A letter responding to argument number seven, 1 Corinthians 11, 14 and 15, July 9, 2011. The seventh argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15. We come now to your seventh argument to support the perpetual use of head coverings on the part of women in the public worship of God. 7. In verses 14 and 15, Paul argues that nature, which teaches men to have short hair and women long hair, demonstrates that there should be a difference in public worship. We have previously observed from our study of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 that Paul has now, up to this point, laid three distinct pieces of the foundation to his argument in addressing the particular abuse reported to him within the Corinthian church. 1. The first piece of the foundation of Paul's argument is the argument for moral-slash-theological principles of headship and submission found in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, quote, The head of the woman is the man, unquote. These moral-slash-theological principles of headship and submission are then applied by Paul to the confusion and schism within the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 4 through 6. Number two, the second piece of the foundation of Paul's argument, is the argument from creation ordinances. In 1 Corinthians 11 verse 7, quote, he, i.e. man, is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man, unquote. Again, the verse without the interjection, quote, he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man, unquote. These creation ordinances are further demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9, and then are applied to the confusion and schism within the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, for a man indeed ought not to cover his head, and in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head. The third piece of the foundational Paul's argument is an argument from propriety and decorum. In 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, quote, Judge in yourselves, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Unquote. Which question Paul then answers, after a brief parenthesis in verses 14 and 15, in verse 16, quote, We have no such custom. Unquote. This now brings us to the fourth piece of the Foundation of Paul's argument against the scandal of role reversal on the part of Christian women in Corinth who were removing the cultural sign of feminine submission, the covered head, when they appeared in the public assembly of Christians in Corinth in order to worship God. an argument from nature as found in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15. ìDoth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering.î First, though Paul now proceeds to another argument in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15, it should be noted that this argument from nature is yet a confirmation in Paul's inspired writing of what is not suitable and fitting in Corinth when it comes to a woman praying with an uncovered head in the public worship of God, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13. In other words, the argument from nature in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15, is intimately tied to the argument from propriety and decorum in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13. This close connection between 1 Corinthians 11, 13, and 1 Corinthians 11, 14, and 15 is also grammatically indicated by the Greek conjunction in the Greek received text that introduces the question asked by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14, quote, or doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him, unquote. Although the translators of the authorized version have not translated this Greek conjunction into English, it is nevertheless the first Greek word found in the Greek text, the received text, and ought to be translated as quote or unquote. The conjunction, quote, or, unquote, clearly demonstrates the connection that exists between the argument from propriety and decorum in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, and the argument from nature in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15. Thus, here is another argument in 1 Corinthians 11, 14, and 15, that of nature, but one that is connected to the previous argument in 1 Corinthians 11, 13, that of propriety and decorum. Second, before considering the meaning of the word nature in the present context in which Paul uses it, it should be observed that the form of the question asked in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 14 expects an affirmative answer of yes. To paraphrase, even nature itself does teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him, doesn't it? Yes, it does. or when a question is asked in the Greek language using a form of the negative, OO, which means no or not. The form of OO used here in the question in 1 Corinthians 11, 14 is the Greek word OOde. The rhetorical question expects the response of yes. See a manual of the Greek New Testament by H.E. Dana and Julius R. Manti, the Macmillan Company, pages 264 and 265. Thus, whatever the word nature means here in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14, it should be understood at the outset that Paul expects the Christians in Corinth to agree with him that nature itself does indeed teach that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. That is clearly Paul's design in framing the question in the way that he does. Third, we must now turn our attention to Paul's use of the word nature in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14. I think it would be most helpful to answer the following two questions in regard to the word nature. 1. What is nature? 2. What does nature teach? What is nature? Any degree of research among commentators, both past and present, will reveal a number of varied proposals as to the meaning of nature intended by the Holy Spirit here in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14. Among the proposals presented for the meaning of nature are the following, this being a representative list rather than an exhaustive list. 1. Nature as that which is observable in God's created order. 2. Nature as that which is a natural customary sign or practice within a society. 3. Nature as that which comes by natural endowment. 4. Nature as the light of nature within man. The fact that nature is appealed to as a teacher from which the Corinthians can learn about the proper length of hair among men and women would seem to rule out the first option. Nature is that which is observable in God's created order. We are not told in the Genesis account how long Adam's hair was at the time that he was created. As we have already seen from Paul's second argument in 1 Corinthians 11, 7-12, which is an argument from creation ordinances, it may be argued that nature, as that which is revealed in the order of creation, teaches that woman was created from man and that woman was created for man, and therefore nature, as God's created order, does declare the headship of man and the submission of woman. However, it cannot be argued from nature, as far as what is revealed in the creation of man and woman from the Genesis account, anything specifically about the length of man's hair. Was Adam's hair shorn closely above his ears? Was Adam's head shaven of all hair? Was Adam's hair over his ears? Was Adam's hair down to his shoulders or longer? We do not know, and cannot speak with any certainty about the specific length of Adam's hair at the time of his creation. I would submit that God's created order does not actually teach the specific length of a man's hair, or the specific length of a woman's hair, so as to constitute what are the clear parameters of short hair for a man, so that to go beyond that length is to sin against nature, as revealed in God's created order, and the clear parameters of long hair for a woman, so that to cut it shorter than that specific length is to sin against nature, as revealed in God's created order. Nature as that which is observable in God's created order does not tell us at what specific length a man's hair or a woman's hair becomes a shame to him or her. The second option, nature as that which is a natural, customary sign or practice within a society, would not seem to be a use of the word nature, phusis in Greek, that can be found anywhere in scripture. although Calvin and others believe this to be the best proposal for the meaning of the word nature in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14. That would not automatically discount the possibility of such a cultural use of the word nature. In fact, the immediately preceding verse, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, addresses that which is culturally fitting and suitable. And it should be noted that the use of the word nature, fusis, to refer to a natural, customary sign or practice within a society is found in extra-biblical literature, even though it is not found in Scripture itself and is not used by Paul himself elsewhere in his inspired writings. Moreover, I would like to add also that I do not deny that when specifically discussing the relative length of hair between men and women appropriate for each gender, cultural considerations will no doubt be instructive and helpful. For example, the longer hairstyles that were acceptable and proper among men in the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe and America were considerably different than the shorter hairstyles that were acceptable and proper among men in the 20th century and at least through the 1950s. I allow that such differences in the length of men's hairstyles, as well as of women's hairstyles, are a matter of cultural distinction to a very large extent, even though I do believe that nature itself condemns a unisex hairstyle among men and women so that there is no difference in the way a man and woman look. I will have more to say about this later in my discussion. Thus, although this view of nature as that which is a natural customary sign or practice within a society is certainly plausible within the context of 1 Corinthians 11, the fact that neither Paul nor any other writer in the New Testament ever uses it in this sense even though the word is used some 13 times in the New Testament, renders it less likely, especially if there is another sense of the word nature that works well within the context and is used by Paul or other New Testament writers. The third option, nature is that which comes by natural endowment, likewise does not appear to be the right choice as to the meaning of nature in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 14. for the relatively shorter length of a man's hair to that of the woman's in any society is not due so much to natural endowment, but rather to that which is really contrary to natural endowment, the barber's scissors that trim the man's hair so that it does not grow as long as the woman's hair. If Paul intended natural endowment to be the meaning of nature in 1 Corinthians 11.14, than the beard of a man, which naturally grows on a man's face, in distinction from the smooth face of a woman, who cannot ordinarily grow a beard, would have been a more appropriate distinction between men and women as to natural endowment. The fourth option, nature as the light of nature within man, is, in my judgment, the best proposal in understanding Paul's use of the word nature in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14. First, Paul uses the word nature in a similar sense in Romans chapter 2, verses 14 and 15. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts." Just as the light of nature instructed Gentiles who were without the written law of God in matters of general moral principles, according to Paul in Romans 2, verses 14 and 15, so as to leave them without excuse, so likewise the light of nature taught the Corinthians in matters of general moral principles related to distinctions between men and women. It is true But the light of nature within man has indeed been greatly diminished with regard to the degree of the light that is perceived in man due to the intellectual effects of Adam's sin and all of his posterity by ordinary generation. Sinners since the fall of Adam suppress the knowledge in light of God's natural revelation that is impressed upon their reason and conscience. See Romans chapter 1 verses 19 through 22. However, I submit that Paul still appeals to the light of nature as being a faithful teacher in regard to general moral principles of a perpetual nature that relate to proper distinctions to be maintained between men and women in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14. Second, the Westminster divines viewed the light of nature as the proper meaning of nature in 1 Corinthians 11.14, for they cite among their proof texts 1 Corinthians 11.14 as scriptural proof of the use of the light of nature in ordering, quote, some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church, unquote, that are common to human actions and societies. See Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Paragraph 6. This is a significant corroborative testimony to the meaning of nature in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14. For this testimony is not only the testimony of one man, and not only the testimony of the Westminster Assembly, but is, in effect, the testimony of the three Reformed kingdoms of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and their churches. Thus I submit that the meaning of nature that best explains the Spirit's intention in using the term nature is that of the light of nature. Question number two, what does nature teach? Does the light of nature as to the general moral principles within man specifically teach what constitutes long hair on a man, whether hair over the ears, down the neck, or to the shoulders? No, not a specific length, for the light of nature does not teach such specifics, but rather teaches general moral principles that are applicable to all nations and all cultures. It should be noted that the Egyptian men shaved their heads and wore no beards, while the Assyrian, Babylonian, and early Greek men wore long hair to the shoulders, if not longer, and beards as well. Later Greek and Roman men, certainly by the time that Paul penned 1 Corinthians, had turned from long hair to short hair as the new fashion in hairstyle. See Unger's Bible Dictionary, Merrill F. Unger, Moody Press, pages 440 and 441. In fact, I would submit that one cannot even appeal to scripture as giving a moral commandment of what specifically constitutes long hair on a man, whether hair that covers the ears, hair that covers the neck, hair that extends to the shoulders, etc. Consider the longer hair of the Nazirite, especially those who were permanent Nazirites all their lives and were not permitted to ever cut their hair. Like Samson, see Judges chapter 13, verses 5 and 7, and Samuel. See 1 Samuel 1.11 and John the Baptist. See Luke 1.15. The longer hair of the Nazarite was in fact a sign of his consecration to the Lord according to Numbers 6.5-8. Moreover, it would appear that Absalom was noted and praised in all Israel for his masculine beauty and his longer hair which he trimmed only once a year according to 2 Samuel 14.25-26. The bride describes the hair of her beloved husband in this way, quote, his locks are bushy, unquote, or as the marginal note in the authorized version states, curled. See Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 11. The Hebrew word translated lox in Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 11, as in the seven lox of Samson's head in Judges, chapter 16, verse 19, would certainly seem not to be the short hairstyle of men in the 1950s. Josephus describes Solomon's bodyguard as consisting of men of youthful beauty and having, quote, luxuriant heads of hair, unquote. See Antiquities, book 8, chapter 7, paragraph 3. In fact, God strictly forbade the cutting of the hair of men around the corners or sides of the head due to its conformity to idolatrous nations. In Leviticus 19, verse 27, Jeremiah 9, verse 26, see the marginal note in the authorized version, and Jeremiah 25, verse 23, see the marginal note in the authorized version, Jeremiah 49, verse 32. See the marginal note in the authorized version. Thus I believe we must forego any such moral specifications as to what precisely constitutes long hair on a man, whether a shaved head, a shorn hairstyle, hair over the ears, hair down the neck, hair to the shoulders, etc., in seeking to understand what nature teaches, for I cannot find in the light of nature or in the light of scripture any such moral precision as to the specific lengths of a man's hair and at what length a man's hair specifically becomes a sin. Does that then make Paul's words meaningless? Absolutely not. In light of the fact that God in His word did not universally condemn what many in our present age may consider to be long or longer hair on a man, how are we to understand Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 14? Does Paul actually mean that the light of nature itself precisely states and declares as an explicit moral commandment that which many at this present time would consider long hair on a man? e.g., shoulder-length hair, and that which is a shame to him? If so, we would then also expect that the Light of Nature would tell us what precisely constitutes long hair on a man, so that he does not sin by bringing shame upon himself. But the Light of Nature does not provide that kind of precise information, nor does the Light of Scripture do so, as I have also noted above. What then does Paul mean when he states, quote, doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him, unquote? In the very next verse, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 15, Paul uses the same Greek word for long hair, koma, but uses it in reference to a woman's long hair. In other words, I would submit that Paul appeals to nature, i.e., the light of nature implanted by God within each person, as teaching that a man's hairstyle and a woman's hairstyle ought to be distinguishable one from the other. A man's hair as to length should not be longer than the general custom of a woman's hair in that society. If a man's hairstyle or length looks like that of a woman's, or, for that matter, if a woman's hairstyle or length looks like that of a man's, so that there is a unisex hairstyle and appearance and length, then one has violated what nature, i.e., the light of nature within each person, universally teaches by way of the distinction that ought to exist in the roles and appearances of men and women. This distinction between men and women is also taught in a passage like the following, quote, The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." In other words, just as cross-dressing is an abomination in confusing rather than distinguishing a man and a woman, so cross-hairstyling is a shame to a man and to a woman in confusing rather than distinguishing a man and a woman. Thus nature, i.e. the light of nature, provides the Corinthians with general moral principles, not with specific moral commandments as to precise definitions of hair length. And the general moral principle that is revealed by the light of nature about men and women is that men and women are to be distinguishable in their respective roles of male headship and female submission, and in their respective appearances in appearance. However, it is the respective cultures that will speak more specifically to the precise length of hair that is appropriate to men and women, respectively. Fourth, it should once again be noted that Paul's argument from nature does not merely apply to worship. In other words, hairstyles of men and women and the respective lengths of their hair are not limited to when men and women only gather for the public worship of God. Nature speaks to all men and women in society, Christian and non-Christian alike, whether they are gathered for worship or whether they are purchasing produce at the local market. Thus one cannot build an argument from nature for the use of head coverings and apply it to the public worship of God alone, which is the domain of the regulative principle of worship, for nature transcends ecclesiastical society and worship to include civil society and assemblies as well. Those who would limit Paul's argument to only the ecclesiastical assembly would have to conclude that nature, i.e. the light of nature, is only operative in Christians, as opposed to non-Christians, and only operative in Christians when they gather for public worship, as opposed to when they are walking from one shop to another. I would submit that just as Paul takes moral slash theological principles in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 3 and applies them to a cultural issue in the church of Corinth, i.e. the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women, and just as he takes creation ordinances in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 7 and applies them to a cultural issue in the church of Corinth, i.e. the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women, So he takes nature, i.e. the light of nature, and applies it to a cultural issue in the Church of Corinth, i.e. the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women. Fifth, Paul now gives a contrast in regard to, quote, long hair, unquote, distinguishing long hair on a woman from long hair on a man. Long hair on a woman is not a shame as it is for a man, but it is rather a, quote, glory, unquote, to her. i.e., it is a feminine adornment of beauty unique to her, just as the priestly garments were uniquely a glory and beauty to them, according to Exodus, chapter 28, verse 40. Paul then concludes this fourth piece of the foundation of his argument from nature against the public scandal of role reversal on the part of Christian women in Corinth who were removing the cultural sign of feminine submission, the covered head, when they appeared in the public assembly of Christians in Corinth. Paul concludes this argument from nature, i.e., the light of nature, by giving a reason for the feminine glory and beauty of long hair. For her hair is given her for a covering. As already noted above, Paul uses the same Greek word here in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 15, when speaking of a woman's hair, koma, as was used previously when speaking of a man's hair in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14. In both cases, the reference is not merely to hair, but to, quote, long hair, unquote. Paul, in effect, concludes, to paraphrase, a woman is given her long hair for the following reason, because nature, i.e. the light of nature, teaches her that her long hair is given to her for, or as, a natural veil, indicating her feminine submission to male headship. Let us be clear here. The light of nature speaks to the subject of the respective and distinctive roles and hairstyles appropriate to men and women, whereas the Corinthian culture speaks to the subject of fabric head coverings. Paul draws out a parallel between the light of nature in regard to hair and the Corinthian culture as to fabric head coverings. In Corinth, unlike many contemporary nations and cultures where women are not covered in Such a parallel might be used by Paul between the long hair of a woman as a natural veil of submission consistent with the light of nature, and between the fabric head-covering of a woman as a cultural sign of submission. In Corinth, where a woman wore a fabric head-covering in civil society and ecclesiastical society, Paul could reason very convincingly. that just as Corinthian culture gave a woman a fabric head covering, so nature, i.e. the light of nature, has given her a natural head covering. And even though modern Western culture has not given a woman a fabric head covering to wear in civil society and ecclesiastical society, nature, i.e. the light of nature, has still given to a woman, particularly to a Christian woman, a natural head covering in her hair that should indicate her submission to men. The style of her hair and the length of her hair should not confuse her with a man. Let the natural glory and beauty of the long hair of a Christian woman, at least longer than that of men in general within any given culture or society, testify that she is taught by nature, i.e., the light of nature, to find her God-given role in submitting to male headship. Sixth, I agree with you when you state that Paul's argument from nature, quotes, demonstrates that there should be a difference in public worship, unquote. Yes, because nature, i.e. the light of nature, teaches that men and women are to be distinguished one from the other in their respective roles of male headship and female submission and in their respective appearances relating to hairstyles. These gender distinctions taught by the light of nature ought also to be manifested in whatever cultural customs that distinguish men from women in civil society, like the uncovered head of a man and the covered head of a woman, or gender-segregated seating, etc. And these cultural customs in civil society, like the uncovered head of a man and the covered head of a woman or gender-segregated seating, etc., that mirror the light of nature in regard to the respective and distinct roles and appearances of men and women, ought as well to be carried over into ecclesiastical society when the church gathers to worship the Lord. In the cultural context of Corinth, the uncovered head of a man and the covered head of a woman in civil society did, in fact, reflect the light of nature, just as gender-segregated seating did at that time as well. Therefore, Paul argues that the Corinthians ought to learn from nature itself, which teaches respective and distinctive roles and appearances of men and women, that it is not fitting or suitable for a woman to pray unto God in public worship with her head uncovered. not because the uncovered head of a man and the covered head of a woman were specifically taught by the light of nature, but because the cultural custom in Corinth of the uncovered head of a man and the cultural custom in Corinth of the uncovered head of a woman reflected the general moral principle taught in the light of nature, namely, that there are respective and distinctive roles and appearances appropriate for men versus women. I will pause here for any comments or questions you might have on this, my response to your seventh argument for the perpetual use of head covering for women in the public worship of God. As always, thank you for this opportunity. Yours for the cause of Christ, Greg L. Price. Still Waters Revival Books is now located at PuritanDownloads.com. It's your worldwide online Reformation home for the very best in free and discounted classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books, mp3s, and videos. For much more information on the Puritans and Reformers, including the best free and discounted classic and contemporary books, mp3s, digital downloads and videos, please visit Still Waters Revival Books at PuritanDownloads.com. Stillwater's Revival Books also publishes The Puritan Hard Drive, the most powerful and practical Christian study tool ever produced. All thanks and glory be to the mercy, grace, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ for this remarkable and wonderful new Christian study tool. The Puritan hard drive contains over 12,500 of the best Reformation books, MP3s, and videos ever gathered onto one portable Christian study tool. An extraordinary collection of Puritan, Protestant, Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Covenanter, and Reformed Baptist resources, it's fully upgradable and it's small enough to fit in your pocket. The Puritan hard drive combines an embedded database containing many millions of records with the most amazing and extraordinary custom Christian search and research software ever created. The Puritan Hard Drive has been produced to assist you in the fascinating and exhilarating spiritual, intellectual, familial, ecclesiastical, and societal adventure that is living the Christian life. It has been specifically designed so that you might more faithfully know, serve, and love the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as to help you to do all you can to bring glory to His great name. If you want to love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, then the Puritan Hard Drive is for you. Visit PuritanDownloads.com today for much more information on the Puritan Hard Drive and to take advantage of all the free and discounted Reformation and Puritan books, mp3s, and videos that we offer at Still Waters Revival Books.