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. If other churches don't do it, why do you think 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:

Good question. First, 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.

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 - if we have any - needs to go away, disappear, get hidden, be out of sight. We don't need to see any sort of human, fleshly glory in God's presence, the only glory seen in the church meeting ought to be the glory of Christ.

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.

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 can she not dishonor herself and the man by exhibiting her glory 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.

Why do other churches not teach this? Because 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, but 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 the church having a proper understanding of headship, but to say that the passage is primarily about the headship of the man over the woman 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. But 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)

In the world today, few Christians realize that their appearance in church can testify to the truth of the headship of Christ. Nonetheless, 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 before 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 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 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 hair as she ought. Let her be consistent.

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 the appropriate phrases in verse 6 and read the verse again. "For if a woman is not covered, (not having hair) let her also be shorn. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, (not having hair) let her be covered (having hair)." Wow...

Let's phrase it even simpler: "If a women doesn't have hair, let her be shaven. But if it is a shame to be shaven, let her have hair." Doesn't make much sense does it? But if her hair is her covering, then that would have to be what the apostle is saying. Ridiculous, right? 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 hair or 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? 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.

The Greek word "power" in verse 10 could also be translated "authority." Paul is reminding 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 or authority of God. Now they are watching to see if the church will accept the headship or authority of Christ over His bride, the church, 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? Will it be under authority? Or will it ignore the headship of Christ and glorify man instead by the men flaunting their uncovered wives, and the women manifesting the glory of their hair by their uncovered heads?

Hopefully both the men and women will be in proper subjection to God by demonstrating a proper understanding of His headship. If so, then woman is showing the angels that unlike Eve, she accepts Christ's authority over her. Consequently, she now has authority to pray, participate, and be a part of the church meeting by her acceptance of His headship, manifested by her headcovering as both her submission to God, and her authority from God.

Verse 13 is a rhetorical question Paul asks based on all that he has said before. Having taught them these 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?"

Throughout this passage, Paul has used a particular Greek word for covering - katakalupto - which refers to a veil or mantilla. Verse 15 uses a different word in the Greek for covering - peribolaion - which is a covering big enough to be used as an article of clothing. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering (cloak)." Here the apostle speaks of something so substantial that it can be thrown or wrapped around oneself. Which means that verse 15 does not contradict what was previously explained in the preceding portions 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 hair that a woman could literally use to cover herself like a cloak.

Consequently, verse 14 (Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame (or dishonor) to 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 woman's 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, and other explanations are certainly possible, but a perfect interpretation of these two verses does not affect a clear understanding of the rest of the passage.

And that is an important principle that prevails throughout all of Scripture: an obscure passage never nullifies a plain passage. So it is with this whole section of Scripture. 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, the Headship of Christ is to be shown forth, 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 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.

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 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.

Which 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 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 symbolically cover the glory of man.

Lastly, at what age should a female child began to apply this doctrine to herself? Assuming a child is properly taught and understands the what and the why, 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 around the pre-teens. I also think that a rigid or authoritarian approach to this would likely be very counterproductive.

If a person who believes covering was only for the culture at the time Corinthians was written wants to honestly discuss the topic, there are several aspects where they could be gently asked questions which might make them think...

One is: Are angels cultural? (I don't know anyone who considers angels only having to do with the culture at that time and have nothing to do with today). A woman's headcovering has something to do with the angels (v.10)

Another: Is a man's removal of his hat cultural? Many would say no, some would say yes, some would say it doesn't matter because there are men today who do not remove their hats when entering church or praying -- but scripture specifically points to the reason man is not to be covered when he prays: man is in the image of God. That is not cultural.

Another: Is glory a cultural thing? The glory of woman (her hair) and the glory of the man (the woman) are to be covered. The glory of God is not to be covered. I think the verse that says "...that in His presence no flesh should glory" (I Cor 1:29) could tie in with what we see in I Cor 11. We don't have anything of which to be boastful, God even uses the weak and foolish to accomplish His purposes. He is the one who is to get the glory, not us, especially when we are in His presence. Our own glory (the one we have and the one we are) is to be covered that His is more manifest. That's not cultural. It's timeless.

The subject of a woman's head covering is to some people offensive, others confusing, but to a few it is an uplifting and honorable passage. Within 1st Corinthians the woman is told to cover her head, as she is the glory of man. The man is to remain uncovered as he is the glory of God, and that is what worship is for: to glorify God. Paul's words, "If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her" are still true thousands of years later in today's society. No matter how much money a woman spends on jewelry, shoes or clothing, her accessory that she wears every day is her hair.

A very simple interpretation of this passage is to outline that there are three heads, three glories and two coverings. The heads being God, Christ and Man: God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of Man and Man is the head of woman. This does not imply inferiority, but order. The three glories are Man, woman and woman's hair. The two glories to be covered are woman and her hair. The woman is to be covered, as she is the glory of man and her hair is to be covered, as it is her own glory. The man is not to be covered, as he is the representation of the glory of God. "When the woman covers her head, she not only covers man's glory but her own personal glory." This is in no way inhibiting to women or implies that they are a lesser being, it strictly enforces the belief that the glory is to be to God, not humans. By the woman being the glory of man, this actually elevates her into a beautiful and special place. The passage also specifically states that the man needs the woman, "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man."

Women's function in prayer and worship is just as important as the role of man, only different in style and nature. Paul would not have gone to all this trouble if he had not accepted and affirmed a women's authority to pray and prophesy in Christian worship. His argument demonstrates that he is concerned to regulate how, not whether they may properly do these things.

By overanalyzing the relationship between man and woman the true meaning of the role relationship between them is set to the side. Instead the argument is changed from the purpose of worship into a debate about suppression and inferiority of women. The woman is told to cover one of her most beautiful attributes, though not out of any malice from Paul. The woman in worship is to submit herself to God, and to do that she must humble herself. To set aside the human attribute about physical appearance and grandeur is a humbling hard task to accomplish. Perhaps this is why this scripture is debated or ignored. Neither side of the party wishes to give up their beauty in submission to the commandment. ~ Jennifer Martincavage

May God keep you from the foolishness of men, and may you glorify Him in every way.

richard