THOUGHTS ON WOMEN WEARING A HEAD COVERING DURING WORSHIP
A BRIEF STUDY OF 1 CORINTHIANS 11:3-16
BY Jerry Campbell 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is a very difficult passage and widely varying views come from very sincere people forming opposing ideas about it. Because of this passage, some have demanded that women wear some kind of covering in worship services. After careful study of this passage, others feel perfectly free to allow women to worship without a covering. This study attempts to understand the language of this passage. (Quotations are from the NKJV.)
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is manf and the head of Christ is God.
The basic subject of the passage is authority: God is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of man; man is the head of woman.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
Man should not use a covering when teaching or praying. Removing the covering (hat, cap, etc.) is a sign of respect in the presence of a superior.
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
The problem of the woman's uncovered head is not disrespect for God but disrespect for man (husband). This is also very clear in verse 7. That was true in the culture of Corinth in the first century, but it is not true in 21st century America. THIS FACT IS THE KEY TO PROPERLY UNDERSTANDING THIS PASSAGE. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
In the culture in Corinth a woman praying or prophesying without a covering was as shameful as a woman with a shaved head. A shaved head has been a sign of disgrace in most societies.
7 For a man indeed 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 is not from woman, but woman from man.
9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
This is a further discussion of man being the head of the woman, again giving emphasis to the fact that the problem of a covering is between man and woman, not between woman and God. If, in today's culture, there is no disrespect shown by a woman toward her husband or other men, if she does not have a head covering, there is no problem in her worshiping without one.
10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. This is a very difficult verse and has received much and varied commentary. Some have suggested that angels are somehow offended or tempted by viewing the uncovered heads of women. Some have suggested that this introduces an additional authority (the first was the authority of the man) to which women must submit. It is best to connect this verse with the next two verses to see the full context. Angels have to be in submission to God, so it is good for them to observe women being submissive to their husbands.
11,12 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Great care must be exercised when the subject of a woman's subjection to man is discussed. It is very easy for men to become abusive in this area. This is not a question of intellectual or even spiritual superiority. Spiritually, men and women come to God on equal terms (Gal. 3:26-28; 1 Pet. 3:7 - note the discussion of submission in verses 1-6). It is a question of leadership. Men and women depend on each other: God created woman from man's rib, but men are born of women. Both men and women must ultimately respect each other, and both must respect God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Worshipers must give consideration to this matter. It was obvious in the Corinthian setting that it was improper for a woman to worship without a covering on her head. In modern assemblies, it is certainly possible for this to be permissible because there is no such current custom; thus, no problem is involved.
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
It is natural for men to have shorter hair than women. The distinction is in the comparative lengths of the hair. The question involved in verses 14 and 15 is not "how long is long," which can vary from culture to culture, but "Is there a distinctive difference between the lengths of men's and women's hair?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
Some have believed this verse says that the whole matter of a woman's covering in worship is satisfied by the fact that she has long hair. Most understand that there are two coverings in this passage, one natural and the other external and additional.
16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
This is very important. This subject should not be allowed to create contention in churches. If a woman lives in a culture that demands a covering, she should accept it and not cause contention. If she lives in a culture that does not demand it, but still wants to wear a covering, she and others should not cause contention. If it is a culture that shows respect in other ways, no one should be contentious in demanding a covering. The word "custom" in verse 16 is difficult because it is not specifically defined. Many have said that it refers to not wearing a covering. However, this makes the language awkward because the focus of the passage has been on wearing a covering. If "custom" refers to wearing a covering, this verse appears to make the whole discussion useless. Paul may have discussed the whole matter to encourage a practice in Corinth without binding a law on all churches in all cultures. From chapter 5 to the end of the letter, there is an awareness of the impact of one Christian's actions on another. This section fits well in that pattern. A practice may be acceptable in some situations without being binding in every situation. Three final notes: 1. Some have concluded that a woman should not cut her hair. Nothing in this passage suggests that. Verses 5 and 6 say "shaving" the head is a sign of "shame," but say nothing about cutting or trimming the hair. The issue is "long" hair for women and "short" hair for men, a contrast between the sexes.
2. A question comes to SEARCH because people observe the "short hair" of the women in the singing audience. It may be shorter than it could be or than it may have been at other times or in other cultures; however, there is no difficulty in distinguishing the women from the men in this audience.
3. I have done some very quick research on verse 16. The translations have a serious variation only in one place. The KJV, NKJV, ASV and others say "we have no such custom," while the RSV, NFV, NASV say "we have no other practice" (the NASV has a footnote saying "such" is the literal translation). There is not enough difference between "custom" and "practice" for any serious discussion. However, there is a real difference between "no such" and "no other" - the first refers to what has been discussed, and the second could focus on external practices. The first would suggest that Paul discussed the matter of women wearing a covering in worship and concludes that this is not a custom or practice in churches. The second might see Paul as setting up a custom or practice and allowing no discussion of another or different practice or custom. I am not a Greek scholar (I have a minor in Greek), but my quick research has reinforced my conviction that "no such" is the right translation; that is, the literal translation of the words. The other rendering seems to me to be more commentary than literal translation.
|
