Head Coverings (Part 4)
Notes
Transcript
The trickiness of this passage might make some people say,
“We probably shouldn’t use this to build any big teachings or doctrines about men and women’s roles.”
They might argue that only the really clear passages should shape our doctrines,
and this one’s just too confusing.
After all, hardly anyone today would say women need to wear veils, right?
So maybe this is just tied to an old cultures and doesn’t really work for the twentieth century.
But I disagree: I think the main point of this passage is actually pretty clear.
Sure, there are some tough spots,
but certain key parts aren’t as confusing as people make them out to be,
and the bits that are still unclear don’t mess with the passage’s main point.
Plus, even if head coverings don’t apply today,
there’s a lasting principle here that still applies.
So, let’s jump in.
in verse 2, Paul says,
“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”
Then the next verses (11:3–16) don’t really show the Corinthians sticking to Paul’s traditions.
Verse 16 tells us that the Corinthian women are doing something different from Paul’s custom and what other churches were doing.
So if they were already following his instructions about how women should dress,
why would Paul need to bring it up?
Here’s what I think:
Verse 11:2 is Paul starting off with a compliment before he gets into some of their issues.
It’s probably the opening line for everything in chapters 11 through 13.
Even though the Corinthians are dropping the ball on traditions about women (11:3–16),
the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34),
and spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40),
it’s not like everything in the church is a total disaster,
which is why Paul offers them some words of praise before he corrects them.
OK, so let’s dig into this a bit.
The word apokalyptō,
which is somewhat related to akatakalyptos, shows up in Numbers 5:18.
There, a woman suspected of adultery had to unbind her hair and wear it loosely.
And so the idea of an adulteress wearing long, loose hair would support the view that wearing your hair loose was considered shameful.
Back in Paul’s time, respectable women didn’t appear in public with their hair long and flowing down their backs
they wore it piled up on their heads in a bun. And Paul wants the Corinthian women to stick to this custom.
Now it could be that,
but what’s more more likely Paul is actually talking about some kind of head covering, like a shawl.
Not a full veil or Islamic-type burka though.
Verse 11:15 uses the word “covering” which isn’t the typical word for a veil.
It probably means something more like a wrap-around, like a shawl.
And there’s a few things that show us this.
First, the verb translated as “cover” in the NIV (katakalyptō) shows up three times in verses 6–7,
and related words pop up in verses 5 and 13.
These words almost always mean some kind of covering.
For example, in Isaiah 6:2, the angels who saw Yahweh’s glory in the temple covered their faces.
Or in Genesis 38:15—Judah thought his daughter-in-law Tamar was a harlot because she had her face covered.
So, since this word pretty much universally means “to cover” or “to hide,”
it’s a strong hint that Paul’s talking about a hair covering of some sort.
But, verse 15 says:
“long hair is given to her for a covering.”
So if she has long hair as a covering, why would she need another one?
Some say she wouldn’t.
But that doesn’t work, because Paul already used a word in verses 4-6 that clearly speak of a veil or a shawl.
And IF all that Paul is requiring is long hair,
Why on earth are verses 4-6 here at all?
Like what are they even for?
Just say tell us the ladies need long hair Paul and let’s move on with it.
So the argument that long hair ALONE is the covering Paul has in mind doesn’t really work.
So how do we make sense of this?
In verses 4-6, Paul says the women are to wear a head covering,
But in verse 16 he says their long heir is given as a covering for her head?
Here’s how I think this works.
In verse 15, in the phrase “Long hair is given FOR a covering,” the Greek word is (ἀντί)
And yes, ἀντί can me INSTEAD OF
But it can also mean equivalence.
And how do we know the difference?
The context tells us.
And the context makes it clear that Paul is going for the NATURAL state of things to the specific.
He’s saying, “God has given women a long hair as a covering, so it’s it obvious she should wear a covering when she prays or prophesies.”
Paul’s point seems to be that a woman’s long hair is an indication that she needs to wear a covering.
Now, let’s not jump to any conclusions here yet,
Paul’s point is simple: Women are to adorn themselves in a certain way.
Why though?
It’s because, it shows their submission to authority - or to their head
Which Paul says is both God and their husbands.
Now, that word head “κεφαλή” most commonly mean head - which has to do with authority.
But, feminists try to argue that here it means source.
And they point to Genesis 3 where women was taken out of man’s rib.
And then they say that the covering isn’t a sign of her submissive role,
But it’s actually the exact opposite!
it shows HER authority to pray and prophecy as an equal in position with men within the church.
So it’s basically a visual reminder that she is in charge, not her husband.
But there’s several problems with this interpretation:
Even if we admit that “head” can sometimes mean “source,”
there are clear passages where it unquestionably means “authority,” while “source” is never a definite meaning.
Even if “head” does mean “source” in a few passages, it never has that meaning in the Septuagint—which is the key text Paul would have known best.
Most evangelicals agree that the Greek Old Testament was Paul’s primary theological source, which would also shape how he used words.
3. Paul’s own writings provide little support for kephalē meaning “source.”
In Ephesians 5:23, Paul writes,
23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church…
So if this is source, we have to ask in what meaningful sense is a husband the source of his wife?
Wives do not exist because of their husbands, nor do they derive life from them.
This makes the “source” interpretation really difficult to go with.
Some argue that Paul is referring to Adam as the source of Eve,
but there is no clear evidence for this as Paul doesn’t mention that at all.
In verses 22 and 24, Paul addresses husbands and wives generally,
and making a sudden shift to Adam and Eve in verse 23 doesn’t make much sense.
Paul’s call for wives to submit to their husbands (vv. 22, 24) aligns naturally with kephalē meaning “authority” not “source.”
Also, in Ephesians 1:22
22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,
Here again, Paul is using kephale (or head) as authority, not source.
In verse 20 of Ephesians chapter 1,
Paul describes Christ’s resurrection and exaltation in this passage,
emphasizing His supreme authority over all things.
He states that God raised Christ from the dead, seated Him at His right hand above all rulers and powers, placed everything under His feet, and made Him head over all things to the church (Ephesians 1:20-22).
The entire passage highlights Christ’s enthronement and exaltation,
making it clear that kephalē (head) in this context conveys authority rather than mere source or origin.
Here, kephalē must mean “authority” rather than “source”
because the same rulers and authorities mentioned in Ephesians 1:21-22 also appear in Colossians 2:15, where they clearly refer to demonic powers that Christ triumphed over.
In Colossians 2:10, Paul is not saying that Jesus is the source of these demonic powers;
rather, he is emphasizing that Christ is sovereign over them and rules over all things.
This reinforces the understanding that kephalē in these passages conveys authority and supremacy, not mere origin or source.
So with this in mind, let’s back at 1 Corinthians 11:3 and see if our interpretation holds up.
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is asserting a clear hierarchy of authority:
Christ is the authority over every man,
man is the authority over woman,
and God is the authority over Christ.
This order reflects the relationships within the Trinity,
with each person maintaining a distinct role.
Since Paul appeals to the divine relationship between the Father and the Son,
it is clear that he does not view these hierarchical relations as merely cultural or as a consequence of the fall.
Instead, they reflect an eternal and divine order that transcends all culture and human history.
Basically, it means they are eternal truths for all time.
But notice, this doesn’t at all make Christ inferior to the Father.
In Hebrews 1, the Father worships the Son.
Which is a great passage to show Jehovah’s Witnesses when they show up at your door.
I’ve done - they just blink and look confused.
28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
Paul did not view the Son’s submission to the Father as heretical because it did not imply that the Son is essentially inferior to the Father.
Instead, the Son voluntarily subjects Himself to the Father’s authority,
maintaining the perfect unity and equality within the Trinity.
The Son’s subjection is about role and function, not essence or being.
While the Father and the Son have distinct roles,
their equality in essence and deity remains unchanged.
The Son’s submission reflects His willing role in the divine plan, not a diminishment of His nature or being.
But Feminists often argue that a difference in function or role IS a difference in essence and value.
They argue that if men have authority over women, then women must be inferior.
However, the relationship between Christ and the Father demonstrates that this reasoning is flawed.
Christ and the Father have different roles, yet they are equal in essence and worth.
Similarly, women are equal to men in essence and being
yet they have different functions or roles in the church and the home.
These functional differences do not imply inequality or inferiority,
just as Christ’s submission to the Father does not suggest His inferiority.
Think about it:
Do police offers have more value and worth since they have authority over the populace?
Do politicians?
Next, Paul points out that:
Since Christ is the authority over men,
and since men are the authority over women,
then no man should wear a head covering when he prays and prophesies, while a woman should.
And in verse 4, Paul says for a man to wear a head covering is disgraceful.
And the reason is because that’s what women wore.
Basically, they would be cross dressing in Paul’s day.
This is why for a women to not wear a head covering would also be cross dressing,
Cuz she would be presenting herself like a man.
Which is Paul’s point in verses 5 and 6.
A woman’s failure to wear a head covering in Paul’s cultural context is similar to her having her hair cut short or shaved.
In that society, a woman would have been ashamed to appear in public with a shaved head or short hair
because it would have made her appear masculine.
A shaved or short hairstyle was associated with men or,
in some cases, women who were prostitutes.
Which is why Paul is telling them to wear the head covering as it symbolized femininity, modesty, and proper order within that cultural setting.
Paul explicitly states in 1 Corinthians 11:15 that a woman’s "long hair" is her "glory,"
while in verse 14, he says that it is a "dishonor" for a man to have long hair.
So, Paul is encouraging women to wear head coverings while praying or prophesying.
Why?
Because failing to do so would confuse gender roles and create the shameful impression that women are trying to adopt male characteristics,
disrupting the order that Paul is teaching.
The head covering, in this sense, is a cultural symbol of femininity and proper distinction between the sexes.
Now who does this dishonor?
Her, her husband, or Christ?
The answer is yes - all the above.
Similarly, a man who wears a head covering dishonors both himself and his authority, which is Christ.
This is similar to a child who rebels against their parents, bringing grief upon themselves and their parents (Proverbs 10:1; 17:25).
1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother.
25 A foolish son is a grief to his father and bitterness to her who bore him.
Paul is telling us that a woman’s failure to wear the head covering was a visible sign of rebellion against the created order,
which reflects the intended relationship between men and women.
In doing so, she communicated independence and rebellion,
creating a disruption in the worship setting by not adhering to the cultural norms that distinguished male and female roles.
Which is why the angels are upset about in verse 10.
They are watching the disorderly and rebellious worship - and they aren’t happy about it.
Alright, on to verses 8 and 9.
In these verses Paul provides two reasons why women are the glory of men.
The first reason, given in verse 8,
is that "man did not come from woman, but woman from man."
This reference to Genesis 2:21-23 underscores that woman was created from man’s rib,
which highlights the unique relationship between the two.
Paul’s point here is that since woman came from man, she was meant to be his glory.
This “glory” signifies honor and respect,
as women were created to complement men and fulfill a role of honor in the relationship.
The idea that "glory" means honor is further supported by verses 14-15,
where Paul speaks of the natural distinction between men and women,
and how this distinction is tied to the idea of honor and proper order in creation.
This means that a woman being the "glory" of man emphasizes that she should honor and reflect the role she was created for in relation to man.
Not rebel against it.
Which dishonors her, her husband, and her God.
In verse 15 Paul states that long hair is a woman’s “glory,” while in verse 14, he says that long hair on a man is a “dishonor.”
These two verses clearly contrast the roles and expectations for men and women.
It is honorable for a woman to have long hair, but it is dishonorable for a man.
The contrast between "dishonor" and "glory" suggests that another way to translate "glory" in verse 15 would be as "honor."
Paul’s point is that we should always honor and respect the source from which we came.
In this context, a woman honors man—her source—by wearing a head covering.
This action symbolizes her recognition of man's role as the head (authority) over her,
acknowledging the created order and God's intended roles for men and women.
And the head covering serves as a visible sign of this honor and respect.
In 1 Corinthians 11:9, Paul explains that woman is man's glory because "man was not created because of woman, but woman because of man."
This again alludes to Genesis 2, where woman was created as a helper for man.
In Genesis 2:18, God declares that it is not good for man to be alone,
so He creates woman to accompany him.
She was created specifically to assist him in fulfilling the tasks God had given him, as seen in Genesis 2:20.
Because woman was created for man’s sake—to be his helper and partner in the tasks God assigned—Paul argues that woman should honor man.
This honor reflects her God-given role in creation and reinforces the relationship between the sexes.
and honoring these roles maintains the order and harmony established by God.
So, the point of 1 Corinthians 11:7b–9
is that women should wear a head covering because they are man’s glory,
meaning they were created to honor him.
As we have seen earlier in verses 5-6,
if a woman does not wear a head covering, she dishonors her head,
which means she is not honoring man,
and in doing so, she brings dishonor upon herself.
The use of the word dishonor in these verses supports the understanding that glory in verse 7 means honor.
But how do we know that woman was created to bring honor to man?
Paul proves this in verses 8-9, where he explains that man was not created for woman, but woman was created for man.
Since woman was created for man’s sake, as a helper and companion,
it follows that she should honor man by acknowledging this role.
This honor is expressed through the head covering,
which symbolizes the recognition of God’s created order and the proper relationship between men and women.
In response to this, Evangelical feminists often claim that any role distinctions between males and females are due only to the fall.
But their argument doesn’t work
Because Paul is making his argument from creation, not from the fall.
The distinctions between male and female are part of the created order BEFORE humanities fall into sin,
and Paul apparently did not think redemption in Christ undid this.
Now let’s look at verses 11-12.
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
1 Corinthians 11:11–12 help clarify Paul’s argument so the Corinthians don’t misunderstand him and start treating women poorly.
Paul points out that men and women are interdependent in the Lord
“neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman” (v. 11).
This means that both sexes rely on each other and cannot boast over the other.
And everything ultimately comes from God (v. 12).
These verses make it clear that Paul does not believe women are inferior or of lesser worth.
Unfortunately, some traditional views have treated women this way,
but Paul teaches that both men and women are equally valued by God.
Women, like men, are made in God’s image,
and men’s leadership role doesn’t make them more valuable.
Both sexes are meant to complement each other, and their worth is equal in God’s eyes.
Verses 3-10 make it clear that Paul believed in role distinctions between men and women.
However, verses 11–12 show that these distinctions do not mean women are inferior or less important.
Alright, finally, verses 14-16.
The instruction given to us by nature, according to Paul,
is that "if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him," while "if a woman has long hair, it is her glory."
This reflects cultural norms about gender distinctions in appearance.
Paul is referring to the natural sense of what is right and wrong that God has given us,
especially when it comes to gender and sexuality.
By using the word "teach," Paul suggests that this understanding is something people naturally know, based on God's design for men and women.
Romans 1:26–27 is a helpful comparison because it uses the same concept.
In those verses, Paul explains that people who engage in homosexual relationships have "exchanged the natural function of sexuality for what is contrary to nature."
This means they are going against the natural order God created.
In a similar way, Paul is teaching that how men and women present themselves
—such as in their hair and appearance—
should reflect the natural order.
Our natural instincts and cultural understandings of masculinity and femininity guide us in this,
and Paul’s point is that we should honor these natural distinctions in how we dress and carry ourselves.
In verses 13–15, Paul explains that a woman wearing a head covering aligns with the natural distinctions between men and women that God has created.
For a woman to dress like a man would be inappropriate
because it goes against the God-ordained difference between the sexes.
Paul argues that if a woman prophesies in church without a head covering
—essentially dressed like a man—
she is disregarding the distinction between men and women that God established from the beginning.
The final verses (13-16) use a universal principle,
showing that this teaching isn't just a cultural matter but contains UNIVERSAL principles that applies to all Christians at all times and places.
