1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Other Resources:
Imitating Jesus - we talk about the perfect example of Jesus and how He is: forgiving, peaceful, a teacher, selfless, and obedient. 1 Corinthians 11
THOUGHTS ON WOMEN WEARING A HEAD COVERING DURING WORSHIP
A BRIEF STUDY OF 1 CORINTHIANS 11:3-16
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 makes an attempt 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 Christy the head of woman is manf and the head
of Christ is God.
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.
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.
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
worshipping 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.
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 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? Worshippers
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 man 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 man, 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.
Jerry Campbell
No comments:
Post a Comment