Women in the church: What does God want? Part 2 of 6 · Does God Require Women to Wear Head Coverings?
Women in the church: What does God want? Part 2 of 6
Does God Require Women to Wear Head Coverings?
1 Corinthians 11:1-16
Pastor Kerry Kinchen, Bridgeway Bible Church
Please turn to 1 Corinthians. This morning we are continuing with the series, "Women in the church: What does God want?" For this sermon, we will primarily be looking to 1 Corinthians 11. As you are turning there I want to point out two very important and foundational truths; One is,
"16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
This is foundational. There is another one that is just as foundational. Without checking ourselves with it, then the first will quickly be undermined. It is to learn by the apostles,
"... not to go beyond what is written," 1 Corinthians 4:6
With this in mind as our main governing factor as we are led by the Spirit, I want us to consider the fact that there are Christians who think that women must have their heads covered with a hat, scarf, veil, or shawl, while in church. Others think that women must only have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy. There are those who think that women must have their heads covered all the time, even outside the church. All the Christians who take these views, ultimately refer to 1 Corinthians 11 for their Biblical support. Let's read it,
"1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the man is the head of a woman, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman came from man, so man comes from woman. And all things come from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11
Prepare your heart to learn, with me, from God's word, in this sermon titled,
Women in the church: What does God want? Part 2
Does God Require Women to Wear Head Coverings?
[pray]
To really understand the fabric of our passage and the teaching on head coverings, we must recognize the contours of the Corinthian context in respect to the fact that Paul is answering questions that have been addressed to him about various issues. From things said in the letter, we can deduce that this, and other information that Paul received while in Ephesus, prompted this letter. Notice Paul's focus,
"1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions even as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:1-2
"The traditions" (paradosis in Greek) are the basics that were laid down in original discipleship. This would be the traditions that Paul has grounded the churches in, such as we also see mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 2. But in this chapter there are also the "customs" (sunetheia in Greek) that the people have in their culture which Paul identifies as such in 1 Corinthians 11:16, and in using the same Greek word a little earlier in 1 Corinthians 8:7 (cf. accustomed). This fact is important, so let's go over it again:
1) There are the apostolic traditions that the churches were grounded in through discipleship.
2) There are the local customs that have to be dealt with concerning how they contradict, or compliment, the traditions.
In the contextual flow of the previous chapters, Paul has been addressing the cultural custom things that the Corinthians were faced with. So, when Paul gets here and says to imitate him, Paul has already laid out a lot of groundwork from the beginning on the way Paul does things. Paul wants the Corinthians to imitate him because they are tending to follow wrong patterns and get bogged down in the minutia of their own practices. Consequently, Paul is addressing a church that manifests sin, carnality, spiritual immaturity, conflict, and confusion on many levels. It is rife with the disease of divisiveness, and strife, as seen in in 1:10, 3:3, 11:18, 12:25. There are issues to be cleared up in respect to following certain teachers, baptism, church discipline, eating meat sacrificed to idols, practicing spiritual gifts, taking other Christians to court when wronged, Christians visiting prostitutes, marriage, divorce, partaking of the Lord's supper wrongly, and much more. There is also an apparent controversy over the symbol of head covering. Though Paul commends (Gk. epaineo) the Corinthians for holding to the essential discipleship traditions, after he addresses the question of head covering that has evidently been brought to his attention, Paul will go on to rebuke them in our same chapter. This time he is going to use the same Greek word and say that he does not commend them (epaineo) for the way that they are practicing the essential apostolic tradition of the Lord's supper in communion at 1 Corinthians 11:17 and 11:22 where he hits that subject.
For more necessary orientation, let's start in chapter 9 to see the immediate concern. This is important to see that Paul wants the Corinthians to imitate his examples--his traditions that He teaches, and his ways. In chapter 9, Paul makes it clear that he does not want to be disqualified in the eyes of others because of being supported financially in ministry, or because of anything about himself that may be offensive. Paul goes on with verse after verse defending his right to be financially supported; but Paul has a higher goal in mind in respect to the views of carnal Corinthians judging him for being supported. So, in respect to his right to financial provision from people, Paul says,
"15 But I have used none of these things" 1 Corinthians 9:15
Paul's example is that he is concerned about the perception of others. He says in 1 Corinthians 9:19, that though he is free from all men, he made himself a slave to all, so that he may win more. He has become all things to all men, so that he may by all means save some in 1 Corinthians 9:22. We understand Paul's point, don't we? Paul does not want to be offensive because of Paul. Paul says that if he is going to be offensive, then he wants it to be because of the gospel. He wants to live by the word, and not go beyond what is written. But here is the important thing I am wanting to bring out in the flow of 1 Corinthians 9--Paul also wants the Corinthians to think the same way; so Paul says,
"24 ... Run in such a way that you may win." 1 Corinthians 9:24
He urges the Corinthians to have,
"25 ... self-control in all things." 1 Corinthians 9:25
Paul's example for them is that when he ministers he has concern for what others think, so Paul runs while controlling himself in all things, especially in prudence in ministry, saying
"26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified [by others]." 1 Corinthians 9:26
[see online book, Biblically Defending Salvation, chp. 5 on 1 Corinthians, K Kinchen, bridgewaybiblechurch.org, for a more thorough handling of 1 Corinthians 9:26-27]
We do not want to be disqualified in the minds of others because of something we are doing that we have a perfect right in the Lord to do (like Paul's right to be supported financially in ministry); so we must be wise, and considerate. It is our higher calling. It is Paul's example for us to follow. Paul's concern for the way others think is seen in the next chapter,
"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor." 1 Corinthians 10:23-24
This is an area that touches the Corinthian's customs. When the pagans sacrificed to their false gods, sacrificial meat was left over from the offering. The custom is that meat used for the idol worship in Corinth was later sold in the market for food. Paul says that all things are lawful for Christians, but not all things are profitable, nor do all things build up people; so, we notice that the commendable thing to do is to be sensitive to how cultural customs effect people; and then do what? Seek the good of your neighbor, rather than your own good. We recognize this as the great "much more" of the "upward call" don't we? It is the motivation of supernomianism, which is a manifestation of the Spirit in love that goes beyond contingent love, rights, and comfort zones. The point is that eating this kind of meat could easily cause a problem for others. Paul is saying that the meat means nothing spiritually for a Christian; but if you buy it, you should buy it without asking the seller questions about it. Avoid asking where the meat comes from and you protect the conscience of the seller from judging you, and then they are okay, and so is your reputation which brings glory to the Lord. If an unbeliever invites you over to eat this kind of stuff, then go ahead and eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for the same reason--for the sake of the conscience of the other people. This is Paul's flow of thinking in 10:24-33. But, if anyone says to you,
"This is meat sacrificed to idols," 1 Corinthians 10:28
then you are now at the crossroads of the custom, and so what do you do? Do not eat it. Again, why? For the sake of the conscience of the one who informed you. The point is that we have freedom in Christ to eat these kinds of things because at this point it is just left over meat to us. Yet, it is wise to consider the customs of others which dominate their thinking and can cause confusion by our actions. Paul quotes Psalm 24:1 for his point on the freedom to eat as being something different than partaking in the cup of demons,
"26 Because the earth is the Lord's, and all it contains." 1 Corinthians 10:26
But Paul knows that our freedom in Christ can be judged by others, so, in wisdom and love, try to run in such a way as to avoid the problem. Paul clarifies with the big tradition (paradosis) that illumines all discipleship that has been laid down, and can be laid down,
"31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31
This is Paul's way. What else is Paul's way? Paul's way is also,
"32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, ..." 1 Corinthians 10:32
You see, all of this has to do with understanding cultural customs and being sensitive in them by following the Law of Love of the New Covenant. Love God by doing all to His glory, and love others by trying not to offend them and seek the profit of the many, and you will do just fine. This brings us to the continuation of thought coming into our chapter which has the custom of head covering. Paul says,
"1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1
The reason why this is important is because Paul is continuing with the same theme of all things being lawful, and of doing all to the glory of God, and, not being offensive to the church of God just as Paul pleases all men in all things, not seeking his profit but the profit of many. In other words, this is the way Paul is thinking coming into more of his teaching to "the church of God." It has to do with how people understand their established customs, and however it is handled, it needs to be handled to the glory of God, whether by doing what is "lawful" anyway, or in seeking the "profit of the many." So Paul says,
"1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything, ..." 1 Corinthians 11:1-2a
After Paul says to imitate him as he is of Christ, we notice that Paul says that he commends the Corinthians because they already remember Paul in everything in respect to his ways. Keep this in mind. It has to do with the concern. This alludes to Paul's instruction to follow him, which he now expects to be his personal example of not being offensive to people unnecessarily in chapter 9 and chapter 10. But there is a second part,
"... and hold firmly to the traditions (Gk. paradosis) even as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2b
Paul commends the Corinthians for holding to the paradosis-traditions that had been delivered beforehand through previous discipleship. With this commendation, for abiding in the doctrines and precepts and patterns that they had been discipled in, out of the way, Paul wants the Corinthians to understand something else that has to do with the same kinds of wisdom considerations of his flow. Paul launches into teaching in respect to proper conduct in the church gatherings in Corinth. From here, he goes for several chapters on various issues of church meetings and ministry. The fact that Paul is talking about proper conduct, within the gathered church context, is seen just prior in 1 Corinthians 10:32, and down in 11:16-18,
"16 ... the churches of God. 17 But in giving this instruction, ... you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 ... when you come together as a church, ...;" 1 Corinthians 11:16
So Paul starts out,
"3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the man is the head of a woman, and the head of Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 11:3
Paul is setting the stage for what he is about to teach around issues of headship, and especially that headship must clearly be delineated and recognized in the church.
The doctrinal order is
1) God, then
2) Christ [the God-man, who is the third person of the one being of God] then
3) the man, then
4) the woman.
Paul is not saying that God, in his infinite transcendence, is better than the Son, or that the Son is inferior to the Father. Paul is not saying that men are better than women, or that women are inferior to men. The Father and the Son are equal in essence. Males and females are equal in humanness, value, and spirituality. But, there is a God ordained authority structure and it must be respected, and recognized, especially in the church gathering. Later, in 1 Corinthians 15:28, Paul demonstrates the Son's function as being subordinate to the Father. Paul explains that Christ is going to surrender the Kingdom to the Father. Similarly, females function in subordination to males. In respect to this fact, Paul explains some things about covering and uncovering heads during the activity of praying and prophesying that is dishonorable to what he just explained concerning the headship order,
"4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman came from man, so man comes from woman. And all things come from God." 1 Corinthians 11:4-12
In the assembled Corinthian church context (see the clarifying context of "church of God" at 1 Corinthians 10:32 with "churches of God" 1 Corinthians 11:16, and "when you come together as a church," 1 Corinthians 11:18) both men and women were evidently praying and prophesying in the same meetings. The prophesying reflected the outpouring according to what Peter said was happening on Pentecost day in the New Covenant inauguration. The disciples were demonstrating, (and Peter was confirming), what the prophet Joel had prophesied centuries beforehand in Joel 2:28-32. Peter said,
"16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel, 17 "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.'" Acts 2:16-18
This happened that day at Pentecost, and it continued as "those days" of Joel's prophecy of the New Testament establishment period--probably till the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, where we apparantly hear no more of it. At that time, though, we see it continuing after Pentecost with Philip's daughters who were prophetesses, and Agabus, the man prophesying, in Acts 21. This is the same kind of thing that was going on in the Corinthian church. Later, in chapter 14, Paul lays out the proper order for it in the assembly. Here, Paul is laying out the reason for women covering their head when prophesying in the church; but we must realize that Paul is also talking about praying too. All of this has to do with Corinthian cultural considerations, and what those considerations symbolize in respect to authority. This is why Paul calls it,
"10 ... a symbol of authority on her head, ..." 1 Corinthians 11:10
Head covering, in this chapter, has to do with being a visual symbol of authority. The people of Corinth would readily, and easily, understand Paul's point concerning what it means in their area to have a head covering as a symbolic emblem of authority. On the same cultural-symbol level, Paul covers the issue of women cutting their hair off. Paul uses this analogy to make his same point on visually recognizing spiritual authority in praying and prophesying. For a woman to have her hair shaved off, was evidently recognized as a symbol of something shameful in Corinth. The question is, what does Paul mean by this shave off shame symbol reference?
Well, this is but one part of the difficulty of this passage. Nobody knows for sure. Consequently, there is more than one suggestion for what this means:
/a/
In the culture of that time it was common for slave women to have their hair shaved off, but this is probably not what Paul means.
/b/
Another reason why women would have their hair shaved off was when they were caught in adultery. Shaving off their hair was part of their punishment. This could be Paul's allusion to the shame.
/c/
Prostitutes would also cut their hair. It is possible that since the famous prostitute temple was in Corinth, that prostitutes would be known to Christian Corinthians as the women with the disgraceful, cut, and shaven heads. Their shaven heads would be highly symbolic of the fact that they were under the authority of the pagan temple, and were marked as sexually immoral heathens of demon worship (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:20).
Either way, Paul's metaphor is strong for making his point, and culturally, we surmise that the Corinthians know what Paul means, right?
Concerning men, Paul's point is that since man is in the image and glory of God Himself, (Who is the ultimate authority of all Christian men) then this requires that men not only do not need to, but must not, employ any cultural symbols of authority on their heads while praying and prophesying,
"4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, ... 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man." 1 Corinthians 11:4
No head covering symbol is needed because according to God's created order (in terms of glory reflection) God is the spiritual authority over males in respect to prayer and prophesying. There is no need to sport a symbol. Being the living image and glory of God, in the created order, is the suit that trumps all symbols. Also, for a man to seek another symbol of authority to put on his head to pray or prophesy in the assemblies, may carnally seem like an honor, but it is really a dishonor to his head. Now let's think about this one too. It seems that Paul is alluding to an actual practice that should be avoided:
{A}
Paul may be alluding to the cultural custom of pagan priests who wore head coverings in their worship rituals that demonstrated that they were under the authority of their pagan religious system. These head coverings were also symbols that brought honor to them.
{B}
Or it may be that Paul is pointing out the broader usage of caps as varying symbols of being under authority, like for example a Rabbi's hat representing being a Pharisee, or a Saduccee. In the Levitical priesthood, the priests of the temple were required to wear a head covering according to Exodus 28:4, 29:6, and 39:28.
{C}
Or, Paul may be alluding to the practice of Roman military men who wore head coverings as symbols of authority. The types of head coverings, and helmets, signified their level of rank under the authority of their emperor who was considered a god.
All these seem like honor, but in the church such coverings are empty substitutes. Freed in Christ, men display the glory, and honor originally given in the creation order. There is another strong possibility;
{D}
In verse 3, Paul says that the head of every man is Christ, and the man is the head of the woman, so Paul may not actually be saying that when a man prophesies or prays with a head covering, he is dishonoring his own physical head; but rather, when males pray or prophesy with their heads covered they dishonor Christ their immediate authority head.
These are all possibilities that are argued by interpreters. Then in verse 5, just as males who reflect the glory and honor of God in Christ would be dishonoring Christ if they pray or prophesy with covered heads, Christian females (like for example wives) would be dishonoring males (like for example husbands) if they pray or prophesy with uncovered heads. This would make sense because Paul is making the connection to head coverings being symbols of being under authority.
--a--
Culturally, women who have uncovered heads would logically be demonstrating that they are either, shamefully not under authority of their husbands, or they shamefully do not respect honoring the authority of their husbands--their head. It would be analogous, to a certain degree, like a married woman in our culture, taking her wedding ring off as she comes into the company of a group of men. Culturally, our custom is for the wife to leave her wedding ring on. To take it off would be considered shameful.
--b--
In the broader church order application, Paul could mean that the women who uncover their heads while praying or prophesying, are symbolically demonstrating that they do not respect the authority of the male leadership in the church, such as the overseers, elders, pastors, shepherds; and in such a case, Paul would be saying that those kinds of women might as well go ahead and do the most shameful thing, which is cut their hair off, like, for example, prostitutes did.
Even though there is some degree of mystery to all of this head covering custom, what do we know? We know that Paul is getting his big point across quite well, even for us who are culturally detached. It is obvious that Paul is employing intentional "friendly" sarcasm when he says that since it is a disgraceful custom culturally in Corinth for a woman to have her hair shaved off, then there is no other option to demonstrate submissiveness, and therefor avoid disgracing herself, but to wear a head covering, v. 6.
Starting in verse 7, Paul continues to expound on authority and he continues to do it where we easily understand his main principle. Referencing the way God created humans to be back in the beginning, woman is the glory of man in much the same way that man is in the image and glory of God. Paul continues the reference--Man was not made "from" woman, but woman "from" man. Neither was man created "for" woman, but woman "for" man. When it comes to recognizing authority, this is Paul's theological reason for why a Corinthian Christian woman ought to utilize the symbol. Then Paul adds something mysterious again. Paul explains that it is also because of the angels. This part is another esoteric teaching, and it is hard to figure out what Paul means from analyzing the rest of biblical theology:
<A>
Paul could mean, like he said earlier,
"9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles ... because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels, and to men." 1 Corinthians 4:9
Paul may mean that God exhibits women to angels as a spectacle representing being made for man, and in wearing a head covering while prophesying and praying, she demonstrates to angels that she is under the authority of men, who are under the authority of God. Or, if the spouse interpretation is correct--that she, being a wife, is honoring her husband's authority, and for some reason this is important for angels to see.
<B>
It could mean that the seraphim cover their faces before God, like in Isaiah 6:2, and so Paul is suggesting that this is what woman should do too.
<C>
It could mean that angels are below men and women in the created order, and so Paul is putting this in the context to signify this fact, and to show that the symbol of authority points to the fact that women are under the authority of men, and then angels under her. Earlier in 1 Corinthians 6:3, Paul asks the Corinthians, "Do you not know that we will judge angels?"
<D>
It could mean that Paul is talking about church "messengers" from other cities. The Greek word for angel here is also translated as messenger. But such an interpretation does not follow Paul's usage of the Greek word, angelous in the rest of 1 Corinthians in 4:9, 6:3, and 13:1, and so it is difficult to assert this with any level of certainty.
Nobody really knows for sure what this "because of the angels" reference actually means, other than the fact that this is part of why the line of authority needs to be preserved, recognized, and seen manifested.
But, then Paul, smoothes things out for clarity,
"11 Nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman came from man, so man comes from woman. And all things come from God." 1 Corinthians 4:11-12
At this point in Paul's flow, the authority issue has been covered. The Corinthian's custom of head coverings has been explained in how to see it according to the big picture of the real tradition of the church which is actually the overarching historic tradition (paradosis) of the God ordained authority structure. God's authority structure, and recognizing it, is Paul's undergirding tradition the Corinthians need to hold firmly to. Now Paul says, "Nevertheless," to show that both men and women who are "in the Lord," are not independent of each other. All Christians are connected "in the Lord." Even in the world, men and women are dependent upon one another to some degree. Men come out of women, so there is no independency; but finally all things come from God, and God is the primary authority. Paul is careful. He realizes that what he previously addressed could look like he is saying that men are more important than women. By making this last "nevertheless" comment, Paul adds a safeguard to battle an improper view of men and women that goes beyond his point. Paul is almost finished with this, but he turns the tables onto the Corinthians who have their customs, and their cultural symbol to deal with in respect to signifying proper authority for men under God, and for women under men, in respect to prayer and prophecy, saying,
"13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering." 1 Corinthians 11:13-15
Paul leaves judgment to the Corinthians in respect to this custom. He urges them to consider how to apply this in respect to honoring God in the real issue, which is in respect to authority, and he adds some lessons to contemplate from the natural realm as they consider making their personal judgment on the matter. One lesson is that if a man has long hair, it disgraces him in some way. This analogy is another esoteric one, because nature teaches us that when men don't cut their hair, nature makes it grow long as part of God's genetic code design (Well, at least for some men). So let's explore this one too:
*a*
Paul may mean that nature teaches "you" that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace because it gets in the way as an inconvenience.
*b*
Or, Paul may be showing that the natural realm dictates that men naturally feel ashamed when they possess an attribute that is culturally associated with femininity (especially "you" Corinthian men, as this is the pronoun Paul chose). This would be a cultural concern of the natural world, because, of course, Samson's long hair was a virtue that far from disgraced him. With it, he demonstrated supernatural power. In this respect, the teaching of nature may mean that the natural inclination of men and women is to feel shame when they abandon the culturally established symbols of masculinity or femininity.
*c*
It could mean that when men have long hair then they are dishonoring Christ (if the head is meant to be Christ). But the question is: How does nature teach this one? If, according to nature, men naturally grow long hair, then it is hard to determine how nature actually teaches this particular interpretation.
The fact is that it is difficult to interpret what Paul means. The other analogy that Paul gives is that if nature gives a woman long hair, then it is her glory, because it is given to her for a practical reason of being a covering. Again, we have some interpretive options that we must face because this meaning is so difficult to decipher:
[A]
Paul could be talking about the hair of wives where nature is teaching that her hair honors her husband (if the head is interpreted to be the husband). So, this is the head covering symbol that nature (not custom) teaches by giving it. But this view does not take into account how odd it is to say that hair on a man somehow disgraces Christ, rather than disgracing the man's actual physical head in some manner. After all, God created the hair that men have--whether long of short.
[B]
Or similarly, it may mean that a woman's hair itself naturally places her in the arena of submission to men in the church while praying or prophesying, regardless of the garment symbol of verse 10.
[C]
It may mean that nature gives women hair as a natural symbol of femininity for those who are actually blessed to have long hair. She could wear her hair up in a display of a feminine cultural custom and so forth.
Though Paul's words seem esoteric to us, the main point is that Paul provides some parting analogies before leaving it up to the Corinthians to judge this local outward show issue in respect to submission and authority in a gathering where a woman is going to pray or prophesy.
But Paul is not finished, and neither are we. Paul punctuates the teaching with a final word that leaves an even wider door open to drop the whole head covering issue altogether as being essentially irrelevant if the Corinthians will apply the principles that Paul laid out at the beginning for such cultural considerations, and will just stick with the authority structure issue as the apostolic doctrinal tradition (paradosis) that really matters the most. Remember what they were? They were,
"23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor." 1 Corinthians 10:23-24
"31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31
"32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, ... Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:32-33, 11:1
We remember how Paul comes into this teaching. Now look at how he ends it:
"16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we [meaning the apostles] have no such custom [Gk. sunetheia], nor do the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16
Keeping in mind that Paul starts out saying to be imitators of him, Paul ends this as the theologian DA Carson states,
"The "we"/"church of God" parallel either means that Paul has never allowed the practice, and the churches have followed his lead; or that Paul and the church in Ephesus (from which he is writing) constitute the "we" that have not followed the practice, and again the other churches have adopted the same stance." --DA Carson (1)
Carson is saying that if anyone wants to argue about customs of wearing coverings on heads in respect to praying and prophesying, which comes under the actual issue of the real tradition (paradosis) which is recognizing and honoring the line of authority from God, the apostles themselves have no such custom of women wearing head coverings while praying and prophesying, (and men not wearing a head covering), and neither do any of the other churches of God in any other region. The point is that though the authority issue is foundational, as is stated in other epistles, this covering application in respect to it is because of a Corinthian cultural custom issue. So as a final consideration, Paul says that if anyone wants to argue about whether this is a necessity for conveying proper authority in the spiritual realm of God's kingdom, we apostles don't do it, and no other church does it either. The authority issue is what matters more than Corinth's cultural symbols, which are secondary, but culturally identifiable symbols on the matter. Ultimately, Paul wants everyone to think of the head covering part in respect to giving no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God as far as it depends upon you just as Paul also pleases all men in all things, not seeking his own profit but the profit of the many. Be imitators of Paul, as Paul is of Christ; And if you still want to be argumentative about it, realize that to imitate Paul who is of Christ, in respect to the cultural symbol of covering heads, he and the other apostles have no such custom, nor do the any of the other churches of God anywhere else. The important expansive custom is to recognize the line of authority of the Father God, Son Christ, man, then woman.
There are some who disagree with the interpretation of this last verse that I am presenting. Some Bible interpreters, and Bible translation teams, think that Paul means that all the apostles, and all the churches, have no other practice that is different than requiring women to wear garment head coverings when they pray or prophesy, and men leaving things off their heads. What people do, who take this view, is connect Paul's introductory comments in verse 2, where Paul says
"2 Now I commend [epaineo] you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions [paradosis] even as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2
Then they think that head covering must be the outworking of one of those paradosis-traditions; so when they get down to verse 16, they translate the Greek in an odd manner to match their presupposition concerning what they think Paul meant at verse 2. They want the traditions, (paradosis), to be the custom (sunetheia) found here. This is Dr. Wallace's stated reason as to why he puts it this way in his NET Bible,
"If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other [toiauthn] practice [sunhyeian], nor do the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16 NET
The New American Standard does the same thing,
"But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other [toiauthn] practice [sunhyeian], nor have the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16 NASB
The NIV team does it too,
"If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other [toiauthn] practice [sunhyeian]—nor do the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16 NIV
On the other hand the New King James Version team translates this properly with:
"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such [toiauthn] custom [sunhyeian], nor do the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16 NKJV
So does the New Revised Standard Version team,
"But if anyone is disposed to be contentious--we have no such [toiauthn] custom [sunhyeian], nor do the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16 RSV
The English Standard Version team translates it the proper way too, using the word practice as custom, but adding "such,"
"16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such [toiauthn] practice [sunhyeian], nor do the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16 ESV
At the Greek level, when we look at the verse, the issue hinges upon the adjective in this verse, which is toiauten (toioutos). If you decide to translate it as "other," you get one meaning. If you translate it as "such," you get another meaning. The problem is that both end up with exact opposite meanings from one another! It works like this: I could say,
Do you want to argue with me about this custom? Well, we actually have "no other" custom than this one.
or, I could say,
Do you want to argue with me about this custom? Well, we actually have "no such" custom as this one anyway.
What makes the wrong interpretation even more perplexing is that there is no other passage in the New Testament which translates toioutos as "other." Further, none of the half dozen standard Greek lexicons give "other" as a possible definition of this Greek word. The reason this phrase is wrongly rendered as "other" is because those translators see Paul commending the Corinthians at the beginning for holding to the traditions he handed down, and then when they get to this point, they think that Paul could not possibly be saying what he is saying, which is that the apostles and the rest of the churches have no such symbol custom. The mistake is that they assume that the "traditions-paradosis" of Paul's previous discipleship, must necessarily be the "custom-sunetheia" of the Corinthian's head coverings. Therefore, they tweak the Greek to fit their specious theory. The correct interpretation is as the KJV, NKJV, the NRSV, the ESV, Young's Literal Translation, John Wycliffe's Translation, and a host of others render it,
"we have no such custom" 1 Corinthians 11:16
Further, there are only three places this Greek word for custom (sunetheia) is found in the New Testament; earlier in Paul's contextual flow in 1 Corinthians 8:7, where the NASB decided to get it right and use the word in the correct way as, "accustomed,"
"7 ... but some, being accustomed [sunetheia] to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled." 1 Corinthians 8:7
And then here, where the NKJV gets it right,
"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16
The other place is John 18:39, which the NASB decided to get it right there too,
"39 But you have a custom [sunetheia] that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?" John 18:39
This is no small matter. We are indebted to the work of Dr. Gregg Strawbridge for his insights on this. He points out that the word,
"... is a cognate word of ethos, as in "sunethos"--sunetheia. The term ethos is, for example, used in Acts 15:1: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And in Acts 6:14 "the customs which Moses delivered to us." It used to refer to the "the burial custom of the Jews," (John 19:40), "the custom of the feast" (Luke 2:42), "the customs of our fathers" (Luke 28:17), etc. The Louw-Nida semantical domain lexicon says of ethos and sunetheia, a pattern of behavior more or less fixed by tradition and generally sanctioned by the society [the examples given are:] - 'custom, habit.' 'as is the burial custom of the Jews' Jn 19.40. 'bad companions ruin good habits' 1 Cor 15.33.'we do not have such a custom' 1 Cor 11.16."--Strawbridge (2)
Strawbridges exegetical work is thorough. He touched on another thing some people think Paul is talking about. Some think that Paul is saying that all the apostles and churches have no such custom of arguing about this issue. They say that arguing itself is supposed to be the point. But the context mentions the real contextual custom being discussed. The custom is not the practice of being contentious about these things. Strawbridge continues,
"It is rather clear that the term sunetheia, like ethos, refers to a pattern of behavior. In the context of 1 Cor. 11, it surely refers to the practice of head covering in whatever form. It is squarely out of bounds of the usage of sunetheia that it means "we have no custom of being contentious on this." Being "contentious" (philoneikos - argumentative) is not a sunetheia or "custom.''"--Strawbridge (2)
The point is that Paul has been explaining the only custom he has been talking about, with the defining verses being verses 3-5 with verse 10. To suggest that arguing is a custom is a fiction. The most natural flow is the conclusion of Dr. Strawbridge, where he states that,
"... the entire discussion is framed between the paradosis in verse 2 and the sunetheia in verse 16. This is what I believe he says: imitate me, keep the paradosis, {traditions} but we have no sunetheia {custom} on head covering."--Strawbridge (2) {emph. mine}
The reason why this is important is because Paul is continuing with the theme of all things being lawful, and whatever you do, do all to the glory of God, and not being offensive to the church of God just as Paul pleases all men in all things, not seeking his profit but the profit of many. If anyone wants to be contentious, then the same principle Paul has preached continues: Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. The head covering issue is the "whatever you do" issue at this point--even after Paul asks for the Corinthians to judge for their own selves. But like I asked before at the beginning when Paul covered receiving money from people, and then with meat sacrificed to idols: What is Paul's custom? That is what we want to know. Paul's custom is to try to exercise wisdom and love when you judge for yourselves in giving no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as Paul also please all men in all things, not seeking Paul's own profit but the profit of the many. Be imitators of Paul, as Paul is of Christ. With this principle in mind, then, to be imitators of Paul in the midst of contention on this Jewish, Roman, or Corinthian head covering custom issue,
"16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we [Paul and the other apostles] have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16
I hope you have been edified by this sermon. Obviously, this is not an easy issue. Nevertheless, I hope I have properly conveyed the root principles involved. I realize that this may stimulate some of us to question our presuppositions about what God actually teaches, and what the teaching is in respect to. With this in mind, I urge everyone here to live as if,
"16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
and in keeping with that foundational truth for life, to also be following the words of Paul where he said to the Corinthians in chapter 4, that you may learn by the apostles,
"... not to go beyond what is written," 1 Corinthians 4:6
Finally, if one should ever wonder why we do not require women to wear head coverings in our assembly whenever they pray, it is because we have no such custom. Amen
FOOTNOTES:
(1) "SILENT IN THE CHURCHES": ON THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN 1 CORINTHIANS 14:33B-361, Chapter 6, D. A. Carson , p. 137, from book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper & Wayne Grudem, editors
(2) When Should the Gospel be Veiled? An Exegetical Study of Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Gregg Strawbridge, Ph.D.
