Foreword Page 7
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is not Paul’s “cultural baggage” - it has been obscured by ours. Like a jig-saw puzzle, it can only be seen in its entirety when each individual part is up the right way and in the only correct place that it fits. Attempts to jam the wrong pieces into some spaces have damaged both these pieces and those surrounding them. It is my conviction that the picture we may be seeing at present in this passage is no fault of the Maker’s but ours as we have put it together...
I wrote this book some twenty years after receiving what I believe was a revelation from God as to the proper meaning of this difficult passage. You may wonder why, if it is a revelation, have I taken so long to pass it on? Because it differs from the usual translation from the Greek and I am no scholar of Greek. However, during these twenty years I have had the opportunity to talk over and test what I received then. As a result, a few loose ends have been tidied up but the revelation itself has, I believe, been slowly confirmed and hence this book now... Practical Relevance
Page 9
My first contact with this text was with verse 14 alone, when I heard as a brand-new Christian that my long hair was unchristian:
“…if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him".
It was obvious to me at the time that those quoting it to me were into a "cultural Christianity" since they believed that real Christian men always dressed formally for church meetings, with white shirts and ties, and real Christian women wore dark, plain dresses and hats or scarves. I had found enough of Jesus by then to know He is never in one cultural camp, whether "conservative" or "alternative", and having already been led by the Lord to put right a lot of other things far more humbling than having a hair-cut, I sensed it wasn't really an issue with Him. However, I sought the Lord in prayer and began to study the Scriptures because the verse they quoted DID seem to validate their viewpoint.
What kept me open to another view was that one of my new heroes, John the Baptist, was remarkable for being a life-long Nazirite, that is one under an Old Testament vow who let his or her hair grow long. Jesus said of John that there was no greater man born of a woman, and He didn't add: "...but shame about the hair!". John's hair length was certainly no dishonour in Jesus' eyes. And what of Samson? I knew that Delilah cutting off his long hair was his downfall.
Page 10
The few Scriptures I had heard then seemed to contradict each other and did not settle the issue, so I prayed and began to search the rest of the Scriptures, sure that they would eventually give the necessary light. Within a few months God answered my prayers and I found myself with a new and thorough understanding of this verse on hair and, more importantly, the rest of its context of "heads", "covering" and essential spiritual differences between a man and a woman.
The Covering Doctrine
I also found, in the 1970’s and 80’s, the practical relevance of this passage through first-hand observation of the bad effects of two variations of "the covering doctrine". The first taught that everyone in a particular New Zealand denomination needed to be “covered”, or guarded from error in all their decisions, by their local pastor who in turn needed to be “covered” by a pastor in another city who had originated the doctrine and who seemed himself to be “covered” by no one. The second variation was international and taught that everyone had to be “under the authority” of a pastor who was in turn under a higher spiritual authority, usually an apostle who was himself “under” another apostle more senior than him and so on and so on up a quickly forming global hierarchy.
The flaws seemed to have become obvious to all when some of the most senior “authorities” were found to be in adultery but the doctrine lives on. Few seemed to notice that the only place in the New Testament that even mentions this term “covering” in anything like this meaning is in our 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where Paul actively and categorically forbade any man to be "covered", saying such behaviour disgraced Christ!
But more of that later. The main reason I mention this particular controversy now is to demonstrate that because this passage of inspired and ever relevant Scripture had been taken out of "active service" as a profitable teaching and reduced to describing historical but now irrelevant culture, it couldn't be used to deal with this particular attack on the churches of God, even though it could have perfectly countered it. Our traditional understanding made the passage ineffective then, and will do so again every time similar errors rise up in the church. As Jesus warned the religious leaders of His day that they were…
"… invalidating (i.e. revoking the authority of ) the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:13)
Those leaders were no less intelligent than we are today. We just as surely need to be warned that the very sword of the Spirit, the word of God, loses its authority and effectiveness in our lives if we insist on maintaining our own traditions or traditional understandings. “Vive La Difference!”
Page 11
In the late 1990’s this passage correctly understood was of particular relevance to the innumerable discussions on women’s roles in marriage, society and the churches of God. Sadly, its revelation was completely ignored as teachers continued to insist on their misunderstandings and relegated it to the sidelines.
Many of us who are married have benefited greatly from learning about natural differences between the sexes. At the moment in the popular secular press, there are many books describing these, one best-seller stating that “men and women differ in all areas of their lives. Not only do men and women communicate differently but they think, feel, perceive, react, respond, love, need, and appreciate differently. They almost seem to be from different planets, speaking different languages and needing different nourishment (“Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus”, John Gray, Ph.D.). Another by linguistics expert Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., (“That’s Not What I Meant!”) argues that men and women learn “different ways of having and using conversations”, so that they come from different “cultures”. Accordingly, “male-female conversation is cross-cultural communication”.
Thus many non-Christians readily observe both the natural differences and the benefits of recognising and working according to them. We as Christians have the advantage of supernatural revelation from the Scriptures to help us see the spiritual differences between male and female and thus differing strengths or roles in marriage, society and the churches. Our text 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is therefore essential reading. ...
Page 49
“Because of the angels”. With this enigmatic phrase, Paul suddenly concludes that the woman needs a “covering” or protection. He has not referred to angels earlier in this teaching, he does not refer to them later, and yet he seems to consider that he has now explained enough to his original hearers, that it has become self-evident to them, so he finishes. What then are we missing in the twenty first century that his original hearers were not? A fuller understanding of angels. Once we regain this, we can finally grasp the full import of the whole 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
“Angels Unawares”
Today’s Concise Oxford dictionary defines an angel as a “lovely or innocent being; obliging or loving person”. A well-behaved child is described as “a little angel“, a beautiful and innocent child as a “cherub”, which is a kind of angel. In popular art, a cherub is usually represented as a beautiful winged child with big eyes, rosy cheeks and trailing ribbons. The wings show this child to be a spirit being rather than a human being and the cherub is unfailingly good.
Most Christians today are aware that in the Scriptures, angels and cherubim are not children nor portrayed as children but are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:13-14), “greater in might and power” than us (2 Peter 2:11), often fierce warriors (Revelation 12:7) and sometimes mistaken for adult human beings:
“Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels with knowing it (KJV unawares)” (Heb 13:2)
Both Abraham and Lot are famous for having invited angels into their homes while believing them to be human beings (Genesis 18:1-3, 19:1-2).
Not many Christians today are aware the Scriptures actually use the word angel to describe two distinct kinds of beings who can be good or evil. In both Hebrew (malak) and Greek (angelos), the word is literally “messenger” and is used to describe both human messengers and spirit messengers. The messengers in turn can be good or evil. In Biblical use, the word “angel” does NOT mean a “lovely or innocent being; obliging or loving person”; it contains no implicit or inherent goodness. The translators, because it is not explicit whether the “messenger” is human or spirit, good or evil, have to rely on the context to tell us which is meant.
Page 50
For example, John the Baptist’s “messengers” to Jesus are “angelos” in Luke 7:24 and “men” in verse 20. They were therefore obviously human, as were the “angelos” that Joshua sent to spy out Jericho (James 2:25 cf. Josh 2:1). In contrast, in Matthew 28:2 the “messenger” must have been a spirit being since he had “descended from heaven” and “his appearance was like lightning”.
To know if the “messengers” are good or evil, we also need to examine the context. Paul plainly warns:
“…even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8)
Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of Mormonism, claimed to have received his revelations from “angels from heaven”. It is possible Biblically. However, he was so overwhelmed by their appearance and origin that he didn’t test their message against Paul’s gospel, hence his “contrary” one. Many other movements and beliefs have been founded in the same way.
The lack of inherent goodness even in those messengers that are clearly “from heaven” is seen in the fact that almost all mentions of angels are carefully qualified, as in “the Son with all His angels” (Matt 16:27) or “the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41). See also “the holy angels” (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26), “a holy angel” (Acts 10:22), “His chosen angels” (1 Tim 5:21), “the angels of God” (Luke 12:8, 9, 15:10; John 1:51, Heb 1:6) and “the dragon and his angels” (Rev 12:7) ...
What "Covering Her Head" Does Not Mean
Page 75.
I have met many women who have come out of cults or heavy-handed Christian groups which have taught submission as if it means blind obedience. Having a particular interest in cults, I have often examined their doctrines and have seen that this is usually what keeps their followers in captivity. Some were taught that, using this very passage, that a woman “covering herself” means to simply obey whatever a man or leader says, even when she knows it is wrong. God, they say, is more interested in her submission than her discernment, and usually the submission is to them! The women have testified to the damage to their own spirituality and how they lost much of their ability to hear God for themselves, some needing years to regain the lost ground…
Ironically, the verse quoted against these women, when properly understood, becomes their best protection; “covering her head” not only insists on her right to autonomy but the need to defend it! ...
“Head" - Leader Or Source?
Page 97
Some have taught that since Paul was writing in Greek to the Corinthians who were Greek, he intended the Greek metaphor of head as “source”, as in “headwaters of a river”. This sounds reasonable but strikes some insurmountable problems, both with the premise of this argument and the application.
(i) The premise - Jewish or Greek?
Consider firstly Paul himself. We know he was a scholar of such renown that even a Roman governor could comment on his “great learning” (Acts 26:24), but his learning was Jewish; he had sat at the feet of Gamaliel and had been murderously zealous for the traditions of “the fathers”. His own education and thinking was first and foremost Jewish.
Secondly, after his conversion to Christianity, how did Paul actually communicate his teachings to Gentiles? While in his evangelism, he was plainly able to quote from relevant Gentile culture (e.g. Acts 17:23-28, Titus 1:12), his evidence for all of the New Covenant doctrines he taught were primarily from the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, as were most of his examples and illustrations. In the preceding context of our passage, in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul bases his rights as an apostle on the Law of Moses regarding oxen, the Jewish priesthood and the Levites. In 1 Corinthians 10, his entire exhortation for these Greeks to flee idolatry and immorality is again based on Jewish history - the Exodus and wanderings in the wilderness. In verse 18 he specifically exhorts these Greeks to “look at the nation Israel” to learn from the principles of their altar, sacrifices and worship. Immediately following our passage, in the latter part of 1 Corinthians 11, he speaks of the covenant meal from an obviously Jewish historical context.
There is then a compelling case for establishing the Jewish rather than the Greek concept of “head”. Gentile scholarship’s frequent insistence that other concepts in the New Testament, such as the Logos or the Word in John 1:1, are built on Greek thought, has gone down hard with Messianic Jewish scholars. They have countered that the concept of the Word had already been in common use amongst the Jews for almost a thousand years before the Greeks, so why should we consider Greek thought the basis? To my mind, it is only where the Greek thought complements Hebrew thought, as it is revealed in Scripture, that its use in exegesis becomes valid.
Lastly, consider how Paul wrote to the Greek and Latin-speaking Romans when he insisted the gospel was “to the Jew first, and then to the Greek (or Gentile)” (Rom 1:16, 2:9-10). He pointed out that the Jews had the huge advantage of being “entrusted with the oracles of God (the Old Testament)” (Rom 3:1). Whose thought then, Jewish or Greek, would Paul seek to unfold? Would he really have sought to negate or ignore the “advantage” of the oracles of God? Again, if all Gentile branches are grafted onto “the rich root of the (Jewish) olive tree” (Rom 11:17), wouldn’t Paul have believed the Gentiles need to learn from the Jewish experiences of God, the only written source material of which was the Jewish Old Testament? ...
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is not Paul’s “cultural baggage” - it has been obscured by ours. Like a jig-saw puzzle, it can only be seen in its entirety when each individual part is up the right way and in the only correct place that it fits. Attempts to jam the wrong pieces into some spaces have damaged both these pieces and those surrounding them. It is my conviction that the picture we may be seeing at present in this passage is no fault of the Maker’s but ours as we have put it together...
I wrote this book some twenty years after receiving what I believe was a revelation from God as to the proper meaning of this difficult passage. You may wonder why, if it is a revelation, have I taken so long to pass it on? Because it differs from the usual translation from the Greek and I am no scholar of Greek. However, during these twenty years I have had the opportunity to talk over and test what I received then. As a result, a few loose ends have been tidied up but the revelation itself has, I believe, been slowly confirmed and hence this book now... Practical Relevance
Page 9
My first contact with this text was with verse 14 alone, when I heard as a brand-new Christian that my long hair was unchristian:
“…if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him".
It was obvious to me at the time that those quoting it to me were into a "cultural Christianity" since they believed that real Christian men always dressed formally for church meetings, with white shirts and ties, and real Christian women wore dark, plain dresses and hats or scarves. I had found enough of Jesus by then to know He is never in one cultural camp, whether "conservative" or "alternative", and having already been led by the Lord to put right a lot of other things far more humbling than having a hair-cut, I sensed it wasn't really an issue with Him. However, I sought the Lord in prayer and began to study the Scriptures because the verse they quoted DID seem to validate their viewpoint.
What kept me open to another view was that one of my new heroes, John the Baptist, was remarkable for being a life-long Nazirite, that is one under an Old Testament vow who let his or her hair grow long. Jesus said of John that there was no greater man born of a woman, and He didn't add: "...but shame about the hair!". John's hair length was certainly no dishonour in Jesus' eyes. And what of Samson? I knew that Delilah cutting off his long hair was his downfall.
Page 10
The few Scriptures I had heard then seemed to contradict each other and did not settle the issue, so I prayed and began to search the rest of the Scriptures, sure that they would eventually give the necessary light. Within a few months God answered my prayers and I found myself with a new and thorough understanding of this verse on hair and, more importantly, the rest of its context of "heads", "covering" and essential spiritual differences between a man and a woman.
The Covering Doctrine
I also found, in the 1970’s and 80’s, the practical relevance of this passage through first-hand observation of the bad effects of two variations of "the covering doctrine". The first taught that everyone in a particular New Zealand denomination needed to be “covered”, or guarded from error in all their decisions, by their local pastor who in turn needed to be “covered” by a pastor in another city who had originated the doctrine and who seemed himself to be “covered” by no one. The second variation was international and taught that everyone had to be “under the authority” of a pastor who was in turn under a higher spiritual authority, usually an apostle who was himself “under” another apostle more senior than him and so on and so on up a quickly forming global hierarchy.
The flaws seemed to have become obvious to all when some of the most senior “authorities” were found to be in adultery but the doctrine lives on. Few seemed to notice that the only place in the New Testament that even mentions this term “covering” in anything like this meaning is in our 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where Paul actively and categorically forbade any man to be "covered", saying such behaviour disgraced Christ!
But more of that later. The main reason I mention this particular controversy now is to demonstrate that because this passage of inspired and ever relevant Scripture had been taken out of "active service" as a profitable teaching and reduced to describing historical but now irrelevant culture, it couldn't be used to deal with this particular attack on the churches of God, even though it could have perfectly countered it. Our traditional understanding made the passage ineffective then, and will do so again every time similar errors rise up in the church. As Jesus warned the religious leaders of His day that they were…
"… invalidating (i.e. revoking the authority of ) the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:13)
Those leaders were no less intelligent than we are today. We just as surely need to be warned that the very sword of the Spirit, the word of God, loses its authority and effectiveness in our lives if we insist on maintaining our own traditions or traditional understandings. “Vive La Difference!”
Page 11
In the late 1990’s this passage correctly understood was of particular relevance to the innumerable discussions on women’s roles in marriage, society and the churches of God. Sadly, its revelation was completely ignored as teachers continued to insist on their misunderstandings and relegated it to the sidelines.
Many of us who are married have benefited greatly from learning about natural differences between the sexes. At the moment in the popular secular press, there are many books describing these, one best-seller stating that “men and women differ in all areas of their lives. Not only do men and women communicate differently but they think, feel, perceive, react, respond, love, need, and appreciate differently. They almost seem to be from different planets, speaking different languages and needing different nourishment (“Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus”, John Gray, Ph.D.). Another by linguistics expert Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., (“That’s Not What I Meant!”) argues that men and women learn “different ways of having and using conversations”, so that they come from different “cultures”. Accordingly, “male-female conversation is cross-cultural communication”.
Thus many non-Christians readily observe both the natural differences and the benefits of recognising and working according to them. We as Christians have the advantage of supernatural revelation from the Scriptures to help us see the spiritual differences between male and female and thus differing strengths or roles in marriage, society and the churches. Our text 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is therefore essential reading. ...
Page 49
“Because of the angels”. With this enigmatic phrase, Paul suddenly concludes that the woman needs a “covering” or protection. He has not referred to angels earlier in this teaching, he does not refer to them later, and yet he seems to consider that he has now explained enough to his original hearers, that it has become self-evident to them, so he finishes. What then are we missing in the twenty first century that his original hearers were not? A fuller understanding of angels. Once we regain this, we can finally grasp the full import of the whole 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
“Angels Unawares”
Today’s Concise Oxford dictionary defines an angel as a “lovely or innocent being; obliging or loving person”. A well-behaved child is described as “a little angel“, a beautiful and innocent child as a “cherub”, which is a kind of angel. In popular art, a cherub is usually represented as a beautiful winged child with big eyes, rosy cheeks and trailing ribbons. The wings show this child to be a spirit being rather than a human being and the cherub is unfailingly good.
Most Christians today are aware that in the Scriptures, angels and cherubim are not children nor portrayed as children but are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:13-14), “greater in might and power” than us (2 Peter 2:11), often fierce warriors (Revelation 12:7) and sometimes mistaken for adult human beings:
“Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels with knowing it (KJV unawares)” (Heb 13:2)
Both Abraham and Lot are famous for having invited angels into their homes while believing them to be human beings (Genesis 18:1-3, 19:1-2).
Not many Christians today are aware the Scriptures actually use the word angel to describe two distinct kinds of beings who can be good or evil. In both Hebrew (malak) and Greek (angelos), the word is literally “messenger” and is used to describe both human messengers and spirit messengers. The messengers in turn can be good or evil. In Biblical use, the word “angel” does NOT mean a “lovely or innocent being; obliging or loving person”; it contains no implicit or inherent goodness. The translators, because it is not explicit whether the “messenger” is human or spirit, good or evil, have to rely on the context to tell us which is meant.
Page 50
For example, John the Baptist’s “messengers” to Jesus are “angelos” in Luke 7:24 and “men” in verse 20. They were therefore obviously human, as were the “angelos” that Joshua sent to spy out Jericho (James 2:25 cf. Josh 2:1). In contrast, in Matthew 28:2 the “messenger” must have been a spirit being since he had “descended from heaven” and “his appearance was like lightning”.
To know if the “messengers” are good or evil, we also need to examine the context. Paul plainly warns:
“…even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8)
Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of Mormonism, claimed to have received his revelations from “angels from heaven”. It is possible Biblically. However, he was so overwhelmed by their appearance and origin that he didn’t test their message against Paul’s gospel, hence his “contrary” one. Many other movements and beliefs have been founded in the same way.
The lack of inherent goodness even in those messengers that are clearly “from heaven” is seen in the fact that almost all mentions of angels are carefully qualified, as in “the Son with all His angels” (Matt 16:27) or “the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41). See also “the holy angels” (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26), “a holy angel” (Acts 10:22), “His chosen angels” (1 Tim 5:21), “the angels of God” (Luke 12:8, 9, 15:10; John 1:51, Heb 1:6) and “the dragon and his angels” (Rev 12:7) ...
What "Covering Her Head" Does Not Mean
Page 75.
I have met many women who have come out of cults or heavy-handed Christian groups which have taught submission as if it means blind obedience. Having a particular interest in cults, I have often examined their doctrines and have seen that this is usually what keeps their followers in captivity. Some were taught that, using this very passage, that a woman “covering herself” means to simply obey whatever a man or leader says, even when she knows it is wrong. God, they say, is more interested in her submission than her discernment, and usually the submission is to them! The women have testified to the damage to their own spirituality and how they lost much of their ability to hear God for themselves, some needing years to regain the lost ground…
Ironically, the verse quoted against these women, when properly understood, becomes their best protection; “covering her head” not only insists on her right to autonomy but the need to defend it! ...
“Head" - Leader Or Source?
Page 97
Some have taught that since Paul was writing in Greek to the Corinthians who were Greek, he intended the Greek metaphor of head as “source”, as in “headwaters of a river”. This sounds reasonable but strikes some insurmountable problems, both with the premise of this argument and the application.
(i) The premise - Jewish or Greek?
Consider firstly Paul himself. We know he was a scholar of such renown that even a Roman governor could comment on his “great learning” (Acts 26:24), but his learning was Jewish; he had sat at the feet of Gamaliel and had been murderously zealous for the traditions of “the fathers”. His own education and thinking was first and foremost Jewish.
Secondly, after his conversion to Christianity, how did Paul actually communicate his teachings to Gentiles? While in his evangelism, he was plainly able to quote from relevant Gentile culture (e.g. Acts 17:23-28, Titus 1:12), his evidence for all of the New Covenant doctrines he taught were primarily from the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, as were most of his examples and illustrations. In the preceding context of our passage, in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul bases his rights as an apostle on the Law of Moses regarding oxen, the Jewish priesthood and the Levites. In 1 Corinthians 10, his entire exhortation for these Greeks to flee idolatry and immorality is again based on Jewish history - the Exodus and wanderings in the wilderness. In verse 18 he specifically exhorts these Greeks to “look at the nation Israel” to learn from the principles of their altar, sacrifices and worship. Immediately following our passage, in the latter part of 1 Corinthians 11, he speaks of the covenant meal from an obviously Jewish historical context.
There is then a compelling case for establishing the Jewish rather than the Greek concept of “head”. Gentile scholarship’s frequent insistence that other concepts in the New Testament, such as the Logos or the Word in John 1:1, are built on Greek thought, has gone down hard with Messianic Jewish scholars. They have countered that the concept of the Word had already been in common use amongst the Jews for almost a thousand years before the Greeks, so why should we consider Greek thought the basis? To my mind, it is only where the Greek thought complements Hebrew thought, as it is revealed in Scripture, that its use in exegesis becomes valid.
Lastly, consider how Paul wrote to the Greek and Latin-speaking Romans when he insisted the gospel was “to the Jew first, and then to the Greek (or Gentile)” (Rom 1:16, 2:9-10). He pointed out that the Jews had the huge advantage of being “entrusted with the oracles of God (the Old Testament)” (Rom 3:1). Whose thought then, Jewish or Greek, would Paul seek to unfold? Would he really have sought to negate or ignore the “advantage” of the oracles of God? Again, if all Gentile branches are grafted onto “the rich root of the (Jewish) olive tree” (Rom 11:17), wouldn’t Paul have believed the Gentiles need to learn from the Jewish experiences of God, the only written source material of which was the Jewish Old Testament? ...