The Covering of the Head in Public Worship:
1 Corinthians 11:1-16.

By James Gunn
© 2008

The Preamble

1. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Paul tells the recipients of his letter to follow him in his way of life as a Christian, just as Paul follows Christ. This and the next verse set the context for the entire chapter, not just this passage. We are to interpret everything that comes after in light of these two verses.

2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Paul here praises the Corinthians for being mindful of him and for keeping the ordinances he has given them (and all Christians) through his apostolic authority within the church.

The Argument

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.
This is the key verse of this passage and sets up the structure underlying the entire discussion. God (the Father) is the head of Christ; Christ is obedient and submissive to God the Father, always perfectly doing His will. Christ is the head of the man; He is the Saviour and Lord. The man is the head of his wife. Since it is the role of the head to be the one who determines the nature of a relationship, it follows that the husband as head of the family and of the wife must exemplify and model this covenantal form of relationship.

4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Because Christ is the head of the man, for a man to cover his head is symbolically to dishonour Christ through concealing His glory. (Jewish and pagan men alike before and during the Christian era wore coverings on their heads during worship. It was the accepted custom. By advocating a change in this custom, Paul was announcing a change in the way believers were to worship God.)

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.
She does this by repudiating the common custom and thereby symbolically announcing, through her uncovered head during public worship, that she is no longer of one flesh with her husband, that is no longer in the covenantal form of relationship that Paul has already defined in verse three and which is based on such passages as Genesis 2:23-24. When this happens, not only is her husband dishonoured but so also is the institution of biblical, covenantal marriage. However, the intention is to conform to the biblical pattern outlined in verse three. This is the crucial verse in this passage. The rest of the passage from Paul is really just an unpacking—in terms of the accepted customs of the day—of the relationship already outlined in verse three.

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.
Paul shows the circuitousness of the situation: if she is uncovered, she may as well be shaven, which in the context of the society in which thy all lived at the time of writing, was the sign of disgrace. (The Greek word for “covering” in this verse, katakaluptomai, implies that her hair, not a garment, should cover her.)

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.
A summary verse, restating his argument so far. The way for woman to show forth her proper relationship to the man is the opposite of how a man should show his proper relationship to Christ. In the context of their day, a woman’s hair was her glory (see verse fifteen and commentary) and to not cover it up would put her in the position of publicly saying, “My glory is just the same as my husband’s glory.” This would detract from the proper relationship established at creation (the creation order, outlined in verse three). This however, is no longer the accepted custom of our own time and society.

8. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
To authenticate his thesis, Paul gives the order of precedence according to scripture: the woman came from the man (Genesis 2:22) and is therefore related to man in a subordinate positional role just as Christ proceeds from the Father and is related to Him in a subordinate positional role.

9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Here Paul reminds his readers of the purpose of the creation of woman (Genesis 2:18, 22) that she is to be to him a helpmate and fit companion. This logical statement adds the weight of further evidence to Paul’s argument by clarifying that what I of most importance is the proper relationship between men and women generally, and a man and his wife particularly.

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
It is for this reason (the two parts of which are given in verses eight and nine) that the wife owes honour to the man (because of his positional authority, as per verse three) regardless of what kind of man he may be in and of himself—see verse three. And too, it honours angels who are partakers, in some mysterious way, of the true worship of God. It seems that whenever God’s people are gathered together for true, biblical worship, angels are gathered to watch and listen (and perhaps enjoy and offer praise to God for the glory He receives from His supreme creation, human beings).

11. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Here Paul reminds us not to be independent. It is not for ourselves that we engage in the ordinances Paul has been talking about. We do not have ultimate authority in this. Men and women are equal and have the same worth (Genesis 1:27-28a). Here Paul tells us it is not a question of which is better or innately superior: husband or wife. We are both to be in obedience to God’s ordinances. Both the husband and the wife are dependant on God and His ordinances. This is the core of the covenantal relationship. The ordinance here is symbolically represented by the custom of the head covering.

12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Since woman comes from man (originally, in Eden) and owes her existence partly to him (Adam provided the raw material as it were) and since all men since the Fall are born (and nurtured) by women, so are both mutually dependant and of equal worth. We are to be mindful that men and women (and therefore husbands and wives) have equal value, but that God has supreme value over all His created order and so has a right to make demands upon it. All things come from God as the Creator and owe allegiance to Him.

13. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
In this verse, Paul confidently asks his readers to use their common sense as well as their status as born-again Christians to discern the truth in their hearts and minds and to apply what he has told them so far to their own situation in the society of which they were members.

14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Paul introduces the argument from nature here and which continues in verse fifteen. It was not the custom of most Jews before and during the Christian era, to wear long hair as we see depicted so often in popular art and film. Jewish men at the time wore short hair.

15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
The word for covering used here, peribolaion indicates, tangentially, being covered by fabric or a garment that could be wrapped about oneself, such as a veil. It is not the same word used by Paul elsewhere in this passage. A troublesome word in this verse is the word “for” (a)ntið). It can mean “because of”, “in place of” or “instead of” If we see “for” being used as “because of” then Paul could be saying in effect “A woman’s glory is because of her hair (her covering).” If he intends “in place of” it means the hair is to replace a garment for her covering. If, however we read “for” as “over against”, “opposite to” or “before” then the verse could mean that a woman’s hair is the covering she has before the head covering or in distinction from the head covering. (It may be Paul is referring to the maidenhood of every woman, before she comes of a marrying age.)

In any event, showing off her long hair in public (in the society of which she was a member) was tantamount to a denial of the relationship between man and wife established by God in the Garden of Eden at the very beginnings of our world. The ordinance of the head covering for both men and women was a social recognition of the covenant nature of marriage and of submission to the purpose and wisdom of God by husband and wife, man and woman.

The Conclusion

16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
If any man appears to be, or is accounted as, willing to engage in strife or argumentation Paul says that there is no other habit, ordinance, custom or practice than the uncovering of the man’s head and the covering of the woman’s head during public, corporate worship.

Is it other custom or such custom? Two different words in English (Grk = toioutos) convey somewhat different meanings. (KJV = such, NASB = other.)

Also, the NET Bible translates the word “contentious” as “quarrel”, thus reading, “If anyone intends to quarrel about this [practice, custom] ….”

I believe the word toioutos should be translated as “other” (understanding that to mean “different” or “this is the only custom we have”) and I conclude that this (the covering of the head) was the custom [Grk = sunetheia, a practice to which one was accustomed] of at least the Corinthian church if not many other churches too.

In line with this insight, it behooves us to be cognizant of the overall Pauline context. Three variants in particular stand out; the authority of Christ (i.e. 1 Cor. 14:37), the obedience, respect, and submissive attitude that wives are to display toward husbands, and Paul’s clear instructions for strong and assured believers to give way to the needs, beliefs and practices of weaker Christians as is found in passages such as Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8. And in light of Paul’s admonishing of Christians not to turn back to the law and legalism (as for instance in Gal. 3) we perhaps may understand that each Christian (or Christian married couple) has a degree of liberty in regard to such issues as the head covering so long as the married couple recognize the creation order of first man, then woman and so act accordingly (men respectfully and women submissively).

(It may be worthy of note that Paul specifically mentions that the head should be covered when praying or prophesying. This would seem to indicate that the head could be uncovered at other points during the worship service.)

On balance, it seems that Paul is recommending that husbands and wives follow local custom for the sake of order, expediency, peace and unity (in keeping with Paul’s overall concern for decency and propriety in the Church) but that if anyone chooses to practice something different, that is his/her business so long as it doesn’t cause strife within the body of Christ.