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. What is this all about?
Reply:
Good question, let's take a look at the verses being referred
to, the Apostle Paul is the writer:
1st Corinthians 11:1 Imitate
me, just as I also imitate Christ.
:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things
and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ,
the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
dishonors his head.
:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered
dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head
were shaved.
:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if
it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the
image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
:10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority
on her head, because of the angels.
:11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman
independent of man, in the Lord.
:12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through
woman; but all things are from God.
:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to
God with her head uncovered?
:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long
hair, it is a dishonor to him?
:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her
hair is given to her for a covering.
:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom,
nor do the churches of God.
The first question we need to ask ourselves is - what is the focus of this passage? Is it about wives being in subjection to their husbands? And is the head covering a symbol of that? Or is it about the glory of God being manifested in the church rather than the glory of man? Because how you answer that question will determine how you understand this passage.
The reason most churches today do not teach that women should cover their heads in church is that the assumption is made that this passage is about wives being in submission to their husbands, and that the head covering was what they did back then, there are other ways to do it today. That is a flawed assumption, the focus of the passage is about how the church is to glorify Christ, and cover the glory of man.
Simple explanation - notice the references in verses 7 & 15 to glory. When the church comes together as a congregation to worship God, whose glory do we want to see? Man's? Or God's? The Apostle Paul tells us in 1st Corinthians 1:27 "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence." Think about the implications of this.
When we gather to worship God, His glory is paramount, and our glory needs to disappear, get hidden, be out of sight. We don't need to see any sort of human glory in God's presence, the only glory seen in the church meeting ought to be the glory of Christ. Whether a person covers or uncovers their head depends on whose glory they want to be displayed. A man who keeps his head uncovered - according to verses 4 & 7 - displays the glory of God.
Now look at the second half of verse 7: "... woman is the glory of man." Even the heathen world understands this. When a man wants to be seen as successful, or show off, or "strut his stuff," what does he do? He wants a good looking woman on his arm, right? Woman is the glory of man. A woman who keeps her head uncovered in the church assembly displays the glory of man, since woman is the glory of man.
Then notice verse 15, "If a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her." Woman has two glories: her ability to adorn and glorify man and make him more than he is, and also her glory of her own hair. So what should she do about this glory of her hair that she has when she comes into the presence of God? How should she not dishonor herself and the man by exhibiting her glory (and his glory - her) in the presence of God? The answer is found in verse 7, which says that a man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. Covering one's head symbolically covers whichever glory is involved, and the woman has the responsibility to cover her (and the man's) glory, or only her own if she is unmarried.
So the simple answer to the question is that when the congregation comes together into the presence of God, the man leaves his head uncovered so as not to symbolically cover or dishonor the glory of God, while the woman covers her head in order to symbolically cover the glory of man - herself - and also the glory of woman, - her hair. That is the simple explanation, without digging into the details of the passage.
Unfortunately, most churches, church web pages and commentaries typically focus on verse 3 as the underlying principle, and typically say something like "Submission is the underlying issue with regard to wearing a headcovering in worship. The head covering is a token of a woman's accepting submission to her husband. The man's lack of head covering shows his acceptance of headship over his woman in the same spirit of self sacrifice that his Head Jesus Christ showed to him." Then the author will say something like "In today's culture, we no longer view a woman's wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission." (This is a close paraphrase of a particular web page, and typical of many)
This explanation is simply bad doctrine, it is incorrect, it distorts a proper understanding of Christ's Headship over His church by misapplying it out of context to husbands and wives, it raises concepts of headship between men and women which this passage is not concerned with, and it completely misses any consideration of the glory of God, which is a major focus of the passage.
Paul is certainly concerned with wives submitting to their husbands, and has much to say about it in Ephesians 5:22-24, but to say that the passage is primarily about wives submitting to husbands is simply incorrect. The importance of headship as demonstrated by the head covering ought to focus on the headship of Christ over His church, this is an important purpose of the head covering in a congregational situation, and must not be minimized. And of equal importance is the principle set forth in verse 7, 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.
For those who want to dig deeper - 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, and perfectly submitted himself to the Father, likewise should man accept the headship of Christ, and submit to Him. In the same fashion, the woman is to acknowledge the headship of the man, submitting to him, and all of this is by the will of God. (If you are unsure of what the Biblical concepts of "headship" and "submission" mean, meditate on Ephesians 5:22-29. Headship obviously has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority, since Christ was not inferior to his Father, yet submitted to Him)
Within the church, God has provided a way for the headship and glory of Christ to be publicly displayed, as a testimony to the world and to angels. The woman's head covering is a way for the church to publicly manifest the glory of Christ, cover the glory of man and woman, and display the headship of Christ. 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 occasionally as a cultural thing pertinent only to that early church era. That misses the point of the passage, and trivializes the passage. The focus of this passage is both the glory of Christ (as displayed by the church) and also the headship of Christ over His bride - the church.
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 physical 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 keep our physical head uncovered, as a symbol of our manifestly glorious spiritual Head - Christ - who is our Savior and Lord. And the obvious implication here is that the covering is something which may be put on or taken off, not the hair, likewise for verses 5 & 6.
Verse 5 speaks to how this truth is illustrated by the women of the assembly. Even though women are not to lead in the service, or have a teaching or pulpit ministry over the congregation, (according to 1st Cor. 14:34, & 1st Tim. 2:12) nonetheless, by their presence and as they participate in the service, the women need to do so properly, being an object lesson of the headship of Christ over His church, and of letting only the glory of Christ be seen. However, if a woman will not demonstrate headship, but acts like a man, having no head covering, then she dishonors herself, both her own physical head, (and also her husband if she has one) and also the principle of headship within the church. A woman with a shaven head is normally very uncomfortable about it, and most women have always felt this way, even back to ancient times. Women today going through chemotherapy usually get themselves a wig for this very reason, they do not want to be ashamed or ill at ease over their bald heads.
Verse 6 then expands on this by saying that if a woman will not acknowledge the concept of headship but insists on being impudent, then let her make her intentions plain, go ahead and look like a man, go ahead and be consistent, cut off her hair. Make herself and her attitudes of rejecting headship obvious. But if she is ashamed to shave her head, if she is unwilling to have no hair, if she is unwilling to be openly rebellious, then let her cover her head as she ought. Don't be hypocritical.
Verses 4 through 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, a man or woman's hair. Yet some have tried to interpret this whole passage in a way that says a woman's hair is her covering. But that doesn't work. Because if the covering for women is hair, then being consistent, it must also be the covering for men, in which case, only bald men could pray in the service!
And if a woman's hair really were her covering according to this logic, then "having hair" and "covered" would become synonymous, and "not having hair" and "uncovered" would be synonymous. So let's substitute those appropriate phrases in verse 6 and read the verse again. "For if a woman doesn't have hair, (covered) let her be shorn. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn, let her have hair. (covered)" Wow... sort of ridiculous?
So by any normal consensus of understanding words or speech, neither her hair, nor the man's hair in his case, could be the covering referred to in this section. It must be an external covering of the head which may be optionally worn or removed, because even a bald man can cover his head with a hat.
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 God and the glory of Christ as Paul teaches it here.
The second half of verse seven sets forth the obvious reason for the woman covering 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, man's glory is the woman. If you understand this, everything else ought to fall into place. When the church comes together to worship God, whose glory do we want to see? The glory of man, which is woman? Or woman's glory, her hair?
(And since the congregational setting is the context of this passage, I do not see women covering as a universal principle, something to be practiced 24/7. Since the church assembly is to be God's testimony before the world, I believe this principle pertains to the church when it comes together as a congregation)
So whose glory does the church want to display? God's glory? Or man's glory? And what is man's glory? Woman. What is woman's glory? Her hair.
Christians ought to manifest God’s glory & Headship in the congregation by the uncovered head of the man. We do not want to manifest man's glory by the uncovered head of the woman, who is the glory of man. When a woman 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 reveal 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, or that women should lord it over men. In Christ there is equality, God made Adam and Eve one flesh, it takes both men and women together, united with each other and with Christ, to properly represent the spiritual reality of Christ and his Bride, the Church.
This speaks to the equality of men and women before Christ because both men and women have a glory, and neither of them need to be displaying it in the church, where Christ ought to have all the glory.
When the woman covers the glory of man by covering her head she is also covering her own glory, her hair, as it says in verse 15, the woman's hair is a glory to her. So the woman actually has two glories, she is the glory of the man, and she also has her own glory.
The Greek word "power" in verse 10 could also be translated "authority." Paul is reminding us that the angels observe us, both the angels of God and the fallen angels, and Christian women have the ability to show them that by the wisdom of God, they can do what Eve and Adam failed to do. They can accept the headship of Christ over His church, they can accept God's way of doing things, they have a testimony. Christian women in the church have the opportunity - in a very real sense - to reclaim what Eve and Adam threw away.
That is why Paul refers to the covering in this verse as authority, it is a public symbol of what she now possesses. In the world, women are taken advantage of and used, in much of the world women are without power, in the church it is not to be that way. The head covering in this context becomes her symbol of authority, that she is entitled to every right and privilege of being in Christ, she has just as much authority as every other saved person. She is not defeated, she may approach the throne of grace boldly, she has all the power of what it means to be in Christ.
What Satan did to Eve to bring women - and men - down, God has restored in Christ, and by this symbol of power on her head, she can publicly remind the devil that she is no longer defeated, in Christ she has the authority to stand before God unashamed.
Verse 13 is a rhetorical
question, Paul realizes that some of the Christians at Corinth
were not the most spiritually grounded folks, so he turns to an
argument from nature: "Judge among yourselves. Is it proper
for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"
:14, "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man
has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her
hair is given to her for a covering."
Before we get into these verses, we first need to look at two different Greek words that Paul uses. Throughout this passage, in every verse except verse 15, Paul has used a particular Greek word for covering - katakalupto - something that covers, a covering. In verse 15 he uses a different word for covering - peribolaion - something thrown around you, a big covering like a cloak. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her (long) hair is given to her for a cloak."
Paul is telling them here that if what he has taught them so far does not convince them, then back up and take a look at nature. Since it is a shame for a man to have long, feminine looking hair that hangs down like a cloak, a man should not wear a shawl or a covering either. Just looking at a man with beautiful girly hair tells us that a covered man would also look shameful. But women are different. All of us have seen the commercials where the models with the long flowing mane of hair toss their heads around and this glorious cape of hair swirls around their shoulders and it looks glorious - yes ladies, I know it's a hassle to keep up with, but it's still true. And by the same token, when a woman covers her hair with some sort of attractive covering when she participates in the church service, that is also a glorious thing as she recognizes God's plan and glorifies Christ.
It does not detract from her femininity, it actually illustrates that God got it right in the first place by giving women long attractive hair and letting men eventually go bald. Women can look good with a covering, there is nothing in here that implies it ought to look unattractive, they can pick something that looks very flattering on them, but men - eh, not so much. That's just - wrong.
Also, since verse 15 tells us that a woman’s long hair is her glory, then it cannot also be the covering of her glory. Nothing can be both ‘A’ and ‘non-A’ at the same time and in the same way. That which is the glory cannot also cover the glory. So to say that a woman's hair is her covering makes no sense.
Verse 16 has been interpreted by some as Paul saying that if anyone wants to disagree with what he is teaching here, then well, ok, go ahead, whatever, 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 woman's head covering was a universal practice in the early church, and has continued through the church age 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... You will not find him doing that anywhere, and it is contrary to what we know about the inspiration of Scripture. 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."
And church history confirms this, the woman's head covering was a universal practice in the early church, and has continued through the church age until recently. Women wore head coverings until the early 1900's, and then began to wear hats instead. Once hats took the place of a dedicated head covering, then it was assumed that it was just a fashion thing or a cultural thing, and if you start from the premise that it was supposed to be a symbol of the woman's subjection to her husband anyway - at that point women began to assume that there were better ways to do it.
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 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 wherever they are disregard this visible symbol of the headship and glory 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 glory and headship of Christ ought to be manifest in all churches in all cultures.
If Paul's reason for writing this passage was to deal with a situation peculiar to Corinth and applicable just to that culture in that time period, then it is most extraordinary, because nowhere else does Scripture do such a thing. We are told in 2nd Timothy 3:16 that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." If this passage in Corinthians deals only with a local, ancient cultural situation that is irrelevant for us today, then what will we do with 2nd Timothy 3:16? We can't have it both ways.
Here is what it all comes down to: the church is to display Christ's headship, His glory, and the covering over 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: the uncovered heads of the women, visible throughout the congregation.
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? Or prophecy? These can be divisive topics, so shall we neglect them? Certainly not. So avoiding topics that the Bible teaches, but which believers might disagree about or that might potentially be divisive is not really 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. The type or the size of
the covering is irrelevant, it is that the woman has an opportunity
to make a statement that she will glorify God, exalt the headship
of Christ, and symbolically cover the glory of man. As far as
the size, shape, color or anything else, it's not specified. But
from what Paul says in verse 15, I would assume that every woman
would want to choose what she thinks is appropriate for her, and
looks good on her. Aside from that, since the Scripture doesn't
say, we shouldn't say either.
Lastly, at what age should a female child began to apply this doctrine to herself? Assuming a girl is properly taught and understands the reason for covering, and assuming that her older female role models set her a good example, (and given that most girls want to look "grown-up" as soon as possible) I would think that a spiritually-minded girl would probably want to adopt the practice of covering on her own. I also think that a rigid or authoritarian approach to this for women of any age would likely be very counterproductive and extremely un-Christlike.
May God keep us from the foolishness of men, and may we glorify Him in every way.
richard
In response to the interest that has been shown, here are some head covering suppliers:
http://www.garlandsofgrace.com/products-page/accessories
http://www.sowersofhopeboutique.com/
http://pinterest.com/bethanyshondark/head-coverings/
http://www.headcoverings-by-devorah.com/
|
|