|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An exposition
of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
The Head Covering
Peter DitzelWhen
I think back to my boyhood and teenage years in the 1950s and 1960s, I recall
the effect of what seemed to be an unquestioned practice among women. Looking
forward from any pew (except the very front row), in any church (my parents
visited a number of churches); my view was that of ladies' hats, large and
small, and sometimes scarves. Women never entered the meeting without their
heads covered, just as men universally removed their hats. Was this merely a
social custom of the mid-twentieth century? Or does the Bible tell us that
women should cover their heads, and men uncover their heads, during meetings
of the church? My
purpose in writing this article is not to cause controversy and division in
the church. But I think it is a shame that so many of the best
churches—churches that center on Jesus Christ, the Cross, man’s
inability and God’s sovereignty in salvation—have missed the
opportunity to obey a New Testament command with, as we shall see, such
beautiful meaning. I hope to encourage the reintroduction of a practice that
is soundly Scriptural. This
topic is addressed in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The method of this article will
be to expound these verses. In doing so, I do not intend to interrupt the
simple exposition I am going to give by quoting what so-and-so's opinion was
about head coverings. Nevertheless, before starting the exposition, I believe
it will be helpful to note that there are at least seven common viewpoints
promulgated concerning these verses. They are: Viewpoint 1: The head covering of 1 Corinthians 11:2-13 was a
covering in addition to the hair (addressed in verses 14-15), is still to be
worn today, and is to be worn all the time. This is the belief of Mennonites
and some other groups. Viewpoint 2: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, was dealing with
a cultural issue that applied only to his time, and, perhaps, only to the
Corinthian church. Viewpoint 3: The head covering was a matter of modest dress.
Like the view above, what is at issue is a social custom. In Paul’s
day, it was immodest for a woman to have her head uncovered. Because such
standards change in time and place, western women do not need to wear a head
covering today because it is not an essential part of dressing modestly in
our society. Viewpoint 4: Paul is only addressing proper hair length. The
covering for women is long hair. Men are to have no covering (short hair). Viewpoint 5: As he explains in 1 Corinthians Viewpoint 6: These verses are really only the beginning of a
rebuke Paul is making about the conduct of women in the Corinthian church.
The remarks continue in chapter 14, verses 34 and 35. What Paul is really
saying, according to this theory, is something like this: Shame on you,
Corinthian church! You have let your women speak in public without covering
their heads. This shamed you in front of the surrounding community.
What’s more, you should not have let them speak in public in the first
place. Women are to be silent in church. According to this view, Paul spent
fifteen verses explaining the proper use of head coverings in chapter 11 only
to say in two verses in chapter 14 that it is all unnecessary because the
women are to remain silent anyway and, therefore, do not need head coverings. Viewpoint 7: The head covering of 1 Corinthians 11:2-13 was a
covering in addition to the hair (addressed in verses 14-15), is still to be
worn by Christian women today, and is to be worn during times of public
worship. Paul’s instructions for the covering of the woman’s head
and the uncovering of the man’s head during worship were not based on
the custom of the times but on the Scriptures. Now,
let’s look at 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 one verse at a time. (By the way,
most commentators agree that 1 Corinthians 11:1 is the ending sentence of
chapter 10. Nevertheless, it is certainly not irrelevant to what follows.) Verse 2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all
things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. The
Greek word translated “ordinances” here is paradosis.
Elsewhere in the Bible, it is translated “traditions.” In 2
Thessalonians 2:15, for example, Paul writes, “Therefore, brethren,
stand fast, and hold the traditions (paradosis) which ye have been
taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” The ordinances or traditions
Paul has in mind are important. We are to hold them and keep them as Paul
delivered them. This
reminds me of Jeremiah 6:16: “Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the
ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk
therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not
walk therein.” Will we, like the people of Jeremiah’s time,
respond to a command to walk in the old paths, to keep the biblical, New
Testament ordinances or traditions delivered to us, by saying, “We will
not walk therein”? Many,
if not most, churches are now of the opinion that Paul was addressing in 1
Corinthians 11:2-16 a social custom limited to a certain time and place. They
say it was a common social custom among the people Paul was addressing for
women to cover their heads and men to uncover their heads during religious
services. They also say that the Corinthian church, exercising its liberty in
Christ, dropped the custom. According to this theory, when church members
stopped following the head covering custom, their unconverted neighbors (and,
possibly, weak brethren) became offended, and Paul wrote these verses to tell
them to begin following the custom again. Therefore, according to this
theory, Paul was merely addressing a local custom of the times, and his
instructions do not apply to men and women in the western world today,
although the principle of wives being in submission to their husbands may
still be valid. We hear proponents of this view say such things as,
“Wearing a head covering no longer speaks to our culture.” But is
it the culture that the head covering is supposed to speak to, or someone
else? (Hint: see verse 10.) Also,
the question must be asked, How do baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or even
attending church speak to our culture? If our twenty-first-century setting
sees these practices as culturally irrelevant, are we to give them up also?
Or is the church to keep the meaning of its symbols and the reasons for its
practices alive through education? I must also point out that the Bible never
tells Christians to pattern their lives after the world: “And be not
conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,
that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of
God” (Romans 12:2). I
must also ask, Why would the Holy Spirit move Paul to say and record in
Scripture for all time that we are to follow the traditions as he has delivered
them to us, if what he is about to address in the following verses is merely
a temporary custom? I can only conclude that this verse deals a fatal blow to
the idea that Paul is about to address something that applied only to that
time and place. Paul is about to tell, not only the first-century
Corinthians, but the It
is also important to notice in 1 Corinthians 1:2 that Paul addresses this
epistle not just to “the church of God which is at Corinth” but
also “to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,
with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ.” So,
Paul, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, is writing not just to the
Corinthian church of his day, but also to all saints everywhere. That
includes you, if you are a saint, and me today. I
would be negligent if I did not point out the verses that follow those we are
examining. While Paul chides the Corinthian church for its carelessness
regarding the Lord’s Supper, his instructions regarding the
Lord’s Supper are applicable to all churches (see 1 Corinthians
11:17-34). Why, then, should we see his instructions concerning the head
covering as any different? The Corinthians had become careless about it, and
Paul gives them, and us, positive instruction about it. Verse 3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Again,
if Paul is about to give instructions about a local and passing social
custom, he is starting out in a very odd way. Here, in verse 3, the Holy
Spirit leads Paul to reveal eternal truths concerning the relationship
between God, Christ, men, and women. God
is the head of Christ. This is not teaching an essential subordination of
Christ. After all, Christ is also God. But He voluntarily humiliated Himself
in His incarnation by adding a human nature to His God nature (Philippians
2:5-8). In voluntary submission, Jesus came to do the Father’s will
(John The
man is the head of the woman. Nevertheless, as Christ is God, so woman is
man; that is, Eve was taken directly from Adam and shares his nature (see 1
Corinthians 11:8). Yet precisely because she was second in the creation order
and made for man, and because the Bible teaches her to do so (Ephesians The
relationship between a man and woman pictures the relationship between Christ
and the church. The church is to voluntarily submit to Jesus Christ as Lord
(Ephesians I
want to make a point of stating that such profound truths are hardly an
appropriate preface to a mere social custom. Paul is not addressing a social
custom. He is teaching a symbolism that speaks important truth, much as do
baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The place where Paul says something
similar is Ephesians 5:23: “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.” It
is followed in verse 24, not by a temporary custom, but by an instruction
that is as abiding as the institution of marriage: “Therefore as the
church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in
every thing.” We should, therefore, expect 1 Corinthians 11:3 to be
followed by a similar abiding truth. We will not be disappointed. Verse 4: Every man praying or prophesying, having
his head covered, dishonoreth his head. Paul has just explained in verse 3 that the head
of every man is Christ. Therefore, the obvious meaning here in verse 4 is
that every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered (having on a
head covering) dishonors Jesus Christ, his spiritual head. The reason is
given in verse 7. Man is God’s glory and God’s glory should not
be covered during public worship. To cover his head in public worship would
be to symbolically abandon his God-given place of authority and, so, dishonor
the One in authority over him, Jesus Christ. I want to address what Paul means by praying and
prophesying. The meaning of the latter has especially been debated. I believe that the prophesying Paul refers to is
the gift of receiving direct revelation from God, especially concerning
future events. The Bible does not support the position of those who say that
this word also refers to preaching. I think if you use a concordance and look
up the New Testament occurrences of the word, you will see what I mean. In 1
Corinthians 13:8, Paul specifically identifies prophesying, speaking in
tongues, and receiving directly revealed knowledge as gifts that were to end.
Most non-Charismatics understand that this ending took place when God’s
revelation for this age was complete—that is, when the Bible was
completely written. Preachers today do not prophesy. They tend to do a
mixture of preaching (that is, evangelizing and proclaiming), teaching, and
exhorting. Preaching, teaching, and exhorting are all translated from their
own Greek words. They are not prophesying. Praying, of course, continues. But I must now ask
what I believe is an important question: Why did Paul name praying and
prophesying and not such things as speaking in tongues, speaking directly
revealed knowledge, preaching, exhorting, teaching, or singing? The essence
of these things is the same. That is, they are all a form of speaking
authoritatively—either giving direct revelation, proclaiming
revelation, calling to action based on revelation, or explaining revelation
and how it can be applied, or worshipping through prayer or singing. Surely,
there can be no reason why Paul chose praying and prophesying except that
they are two examples from the list. In other words, I believe that Paul
would agree that it is just as wrong for a man to preach or teach with his
head covered as it is for him to pray and prophesy with his head covered.
Paul simply named two activities of public worship to stand for all. Some like to point to 1 Samuel 10:5 and 1
Chronicles 25:1-3 as proving that singing is also prophesying. But nothing in
these verses says this. The most natural understanding of what these verses
say of the relationship between singing and prophesying is that a prophet may
sing a prophecy. But not all singing in worship is prophesying. Verse 5: But every woman that prayeth or
prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even
all one as if she were shaven. Again, with verse 3 in mind, we see that
Paul’s inspired instruction here is that every woman who prays or
prophesies with her head uncovered (not having on a head covering) dishonors
her head (her man, whether husband, father, or guardian). Again, the reason is
given in verse 7 (the woman is man’s glory, and man’s glory
should be covered during worship). I will comment on “for that is even
all one as if she were shaven” in my comments on verse 6. As explained under verse 4, praying and
prophesying are two parts of public worship that represent all of public
worship. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul orders, “Let your women keep
silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they
are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will
learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for
women to speak in the church.” Paul could hardly have been clearer. He
repeats the instruction in 1 Timothy 2:11-12: “Let the woman learn in
silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence.” In fact, the directions
regarding women in 1 Corinthians 14 come right after instructions relating to
speaking in tongues and prophesying. How could the women speak in tongues or
prophesy if they were to be silent? Obviously, they were not to speak in
tongues or prophesy. And Paul’s commands about women in 1 Timothy 2 are
specifically contrasted to the men praying aloud (verse 8). Again, it is obvious
that the women were not to pray aloud. I discuss this more fully in “The Role of Women in the Church.”
Here, I want to simply point out that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, unmistakably forbids women from speaking in public worship. Speaking
involved authority that women do not have. What, then, does Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 11:5
when he writes of “every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her
head uncovered”? I will give three possible answers. I. Perhaps Paul is addressing behavior outside of
public worship. Women must be silent in church meetings. They may, however,
pray and prophesy outside of church as long as their heads are covered. The context, however, presents a hurdle to this
being a satisfactory solution. In verse 2, Paul is introducing the topic of
decorum in the church, and he continues this topic even beyond the chapter.
Notice that in verse 2 he says, “Now I praise you.” But in verse
17, he says, “I praise you not.” Verse 17, as verse 18 plainly
shows, is about the assembly of the church. These two phrases show the
cohesiveness of the entire chapter. If verses 17 and 18 and those that follow
are about “when ye come together in the church,” so are verses 2
through 16. II. Possibly, the Corinthians were allowing two
errors in this regard, and Paul is treating them separately. He is saying in
1 Corinthians 11, You are allowing your women to speak with their heads
uncovered. This is a shame. And, furthermore, it is wrong to allow the women
to speak in church at all (1 Corinthians 14). This “solution” makes us ask the
obvious: Why would Paul address this problem of women speaking with their
heads uncovered in two distinct arguments that are separated by 95 verses
(between 1 Corinthians III. Praying and prophesying can refer to more
than speaking. When someone leads in prayer or in prophesying (or in
preaching, teaching, etc.), the entire assembly participates, even if
silently. Therefore, everyone present can be said to be participating in that
aspect of worship. After all, men do not sit in church wearing head coverings
and remove them only when they stand up to speak. All of the men and women
are participating, whether vocally or silently. Therefore, the men’s
heads should be uncovered and the women’s heads covered during the
entire meeting. For women, praying and prophesying refers to
their role in the public worship, which is done in silence. The context of 1
Corinthians 11 is public worship, not some sort of praying or prophesying
outside of this. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is not addressing the idea of
women speaking. It is not what he has in mind. He has public worship in mind,
and for women public worship is silent. This is not unique to 1 Corinthians
11. Paul does the same thing in at least two other places. In 1 Corinthians
14, he also talks of public worship, and he instructs the men about speaking
in tongues and prophesying and says the women are to be silent. In 1 Timothy
2, Paul again instructs about proper decorum in public worship and tells the
men how to publicly pray and says that the women are to worship by dressing
modestly and being silent. So, Paul considers public worship to not just be
praying and prophesying, but also many other things (such as preaching and
teaching), and to not just be the speaking, but also the silent
participation. Therefore, in public worship, men, whether speaking or not,
are to not cover their heads, and women, who are not to speak, are to cover
their heads. I see this explanation as satisfactory, but there
is another question. In Acts Philip lived in I would like to make another point concerning
verses 4 and 5. They clearly show the inconsistency of the position, often
taken by Mennonites and Amish, that a woman is to always wear a head
covering. These verses teach that a woman is to wear a head covering in
exactly the same situations that a man is not to wear a head covering. If a
woman is to always wear a head covering, then a man must never cover his
head, whatever the weather. But Mennonite and Amish men often wear hats. The
way they get around this is to artificially define the head covering in unbiblical
terms. According to their definition, a man’s hat is not a head
covering. In fact, these Mennonite definitions get so specific that they
often define a head covering as precisely the type of covering worn by their
particular branch of Mennonites. This can go so far that some Mennonites will
consider the women’s head coverings of other Mennonite churches
improper coverings. But the Bible does not give us such precise definitions
of head coverings. Those who teach that women are to always wear a
head covering miss the relationship between the long hair that a woman has
all the time and the extra covering worn during public worship. This is
discussed below. Verse 6: For if the woman be not covered, let her
also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let
her be covered. The Greek word for “shorn” is keiro,
and it means to have one’s hair cut short or bobbed. The Greek word
translated “shaven” is xurao. It means
“shaved.” Some think that Paul means the woman’s hair when
he refers to a covering. They say that Paul only means that a woman should
have long hair, and that having her head uncovered only refers to cutting her
hair. Let’s read verses 5 and 6 as if that were true, by substituting
cut hair for having an uncovered head and long hair for having a covered
head: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her hair cut
dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if
the woman has her hair cut [shorn], let her also be shorn [cut her
hair]: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have
long hair. Obviously, Paul would not say that a woman having
her hair cut is the same as having her hair cut, and that if a woman has her
hair cut, let her also cut her hair! Clearly, Paul has a covering in addition
to hair in mind when he gives these instructions. What verse 6 is saying is that if the woman,
during worship, is not wearing a covering on her head in addition to her
hair, then she should cut her hair short. But if it is a shame for a woman to
have her hair cut short (which this verse implies it is) or to be shaven
(short hair and a shaven head are equally a shame to the inspired Paul), she
should be wearing a covering. The notion that Paul is writing only of hair, and
not of a covering in addition to hair, does not stand up to close
examination. Verse 7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his
head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the
glory of the man. This is the reason the Holy Spirit says that
women in worship are to wear a head covering and men are not to wear a head
covering. It has nothing to do with fashion. It has nothing to do with modest
dress. It has nothing to do with cultural norms. It has everything to do with
glorifying God and Jesus Christ, His beloved Son. The man is the glory of
God. When we worship, God’s glory is to appear and not be covered. The
woman is the glory of man. When we worship, man’s glory (the woman)
should be covered so as not to detract from God’s glory. Verse 8: For the man is not of the woman; but the
woman of the man. Paul bases his argument on the creation order and
the purpose for woman’s creation (verse 9). Cultural norms have nothing
to do with it. Verse 9: Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man. God created the man first. He created the woman
second, as a gift to the man, to be his helper (Genesis Verse 10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head
because of the angels. This
verse has caused all kinds of conjecture. It is best to take it as naturally
as possible. The Greek word translated “power” in this verse is exousian. Its sense is that of authority.
For example, in Mark 2:10-11, Jesus said, “But that ye may know that
the Son of man hath power [exousian]
on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto
thee, Arise, and take up they bed, and go thy way into thine house.”
Jesus had the authority to forgive sins. And, in John Why
because of the angels? Again, we should let the Bible interpret this as best
we can. That the angels are witnesses of what the church is doing is shown in
such verses as 1 Corinthians 4:9, Ephesians Hence,
it is not the culture that the head covering is supposed to speak to. It has
meaning to the angels who are present in our public worship. Because the
relationship of the man to the woman shows the relationship of Christ to the
church, the head covering shows the subjection of the church to Christ. The
angels, who are under a similar subjection, and show it by covering their
faces when in God’s presence at His throne, are witnesses of whether
the women in a church are following this order. Verse 11: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither
the woman without the man, in the Lord. Paul does not want to be misunderstood as
teaching female inferiority. So he explains that, even though the woman is
under the authority of the man because of their creation order, men and women
are dependent on each other. Verse 12: For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by
the woman; but all things of God. Eve was made from and for Adam, and men are born
of women, but all things come from God and are for His glory. Verse 13: Judge in
yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? This is the verse relied upon by those who say
that the woman’s head covering is merely a cultural issue. Isolated
from its context, this verse can sound like Paul is saying that his readers
should easily be able to judge this issue because a woman praying with her
head uncovered is so obviously socially unacceptable. But the verses that
follow explain that Paul is teaching the Corinthians a relationship between a
woman’s long hair and the extra covering she should wear while in
public worship. It is this relationship from nature that they should use to
judge the matter. Verse 14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have
long hair, it is a shame unto him? How does nature teach that it is a shame for a
man to have long hair? Many commentators misunderstand what Paul means by
nature because they forget to let the Bible interpret itself. In verses 7-12,
Paul has just explained the creation order of men and women. This is the
nature that Paul is talking about. “Nature” is translated from
the Greek phusis, which can mean (a) the natural constitution of, (b)
the origin of, (c) the regular order of. The Creation account describes the
origins and regular order of men and women. Nature, the Creation, tells us
that man should not have long hair because man was made first and is,
therefore, God’s glory, and God’s glory must not be covered. In
everyday life, long hair on a man covers God’s glory (and in public
worship, a head covering on a man would cover God’s glory). Verse 15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for
her hair is given her for a covering. Woman was made from man. She is man’s
glory, and her long hair is her glory. It is given to her for an everyday
covering, and she is not to cut it short. But, as we have already seen, she
is to cover her hair when in public worship so that only the glory of
God—the man—is uncovered. Of course, these things are types. Paul is not
implying female inferiority. The male/female relationship is a type of the
relationship between Christ and the church. When we worship, we are not to
glorify ourselves, the church, but Jesus Christ. This attitude is pictured by
the women in the church wearing head coverings. The head covering is a
picture of the submission of the church to Jesus Christ. Verse 16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such
custom, neither the churches of God. Some
people say that Paul is saying, after having explained about head coverings,
that, if anyone challenges the matter, then we are to give in because the
church does not really have such a custom. This is a completely unnatural
reading of the text. It would make no sense for Paul to so thoroughly explain
the head coving and then say we do not have to follow the teaching because we
have no such custom. Another
misunderstanding of the verse is to say that Paul means that we have no such
custom as contentiousness. True, the church has no such custom as
contentiousness, but why should Paul say something so obvious? Would anyone
seriously think that the church has a custom of contentiousness? The
simplest and best understanding of the verse is that Paul is saying that if
anyone is contentious, that is, takes an opposing view, “we” and
“the churches of God” do not have a custom that supports the
opposing view. The custom to follow is what has just been stated in the
preceding verses. Who
is “we”? I think it refers to Paul and Sosthenes (see 1:1). I
think we tend to forget that Paul did not always write alone. Paul says that
the churches of God (plural) do not have a custom that opposes what he has
just explained concerning the head covering. Paul knew the churches well, and
he knew that none of them were acting contrary to his teaching in this regard.
Conclusion Let’s
look again at the seven common views of these verses. Viewpoint 1: As we have seen, those who say that women must
always wear a head covering are inconsistent in allowing men to ever wear
hats. This view also misses the symbolism of the hair and the extra covering
during public worship. Viewpoint 2: Those who say that Paul was only trying to get
the Corinthians in line with a social custom that does not speak to our
culture today are opening a Pandora’s Box. If we say that Paul’s
instructions concerning the head covering are only about a social custom,
even though he does not say so, then why can we not say that baptism, the
Lord’s Supper, and even the gathering of the church are merely
first-century social customs that do not speak to our times? In fact, if we
allow this kind of picking and choosing without any internal, biblical
evidence as to what a social custom is and what it is not, we can tear the
Bible to shreds. Further,
those who promote this view often say they are supported by historical
evidence. First, it is not historical evidence but the Bible that is to
determine our beliefs and practice. But, second, the historical evidence is
not on their side anyway. Some will say that Oriental women always wore a
head covering, apparently not realizing that Viewpoint 3: Now that we have examined these verses, we can
see that Paul says nothing in them to make us think he is addressing an issue
of modesty. As even a Muslim author examining 1 Corinthians 11 on an Islamic
website explains, the Islamic head covering is worn for modesty, but Paul
teaches that Christian women are to cover their heads as “a sign of
man's authority over woman.” This author ends the article by asking,
“Do any Christian women today cover their heads? It is true that most
Christian women do not, and many don't take other teachings of the Bible
(against pre-marital sex, adultery, etc) literally either” (http://www.muhajabah.com/christianveil.htm
). This is a sad commentary on our churches by an outsider. Once again, if we
take the head covering command to be only cultural or an issue of modesty, we
are doing nothing less than tearing down the authority of the Bible. Viewpoint 4: Saying that Paul has only long hair in mind as a
covering makes a hash of the verses in question, especially verses 5 and 6.
This explanation simply does not stand up to close examination. Viewpoint 5: Saying that Paul was teaching that women are to
be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), but, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,
permitted women to publicly pray and prophesy outside of church as long as
they cover their heads is not supported by the context. The context of verses
2-16 of 1 Corinthians 11 is public worship. Further, praying and prophesying
in public, even if it is not in the church building, is still public worship.
In fact, the early church had no concept of a church building. Public worship
is public worship wherever it is conducted. The church met in homes and
rented rooms. Of course, not every utterance of a prayer or prophecy in those
places was public worship. The Bible seems to indicate that those daughters, handmaidens,
and virgins who had the gift to prophesy did so in a family context in their
own homes. Certainly, the Bible never records or even mentions their
prophecies. Viewpoint 6: If Paul is saying that women should have their
heads covered when speaking in public worship, but they should not be speaking
in public worship anyway (1 Corinthians Viewpoint 7: There is only one view that fits all of the
biblical evidence. In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul is teaching that men are to
have their hair cut short and not wear a head covering during public worship.
Women are to have long hair as an ordinary covering, but are to put on an
additional covering during public worship. The man’s head is to be
uncovered because, being made first, he is the glory of God. The woman is to
have long hair (not shorn close) as a sign of her submission to man. Because
her hair is her glory and because she is man’s glory, during public
worship, she is to wear an additional covering over her hair. In this way,
man’s glory—the woman—is covered, and God’s
glory—the man—is uncovered. The head of the woman is the man, the
head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. In not following
these instructions, we are ultimately dishonoring Christ and God. Because the
relationship between the man and the woman is typical of the relationship
between Christ and the church, this covering of man’s glory and
uncovering of God’s glory is typical of the church not glorifying
itself, but submitting to and glorifying its head, Jesus Christ. The
head covering, therefore, is a remarkable sign of Jesus Christ’s
headship over the church. Those who see the head covering as only a relic
from a bygone or far-away culture or as a matter of modesty or as a
legalistic dress code are missing its profound meaning. Being careful to
follow Paul’s instructions concerning the head covering is no more
outdated or legalistic than following the biblical instructions concerning
baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But,
some may still ask, does not God look upon the heart and not the outward
appearance? It is true that God looks on the heart, but the attitude of the
heart is reflected in our willingness to obey. We cannot fool God. He knows
the motives behind our outward actions. The motive must be right, but so
should the outward actions. If we are unwilling to do what the Bible says we
should, there is something wrong inwardly. We
certainly should not be whitened sepulchers, giving only an outward
appearance of righteousness. This is hypocrisy. It is certainly possible for
a woman to wear a head covering and not be submissive to her husband’s
God-given authority. But it is also possible for someone to diligently attend
every meeting of the church and be a hypocrite. Should we, then, all stop
attending church so as not to appear to be hypocrites? Of course not! I
have no doubt that there are many converted, God-fearing women attending
church without a head covering. But I suspect that the reason is that they
are unaware of the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and may even have been
taught a wrong understanding of this passage. If they are taught and accept
the truth about the head covering, their inward attitude will be reflected in
their outward conformity to Paul’s inspired instructions. I
know of Christians who see the head covering as a practice followed by people
they consider to be spiritually weak and fearful. I hope that this article
shows the case to be the opposite. It takes faith and courage to honor the
Lord by wearing something as conspicuous as a head covering, especially when
no one else in your church is doing so. It takes no courage to blend in with
the culture of the day and say the head covering is outdated. There
are some wonderful, sovereign grace preachers who are cautious to baptize
only proper subjects using the right mode. They are careful about whom they
administer the Lord’s Supper to and the elements they use. But when the
head covering is mentioned, they dismiss it as cultural or say the hair is
the covering and then emphasize that they preach only Jesus Christ and Him
crucified. But having a proper emphasis on the central message of the Gospel
does not mean that we should forsake conducting our public worship according
to biblical instructions. It
is my sincere prayer that this article will cause Christians to see that the
Bible teaches that women are to wear a head covering in public worship. I
also pray that pastors will reexamine this issue, see that the Bible teaches
the head covering, and lovingly and patiently reintroduce this beautiful
picture of the submission of the church to Jesus Christ our Lord. Copyright
© 2006 wordofhisgrace.org |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|