[Transcript]
Of everything we will cover in this unit, this passage is the most challenging. The ESV Bible titles this passage “Head Coverings,” but don’t let the title cause you to skip it. Many Christians are unfamiliar with the topic of head coverings for two reasons. First, their churches don’t take a stance on the issue. Second, when it is discussed, this passage is often dismissed as a cultural matter that no longer has a literal application. In the latter case, the subject is frequently treated allegorically in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the head covering discussion in a context where the practice is no longer common. Surprisingly, an honest look at this passage will help us understand issues that come up later in the letter.
Headship
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” – 1 Corinthians 11:3
After a brief commendation for their faithfulness to the traditions he taught them, Paul jumped from the frying pan into the fire. (Well, it probably wasn’t a fiery debate for them, but it is for us.) There are two questions we must answer to move forward with our examination.
- What does “head” mean?
- Is Paul talking about men and women in general or husbands and wives?
The Greek word translated as head is kephalé, which, when not referring to the physical body part, can mean both authority and source.[1] Scholars are divided on which interpretation Paul intended here. Those who believe it refers to authority usually do so because of Paul’s reference to the created order in verse eight. Those who interpret it as source argue that it was the more common usage of the word in Greek literature and the Septuagint.
Your choice of definition will influence how you interpret verse three. If you see it as source, what does that imply about God being the head of Christ? Is Christ’s existence derived from the Father? How does source affect our understanding of Christ’s divine nature? Is He fully God if His source is God? Does that suggest a dependence that diminishes His divinity? On the other hand, if you interpret it as authority, how does that impact the roles of husbands and wives? Are wives subordinate to their husbands? Is Christ subordinate to the Father? Does subordinate mean inferior? Each position presents challenges to consider.
In preparation for this discussion, I watched Mike Winger’s entire 6-hour video on this subject. He examined every known position on head coverings and discussed the definition of kephalé. There’s no way I can distill everything he covered here. But I do feel like I have a better working understanding of the subject. For our purposes in this teaching, I’m going to cut to the chase, give you my take, and leave it to you to dig into other ideas if you want to do so. And honestly, my position has shifted after digging into the depths of this topic.
I believe the Scriptures teach a complementarian understanding of husbands and wives. Marriage is a picture of Christ and His Bride (Eph 5:32). Therefore, as Christ is head of the Church, husbands are the heads of their wives. That isn’t really debatable as most will admit that this is the clear teaching of Scripture in Ephesians. The questions arise around the meaning of kephalé, head. Does it mean authority or source and both carry implications. Because of the implications of 1 Cor 11:3, I believe Paul intends authority, and not source. I do not believe Paul would infer something that would call Christ’s “source” into question. He is eternally God, along with the Father and the Spirit, having no ”source.”
What about the implications of subordination? It does not suggest inferiority. In fact, Paul taught in Philippians 2 that Christ chose to subordinate Himself, taking on the form of a servant. When subordination is a choice, it speaks to meekness – power under control, not inferiority. Christ is equal to the Father, but He chose to subordinate Himself to the plans for redeeming all things. Therefore, I believe Paul had authority in mind when he used kephalé, not just because it’s less problematic, but because it highlights the meekness of Christ in the Godhead.
The complementarian view of headship best explains verse three and does not diminish Christ’s divinity. Christ is equal with the Father and the Spirit, therefore equal in authority, but He is also meek and chose to subordinate Himself, taking on the form of a servant, and submitting Himself to death on a cross.[2]
The question of whom Paul is addressing stems from the Greek. The ESV makes an interpretive choice by using husband and wife, but the Greek actually says man and woman. This is reflected in more literal translations.
“But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and the head of Christ is God.” – 1 Corinthians 11:3 (LEB)
However, the interpretive choice made by the ESV is contextually correct. All men in general aren’t the heads of all women in general. It would be inappropriate for one wife’s husband also to be the head of another husband’s wife, and so on.
So, according to Christ’s example, headship means authority. It’s not based on the wife’s perceived inferiority or the husband’s greater strength but on the meekness of Christ, who, though equal, chose to submit Himself to the Father, making the Father His head. Christ is therefore the model for both the husband and the wife. He is submitted to the Father, and He is the Head of the Church. With this foundation, we can proceed through the rest of this passage.
Head Coverings
“Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.” – 1 Corinthians 11:4-5
We must clarify an important distinction upfront. What follows in this passage—and the upcoming chapters—is a discussion about conduct during our worship gatherings, not in the privacy of our homes, in public, or any other formal setting. This pertains to when the Body of Christ comes together to worship. Specifically, these instructions are for praying and prophesying during the gathering.
The instruction is twofold. When praying or prophesying, men should not cover their heads, and women should. In each case, whether men cover or women do not, their heads are dishonored. In light of verse three, this likely doesn’t refer to their physical heads but to their spiritual heads. In the headship flowchart, husbands dishonor Christ when they cover their heads, and wives dishonor their husbands when they do not cover their heads.
A popular explanation for this passage is that it is purely cultural and not relevant for the church today. That view is very Western. Over the past 125 years, Western Europe, the British Empire, and the Americas experienced a revolution for women’s rights. While much of that revolution led to just changes, its spillover into the church had unexpected effects. Historically, questioning this passage in church life is quite new, yet here we are. Do women need to wear head coverings when they pray and prophesy? Is this just a cultural issue from the days of the Corinthians, or was it an accepted practice in church life until very recently in history? Is it a purely cultural matter, or is this how the Lord prescribes things for all times and cultures?
I am persuaded that it was relatively unquestioned until very recently in history. However, I’m also persuaded that there are cultural questions in play. Take, for instance, verse six. In that day, women who shaved their heads tended to be prostitutes. That’s no longer the case, nor was it necessarily the case everywhere in the ancient world. But it was the case in the Roman Empire. Then consider the issue of hair length. What is regarded as a feminine hair length? It’s an important question because later in this passage, Paul tells men that it’s shameful for them to have long hair. Why? Because it was feminine, and in Paul’s day, men with feminine hair tended to be homosexuals. So, how long is too long? These lengths aren’t defined by Scripture in terms of measurements, but rather are set by cultural norms. Clearly, today there are short haircuts for women that are distinctly feminine, and thus wouldn’t violate what Paul says here about women with short hair or shaven heads. And there are lengths of hair for men that retain the masculine vibe. Is there a boundary laid by Scripture that disregards cultural norms? For sure. But the boundaries with this are generous. Men’s hair should look masculine, women’s hair should look feminine, and it becomes a sinful matter to confuse those boundaries.
That said, even when considering cultural matters, they didn’t take precedence because Paul appealed to the created order in verses eight and nine.
“For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” – 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 (NKJV)
Appeals to the created order usually suggest that what is being taught transcends time and culture. So, we in the West face a dilemma. Do we believe that head coverings are prescribed by the Lord, or is the Lorddescribing what was true in Corinth at that time? And by the way, while women tend to get most of the attention on this issue, men are also instructed to uncover their heads for a reason. While it’s not clear in the cultural context why Paul felt it necessary to tell men to uncover their heads, the practical application for us today would be simple. Men, remove your hats.
Before moving on, it would be wise to address one more point. What about unmarried or widowed women? We previously established that verse three refers to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. Since local churches are likely composed of families, your gathering will include children and possibly many unmarried young men and women. To clarify, a young unmarried woman still under her father’s care would look to her father as her head. The idea of an unmarried woman living independently from her father’s household wouldn’t be common in the first century. But eventually, her father would pass away, and if she remained unmarried, what then? She, like widows, would have Christ as her head. Would she then wear a head covering? Yes, because the act of showing honor to your head, whether a husband or Christ directly, is still relevant.
Glory
“For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” – 1 Corinthians 11:7
The primary issue here is the glory of Lord. This is why men ought not cover their heads because they are created in the image of God. Yet, Paul follows that with the woman is the glory of man. What does that mean? First, it cannot and does not mean women aren’t created in God’s image. Women bear the image of the Lordjust as much as men. Genesis chapter one says as much.
“So God created humankind in his image, in the likeness of God he created him, male and female he created them.” – Genesis 1:27 (LEB)
In this case, although kephalé is not used here, the idea of “source” comes through loud and clear: woman was made from man. The Lord took her from the man’s side and fashioned her.[3] Paul’s intent here is still rooted in the created order. So, in the case of how wives glorify the Lord by wearing a head covering, they do so by bringing honor to their husbands. This reasoning continues to flow well with the headship flowchart established in verse three. Some scholars even believe the head covering keeps the focus on God’s glory because, according to verse fifteen, a woman’s glory is her long hair. So, the covering serves to keep the focus on God’s glory.[4]
Finally, in verses fourteen and fifteen, Paul appealed to nature. Even nature shows us that long hair on a man is disgraceful and a woman’s long hair is glorious. The glory of her long hair should be kept for her husband and not serve to distract others when we gather for worship. This doesn’t mean women are entirely responsible for men’s sexual distractions. Men are responsible for controlling their own eyes to stay pure. But as mentioned earlier, done for God’s glory, wives honor their husbands by covering their own glory for the Lord’s glory to be seen above all.
What Should We Do?
“If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” – 1 Corinthians 11:16
Paul concluded his remarks on head coverings by essentially saying, “If you disagree with me, I don’t know what to say; this is how the churches of God do this.” As American evangelical churches, we have, for the most part, moved away from this practice. We must ask ourselves if we are in sin for doing so. If not, what is the justification for that conclusion? Is that justification sound and based upon a reasonable interpretation of the New Testament? Or is it based on our preferences?
Jesus established two ordinances for local churches to observe: the Lord’s Supper and water baptism. Any gathering of believers calling themselves a church must practice these rites. Head coverings are not an ordinance for the church because Christ did not “order” them. However, departures from “the traditions” that Paul delivered to us need to be built on a solid foundation. Head coverings fall into this category of traditions (see 11:2). Doctrines do not change; they remain the same. Traditions, though they likely have good reasons, aren’t as unwavering.
I believe local churches have the freedom to embrace or forego the use of head coverings, simply based on how Paul placed them in the category of traditions that he delivered to them. However, I don’t believe traditions should be changed at the whim of culture. Just because a head covering feels like we’d be turning back the clock 125 years doesn’t mean they are bad ideas. They are symbols of authority, and symbols carry meaning. When we lose symbols, we risk the loss of meaning.
Ongoing Discussion
“That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” – 1 Corinthians 11:10
Here’s what everyone really wants to know. What do head coverings have to do with angels? To make sense of such a statement, we can only gather intel from what is written elsewhere. Consider the following.
- We are created lower than angels. (Psalm 8:5)
- We will eventually judge angels. (1 Corinthians 6:3)
- Angels long to understand the Lord’s grace toward us. (1 Peter 1:12)
- They occasionally come among us in disguise to test us. (Hebrews 13:2)
These four truths provide a plausible understanding of verse ten. Angels are curious about us humans, who will eventually be lifted above them to act as judges of their rebel siblings. Therefore, in preparation for our exaltation, they observe us as we are now to learn humility. Part of that observation involves coming among us in disguise to gain firsthand experience of how Jesus has transformed us.
Ladies, these head coverings might be part of that examination. They are observing you, analyzing how you submit yourselves. The symbol of authority on your head is possibly one way the angels learn submission for their future. But head covering or not, angels are learning about gracious submission from their observations.
[1] Brown, D. R., & Twist, E. T. (2013). 1 Corinthians (J. D. Barry & D. Mangum, Eds.; 1 Co 11:3). Lexham Press.
[2] Philippians 2:5-8
[3] Genesis 2:21-22
[4] Brown, D. R., & Twist, E. T. (2013). 1 Corinthians (J. D. Barry & D. Mangum, Eds.; 1 Co 11:7). Lexham Press.
Brother....this is great.