1 Corinthians 11:2–16

Grace delights to recognise all that is of God in the saints. In line with that grace, the Apostle opens this new section of the letter with a word of praise. There was so much in the assembly to condemn. Yet the Apostle can at least praise them for this: in all their questions they remembered him, and they kept the ordinances, or "directions", he had delivered to them.

First of all he puts them in their own clear, positive place, and he acknowledges the good things that were in them. He always owns whatever good he can before he begins to reprove anything. We ought to do the same. It opens the heart to receive rebuke.

Scripture uses the word "tradition" in two ways. It can mean the rules men added, as in Matthew 15. It also means what the apostles commanded the saints — first by word of mouth, then in inspired writings, and in both ways at once while the New Testament was still being written and not yet complete.

Paul used the same word in 1 Corinthians 11:2, "that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions". In that verse, "directed" and "directions" come from the same root. In that verse the meaning is divine instruction, not human traditional teaching.

The traditions the apostle urges the church to hold fast were truth they knew and had (1 Cor. 11:2). They were not scripture topped up by a vague spiritual sense that shapes everything by its own hidden power... A tradition you do not have and do not know is an absurd contradiction of the only true sense of tradition in scripture. ... The word of God alone has an absolute title over the heart and conscience of His people.

The word in 1 Corinthians 11:2 should be translated "traditions" or "directions." The apostle does not say what they were. But thank God, we know this much. Whatever ordinances, traditions or directions the Church needs to the end of time are set down plainly in the Scriptures of the New Testament. That is quite enough for us. Men have no authority at all to set up rites and ceremonies in the Church of God.

In spite of their many failings and practical disorders, they had remembered Paul's words in everything he had definitely commanded. What he delivered to them they had kept and observed — though, as what follows shows, with real fault in the manner and spirit of it. Serious disorders had arisen. They did not come from neglect of the positive directions the Corinthians had received. They came from far too little of the prime element of all true order in the house of God: remembering His very presence with His saints.

Chapters 11 to 14 no longer deal with testimony or conduct before the world. They deal with the conduct, order and unity that suit the Assembly, the body of Christ. Yet Paul does not open with the gathering of the Assembly, which starts at verse 17. He opens with the basic truths of God's order in creation. For if we ignore this first and lower order, how can we keep the higher one properly?

To correct this disorder the Apostle uses a way Scripture often takes to settle questions. To learn the principles involved in any question or difficulty, Scripture takes us back to the first time those principles were set out. Here a question had arisen about the relative position of men and women, so it takes us back to the order first established in creation.

This is a most characteristic specimen of the apostle's dealing with a point of order. He deduces the solution from first principles involved in divine dealings from the beginning. It is an admirable way of settling questions, not by mere abstract authority, even where the highest lay, but by conveying to others the ways of God in creation and providence, which drew out the admiration as well as submission of his heart.

There is a shared equality, of the highest and most perfect kind. It can never be touched or set aside. It is to be owned in the fullest possible way. On the other hand, that does not set aside God's order for the earth. In the place God has given here to the man and to the woman, the head of the woman is the man. The higher fact is shown forth in the lower one. There are not two heads in creation, but one. Two heads would mean division. God's thought is unity.

Every member of the human body is directed from the head. So the figure is very simple and expressive. It is a matter, in one word, of direction. The woman is to accept direction from the man. The man is to accept direction from Christ. And Christ accepts direction from God, and does so perfectly. Everyone else does it very imperfectly.

Some do object to this clear, settled fact. It does not mean that man is better than the woman, or superior to her. God has given him that place of headship. More than that, "the head of Christ is God." Christ, as the eternal Son of God, is fully equal with God. Yet as Man He is willing to recognize that God is His head. We should all see the great wisdom of God in this, and bow with thankfulness before Him for it.

This last statement does not in any way take away from the Deity of the Son. It is no question in this passage of Christ's place in the Godhead, but of the place He has taken in creation.

He is still the Servant of the will of God (though never less than God Himself), and what pleases Jehovah will prosper in His hand for ever. So the Head of Christ is God.

In all creation He is of course Head, in the sense of being Chief. That is the sense in which Scripture calls Him "the Head of every man" in 1 Corinthians 11:3. He is Head to the church in another sense, pictured by the human body: a living, organic union joins the head to the other members.

It would be even more perilously false to use these words to belittle Christ than to turn their force aside and deny the subjection of woman to man. God, then, is the head of the highest. And as woman is bound to own the place God has given her, so man is to fill his own assigned relationship suitably.

If a man prays or prophesies having his head covered, he dishonors his head; in itself a very small thing surely — in what it signifies, not small at all. Everything depends upon the truth which is in it, or the error. For him, the covered head is the place of subjection taken.

A covering on the head is the outward sign of being in the place of subjection. An uncovered head means the opposite. God has set an order for the place of man and woman, and His people are bound to respect it. It may appear a little thing, yet if disobeyed, as it was in Corinth (where women seemed to be puffed up and refused to follow this order), it becomes a stepping stone towards more serious evil.

He is speaking about prayer and prophecy. In prayer we speak to God for ourselves or for others. In prophecy we speak to people on God's behalf... If the man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonours himself. He claims to go to God in prayer for others, or to speak to people as from God. Yet at the same time he abandons the place of authority that God has given him. In that case, can he be surprised if neither God nor man will listen to him?

A man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. Why? Because his head is Christ: he is therefore dishonoring Christ. Christ should not be covered up; He is the One who should be seen. If a man in this case covers his head he is covering up Christ, and in this way he dishonors Him.

If a man prays or prophesies with a covering on his head, he dishonours Christ his Head. With uncovered head the man acknowledges the headship of Christ. In Old Testament days the priests covered their heads, because they stood among visible symbols that displayed divine truth. Now Christ is the substance of those Old Testament shadows (Heb. 10:1 & Col. 2:17) and the image of the invisible God, and He is hidden from view (Col. 1:15 & 3:3). So the man leaves his head uncovered, as the image — that is, the visible representative — of God.

Every man who prays or prophesies with anything on his head — that is, covered — dishonours his head, as did every woman uncovered in these same exercises. This is the order of power, and God wants the fitting behaviour He Himself has set up in those who fear Him and know His grace... But this says nothing about preaching the gospel. Still, a man should always speak reverently and act in a fitting way even when preaching, instead of yielding to nature or chasing popularity in a worldly way.

When a man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonours his head — that is, he outwardly dishonours Christ. His own physical head stands for Christ, and Christ is to be shown, not covered. On the other hand, a woman who prays or prophesies without a head covering dishonours her head — that is, she outwardly dishonours the man. How does she do this? By virtually putting the man in the place of Christ!

In the eleventh chapter he gives directions for women when praying or prophesying. In the fourteenth he tells them to be silent in the assembly. The one place permits ministry, but does not say where it was to happen. The other says plainly that it is not to be in the assembly. Evidently, then, prayer and prophecy were to be outside of the assembly.

It is sometimes deduced from 1 Corinthians 11:5 that Christian women prayed in the churches. Otherwise why should praying with their heads uncovered be spoken against? The deduction does not appear to us to be legitimate. If a Christian woman prays or prophesies in the assembly with her head uncovered, she does two things. First, she defies the order about the sexes that Paul gives elsewhere. Second, she dishonours her head. Only the second is mentioned here, because the first has no direct bearing on the subject, which is the hair: how should Christian men and women wear it?

1 Corinthians 11:5 applies to no meeting of sisters. It might be in their father's house, without any formal meeting at all, as Philip's four daughters. It refers to inspiration, not to teaching. A woman is not permitted to teach.

We are told in Acts 21:9 that Philip the Evangelist had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. If God gives spiritual power, He means it to be used. Still, He has chosen to regulate how it is used. The Christians had made a mistake that many have made since. They supposed that having a spiritual gift means unlimited freedom to use it at all times and in all places.

When a woman's head was uncovered or shaven in the Old Testament it was a mark of shame. You can see it in Numbers 5:18, where a wife was under suspicion by her husband, and in Deuteronomy 21:10-13, about a woman taken captive by an Israelite... She must have no marks of shame upon her in the presence of the Lord. She is not to appear before God as one who is suspected of being unfaithful to her husband. The covering on her head would show that she acknowledges him as her head and enjoys his fullest confidence.

The apostle shows by her hair that God had covered her, and her mind and will are put on the same ground. A woman ought to be covered at family prayers, or like one of Philip's daughters prophesying in her father's house... The man is her real head, and she must cover her own head as a sign that she is under him. In effect she says, I have no head myself. The man is my head, and I am in subjection. The man could not do that, or there would be no visible head.

Some have also said that God gives a woman her hair as a covering, so that is enough. But God has given her long hair as a covering, and for that very reason He expects her to cover her own head too. That shows her agreement with what God has done. Notice the clear answer Scripture gives: "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short" (v. 6). Can this mean, "if a woman does not have hair, let her also cut her hair off?" Of course the Word of God does not indulge in such foolishness. The force of this verse is this: if the woman refuses to cover her head, she might as well go all the way. She might as well refuse what God has done in giving her long hair. Honest simplicity of faith can only bow to the facts as God gives them.

First, long hair is not the covering the apostle means, as people sometimes argue. In verse 6 he says, "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head." So the covering is something in addition to the long hair. Second, the instruction is for women — not wives only, but women — and not for children. Finally, this is no set of rules for women's dress. It is only a direction about what is fitting for them when they are praying.

What shame did a woman's shaved or cut head confess? To answer that, we must look at the Law. There we find two occasions when the woman was shaved, or uncovered. First, when she was a suspected wife (Numbers 5). Second, when a man had recently taken her captive in battle and she was mourning her father's house, not yet joined to him (Deuteronomy 21). A woman's shaved state showed that she was not enjoying either the full confidence or the full joy of a husband. So the woman should not appear with such marks on her. The church should not look as though Christ suspected her, or as though she still felt herself a sorrowing captive. That would be her shame! But the covering on her head shows the church in neither of these states. It shows her happy in the affection and confidence of Christ, and this is her glory.

If she prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, she claims to express her place of dependence upon God, or to come from God. At the same time, she abandons the place of subjection in which God has placed her. In either case they have dishonoured themselves, for everyone out of his place is dishonoured before God. The uncovered woman is in effect taking the place of a man with a shaved head. It is a shame for a woman to have her head shaved, and that alone should teach her to cover it.

She was to have a covering on her head, a sign that she was subject to another. This may seem a very little thing. Yet what a wonderful thing it is, and what power it shows, to combine eternal things and the smallest matter of personal decorum in the same letter! The wearing of long hair or short, the use of a covering on the head or not! ... It is the smallness of man that needs big matters to make him important. But the smallest things of God have meaning when they bear on the glory of Christ, as they always do.

As to the "image of God" in verse 7, "image" is something that represents another, and so a man represents God, though he has certainly failed to fill the place up. The image of Jupiter was not necessarily like Jupiter, but it was made to represent him. So man keeps the place, though he has fallen in it — the same place in which God put him.

Scripture speaks of "image" and "likeness." The difference is that likeness means being like another — having the same traits and features. "Image" gives the thought of representing another, whether like or not... Man is still said to be in the "image of God" (1 Cor. 11:7), though, as fallen, he is very unlike God... The Son is "the image of the invisible God," and One who in His own Person perfectly represents God in His character and moral attributes, before the whole universe.

He was made sinless. But beyond that, he stood as the centre of an immense system. No angel was that. No angel was the one single centre of a system all around him. Adam was.

When we gather as a Christian assembly, the men remove their hats and the women remain covered... Man was made in the image of God, in His likeness, and man's place in God's creation is to stand in the image and glory of God. He is head over the creation below him; so it would not do to cover up the glory of God. The man remains uncovered, but the woman was given to the man to be his helper. The woman is the glory of the man. So in God's presence the glory of man is covered, but the glory of God is uncovered.

So the apostle points out that man stands directly as God's image and glory. Woman is man's glory, and she has no such place of public representation for God. Whatever she has in that respect comes indirectly, through him. Creation is the proof — not the way things have gone since. So no one can judge this rightly without looking back to the beginning... It is easy to see why, where people deny creation, or even ignore it, they argue and work for equality.

But the woman was created for man and of man, and she is the glory of man; therefore her head must be covered when she prays or prophesies, for man's glory must not be seen, especially in the gathered assembly. Christ's glory, and not man's, is to be displayed there.

"But the woman is the glory of the man." This glory is not the one to be displayed. Indeed, it is her very glory to be in lowly subjection that seeks no public place.

In 1 Cor. 11:8-9 the apostle Paul sums up the truth of the case in a few words, and it carries God's authority: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." Those who dare to dispute the fact must one day learn what it is to call God a liar. This is the ground of the sanctity of marriage: one woman for one man. From the beginning, He Who made her made her out of man, so that the two should be one flesh. People in general soon forgot it, and even Israel did. But there it stood, written and never erased, to instruct the faithful and shame the rebellious.

Creation is the proof, not the ordinary course of things since. So no one can judge this rightly without looking to the beginning. If verse 7 refers to where man and woman each came from, verse 8 then shows the woman made for the man, and after him. That is the ground of woman's subordination to man. Where people deny creation, or even ignore it, they naturally reason and work for their equality.

The very fact that woman was "taken out of man" proves her equality. She is not an inferior, but an equal, a helper suited to him. Between man and man there is similarity, sameness. Between man and woman there is equality, but with difference too.

This divine ordinance, if observed, is a great protection for woman. She needs it, because she is at a disadvantage compared with man in more ways than one. In the pagan world this ordinance is unknown, and so woman becomes a mere possession, bought and sold and misused by man. These errors, and the abuses that come from them, cannot survive in the light of the truth we have here. Woman is not only of the same species as man, but in her origin was of his very flesh and bone — taken out of man.

No one should treat her as inferior to man, unfit to be his companion, unsuited to be his helper. For "as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman." She was taken out of man at the first, and ever since man has owed his life on earth to her. If both thought these simple words of Scripture through, they would learn their true place in relation to each other.

In creation the man did not come from the woman, as has been true ever since. The woman came from the man: God took Eve from Adam's side. He created her for the man, since He said it was not good for man to be alone. This was God's order in creation. So the woman should wear the sign of authority on her head — that is, she is under authority to her head, the man. Paul adds here, "because of the angels." Angels take a deep interest in the order God has set in His creation, and they care whether both man and woman obey.

He was given, it is true, in due time for the church, but the church from everlasting had been given to Him, and not He to the church. "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man" (1 Cor. 11:8).

Paul sums up the truth of the case in 1 Cor. 11:8-9, and he does it with God's authority. Those who dare to dispute the fact must one day learn what it is to call God a liar. This is the ground of the sanctity of marriage: one woman for one man. That was the order from the beginning, laid down by Him who made her out of man, so that the two should be one flesh. Sadly, people in general forgot it far too soon, and even Israel forgot it. But there it was, written in a way that cannot be erased, to instruct the faithful and shame the rebellious.

All this has to do with the present, not with what is final, what is heavenly, what is eternal. It is God's order as He set it up, and we are bound to respect it. Nor was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. The man was created first, and it was not good for him to be alone. The woman was created to meet this need. But why a woman — why not another man? Because another man would not have brought the same help. He needs someone who pictures the dependence of the creature, rather than the kind of independence given to man. That very dependence appeals to him, and appeals to his heart, because she depends on him.

"Man was not created for the woman, but woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:9). So the woman was intended to supplement the man, not the man to supplement the woman.

The very fact that woman was taken out of man proves her equality with him. She is not his inferior, but his equal, his helper. There is equality, but with it diversity. Woman was made for man and to be with him at his side. God never intended that woman should be an independent creature apart from man, but that she should be associated with him... Woman never shines more brightly than when fulfilling the object for which she was created, which first of all was to be man's helper.

"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God" (v. 7). As such he represents God, and God is to be prominent, not covered. "But woman is the glory of man" — and the glory of man is not to be prominent. She was created for the man, for God had said it was not good for man to be alone. This was God's order in creation, and therefore the woman should have the sign of authority on her head — that is, that she is under authority to her head, the man.

There are other creatures who are intelligent and aware of the order of God's ways. In relation to them, the women were to be covered because of the angels. The angels watch the ways of God in redemption, and they watch what this wonderful work of His would produce.

Verses 11 and 12 show, however, that the man and the woman complete one another. The man is not a dictator, and the woman is not a slave. Each is needed in his or her place to keep the human race going. The woman came from man in the beginning. Yet ever since, the man has come "by the woman." "But all things of God." His wisdom and work is supreme in every part of creation.

Is not the Church needful to Christ? Yes, truly. God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." And again, "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." So the question is no longer only whether God can save a poor, helpless sinner. He did not leave "the first man" without a helper fit for him; neither would He leave the "Second."

The expression "authority on the head" has caused endless discussion. To have authority on the head unquestionably means to wear the sign of it in a covering or veil. On the other hand, in verses 11 and 12 the apostle is careful to insist that man and woman belong to each other. He denies that either is independent of the other. He affirms that God is the source of both, and of all things.

The apostle takes the state of the physical head as a sign. It shows the condition of the man or the woman in relation to their moral head. The woman's head — the man — is really her head, and she must cover her own head as a sign of her subjection. So she says in effect, "I have no head myself. The man is my head, and I am in subjection." The man could not do that, or there would be no visible head.

In creation the man did not come from the woman, though that has been the way ever since. The woman came from the man, as God took Eve from Adam's side. God made her for the man, for He had said it was not good for man to be alone. This was God's order in creation. So the woman should wear the sign of authority on her head — the sign that she is under authority to her head, the man.

Creation is the proof — not, of course, the ordinary course of things since. It is therefore impossible to form a right estimate without looking to the beginning. It is easy to see what happens where people deny creation, or even ignore it. Men then naturally reason and labour for equality.

Two things mark off the angels who never fell from those who did: perfect subjection, and ready obedience to the voice of their Creator. The angels who fell did not keep the place first given to them. And the power that sets true order in God's Church is the same life-giving Spirit who adorned the heavens. That Spirit set the chosen angels in their appointed places. These, then, whose very nature is order, ought not to see disorder in God's house.

The apostle is not speaking of wearing the sign of subjection at all times, though I believe it would be very fitting. She is in this a spectacle, with all present, to the angels. The whole subject is modesty, order, decency, and things in their right place... Angels should learn something in the church.

Most commentators have missed this thought completely. Some have drifted into degrading ideas about bad angels. Others have lowered the word to mean the righteous themselves, or Christian prophets, or those who preside in the assemblies, or people appointed to arrange betrothals, or mere spies sent there by the unfaithful.

This shows us the woman's place in the natural sphere. Man is the head. This does not imply inferiority. If it did, Christ would be essentially inferior to God, His Father — a thought impossible to those who believe in His eternal Deity. But in position, and as Man, the blessed Son took the place of subjection and obedience to the Father.

The woman's veil is not only a badge of her subjection; it is also her ornament and her praise. For meekness is beauty in the sight of God, and praise belongs to those who stay willingly in their appointed place.

He keeps the difference of place, but he also states that both have the same standing in the Lord. The woman was formed from the man and for the man. Yet the true Man had to be the woman's offspring. And the human race goes on in the earth only because the woman conceives and bears. Each is necessary to the other, and all of God, who frames the creature at His will, and for His praise.

Nothing can be stronger than this. The apostle had been proving the official superiority of the man over the woman. Then he states that, even so, one was not without the other in the Lord.

Still, this question of authority and subjection in the creation order in no way weakens the truth that the man and the woman depend on each other. But that mutual dependence is to be taken up in the Lord. In the world men and women are throwing off their allegiance to God, so they want to be more and more independent of one another. In Christianity we are brought back to depending on the Lord, and so on one another, and to owning that all things are of God. How can we be independent of the One from Whom we have our origin?

Yet she is not to be treated as inferior to the man, unfit to be his companion, unsuited to be his helper. For as the woman is of the man, so the man is by the woman. She was taken out of the man at the first, and ever since the man has owed his existence on earth to her. If both would weigh these plain statements of the Word, they would learn their true place towards each other. It would free the woman from the misdirected energy we see around us, and lead her to fill the place God intended for her.

There is a unity in God's creation, and it looks most beautiful when both man and woman keep their place and work as each is fitted to work. God gives each a dignity of their own, and each should act in the dignity that fits the place God has given.

There is an equality they share, of the most perfect and highest kind. It can never be touched, never set aside, and it should be owned as fully as possible. On the other hand, that does not set aside God's order for the earth. In the place God has given to man and to woman here, the head of the woman is the man. The higher truth is shown in the lower one. There are not two heads in creation, but one. Two heads would mean division. God's thought is unity… The man and the woman together form man in the full sense of humanity, and so the woman is needed to make the man what he is.

First, we see men and women seated together. This speaks of their equal and shared interest in Christ, where there is neither male nor female. As we read here, "in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman." As persons, they have the same standing in the church of God.

This question of authority and subjection in the creation order does not in any way weaken the truth that the man and the woman depend on each other. But that mutual dependence is to be taken up in the Lord. In the world men and women are throwing off their allegiance to God. So they seek more and more to be independent of one another. In Christianity we come back to depend on the Lord, and so on one another. We come to recognise that all things are of God. How can we be independent of the One from whom we have our origin?

Verse 12 both explains and develops this. God is the originator of all. Here it is not only the woman from the man as in verse 8, but also that every man (child) comes through the woman.

Verses 11 and 12 show, however, that the man and the woman are the complement of one another. The man is not a dictator and the woman is not a slave. Each is necessary in his or her place for the human race to continue. "And all things are from God." His wisdom and work is supreme in every aspect of creation.

He keeps the difference of place, and he also states that both share one standing in the Lord. If the woman came from the man and for the man at the start, the true Man must also be the woman's seed. Also, mankind continues on the earth by the natural conception of the woman. Each is necessary to the other, and all of God, who frames the creature at His will, and for His praise.

First, we see men and women seated together. This tells of their equal and common interest in Christ, where there is neither male nor female, as we read here, "For neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord"; for, personally considered, they have the same standing in the church of God.

The heir, or governor, is also spoken of as born of the woman — that is, once man had fallen; so great is the grace in God's purpose. Made out of the man where evil was worked out, He was born out of the woman: marvellous grace. "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman." Yet the man was created first, not the woman, and "the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." But as the woman is for the man, so the man is by the woman. Note this well: as we have said, it is marvellous grace.

God's creation has a unity, and it is most beautiful when both man and woman keep the place and function each is fitted for. For though the woman came from man to begin with, since that time man has come through the woman. Each has a dignity of its own, and both should act with the dignity that fits the place God has given.

[The closing words about anyone being contentious] are simply added, by the grace of God in the writer, to check the argumentative spirit of the Corinthians. They also guard the Corinthians against putting unfair legal pressure on the consciences of their sisters in Christ. After all, this could never be made a matter of church discipline. So the apostle does not speak here with the authoritative language of an apostle of Jesus Christ, as he did in that case of flagrant evil in 1 Corinthians 5. Instead he appeals to their own judgment, asking whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered.

He is not content with giving proofs from Scripture on this point. He will make God's people their own judges, on the lower though important ground of natural sense. Man and woman are naturally different. From that alone they might have concluded that for a woman to lift an unveiled face to her Creator is unbecoming. If long hair was given her as a veil, to screen her from the gaze of men, how much more should she take a covering when her prayers draw the eye of God straight and especially upon herself.

Further, he appeals to the sense of what is fitting, grounded on the make-up of both man and woman. He tells them to judge in themselves whether it is becoming for a woman to pray to God uncovered, and asks whether nature itself does not teach them. It is as natural for a man to have short hair as for a woman to have long hair. To reverse this in practice is a revolt against the nature of each. God's creation must govern where the word of His grace does not call to higher things, and here no one can claim such a call.

Here we have another instance of how the greatest truths are brought into connection with everyday subjects. Here is a question of whether a woman is to have a covering on or not. The whole ordering of God is brought in to settle whether a woman is to wear a cap on her head (v. 3-16). It was the custom there for women inspired by demons to have their hair flowing out wild, and this was not the order for a woman. They were to recognise the authority of man if they prayed or prophesied. The woman had her place for praying and prophesying, but not in the assembly.

Verses 13 and 14 make an appeal to the believer's sense of what is fitting. Your own proper discernment should lead you to conclude that a woman ought not to pray to God uncovered. Many ignore this clear voice of nature, but a Christian has no excuse for doing so. In many places custom has dulled this sense of what is fitting, but faith should certainly restore its keen edge.

The Apostle has spoken of what is true in creation (verses 3–10), of what is right "in the Lord" (verses 11, 12), of what is fitting according to nature (verses 13–15), and of what is allowed by custom (verse 16). He does all this to show the true position of men and women in relation to one another.

Nature is also a term describing the vast system of created things around us. To each part of it the Creator has given not only its existence, but its use, its order, its increase, its decay. These are often called "the laws of nature." They govern each thing and set what is proper to it. So nature teaches that a man should not have long hair, 1 Cor. 11:14; and a multitude of other things that belong to God's order in creation.

All through the word of God we find great prominence given to what is according to nature — to what is fitting. "Does not nature itself teach you?" says the inspired apostle to the assembly at Corinth. The Creator planted certain feelings and instincts in nature, and they must never be violated. We may set this down as a fixed principle, a rule of Christian ethics: no action can be of God if it does violence to the feelings that belong to nature. The Spirit of God may, and often does, lead us beyond and above nature, but never against it.

The apostle points out here that this is a fact that holds generally: "Does not nature itself teach you…?" It is not a rule for Christians only. Short hair stands for the authority that God has given the man as head. That is his place in the order of creation (1 Cor. 11:3).

He also appeals to the sense of what is fitting, which rests on the makeup of both man and woman. "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you…?" Suppose it is as natural for a man to have short hair as for a woman to have long hair. Is it not a revolt against the nature of each to reverse this in practice? Where the word of His grace does not call us to something higher, God's creation must rule — and no one could claim such a call here.

In 1 Corinthians 11:14 we learn that it shows a lack of dignity for a man to have long hair. "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?" So if we truly want to live a life set apart to God, we must be ready to give up our dignity in nature. Our Lord Jesus Christ did this perfectly. He made Himself of no reputation. He surrendered His rights in everything. He could say, "I am a worm and not a man." He emptied Himself completely and took the very lowest place. He neglected Himself while He cared for others. Now this is the very thing we so dislike doing. We naturally stand up for our dignity and try to hold on to our rights. But the perfect Man never did, and if we aim at being Nazirites we will not either.

We must not overlook the particular case the passage deals with. We ought to watch it closely, especially Christian women. Behind all the movements of the world and of fashion lies the god of this age. His aim is to break down all the differences and barriers which God has set up. In this way Satan's schemes are carried out more easily.

He appeals to the sense of what is proper, based on how both man and woman are made. If short hair is as natural for a man as long hair is for a woman, is it not a revolt against the nature of each to reverse this? God's creation must govern where the word of His grace does not call to higher things. No one could claim that here.

The uncut hair was a clear sign of dependence — of weakness clinging to strength. Long hair is the woman's glory; it is the mark of her dependence as the weaker vessel upon man. This is the place in which God has put her, and true glory is to fill perfectly the place God has given.

The woman has a natural covering in her long hair. So nature shows her place of subjection. It tells us that a hidden woman is a beautiful woman, while everyone looks down on a woman who cuts off her hair and imitates the man.

Our Authorized Version says in 1 Corinthians 11:15, "for her hair is given her for a covering." From this some teach that a woman's long hair is her head-covering, and that she needs no other covering. But this is a wrong translation. It does not give the meaning of the original Scripture at all. The Greek word here is completely different from the word rightly translated "covered" in verse 6. There the word means "to cover up, covering one's head." Here in verse 15 the word means "that which is thrown around."

Some would argue that since a woman's hair is given her for a covering, she needs no other covering. But this assumption ignores the force of the whole passage. The apostle is showing something else. God on His part has given her the covering of long hair to show her place of subjection. On her part she is to agree with this, by using a covering on her head.

Nature gives a woman long hair as a veil cast around her. It is not the head covering that the apostle insists on in the earlier verses. If man's glory must be covered in God's presence, as we have explained, then surely woman's long hair, her personal glory, must be covered in His presence too.

Long hair is the proper covering for the woman, telling of her place of subjection in the present order of things. If the man has long hair, it is a shame to him. But it is a glory to the woman, for "her hair is given to her for a covering." So the long hair speaks of the place of dependence. In the Nazarite we see one who has willingly given up what man would call "his rights" and his independence, to be wholly in subjection to God. The Lord Jesus is the great example in this, as in all else. He could say, "I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me."

The churches had a settled practice, shaped by apostolic wisdom. It is no light thing to disturb it, and the apostle says so with great moral force. It is a contemptible kind of independence that sets itself up against the spiritual feeling of the whole public witness in God's assemblies. It even sets itself above the men God has given heavenly wisdom to direct it all. This is not conscience and not spirituality. It is a love of differing from others that springs from the flesh, and at bottom sheer vanity. The custom he denies is the Corinthian novelty, which confused God's order in nature. It is not a love of arguing, though many writers, old and new, strangely conclude that.

The Spirit of God knew beforehand that some would be contentious about this. That closes the subject for good: the apostles had no such custom of being contentious. God has spoken. They had declared the truth of God, and they will not come down to the level of arguing over it.

Yet this is the Word of God, and deeply important for the true blessing of all the church of God on earth. Paul has stated the truth, but will not allow it to be a contentious issue. The truth of God is too precious and vital to be dragged down to the level of human argument.

On the whole question of dress the apostle urges his brothers, but gives no command. He points out what is fitting, and leaves his counsel to work on their spiritual discernment and right feeling. But he knew that some men are easier to command than to advise. Wherever a doubt can be raised, they would rather debate than follow the way of peace. His closing words are aimed at them. He wants them to know this: in objecting to his counsel they were condemning the general practice too — not only where he or his fellow apostles might be present, but in every company he knew and owned as a church or assembly of God.

The Apostle links the church at Corinth with all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place. That shows the instructions apply to the whole Christian profession for all time. Again and again in this letter we find passages that overturn any effort to limit the instruction to one local assembly and to the apostles' own day. (See 1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Cor. 7:17; 1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Cor. 14:36-37; 1 Cor. 16:1.)

Neglect or carelessness is no excuse for disobeying God's instructions. Nor can the Apostle's closing words encourage anyone to disregard the instructions he has just given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He adds those words, by the grace of God in him, for two reasons. They put a check on the contentious spirit of the Corinthians. They also guard them against harsh, legal pressure on the consciences of their sisters in Christ. This, after all, could never become a matter of church discipline.

Little things like covering or uncovering the head often show the state of the heart. They test whether a person's will is subject to God and His Word, or whether it wants instead to go against the Word and follow the fashions and order of the day. Customs may change, but the principle of God's Word in this and other matters remains.