Elder O. B. Mink
Now In Glory     

The word "also" in this text is very significant, it is, as used in the text, indisputable proof that Paul had in view a head covering in addition to the woman's natural hair.
   
It is an ill supposition which contends that Paul is referring to a woman's hair when he says: "... If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn."
   
Such unwarranted supposition has Paul saying; "If a woman does not have hair on her head, let her also be shorn." This is blather or foolish talk, for I ask, how could the woman be shorn if she had no hair? The nonsense of such a fickle supposition is glaringly apparent, and it casts a shadow on divine
inspiration.
   
So as to avoid nonsense let us not by-pass the good sense of the text. The insuperable truth which Paul sets forth in this text is a plain and forceful rebuke of all women who would try and annul the headship which God has given to man. Paul's perspicuous words in verse six are "If a woman does not have a headcovering in addition to her hair, let her hair be cut or her head be shaven as a badge of her shamefulness."
   
Under the former dispensation if a husband was jealous of his wife, she was brought before the priest, and the priest set the woman before the Lord. The priest uncovered the woman's head while the test of her virtue was being made. A bareheaded woman being officially set before God was a woman whose fidelity to her husband was in question (Numbers 5:18). The question has been asked, "Should Christian women, freed here from the Mosaic Law be compelled to honor the ordinance of a headcovering? Does not their freedom allow them to set aside this inconvenience?" While Paul deals at length with the ordinance of a headcovering for women, he all but passes by the scandal which a failure to honor the practice would stir up. In Paul's time, Christian women with uncovered heads would at once be taken as pagans, if not as prostitutes. This was so obvious, and the disgrace so terrible that this particular aspect or consequence which a neglect to honor the ordinance would bring, that Paul concluded it needed no further comment.
   
The man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his Head, Jesus Christ. For a man to appear in the official assembly in apparel unsuited to the authority delegated to him by heaven's court would be a reproach of his head, Jesus Christ.
   
Conversely, if a woman appears in the official worship service of the church without a veil or suitable covering in addition to her hair, she shames her head, namely, the man. For her to so appear is to throw off the badge or token of her divinely obligated subjection, and minus the headcovering she appears in the awesome assembly in the dress which the Groom and Sovereign Head of the church has exclusively prescribed for man. For her to dishonor her head is to dishonor Christ, who gave the ordinance. It would be for her to lay claim to something God has given to the opposite sex. A woman should be satisfied with the station her blessed Redeemer has assigned her. Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, took the initiative and without coercion put on her veil in token of her subjection. "And Isaac ... took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her..." (Genesis 24:67).
   
Man is responsible to exercise his headship, but not ever as a tyrant, nor without consideration for his help meet which God has given him. Christ, the Head of the church loved His bride, and gave Himself for her. To the same extent is the husband to love his wife and be governed by that love in the exercise of his headship over her (Ephesians 5:25).
   
In connection with verse six, let us look at verse fifteen, which reads, "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." The chief objection raised against the contention that a woman should wear an additional covering other than her hair in the official church assembly, is that her hair is the only covering Paul refers to in I Corinthians 11. However, the recalcitrant grievously errs, not knowing the Scriptures. At this juncture a brief etymological study of the word "shaven" used in verse 5, and the word "shorn" used in verse 6 is necessarily in order to expose the fallacy of the contention that Paul, without exception used the word "cover" and its cognates in I Corinthians 11 to refer to a woman's hair.
   
The word "shaven" in verse 5 has for its origin or source the Greek word "xurao," which means to shave entirely, as with a razor when a man shaves his face. This word ("xurao") is used only one other time in the New Testament, i.e., Acts. 21:24. In this reference Paul identifies himself with some men who had placed themselves under the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:1-10), and who had "shaven" all their hair off of their heads.
   
The word "shorn" in verse 6 comes from the Greek word "keirasthai", which means to have their hair cut short or cropped off. There are two other places in the New Testament where the word "keirasthai" is used, Acts 8:32 and Acts 18:18. In the first reference (Acts 8:32) it speaks of a lamb whose wool is to be shorn. A shepherd never shaves his sheep, but he fleeces them; or they are "shorn". In the second reference (Acts 18:18) Paul mentions a vow which he had made. Paul's vow in this reference was not the Old Testament Nazarite vow, for the Nazarite vow could be absolved only by a Temple priest in Jerusalem. However, in connection with his vow Paul had his hair cut short or shorn, not shaved. "xurao" means to shave, and "keirasthai" means to have the hair cut short. These two Greek verbs translated by the words "shorn" and "shaven" in I Corinthians 11:6, are thus translated to keep the contrast between them in view. (See: Word Pictures in the N.T. By A. T. Robertson - Vol. 3, Acts).
   
With the definition of the words "xurao" and "kerirasthai" as given above fixed in our minds, it is seen that the contention "uncovered" simply means short hair has no basis in Scripture. The objector is forced to concede by use of the terminology in verse 6 ("covered"), that the woman's hair must be as short as the man's, for the same term is used in a prohibitive sense in verse seven in referring to man. Verse 7 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head ..."
   
For a woman to be "uncovered" is to dishonor her head (verse 5), and in so doing, Paul says she should have her hair cut ("shorn") as short as that of the man, for she has by her refusal to wear a head covering made herself equal in authority to the man. However, Paul says, it is a "shame" for a woman to be found in fashion as a man; and to avoid such an ignoble state, Paul says: "let her be covered." (verse 6). That is, let her wear in addition to her hair the proper headcovering, which mutely but gloriously symbolizes her submission to her God given head.
   
If the objector persists in his contention that the word "covered" in verse 6 refers to a woman's hair, then he would have to read the first part of the verse on this wise: "For if the woman have short hair, let her also be shorn." Such a reading proves far too much for the objector and renders his contention inviable, for the evident and indisputable meaning of the word "shorn" in the text is to cut the hair short. Hence, the objector finds himself trying in vain to convince intelligent people that what the apostle Paul really says in the text is; "If the woman have short hair, let her also cut her hair short."
   
Verse 7 "For 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."
   
This verse restates the order of headship as given in verse 3, and describes the particular stations of man and woman as glorious. The superlative language of the text should thrill the heart of every redeemed man and woman, and cause them to seriously consider the great honor and awesome responsibility connected with their heavenly assigned roles.
   
Various and complex are the duties which are inherent in man's headship office, and these duties are superimposed by the Word of God, man's first and supreme duty is unto his Head, Jesus Christ. And man's second greatest duty is to his wife. If he fails in either of these duties, he will be derelict in all that his headship office involves. If he is faithful in the exercise of his headship he will glorify his own Head, bring honor to his family, and attain for himself a good reward at the judgment seat of Christ.
   
The husband's ascendancy over his wife does not imply absolute domination of her, but his is an authority which demands loving leadership. Therefore, Paul says the husband is to "love his wife even as himself" (Ephesians 5:33). Man's greatest duty to his wife is "to love her as his own body," and
careful attendance to this all important duty will greatly enhance the discharge of all his other headship obligations.
   
For a husband to love his wife so ardently necessitates, or makes it incumbent on his wife that she have a devotion to her duty of submissiveness to him that will make her precious in his sight. It is not expected of any man that he love that which is unlovely. Ability to love people who are unlovely belongs to Christ exclusively. Neither can it be expected that a wife be unreservedly submissive to a husband who is deficient in his love for her. Reciprocity in these duty areas is essential to a God honoring marriage, therefore it is the obligation of both husband and wife to achieve the ultimate in their particular responsibilities toward one another.
   
Simply put, no marriage can realize its divinely prescribed goal without consistent and positive input by both partners. This input will have a cohesive effect on the marriage relationship, and make the conjugal bond more than equal to the disparities which shall try it. Acquiescence is the chief duty of the wife to her husband. This does not mean the husband is not to consult with his wife in matters relating to family government, for the family household is affected either for good or bad by every prominent action of its head, whether it be private or public. Therefore, in all doubtful cases it behooves the husband to solicit the advice of his wife, and whether or not she consents or dissents does not in any way infringe upon his authority as her head. But if she can in truth, cheerfully acquiesce in the matter, it will afford the husband the blessed and needed assurance, and keep his house from being "divided against itself."
   
Anger is inevitable, it will come from one or the other, or in most cases from both husband and wife. Nothing will destroy marital intimacy quicker and more extensively than uncontrolled anger. But anger per se is not necessarily evil. Paul says: "Be ye angry and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath" (Ephesians 4:26). Anger is an emotion as natural as love and joy, but anger becomes hurtful when it is mis-vented. Anger must, for the sake of the marriage relationship be vented in a non destructive way; and it can be done with the due exercise of forethought owing to the sacred union. Paul follows his admonition, wherein he says: "Be ye angry and sin not," with the greatest conciliativ prescription ever penned, and, it remedially applies to marriage. The prescription reads: "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." (Ephesians 4:32). Taken daily and in large doses, it is a positive preventative against bitter dissension and the hateful stigma of divorce.
   
Let the husband be ever mindful that his headship is subordinate to the Headship of Christ, and for him to assume any of the functions which belongs to the exercise of Christ's Headship is for him to think that Christ is such a one as himself. Then too, the wife needs to be incessantly and acutely aware that her governmental position in marriage is authoritatively and distinctly inferior to her husband, and that for her to take to herself any of the authority delegated to him by Christ is to make that authority not only mis-proportioned, but ill-proportioned. But when their places in the divine order of headship is strictly adhered to, then the man is a true image of God and manifests His glory thereby. And so it is with the faithful wife; she is an extension of God's glory by her ready submission to her husband (verse 7).
   
Verses 8-9 "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
   
These words have to do with more than the order of creation. The text (verses 8-9) points directly to and highlights the wife's role of submission to her husband. The apostle Paul says: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve" (I Timothy 2:12-13). Adam's seniority over Eve in creation is not in and of itself the exclusive reason for his headship over her, nor did his first place in creation make him more noble and wiser than Eve; but it did make him first in responsibility toward God. Eden was given to Adam's authority, and he was to answer directly unto God for the dispensation of that authority (Genesis 2:15-17).
   
Immediately following the Lord's commands unto Adam (Genesis 2:15-17), He said, "... It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:18). No where in Eden's government did God give Eve a direct commandment, but not so with Adam; for he was the federal head of Eve and responsible to God for her conduct. "God brought Eve unto Adam," and this bringing her to Adam by God had to do with more than introductions. It had to do first of all with positions and authority as husband and wife. The first marriage covenant was formulated at this time, and it is commonly understood that where all parties in a covenant are equal there is no need for a covenant. Thus it follows that in a covenant one or more of the parties to the covenant must necessarily be subordinate to at least one other person in the covenant. It is upon this principle that Paul says, speaking of the "everlasting covenant," "and the head of Christ is God" (I Corinthians 11:3).
   
When Rebekah was brought to Isaac to be his wife, she was excited and filled with joy and without a moments hesitation, "... she took a veil and covered herself." Rebekah's action in covering her head was a public acknowledgment of her submission unto Isaac. "and she became his wife; and he loved her" (Genesis 25:65-67). When Saul of Tarsus was by the Holy Spirit brought to Christ to be His servant, Saul acknowledged the headship of Christ over him by asking, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" (Acts 9:6) Henceforth, Paul was before Him in love (Ephesians 1:4).
   
In owning the Headship of God over Him, the Lord Jesus said, "... I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10). From the Scriptural examples referred to in this paragraph it is clearly seen that submission to the respective and divinely appointed headships begets mutual love; and this love is manifested by noble feelings and loyal submission of the subordinates.