Question
1.) Are we insulting God by changing our appearance by using makeup, hair removal products (i.e. plucking eyebrows), or hair dye? Are we insulting His creation? Is His creation ‘perfect’? Is vanity (even a little bit) a condemning sin? Are we being prideful when we use cosmetics, even with modesty? Is makeup a thing of the world? (I think I understand that wearing modest jewelry is OK b/c of Ezekiel 16:8-14) – My supporting verses backing up this opinion on the topic are: Isaiah 45:9, Ezekiel 23: 40-48, Romans 9:20.
2.) The early Christian women wore veils. Are we still supposed to wear veils? I feel very convicted with this topic. I was taught that a woman’s hair is her veil, but why in verse 6 of 1 Corinthians 11 does it say that: “For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” In verse 4 it says that “Every man prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” If “cover” means hair, it sounds like men should shave their heads whenever they pray or prophesy, but that doesn’t sound right…I won’t lie, I really don’t want to wear a head covering, but if I have to, I will. I don’t know if this was a cultural practice and is not applicable nowadays. I’m very confused and kind of scared about this topic. I thought that the church was supposed to be in unity on every topic, but I see some women who cover their head and some who don’t. I wish the topic would be addressed. It seems like a very touchy subject. Are my prayers being hindered because my head is not covered? I just don’t understand…some people say that since this topic is only found in 1 Corinthians, it was only for the church in Corinth. I know that I alone can’t make everybody in the church be in unity over this issue, but I want to know what the right thing to do is.
Answer
Keith Sharp
I appreciate so very much your determination to do what the Lord demands even if it means dressing in a way that you find unpleasant. I also appreciate the study you have already made of the subject.
If altering our appearance at all is sinful, we shouldn’t wear clothing, But from the garden of Eden on, it has been shameful not to be properly clothed (Genesis 3:7-11,21; 1 Timothy 2:9-10).
Look at 1 Peter 3:3-4 from two translations, both of which are literal:
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price (King James Version)
Do not let your adorning be external–the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear–but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious (English Standard Version).
If Peter condemns wearing jewelry, he also condemns wearing clothing! He is simply denying the lesser to emphasize the greater, even as the Lord did in John 6:27. It is not sinful to wear jewelry and clothing and to have a pretty hairdo. It is wrong to place the emphasis on these things. Your adornment – that which makes you beautiful to others – should be your meek and quiet spirit. Put the emphasis on the inside rather than the outside, on character rather than appearance.
When our daughter was a teenager, she wasn’t wearing any makeup. She also had long hair. My wife directed her to wear a modest amount of makeup, so people wouldn’t think she was Pentecostal. We should strive to fit in with the innocent customs of the people where we live so we can influence them to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). That’s not vanity.
The Lord God’s initial creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). There’s been a lot of downhill change since then, beginning with the first sin (Genesis 3). I’m sure your appearance is a lot closer to perfection than mine, but no amount of outward change will make me physically attractive.
Yes, the woman’s hair was “given to her for a covering” (1 Corinthians 11:15). But First Corinthians 11:6 distinguishes between hair as a covering and an artificial head covering – a veil. “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” (English Standard Version).
In First Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul is discussing the customary application of a universal principle. The universal principle is feminine subjection to male leadership in the home and in the church (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:23; 1 Timothy 2:11-12). But the application to head covering is a customary application of this principle.
The word “custom,” found in First Corinthians 11:16, denotes a customary or cultural practice. Pilate inquired of the Jews, “But you have a custom that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Do you therefore want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” (John 18:39) This was a customary practice allowed but not required by law. Thus, the wearing of a head covering, as Paul discusses in First Corinthians eleven two through sixteen, is a matter of cultural practice not required by divine law.
Woman’s subjection to man has been true from the beginning of time and is universally bound (Genesis 3:16). If the woman’s head covering as a symbol of subjection to man is equal in extent to that submission, then the veil also has been universally required throughout time. But in the day of the patriarch Judah, the veil was a symbol of prostitution (Genesis 38:13-15). In the time of the prophet Ezekiel the head covering signified false prophecy and magic (Ezekiel 13:17-18, 21). God’s law has taught women to be in submission to their own husbands everywhere and in every age, but the Lord never required women to be veiled in either the patriarchal system or the Mosaic. Thus, the artificial head covering, as a symbol of feminine subjection, is not coextensive with that subjection.
Is it universally shameful for a woman to have her head shaved or shorn? Conversely, is it always dishonorable for a man to have long hair? Numbers 6:1-21 records the Jewish law of the Nazirite vow. Verse two states that a man or woman could take the vow. Verse five requires that the Nazirite let his hair grow uncut all the time he is under the vow. Verse eighteen demands the Nazirite was to shave his head at the end of the vow. Thus, in Israel, all, both men and women, could let their hair grow long and could shave their heads. According to verse eight, rather than being shameful or dishonorable, the Nazirite was holy to the Lord.
According to Judges 13:5, 7, the Lord commanded that Samson be a Nazirite his entire life. We know from Judges 16:16-19 that his uncut hair as the sign of a Nazirite was the secret to his great strength.
And, of course, Absalom’s remarkably long, luxuriant hair was a special mark of his signal, masculine good looks (2 Samuel 15:25-26). Among Jews, it was neither shameful nor dishonorable for men to have long hair and for women to have their heads shaved.
Nor did a Jewish male dishonor the Lord if he worshiped with an artificial covering on his head. According to Exodus 28:3-4; 29:5-9; Leviticus 8:6-9,13; and 16:3-4, the priests had to wear a mitre (turban, New King James Version) on their heads to come into the Holy Place to minister before the Lord.
But what about First Corinthians 11:14? Paul enquired, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” The primary meaning of “nature” is “the native sense of propriety….” But its secondary meaning is “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature.” We might say “second nature.” The word is used in this secondary sense in Romans 2:14 and Ephesians 2:3. The facts that Jewish men wore long hair with divine approval and wore an artificial head covering in worship by the Lord’s command and that Israelite women could shave their heads with the sanction of God proves that “nature” is used in First Corinthians 11:14, not of “the native sense of propriety” but of “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature.” The apostle was appealing to a long established custom in Corinth by which women signified their submission. Thus, his argument would not apply in a society where it is not customary to distinguish between the sexes by hair length.
Thus, in verse sixteen, Paul simply states he is dealing with a custom. “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Apollos, who took the gospel to Corinth (Acts 18:1-8; 19:1), were all Jews. Paul often spoke of Jews as “we” and Gentiles as “you” (for example, Galatians 3:23-26; Ephesians 2:1-3). Corinth was a Greek (Gentile) city (Acts 18:4-6). It might have seemed contentious for Paul and his fellow workers to teach women at Corinth to wear an artificial head covering and long hair and to teach men at Corinth not to cover their heads when praying or prophesying and to wear short hair, whereas the Jewish disciples did not follow these practices. The solution was simple. The Gentile Corinthians had these customs, but the Jews did not. Furthermore, this was not a universal custom among the churches. So, even in the first century, the woman’s head covering was a matter of custom rather than divine law, and that custom was not universal but was a Greek (and probably Roman) custom.
In First Corinthians 11:2-16, the apostle applies the principle of the universal headship of man over the woman to customary ways in Corinthian (pagan) society to differentiate between men and women. The spiritual principle is that men and women should recognize and practice the innocent customs of the society in which they live by which men and women are distinguished.
The congregation should be united in faith (Ephesians 4:5,13). In matters of opinion or liberty we can differ and still have unity (Study Romans 14:1 – 15:3; 1 Corinthians chapter 8; 1 Corinthians 10:23-33).
