Coverings

(I Cor. 11:1-16)

Welcome! Today we continue our series into I Corinthians, coming to Chapter 11. Let me say this is a hotly debated and contested passage, one of the most debated passages in all of scripture. One key question is whether the specific practice, head covering, is applicable today. There is also a question about appropriate hair length. Another key question is what the passage has to say about men’s and women’s roles in general. We will talk about all these questions today. You could say we have a lot to “cover,” so let’s get right to the passage.

Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. – I Cor. 11:1

Let me briefly stop here and discuss this word “traditions.” The Greek word is paradosis, which simply means “transmission” or “something given over.” It is used elsewhere both negatively and positively; negatively in the sense of the harmful traditions of the Pharisees, and positively in the sense used here; it is also used positively in this way in II Thess. 2:15 and 3:6.  So Paul is not talking about useless traditions, but about the sum total of teachings from the gospel up into practical things about how to live as believers.

Note also that Paul is saying, “Yes, it is good you are following me in these things, but remember that I am not making these things up; I am passing along what has been given to me, the teachings and the gospel and the practices of followers of Christ.

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. – I Cor. 11:2-3

So, continuing the train of thought from verse 1, Paul is saying, “It is good you are following me in these things, but I am just passing along what has been given to me, and you need to understand that my head, and your head, is Christ.” By the way, Paul is being quite gracious to the Corinthians here because they weren’t following Paul in a wide variety of things, as we have seen in earlier chapters.

Before we get going into this let me just say, as emphatically as I can, that being subject to someone does not mean being inferior to someone. Being subject to someone is a voluntary choice a person can make if they so choose. Now if someone is in a position where subjection is part of the position, the choices are to be subject to the person in keeping with the position, or to rebel and choose to not be subject to the person. For example, a soldier can choose to obey or disobey his superior’s orders.

Now Paul is pointing out that headship, or being subject to someone, is all over the place. Even Christ Himself is subject to God. By the way Jesus Himself says this repeatedly in the gospels. Now Jesus the Son and God the Father are, both, God, two of the three Personalities of the Trinity. But Jesus is subject to the Father. Here is an example: “For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but to do the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). And here is another example: “Abba, Father,” He [Jesus] said, “Everything is possible for You. Take this cup from Me. Yet not what I will, but what You will” (Mark 14:36).   Is Jesus subject to the Father because Jesus is inferior to the Father? Absolutely not! We are talking about a difference in roles, not a difference in abilities or in capabilities. Again, returning to the military analogy, a soldier’s superior may actually be much less capable than the soldier. That doesn’t matter. The soldier is still required to subject himself to his superior officer.

So have I covered this passage? Well, no, I skipped over the middle instance of one being subject to another – that of women being subject to men – and I suppose we need to talk about that, especially since it is, well, central to the rest of today’s passage.  

First of all, please note that you cannot use this passage to argue that every woman needs to go out and figure out some man she is subject to, or even worse, to argue to that each woman is subject to every man, that any man can boss around any woman any way he likes. That’s not what this passage is saying. In point of fact, Paul is simply describing life. What do I mean? Well, in those days, most adult women were married. As such, they were subject to their husbands. But of course, not every adult woman was married. Some never married. Others were widows, and so on.

Here in this passage note that Paul is being descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, in all these things Paul is saying this is how it is. I am subject to Christ. So are you. Women are subject to men, in the generality that wives submit to their husbands. Even Christ is subject to God the Father.

Now I do want to point out that in other passages apart from today’s scripture, Paul explains this narrow sense of wives being subject to their husbands is in fact prescriptive. We talked about this in our series on doctrine. I encourage you to go back to that series if you want a more in-depth treatment of this idea. But let me briefly just point out a few passages. I am going to include some prior verses so you get a sense of the context.

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. – Col. 3:15-19

So the context is submitting to Christ – all of us, men and women, husbands and wives, even children, and if you continue the passage, even slaves. Part of submitting to Christ is to be subject to those placed above you in responsibility. Husbands have been given a responsibility to take care of their wives and children, not just financially, but spiritually, and also in the area of providing love. Wives have been given a responsibility to submit themselves to their husbands, to yield to their leadership. This doesn’t mean they can’t provide input, but because the God-given responsibility lies with the husband, then once the decision is made (hopefully prayerfully and, when appropriate, seeking godly counsel), her role is to abide by it. Children likewise have been given a responsibility to obey both parents – in everything. As a parent, I personally like that part. J

Here is another example:

Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God… Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to Himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. – Eph. 5:1-2, 21-27

So here we have a very similar message. The comparison between the husband/wife relationship and the relationship between Christ and His church is powerful and sobering. This is challenging for both the wife and the husband. For the wife, the question “How much should I submit to my husband?” is answered with “As much as the Lord expects you to submit to Him.” And for the husband, the question “How much should I love my wife?” is answered with “As much as the Lord loved you by dying on the cross for your sins.” Wow and wow! Faced with this impossible task for both husbands and wives, the verses that come to my mind are “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebr. 11:6) and “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26).  We need God’s help day by day to even begin to do these things!

But let’s now go back to our I Corinthians passage, repeating the first verses, but now also going forward.

Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. – I Cor. 11:1-3

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.  – I Cor. 11:4-6

There’s a lot to discuss here. First of all, I think the passage is best understood in the context of actions done in public gatherings, not what goes on in the privacy of one’s own home. The second half of the chapter, which will be discussed next week, continues in the area of public actions when believers gather together. Indeed, these themes continue through the remainder of the entire book of I Corinthians.

Now Paul is once again being descriptive – he is describing what “is” rather than what “should be.” He is saying that in Corinth, and we know this was true far beyond Corinth but in the entire Middle East, and not just at the exact time period that I Corinthians was written, but for centuries prior to this as well, men did not wear veils. Does it say a man wears a veil? Well, the Greek literally, for the man, says “having or hanging down from the head”. That sounds like a veil to me. What does Paul mean that a man who does this while praying or prophesying dishonors his head? He means that no man dresses like this. Perhaps a modern equivalent might be a lady actually wearing the clothes out in public that models wear at “Fashion Week” (which apparently was this past week). Often these outfits are so outlandish that if someone were to actually wear them out in public people would stare and perhaps even laugh.

As for the “dishonors his head,” most likely it means that he dishonors himself, but it is possible that it also means that he dishonors what the previous passage called his Head, that is Christ. Paul may be deliberately using a play on words here.

Similarly, in Corinth, and stretching far and wide, and at the time that this letter was written, and also stretching centuries back, the custom was that a married woman would wear a head covering as a symbol of the fact that she was married and not available. Indeed, from what I have read, at the time of the events of this book in Corinth, because prostitution was so common and widespread, pretty much all women tended to wear a head covering of some kind, whether married or widowed or single, just so that nobody would confuse them with prostitutes. So as a kind of inverse of the situation for the man, for her not to wear a head covering would be to bring dishonor on herself, and, if she was married, potentially on her husband as well. Again, this may be a play of words being used by Paul. For a man or a woman to go against these norms would be to embarrass oneself and the people that person represents, just as how a child misbehaving terribly in a restaurant embarrasses not only himself but his parents.

As for a woman with a shaven head, this would be seen as shameful. Even today it certainly draws attention. What Paul is saying is that if a woman wants to be contentious about wearing a head covering, let her go all the way and remove her hair too. Paul is speaking somewhat tongue in cheek here – he knows a woman would not want to do this, thus, he concludes, she should wear the head covering.

Now, we in the West often react very negatively to the Muslim ideas of women wearing head coverings. Often the reason given for them to do it is to prevent the men from being tempted, and this is certainly part of the reason in Muslim society. But I have seen interviews with married women in this culture, and I have heard them say they like to wear the head covering because it tells other men that they are married, that even her beautiful face is reserved for her husband. I think this latter idea is close to that of the culture back in Corinth. Even in the West, we still use wedding rings as a more subtle message that a person is married. But in the West we have lost almost all sense of the principle of modesty. I’ll come back to this at the end of my message.

Let me also say that this passage never says that women should always wear head coverings in public; it is only speaking of a gathering of believers that includes “prayer and prophecy” and not only this, it is speaking specifically of the times when the woman herself was doing one of these things. I assume this means even more specifically spoken prayers. I don’t think there is such a thing as unspoken prophecy, so I think the idea is that the woman is basically leading out among either a small group in the gathering or in the entire gathering for this period of time. Now others have taught that this really means for the entire duration of the gathering of believers. Perhaps that is what Paul meant, but that is not what the passage says.

So this brings up a question about whether the specific issue Paul is addressing is even necessarily related to the cultural traditions of Corinth, but instead refers to a practice just among the various early churches. Although it is true that women wore head coverings in Corinthian society, perhaps the real issue here is that this was a practice that the churches practiced together.

Why would this be so? Well, the woman, wearing the head covering while acting out in this kind of leadership role in the church (praying out loud or prophesying) would be communicating with her head covering that she was under the authority of the male leadership in the church. Why was this important? Because it communicated that the woman was not usurping the God-given leadership role of the male leaders while praying or prophesying.

Let’s keep going forward with the passage:

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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. – I Cor. 11:7-12

Are you offended yet? Are you lost yet? There are a lot of things to discuss here. Let’s start with the big picture. Previously in this passage Paul was talking descriptively. He was describing what “is”, or at least what “was” at the time Paul wrote the letter. Men didn’t wear veils. Women did wear head coverings. Christ submitted Himself to God. And so on. But now we have the word “ought.” Men ought not to cover their heads, but (implied) women should. Why?

The passage gives an answer – man is the image and glory of God, but woman, because she came from man, is the glory of man. This is speaking of creation order. The significance of this is lost to us today, but read through Genesis and even the rest of the Old Testament, and you see that birth order was a huge deal in these times and cultures. (I know, technically speaking, neither Adam nor Eve was “born”, but bear with me.) The eldest son had the responsibilities for the household when the father died. He had priority in the inheritance. He had to provide for his mother. In essence he replaced the father when he died.

There is a similar sense here – not just because of birth order, but because as it says woman was made for man, she was to demonstrate her position with a head covering. I know this sounds offensive in our modern age. But I reiterate again that subordinate does not mean inferior, not in any way. I’ve used the military as examples a couple of times – but let me say that the military is about the only place left in our modern society where the idea of leadership and subservient roles is still really practiced and understood. The boss-employee relationship is not what it once was. Even the parent-child relationship has largely fallen apart in the broader culture. It should be no surprise that our culture is so deeply opposed to ideas of being a servant to God or to the idea that women in any sense are Biblically subordinate to men. Again, this doesn’t mean women can’t work, or that they cannot be the bosses of men – women worked in Paul’s day, and they also had some positions of leadership in society. And in the church, women were permitted to pray and prophesy, with the minor additional requirement that they wear a head covering.

Let me explain the phrase It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head. This is actually a fairly literal translation. A number of translations add something for clarity like this “It is for this reason that woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority over her own head.” This kind of omission is actually pretty common in Biblical Greek. I think this is what is meant.  

Now what about the angels? Honestly, nobody really knows for sure what this is about. I like the view that some have shared that we, humanity are actors on the stage, and our audience is the heavenly beings of various kinds, the principalities and powers, the angels and the demons. C.S. Lewis talks about how, because of God’s radical (and controversial) decision to send His Son Jesus to die for the sins of mankind, God is in a sense “on trial.” A third of the angels have revolted, saying that God is wrong in making such a choice. The rest have remained true to God. But in a sense all of Creation is watching to see how this all works out. Perhaps the “because of the angels” is to show them that in the church we can choose to submit to one another in the ways that God prescribed from the beginning. But, again, this is really just a guess.

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. So Paul here brings some perspective, even, you might say, some balance to the discussion. Man and woman are interdependent on one another. No man alive today has come into being without a mother. God’s ideal model for children growing up with emotional and spiritual health is that both a father and mother are intimately involved in raising up children. God even says that when a man and woman become married they become one flesh; this is a mystery – but it to me is a picture of how the Father and the Son are both in God, both are God, both are one. God states and sees a mysterious combining in marriage; he says the pair as one. None of this, as we have spoken about earlier in I Corinthians, is to imply that people who remain single are inferior in any way; indeed, Paul waxed eloquently on the benefits of remaining single. But my point is that on an individual level and on a mass humanity level, man and woman are interdependent partners, each equally essential to God’s plans, each equally loved by God, but yet different from one another.

Let’s continue with the passage.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. – I Cor. 11:13-16

Now Paul points out that hair is in itself a kind of a covering. The norm in the Middle East societies and indeed in many societies including ours is that long hair is predominantly a woman thing and short hair is predominantly a guy thing. This is not to say there is anything necessarily wrong with a guy with long hair or a girl with short hair. I think Paul would have a problem, in light of the rest of this passage, with guys making their overall appearance to look like they are women or with women making their overall appearance to look like they are guys. I would also point out that even Paul spent some time according to Acts 18:18 fulfilling a vow during which time he did not cut his hair, in accordance with the Jewish prescriptions for fulfilling a vow in the Old Testament.  Paul concludes with a call not to be contentious over this issue and points out that each of the churches (at that time) has taken a similar stance on head coverings.

In summary let me point out that there are three primary reasons given in this passage for women to wear head coverings while praying or prophesying in church meetings: (1) the head of woman is man, (2) Adam came before Eve, and (3) the angels (whatever that means). None of these are purely, or even, primarily cultural. We cannot say that Paul’s reasons given for having a woman pray in public situations with her head covered are just to accommodate the Corinthian culture.

That being said, the statement that the head of woman is man has nothing to do specifically with head coverings. Similarly, there were no head covering distinctions between Adam and Eve. And as for the angels, who knows? (It is true that in multiple places the angels before God are covering their faces with their wings. So maybe that is why they like head coverings!)

I don’t think a church is in sin in any way if it chooses not to require women praying or speaking in church to wear head coverings. We have never required it, and we are not about to do so. At the same time, we won’t freak out if you as an individual woman decide you want to try it. At the sister church I was a part of back in the early 1990s, a number of the women did use head coverings in our gatherings, at least for a time, to try it. Reading about people’s experiences with head coverings on some websites today, some women say they like the experience of connecting with the practice that the early churches observed. Others say that wearing the head covering gives them a satisfying sense of yielding their spirit in Biblical submission. We at Clemson Community Church extend grace to you to try it, or not, as God leads you.

Growing up as a Jew, as a guy I have had experience with head coverings. Ironically, religious Jewish men today cover their heads whereas Jewish women often do not. What I have heard of their reasons is that it is based on how the High Priests had to wear special clothing including a head covering (kind of a turban) before entering the Holy of Holies. Modern Jews argue that they are sort of priests of their own homes and synagogues and thus should wear the head covering. But this is really a stretch to me. Jews still know who the priestly classes are, as it is a part of their Hebrew names – for example, my Hebrew name is Z’ev ben Meir HaLevi and the HaLevi means that I am of the tribe of Levi – and 90% of them are not priests. Another reason I remember being given was that people shouldn’t focus on whether they are rich or poor in the Synagogue, and a head covering covers up how you are dressed. The problem with that explanation was that (1) it only covered your head, and (2) rich people wore super fancy head coverings! But really, none of this is my problem to fix, so let’s move on.

I want to close by talking briefly about clothing in general. It is true that cultures are constantly in flux. But our culture seems to be changing more and more quickly, in many areas. For a woman especially, but also for men, I believe a more important question than whether you wear a head covering at church gatherings is what you wear in general, and what you wear to church. I want to highlight two passages; here is the first:

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands. – I Peter 3:1-5

This speaks of what a woman wears in general. It does not say that women should not wear nice clothes or jewelry. It says that the real highlight of your beauty, dwarfing any external beauty, should be your gentle and quiet character and your submissive spirit.

The second passage is this:

Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. – I Tim. 2:8-10

The word modestly is a paraphrase of two words in Greek, kosmios, which means “seemly” or “appropriate” and katastole, which means literally means a full stola. The full stola was a full length robe worn in general in most public situations. A woman might wear a shorter tunic when working in the fields, and a woman in sports might even wear something like a modern bikini.  Paul was asking women to dress appropriately to the occasion. I obviously think the details were culturally specific, because if we are going to make women wear stolae, we need to make the men wear robes too! The passage also does not mean that women cannot dress up; it is only saying not to go overboard with it, sort of like those ladies from Fashion Week. The context here, by the way, indeed the context for the entire I Timothy letter, is when Christians meet together.

As for the general question of modesty in what you wear in society, I think the general principle is to look like what you are – a child of God who seeks to live a life pleasing to Him. I realize that this is difficult in a culture that is constantly changing its standards for what is appropriate. It is important to understand that a complete revolution has taken place with regards to what constitutes appropriate clothing in many situations. At colleges, for example, even in the early 60s, college students dressed up for school. Today, they often wear clothes that were banned in high school and would often shock people even from the 1980s and 1990s. It is a difficult and very individualized path for a young woman to figure out what she should wear, but I encourage all women to explore the question seriously and prayerfully. Men, too, should explore this question. What you wear affects your professional effectiveness, your relationships with others, and your witness. Paul talks about making his body his slave; let us also make our clothing serve us in a way that serves us well.