01.07. Further Examination of the Topic of Head-Coverings
It would seem unnecessary to add further remarks upon this passage but since in this age we have persons who not only "seem" to be contentious but are obstinately so, we shall continue this examination a little further. We cannot dismiss the subject as Paul did by saying we have no such custom as women praying with uncovered heads or wearing short hair. Some of our women do both. Whether they do wrong or not depends upon what Paul here teaches.
1. In the first place let us observe that Paul is here giving instructions, to regulate the conduct of men and women in a worshiping assembly primarily. These are the things they should do or not do when praying or prophesying. In giving his reasons for these instructions he tells something of the relationship of men and women and therefore something of their general behavior.
2. Let us also remember that it was the custom among the Greeks, the Romans and the Jews for women to wear a veil in the presence of men, especially men whom they honored (See Genesis 24:65; Genesis 38:14-16; Ruth 3:3; Ruth 3:15). It appears that Rebekah did not have on her veil in the presence of the servant but put it on before meeting Isaac. But none but harlots went without veils. They did and they also wore short hair.
3. A woman who was found guilty of impurity was punished by having her veil taken from her and her hair cut off. Thus she was marked as a harlot (Numbers 5:18). (For proof that this was the custom among the other nations as well as among the Jews see the commentaries by Drs. Clark and Macknight and the classical authors cited by them.)
4. The veil was a symbol of submission, subjection, and inferiority. Hence a woman put on her veil when going into the presence of men to express her inferiority. Men took off their hats or head coverings in the presence of women to express their superiority. The custom among men of uncovering in the presence of women, on entering a house, in the presence of the flag, when singing our patriotic hymns, at funerals or burials and in all religious services still prevails. But the meaning of it has changed. Instead of thus expressing superiority, men now do it to show respect, reverence and honor. We have passed through the age of chivalry since Bible times when men took off their hats to express respect for and honor of women; bowed upon the knee before them, kissed their hands etc. But women were not satisfied. They wanted equality. So today women must fight for themselves. They are not respected, protected and guarded as they were fifty years ago, when their honor was avenged by the Gatling gun in the hand of any male relative. Today if they cannot cope with men and keep them from getting the advantage of them that is just their misfortune.
5. Since, in Paul’s day, women did not go into the presence of men unveiled, unless they were harlots, and men always uncovered in the presence of women, and since this custom had a meaning, symbolized the relation existing between man and woman by divine command (Genesis 3:16), of course it was wrong to violate or ignore this custom. It would have been tantamount to a refusal to recognize God’s order and rule, a refusal to admit that man is the head of the woman. Of course those who thus refuse to obey God could not worship him acceptably. Therefore Paul admonished them to observe this custom. In our day there is no symbolism whatsoever about a woman’s hat or head covering among Protestants and men remove their hats for the very opposite reason from that which Paul gives. We would have to change our custom entirely in order to obey Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians. This we should be willing to do, however, if Paul was laying down divine laws.
6. The man who says that Paul was giving the sanction of inspiration to the then existing custom with. its symbolism, thus making it a divine law which must be obeyed for all time, is compelled by every demand of logic as well as by the plain facts in the case not only to demand that women wear long hair but that they also always wear a veil or head-covering in worshipping God. According to that position any woman who comes into a worshipping assembly with uncovered head is a rebel against God’s authority. She should be withdrawn from if she persists in her rebellion. There can be no escape from this conclusion. But in an effort to escape some superficial reasoner will say "But Paul says in the fifteenth verse that the woman’s hair is given her for a covering. Therefore if she has long hair she doesn’t need a hat or veil." And he dismisses the subject with a self-assured, self-satisfied, complacent air. He is committed on the one hand to the theory that it is all right for women to go to church bareheaded and on the other hand that it is all wrong for them to bob their hair, and therefore to justify his inconsistent and mongrel idea he adopts, unconsciously no doubt, the sectarian and infidel trick of making one verse offset and contradict another.
Look carefully at the sixth verse. Paul says if a woman will not wear a veil—artificial covering—let her also have her hair— natural covering cut off. How then can any honest thinking man say that he contradicts himself in the fifteenth verse and says, If only a woman will not cut off her hair—natural covering—she may with perfect propriety leave off her veil or artificial covering. The very reverse of what he says in verse six.
It was not the hair or natural covering that was symbolic— the sign of authority, verse 10—it was the veil. All the women who wore the veil had also long hair. Those who threw off the veil in addition cut the hair or even shaved the head. If the hair covering is symbolic, then man’s head is also covered!
Now look again at verse 15 and note its meaning. A woman’s hair is her glory—something to be proud of, to delight in—for it is given her for a covering. What sort of covering? The one that is a sign of authority to which she must submit as a memorial of Eve’s transgression? Is that covering a glory, something to delight in? No. Woman’s hair is given her—by her nature, her sex nature, of which of course God is the author—as an ornamental covering in which she may delight or glory. Its abundance and length and lustre make her attractive and beautiful and mark her as distinctly feminine.
What other sort of covering could this verse mean? The longest hair does not cover the body and short hair still covers the head. Inevitably Paul here speaks of woman’s ornamental glory—her long hair. On man long hair would be an attempted denial of his sex nature and an effort to appear feminine, hence shameful or disgraceful.
Keep the sexes distinct and in their places even as nature teaches you, is Paul’s argument here. The sixteenth verse shows that Paul was not giving a divine law but discussing customs and the propriety of observing them. It has been thought by some that the apostle here meant to say "we have no such custom" as the one he had been discussing, namely, of women praying with the head covered and men with the head uncovered etc. But this is so obviously wrong that it does not need correction. That was exactly the custom they did have. The translations and comments hereinbefore quoted make the meaning of this verse plain. If any one contends against what Paul had just said he must know that his contention is also against the practice of the churches. The rules that Paul had given were the ones by which the churches were governed. As Brother McGarvey says, Paul here takes the matter out of the realm of discussion and places it in the realm of precedent. But the fact that Paul settles the matter by an appeal to precedent shows conclusively that he had not been legislating on the question. Otherwise he would no doubt have said as he did in Chapter fourteen; If any man seemeth to be contentious, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. That women have been put in subjection to men is a fact that admits of no dispute by those who believe the Bible, but that the manner and way that ancient women acknowledged and expressed this subjection should be adopted and followed by women for all time is a very different question. Paul’s reasoning was to this purpose: women and men ought to honor this law of God in reference to their relation by those marks of respect which the customs of the countries where they live have established as marks of respect. Whatever is understood as a recognition of God’s law must be observed: whatever is or would be understood as a rejection of God’s law must be refused and avoided. The whole teaching of this passage relates then to the Christian’s attitude toward the custom of women praying with head veiled—artificial covering—and men praying with head uncovered. What is said about long hair for women and short hair for men is a collateral consideration. The apostle just calls attention to the difference which nature has thus made between the sexes and uses that to enforce his argument for those outward, artificial marks of acknowledgment and respect for this difference.