Pastoral Position Paper - Ben Merkle

Paul is often difficult. For example, his teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 has been frequently interpreted and applied, or pointedly not applied, in a very reactionary manner. Some Christians see something in the text about a head covering and go on to think how much women with doilies on top would stand out and be hated by our current culture, and still further, that if the world would hate it, then it must be good. Another group looks at the situation and thinks that, well, the world would hate that, therefore, we probably shouldn't apply that passage; it had to have been a cultural thing. Best not to ask too many questions; best for all concerned.

But we should notice that both of these interpretations are based on what the world might think.

Why An Issue?

The passage in question is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. In the course of his discussion, Paul makes it clear three times that his teaching is not confined, or defined, by a particular culture. The context of the head covering issue is the relationship between God, Christ, man and woman in v. 3, which does not change from culture to culture. He goes on to appeal to "nature itself" in v. 14 and explainsthat none of the churches of God differ on this teaching (v. 16). So whether this passage applies to us or not is therefore not really the question. It is very clear that what ever prindple Paul is teaching about head coverings applies to us. A question does remain, however. How is the passage to be understood?

Once the principle of head coverings has been accepted, the next question to be answered is, "what is a head covering?" The simple and clear answer of this passage is that it is hair. "...if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him" (v. 14), because his head is uncovered (v.4). "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering" (v. 15).

The reason for the covering is that the relationship between a man and a woman reflects the relationship between Christ and His church. This teaching is explained more in depth in Ephesians 5, but we may notice here how the 1 Cor. 11 passage begins with a reference to how Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ (v. 3). The doctrine of headship is, not surprisingly, related to Paul's doctrine of hair.

In Ephesians 5, Paul discusses the creation ordinance of a man and a woman coming together, and then says: "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the
church" (v. 32). The mystery of marriage is a reflection of Christ and His church. This understanding is emphasized from a different angle here in 1 Corinthians 11. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but
woman is the glory of man" (v. 7). Here we learn that in the area of head coverings, the male sex is to reflect God's relationship to mankind, while the female sex is to reflect mankind's relationship with God.

This does not set up a "spiritual worthiness" pecking order. It is simply a reflection of the order of creation. In the first chapter of Genesis, the creation of mankind is described for us. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He made him; male and female He created them" (v. 27). Both man and woman are created in God's image, and both together are described as man. So in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is not teaching that men are deities and women are mortals; we are both created in God's image. Men, however, analogically reflect God's authority in the marriage, and women analogically reflect mankind's submission to Him. Thus, in a very important way, women are the representatives of men.

This understanding of headship is crucial to this passage. When a man and a woman come together they are picture of Christ and His church; therefore, they reflect this in an outward sign, which is the way they wear their hair. Long hair on a woman is a sign that she is in submission. Short hair on a man is a sign that he is leading. These two together are a picture to the outside world of Christ and His church. A man, of course, is also in submission to the authorities over him, but that is not the relationship depicted here.

Difficulties

A common question then asked is, "what about the Nazaritic vow?" One of the features of a Nazaritic vow was that the man did not cut his hair (Num. 6:5-6). Given the principle already described, we could reason that this is simply a special situation where a man reflects another relationship, which is his submission to God. But in this special situation, long hair means the same thing--submission.

Another difficulty that comes up is the understanding of v. 6. "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." A shaved head on a woman was a sign that the woman was a temple prostitute, a common practice in Corinth. The temple to Aphrodite in that city was staffed with a thousand such prostitutes.

A difficulty with this reply arises when one notices that being uncovered and being shaved signify the same thing. Yet, being uncovered doesn't necessarily mean that the woman is already shaved, or else there would be no need for Paul's ironic order to go all the way and shave her head. Being uncovered therefore cannot just mean not having long hair.

This problem is often used by Christians who believe that their women should be wearing a cloth or a shawl while praying. Their point is that this passage teaches that a woman's long hair is a sign to show us that women need an additional covering--her shawl, a napkin or whatever. A woman who then prays without her additional covering should then have her primary covering (her hair) removed (shaved).

However, the Bible gives a better explanation elsewhere of another understanding of what it is for a woman to be uncovered.

Numbers 5 describes the bitter water ceremony, which is a test for women charged with adultery. The process begins with the priest uncovering the woman's head (v. 18). This refers to the woman's hair being let down. Women at that time customarily wore their hair either up, or, if it was down, tied behind the head. When a woman's head was uncovered it meant that the hair was unloosed and disheveled, which was taken as a sign to the world that the woman was not in submission to her husband.

The principle here is that a woman can wear her hair down and loose in such a way that it signifies that she is in rebellion. This principle is also very dear in ancient Greek literature. Commonly, whenever the women rebel against their husbands, especially when their rebellion involved demonic worship, there were continual references in classical literature to their hair being let loose and wild.

This principle was dear in ancient Israel, classical Greece, during Paul's life, and, not surprisingly, is still evident today. The current grunge movement is an obvious example. When a woman wears her hair down in front of her face and leaves it unkempt, or has her head shaved, the whole world knows that she is saying that she is in rebellion. Both styles seem to say the same thing. When a man has short hair, we say he is "clean cut". This carries the connotation of a nice, responsible, young man. Whether he truly is responsible or is an Eddy Haskel is really not the question. The question is what does his hair say about him?

In the same way, whether the woman is truly in rebellion or not is not the question. Frequently the girl is a sweet girl, not at all in rebellion, but that is not what her hair is saying about her.

What do these respective hair styles say about Christ and His church?

So the principle taught is that a man ought to have short hair that reflects his leadership. The woman ought to have long hair done nicely in a way that reflects her submission. Her hair is a glory to her (v. 15).

The Long & Short of It

Invariably, after reaching this conclusion someone asks, "How long is long, and how short is short?" Well, it is interesting that people don't usually have a difficult time distinguishing between these two outside the context of this passage. Whatever you
have previously called short hair, is probably what is short hair, and likewise with long.

In examining this passage closely, however, it is interesting to note that Paul does not spend time addressing this question. He doesn't give any length requirements in inches or cubits. We do not have here a Pauline "dress code." The problem he is addressing is masculinity and femininity reflected in hair length and style,and what someone's hair says aboutthat particular person.

In this sense, this passage definitely reflects cultural practices, because hair style is a cultural category. Culture may determine variations in the length of long hair, or variations in the length of short hair. However, if a culture is the outward manifestation of a society's beliefs, if culture is religion externalized, then the culture of those that believe in the gospel should look radically different from the unbelieving cultures.

And in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is telling us of one way that God has prescribed for His people to look different. Our religion reaches our hair.