Let Her Cover Her Head

A sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-6 on the topic of head coverings for women in the church.

Introduction

At face value, I could bet that this text would trigger many modern readers and the general public. It seems sexist, if you will. And admittedly there are some difficult interpretive issues with the text, but we don’t rely on the human mind to give us understanding, we rely on God’s Spirit to reveal truth to us so as we dive into the text, let us gather our prayers for exactly that. God’s revelation of truth upon us in the face of a difficult text. I want to preface something before we begin our exegesis, that is, to understand in our reading the use of the term “head”. This is where most of our difficult interpretation will centre around, and this term is what we need to decipher in each of its uses. The word ‘head’ is the Greek word kephale and it holds two meanings: the literal physical head of an animate creature, and a symbolic or metaphorical head meaning chief, supreme or prominent. So in reading the passage we need to decipher when Paul means which definition, because he assumes his audience will pick up on it. Another difficulty is in deciphering the purpose of Paul’s response. So far he has been answering a question from a previous letter, but there is no allusion to such a question from the Corinthians, so in the grand theme of “Christian order in congregational service” in this chapter, we get three teachings under that umbrella. Paul gives us a lesson on how women are to be adorned in congregation, how the poor are to be treated at the Lord’s Supper, and how spiritual gifts ought to be used. The occasion and reason behind Paul’s passage here would help us to navigate the universality vs the contextual components of the text but that is left a mystery to us so we must work with what we have. Let’s get into the text.

Exegesis

(2) This new section begins with praise from Paul, but the verse is quite misleading as to where the discussion ultimately ends. If chapters 8-11 dealt with the matter of food sacrificed to idols, and on a macro scale, the matter of maintaining the highest Christian virtues in life for the sake of the gospel and others. Then this new section that spans from 11:2-12 deals with the matter of corporate worship. Paul has three topical lessons contained in this section and the first is perhaps the most difficult for modern believers to grasp. He begins with dealing with the issue of women who were praying and prophesying in corporate gatherings, yet left their heads uncovered. Some argue by the removal of a physical veil that was customary at the time, or by the tying of long hair so as to expose more of the head. I don’t know about you, but in my entire lifetime of churchgoing, I have not once dealt with the question of women either choosing to not wear a headcovering, nor the question of women tying their hair for that matter. So then, why in the Bible, by the authority of Paul in an epistle inspired by God’s Spirit, do we see such a teaching? You can see why this is so trivial to Christians today. What I believe we are being taught is that the modern believer has come too far from Christian order and practice, so far that we now see these things as “outdated” and “unnecessary.” To some, even “inappropriate.” But we are also being taught that this seemingly outdated practice actually serves a grander purpose on a macro scale. Just like the trivial issue of what foods can be eaten in the previous chapters served to teach virtue, we are dealing with the issue of head coverings that serve to teach something grander, something much more theological than it first appears to be. Nevertheless, Paul opens with praise, praise for remembering Paul in everything, and holding firm to the traditions as Paul had delivered to them. That is important, that is key. Traditions that the Apostles taught are meant to be kept as delivered.

• Do you see the issue with this verse though? The issue is that other than the opening admonishment of Paul in chapter 1, the entire letter thus far has been rebuke and correction of the behaviour and attitude of the Corinthians. It is odd then that Paul would praise them for doing things that he clearly sees issue with. It’s hard to conclude that the Corinthians were keeping the traditions as delivered to them, furthermore it’s even harder to imagine that they kept thought of Paul in everything. It seems more like they disregarded Paul in everything. Nevertheless the praise is here in plain sight, so what are we to make of it?

• Some scholars have suggested that this praise is sarcasm, intended irony, to act rhetorically for the correction he is about to present. But what is more likely, and accepted is that Paul is setting up his total set of arguments and teachings that will span chapters 11-14. It is introductory in that he will now speak of areas in their practice that need attention and correction because although they remember Paul in everything and keep traditions, they are not perfect.

  • “Even though they remember him in everything, there are some areas with regard to the “traditions” where praise is not in order. They may be following the “traditions” all right, but not in proper ways.” (Fee)

(3) There are two “major” verses of contention in today’s passage, verses 3 and 5. That is where we will spend most of our time understanding. This verse is odd in that it isn’t really the main point of the section, yet it acts as a theological framework for the main point. Regardless, it is the point that Paul wants the Corinthians to understand, and as a result this is the point that we must understand. It begins with “but” signaling a shift. He praises them, but. He makes it clear that although he praises some of their practices, there is something he needs to address and he wants them to know, as he writes. He makes three statements, each defining a relationship between two parties. The key word and common denominator being kephale or head. The word “head” has many meanings even in English, so it’s hard to grasp the true thrust of what Paul is saying without really understanding the Greek in context. That is our struggle today but it will unlock the text for us.

• Each relationship has a metaphorical “head''. Christ the head of every man, man the head of woman, and God (the Father) the head of Christ. This form of the list stems from the problem itself. And the problem is not the practice of freedom by some women in the church. The problem is how their use of freedom was bringing shame on the relationship between men and women in the church. Now before you jump to rash conclusions and opinions, remember that we just read chapters 8-11 that dealt with the freedom that believers have, liberties we can certainly exercise, but they are to be used for the betterment of God and others, for a greater cause than serving ourselves. So yes, the woman possesses the same freedoms that a man enjoys when it comes to attire, but that doesn’t mean that either man or woman should exercise that freedom without thought of the other just as we are to not eat at temples without thought for the weak among us.

• Note also the final relationship. God the head of Christ. For trinitarians that should jump out at you and challenge your thinking. But read carefully. The term head then, as it follows, cannot imply hierarchical authority as some have suggested. If the man is the head of the woman, that is typical hierarchical patriarchy, right? Wrong. For is God above Christ in authority? If not, then that cannot be what Paul means when he uses the term “head”. In all three relationships, the term head does NOT imply higher authority, power, or importance. It implies, exactly what it implies everywhere else in the Bible, simply difference in role. The term “head” is just not used in that way and so we need to stop reading it that way. It could be used in that way, but that’s not how it’s used here. God, the name for the Father that Paul uses, is the head of Christ. Paul uses Christ, not Jesus or Son here. This implies headship in a relationship dictated by role. The father’s role as God, the son’s role as Christ. We know that the Father, Son and Spirit are co-equal, mutual, persons of the Godhead, same in power and authority. But each also has a role, that does not diminish any of those qualities, hence in the earthly ministry of the Son as the Christ, the Father is head. So too, in the relationship between man and woman, what appears to be implied here is the marital relationship between man and woman, is that the man is head.

  • God’s relationship to Christ is not merely social, nor is it only cultural. Paul wants his readers to see the relationship between men and women as analogous in some sense to God’s relationship to Christ. (Schreiner)

• But what then does Paul mean by the role of “head’? It means “source” here. Christ is certainly the source of every man, the woman is the source of man (a reference to Adam and Eve), and God is the source of Christ (the Messianic role).

  • On Christ as head: It can either mean that Christ is the source of all creation or that Christ is the source of new life for all believers. Both are viable but I lean towards the second because the frame of the argument is within the context of a Christian gathering of believers. Thus the address is to believers.

  • On man as head: Read verses 8 and 12 and you will see what Paul means by a man being the source of a woman. This does not degrade women. On the contrary it clarifies the role of men and women in creation.

    • Jesus is the God-Man, and as the eternal Son of God he shares every attribute that belongs to the Father. Yet, as the eternal Son, he voluntarily and gladly submits to the Father. So, too, the different role for women in the church does not call into question the essential dignity, value and worth of women, just as Christ’s functional submission does not contradict his essential unity with the Father. (Schreiner)

  • On God as head: Rather, it refers to the incarnational work of Christ. God is the source of Christ, who through his redemption became the source of “every man.” (Fee)

(4) “Every man” here refers to every Christian man in the assembly of God’s people. How do we know that Paul has corporate worship in mind? He uses the terms “praying and prophesying.” Two representative functions of worship in the corporate setting. They, together, sum up the function of worship and Paul has public gathering specifically in mind as the setting because although prayer could be done in private, prophesy or the sharing of God’s Word, could have only been done in assembly.

• The deeper question is what does Paul mean by this hypothetical situation of a man who has placed something on his head, which in turn disgraces his head. The first head is the literal head of a man with a literal covering. The second is in reference to the man’s metaphorical head, which Paul has already established as being Christ. In honesty, we cannot be 100% certain of what Paul meant by a man putting something on his head. Some have argued it is long hair, others the Jewish tallith which was headwear, or as many understand it a veil or toga that could cover the head. What we do know is that such an act, in an honour-shame culture, was deemed disrespectful to one’s head, in this case Christ. It was shameful for a man to adorn themselves in a manner that would dishonour Christ. Some scholars have noted that only the rich wore lavish togas to cover heads, and only the elite could afford such things, thus wearing such lavish attire could easily draw attention and be viewed as boasting. Others have also noted that pagan worshipers, men in particular, covered their heads in the temples of their gods, and so such cultural practices could be viewed in a negative light in the church assembly.

(5) Contrasting the hypothetical man who covers his head, are the actual women who were uncovering their heads in the assembly of God’s people as they prayed and prophesied. And before we get there, note that Paul has no issue with women of faith praying and sharing their understandings with others publicly in the church. Now we already know of the so-called “eschatological women” previously in this letter, who were women that claimed a heavenly status reality now on earth, thus leaving their husbands and functioning as if their expected glorified states were a reality now. The same women might be, as has been suggested by some, the target of Paul’s teaching here. The same equation in the sentence structure can be found as in verse 4. But it is the reverse. The woman who uncovers their literal head brings shame to their metaphorical head, their man. Assuming marital relationship, the wife dishonours their husband by uncovering their head in public worship. But might I suggest this is not a marital issue, but rather Paul sees disgrace brought to men in general, by women who do this. This is the correct reading based on the content of verse 3 and the following verses up to 9.

• So the issue is that believing women were adorning themselves in a manner that brought shame to believing men. You can probably see where the imperative or application of all of this is “headed” (pun intended). But before we get there, let’s get our understanding firm.

• There are two options that scholars see as to Paul’s commendation of a head covering for women in assembly. It was either long hair or a physical veil of some sort. The long hair argument has roots in OT literature and other customs that determined let down long hair for women was a sign of sexual invitation and promiscuity. I adhere more to the idea that Paul, like with the men, had a physical covering in mind. Verse 15 even tells us that the long hair of women is in fact her glory. The veil idea is not certain either, and in the case with the men, we have to admit defeat on certainty. But we can be certain that the removal of covering and the exposing of one’s head causes, in Paul’s perspective, a dishonouring of man. I’ll share some points as to why I lean towards a veil of some sort.

  • Archeology supports the Roman custom of women wearing head coverings in public, especially married women, as a sign of respect.

  • The verb “cover” in this verse is used elsewhere in scripture in reference to a physical covering.

  • In Esther 6:12 the same expression “covered” is used when Haman went home mourning, covering his head in shame.

  • Plutarch (3rd century Greek Philosopher) notes, “it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered.”

(6) The imperative is made clear in this verse: women, cover your head in public worship. He suggests that those who do not cover their heads, might as well have their heads shaved. Paul knows that this would be unacceptable and rejected by those women on the grounds of personal shame. So by their own argument, they would be saying that to have nothing on their heads would be shameful because, back then, it would signal masculinity and a blurring of gender lines. What Paul then suggests on that premise, is that their use of claimed liberty in their new faith, is not to be misused to misrepresent the tenets of the faith. Namely, the clear distinction of male and female lines, and the willing glad submission of women to the headship of men in the church. Again, hear those terms in correct theological light as mentioned prior. In short, the actions of everyone in church, reflect the beliefs of the faith to those both within and outside the church. Schreiner writes, “Refusing to cover their heads sent a message in the culture of the day that the women were not relating properly to male leadership, and Paul wants them to avoid offending others.” I would go further and say, that it is not so much about offending others but about offending God. Offending him by ignoring those distinctions and acting on our own accord because we feel it’s better our way. `

Conclusion

Before I give my final thought on the application of this text for us, I want to make a distinction between principles in scripture and customs in scripture. All are important but I would argue that principles are where our focus ought to be in reading the Bible because they are constants. What we have in today’s text is what I believe is a custom. There is an appeal to creation, which we will get to in further detail next week, but Paul is applying a principle into a specific custom that was appropriate for that context. I think we can apply the same principle without having to apply that exact custom. The principle is that when we gather as the church, we ought to respect one another, both as men and as women for the sake of each other. This could mean considering attire that is appropriate in church settings. And some people think dress codes in church are too restrictive but think about settings where we naturally believe in a dress code without thinking much of it. Funerals, weddings, graduation, prom, interviews, work and even something simple like a high end restaurant. Attire in all of those situations is a sign of respect and appropriateness. It sends a signal or a message. Why then in the church would we not want that? For the customs of his time, Paul saw something as appropriate in light of the grander principle of respecting Christ and each other. It just so happened to be some women who were the culprits at the time. This was not a deliberate attack on women. Paul’s been rebuking men all throughout this letter. Maybe they needed a bit of a break. So let’s uphold that principle, without being weighed down by the custom that is noted here. I, personally, don’t find it necessary at all to enforce head coverings for women in church today. Doing so, does not signal literal obedience of God’s Word, it is in fact ignorance of what Paul is teaching. Men, Women, let us in Christ, respect one another.