1 Corinthians 11

11 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Head Coverings

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in

everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered
them to you.

3 ButI want you to understand that the head of every man

is Christ, the head of a wife[a]is her husband,[b] and the
head of Christ is God.
4 Everyman who prays or prophesies with his head covered
dishonors his head,

5 butevery wife[c] who prays or prophesies with her head

uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if
her head were shaven.

6 Forif a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut
her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut
off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 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.

8 For
man was not made from woman, but woman from
man.
9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for
man.

10 Thatis why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority

on her head, because of the angels.[d]

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. 13 Judge for
yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her
head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if
a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,15 but if a
woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given
to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be
contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the
churches of God.

The Lord's Supper

17 But
in the following instructions I do not commend you,
because when you come together it is not for the better
but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come
together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among
you. And I believe it in part,[e] 19 for there must be factions
among you in order that those who are genuine among
you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is
not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each
one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes
hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have
houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church
of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall
I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23 ForI received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,
that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed
took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it,
and said, “This is my body, which is for[f]you. Do this in
remembrance of me.”[g] 25 In the same way also he took
the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new
covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in
remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread
and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he
comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of
the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty
concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person
examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink
of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without
discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on
himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and
some have died.[h] 31 But if we judged[i]ourselves truly, we
would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the
Lord, we are disciplined[j] so that we may not
be condemned along with the world.
33 Sothen, my brothers,[k] when you come together to eat,
wait for[l] one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat
at home—so that when you come together it will not be for
judgment. About the other things I will give
directions when I come.

Question: "Should Christian women wear head coverings?"

Answer: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 addresses the issue of women and

head coverings. The context of the entire passage of 1 Corinthians
11:3-16 is submission to the God-given order and "chain of
command." A "covering" on a woman's head is used as an
illustration of the order, headship, and the authority of God. The
key verse of this passage is 1 Corinthians 11:3 "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." The implications of this verse
are found in the rest of the passage. The order is: God the Father,
God the Son, the man or husband, and the woman or wife. The
veil or covering on the head of a believing Corinthian wife showed
that she was under the authority of her husband, and therefore
under submission to God.

Within this passage is also verse 10: "For this reason the woman
ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the
angels." Why is that important to angels? The relationship of God
with men is something that angels watch and learn from (1 Peter
1:12). Therefore, a woman's submission to God's delegated
authority over her is an example to angels. The holy angels, who
are in perfect and total submission to God, expect that we, as
followers of Christ, be the same.
This covering not only means a cloth but also can refer to a
woman's hair length. How can we say that? We must take this
verse in the context or the setting in which it is presented. "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" (1 Corinthians
11:14-15). Therefore, in the context of this passage, a woman
who is wearing her hair longer marks herself out distinctively as
a woman and not a man. The Apostle Paul is saying here that in
the Corinthian culture, when a wife's hair was longer than her
husband's, it showed her submission to his headship. The roles of
the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound
spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of
God.

But why is hair an issue in this passage? The apostle Paul is

addressing an issue related to the Corinthian culture that was
being allowed to disrupt the church. For a woman to have a
shaved head was a disgrace (and, in Jewish thinking, a sign of
mourning, Deuteronomy 21:12). Her hair was her “glory” (1
Corinthians 11:15). In the Corinthian culture, women normally
wore a head covering as a symbol of their submission to their
husbands. Paul affirms the rightness of following that cultural
mandate—to dispense with the head coverings on women would
send the entirely wrong signal to the culture at large. In fact, Paul
says that, if a Christian woman refuses her head covering, she
might as well shave her hair off, too (verse 6). A woman who
refused to wear a covering in that culture was basically saying, “I
refuse to submit to God’s order.” Therefore, the apostle Paul is
teaching the Corinthians that hair length or the wearing of a
“covering” by the woman was an outward indication of a heart
attitude of submission to God and to His established authority.
God's order is that the husband is the head of the wife as God is
the head of Christ, but there is no inequality or inferiority
implied. God and Christ are equal and united, just as the husband
and the wife are one. This is not a passage that teaches the
woman is inferior to man or that she should be submissive to every
man. It is teaching God's order and spiritual headship in the
marriage relationship. In the Corinthian culture, a woman who
covered her head during worship or when she was in public
displayed her submission to authority.

In today's culture, we no longer view a woman's wearing of a head

covering as a sign of submission. In most modern societies, scarves
and hats are fashion accessories. A woman has the choice to wear
a head covering if she views it as a sign of her submission to the
authority of her husband. However, it is a personal choice and not
something that should be used to judge spirituality. The real issue
here is the heart attitude of obedience to God's authority and
submission to His established order “as to the LORD” (Ephesians
5:22). God is far more concerned with an attitude of submission
than an outward display of submission via a head covering. First
Timothy 2:9-10, "I also want women to dress modestly, with
decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or
expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women
who profess to worship God."
Many complementarians build their case for rejecting women
elders/pastors on Paul’s argument from creation in 1 Timothy 2:13–
14. Paul’s prohibition cannot be culturally limited, they argue, since the
apostle doesn’t argue from culture but from creation. He argues from the
order of creation (“For Adam was formed first, then Eve”) and from the
order of accountability in creation (“Adam was not deceived, but the
woman was deceived”). Based on Paul’s inspired reasoning, then,
complementarians conclude women may not “teach or have authority
over men” (v. 12) in the context of the local church.

But can’t this reasoning also be applied to 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, where

Paul makes a similar argument from creation to bolster his position? In
the context of 1 Corinthians 11, he demonstrates that women need to have
their heads covered while praying or prophesying. To prove his point, he
argues from creation, saying that the woman was created from man (“For
man was not made from woman, but woman from man”) and forman
(“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man”). Isn’t
it inconsistent to reject Paul’s appeal for women to wear head coverings
while affirming his command for women not to teach or have authority
over men, since in both contexts Paul uses virtually the same (creation-
related) reasoning?

This apparent inconsistency is raised by Craig Keener when he writes,

“Although many churches would use arguments [from the order of
creation] to demand the subordination of women in all cultures, very few
accept Paul’s arguments [in 1 Cor. 11] as valid for covering women’s
heads in all cultures. . . . We take the argument as transculturally
applicable in one case [1 Tim. 2], but not so in the other [1 Cor. 11]. This
seems very strange indeed.”

A closer examination of the two texts, however, shows it’s consistent to

reject the need for women to wear head coverings (1 Cor. 11) while
affirming they are not to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim. 2). The
reason for this distinction is that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul
only indirectly uses the argument from creation to affirm head coverings
for women. The direct application of his reasoning is to show that creation
affirms gender and role distinctions between men and women. Therefore,
Paul’s argument from creation which demonstrates men and women are
distinct cannot be culturally relegated. The application of this principle
(i.e., head coverings), then, can and does change with culture. In contrast,
the argument from creation in 1 Timothy 2 applies directly to Paul’s
prohibition, and therefore is not culturally conditioned.
Argument from Creation (vv. 7–9)

In 1 Corinthians 11:7–9 Paul writes:

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. For man was not made from
woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman,
but woman for man.

Paul is not directly making the case that head coverings are needed for
women when they pray or prophesy. He doesn’t say: “A woman must
have her head covered when she prays or prophesies. For man was not
made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man.” Instead, Paul uses the Genesis creation
account to affirm his previous statement that “woman is the glory of man.”

Even in verse 7 when Paul explains why a man must not cover his head
(“since he is the image and glory of God”), the focus isn’t so much that a
head covering is wrong in itself but on the disgrace or shame it brings. It’s
inaccurate to claim Paul uses an argument from creation to affirm the need
for women to wear head coverings. Instead, Paul appeals to creation to
demonstrate the differences between men and women that God
established from the beginning—and violating these distinctions brings
shame instead of glory.

Five Surrounding Arguments

This interpretation is supported by a number of clues found in the context

of the passage:

1. Argument from Headship (v. 3)

The manner in which Paul introduces his discussion strongly suggests

head coverings are not his main concern. In verse 3 he states, “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.” It seems obvious
something more important is at stake since Paul clarifies the functional
relationship between man and Christ, woman and man, and Christ and
God. In their relationship, the man has authority over the woman just as
Christ has authority over the man and God the Father has authority over
Christ. Functionally, the wife is under her husband’s loving authority and
therefore must demonstrate her submissiveness by wearing a head
covering.

2. Argument from Hairstyles (v. 6)

Paul’s comparison of a woman who prays or prophesies without a head

covering to a woman with a man’s haircut also signifies that the main
issue at stake is gender and role distinctions, not merely a piece of cloth
on one’s head. In verse 6 Paul explains, “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”
(NASB). Just as it’s wrong for a woman to blur the gender distinctions by
wearing a man’s hairstyle, so too it’s wrong for a woman to blur such
distinctions by not covering her head while praying or prophesying. Paul
presses this analogy by saying if a woman wants to disgrace both herself
and her husband by having a man’s hairstyle, she might as well go all the
way and shave off her hair.

3. Argument from the Nature of Head Coverings (v. 10)

It’s important to notice the passive nature of a head covering. A head

covering was a sign or symbol pointing to a greater reality. It had no
meaning in itself, but was a concrete expression of an intangible truth.
Thus, Paul isn’t concerned with head coverings per se. Rather, he’s
concerned with the meaning that wearing a head covering conveys.

4. Argument from Nature (vv. 14–15)

Verses 14 and 15 state: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man
wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is
her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” By using the term
“nature” Paul isn’t referring to culture or “social conventions” but to
God’s design in creation (cf. Rom 1:26–27). God created women to have
longer hair than men and thus nature teaches us it’s not fitting for a man
to have long hair and appear like a woman. Paul’s argument from nature,
then, doesn’t directly prove women must wear head coverings but that the
differences between men and women are part of God’s creational design.
Because the distinctions between men and women are part of God’s plan,
it’s imperative the Corinthian women wear head coverings.

5. Argument from Practice (v. 16)

In verse 16 Paul writes, “We have no such practice, nor do the churches
of God.” According to Paul, the wearing of head coverings wasn’t limited
to the church at Corinth but was a custom in all the churches. Such a
universally accepted custom suggests the presence of an underlying
(transcultural) principle governing the need for such a practice. Paul’s
argument, then, is women must wear head coverings when praying or
prophesying because of a more important underlying issue—God created
men and women differently, and we must not seek to eliminate such
distinctions.

Distinction from 1 Timothy 2:12

Unlike 1 Corinthians 11, Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2:12 is based

directly on creation. In other words, Paul’s appeal to the creation of Adam
before Eve demonstrates the different roles God established based on
creation. Therefore, the order of creation becomes the reason why Paul
prohibits women from teaching men. The Genesis account gives the
reason why a woman is not to teach or have authority over a man.
Because 1 Timothy 2:12 is based on creation, it transcends cultures.

But Paul’s argument from creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 is not directly

given to mandate women must wear head coverings. Rather, his argument
from creation explains how man is the image and glory of God, and how
the woman is the glory of man. Christian women are not required to wear
head coverings today when praying, since the symbol of a woman’s head
being covered is different today than it was during the time of Paul (at
least in many cultures). Consequently, Paul’s argument from creation is
only indirectly linked to the need for head coverings.

The transcultural truth that undergirded Paul’s admonition, however, still

applies for us today. Women are different from men, and this distinction
must be maintained in the church and in the family. In contrast, Paul’s
argument from creation in 1 Timothy 2:13–14 directly follows the
prohibition for women not to teach or have authority over men. Thus,
verses 13 and 14 are best taken as the grounds for that prohibition, and
they are transcultural. Therefore, the command for women not to teach or
have authority over men should be upheld in the church today.

Principle vs Customs
Biblical scholars recognize the difference between principle and
customs. The former refers to the commands of God that apply to all
people at all time, in every culture and in every life situation, while the
latter, on the other hand, refers to things that are variant, local
applications of principle. Meaning, principle is of universal application
while customs is of native application. Ex. Tights: shackles or denarii

“If one treats a custom as a principle is only guilty of being overly

scrupulous (meticulous), while to treat principle as a custom is guilty of
God’s condemnation.” RC Sproul.

Customs refer to those varient

22. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 - Its Issues and Implications

Introduction

Before we seek to consider some specific issues regarding the application

of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, let us first sum up what Paul
has taught. To sum up verses 1-16, Paul is instructing women to cover
their heads in order to demonstrate to the angels and celestial powers their
submission to God’s appointed authority. Paul does not present head
coverings as a matter of his opinion, but as an apostolic tradition. He does
not describe this as a matter of Christian liberty, or as a personal
conviction, but as a matter of obedience. (“Let her cover her head” in
verse 6 is an imperative, buttressed by the “ought” of verse 10.) Paul
mentions no other alternative symbol nor does he imply there may be
some other way to symbolize submission to male headship. He also
speaks of the head covering of women as the consistent practice of every
church and not just that of the Corinthian church. Anyone who would wish
to debate with Paul over his teaching in these verses seeks to reject a
tradition held and practiced in every church.
Nothing is clearer in verses 3-9 than that Paul wants the woman to wear a
head covering because such adornment appropriately distinguishes
women from men. Indeed, the focus on male headship over women in
verse 3 shows that Paul wants women to wear a head covering in order to
show that they are submissive to male headship.154
Those who hold to the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and who
consistently employ sound methods of interpretation, find it difficult to
come to any other conclusions than those stated above. We must ask the
question: “Do Paul’s words apply to us just as they did to the Corinthians,
and if so, how?” As we seek to reach the bottom line of our text, we must
answer the following questions:

DO VERSES 1-16 DEAL SPECIFICALLY (ONLY) WITH THE MEETING

OF THE CHURCH?
Some sincerely believe verses 1-16 refer to the church meeting. I believe
Paul is speaking more generally so that his words apply both to the church
meeting and elsewhere. My reasons for this view, and for rejecting the
“church meeting only” position, are as follows:

(1) The conclusion that the church meeting is in view is inferential at best.
(2) It is clear, to me at least, that all of chapters 11-14 are not devoted to
the church meeting. First Corinthians 11:1-16, along with chapters 12 and
13, deal with more general issues. This does not mean that what Paul
teaches in these more general texts does not apply to the church meeting;
it simply means his teaching is not to be restricted to the context of the
church meeting.
(3) When Paul does refer specifically to the church meeting, he clearly
indicates this fact as we can see in 11:17, 18, 20, 33; 14:4, 23, 26.
(4) The fact that women are not allowed to function in the church meeting
in the way Paul describes in verses 4 and 5 certainly calls the “church
meeting only” view into question. If Paul prohibits women to pray, or
teach, or prophesy, or speak publicly in the church meeting, then how can
we conclude that the teaching of this passage, which speaks of a woman
taking a public verbal role, should be understood as applying specifically
to the church meeting? This is about as logical as a maximum security
prison passing out instruction booklets for the use of hand guns to inmates.
(5) Some think verses 17 and 18 imply that the previous 16 verses are a
reference to conduct in the church meeting:
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come
together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when
you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and
in part, I believe it (1 Corinthians 11:17-18).
I think these verses strongly argue in the opposite direction. Paul is now
turning from his instructions on head coverings, which apply beyond the
church meeting, to his instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper, which is
a more specific context. His words, “in the first place,” in verse 18 do
not make sense if Paul has been talking about the church meeting all
along. He should now be saying, “in the second place,” because the first
error was regarding head coverings. When he says, “in the first place,”
he indicates this is his first correction under his instructions regarding the
church meeting. I do not know how else to understand his words.
TO WHAT DEGREE SHOULD CULTURE INFLUENCE OUR
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THESE VERSES?
The assumption is often made that we must first understand the cultural
setting of a particular passage before we can understand or apply it.
Knowing the cultural background of any text is helpful, but it is not
mandatory. If it is vitally important, the biblical text (in the context or
elsewhere in the Bible) will supply what we have to know. If this were
not so, we could have no confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture—that
it contains all that is necessary for life and godliness (see 2 Peter 1:2-4; 2
Timothy 3:16-17). It would also mean that some book, or books other than
Scripture, are necessary for us to understand and apply the Word of God.
Corinth appears not to have one given culture; rather Corinth was a
cosmopolitan city with a wide diversity of cultures. In 1 Corinthians 1:1-
2, 4:14-17, 11:16, and 14:33-34, Paul indicates that his teaching in this
epistle is for every Christian in every culture. These truths are not culture-
bound; thus, we need not know all we might wish to know about the
cultural setting in Corinth. We simply do not know as much about the
cultural setting of that day, as some commentators indicate:
In this case, even if we were sure of prevailing customs, we would need
to be able to distinguish between Greek, Roman, and Jewish customs as
well as differences in geography, how one dressed at home, outside the
home, and in worship, and the differences between the rich and poor. This
diversity is well illustrated in the various samplings in Goodenough.155
Paul applies his teaching to all of the saints in all of the churches. A look
at a map of Paul’s missionary journeys, and noting 1 Peter
1:1 and Revelation 2 and 3, should remind us of the many cultures
represented in the churches of Paul’s day.
Even if interesting and enlightening, there is a reason why a knowledge
of the culture of Corinth is not necessary. Head covering is a symbol, a
symbol designed to convey a message both to men and to angels. The
symbol of head covering does not derive from the culture of Corinth, or
our own culture, but from the nature of the Godhead and the divine
distinctions God has determined and defined. These symbols have a
message for culture, but they do not gain their message from culture. It is
Scripture—not society—which provides us with the meanings of divine
symbols.
Christians talk a great deal about culture, especially in reference to
interpreting and applying Scripture. As popular as the word “culture” is
today, I decided to see how often it could be found in the Bible. The term
“culture” is foreign to the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB translations of
the Bible—it never occurs in the Bible. Is there a biblical term which is a
synonym for “culture” in the Bible? Yes, there is. That biblical term is
“the world” or “this world.” What then does the Bible have to say about
“the world”?
(1) The unbelieving world (culture) of Jesus’ day was opposed to Him,
and He warns that our culture (the world) will be hostile to us as
well (John 17:13-21; 1 Peter 4:12-19; 1 John 3:13).
13 Do not marvel, brethren, if the world hates you (1 John 3:13).
(2) We once walked in accordance with our culture, but through the cross
of Christ, the world has been crucified to us and us to it.
14 But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to
the world (Galatians 6:14).
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly
walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of
the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of
disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2, see also 4:17ff.).
(3) Our culture (“this world”) is seeking to squeeze us into its mold, and
we are instructed to resist and to be transformed into conformity with
Christ. We are not to walk according to fleshly wisdom, but in holiness
and godly sincerity (2 Corinthians 1:12). We are strangers and pilgrims,
whose conduct is governed by the kingdom which is yet to come with the
return of our Lord (see 1 Peter 2:11ff.). We are to submit ourselves to
earthly authorities (1 Peter 2:13ff.) but not to earthly values and standards
(1 Peter 2:13ff.).
1 I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your
bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your
spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but
be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what
the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans
12:1-2).
(4) Our calling as Christians is to live a holy life and to keep ourselves
from being stained by the world. To be a friend of the world is to be in
hostility toward God. If we return to living in accordance with the culture
in which we live, we have been led captive.
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty
deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary
principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8,
see vss. 20-21).
27 This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father,
to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained
by the world (James 1:27).
4 You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is
hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the
world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).
Paul employs the same term for the traditions of men as he does for
apostolic traditions in 1 Corinthians 11, producing a most interesting
contrast. When we live in accordance with the culture, we are living
contrary to the traditions of Christ.
As we read through the Bible, do we ever find any instance where godly
men or women set aside or modified a commandment of God in order not
to accommodate their culture? I cannot think of any. I can think of
instances where men made concessions to their culture, but never
compromises. Joseph was a man who made a concession to his (Egyptian)
culture when he shaved off his beard (the custom in the Hebrew culture)
and changed his clothes before appearing in the presence of Pharaoh
(Genesis 41:14). There was no compromise here of principle or of
command. Indeed, by shaving off his beard, Joseph was identifying
himself with the Egyptian culture and certainly symbolizing his
acceptance of his circumstances as the will of God. Doing this made it
possible for Joseph to conceal his identity from his brothers and thus bring
about their repentance and ultimate reconciliation. But when Mrs.
Potiphar propositioned Joseph, he did not give in to this sin, but chose to
obey God and to accept the consequences.
Daniel and his three friends also made concessions to the culture of the
Babylonian Empire when they were forcibly taken from their homeland
and relocated in Babylon. They were willing to study in Babylonian
schools and to engage in the service of the king. These concessions they
were willing to make, but when Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone in his
kingdom to bow down to his golden image, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-nego refused. Doing so would have been to disobey God’s
commands against idolatry. God’s commandments were not to be set
aside because they came into conflict with culture, even when taking a
stand would likely cost these men their lives (see Daniel 3).
When Daniel’s enemies realized they could not find any grounds for
accusing him of wrong-doing with regard to his job, they also concluded
he was a man who would not violate the “law of his God” (Daniel 6:5).
They knew Daniel would not make compromises concerning God’s
commandments. And so they tricked the king into signing a law which
forbade anyone to pray to anyone other than the king for 30 days. Daniel
could have ceased praying for 30 days, or he could have closed his
windows and prayed privately. But Daniel refused to make any
concessions or compromises because this was a matter of obedience to
God’s commands. Daniel, like his three friends, would rather die in
obedience to God’s commandments than live because of compromises
made in these things to comply with their culture.
Paul was a man willing to make concessions to his culture. In 1
Corinthians 9, Paul sets down his guiding principles regarding his
willingness to surrender his liberties for the sake of the gospel:
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all,
that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I
might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though
not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the
Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being
without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those
who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the
weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save
some. 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become
a fellow partaker of it (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
Paul was willing to give up any of his personal liberties if it might enhance
the gospel. For this reason, Paul was willing to have Timothy circumcised
(see Acts 16:1-3). But Paul would not budge when it came to divine
principles or divine commands. And for this reason he refused to have
Titus circumcised, and he rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in his
associations with Jews and Gentiles (Galatians 2:1-5, 11-21).
Nowhere in the Scriptures do we ever find concessions or compromises
made to culture when it requires disobedience to God’s commands. Head
covering is a command, a tradition which was to be followed by every
woman in every church. There is no reason and no room for compromise
or change, and Paul does not so much as hint that there is. Why then are
we so quick to make such changes, and why are we so bold to speak of
doing so because of culture?

WHAT ABOUT THE EXPRESSION, “WHILE PRAYING OR

PROPHESYING” IN VERSES 4 AND 5?
First and foremost, let us be clear that the main point of the passage is
not the possibility of whether a woman can pray or prophesy in the church
meeting. In this text, Paul is not as concerned with when and where a
woman can pray or prophesy, but with how she would do so—with her
head covered. Do we have problems with why Paul may have employed
these terms and referred to these activities? That is understandable
because Paul does not explain why these terms and activities have been
chosen or what the implications of his words are. This is because whether
or not a woman can pray or prophesy in the church meeting is not his
primary concern in this passage. His concern is that which he consistently
comes back to in verses 1-16—women wearing a head covering as a
symbol of their submission.
Second, concluding that a woman can publicly pray or prophesy in the
church meeting can only be done on the basis of several inferences. First,
one must infer (without any clear indication of this possibility as seen
above) that Paul’s words in verse 1-16 apply solely to the church
meeting. Second, one must infer that because Paul mentions the
possibility of a woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered
in the Corinthian church, this means any woman could and should do so
anywhere. But the inferences do not stop here. Some go on to reason that
if prophecy is the greatest gift (see 12:31; 14:39), if Paul allows women
to do the greatest thing (prophecy), he must allow women to do anything
less, like teaching, or leading.
Third, it is only possible to conclude that a woman can pray or prophesy
in the church meeting if one’s conclusion is based on a chain of
inferences, which then allow this inferred conclusion to overrule the clear
commands of the apostle elsewhere (see 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians
14:34-38). Unclear texts should not override clear texts, and inferences
must never take precedence over commands.
Fourth, if Paul is speaking more generally than just the meeting of the
church (as I contend), then women could and did pray and prophesy, only
not in the church meeting. And when they did so, they were to have their
heads covered.
Why did Paul pick these two activities, one of which (prayer) is not a gift,
and the other (prophecy) which is a gift? We can only conjecture. These
two activities are not represented as the only things a woman could do,
but as things which a woman should not do with an uncovered head. Why
should a woman’s head be covered when praying or prophesying? For one
thing, prayer and prophecy are functions which both have a strong element
of authority. In both cases, the one who performs these functions is in
direct contact with God. The one who prays speaks directly to God; the
one who prophesies speaks directly from God. The prayer or prophecy
of 1 Corinthians 11:5 is not all that different from the “prayer and the
ministry of the word” to which the apostles devoted themselves (Acts
6:4). If there ever was a time when a woman seemed to be in authority, it
would be when she was praying or prophesying. At these times, Paul
insists, a woman should be thought to be acting shamefully if she does not
cover her head.
One thing we can see from verses 4 and 5 is that by using the expression
“while praying or prophesying” in relation to both men and women,
Paul may be emphasizing that both men and women are doing the same
thing—praying or prophesying. If they are doing the same thing, how then
is the woman distinguished from the man? The answer: by wearing a head
covering.
Here is a somewhat radical thought on this matter of prayer and prophecy
related to the relationship between angels and women. Prayer is man
approaching God, while prophecy involves man going forth, as it were,
from God with a message and ministry from Him. Satan, the fallen angel,
seems to lack the reverence he should have toward God. His interaction
with God in Job 1 and 2 seems to lack any sense of reverence. In Luke
22:31, Satan is described by our Lord as “demanding permission to sift
Simon like wheat.” The false teachers are referred to as “angels of light,”
sent from Satan (2 Corinthians 11:13-14). One of the dominant
characteristics of false teachers is their disdain for those in authority who
“do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties” (2 Peter 2:10). If
one of the first appearances of angels in the Bible is Jacob’s vision of the
angels “ascending and descending” to heaven (Genesis 28:12), then is it
not safe to say that angels are constantly going to and from God? If they
watch godly women, who cover their heads as they approach God in
prayer and as they go forth from God in prophecy, should they not learn
to reverence God as described in Isaiah?
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne,
high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him
were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their
faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3
And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord
Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” 4 At the sound of their
voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with
smoke. 5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean
lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the
King, the Lord Almighty” (Isaiah 6:1-5).
Will the angels not be instructed as to their proper response to God by
what they see women doing as they approach God? Will they not be
reminded that God is holy—distinct from and vastly above all others. And
will they not realize that glory belongs to Him?
One thing more should be noted on this matter of prayer and prophecy.
Jesus was a master teacher. When He taught, neither the crowds nor the
disciples went away saying, “That was really clear; I understood
everything He said.” Just the reverse was true. They went away shaking
their heads, wondering what He meant. The disciples did not fully grasp
what our Lord was saying until after He had risen from the grave and
ascended to the Father. I believe God does not over-simplify those truths
He wants us to ponder. His wisdom must be mined, not picked up like lost
coins. The enigmatic expression of “praying or prophesying” may be by
divine design. We are not supposed to get it immediately, but we are to
think about it a lot. And until (and after) we do get it, we are to obey
anyway because we do understand that the command is for the women to
cover their heads.
DOES THE WOMAN’S SILENCE SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEAD
COVERING?
Some contend that the woman’s silence is sufficient evidence of her
submission. Thus, in the meeting of the church, if a woman is silent, a
head covering is not required. But if silence is sufficient, then why does
Paul not start with chapter 14 rather than conclude with it, for it is in
chapter 14 that he calls for silence? Why would Paul make such a point
of having your head covered in chapter 11 if it were not necessary in the
first place due to the woman’s silence? In chapter 14, when Paul speaks
about silence, it is not just the women who are to be silent, but some of
the men as well. The problem in Corinth was not too much silence but too
much speaking. If only one person is to speak at a time (see 14:27, 30-
31), then everyone else is to be silent. If both men and women are silently
worshiping, as some reason, then a woman will distinguish herself from a
man not by her silence but by her head covering.

DOES THE WOMAN’S “LONG HAIR” SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEAD

COVERING?
The fact that all women wear their hair longer than men (as a rule) is used
as the premise on which Paul builds to show another reason why women
should have their heads covered. In verse 6, Paul argues that if a woman
will not cover her head, she should shave it. Thus, a woman’s long hair is
not sufficient. Furthermore, a woman’s long hair is her glory, and her head
covering veils this glory so that her husband is preeminent. One final
observation: if all women in general wear long hair, then long hair does
not distinguish the submissive Christian woman from the rest, but a head
covering does.

WOULD SOME OTHER SYMBOL SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEAD

COVERING?
I do not think so. The basis of the symbol is the divine order. Headship is
symbolized by a head covering, which represents a woman’s submission
to her (metaphorical) head. There is a clear and direct relationship
between “headship” and “head coverings.” Paul does not mention any
alternate symbols and seems to prohibit any practice other than head
coverings (verse 16). I think there is significance to the fact that every
woman testifies to her submission to male headship by the same symbol.
If every woman was free to express her submission in any way she chose,
how would the angels or anyone else understand what they were seeing?
A wedding ring is a universally accepted symbol of marriage, at least in
this part of the world. What if every person decided to symbolize their
marriage by a symbol of their own choosing? Finally, how can a woman
signify submission to male authority, as Paul has instructed, by setting
aside the very instructions (for a head covering) that Paul has given? If
submission to male headship starts anywhere, it starts by submitting to the
authority of the apostle Paul. If we submit to God’s headship, surely this
is by submitting to His commands and not by modifying them according
to our preferences and judgments. In all too many ways, we function like
the Supreme Court in relation to Congress. The Supreme Court passes
judgment on the laws of Congress, rejecting those which it deems
unconstitutional. We pass judgment on God’s commands, rejecting those
which seem unreasonable.

25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right
in his own eyes (Judges 21:25).
WHEN AND WHERE SHOULD A WOMAN COVER HER HEAD?
The question in our minds should not be if a woman should have her head
covered, or “Why?” The questions we ask should be: “When?” and
“Where?” Let us seek to establish some general guidelines for the answers
to these questions. I would point out at the outset that Paul’s words imply
that head coverings are not the exception, but the norm. I would also point
out that Paul does not give precise “if … then” formulas for when a
covering is required. It would seem that individual judgment is required
here.
(1) Women should cover their heads when the angels are watching. When
are the angels watching?
9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned
to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels
and to men (1 Corinthians 4:9).
8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the
Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is
the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God,
who created all things; 10 in order that the manifold wisdom of God might
now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities
in the heavenly places (Ephesians 3:8-10).
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace
that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, 11 seeking to
know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating
as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12 It
was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in
these things which now have been announced to you through those who
preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things
into which angels long to look (1 Peter 1:10-12).
The angels seem to be watching all the time. I do not say this to suggest
that women should cover their heads all the time, but to indicate that Paul
is speaking more broadly than just the time when the church gathers.
Other guidelines will help to narrow down the application of head
coverings.

(2) Women should cover their heads when they are praying or
prophesying. It should be self-evident that these two activities—prayer or
prophecy—are an occasion for a head covering, because Paul specifies
these two activities as such. If prophecy ceased with the apostolic age,
then prayer alone remains. Is Paul speaking of verbal, public prayer? I
would definitely think so. Is he speaking of public, unspoken prayer (as
in the church meeting)? He may well be, especially since the angels would
be observing. Is he speaking of private prayer at home? If it is the kind of
regular prayer we see in Daniel 6:10, this would certainly be evident to
the angels, and so a head covering would be appropriate. Of course, we
are to “pray without ceasing,” and in this sense we are constantly in
prayer. I think Paul is speaking more of covering the head when it is
obvious (to men and/or to angels) that we are praying.
(3) Women should cover their heads when they are engaged in exercising
their priesthood as believers. I do not think that we should consider
“praying” or “prophesying” the only occasions in which a head covering
is necessary. It seems that Paul has chosen these as two of the more self-
evident instances in which a head covering is appropriate for women.
Remember that Paul is dealing with those who seem to want to debate this
matter (see verse 16). Praying and prophesying are the engagement of the
believer in what we might call a person’s priestly activity. We are a
“kingdom of priests” (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6), and we exercise
our priesthood by ministering for men to God (by intercessory prayer)
and, in apostolic time, by prophets who ministered to men for God. Paul
does not speak about wearing a head covering to work, or around the
house all day, but specifically when we engage in those ministries which
we have as priests.
(4) Women should cover their heads when the spiritual ministry in which
they are engaged has a leadership or authoritative function or
appearance. Headship is about authority and preeminence. Prayer and
prophecy certainly have a “leadership dimension” as we can see in Acts
6:4. When women function with some measure of authority, the head
covering seems required.
(5) Women should cover their heads when their submission to male
headship is not apparent.This whole passage is based upon our
observance of divine distinctions between men and women, between male
and female. When men and women are engaged in the same activities,
then the head covering visibly symbolizes the distinction which might not
otherwise be apparent. When a woman (or a man) prays, she approaches
God directly. There is no clear evidence of her submission to male
headship, unless it is by her head being covered. When a woman once
prophesied, she spoke to others directly for God. Again, a sign of her
submission is necessary. When the distinctions between men and women
are not evident, head coverings distinguish the women by symbolizing
their submission to male headship.
(6) While Paul’s words in our text indicate that there are times when no
head covering is shameful, Paul mentions no time when a head covering
would be inappropriate. What I mean by this is not that a women should
always have her head covered, but that one who is intent upon obeying
Paul’s command and does not know for certain whether a covering is
“required” would always be safer to lean to the “covered” side than to the
“uncovered” side.
WHAT ABOUT MINISTRY GROUPS?
As elsewhere in this message, I speak only for myself, and it is an opinion
with less conviction on my part than much of what I have said above.
When there is the normal interchange (discussion, sharing, etc.) between
men and women where the element of authority is not prominent, I do not
see the need for head coverings. During the prayer time, when women
would join in, I think it is appropriate for the woman to cover her head.

WHAT ABOUT A COVERING WHEN WOMEN TEACH OR LEAD

WOMEN OR CHILDREN?
The element of authority is very evident in such cases. When men are not
present, the need for a distinction may not be as great as when men are
present. In His earthly ministry, Jesus frequently spoke of His submission
to the Father’s authority (see John 5:17-26, 36-37; 6:37, 40, 57, 65; 8:27,
38, 49; 10:17-18, 29; 12:49-50; 13:3; 14:13, 16, 28, 31). It certainly does
not hurt to remind others that we are under authority.
WHAT IF A HEAD COVERING ATTRACTS ATTENTION?
Jesus made it very clear that men should not perform their acts of
obedience in such a way as to draw attention to themselves so as to obtain
man’s praise rather than God’s (Matthew 6:1-18). As we identify
ourselves with Christ by our obedience to His commands, we will become
a “spectacle” to men and angels (1 Corinthians 4:9). Daniel and his three
friends drew attention to themselves when they chose to obey God rather
than men. We will do likewise, if we live obediently to God in a culture
that hates Him (1 Peter 4). We are to obey God’s commands in order to
publicly proclaim His excellencies to the world (1 Peter 2:9; Philippians
2:15) and to the celestial beings (1 Corinthians 11:10; Ephesians 3:10).
WHAT KIND OF HEAD COVERING IS REQUIRED BY PAUL?
The Greek expressions used of the woman’s head covering seem to
indicate that something more than a piece of cloth (or a hat) resting on the
head is required. Not only should something be on the head, but something
should hang down from the head to cover the hair:

… what Paul had in mind is a veil which covers the whole head and in
particular conceals all the hair; something worn on top of the head like a
present-day cap or hat does not really come within the scope of his
argument.156
… it is probable that Paul is speaking of wearing a head covering of some
kind, such as a shawl. That a shawl rather than a full veil is in Paul’s mind
is indicated by the word covering(peribolaios) in 11:15, which is not the
usual word for veil but probably refers to a wrap-around. The evidence in
favor of this position is as follows: (1) The verb translated as “cover” in
the NIV (katakalypto) occurs three times in verses 6-7, and related
cognate words occur in verses 5 and 13. These words most often refer to
a covering of some kind. For example, the angels who saw the glory of
Yahweh in the temple covered their faces (Isaiah 6:2). Judah thought
Tamar, his daughter-in-law, was a harlot because she covered her face
(Genesis 38:15). Since the word almost universally means “to cover” or
“to hide,” the text is probably referring to a hair covering of some kind.
… Esther 6:12 (LXX) employs the same expression found in verse
four, kata kephales, of Haman, who hurried home mourning, covering his
head in shame. He probably used part of his garment to do this. … To sum
up: the custom recommended here is a head covering of some kind,
probably a shawl.157
IS WEARING A HEAD COVERING “LEGALISM?”
I am hearing the word “legalism” a lot lately, and I do not like what it
implies. Legalism, of course, is wrong and ought to be avoided. But the
solution is not to throw out all the rules or commands of Scripture. A
legalist is one who has a “fatal attraction” to rules. The rules become
primary, and the principles get lost in the shuffle. A legalist gets lost in
the details, the “gnats,” and loses sight of the “camels,” the underlying
principles and motives. A legalist does not keep the commands of God
because he loves God; he keeps the rules because he thinks that doing so
makes him better than others, and because rule-keeping is the way to earn
God’s favor and blessings. A legalist sticks to the rules because they deal
with outward, external standards. Legalism is wrong.

The solution to legalism is not the absence of all rules and commands in
the name of Christian liberty. This kind of liberation is unacceptable:

16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil,
but use it as bondslaves of God (1 Peter 2:16).
In Matthew 23, Jesus does not teach that throwing out the rules is the
solution to legalism.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and
dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law:
justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should
have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain
out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside
they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first
clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may
become clean also. 27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For
you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful,
but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even
so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full
of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:23-28, emphasis mine).
The solution to legalism is to continue to obey the rules, to keep God’s
commands, but to always do so in the light of the principles which
underlie them. Women should cover their heads because Paul commands
them to, and because of the principles of headship and of God’s sovereign
distinctions. Legalism is keeping the rules for the rules’ sake. Christian
liberty is keeping the rules for God’s sake, and with a heart and mind
which seeks most of all to be pleasing to Him by obeying His
commandments.

THERE IS YET ONE MORE QUESTION WHICH SOME MAY BE

ASKING: “WHY AM I MAKING SUCH A BIG ISSUE OF HEAD
COVERINGS?”
First, Paul commands women to wear a head covering. We do not do well
to ignore any command of God. To set one command aside is not only
wrong, it sets a precedent. Can we now set aside any command we do not
fully understand or which we dislike and with which we
disagree? Second, the head covering of the woman is a symbol, a symbol
of one of the great truths of the Bible. A woman’s head covering
symbolizes her submission to the principle of headship. The headship of
the man over a woman is important because it reflects the headship of
Christ over His church and of God over Christ. When Adam and Eve
sinned, they acted against the headship of God, following the precedent
set by their tempter, Satan. All men are sinners, subject to the eternal
wrath of God. The message of the gospel is not only that Jesus died for
sinners, but that Jesus is Lord of all. Those who will be saved are to
acknowledge Him as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:22-26; Romans 10:9-10).
Those who will not acknowledge this now must ultimately acknowledge
it when they bow the knee to Christ as His defeated foes (Philippians 2:9-
11). God does not reveal Himself to men through idols, but He does reveal
Himself through His church. As we acknowledge and practice our
submission to His headship, we announce to the world that He is Head of
all. To the degree that we fail to obey this command (and others), we
distort the image of God which we are privileged to symbolically display.
It is now time for me to turn the question around. Why is this simple act
such a problem to so many today? Is it really that Paul’s meaning is so
hard to grasp? We should read this text repeatedly. For me, the more I
read it, the more clear his message is. (Conversely, the more one reads
most commentators on this text, the cloudier its message becomes.) Is it
because we, individually or as a church, have not done it this way before?
Then let us change our practice if we now understand this as our duty and
privilege. If we as individuals and as a church are growing in Christ, our
grasp of God’s Word should grow too, and we should be constantly
changing our lives to conform to what we now understand. That is what
“walking in the light” means. Is our disproportionate reaction due to the
fact that the world is not wearing head coverings and neither is the church?
Standing up for God’s Word may mean standing alone. Daniel and his
three friends were four men living in foreign captivity along with
thousands of other Jews. They stood alone against the sins of that culture,
as aliens and strangers. We should do likewise:
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not
receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from
a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.
14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country
of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left,
they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing
for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be
called their God, for he has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:13-16).
For some, the symbol of wearing a head covering may be a big thing
because it is. If the symbol of head covering is to reflect our submission,
not only to male headship but to God’s distinctions and His ways of doing
things, we may need to ask ourselves whether we are truly submissive to
God.

Perhaps some woman is thinking, “That’s all right for you; you’re a man.
It’s easy for you to tell us to obey because it doesn’t affect you.” But you
see, it does. It means that I am obliged to lead, and not just to lead in a
way that pleases me. I must lead in a way that reflects Christ’s headship.
I must lead in a way that is sacrificial to my own interests and which seeks
to bless those under my leadership. And, beyond the matter of headship,
I assure you that there are other commands which also strike me between
the eyes. Obedience to God’s commands is not easy for any of us, but
disobedience is not a viable option, if we wish to please God and to reflect
His glories to the world, and to celestial beings as well.
15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
I think that while I have not answered every question you may have on
this passage, I have answered some, and that my understanding of this text
is clear. You may very well disagree with it. And if you do, I hope and
pray it is for good and biblical reasons. If my message has caused you
who differ with me to rethink your position, and to be more convinced
about your conclusions than mine, I think I have done my job. The
interpretations and opinions expressed here are my own. They do not
necessarily represent the individual interpretations of the other elders, and
they certainly do not represent the collective decision and policy of the
elders of our church.

While my interpretation of this text has changed since I last taught

publicly on 1 Corinthians 11 in 1982, I think some of my concluding
words from that lesson years ago (cited below) are appropriate as we
close. First, these words will remind you that I have changed my mind
and will at least raise the possibility that I might change it again. Second,
I hope that while my interpretation of these verses has changed, the spirit
which I called for in these concluding words of my previous message
might still be evident among us, as we each attempt to understand and
obey this portion of God’s Word:
I urge you not to confuse form with function. To merely place a covering
upon one’s head does not make one submissive. I have observed some
very unsubmissive women who would not think of going to church
without their head coverings. The scribes and Pharisees had an obsession
about keeping certain forms, but in function they completely missed the
point of the Law. These discrepancies between form and function,
between practice and principle, were a major bone of contention between
the religious leaders of Israel and our Lord Jesus. May I add that they were
meticulous about crucifying Jesus according to the rules (cf. Matthew
26:57-66, 27:3-6; John 18:31-32), but it was a sinful and damnable act
(cf. Acts 2:23).
I also ask you not to make head covering the touchstone of submission
and spirituality. It is so easy for the one who believes head covering is a
biblical requirement to pass judgment on the submissiveness of a woman
solely on the basis of whether or not she has a covering on her head. No
external act, no matter how meritorious, is proof of one’s spirituality.
Neither is the absence of a head covering proof that a woman is
unsubmissive. While we might desire to be made (or at least considered)
spiritual by the observance of some specific practice such as head
covering, the spiritual life is simply not like that. Many godly women may
cover their heads as an act of submission; many submissive wives may
not do so, convinced that it is not required or even beneficial. In and of
itself, head covering, or the absence of it, will not determine and may not
reflect one’s spiritual state.158
What I would hate to see from these lessons on headship and head
coverings is hasty, ill-conceived action. I would be disappointed to see a
woman covering her head, simply because I have taught the text as I have,
or because other women are covering their heads. I would also be greatly
disappointed to see a woman refuse to cover her head without giving this
text serious consideration. I would also be somewhat disappointed to see
a man “instruct” his wife to wear a head covering, so that she does so
without being convinced this is what God requires. If the symbol is to be
meaningful, it should be voluntarily worn, for submission is voluntary.
Let me urge each one who reads this lesson to now leave my words behind
and to turn to the text of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 itself, reading it repeatedly
over the next weeks until you are convinced of what Paul and God require
of you.