3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
***
This passage does not denigrate women, as is noted “Paul has no problem with women, having pointed out we are all one in Christ - Jew, Gentile, Greek, slave or free, male or female." (Note 4) (See notes at the end of this section.)
Women play a prominent role in the New Testament - in Jesus’ ministry: Mary and Martha (Lk 10:38ff; 11:1-39); Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:7-42); Mary Magdalene (Matt 6:7-10; Ml 14:3f; Lk 7:37ff); Woman with bloody discharge (Matt 9:20-22; Mk 5:25ff; Lk 8:43ff); and the Crippled Woman (Lk 13:11ff).
Women were also prominent in the apostolic church - see a sampling: Lydia (Acts16:14ff); and Damarius (Acts 17:34). Women were mentioned in the letters to the churches - Priscilla & Aquila, Mary (Rom. 16:3, 6); Julia, Nereus’ sister (Rom 16:15); Nympha (Col 4:16); Claudia (2 Tim 4:21).
V. 3 - “Christ is the head of every man” - Okay, let’s be honest. We have no problem with this statement. Also, “God is the head of Christ.” - we have no problem with this statement.
But, “man is the head of a woman” - we have a problem with this statement. It is Biblical, and your objections are secular in opposition to the Bible. This is a modern cultural issue.
It is fully understood that there are men who are cruel and abusers of women. Abusing women is not a Biblical concept, but from societies and cultures where domination is accepted and encouraged. How does "Love your wife as you love yourself" equal domination? Which normal man abuses his own body, is cruel to himself? A culture based on love and forgiveness does not ban women talking in public, nor does it force women to completely cloak themselves in floor-length clothes, nor does it approve of beating women who may disagree with a man, not to mention killing a woman who commits adultery. The Bible teaches the man is the leader, not the tyrant or dictator.
From a commentary: “The word head here being the idea of authority. And so the husband is the designated authority over the wife. Christ is the authority over the husband. And God is the authority over Christ… Bible has never taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman... He is establishing the chain of command. However, I do think that there is something worth noting here. The authority over the man is Christ, even as the authority over the woman is the man. And I believe that if the man, the husband, is not under the authority of Christ, then the woman has to jump the missing link. I do not believe that God intends that a godly woman be under the authority of an ungodly man. Under the authority of man only as he is under the authority of Jesus Christ. God never meant marriage to be a slavery kind of a situation, or a tyranny kind of a situation, where some big oaf rules over his wife with force, or whatever. ” (Note 2) Also: “Our problem is the sequence of God as the ‘head’ of Christ; Christ as the ‘head’ of man; and man as the ‘head’ of woman. We see hints of superiority. (Or, from the woman’s point of view - inferiority to men). However, Paul is referring to the creation account in Genesis, (See Gen 1:26-28, 2:7-25, and Psa 8:4-8)” (Note 4)
V. 4 - “Every man who has something on his head while praying disgraces his head” - Again, this is a concept that is difficult to grasp (for Americans). From Chuck Smith’s commentary: “The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied.” (See Note 2) Perhaps we can see this concept in our western culture in that when we ‘tip’ our hats or salute another person we are showing respect. We no longer remove our hats when talking to a boss or a political leader (people used to do that). As far as I know, women never removed their hats in church or when speaking with a boss or leader, but men did. Is it possible to say that ‘men with hats’ were a sign of authority?
"The idea is that if a man is talking to God, especially in church, with a hat on his head - he is showing disrespect to God. God is in ultimate authority, and deserves (demands) respect.
"In some cultures, especially in Europe or Great Britain, one could almost determine a man’s station in life by the hat he wore. I think that in the United States, with our emphasis on personal freedoms and equality, hats became less of an indicator of rank or station in life. 'The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied.’ ” (Note 2)
V. 5 - “every woman who has her head uncovered while praying disgraces her head” - Again, part of this is referring to local, cultural etiquette. It is hard to draw this statement into our modern culture. In that culture (maybe even now in the Middle East) the woman’s head covering (a scarf or a veil) indicated that woman is “attached”. By this I mean she is engaged or is married (by definition to a man), or possibly a daughter who is not yet betrothed. (I don’t think this applies to girls, i.e., too young to be married.) In that culture, married women always wore a scarf or veil on their heads when in public. It was a sign to all other men that she was ‘untouchable’. It was a crime, a sin, to make sexual advances to a married woman. “For a woman to go out without a veil was an open invitation for the men. It was sort of a declaration, ‘I am available.’ But for a veiled woman, no man would dare to approach her. Thus, it was a covering. “ (note 2)
“for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved” - N. T. Wright notes, “In that day, only prostitutes did not cover their heads when in public. So, if people see the women with their hair down and uncovered, they might jump to the conclusions about what was going on in the ‘church’.” (Note 4) Or, we read, “So Paul, then, speaking of the woman is saying it is dishonoring in a sense to her husband, her head, if she would go unveiled. Paul said that it was dishonoring to your husbands, because living there in Corinth they were living in the center of pagan licentiousness. not wanting to wear their veils, not being understood by the world, were opening themselves to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus, dishonoring their husbands.” (Note 2)
V. 6 - “let her cover her head” - I don’t quite understand how talking to God without a head covering disgraces her husband. How could a woman be ‘wanton’ when talking with God? So if a married woman without a head covering goes into public and talks to men is a disgrace to her husband; does talking to God without a head covering indicate she is ‘bypassing’ her husband (somehow) and therefore diminishes him in God’s estimation? That seems to be the implied message. This is not saying women are not allowed to talk to God (I think…).
V. 7 - “man ought not to have his head covered” - Let us go with this idea, and say it makes sense that, “The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied.” (Note 2) I hate not understanding why women praying without a covering is dishonors God, and a man with a head covering also dishonors God. Especially since “Paul has no problem with women, having pointed out we are all one in Christ - Jew, Gentile, Greek, slave or free, male or female.” (Note 4) It must be a cultural thing, not a doctrinal thing.
It seems to me this discussion is not completely doctrinal, but is mostly cultural. The commentaries often mentioned that men had short hair and women wore their hair long. I bristled at that (no pun intended). When contemplating this I realized that indeed most countries/cultures in the world indeed do have different ‘looks’ for men and women. Even in these times, men around the world generally have much shorter hair styles than do women.
There are some distinctions between men and women that cannot be denied - men are generally bigger and stronger than women; men have whiskers or beards, women do not (e.g., the circus freak shows used to have ‘bearded ladies’ for people to ogle). Women do not have penises; men do not have breasts. Admittedly, men can grow their hair long (e.g., when Jewish men took a ‘Nazarite’ vow, like Samson), but it is not common nor the majority.
While I don’t completely understand the covering or uncovering of the head and the relation to dishonoring the husband or God, I think I can see that the way we dress reflects on our family and church and our Savior. If we show up at church in swim trunks, or women in a bikini, eyebrows will be arched, people will “Tsk, tsk, tsk” whilst shaking their heads. A woman in a negligee would raise a ruckus - people would be “shocked, shocked I tell you”.
Conclusion:
Don’t dress, act, or behave in a manner that would bring embarrassment or shame. I know that some people have a very high embarrassment thresholds (i.e., they aren’t easily shamed), and then there are those who blush at almost anything. Consider where you are, and who you are with. Consider that the non-Christian world is always watching.
***
(This passage is difficult, and I did not feel competent to comment with assurance. I have consulted several commentaries, three of which were included in my “Blue Letter Bible” application on my iPad, and one other. See Notes 1 through 4 below.)
Note 1: David Guzik; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 2: Chuck Smith; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 3: Matthew Henry; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 4: N.T. Wright; “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians”; Westminster John Knox Press; 2004
***
Notes from K. Bailey’s “Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes”, on 1 Cor 11:3-16:
The issue is gender distinctions, not gender subordination. Men and women in the church are doing the same things: praying and prophesying. (Note: prophesying is a public function carried out in front of other people. Both men and women are leading public worship. (If the women took this to mean that women do not need to cover their heads when prophesying, then it is clear that problems would arise.)
Here is the problem: Jews of that era and background and traditions would affirm self-respecting women cover their heads in public (p. 300). A woman’s hair was to be seen only by her husband and family. (See conservative Muslim countries now - public covering shows she is respectable.)
We can assume that prostitutes did not cover their heads. Jewish Christians would have been upset that a ‘woman like this’ is speaking, how can we concentrate with this going on (head uncovered).
We can look at Acts and Paul’s letters to know that women of high standing would not have been attracted to a religion that did not treat them as equals. Some of the women of the early church - Lydia (Philippi); Phoebe - called a deacon and leader; Priscilla (Corinth); etc.
We can guess that since men taught with heads uncovered, women began to copy that. This raised problems with the Jews. Paul’s solution - women cover up when teaching/preaching, men do not.
1 Cor 11:3 can be read that men are more important than women (wrongly, perhaps) because man was created before woman. The problem with this logic is that animals were created before man - does that mean animals are more important than humans? The word often translated as “head” can also mean “origin”. Paul indicates the ‘interdependence of men and women in the Lord” The origin of man (and indirectly of woman) is Christ, who is from God.
Why would Paul think that a man leading a worship with his head covered dishonor Christ? In the Middle East servants or slaves covered their heads when serving their masters? This was universally understood. But Jesus called his disciples “friends” not “servants/slaves” (Jn 15:12-17) See John 10:11, 14 - shows the depth of intimacy between Jesus and his Father and between Jesus and his flock, because of the cross. Because of the cross we can stand with unveiled faces, beholding the glory of the Lord. (Note: see OT, Moses was not allowed to see the glory of the Lord, because it would kill him) We have been changed into his likeness!
Now, the prophets who participated in worship leadership had a special responsibility. A woman with her head uncovered would embarrass her husband. It would be like a modern husband watching his wife leading in worship wearing a dress too tight and too low cut. (I would add too short, too tight, too revealing.)
Both man and woman were created in the image of God (woman was not created in the image of man).
The same affirmation of the interdependency of male and female appeared in Paul’s discussion of Christian marriage (7:2-5). Here, interdependence is broadened to apply to men and women in Christ is their life together in the church.
Conclusion: God helped Adam by sending him a helper - for this reason the woman should have a sign of authority on her head when she prophecies before the worshipping congregation.
How does this apply to 21st century Christians. “Men and women have gifts that they share together, and prophecy is among them (Acts 2:17-18). Those with these gifts should participate together in the leadership of worship. When doing so, do not dress in a manner taht leads to misunderstanding or in any way detracts from the task of bringing the faithful into the presence of God, not on yourselves. In the Lord you are equal and mutually interdependent. Let’s the angels rejoice once again.” (P. 313)
