A writer to the church asks:

I was wondering what insight you could give me on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16—about head coverings

* * * * * * * * * *

Dear friend,

Excellent question. I’ve, unfortunately, had the experience of being in a church once where this issue became very divisive. But I think I can suggest a few things that might help.

First, it’s important to remember that the specific problem that Paul was seeking to solve ought to determine how we interpret what this passage says. There was, at that time in the Corinthian culture, a growing and aggressively destructive ‘feminist’ movement. The Corinthian believers were becoming influenced by this cultural movement. Paul was not trying to suppress one gender under another, but rather to maintain the proper, God-honoring order that benefits both women and men (see vv. 11-12).

Second, there needs to be a distinction made between timeless theological principles and time-bound cultural practices. For example, the wearing of a head-covering meant something specific in that time that it does not mean today—just as short hair on a woman or long hair on a man meant something different at different times of history. We need to draw out the timeless principles that are being taught to us through the time-bound cultural instructions that Paul was giving the Corinthians.

The “timeless principle” that I would draw from this passage is that God has established a basic order of headship in the husband/wife role. I take this from verses 2-3. Paul wrote (in the New King James Version):

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 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 (vv. 2-3).

Paul praised the Corinthians for their remembrance of him and of the “traditions” he taught them (v. 1). These “traditions” were not simply things that Paul came up with, but were the things that were the heritage of godly people throughout the ages. Among the “traditions” he wanted the Corinthians to know was that there is a God-established order of “headship”. Headship, in verse 3, may be best understood as “an order of established authority”. (See Ephesians 5:22-24). God the Father is the Head of Christ; Christ is the Head of man, and the husband is the head of his wife. Men are mentioned first, then the women; but then—as if to affirm His supremacy over both—Christ is mentioned last.

Paul was giving the Corinthians a time-bound or culturally-bound practice, based on that principle, with respect to how the basic order of headship is to be honored in the church. The church would not be behaving properly if it conducted itself in rebellion against this established order of headship—however it may be that this order is expressed in culture. If it does so, it steps out of from under the authority of Christ’s headship.

So; what does Paul tell them about this time-bound practice? First, notice that it is to be maintained in the practice of the church’s worship. In verses 4-7, Paul wrote;

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 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. 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. 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 (vv. 4-7).

This time-bound practice is to be maintained in the manner with which prayer and prophesying (speaking forth what God has said) was to be done. Note that women are NOT forbidden from praying or prophesying in the church. They apparently are very welcomed and encouraged to do so; but whenever a woman does so, the symbols of her submission to her God-appointed head must be maintained. In that culture, the symbol that was recognized was head-covering. In ours, a parallel idea might be the wearing of a wedding ring and the taking-on of the husband’s last name. (For a woman to shave her head in that culture was an expression of open immorality and rebellion; and Paul is arguing that if she will not submit to that God-appointed order of headship, she is expressing rebellion just as much as if were to bear the outward cultural symbol of rebellion. )

The expression of the timeless principle of the headship order in this way is in keeping with the story of Creation. In verses 8-9, Paul went on to write;

For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man (vv. 8-9).

This was taken right out of the creation story in Genesis 2; and shows that God had a specific purpose in the order of creation. To refuse to respect the creation order in the manner in which worship was done in the church was the same as to rebel against God’s authority.

It was also proper with respect to the presence of angels. In verse 10, Paul wrote;

For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (v. 10).

This may be a reference to the fact that the angels are vitally involved in the life of the church (see Hebrews 1:14). They are certainly mightier than human beings; but they themselves nevertheless submit to their God-appointed role of serving the saints. What’s more, they too bear a “covering” in their worship of God (see Isaiah 6:2).

All of this was to be seen in the context of God’s design of interdependency. As Paul wrote in verses 11-12;

Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God (vv. 11-12).

In no way do Paul’s instructions destroy the equal value of both men and women. Paul maintains that, just as the woman comes from man in creation, the man comes from woman in birth. They may possess different roles in the order of headship; but by God’s design, the expression of their differing roles is to be seen mutually compatible and equally edifying to one another.

And the expression of this design is self-evidently proper. Paul went on to say in verses 13-15;

Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering (vv. 13-15).

In the Corinthian culture (and in most), long, unkempt hair on a man was a symbol of shame (effeminate behavior); but long hair on a woman is a symbol of beauty (see 1 Peter 3:3). Here, the woman’s hair is said to be given as a natural “covering”. (The Bible gives us no specific “length” of hair that is proper and acceptable. This is culturally determined. )

Finally, Paul stressed that this was a practice that was in keeping with the custom of practice in the churches at large. In verse 16, he writes;

But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God (v. 16).

Even if someone were to be contentious about the matter, Paul maintained that there was no other pattern given except that which honors God-appointed headship—neither from the apostles, nor from the church as a whole.

Well; that’s quite a bit. But I hope some if it helps.

Blessings,

Pastor Greg