CLARKE'S AND CALVIN'S BELOW.
Many more could be quoted!
Our brief but important experiences with this subject at the end.
Adam Clark's Commentary on Head Coverings
I Corintians 11:
Verse 5. But every woman that prayeth, etc.— Whatever may be the
meaning of praying and prophesying, in respect to the man, they have
precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman. So that some women
at least, as well as some men, might speak to others to edification, and
exhortation, and comfort. And this kind of prophesying or teaching was
predicted by Joel, Joel 2:28, and referred to by Peter, Acts 2:17. And had
there not been such gifts bestowed on women, the prophecy could not
have had its fulfillment. The only difference marked by the apostle was,
the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of
Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order
of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom,
both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law,
that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a
common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go
without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she
would dishonor her head-her husband. And she must appear like to those
women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or
adultery.
Tacitus informs us, Germ. 19, that, considering the greatness of the
population, adulteries were very rare among the Germans; and when any
woman was found guilty she was punished in the following way: accisis
crinibus, nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus; “having cut off
her hair, and stripped her before her relatives, her husband turned her out
of doors.” And we know that the woman suspected of adultery was
ordered by the law of Moses to be stripped of her veil, Numbers 5:18.
Women reduced to a state of servitude, or slavery, had their hair cut off: so
we learn from Achilles Tatius. Clitophon says, concerning Leucippe, who
was reduced to a state of slavery: pepratai, dedouleuken, ghn
eskayen, sesulhtai thv kefalhv to kallov, thn kouran orav? lib.
viii. cap. 6, “she was sold for a slave, she dug in the ground, and her hair
being shorn off, her head was deprived of its ornament,” etc. It was also
the custom among the Greeks to cut off their hair in time of mourning. See
Euripides in Alcest., ver. 426. Admetus, ordering a common mourning for
his wife Alcestis, says: penqov gunaikov thv de koinousqai lego,
koura xurhkei kai melampeplw stolh? “I order a general mourning
for this woman! let the hair be shorn off, and a black garment put on.”
Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the apostle seems
to have more especially in view. As a woman who dresses loosely or
fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her
husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals; so in
those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be
considered in the same light.
Verse 6. For if the woman be not covered— If she will not wear a veil in
the public assemblies, let her be shorn-let her carry a public badge of
infamy: but if it be a shame-if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it
must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered-let her by all means wear
a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to
shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads,
the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it
only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have
shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says:
eidete parÆ akrav wv apeqrisen tricav, swzousa kallov, esti
de h palai gunh: “see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair,
that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before.”
See the note on the preceding verse.
In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a
token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman,
whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo
women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is
always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they
appear in the streets. — Ward’s Customs.
Verse 7. A man indeed ought not to cover his head— He should not wear
his cap or turban in the public congregation, for this was a badge of
servitude, or an indication that he had a conscience overwhelmed with
guilt; and besides, it was contrary to the custom that prevailed, both
among the Greeks and Romans.
He is the image and glory of God— He is God’s vicegerent in this lower
world; and, by the authority which he has received from his Master, he is
his representative among the creatures, and exhibits, more than any other
part of the creation, the glory and perfections of the Creator.
But the woman is the glory of the man.— As the man is, among the
creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that
the fear of him and the dread of him are on every beast of the field, etc.; so
the woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and
authority of the man. I believe this to be the meaning of the apostle; and
that he is speaking here principally concerning power and authority, and
skill to use them. It is certainly not the moral image of God, nor his
celestial glory, of which he speaks in this verse.
Verse 8. For, the man is not of the woman— Bishop Pearce translates ou
gar estin anhr ek gunaikov, alla gunh ex androv, thus: “For the
man doth not BELONG to the woman, but the woman to the man.” And
vindicates this sense of ek, by its use in 1 Corinthians 12:15. If the foot
shall say, ouk eimi ek tou swmatov, I am not of the body, i.e. I do not
belong to the body. He observes that as the verb estin is in the present
tense, and will not allow that we should understand this verse of
something that is past, gar, for, in the following verse, which is unnoticed
by our translators, will have its full propriety and meaning, because it
introduces a reason why the woman belongs to the man and not the man to
the woman. His meaning is, that the man does not belong to the woman, as
if she was the principal; but the woman belongs to the man in that view.
Verse 9. Neither was the man created, etc.— kai gar ouk ektisqh? for
the man was not created upon the woman’s account. The reason is plain
from what is mentioned above; and from the original creation of woman
she was made for the man, to be his proper or suitable helper.
Verse 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head
because of the angels.—. . .
. . . .
Verse 13. Judge in yourselves— Consider the subject in your own
common sense, and then say whether it be decent for a woman to pray in
public without a veil on her head? The heathen priestesses prayed or
delivered their oracles bare-headed or with dishevelled hair, non comptae
mansere comae, as in the case of the Cumaean Sibyl, AEn. vi., ver. 48, and
otherwise in great disorder: to be conformed to them would be very
disgraceful to Christian women. And in reference to such things as these,
the apostle appeals to their sense of honor and decency.
Verse 14. Doth not-nature-teach you, that, if a man have long hair—
Nature certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for women
to have long hair; and it is not so with men. The hair of the male rarely
grows like that of a female, unless art is used, and even then it bears but a
scanty proportion to the former. Hence it is truly womanish to have long
hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it. In ancient times the
people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in
general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a
great variety of places, karhkomowntev acaioi, the long-haired Greeks,
or Achaeans. Soldiers, in different countries, have been distinguished for
their long hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or blame, or
whether Homer uses it always as a term of respect, when he applies it to
the Greeks, I shall not wait here to inquire. Long hair was certainly not in
repute among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was as a
token of humiliation; and it is possible that St. Paul had this in view. There
were consequently two reasons why the apostle should condemn this
practice:-1. Because it was a sign of humiliation; 2. Because it was
womanish. After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to dressed,
frizzled and curled hair, which shallow and effeminate men might have
affected in that time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a sight more
ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued,
and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable
pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to
what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear
nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man
have long hair, it is a shame unto him.
Verse 15. But if a woman have long hair— The Author of their being
has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of
men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases
serve as a veil.
It is a certain fact that a man’s long hair renders him contemptible, and a
woman’s long hair renders her more amiable. Nature and the apostle speak
the same language; we may account for it as we please.
Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious— ei de tiv dokei
filoneikov einai? If any person sets himself up as a wrangler-puts
himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or
teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach,
have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are
they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews
or the Gentiles. We have already seen that the verb dokein, which we
translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the
attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is
evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the
Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.
Verse 4. Praying, or prophesying— Any person who engages in public
acts in the worship of God, whether prayer, singing, or exhortation: for we
learn, from the apostle himself, that profhteuein, to prophesy, signifies
to speak unto men to edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1 Corinthians
14:3. And this comprehends all that we understand by exhortation, or even
preaching.
Having his head covered— With his cap or turban on, dishonoreth his
head; because the head being covered was a sign of subjection; and while he
was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be
considered as a representative of Christ, and on this account his being
veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the apostle was in
point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer
a man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason. “He
should veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy
with open face to behold him.” See much in Lightfoot on this point.
After all, the custom of the Nazarite may cast some light upon this place.
As Nazarite means one who has separated himself by vow to some
religious austerity, wearing his own hair, etc.; so a married woman was
considered a Nazarite for life; i.e. separated from all others, and joined to
one husband, who is her lord: and hence the apostle, alluding to this
circumstance, says, The woman ought to have power on her head, i.e. wear
her hair and veil, for her hair is a proof of her being a Nazarite, and of her
subjection to her husband, as the Nazarite was under subjection to the
Lord, according to the rule or law of his order. See notes on Numbers
6:5-7.
"1 Cor. 11:
3. But I would have you know. It is an old proverb: “Evil manners beget
good laws.” As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in
question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. The error of the
Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to
act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing
for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and,
on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered,
he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.
He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man. We shall afterwards see, how he comes to infer from this, that women ought to have their heads covered. Let us, for the present, take notice of those four gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
There is somewhat more of difficulty in what follows. Here the man is placed in an intermediate position between Christ and the woman, so that Christ is not the head of the woman. Yet the same Apostle teaches us elsewhere, (Galatians 3:28,) that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he does away with? I answer, that the solution of this depends on the connection in which the passages occur. When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind — on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum — which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists. Should any one ask, what connection marriage has with Christ, I answer, that Paul speaks here of that sacred union of pious persons, of which Christ is the officiating priest, and He in whose name it is consecrated.
4. Every man praying. Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman. He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house — for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example, If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not. know how to maintain his proper station, and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station — if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is all emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.
. . . .
[6.]
For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other
considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare.
Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that
is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair
given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is
enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a
covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And
hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that
women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for
the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good
reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite
idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than
for what is an incentive to lust.
7. The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image. The same question may now be proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed anew, according to that image. The image, however, of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with conscience. The simple solution is this — that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.
The woman is the glory of the man. There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife — that she is a crown to her husband, (Proverbs 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose — that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.
. . . .
14.
Doth not even nature itself. He again sets forth nature as the mistress of
decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent
and custom — even among the Greeks — he speaks of as being natural,
for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair.
***In the process of re-editing***
[More will be added to this in the future. NOW the excellent little book "Let her be veiled" by Tom Shank is online.
05/1999.
It has been my convinction for some time that all women should wear a head covering at all times (except when it is not possible) and not just in services. [A detailed biblical study will not be attempted as this has been done already; only a brief testimony.] There was no reason for me to come to this conclusion from my cultural and Baptist upbringing. Being from Toronto I never even saw anyone covered, nor heard about it (in the evengelical churches) till more recent years. Of course I just assumed all the thousands of immigrants that wore such were just unadvanced, fearful, or superstitious; or even perhaps just coming from countries which climates deemed it necessary to be protected from.
But when I really got into the bible and wanted to obey all of it, and to hold nothing back, it appeared evident. Later I met those who believed and practiced the same. And their doing so REALLY distinguished them from any other professing believers I ever met.
Now do not I do not have the time to get into all the details of proofs for the belief in Head-coverings but I do want to introduce this subject with a living example that practices such with noticeable advantages.
snip...
Secondly they see the reasons behind the doctrine to be more than just an issue of authority and headship and submission but one of MODESTY. It is evident from scripture that all woman must at least have long hair (and not cut it). Leaving off the many biblical comments from 1 Peter 3 and Timothy for now; I will comment that for women to leave there long beautiful hair uncovered is a temptation for men. Now before you throw me out as old fashioned and way out there, let me explain a little. It is true that our generation is so corrupt that we have lost all sensitivity in every respect. So far have we seared conscience that there is no shame in people going to beaches in bathing suits! To think of the absurdity of people displaying all their bodies open in the brightest day before all, and yet being fearful of other people seeing them in their underwear at home! These things are a revelation of the extremely low state of more than most of the professing churches in America. But what of the practice of wearing shorts? In biblical times (or even up till this century) such revealing of the legs was signs of a harlot! (see Clark above)
Now if one cannot understand these things then they will not comprehend the immodesty of not covering their long hair. But I am not one who has been sheltered so as to view this issue partially. I have, to my shame, seen and participated in many horrible deeds. I too almost lost all conscience forever. But I testify now that there is in my judgment a temptation that exists in the presence of a woman that is uncovered THAT IS NOT THERE WHEN IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE THAT IS. Perhaps few can understand this not having experienced the latter. And here I am not talking about the Mennonite cap-type see-through kind but one that pretty well fully covers the hair (not that none can be exposed like the Moslems).
You would not believe the respect that powerfully generates in all who come in their presence. I have been with these sisters on the worst streets of Lancaster, in the presence of the worst drug dealers, thieves, and murderers, and have witnessed remarkable things. These men's filth were subdued and they were humbled. There was a remarkable difference between just the men going out (we did create a similar effect due to being modest too) and when the women were with us (on the streets witnessing). It was true that there was such a glory about it (especially if the sisters really were walking clearly spiritually) that we felt almost safer with them than without!
Again, there is such a noticeable difference (that only experience could prove) in their presence than in those without the covering. And these women were not in rags but wore nice clothes (but the object was more for durability and modesty, and was not to draw attention either negatively as the black clothes of the Amish and others, or positively as an attractive outfit). There was no occasion for temptation. As I consult my consciousness I cannot help to see a vast difference.
Now I could go on and write a book on this side of the issue and my experiences of this but I will forebear for now. There is a book put out called "Let Her be veiled" by Tom Shank who does a whole bible approach (even going into liberal sources) at the following address
Now much more could be said about the "authority" issue and respect to the equal advantages of their practice but I fear that I am writing too much already. The homes there are so efficient and happy because of this kind of obedience. You just don't have the modern problems relative to so many professing Christian couples when this is practiced in the true spirit. There is really peace in accepting one's place. AND THESE FOLKS SOMETIMES HAVE OVER 11 CHILDREN!!! They are hard workers and accomplish a lot. The women "are keepers at home" and mostly home-school. The families are much in order and the children have clear consciences. And this is because they each recognize their place in the family and under Christ. The men take the true lead and the women do not fight or manipulate them, and so ruin the family as is the case with most families these days. They fully discuss things together; but the woman is not the leader. And she is not to strive with him and argue but to entrust her soul to God, and pray for her husband, and live godly. AND YOU CANNOT IMAGINE THE POWER THIS REALLY HAS IN DRIVING HER HUSBAND TO GOD, TO DO HIS DUTY AND WHAT IS BEST!!!!!!!! Who really can resist such holy lives as these women?
Without continuing such experiential arguments of irresistible weight; I will also add that such a practice as the covering has been the practice of the church from the earliest history of ancient times, through Christ's time, and till modern times. It is still the practice of many countries in the world. History speaks unequivocally to the practice.--WHY? There is little talk about it through history, as there was little about divorce and remarriage, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AN ISSUE BUT WAS SO SELF-EVIDENT TO ALL.
|