Head Coverings? - synopsis of several inquiries:

I am having trouble understanding what the Bible says in 1st Corinthians 11 on the women's head covering. I don't think it applies in our day and time and I don't see the reason for it. If none of the other churches around this area do it, why would you teach that it still applies today? And if a woman were to cover her head in church, what kind of a covering are we talking about?

Reply:

Thank you for your question. First, let's take a look at the verses being referred to:

1st Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

: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.

:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I would submit to you that Paul’s reason for this particular discourse is found primarily in verses 3 and 7: the importance of the headship of Christ, and that within the assembly of the congregation, only the glory of God is to be revealed, while the glory of man is to be concealed. That is the focus of this passage. That is what makes this passage relevant and comprehensible. That is also what makes it appropriate for all believers in all ages.

The passage starts out with an exhortation to follow the teachings of the church, and to keep sound doctrine, and then sets forth, in verse 3, a basic understanding of headship, what it means to exercise authority, and to accept authority. Just as Christ accepted the headship of the Father, man is to accept the headship of Christ, and woman the headship of the man, and all of this is by the will of God.

In the world today, the headship of Christ is almost universally disregarded, attendance at church is used by many as an opportunity to show off, to see and be seen. Unfortunately, the headship of Christ over His church will not be fully accepted and acknowledged until the Lord Jesus reigns from the throne of David at some future time. However, within the church, God has provided a way for the headship of Christ to be publicly displayed, as a testimony to the world and to angels. That is what this passage is all about, publicly displaying the headship of Christ, manifesting the glory of Christ, and covering the glory of man. This passage has been interpreted by some as focusing on the headship of the man over the woman, or what length of hair men and women ought to have, or more frequently, as a cultural thing pertinent only to that era. That misses the point of the passage, and trivializes the passage. The focus of this passage is the headship of Christ (especially as seen within the church) and the glory of Christ.

Verse 4, for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, dishonors his Head (which is Christ) by covering it, as pointed out in verse 3. He also dishonors his own head, he dishonors himself, because a man in church who denies or rejects the headship of Christ over himself and the church is either ignorant, (being untaught) or very rebellious, not a proper attitude for a Christian to have. If Christ is our Head, then we men do not cover our head, we manifest our head, we keep our head uncovered. And the obvious implication here is that it is a covering which may be put on and taken off, not the hair, likewise for verses 5 & 6.

Verse 5 gives us the conditions under which this instruction to the women becomes applicable: praying or prophesying. If the woman is going to have nothing to say, then whether she is covered or not is moot. When my wife and I visit another church, and there is no liklihood of her saying anything, she does not cover her head, why should she? She is not expecting to say anything. But if the woman has an expectation of verbally participating in the service - as in praying or prophesying - then she should be covered, that is part of the context of the passage.

Verse 5 also tells us that if a woman will not demonstrate headship, but acts like a man, having no head covering, then she dishonors herself, both her own bodily head, and also headship within the church. Instead of looking and acting like a woman, she is looking and acting like a man. How so? Because a shaven woman, or a woman with very short hair usually looks like a man.

Some have construed this passage to mean that her hair is her covering. Verses 5 & 6 make it obvious that the apostle is speaking of something that can be put on or taken off, something other than, or in addition to, her hair. For instance, if her hair really were her covering within the context of the apostle's arguments, then "having hair" and "covering" would become synonymous. So substitute the phrase "having hair" for "covering" and read the verse again. "For if a woman be not having hair, let her also be shorn. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be having hair." Doesn't make much sense does it? But if "having hair" and "covering" are synonymous, that is what it says. Ridiculous, right? So by any normal consensus of understanding words or speech, her hair could not be the covering referred to in this section. It must be an external covering of her hair and head which may be optionally worn or removed.

Verse 6 tells us that if a woman will not veil her glory, but seeks to deny headship, then let her make her intentions plain, go ahead and look like a man, cut off her hair. Make herself and her attitudes of rejecting headship obvious. But if it is shameful for a woman to look like a man, if she is unwilling to look like a man by having short hair or no hair, if she is unwilling to be openly rebellious, then let her cover her hair as she ought. Let her be consistent.

Verse 7 ties in with verse 3 - since the man is the image and glory of God, and Christ is his Head, then he ought not to cover his head. That is not a complicated concept. Men should not cover, or hide, or prevent the image and glory of God from being displayed. Man has the duty and privilege to set forth the Headship of Christ as Paul teaches it here.

The second half of the verse continues the argument for the woman to cover her head, because she is the glory of the man. This is important: even the unsaved world recognizes this, with it's concept of "trophy wives." The woman is the glory of the man. Mans glory is the woman. If you understand this, everything else falls into place. When the church comes together to worship God, whose glory do we want to make preeminent? (And the congregational setting is the context of this passage, I do not see this as a universal principle, something to be practiced 24/7. Since the church is to be God's testimony before the world, I believe this principle pertains to the church when it comes together to as a congregation) So whose glory does the church want to display? Gods glory? Or mans glory?

Christians ought to manifest God’s glory in the congregation by the uncovered head of the man. We do not want to manifest mans glory by the uncovered head of the woman, who is the glory of man. When a woman (whose head is man) uncovers her head in church, she displays the glory of man (her head) in the assembly. (When Christ ought to be the focus of all glory) She would do better to cover the glory of man, (herself) and let God get all the glory. That is what the passage is saying. Man is to uncover or exhibit the glory of God, woman is to cover or avoid displaying the glory of man.

That is why this is not trivial. None of us need to be giving any attention to our own glory, or displaying the glory of man when we come to worship God. It is an opportunity for believers to cover the glory of man and exalt the glory of God in the church, among the believers, that is what this is all about.

Verses 8-9 expand the concept that the woman is the glory of the man, because she is that which completes him. Verses 11-12 seem intended to prevent male chauvinism, or the idea that men are superior to women, or that men should lord it over women.

Verse 10 reminds us that the angels are witnesses of all that we do, and they saw Lucifer reject the headship of Christ, Eve reject the headship of Adam, and Adam reject the headship of God. Now they are watching to see if the church will accept the headship of Christ and manifest it before heaven and earth, by what the men and women do, or fail to do. Will the church show forth the glory of God and the headship of Christ? Or will it ignore the headship of Christ and glorify man instead?

Verse 13 is a rhetorical question based on all that he has said before. Having taught them the doctrinal principles, he asks if the practice of women praying uncovered conforms to what they now know? He is asking "Now that you know what is at stake, do you still think it is proper for a woman to pray uncovered?"

Verse 15 uses a different word in the Greek for covering than has been used so far. The other uses of covering refer to a veil. (But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.) The last word in verse 15 uses a Greek word for covering which means a mantle or a cloak, something thrown or wrapped around one. Which means that verse 15 does not contradict what was previously explained in the preceding part of the passage. So just what do verses 14 & 15 mean? Good question...

Possibly verses 14 & 15 could refer back to the Garden of Eden, and the idea that Adam had shorter hair, and Eve had very long hair, since the word covering in verse 15 refers to something a woman could wrap herself in like a cloak.

Consequently, verse 14 (Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?) could refer to the universal tendency of "manly men" not to want to be thought of as "girly men," and verse 15 a feminine womans desire to want to look as feminine as possible, and a woman who has a long cloak or mantle of hair is almost universally regarded as feminine. These two verses are admittedly obscure, but a perfect interpretation of them does not affect a clear understanding of the rest of the passage.

And that is an important principle that prevails throughout all of Scripture: a few obscure phrases or words never nullify a plain teaching. So it is with this passage. Because a couple of the verses might be a bit obscure does not change the meaning of the whole passage. The simple thrust of the passage is that God alone should be glorified in the midst of the congregation, the glory of man is to be covered, and this passage is how God tells us to do it.

Verse 16 has been interpreted by some as Paul saying that if anyone wants to disagree with what he is teaching here, then it is ok, because none of the churches keep this practice anyway, that women wearing a head covering is not customary. This is obviously not what Paul is saying, because the womans head covering was a universal practice in the early church, and has continued until recently. Also, such an argument flies in the face of everything we know of Paul through his writings. Paul simply doesn't do that sort of thing, he is not the sort who would spend 14 verses explaining the deep things of the faith, and then tell his readers that they can fluff it off if they wish, because nobody else gets it either... Consequently, such an interpretation of verse 16 is untenable. Verse 16 has as it’s object verse 13, and Paul is saying "If any man seem to be contentious about whether it is seemly for a woman to pray uncovered, we have no such custom, (of women praying uncovered) neither the churches of God."

This ought to put to rest the arguments of modern churches which would seek to explain away this passage by saying something to the effect of "While Paul did require the Christian women of Corinth to be veiled in church, this was a culturally-connected command, since in Greek society, an unveiled woman in public was considered morally loose and unchaste. Since we in our Western societies do not today view unveiled women as necessarily morally corrupt, it is a culturally-connected command, and therefore not applicable today in societies with different customs." Yet Paul here says exactly the opposite, this passage has nothing to do with Greek culture, no cultural context is mentioned. Paul says that it applies to all the churches of God, he says that none of the other churches of God where ever they are disregard this visible symbol of the headship of Christ. This is the thrust of Paul's arguments throughout this passage: they are not culturally-oriented, they are arguments that transcend culture, because the headship of Christ ought to be manifest in all churches in all cultures.

Which is what it all comes down to: Christ's headship, His glory, and the covering of the glory of man. What an opportunity for the church to witness and testify to such a noble truth! Sadly, this generally seems to be an opportunity that is missed, neglected, or disdained. And instead of seeing "the glory of the Lord filling the house of the Lord," (1 Kings 8:11) what we typically see filling and displayed within the house of the Lord is the glory of man - which is the uncovered heads of the women, as they participate in the services.

Someone has suggested that this is a divisive teaching, and for that reason, ought not to be taught. Well, if pastors do not teach this doctrine because it might be divisive, what other doctrines should they also avoid teaching? Baptism? In some cultures, baptism is very divisive, it gets those who obey it ostracized, put in prison, or killed. How about sanctification? The question of how a believer avoids sin in their life is sometimes a source of contention and division, as some people want a legalistic approach, and others seek the guiding of the Spirit and the Word. Therefore should sanctification not be taught either? Certainly not. So avoiding topics that the Bible teaches, but which believers might disagree about or that might potentially be divisive is really not an option.

As far as the question of what a head covering needs to be or how big it needs to be - we are not dealing with an issue of hiding every hair, we are dealing with symbolism. God has given us a specific symbol for a specific occasion to use in glorifying Christ. What matters is not the type or size of the covering, it is that the woman has an opportunity to make a statement that she will glorify God, exalt the headship of Christ, and cover over the glory of man.

Blessings and Shalom,

richard