BIG IDEA:
WOMEN MUST APPROPRIATELY ACKNOWLEDGE THE AUTHORITY (HEADSHIP) OF MEN (BY WEARING THE SYMBOLIC CLOTH HEAD COVERING) AND AVOID DENIALS OF THEIR GOD-APPOINTED FEMININE ROLE
INTRODUCTION:
This is certainly a very controversial topic in light of the feminist movement in our culture. We see a woman running for President of the most powerful country in the world. We see churches attacked as outdated and chauvinistic if they limit the church office of elder and the role of preaching to men. We see much gender confusion with women pushing for a type of “Equality of the Sexes” that amounts to denying any role differentiations between men and women. So you have women serving in the military and holding the most powerful leadership positions in the business world.
The Apostle Paul had been dealing with issues related to a Christian’s liberties. Apparently some women in the church had taken the concept of liberality too far and were removing their cloth head-coverings that symbolized their submission to the headship (authority) of men. Paul felt this was an important error to address since the God-ordained creation order and differing roles of man and woman were a fundamental fabric both of society itself and of godly behavior in the church.
Mark Taylor: Commentators routinely recognize 11:2–16 as one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. At the outset it is helpful to emphasize what is clear in the passage, namely, that each believer should behave in worship in a manner that brings glory and honor to their respective head (11:4–10). This fundamental concern relates directly to the main emphasis of the previous section regarding food sacrificed to idols summed up in 10:23 – 11:1 as seeking the good of others in the ultimate pursuit of the glory of God. In 11:2–16 Paul submits that a man (husband) ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God (11:7a), and conversely, a woman (wife) should cover her head when praying and prophesying because she reflects the glory of man (11:7b). Thus, in keeping with the emphasis of the preceding section (8:1 – 11:1), Paul’s main concern in 11:2–16 is the edification of others to the glory of God.
David Garland: Paul addresses sexual propriety. When a wife converts to Christianity and learns that she is set free in Christ so that she can pray and prophesy in public, it does not mean that she can disregard social conventions. The emphasis on shame and glory reveals that to understand this text, one needs to appreciate the social clues associated with shame and honor. In this gender-divided shame/honor culture, the head of the family publicly symbolized the family’s honor, and members of the family were to behave in public so as not to bring disgrace or dishonor to that person and the family’s good name. A woman cannot acquire honor for the family but can only lose it (see Sir. 42:9–14). R. Williams (1997: 57) notes that “it is through the strict maintenance of her sexual purity and personal integrity that a woman contributes to her family’s honour.” The head covering “is a symbol of a woman’s shame, worn in public to mark her off as a private person intent on guarding her purity, and so maintaining the honour of her husband and her father” (R. Williams 1997: 57–58). It communicates to others in public that the woman is demure, chaste, and modest, and that she intends to stay that way. The head covering in Paul’s setting was an important piece of apparel because no male wanted his wife or a female in his charge to appear in public in a way that hints, intentionally or unintentionally, that the opposite might be true. Derrett (1977: 172) comments, “The husband is entitled to his wife’s modesty in public even if their thoughts are directed towards God. For the husband’s rights are not forfeited simply because their spiritual status is changed by their conversion.”
The passage fits a chiastic pattern:
A Commendation for maintaining the traditions handed on by Paul and the assertion of the basic principle that everyone has a head (11:2–3)
B Shame about coverings for men and women (11:4–5)
C Social impropriety for a woman to be uncovered; theological impropriety for a man to be covered (11:6–7)
D Theological explanation from the creation account (11:8–9)
E Central assertion: for this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head (11:10)
D′ Theological caveat from procreation (11:11–12)
C′ Social impropriety for a woman to be uncovered (11:13)
B′ Shame (and glory): lessons from nature about coverings for men and women (11:14–15)
A′ Admonition to conform to Paul’s customs and those of the churches of God (11:16)
Paul Gardner: Most commentators see the women’s action [in removing the traditional head covering] as reflecting the belief that “in Christ” all, including women, are free people and that sexual relationships in worship before the Lord simply do not matter at all. Hurley’s summary is useful: “It would seem quite likely that the Corinthian women had concluded that, having been raised with Christ (1 Cor 4:8–10), their new position in Christ and their resultant freedom to participate in the worship by prayer and prophecy was incompatible with wearing a sign of submission to their husbands! Paul defends their right to pray and prophesy, but does not see it as doing away with the marital relation. . . . Only at the resurrection will marital patterns be done away with completely (Matt 22:30). The Corinthians had not grasped the both/and of the present stage of the kingdom.”
David Prior: Paul’s four themes in this paragraph are submission, glory, interdependence and nature.
I. (:2-7) FUNDAMENTAL TEACHING OF THE HEADSHIP OF MEN OVER WOMEN AND HOW THAT RELATES TO THE NECESSITY OF WEARING THE SYMBOLIC CLOTH HEAD COVERING
A. (:2) Introductory Word of Commendation
- Positive Approach of Prefacing Correction with Praise
“Now I praise you”
Surprising, because Paul did not have a lot of areas in which he was praising the church at Corinth; very gracious, diplomatic approach to dealing with a delicate topic
- Two Reasons for the Commendation
a. Loyal to the Personal Example of the Apostle Paul – Personal Connection
“because you remember me in everything”
Whom are we imitating in our church practices?
b. Loyal to the Doctrinal Teachings of the Apostle Paul – Doctrinal Connection
“and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”
“traditions” can be either positive or negative – here viewed as the positive apostolic instruction in doctrine and practice that was essential in these transitional times before the full development of the Canon of Scripture
Mark Taylor: What Paul says in 11:2–16 is not merely his opinion but represents traditional teaching practiced by all the churches (11:16).
B. (:3) Reinforcement of the Fundamental Role Differentiations Involving Headship
- Headship of Christ Over Man
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man”
Concept of Headship had to involve primarily Authority … some people today want to limit it to some reference to “Source” alone.
What does this picture of headship communicate?
Thomas Leake: head of every man, not just the church; Heb. 2:8
Mark Taylor: Scholars debate at length the precise nuance of the metaphorical sense, whether the term denotes “authority over,” “source,” or “that which is the foremost/at the top.”
The traditional, most widely held view until recent times maintains that the term in this context indicates a hierarchy that entails authoritative leadership, that is, the man (husband) as the head of the woman (wife) occupies a position of superior relational authority that corresponds to the principle of subordination within the Godhead. The woman (wife) is equal in essence but subordinate to the man (husband) in function and role. In the contemporary debate Grudem and Fitzmyer rigorously defend this position against others as the correct understanding of Paul’s usage of the term here.
Alternate View:
David Garland: The best option understands κεϕαλή to mean “that which is most prominent, foremost, uppermost, pre-eminent” (Perriman 1994: 618; cf. LXX Deut. 28:44; Lam. 1:5; Isa. 7:8–9; 9:13; Jer. 38:7; Philo, Mos. 2.5 §30; Rewards 20 §125). According to Perriman (1994: 618), the noun applies to
(1) “the physical top or extremity of an object, such as a mountain or river”;
(2) “more abstractly, that which is first, extreme (temporarily or spatially)”;
(3) “that which is prominent or outstanding”;
(4) “that which is determinative or representative by virtue of its prominence.”
- Headship of Man Over Woman
“and the man is the head of a woman”
Not restricting the context to the marital relationship of husband and wife
Richard Hays: In Greek there are no words equivalent to the English “husband” and “wife”: the generic words for “man” (an r) and “woman” (gyn ) do double duty, and the context determines whether reference to a married couple is intended. In the present passage, however, the context does not give us much help. (The NRSV translates the words as “husband” and “wife” in v. 3, but as “man” and “woman” elsewhere the passage; this seems arbitrary. Most other translations employ the generic terms “man” and “woman” consistently throughout.) In the absence of any indicators to the contrary, it is preferable to understand Paul’s directives here as applying to everyone in the community, married or unmarried: women should have covered heads in worship; men should not.
- Headship of God the Father Over Christ
“and God is the head of Christ.”
Certainly no concept of inferiority involved
Thomas Leake: Christ submitted to the will of the Father; John 6:38; Jesus did not send the Father but the other way around (1 Cor. 15:28).
C. (:4-7) Explanation of the Need for a Head Covering for the Woman
- (:4-5a) The Issue Involves Respecting vs Disgracing Your Head
a. How does a Man Disgrace His Head?
“Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head.”
Thomas Leake: Problem of the context mentioned here for “praying and prophesying” —
The context of “praying and prophesying” does not refer here to the entire church gathered together for public worship because it is clear from 1 Cor. 14 that women were not allowed even to speak in such a context. Also it would seem that vs. 17 talks about when they come together in the worship assembly in contrast to preceding verses [But others argue from the parallel expressions “I praise” vs 1 … “I do not praise” vs. 17 that these must be the same contexts in view]; How do you harmonize the two passages that seem to allow for women prophecying and then seem to restrict that in the assembly?? Take chap 11:4-5 as a less formal setting than the full worship service.
Alternate View:
Mark Taylor: Both the Old and New Testament recognize women prophets. In Acts 2:14–21 Peter announces at Pentecost the fulfillment of Joel 2:28, which includes the prediction that “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” Paul’s concern in 11:2–16 is not the fact that women are prophesying in Corinth but rather the manner of their praying and prophesying. In the parallel passage, 14:33b–36, which occurs in the context of doing all things unto edification and in an orderly manner (14:26, 40), Paul instructs the wives to remain silent in certain situations and to learn from their husbands at home.
b. (:5a) How does a Woman Disgrace Her Head?
“But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head;”
Gordon Fee: But what specifically does it mean for the woman to pray and prophesy “with her head uncovered”? There are three basic options:
(1) The long-held view from an earlier time considered her to be discarding some kind of external covering. This was understood as implied by both the verb “to cover” and the words about the man (v. 7), which seem to suggest an external covering (he “ought not to cover his head”). The difficulty with this view comes mostly from understanding the final word regarding the women (v. 15), which says that a woman’s long hair is given to her instead of a peribolaion (lit. “a wraparound,” hence something like a shawl).
(2) Because of this final word regarding the women (v. 15), some have argued that the “covering” contended for earlier (vv. 4–7 and 13) is actually the long hair picked up in the final word regarding the women (vv. 14–15), thus suggesting that some of the women were having their hair cut short. But this has against it the explicit language and grammar of the first things said regarding the women (vv. 5–6), where Paul argues by analogy that they should be shaved or shorn if they will not be “covered.”
(3) Other, more recent, scholars suggested on the basis of a usage in the LXX that the adjective “uncovered” refers to “loosed hair,” that is, to letting her long hair down in public and thus experiencing shame. While this is attractive in many ways, it has its own set of difficulties: how the man’s not covering his head (v. 7) is the opposite of this; what to do again with the final word about the women (v. 15), which implies that long hair, not piled-up hair, serves in the place of a shawl; and the fact that there is no sure first-century evidence that a woman’s long hair in public would have been a disgrace of some kind.
Although none of this is without some measure of difficulty, the traditional view still seems to be the best by a considerable margin — in the sense of having fewer difficulties(!) — since in every case the greater problem lies with the final word about the women (v. 15).
- (:5b-6) Argument from the Lesser to the Greater —
Same Category as Shaving a Woman’s Head – just more extreme
“for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved.
For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off;
but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved,
let her cover her head.”
David Prior: If a Christian woman became so uninhibited in public worship that she dispensed with the outward symbol of her submissiveness, then she ought (following the logic of her lack of submission) to have cut off her hair and thus removed at a stroke the distracting impact of her ‘crowning glory’. But that was obviously not the Christian way to behave (and certainly would have flouted the norms of Corinthian society); therefore she ought to accept the discipline of keeping a veil on her head, especially when so moved by the Spirit in prayer or in prophecy that she was tempted to fling all her inhibitions to the wind.
- (:7) Distinction of God-Appointed Roles Must be Maintained
a. Man is the Image and Glory of God
“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God”
b. Woman is the Glory of Man
“but the woman is the glory of man.”
II. (:8-12) PRIMARY ARGUMENT BASED ON ORIGINATION WHICH CREATES A NECESSARY ROLE DIFFERENTIATION
A. (:8-10) Three Reasons Why it Makes Sense for Women to Wear the Cloth Head Covering
- (:8) Woman Originates from Man
“For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man”
- (:9) Woman Was Created For Man
“for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake,
but woman for the man’s sake.”
- (:10) Submission of Woman to Man Matters to Angels
“Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head,
because of the angels.”
This is a powerful argument in favor of the symbol still being valid today and essential. Angels cannot see into the heart of a woman to determine if she has the proper attitude of submission. They must see the visible symbol. Yes, there can still be hypocrisy, but that is a separate issue.
B. (:11-12) Balancing Perspective (to mitigate against abuse)
- Mutual Dependence
“However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man,
nor is man independent of woman.
For as the woman originates from the man,
so also the man has his birth through the woman”
David Prior: This parenthesis [:11-12] is a necessary corrective to Paul’s strong teaching on the distinctiveness of the man and the woman as created in God’s image. In the Lord, that is, in Christ, the man and the woman (husband and wife) are completely interdependent. He has been arguing strongly for the wife to be submissive to her husband, and for that attitude to be publicly spelt out whenever God’s people gather for worship. Here he argues with equal strength that the two are one in Christ, totally bound up with each other, inseparable and interdependent. It is true physically (12), but it is even more true in the Lord. Both the man and the woman owe their existence to God: all things come from God. Christian worship is expressed best when together such married couples visibly give the Lord the glory of their interdependent lives.
- Primacy of God
“and all things originate from God”
III. (:13-16) THREE SECONDARY SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS WHICH LEAD TO THE SAME CONCLUSION – THE WOMEN MUST CONTINUE THE SYMBOLIC PRACTICE OF WEARING THE CLOTH HEAD COVERING
A. (:13) Argument From Propriety
“Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?”
B. (:14-15) Argument From Nature
“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.”
David Prior: Each human being is to give glory to God by being what God intends him or her to be. The man is to be truly masculine and the woman truly feminine, without allowing stereotypes of either to dictate our perceptions, but rather basing our understanding of what it is to be fully human on the perfect model of Jesus. This principle will make us chary of going overboard on the modern theme of ‘unisex’. The fullness of Christian worship can be experienced only as each man and each woman, created for God and redeemed by God, allows his or her humanness to be expressed according to God’s pattern.
C. (:16) Argument From Universal Church Practice
“But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice,
nor have the churches of God.”
Robert Gundry: That “the churches of God” follow this custom strengthens the appeal further. The prior grounding of Paul’s instruction in the theology of headship and creation and in nature itself undermines any attempt to treat the custom as culturally relative rather than culturally absolute.
APPLICATION:
The difficulty in this passage is all about application. Apart from the easy-to-answer objections of the feminists to the clearly defined role differentiations, we are left to wrestle with the thorny issue of whether God really expects women today in our culture to still wear head coverings in some context of Christian gatherings. This is an issue which the modern church does not have much appetite to investigate. Where is the perceived benefit to try to re-introduce a practice that most people would find to be bizarre at best? On the other hand, the issue is always about what is pleasing to the Lord and consistent with His revealed will.
There are two main approaches for the biblical scholar who cares about practicing what he believes to be the truth:
1) The majority will argue that the principle of submission is the focal point of the passage and the area of obedience of concern to God. The practice of wearing the head covering was cultural and not obligatory for today. The fact that the head covering has lost its symbolism in today’s culture would make it unnecessary and even overly restrictive to try to re-introduce the symbol and re-educate people as to its significance. A strong argument from silence would be to note that the OT never claims that Eve was commanded to wear any type of head covering from the beginning. It would seem that she was naked in the garden originally; and after the Fall the garments which the Lord made for them did not include a head covering for Eve (Gen. 3:21).
However, the difficulty is that the arguments used in the passage seem to extend beyond cultural lines of reasoning and have a more universal application. Perhaps Paul is more concerned with the statement made by women removing the head covering rather than by the necessity of wearing the head covering itself. But again, the nature of the arguments do not point in that direction.
2) Some will dare to argue and practice that we need to take the Scriptures at face value in this text as everywhere else. And as strange as it seems to us, we need to make an issue of women needing to wear the required head covering. (The point would not be to coerce women against their conscience to adopt such behavior; that would be legalistic. Rather there would be teaching to re-establish the symbolism intended by God and women taking up this practice as a matter of personal conviction.) However, that puts us in very strange company in today’s world. One would not want to create unnecessary obstacles to people embracing a church community. But the determining factor still must be: How clear is the Lord’s revelation on this subject and what application does He desire for us?
If the practice needs to be re-instituted, one must address a wide range of questions that are problematic:
- Who is required to wear the head covering? The instruction goes beyond application just to married women. At what age would it become appropriate?
- What is the context in today’s spiritual experience where “praying and prophecying” take place? Many people who have adopted the practice have limited its expression to the main public worship service. But the passage seems to go beyond that since women were not allowed to take a vocal leadership role in that context. Is the head covering something that you would put on and take off repeatedly? Should it have application in private prayer (probably not)? How about prayer within the context of the home, but not public prayer?
- What type of covering should be worn? Must it be opaque and truly cover the head as opposed to just a symbolic little cap?
The temptation is to admit to the complexity and allow others to wrestle with the details! You certainly have to have a very strong level of conviction to move forward in this direction.