Head covering
1 Cor. 11:3-15
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. [4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
dishonoureth his head. [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her
head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were
shaven. [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. [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. [8] For the man is not of the
woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man. [10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on
her head because of the angels. [11] Nevertheless neither is the man without
the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the
woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of
God. [13] Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God
uncovered? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long
hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory
to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Because
he would have us to know the facts in v.3 we must interpret “head covering” in
such a way that it harmonizes with this verse.
Many cursory readings of this passage have
generated confusion. One such misunderstanding is that the head covering in
reference is some form of hat. Be it a veil, a bonnet, a ball cap, or a
handkerchief, some take the passage to be thus.
Various problems evidence themselves when trying
to interpret the passage with such a reading; such as:
A
woman cannot remove the hat from her head. Note verse 6 “if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn” Some doubtless will
say ‘Now certainly he allows for grooming and bathing, yea and even sleeping’.
He may, however we wouldn’t know that from the passage. Therefore such an
arbitrary assertion could be arbitrarily denied with the same lack of evidence
from the passage. It could even be argued that since the woman should be
subject to her husband in everything (Eph.5:24) she should have her head
covered in everything. Or again if you make some exceptions, then another could
make other exceptions.
A
man cannot wear a hat. Note again verse 7 “a
man indeed ought not to cover his head”. ‘Now come on’ one will contend, ‘it’s not
saying a man can never wear a hat’. Didn’t you say it was an ordinance, that a
woman must cover her head and a man must not? ‘Well it’s referring to a bonnet,
or a veil, so it’s a woman’s apparel.’ He doesn’t make that distinction. There
is no specification of gender it just says ‘head covered’.
Nonsense
descends quickly when entering v.10 with that definition. Try to interpret this
verse as a hat: ‘For this cause ought the
woman to have power on her head (a hat or other material covering) because
of the angels.’
Make sure you do not change the text; that is either add words nor change the
words. No ‘a sign of power’, or ‘a sign she is under the power
of’ etc., none of that.
And
finally this hat interpretation fails when applied to verse 3. For Christ is
the head of man, right? Just like the man is the head of the woman, right? So
how then does a man cover his head? “But, the man ought not to cover his head,
because…” Yea, a man ought not cover his head relative to the women. Because
the head of the woman is the man. But the same logic follows with reference to
Christ. If Christ is the head of the man, then a man ought to cover his head.
And if the head of Christ is God, then Christ ought to cover his head, or have
power on his head, relative to God. Right? For since you must agree by
necessary deduction, then you must say that a woman must cover her head, or
have power on her head in the same way that a man does and the same way in
which Christ does. Not therefore referring to a hat.
Now that we’ve looked at a popular
misunderstanding of the passage, lets see which interpretation fits
consistently. It is obvious from v.5 and 6 that head covering is different from
but equal to having long hair. [5] But
every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth
her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. [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. It is ‘as though’ she were shaven to have her
head uncovered. But since nature teaches you (Rom.2:14-5) that a women should
have long hair then ‘Judge in yourselves’ whether she should be ‘uncovered’. It
is obviously unseemly for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered (v13).
Nevertheless if she does, then let her also be shaven, for it is equal to it,
or “even all one as if”. To what end would it be to say ‘If a woman has
her hair shaven, then that is the same thing as if she had her hair shaven’?
Therefore the ordinance of head covering is not long hair, even though her hair
is also given her for a covering, and it is a glory to her. It is as though she
is adorning herself with humility, having herself in subjection. 1 Peter 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the
holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection
unto their own husbands:
The only interpretation that fits
consistently is where head covering is in a figurative sense even as ‘head’ is
used figuratively in verse 3. If head is used in that sense then the head
covering is also. It is indeed a biblical phrase as found in Ephes. 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your
own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the
wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of
the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives
be to their own husbands in every thing. The head then would be the authority, the
expressing of the will. An Old Testament phrase akin to uncovering the head is lifting up the head, which is interpreted
as exalting yourself or someone, or placing them in authority.
2 Kings 25:27-28 And it
came to pass …that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to
reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison;
[28] And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the
kings that were with him in Babylon;
God
exalts and lifts up the head of his saints.
Psalm 3:3 But thou, O Lord, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.
Psalm 27:6 And now shall
mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round
about me…
Someone
who exalts himself in rebellion is someone who lifts up the head.
Psalm 83:2 For, lo, thine
enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.
Judges 8:28 Thus was
Midian subdued before the children of Israel, so that they lifted up their heads no more. And the country was in
quietness forty years in the days of Gideon.
Covering
the head can indicate shame and mourning.
2 Sam.15:30 And David went
up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with
him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as
they went up.
Esther 6:12 And Mordecai
came again to the king's gate. But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and
having his head covered.
Jer.14:4 Because the
ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed,
they covered their heads. (also v3)
Someone
lifting up the head or uncovering the head is someone in rebellion, usurping authority, resisting the will of their rightful head and trying to cause others
to submit to their will, which is shameful.
Eccles. 10:5-7 There is an
evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the
ruler: [6] Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. [7] I
have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.
Isaiah 3:5 And the people
shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the
child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against
the honourable.
Proverbs 19:10 Delight is
not seemly for a fool; much less for a servant to have rule over princes.
These
are examples of the shame associated with rebellion. The husband is to be the
‘prince’ and the ‘honourable’ as in these passages, and he must indeed be, even
as Christ. Ephes. 5:25 Husbands, love
your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Ephes. 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife
even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. This is as Christ and
the church being revealed. Ephes. 5:31-32
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined
unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. [32] This is a great mystery:
but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Therefore ought the woman to have power
on her head, or have her will in subjection, to have power over her own will,
because these are things “the angels desire to look into”. Ephes. 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities
and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold
wisdom of God.
Likewise ought the man to have his will in subjection relative to Christ. The
man thus covers his head placing himself under the Lord Christ. Otherwise he
dishonours Christ his head. So the interpretation would look like this:
1
Cor. 11:3-15
But I would have you know, that the head (authority) of every man is Christ; and the
head (authority) of
the woman is the man; and the head (authority) of Christ is God. [4] Every man
praying or prophesying, having his head covered (subject to the woman- as 1 Tim.2:12, 1 Cor.14:34), dishonoureth his head (Christ). [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth
with her head uncovered (usurping authority) dishonoureth her head (the man):
for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (it's like having her
hair/her natural covering removed) [6] For if the woman be
not covered (under
authority), let her also be shorn (her hair/her natural covering removed): but
if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (under authority).
[7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head (subject to the woman),
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [8]
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the
man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. [10] For this cause ought
the woman to have power on her head (be under authority and not lift up the head) because of the angels.
[11] Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the woman is of the man, even so is
the man also by the woman; but all things of God. [13] Judge in yourselves: is
it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered (usurping authority or lifting up the head)? [14]
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a
shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for
her hair is given her for a covering. (meaning the long hair represents being under authority-"for that is even
all one as if she were shaven")
Some
interpret the ‘head covering’ to be simply long hair. While this fits to a
point, it is very important that in your mind you separate what fits with how
you arrive there from the passage. If this interpretation does not follow
from the information then it cannot be said to be true. This is focused on the
errors associated with how you arrive at the conclusion that long hair
is what is meant by head covering.
Paul would be arguing the whole passage (v4-13) about a woman having
long hair and a man not, finally (v14) appealing to 'nature itself' to confirm
this. Which would mean he appealed to something else the majority of the
argument (v4-13). What else would he appeal to as evidence that women should
have long hair? You can't say he appealed to nature teaching us at the
beginning of the argument only to make a second independent appeal to it at the
conclusion of the argument. What would it be that was more convincing to Paul
than 'nature itself' (which is an argument based on the conscience-
Rom.2:14-15)? (Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, it would be a non-sequitur
to conclude a woman should have long hair because she was created for the man-
see #3.) Perhaps Paul is speaking by commandment and is not concluding this
from sound reasoning? But in that case why would he appeal for them to
"judge in yourselves" (v13) and not say "these are the
commandments of the Lord" as in 14:36-8, or in 7:6, 10, 12, 25, ? Also
Paul uses conclusion and premise indicators ('for' v5-8, 10, 'forasmuch
as' v7, 'for this cause' v10, 'nevertheless' v11) meaning that Paul thinks
he is arguing and not speaking by commandment.
As you agree, the symbol of head covering (long hair) is not as
important as what it symbolizes (under authority). This means that (in the face
of verse 3) if
he refers simply to long hair then in the entire
passage the term 'head covering' never means 'under authority'. Or if you say
it means both (dual interpretation see #6), then the primary meaning
(subject to authority) becomes the secondary interpretation while the
symbol (long hair) becomes the primary interpretation, in an apparent contrast
to v3.
You would be concluding that Paul is actually making an irrational
argument. (A non-sequitur- the conclusion doesn't follow from the premisses.
For example; If
I know that all Greeks are men and that Socrates was a man, and I then infer
that Socrates was a Greek. I cannot be said to know, that is have true knowledge that
Socrates was a Greek, because, although my premisses and my conclusion are
true, the conclusion does not follow
from the premisses. I inverted all Greeks are men for all men are Greeks). The woman was created for the man (v9). The
head of the woman is the man (v3). Therefore a woman should have long hair
because it symbolizes her being under authority. (?) However if you conclude
that therefore a woman should be subject to a man (since the man is head) you would not exceed the premisses. But
in like manner you also would not conclude that ‘therefore a woman
should wear a dress’ for again you exceed the premises. If you say 'That's a
straw man fallacy and I'm not making that argument', then what is Paul's
primary (not nature itself) reason for a woman having long hair? How would it
follow that a woman should have long hair because the man is her head? The head
of the man is Christ but the man should not have long hair. It is the same
error.
Paul does make this argument "v8-10 For the man is not of the
woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but
the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on
her head because of the angels." Simply put, a woman should have power on
her head (under authority to the man) because she is of him and for him. Paul then
proceeds to appeal to nature teaching us that woman should have long hair as further
evidence ("even nature itself" that is the work of the law in the conscience- Rom.2:14-15) of the conclusion that she
should have 'power on her head'. This seamless transition of logic is disrupted
and becomes obtuse when the hair interpretation is applied. For then Paul would
be starting from an unknown reason for woman having long hair, and making a
non-sequitur error (see #3 previously) and then into a correct (but out of
place because his vein of thought would go from hair, and then out of nowhere
into subjection and back to hair) understanding of v10. Then immediately back
into the wearing of the hair. It is a broken stream of logic.
The logical error would be repeated again here: "v7 For a man
indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God:" How does it follow that a man should have short hair
because he is the image and glory of God? Now a man ought not to cover his head
(submit to the woman) because he is the image and glory of God. A man should
have short hair because it is a symbol of this; that he is the head of
the woman. His conscience itself teaches him that long hair is a shame for him.
You need to move from A. The man is the head of the woman. B. Therefore the man
should not submit to the woman. To C. His short hair also independently is
symbolic of this. Instead of A. The man is the head of the woman; to C.
therefore he should have short hair as a symbol of this. Again it is a
non-sequitur.
No where does he actually make the case that the long hair symbolizes
the woman being under obedience (or anything else). If you appeal to a dual
application, then you need other scriptures to indicate the secondary or (in
this case) the primary interpretation. Also you cannot point to the previous
non-sequitur as proof. If you are simply saying that once it has been established
that long hair symbolizes a woman being under authority and they are equal,
that you can substitute the terms in the passage and they both work, then you
will fare well. But you must not get the cart before the horse.
v16 "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Some read this like 'if anyone doesn't like these idea then abandon them'. As though this is a final attempt to not submit to the doctrine he just delivered. 'If I don't like these teachings then I can omit them'. Paul just said "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." v1 He then appeals to creation and conscience to make his case for authority. So, if someone contends by following their own custom then the churches should have no such custom. We see a similar passage in chapter 14 verses 34-38 and ends with what looks like the same thought; "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
