayed with heads covered (as they still do). Greek women, as well as menfolk, prayed with head uncovered."

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: "In the remarkable fact that the practice here enjoined isneither Jewish, which required men to be veiled inprayer, nor Greek, which required both men andwomen to be unveiled, but particularly to Christians."

Many other scholars argue with these facts, either in whole or in part. For example, Vincent's Word Studies, Robertson's Word Pictures, Moffatt Series, Cambridge Greek Testament, Oepke in TWNT. From this information, please note the following chart:

The chart shows clearly that even though there were both Jews and Greeks in the church at Corinth, Paul's instructions were contrary to both; contrary to the Greeks in that he required women to praywith covered heads whereas they "customarily" prayed with uncovered heads; and contrary to theJews in that he required the men to pray with uncovered heads whereas they "customarily" prayed with covered heads — according to these scholars. It will take more than just an assertion that Paul is appealing to a local custom which exemplifies the principle of "subjection", or that all scholars agree that the practice here enjoined was in keeping with the customs of Paul's day.

An appeal is not necessarily being made toscholars, but simply to show that it cannot be proved by all the scholars that Paul's instructions were in keeping with the customs of his day. Neither am I saying that these scholars agree with my position, with each other or that they are even consistent intheir application of these facts. No more than I would say that they agree with me, with each other or were consistent in their application of the facts on the subject of baptism. For example, Philip Schaff, while agreeing that "baptism" means immersion, argues that it is "not in keeping with thegenius of the gospel to limit the operation of theHoly Spirit by the quantity or the quality of thewater or the mode of its application" (History, Vol. 1, page 459), and again, on page 467 he says, "The necessity of baptism for salvation has been inferred from John 3:5 and Mark 16:16; but while we are bound to God's ordinances, God himself is free and can save whomsoever and by whatever means hepleases." Another illustration of the same thing is found in Edward Robinson's Lexicon when he defines the word "baptize" to mean "to dip"; yet hereason's ( ?) from other considerations that sprinkling and pouring are all r ight.

No, an appeal is not necessarily being made toscholar s but it is being shown that it cannot beproved by all the scholars that Paul's instructions were in keeping with the custom of his day. But if scholars are going to be appealed to, why not appeal to these just quoted? Are they not trustworthy? Yet if they show anything, they show conclusively thatthe covering of the head as here enjoined by Paulwas not the custom of his day — not of the Jews, not of the Greeks, but actually contrary to both. But ifscholars don't prove that the covering of the headwas the custom of Paul's day, who could? Certainly not the text itself, for it is already noted, the textdoes not appeal to "custom" for its authority. This being true, why would not the teaching of I Cor. 11:1-16 still be in force today?

Furthermore, even if it should be admitted that

this passage deals with "custom", it ought to be

noted that there are areas and churches both in this

country and abroad where people practice what is

here taught about the covering of the head and that

the covered head is indeed a sign of subjection. For

anyone to try to teach the women in these areas and

churches that it would be all right for them to un

cover their heads when they pray (and the men to

cover theirs) is to do exactly the opposite of what

Paul is represented as doing. Thus preachers ought

to encourage women who live in these areas and

churches to continue to cover their heads while they

pray. To teach them otherwise is to be "contentious," according to Paul.

Sometimes it is asserted that the covering of thhead was a custom just like greeting with a kiss of foot-washing. It can be shown from the scriptures that both greeting with a kiss and foot-washing hadbeen a practice for centuries before the New Testament was written; (kiss: Genesis 33:4; Exodus 4:27; II Samuel 14:33; II Samuel 20:9; foot-washing: Genesis 18:4; I Samuel 25:41). But no man canshow from the scriptures that covering of the head in prayer and prophesying was a common practice before I Corinthians 11 (it might be shown otherwise, of. II Samuel 15:30-31). Hence, they are not just alike.

LIMITED TO DAYS OF INSPIRATION

Sometimes it is argued that the teaching iI Corinthians 11:1-16 is limited to the days of spiritual gifts; that the passage concerns "prophesying", which, so it is claimed, always means "inspired speech"; and since no inspired speech takes placetoday, this passage does not apply today

It is true that men nor women "prophesy" todayin the sense of "speak by inspiration", and no doubtthe most frequent use of the word "prophesy" is with the meaning "speak by inspiration". However, there are some considerations which should keep onfrom being too dogmatic on this phase of the subject.

1. In the first place, not everybody defines the word "prophesy" so as to limit it to "inspired speech". Note the following:

A. Lenski on I Cor. 12:10: " 'Prophesy' is used to designate the gift or office of a prophet. In Romans

12:16 it is mentioned together with two other gifts. This term is used in a double sense: broadly to indicate any and all ability to communicate the savingwill of God to others so that every true teacher and preacher may be called a prophet; and more narrowlyto designate the receiving and the communicatinof direct and special messages from God." B. Willis J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, argues for the word "prophesy" to mean by inspiration, but he says on page 103: "First, any adherent of the true religion may be said to prophesywhen the Spirit of God gives him a special messagefor the edification of others. No miracle is needed for this, but only that illumination which devout persons sometimes enjoy, and which God offers to all . . . And, within limits, prophesying still abounds among earnestly religious people. One who speaksfor God in some special and marked message, in Christian meeting, exercises so far forth the gift of prophesy." C. Robertson and Plummer in International Critical Commentary on I Cor. 11: "T he 'prophesying' means public teaching, admonishing, or comforting;delivering God's message to the congregation (I Cor. 13:9, 14:1,3,24,31,39) D. Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 6, page 399: "T he term 'prophesying' is variously employed in thScriptures. Sometimes it seems to stand, in a very general way, for sharing in religious worship. Aother times the idea of instructing people in thewill of God, as it had been immediately revealed to the speaker, is prominent. And at yet other times

there is reference to the fore-announcing of coming events."

2. There are a number of passages which causeme to be somewhat hesitant to say that it always means "inspired speech"

A. In I Kings 18:19 there is a reference to the"prophets" of Baal. How could a person be an "inspired spokesman" (a prophet) for Baal when Baal was a false God; there was no Baal ? In verse 29 these "prophets" are said to have "prophesied". Did they "speak by inspiration"? Hardly. Yet the"prophesied".

B. Isaiah describes some in his day who wantethe prophets to "prophesy deceits" (Is. 30:10). Howcould a person "prophesy deceits by inspiration"?

C. In Jeremiah 23:21, God says explicitly, "I sent not these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spokento them, yet they prophesied."

D. In the New Testament, Paul quotes, with approval, a statement from the heathen E pimenides and calls him a "prophet" (Titus 1:12). Was Epimenides, the heathen, an "inspired spokesman"; onewho "spoke by inspiration"?

But even if "prophesy" should always mean "inspired speech", as it no doubt does in nearly all cases, I Corinthians 11:1-16 is NOT limited to prophesying;it also concerns praying ,and certainly a person could pray without being inspired. To which it is often objected that there was such a thing as "inspired prayer" (See I Cor. 14:13-17). It is very debatablthat I Cor. 14:13-17 is discu ing inspired prayer; probably what is discussed in these verses of "praying with the spirit" is that the prayer was uttered in a tongue — the tongue was what was inspired and not necessarily the prayer content itself.

But even if it could be proved that I Cor. 14:13-17 discusses "inspired prayer", how would one learn that it is? It would have to be from the expression "pray with the spirit." But does the expression "with the spirit" mean "inspiration"? If it does, then whenwe "sing with the spirit" (I Cor. 14:15), we woulhave to be inspired; and when we are told to be"filled with the spirit . . . singing and making melody" (Eph. 5:19), this is "inspired singing" as well; and when Jesus said that we must worship "in spiritand truth" (John 4:24), why would not this require us to engage in "inspired worship"? And since there are not any inspired people today, how could oneworship ? Obviously, these are not inspired acts. Nor are they necessarily such in I Cor. 11:1-16.

Again, even if I Cor. 14:13-17 discusses "inspired prayer", the way this would be learned would be bthe expression "pray with the spirit". But it is crystal clear that the expression "pray with the spirit" positively is NOT found in I Cor. 11:1-16; "pray" is mentioned, but "pray with the spirit" is not. Since it is not mentioned, who has the right tosay it is meant? But, it is objected, it is in the context; that is, since praying is used in conjunctionwith prophesying and even joined by the coordinating conjunction "or", the "praying" must be inspired because "the prophesying" is inspired. This is not true. For example, in Romans 12 the word "prophesy" (the same word as in I Cor. 11) is used in "conjunction with" "ruling", "giving", ""exhorting", and all these joined by the same coordinatingconjunction as in I Cor. 11. Does this mean that all

these — ruling, giving, exhorting — are inspired ? Of course not; nor does it do so in I Cor. 11. Thus the word prophesy is often used in conjunction withwords which do not mean an inspired act. So even if the word "prophesy" in I Cor. 11 means "inspired speech", we have seen that the word "prayer" is not said to be inspired nor does the context demand it.Since prayer has not passed away, the rules givenin I Cor. 11:1-16 still apply today

Furthermore, if the passage is limited to inspiredpeople, then it would have been all right for auninspired man to have lead a prayer or preached a sermon with his head covered in first centuryCorinth. If not, on what grounds could he be opposed for so doing? Not I Cor. 11, for that passage, according to the argument, is limited to inspired people andthis man was uninspired.

Also, what would have been wrong with an uninspired woman attending church in Corinth bareheaded? I Cor. 11 would not condemn her for that pa age, so the argument runs, is limited to those women who were inspired and this bare-headed woman wasuninspired.

Not infrequently the claim is encountered that the passage is limited to inspired women on the assumption that the situation at Corinth was such that some of the inspired women on the false premise that since they were inspired as well as men they were equal with men in every way, and had therefore removed their veils — the customary sign of their femininity and subjection. This explanation istoo limited because it fails to take into account the fact that Paul's discu ion is not limited to women but includes men. He says, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered dishonoreth his head" (v. 4). One could as cogently argue that the situation at Corinth was such that men had started putting on veils. Paul included the men in his instructions, but men are often ignored or forgotten in discu ions of the passage. Any interpretation that limits Paul's instructions to just thewomen or even the inspired women is far too restrictive and not sound. To say that the passage was a result of such a limited group — inspired women

— is to fail to take into account both points: (1"Every" woman is mentioned, and (2) "Every" man is also included.

T hen, too, if Paul is discussing spir itual gifts,i.e., praying or prophesying as inspired acts, in th11th chapter, why does he later say, "Now concerning spiritual gifts" (I Cor. 12:1)? It looks like hewould have said something like, "Now back to spiritual gifts." The reason seems obvious: I Cor. 11:1-16 is not discu ing spiritual gifts, per se; that subject begins in Chapter 12.

Occasionally it is asserted that I Cor. 11:1-16 could not involve the assembly because the passagconsiders the po ibility of women prophesying, and women were forbidden to do this in I Cor. 14:34-35. If this argument is true, then what Paul is sayingis that women are required to cover their heads in private when they pray or prophesy, but when theyattend the assembly worship they may attend bareheaded, because I Cor. 11 does not deal with publicactivities!!! Do you actually believe that women iPaul's day could have attended the assembly worship bare-headed? If the position is taken that this passage does not discuss public worship, consistency would demand that you believe it was all rightfor women to be bare-headed in the assembly worship at Corinth. What scripture would you use to show that she must be bare-headed in the assembly worship? You couldn't use I Cor. 11 because the argument says that I Cor. 11 doesn't concern theassembly worship. Are you ready for this?

But is it true that the passage could not concern public worship ? I believe it could concern public worship and for the following reasons:

1. Prayer was made in the assembly, and women participated in those prayers, though they did nolead them. Hence, they prayed
2. The word "prophesy" is defined by some as "to share in religious worship" (see former quotation from Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 6, page 339). In commenting on Saul's "prophesying" as in I Samuel 18: 10, Beecher says on page 73, "... Saul's utterances are here called "prophesying", not because they were crazy, but because they were religious." Commentingon the band of prophets in I Samuel 10:5-13, the same author says on page 74, "It may equally be aband of serious men, holding an outdoor religious meeting, with a procession and music and publicspeeches."
3. "But," it is asked, "how could a woman prophesy in the assembly without violating I Cor. 14: 34,35?" According to I Chronicles 25:1-7, prophesying could be done by singing, and according toI Samuel 10:5,6; 9-13; 19:18-24, a group could prophesy simultaneously, perhaps even a whole church (I Cor. 14:23,24). A woman would no more be out of her place or in violation of I Cor. 14:34,35 thanshe is today while singing. Should such have happened, Paul said "Let her be covered".

From these considerations, it can be seen that this passage is not limited to the days of inspiration but is to continue as long as people, men and women,pray. They pray today; therefore, the passage appliestoday.

WHAT ABOUT A VEIL?

It is sometimes argued that the word "cover" is translated from the Greek word "katakalupto", thmeaning of which, it is claimed, must be "hang downfrom" as a veil; that the word is specific and specifies a particular covering, viz., a veil; and therefore a woman would have to be covered (katakalupto)with a veil that would hang down from her head and cover not only the head but the face as well.

First of all, let it be noted, that even if such acovering is intended, this does not nullify what Paul says; it would simply require such a covering. Whatis sometimes done is to argue that this is the kind of covering mentioned, and since nobody does that,then the rest of the passage can be ignored, too. No,if the passage means "a veil that covers the head and hangs down from it," that's what women ought towear. There are a number of present day articles which do this: a scarf, a mantilla, kerchief, shawls,and even some hats.

But what about the claim that the word "katakalupto" always means "to hang down from"? This definition is theoretically derived from the etymology of the word: kata, meaning "down" and"kalupto" meaning "cover"; but even here the case is not always as clear as some think. (See Moulton-Howard, A Grammar of NT Greek, Vol. II, Accidenceand Word-Formation, p. 315-316.) While on the subject of etymology, consider the word "perbolaion" in I Cor. 11:15. Etymologically, this word means to throw or cast (ballo) around (peri), hence a wrapper. This is just as specific as katakalupto. Now to be consistent, he who would argue that the woman's covering must be a specific headdress, viz., one that hangs down, a veil; ought also to argue that she must wrapher hair around her head. But who would teach this ? Nobody that I know. And strangely enough, most would say that a woman can fulfill the statement that her hair is given her for a covering (periballo: to throw or cast around) by letting it hang down(katakalupto)

The word "katakalupto" is an old word in Greekliterature occurring as early as line 460, Book I ofThe Iliad. Here as elsewhere in Homer it occurs in tmesis, and it occurs in a variety of contexts: when a man dies, darkness is said to cover or veil (katakalupto) his eyes; when he is bur ied, the heaped earth is said to cover (katakalupto) him; when sacrifice isbeing prepared, the thighs of the animal are covered (katakalupto — and some translations render this "wrapped around"!) with fat. In Plato's Memo 76b,it is contextually translated "blind-fold".

While I Cor. 11 is the only NT passage where the word occurs, yet it occurs several times (at least 22)in the Septuagint. In many of these instances the meaning could not po ibly be "hang down from". In Numbers 22:5 Balak says of the Israelites whohad come out of Egypt "they coyer the face of theearth". Were the Israelites "hanging down from" the face of the earth? Or were they "on top" of it? Obviously the latter, and even then they did not "cover" the entire earth. In Jeremiah 28:42 (which in thKing James is 51:42) Babylon is said to be "covered with the multitude of waves". Do "waves" of water usually "hang down from" a city when they "cover" it, or are they "over" it? In Ezekiel 26:10 it is said of Tyre, "by reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee". Did dust literally "hangdown from" the city of Tyre? In Ezekiel 38:9, a cloudis said to "cover" the land, but in this passage, theword is simply "kalupto" without the "kata" prefix;in other words, the word "kalupto" is here (v. 16) used interchangeably with the word "katakalupto"

(v. 9). But nobody that I know of says the "kalupto" means "hang down from". Well, if it doesn't, and itcan be used interchangeably with "katakalupto",why would "katakalupto" have to mean "hang downfrom" ? It wouldn't. The word "kata" possibly intensifies the word "kalupto", but it does not necessarilycause it to mean "hang down from".

In the Visions of Hermas 4, 2, 1, the noun form of the word is used to speak of a woman's head-dress. It is translated "turban" (Kirsopp-Lake), "mitre" (Arndt and Gingrich), "snood" (Goodspeed). Itseems strange that these did not translate it "veil" if this is the specific head-dress.

Nor should too much be made of the cases used with this word. In Genesis 38: 15, the very placwhere po ibly "hang down from" would be correct,the genitive would be the expected use, but instead we have the accusative.

There are other instances where the word katakalupto is used with no such meaning as "hang dowfrom" as the necessar y meaning. Hence, it is not true that the word katakalupto in I Cor. 11 nece itates a covering that hangs down from the woman's head.

Nor does the passage require a woman to cover her face. There is a difference between the face and the head. Jesus said, "Anoint thy head and wash thyface" (Matt. 6:17), demonstrating the difference. Also I Cor. 11:15 states "her hair is given her for a covering", yet this covering does not cover her face. Hence, the covering need not cover the face. The passage says "head"; it does not say "face"

Also, let us not forget that the passage discusses men; a man ought not to cover (katakalupto) his head (v. 7) when he prays or prophesies. This is the same word as that used for the woman except for the alpha privative. (It ought to be noted that, according to many, verse 4 says "a man ought not to have anything on his head" . . . kata kephales. According to the argument now being considered, th"kata" is where the "hang down from" meaningcomes in so that the answer here being given still applies.) Now if Paul is requiring a specific headdress for a woman — a veil that hangs down — there is nothing wrong with a man's praying with his hat on today even in worship. Now would it have beenwrong for a man at first century Corinth to haveprayed with a hat or a fez or some other head-dress on provided it was not a veil that would hang downand cover his head and his face? Believe it? I don't know of anyone who does, but is not this the logicalconsequence of the argument that the passage is limited to a specific head-dress ?

The truth is the New Testament says that awoman is to cover her head. It does not specify howbig the covering is to be, as long as it covers; it does not say what the covering is to be, whether scarf,kerchief, mantilla, shawl, hat, or veil, just as longas it covers. What the size, shape, or color of the covering is to be is something that is evidently leftto the taste of the individual, just so it covers. Where God has not specified, neither should we.

IS THE HAIR THE ONLY COVERING?

Some feel that because verse 15 says, "her hair is given her for a covering" that the only coveringunder consideration throughout the passage is the hair. We believe this to be erroneous for the following reasons:

As has already been noted, the passage deals with men and women when they pray or prophesy. It does not concern itself with how they appear when theygo to town or when they plow in the field. There is nothing to forbid a man's being covered — except when he prays or prophesies. There is nothing toforbid a woman's being uncovered — except whenpraying or prophesying. A man may cover his headwhen not praying; a woman may uncover her head when not praying. The covering is one that is to be "put on" at some times, and "taken off" at others. It is "put-on-able" and "take-off-able"; it is "removable". But this cannot be said of the hair. Man cannot cut his hair off when praying and then grow him some more real quickly when he gets through. woman cannot cut her hair off when not praying, andthen grow her some more real quickly when she prays. Therefore, the covering under consideration is "removable", and thus not the hair.

Furthermore, if the hair were the only covering under consideration it would be on all the time,whether praying, prophesying, or whatever. There would have been no need for Paul to have limited this covering to when praying or prophesying; butthis is the ver y thing that he does. T hus, the hair is not the only covering under consideration.

Verse 15 simply says that a woman ought to be able to see the correctness of a covering in her case and lack of one for a man because her hair already should have shown this.

It ought also to be pointed out that several translators render verse 13, Is it comely that a womanpray to God "bare-headed"? This shows that the"covering" under consideration is not just the hair, nor even long hair, because a woman could have hair ten feet long and yet be bare-headed. It is not right, according to these translators, for a woman to pray to God bare-headed, even though she may have hair that reaches to her ankles. She needs another covering besides her hair.

Verse 6 says "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn." The woman under consideration in this verse is "not covered" or without covering. Now if the covering and the hair are one and the same, we may substitute the word "hair" for the word "covering" and the meaning will be unchanged

"If the woman is without covering, let her also be shorn."

"If the woman is without hair, let her also be shorn." See the absurdity in the last statement? How can a woman who is "without hair" also be shorn? How can a woman without any hair, get her hair cut off? The word "also" in this verse shows plainly that the cover ing is not the woman's hair but must be an artificial one as already described.

CONCLUSION

From these considerations, it can be said that I Corinthians 11:1-16 teaches:

1. A man ought not to cover his head when he prays or prophesies.
2. A woman ought to cover her head when sheprays or prophesies.

This is not limited to the days of inspiration, nor is it simply a custom. The teaching enjoined in this passage still applies today because:

1. "A man indeed ought not to cover his head forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God." ( v.7).
2. For a woman to pray to God uncovered is as shameful as for her to shave her head. (v. 5,6).
3. A woman ought to cover her head because she was created for the man. (v. 8,9).
4. A woman ought to cover her head "because of the angels", (v. 10).
5. On the basis of what is said in verses 2-12, we can "judge in our selves: is it comely that awoman pray to God uncovered"?
6. Nature's teaching about the hair should cause a woman to cover her head. (v. 14,15).
7. Any who would teach otherwise, thus con

tentious, has no apostolic sanction and such teaching ought to be without precedent in thechurches of God.

6337 N. Devonshire Drive Peoria, Illinois 61614

A STUDY OF I COR. 11:2-16

James P. Needham, Louisville, Ky.INTRODUCTION

It is with fear and trembling that I present this article. I fully realize the controversial nature of itssubject, and that there are able and sincere brethren who hold opposite views. (There is wide diversity ofviews even among those occupying both of the twomajor positions with reference to this passage. While those holding a given position on this matter reach about the same conclusion, they sometimes do it bydifferent routes).

I am also painfully conscious that it has been theoccasion of division among God's people, and that itforever has the potential of repeating that ugly act. I am likewise aware of increasing tension among us over the matter, thus necessitating a prayerful study of it. I assure the reader that I have neither desire nor intention to augment argument or bolster belligerence on the subject. For fear of doing so, the invitation to present this study was accepted with some reluctance.

It seems appropriate just here to plead with allreaders to study this and all other matters with an open mind and an open Bible. Prejudice can rob oneof the truth. We should divest ourselves of all personal preferences on all Bible subjects. It should not matter to us what God wants, and we should beanxious to do whatever He requires.

There is also a need for us to disabuse ourselves of every semblance of partyism. It is very dangerous for God's children to rally to some person because he holds a cher ished view on a given subject. T hey would very likely disagree with that same person on other subjects and when we can ignore such differences and build a clique around one on which we happen to agree, we have succumbed to a dangerous partyism that could easily result in division.

There is a great need for each person to think for himself. T he fact that God has endowed each of us with the same mental faculties indicates that He intended for each of us to do our own thinking. We must have the attitude that nothing is true in religion just because "my favorite preacher says it". It is true only if God said it (I Peter 4:11). We should not think of men above that which is written (I Cor. 4:6).

Some prejudicial statements have been made from both sides of this controversy. Misrepresentations and sarcastic aspersions are not completely absent from the writings and preaching of those holding either view. These result in offenses to personal pride, are unbecoming of those "of like precious faith", and eventuate in iron curtains of separation among God's people. I shall not have ONE WORD of ridicule for those differing from me on this matter. There are brethren of the opposite view for whom I have great respect. While I cannot, in conscience, agree with them. I shall continue to be agreeable with them. I shall continue to exercise my liberty to object to their view while seeking to be objectionable. I shall be happy for them to exercise the same rights I claim for myself.

I. WHAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THESE VERSES?

It is always best to approach a subject from thenegative standpoint first. When we learn what is NOT the subject of these verses, we will be in better position to learn what it is.

(1) The subject of the text is not: WOMAN'S WEARING A HAT TO THE ASSEMBLY: Too many essentials are missing for this to be the subject. Notice Them: (a) The acts of worship: If Paul meant to say that women should wear a covering to public worship, he certainly did not say so. Only two acts are mentioned: "Praying" and "Prophesying". When people read this: "public worship", they read into the text something that is not there and the rule of interpretation which gives them the right to so read it should be clearly stated. Paul specified the acts in which the women should be covered, and we should be satisfied to let him speak for himself. (b) The modern hat: Not one word is said about the modern hat in these verses, nor is any word used that can be stretched to mean one. I insist that since this is true, one must speak where the Bible is silent to connect the modern female headdress with I Cor.

11: 2-16. We must not go beyond the things that are written (2 John 9; I Peter 4:11; I Cor. 4:6.)

(c) The assembly: I Cor. 11: 2-6 says no more about the assembly of the church than about themodern hat, and it says absolutely nothing about either. To apply what Paul says to the assembly is to read between the lines, and involve him in a palpablecontradiction. These women were to be veiled when "praying or prophesying". If Paul is describing what these women did in the assembly, he contradicts himself in I Cor. 14:35, where he said "it is a shame for women to speak in the church (assembly)." Hence, we would have Paul telling women to do what he later said it is a shame for them to do. Who can believe it? The idea advanced by many comments? tors that Paul was strictur ing the manner in which these women were doing what he later said they had no right to do (I Cor. 14:34, 35), is far-fetched and quite unworthy of those who propagate it. Suchwould be about like Paul's saying in one place that one should not kill another with a gun, then later on in the same letter, forbid killing!

To say that Paul is talking about the assembly because he regulates the Lord's supper in the same chapter is quite gratuitous. It is an argument that proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. If such a contention be valid here, it would be validelsewhere. I knew of a Christian Church preacher who argued that instrumental music is to be used in worship because it is discussed in the same chapterwith the assembly (I Cor. 14. Compare verses 7,8 with 23).

Then there are those who expand this type of argument to include two adjacent chapters. For instance, some argue that James 1:27 must apply tothe church because the assembly discussed "in the very next chapter" (Cf. James 2:2).

Others expand such argumentation to cover anentire book and say that such passages as Gal. 6:10 apply to the church because "Paul would not include a command in a letter to a church which the church could not obey."

The denominations expand the argument evenfurther when they ignore the difference between theOld and New T estaments and say that the sabbath and the Lord's day must be the same because both are special days mentioned in the Bible, or that baptism must include sprinkling because the sprinkling of water is mentioned in the Bible.

No man can logically show one bit of difference between these arguments. If one of them is sound,all of them are. One's position is palpably weak whenits proof is mere proximity. The chapter divisions in the Bible wer e made by Car dinal Hugo in 1250 A.D.This would mean that this argument has originated since then, and could not be made now had Hugo notdone this wor k.

I understand that a text must be kept in context,but I also know that it is possible for both text andcontext to be perverted. This argument is a concrete example of such.

(2) THE SUBJECT OF THE TEXT IS: HEADSHIP AND HOW ITS RECOGNITION WAS TO BE DEMONSTRATED AT CORINTH: This is made clear in verse 3 of the text: "But I would have youknow, that the head of every man is Christ; and thehead of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." This principle of headship can be easily seen in the following diagram:

GOD CHRIST MAN

I s T he Head Of Christ… .Man… Woman

It is important that one recognize this principle as the basic point of consideration in I Cor. 11: 2-16. It is the foundation upon which rests everything else that is said.

The word "head" is a translation of the Greek "KEPHALE" and means "Anything supreme, chief, prominent; of persons, master, lord ..." (Thayer, p.344). Hence, the main point of Paul's argument in I Cor. 11:2-16, is recognition of headship, with particular emphasis on the woman's understanding her subordination to man, and man's recognition of his subordination to Christ. Indeed, everything Paul says in these verses relates in some way to the principle of headship. He delivers a stern warning when hesays the woman ought to be covered in recognition of their subordination "because of the angels" (v. 10). This likely has reference to the angels who did not stay in their place and were condemned (Jude 6). This is given as an example of what happens whenGod's order of headship is not recognized.

Paul anchors man's headstart over woman in the creation and fall, giving three basic reasons for it:

(a) Woman is of man (I Cor. 11:8). T his same argument is made by Paul in I Tim. 2:13, "Man was first formed, then Eve." For reasons which may not be apparent to us, man's being "first formed" establishes him as superior in authority to woman. Also, Paul attached significance to the fact that "woman IS OF man." That is, she was formed "of" him (Gen. 2:21,22). (b) Woman is for man (I Cor. 11:9). Paul next argues man's headship over woman on the basis that she was made for (Gr. Dia) the sake of man. Gen.

2:18 says God made woman as "an help meet FOR him."

(c) Woman was deceived in the transgression (ITim. 2:14). Woman's being deceived in the transgression is also given as a reason for her subordination to man. T his is seen in Gen. 3:16, "T hy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

In establishing man's headship over woman, Paul is careful to caution man lest he abuse his authority: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God" (v. 11,12). Peter gives this same warning in discussing thesame point. "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be nothindered" (I Peter 3:5,6).

Man's headship over woman is also taught in Eph. 5:22-23 and I Tim. 5:11-14, though nothing is said in these passages about her wearing a physical sign of her recognition of it.

In the text Paul lays down the rule that both man and woman at Corinth were to manifest their recognition of their subordination when "pr aying or prophesying" by specific signs:

(a) The woman was to wear her veil: This was aspecific type of headdress. In order to learn exactly what it was, we need to learn the meaning of theoriginal word which expressed it. I trust we all understand that whatever the word meant then, it means now. No substitution or modification can be allowed. For instance: the Greek word for baptism is BAPTIZO. In the Greek language this word describes aspecific act: burial, or immersion. We are not at liberty to modify that act; we must bury or immerse to fulfill its demands. We will not allow denominationalists to modify its meaning and substitute sprinkling or pouring because we contend that whatthe word meant in the first century, it means in thetwentieth. Now, for the same reason, we should notseek to modify the specific covering bound in I Cor.. 11 and substitute something the original word did not indicate. We have no more right to substitute something for that specific item of headdress than the denominationalists have to substitute sprinkling or pouring for the specific act of immersion.

The word translated veil is "KATA-KALUPTO." Concerning it we submit the following testimony from recognized authorities:

THAYER'S LEXICON: "KATA: A prepositiondenoting motion or diffusion or direction from thehigher to the lower; as in classical Greek, joinedwith the genitive and the accusative. Down from, down . . . hence, KATA KEFALEIN ( veil hangingdown from his head) EKOWN, I Cor. 11:4 (p. 327). "KATA-KALUPTO ... to cover up ... to veil or cover one's self: I Cor. 11:6 (p. 331).

A. T. ROBERTSON: "Let her be veiled (KATAKALUPTESTHO). Present middle imperative of oldcompound KATA-KALUPTO, here alone in N.T. Let her cover herself with the veil (down, KATA, theGreek says, the veil hanging down from the head)." (Word pictures in the N.T., Vol. 4, p. 160).

GREEN: "Be covered, I Cor. 11:6,7" (Green'sL exicon, p. 218) . "To veil, to veil oneself, to be

veiled or covered, I Cor. 11:6,7" (Green's Greek anEnglish Lexicon to the N. T., p. 94)YOUNG: "KAT A-KALUPTO, to cover fully"

(p. 209).

When I say this word is specific, I do not mean that it specifies the color or composition of the veil or covering, but it is specific as to WHAT THIS VEIL DID. It denoted "diffusion or direction from the higher to the lower," that is: it hung down frothe head, covered it fully. There are indications in secular writings that the veil or covering was composed of various materials (See Vincent's Word Studies, Vol. Ill, p. 247), but regardless of the material from which made, it must meet the specific meaning of "KATA-KALUPTO"— "hang(ing) dowfrom the head" "from the higher to the lower part" and "cover fully". To accept anything less is exactly parallel to accepting less than immersion from theword BAPTIZO. Just as surely as BAPTIZO requires the body to be covered fully, KATA-KALUPTO requires that the head be covered fully. Some mayquestion that the idea of "hanging down" is in theword, but none acquainted with the original willquestion that the idea of "fully covered" inheres inthe word, and that which does not fully cover does not meet the demandsof I Cor. 11.

That this is true is also evident from a use of the noun form of KATA-KALUPTO, namely, KAFILEN,to describe what Moses used to shield the children of Israel from the glory of his face (II Cor. 3:13,14)From the description of this veil from Exodus 34: 33-35, and II Cor. 3:13,14, it is clear that it hundown and fully covered his face. Verse 13 says, h"put a veil over his face, that the Children of Israel could not. . . look." Had it been otherwise it would not have served its intended purpose. Transparent coverings, and those which do not "fully cover" donot meet the demands of KATA KALUPTO, and aretherefore far-fetched in reference to this text. When such are worn we can look. When Moses put on KAFILEN, the people "could not look." Again wesee the vast difference between truth and error. Here it is the difference between "could not look" and "can look."

Seeking to generalize the veil by using verse 10,which says, "For this cause ought the woman thave power (margin: "a sign of authority") on her head because of the angels," ignores the context. The question to be answered is, what was the "sign of authority" (admitting for the sake of argument thatthis questionable translation is admi ible) Paul was discussing? Was it just any "covering" regardless of size? No! It was one that hung down from thehigher to the lower part of the head and fully covered. Anything less than this does not conform to the context. The "sign of authority" considered in the context was a specific type; one that fullycovered. Making the same covering both general (any size) and specific (one large enough to fullycover) in the same context for the same person does not conform to the laws of language

That Paul was discussing a SPECIFIC coveringfor the woman is corroborated by his having GENERALIZED the man's "covering" in verse four. It says, "Every man praying or prophesying, havinhis head covered, dishonoureth his head." This covering is GENERAL. Berry's Interlinear translates it as follows: "Every man praying or prophesying,[anything] on [his] head having, puts shame to his head." Man was not to "pray or prophesy" havinANYTHING (a covering of any size) on his head.The woman was to "pray or prophesy" with a covering of a SPECIFIC size (one large enough to fully cover) on her head.

(b) Man was not to wear a covering on his head. The logic of this is seen when we consider that a woman's praying or prophesying uncovered indicated that she had ascended to the level of man. She was committing an act of masculinity. Conversely,for a man to cover his head would seem to indicate that he had abdicated his position of headship over the woman. He would 'be committing an act of femininity. One of the main principles enunciated in the text is sex identity. Man was not to wear that which was distinctly identified with women. Men shouldnot become feminine, nor women masculine. It is doubtful that the men at Corinth had practiced "praying or prophesying" with their heads covered. What Paul says about the covering of men is a logicalconclusion from what he said about women. If women should not dress like men, then logically, men should not dress like women.

We must not overlook the "when" of these requirements. Paul said they applied when "praying or prophesying". As shown earlier, this does not sa"at the assembly", or "during public worship". To attach these meanings to the text forces the following conclusions: (A) That women prayed and prophesied (spoke) in the assembly, thus is violation of I Cor. 14:34,35, (B) that women praying or prophesying outside the assembly could do so uncovered in contradiction to what Paul specifically says, (C)that men praying or prophesying outside the assembly could do so covered which Paul says they should not do, or (D) that praying and prophesying were limited to the assembly, and could not be done outside it. If the covering regulations were limited to the assembly so were the acts in which they were to be observed.

II. WHAT WAS THE SITUATION AT CORINTH?

(1) The veil was a customary sign of the woman's subordination to man: In order to understand properly the scriptures, we need to try to understand the circumstances of those to whom they were written. This is no little task. Many misinterpretations andmisapplications of scripture come from a failure to take this into consideration. The binding of foowashing and the holy kiss are two notable examples of such failure. Another source of confusion is a failure to take into account what is plainly said in a given text.

It is well established both from the text and secular sources that the wearing of a veil was a feminine custom in Corinth. Its presence on the head of awoman in public signified that she recognized her subordination to man. Its absence signified insubordination and/or shame. (See S.A.W. Mayer, Commentary on the N.T., Barnes' Notes on the N. T.,Halley's Bible Handbook, Vincent's Word Studies,Barclay's Commentary on the Letters to the Corinthians, and Erdman's Commentary, etc.

In the text under consideration, Paul affirms four times that what he is discussing is a matter of custorn. Notice.

(a) "Judge in yourselves." (v. 13) Does this sound like Paul was enjoining the artificial covering as divine law? It is evident from this expression that there was some other basis for settlement of this question than "a thus saith the Lord". Where God has spoken we have no right to "judge in ourselves." "If thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge" (James 4:12). Paul told them to"judge the law, therefore the veil is not the law. The law is headship. The veil was only a customary expression of its recognition. I do not mean by this that the veil was not bound on the Corinthians — it was. But not simply for the sake of the veil, but for the sake of what the veil meant in their society. Paulis asking them to judge the wear ing of the veil inview of God's law of headship as it related to the veil's significance in their society (b) "I s it comely that a woman pr ay unto God uncovered?" (v. 13). He now tells the Corinthians what to judge. Not whether God's law has required that women "pr ay or prophesy" with their heads covered, but "is it comely" that they do so? Thayer says the word "comely" means: "To be becoming, seemly, fit" (p. 5'35). "Paul appeals to the sense of propriety among the Christians" (A. T. Robertson,Word Pictures in the N. T. Vol. 4, p. 161). (Emphasis mine JPN) A divine pr inciple was involved in what the veil signified AT THAT TIME, but notin the veil itself as such. Paul's point is: in view of the divine principle to which the veil was related AT THAT MOMENT, "judge in yourselves," use your own sense of propriety, "is it fitting that awoman pray unto God uncovered?" The answer is obviously negative (c) "Doeth not even nature itself teach you..."

(v. 14) The word "nature" conveys the idea of custom. "A natural feeling of decorum, a native senseof propriety, e.g. in respect to national customs in which one is born and brought up" (Robinson's Greek English Lexicon of the N. T.). (Emphasis mine JPN) "A native sense of propriety" (Thayer)."He re-enforces the appeal to custom by the appealto nature in a question that expects the affirmative answer. PHUSIS, from old verb PHUO, to produce,like our word nature, is difficult to define. Here it means native sense of propr iety (of. Rom. 2:14) iaddition to mere custom, but one that rests on the objective difference in the constitution of things"

(A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the N.T. Vol. 4, p. 1162, 163). (Emphasis mine JPN). Thus, Paul was not appealing to them on the basis of specific legislation on-the veil as such, but on the basis of their "national custom" relating to it (d) "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (v. 16). Of the word "custom": here Vine says, "A custom, customary usage, Jn. 18:39; I Cor. 11:16; or force of habit, I Cor. 8:7, R. V. 'being used to ...' (p. 263). Paul was sayingto the Cor inthians that neither "we (probably theApostles JPN) nor the churches of God" have any"such custom" concer ning the veil as obtained atCorinth. There is an obvious point of contrast in this verse. It is axiomatic that Corinth had a "custom" that "we" (the Apostles) and "the churches of God" did not have. (If the verse says anything at all, it says this). What custom is he talking about? The

wording in the context (considered above) demands that it is the woman's veil at Corinth. Nothing else is consistent with the train of thought in process in the text.

In this verse Paul is defending himself against an anticipated charge of SEE MING to be contentious because he was binding on the Corinthians acustom from which "we" (the apostles) and "the churches of God" elsewhere were loosed. It should be noted that he does not say that anyone IS contentious, but "if any man SEEMETH to be." There is a difference. The common objection to this understanding of

verse 16 is that Paul would not labor a point for half a

chapter, then conclude by saying, "If any man

seemeth to be contentious" it is not important any

way because it is just a custom. This objection seems

plausible enough until one consider s that in the

seventh chapter of First Corinthians Paul discusses

many reasons why under "the present distress" (V.

26) it was better not to marry, but concludes b

saying, "but and if thou marry, thou hast not

sinned; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned"

(v. 28). Also, Paul devotes chapters 12,13,14 (9chapters) to a discu ion of Spiritual gifts which are not binding today! We should be very careful aboutexpressing what method or methods we think theSpirit should or should not employ in revealing thmind of God. We find this objection to this understanding of verse 16 based upon human judgmenand therefore without weight as an argument

The custom of the woman's veil at Corinth, therefore, becomes similar to the meat-eating custom inNew Testament times. Some were trying to makeeating or not eating meats a part of the kingdom oGod, but Paul informed them that "the kingdom oGod is not eating and drinking..." (Rom. 14:17)Under certain circumstances the meat eater should abstain on the basis of its bearing on a divine principle, but the act of meat eating or not doing so was not part of the Kingdom of God. In similar fashion,under the circumstances prevalent at Corinth thewomen should wear their veils, but Paul wants it clearly understood that "we have no such custom,neither the churches of God." The point is, weshould, not seek to make permanent regulations which "governed matters that were customary, therefore, temporary. Such things cannot be made a part of thekingdom.

To ignore these expressions in the immediate text as to the custom of the time, is to reach a conclusion that does not logically or scripturally follow. It is like ignoring "the present distress" of I Cor. 7:26;and making a universal application of Paul's statement that "it is good for a man not to touch awoman" (I Cor. 7:1). This would abolish marriageand involve inspiration in a hopeless contradiction (of. I Tim. 4:14). Such is exactly parallel with ignoring the circumstances which produced the veilregulations in the text. T he point is that Paul did not give the veil its significance, but he regulated itin line with the significance their society had given it.

(2) Some of the inspired women had mistakenly removed their veils while praying and prophesying:That the women under consideration were inspired admits of little doubt, even though I think this is a minor point in the over-all discu ion. (See Barnes' Notes and H.A.W. Meyer's Commentary on I Cor. 11 for an excellent discussion of this point). This is confirmed by the definition of the original word forprophecy which appears 11 times in I Corinthians. Of this word Bagster's Lexicon says, "A spokesman for another; specifically, a spokesman or interpreter for a deity, a prophet, seer. In N.T. a prophet, divinely commissioned and inspired person! (p. 354).Thayer says, "Discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by removing and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp.by foretelling future events" (p. 552). Arndt andGingrich, "Proclaims a divine revelation" (p. 730)The only time this would not be the exact meaningof the word "prophesy" would be when it refers to false prophets. However, the same idea is still present. The false prophets did not "proclaim a divinerevelation" or "speak for God," but they claimeto do so. Hence, even in such cases of its use, it still retains its basic meaning. That women received the gift of prophecy is well known from such passages as: Joel 2:28,29; Acts 2:17,18; Acts 21:8,9. Womenwere enabled by inspiration to do the same things they were allowed to do now without it: teach in any situation where they do not usurp authority over men (I Tim. 2:12)

That the praying done by these women was also inspired is quite certain because it is discussed with and attended by the same problems and regulations as the prophesying. These acts are also discussed together in the fourteenth chapter of I Cor. That prayer

, was sometimes inspired cannot be denied in view ofI Cor. 14:14-16. That the praying under consideration was also public is quite certain. It is not clear how the women could have brought shame on themselves by praying privately with her head unveiled.And yet, while it was in some sense public, it wouldnot have been in the assembly (I Cor. 14:34,35: I Tim. 2:12). A. T. Robertson says, "It is public praying and prophesying that the Apostle here has inmind" (Word Pictures, p. 160). No doubt these regulations governed women's attire while doing under inspiration what they are allowed to do in the church today without it.

T he problem at Corinth was that some womenwho had the gift of inspiration concluded that since God had given them some of the same spiritual gifts as He had the men, they were therefore equal to themen and thus privileged to discard the customary signs of their femininity, thus to become masculine. Perhaps also such teaching as is found in Gal. 3:26,27 had been misunderstood. They had thus removed their veils, an act which in the custom of the time, signified insubordination and/or shame. Paul informs them that the custom of women's wear ing theveil MUST be followed at Corinth. As A. T. Robertson comments, "Social custom var ied in the world

then as now, but there was no alternative in Corinth" (Word Pictures, Vol. IV, p. 160). I might add that there would be none now, if the veil carried the same significance in our society that it did in theirs. The point was not that these inspired womenshould put on a prayer or prophesy veil, but that they should keep on the veil women customarily wore. It was not that they were to put on a veil, but rather they were to KEEP ONE ON. The veil was no special headwear for inspired women, but was the common headwear of all Corinthian women who recognizedtheir proper place. The gift of inspiration gave them no right to remove it. They were still women andmust maintain their identity as such. Inspiration was not the reason for them to put on a veil, but theCorinthian women had used it as an excuse to take it off. Hence, those who would bind I Cor. 11 todayhave reversed its regulations. The Corinthian women were removing their veils to "pray or prophesy,"while those of the opposite view would have today's women to put on a veil to "pray or prophesy." Hence, as always, there is a vast difference between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of men. In this case it is the difference between "taking off" and "putting on."

An illustration will help to clarify the point. In Cor. 16:20, Paul says, "Greet one another with anholy ki ." This was the force of a COMMAND. Not one word is said here or in any other passage abouthe holy kiss being a custom, and yet, the vast majority of Bible students understand it to have beensuch. It is quite inconsistent to call the holy kiss acustom when it has the force of a command and is not one time said to be, and bind the veil as law when it is said to be a custom. If one can understand whywe should not greet one another "with an holy kiss",he should have no trouble understanding why thewearing of a veil is not bound upon women today

Obviously, all passages which involve the customs of an area or time must be read in the light of thsame. We cannot sensibly read a passage whicdeals with a first century custom in the light of thetwentieth. Such is anachronistic in principle, illogicalin process, and confusing in effect. Paul gave neither the kiss nor the veil the significance attached to themin the New T estament, but dealt with both in viewof the significance custom had given them.

III. DO THE ARTIFICIAL VEIL REGULATIONS APPLY TODAY?

The answer is yes, if the woman's wearing a veilwhich hangs down from the higher to the lower part of her head and fully covers her head means the same thing now it did then. To attach first century significance to the veil is to establish first century regulations of it. If the regulations are the same now, so is the veil. Until this is accepted by those of the opposite view, a very obvious inconsistency will plagutheir position. To modify the covering is to mortifthe regulations of it. Certainly we know that America has "no such custom" as a veil's, much less ahat's, signifying woman's subordination to man. Forwoman to go bare headed anywhere does not in anysense cast any reflection upon her attitude toward man in our society. The common charge that the lack of significance attached to the veil in our society is due to our failure to teach what the Bible says about it, would apply with equal force to the holy kiss and foot washing.

Furthermore, we do not have the first centurycircumstances today. The Corinthian sisters' reception of the gift of inspiration had led them tothe false conclusion that they were equal with men, hence they had removed the customary sigthat they were under authority (v. 10). Should some event or circumstance arise to lead today's sisters to think they are equal to man, covering her head with a veil would not indicate that they or the public thought otherwise. Our society knows nothing of such a custom,but if it did, the modern hats or kerchiefs would not meet the demands of I Cor. 11. These do not hangdown from the higher to the lower part of the head, nor do they cover fully.

In the absence of the customary artificial covering mentioned in the text, the woman has a natural covering; her hair. Paul says,,". . . if a woman havelong hair, it is a glor y to her; for her hair is givenher for a covering" (v. 15). This is a covering"GIVEN her" of God, or designated by God as her natural covering. God nowhere gives her artificial covering. Man's traditional custom gave her that in ancient times. God simply regulated it at Corinth inview of the significance custom had given it. Everywoman today is "given" a cover ing. Her hair is to be longer than man's, and it constitutes the onlycovering God expects her to have. The word "for" in verse 15, is a translation of the Greek preposition "ANTI", and signifies "answering to" (A. T. Robertson, Word Studies, Vol. 4, p. 162). Meyer "thinks it should be translated "instead of". "Because it (lonhair) is given to her INSTEAD OF A VEIL, to take its place, to be, as it were, a natural veil" (Meyer's Commentary on the N. T. p. 256). Berry's Interlinear translates it, "The long hair instead of a covering is given her." Thus in the absence of a custom requiring women to wear artificial veils as a sign of subordination to man, a woman's long hair is "givenher" "instead of" or "answering to" a covering. It is the only cover ing she needs. It distinguishes her from man, shows her recognition of her subordination to man.

Further evidence that the veil was only a customary way of woman's showing her subjection to man is seen from the following facts:

(1) It was not always required as a symbol of subordination: Let us remember that the principle oman's headship over woman goes all the way backto the creation and fall, but woman's wearing a veilto demonstrate its recognition does not. Thus God has always required woman to recognize her subordination, but not that 3he always demonstrate such by the wearing of a veil. I Peter 3:5,6 says, "For after this manner in the old time the holy womenalso, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, BE ING IN SUBJECTION UNTO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS: even as Sara OBEYED Abraham, callinghim lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement," These "holy women" demonstrated their subordination to their husbands by calling them "lord", and by obeying them, not by wearing an artificial covering; by something they did, not by something they wore. (2) It has not always been wrong for man toprophesy with a veil upon him. Paul said Moses prophesied (spoke by inspiration) with a veil on his face (II Cor. 3:13 of. Exo. 34:33,35). It is noteworthy that the word for veil here is the SAME one used in I Cor. 11. Hence, Moses prophesied havingon the very same kind of veil (one that hung downand fully covered) that men were forbidden to wear in I Cor. 11.

What do these facts prove? They prove that while woman's subjection to man has been required throughout all time, the method of showing it hasvaried. Just like humility has always been required,but foot washing is not bound as the only way toshow it. In the same manner, cordiality has alwaysbeen required, but the holy kiss is not the only wayto demonstrate it.

IV. SUMMARY

(1) WHAT I HAVE ADMITTED: In order that the reader may see this article in a clearer lightconsider the following points which I have freelyadmitted: (a) That there are two coverings discussed inI Cor. 11: T he natural covering, the hair; and the artificial covering, the veil which hung down andfully covered. Some are unwilling to admit this, but a fair reading of the text will force it. (b) T hat the artificial cover ing was a sign of woman's subjection to man in Corinth. Due to this,Paul bound it upon them. T hey wer e not to lay it aside while "praying or prophesying." Those whodid so sinned by bringing "shame" upon God, manthemselves and the church. (2) WHAT I HAVE OBJECTED TO: I have not objected to a woman's wearing a covering (yea ahat) to the assembly. I have objected to (a) Binding an anachronistic interpretation: Which according to Webster is, "A chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs ... a person or a thing that is chronologically out ofplace; esp: one that belongs to a former age and isincongruous if found in the present" (Emphasis mine JPN). We must avoid this in I Cor. 11 in reference to the veil just like we must avoid it in I Cor. 16:20 in reference to the "holy ki ." Any rule of interpretation that will bind on us the artificial cover ing ofI Cor. 11, will also bind the holy kiss of I Cor. 16:20. (b) Substitution and/or modification: If the covering of I Cor. 11 is binding today, then the PARTICULAR TYPE of covering bound there is essential to its obedience. We have no more right to modify what is demanded by the Greek word for covering, then others have to modify what is demanded by theGreek word for baptism. (c) Eisegesis: "The interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas" (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary). This is done when people read "assembly", "public worship", and"hat" (or anything which does not fully cover) into I Cor. 11:2-16. It does not mention worship in toto,but rather two specific acts, "praying or prophesying". To make these two specific acts stand for worship generally or to say that a hat or anything whichdoes not fully cover can answer to veil in the text is not only obvious exegesis, but also a palpable case of special pleading that is unbecoming of good Bible students. (3) WHAT I HAVE NOT DONE: That I may beclearly understood, let the reader notice the following things which I have not done: (a) I have not said headship is a matter of custom : I have said that the manner of showing one'srecognition of headship is a matter of custom. Sarah and the other holy women showed their subordination by calling their husbands "lord" and by obeying them (I Peter 3:5,6). Even though the matter of headship goes all the way back to the creation,

and while man's wearing a veil while praying or prophesying at Corinth showed that he did not respect his head, the Bible plainly says that whenMoses prophesied he wore the very type of veil forbidden to men at Corinth. If this is not true, thena veil like Moses' would be acceptable attire in worship for men today. The conclusion is inevitable: Headship is not changed by custom, but the manner of showing our recognition of it is.

(b) I have not said that man's being the "imagand glory of God" and the woman's being "the gloryof the man" are matters of custom. I have said that the veil which was related to these matters in first-century society was a custom. Cordiality amongbrethren is not a custom, nor is it changed by custom, but the method of showing it has been altered by custom. Humility is not a custom, but the methodof showing it has been changed by custom. Women are no more obligated by divine law to wear an artificial covering to worship to show subordination than we are to kiss each other to show cordiality or wash one another's feet to demonstrate humility (c) I have not ruled out the po ibility of I Cor. 11 being applicable today. Any place in the world where the veil has the same significance it had at Corinth,I Cor. 11 will govern it now just as much as it did then. The same could also be said for the holy kiss (I Cor. 16:20) ; Rom 16:16), and foot-washing (John 13:1-17). It is evident, however, that the veil does not mean the same thing to our society that it did to theirs. (d) I have not said that it is wrong for womento wear a covering to the assembly. I have said that I Cor. 11:2-16 does not command her to do so in the absence of similar circumstances. (4) PRINCIPLES TAUGHT IN I COR. 11:2-16: I now want us to look at the basic principles taught in I Cor. 11, lest someone get the idea that it has no meaning for us. (a) Woman is subordinate to man, and .she must concur with any customary way of showing, her recognition of it. If the veil had the same significance to us that it had in the first century, every womanwho is a Christian would be obligated by the principle of subjection to wear one in accordance with its significance. For instance, if it were a custom in

America that every woman who wears a black dress is a thief, no woman who is a Christian could wear one. It would be a sin to wear one because of the "shame" it would bring upon her husband, herself,God and the church. We should not be "the first bywhom the new is tried, nor the last to lay the olaside" in matters of custom. This is well illustrated by lipstick and silk stockings in our own society.When women first began to wear them, they were identified with worldly women — with lewdne . No respectable woman wore them for a long time, andcertainly no Christian could have worn them whilethey were identified with unrighteousness. Finallyhowever, they were accepted, and today, very few women would be without them. Japan affords a goodillustration of a modern application of the principles taught in I Cor. 11. I was told by a brother who has preached there that the Japanese women call their husbands by a term similar to our word "lord." Amer ican women "have no such custom", but iorder that the Japanese people would not think she did not recognize her husband as her head, his wife called him "Mister." If Paul were writing in this matter, he would give instructions similar to those hegave the Corinthians. He would tell sisters in Japanto observe it, but he would say, "We have no suchcustom, neither the churches of God."

(b) Christians must fit themselves into the societywhere they live. Paul said he "became all things to all men" that he "might by all means save some" (I Cor. 9-22). I Cor. 11 forbids our violating any norm or custom of our society in cases where such violations would be a reflection upon divine principles. (c) Everyone must recognize his or her place and stay in it. God is the head of Chr ist, Chr ist is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. Neither should do anything that violates these relationships or causes society to think they are being violated.In no situation must these relationships be forgotten or ignored. To do so is to bring shame to oneself and the Cause of Christ. Remember the angels (Jude 6) (d) Sex identity: The distinction between thesexes must be kept clear. Men should not dress like women, nor women like men. Nature is replete withexamples of God's will along this line. In the animal

HAVE YOU RENEWED

Please check your expiration date indicated on

your address place and if your subscription has

expired, send your renewal today. This will

assure continuation of Searching The Scrip

tures for another year. DO IT TODAY!

kingdom especially, sex identity is easily detectedThink of the pheasant, the deer, and the chicken. Is there any reason to believe that it should be different among humans? "If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (v. 15).

V. CONCLUSION

Every person should continue to study every Bible subject. We should all continually seek a better understanding of the truth. As we study we should not seek to make our conscience the other person's guide. If any sister thinks I Cor. 11 obligates her towear a covering to the assembly and she is convinced a hat or a kerchief will suffice, let her wear such, butlet her not seek to bind such conviction upon others. If any brother hold such convictions, let him work it out with and for his family, but let him not try to work it out for others. Let there be no praying odiscrimination manifested from either side of the controversy, and there will be no division over it. To this end let each person work and pray

There is no place for wild charges and wilder counter charges in our controversies. For instance,those who believe women should wear a coveringto the assembly sometimes accuse those who disagree of "just trying to get around the plaiteaching of this chapter." (I assure one and all that I have no desir e to "get around" it, I just want to"get at" it. I cannot conscientiously seek to bind anartificial covering upon the sisters when I honestlydo not believe it is bound upon them). T hen those who deny the artificial covering is bound today sometimes accuse those of the opposite view of bein"hobby riders". Such epithets add nothing to the discu ion but more prejudice and animosity, and contribute less than nothing to an effort to understand the passage. Bible students have always disagreed on this matter, and probably always will. Since it involves an individual's relationship to divine truth and to God, why not leave it in this realm. Let each do what is thought to be demanded of him or her in the matter, and never be guilty of seeking to force others to line up with his or her view to the disturbance of the unity of the church.

If I have not presented the truth on this passage,it is not because I was determined not to. I have honestly tried to present it as I sincerely believe it to be,and I humbly ask the reader to consider it in this light.

4436 South Sixth Street

Louisville, Kentucky