The Head-Covering Debate
There are only 80 different options to choose from . . .
In order to come to any sort of conclusion as to what the hotly debated passage in 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 means and how it may or may not apply today, there are 3 essential exegetical questions to be asked of the passage that must be answered:
1. What is the ‘covering’ Paul is talking about?
A) Long hair
B) Hairstyle
C) A woman’s husband
D) A physical covering
2. When is this covering to be worn? (i.e. what is ‘praying or prophesying’)
A) Public prophetic ministry
B) Public worship participation
C) All worship settings
D) All the time
3. Is this practice for today?
A) No, it was cultural
B) No, Paul rejects the entire premise in the last verse
C) No, there are no more prophets
D) Maybe, better be on the safe side
E) Yes, Paul gives us the reasoning
So there you have it! Seems pretty simple doesn’t it? Depending on how you answer the questions you could have 1/80 potential views.
Now why can’t we all just agree that the correct answers are D, B, and E ! ! !
(Perhaps I’ll outline my objections to the 79 incorrect views another day . . . )
Part II:
Well, that didn’t take long. I couldn’t resist providing some more commentary on the questions at hand.
1. What is the ‘covering’ Paul is talking about?
A) Long hair
The concept that hair is the covering comes from verses 14–15 where Paul says “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” What Paul is saying here is that nature itself teaches us that women ought to have long hair. This is part of his argument on why a woman ought to have an additional covering over and above this natural covering. It’s an argument from the lessor to the greater.
Furthermore, if long hair is the only covering being referred to, then verse 6 doesn’t make much sense: “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.” This would be the equivalent of saying “if a woman has cut her hair short, let her cut her hair short.” It just doesn’t make sense.
B) Hairstyle
Same as above
C) A woman’s husband
The idea that the husband is a covering comes from 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.” Similar to the previous argument this is another way of Paul stating the need for an additional covering in worship. He is saying that in the way God has ordered His creation He has placed man as the head of woman. He places the head-covering as the physical symbol of this invisible reality and thus says that “ For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.”
And again, if this line of reasoning carries further, verses 4–8 disolve into confusion.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head [Christ] covered, dishonors his head [Christ]. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head [Husband] uncovered dishonors her head [Husband], for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered [by her husband], let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered [by her husband]. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head [Christ], since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
The argument is that a woman’s head being covered is her being under her husband’s authority and having a quiet and submissive place in the church. But how would this then relate to the husband having his head covered? What does that mean? That he is placing himself under the authority of Christ? That he is placing himself under the authority of his wife? What then is the symbol of authority in verse 10? You see this view creates more questions than it answers and is very difficult to follow consistently throughout the text.
D) A physical covering
This is the only option that fits all the biblical data in 1 Cor 11. It makes sense of all Paul’s arguments.
2. When is this covering to be worn? (i.e. what is ‘praying or prophesying’)
A) Public prophetic ministry
The argument here is that Paul is saying woman are permitted to pray and prophecy out loud in church if their heads are covered. They assert that these women were prophets and that since there are no more prophets this passage no longer applies to today. Or some would say that since they don’t personally pray or prophecy out loud in their local assemblies they have no need to be covered.
This view doesn’t work for a number of reasons. If Paul is saying that women are allowed to publicly pray and prophesy in the public assemblies providing their heads are covered, why would he command the Corinthians just 3 chapters later in 1 Cor 14:34 to “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.” Is Paul contradicting himself? Why didn’t he add “let your women keep silence . . . unless they have their head covered and have the gift of prophecy.” He continues to talk about the public prophetic ministry and gives no mention to the participation of women. 1 Tim 2:11 further proves this point in Paul’s command to “let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” Paul was smart and would not command something in 1 Cor 11 that he explicitly prohibits in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2.
Furthermore, this view doesn’t really take the ‘prayer’ into account but only the prophecy. We have no examples in the NT of women leading the church in public prayer.
B) Public worship participation
Twice Paul mentions “praying or prophesying” as the context in which this covering ought to be worn. However a third time only prayer is mentioned “ is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If, based on 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2, the “prophesy” mentioned here is not public speaking in the assembly, what else could it mean? And why is it only used in conjunction with prayer, twice saying “praying or prophesying?” One way to view these terms is that they create a synecdoche, in which two terms are used to represent the whole. So in this case it is said that prayer and prophecy together are meant to refer to the entire service of public worship. Now that is plausible, but still, why use the term “prophecy?” Well, follow me down the rabbit hole a little ways as we look at some biblical data for why prophecy in this context could very well be referring to singing . . . or preaching . . .
Miriam is called a prophetess in light of her leading the women in a song of worship (Ex 15:20–21). Deborah is called a prophetess and she also has a worship song of hers recorded (Judges 4:1, 5:1). A band of men playing instruments is referred to as “a company of prophets” whom Saul joined in their prophetic praise and was “among the prophets.” Anna is called a prophetess and a description of her activities is that she “departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day” (Luke 2:37). I believe these passages give us good evidence to support the assertion that the prophesying in 1 Cor 11 is referring to corporate singing.
“Prophecy” may also refer to ordinary preaching which has taken the place of inspired prophetic revelations in this age. Bible commentator John Gill agrees with these possibilities in his comments on this passage,
This is to be understood of praying and prophesying in public, and not in private; and not to be restrained to the person that is the mouth of the congregation to God in prayer, or who preaches to the people in the name of God; but to be applied to every individual person that attends public worship, that joins in prayer with the minister, and hears the word preached by him, which is meant by prophesying; for not foretelling future events is here meant, but explaining the word of God, the prophecies of the Old Testament, or any part of Scripture, unless singing of psalms should rather be designed, since that is sometimes expressed by prophesying: so in 1 Samuel 10:5 “thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them, and they shall prophesy”. The Targum renders it thus, , “and they shall sing praise”; upon which Kimchi observes, that it is as if it was said, their prophecy shall be “songs” and praises to God, spoken by the Holy Ghost. So in 1 Samuel 19:23 it is said of Saul, that he “went on and prophesied”. The Targum is, he went on, “and praised”. And again, “he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied”. Targum, “and praised”, or sung praise. Once more, in 1 Chronicles 25:1 it is said of Asaph, and others, that they “should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals”; which Kimchi explains of Asaph’s singing vocally, and of his sons playing upon musical instruments.
Even though it may not seem a watertight argument, it appears that “praying or prophesying” best fits all the biblical data when it is referring to participation in corporate worship.
C) All worship settings
Head-covering does not seem to be a regulated ordinance of God’s worship that is meant to also apply to private and family worship, for the context of the passage is in corporate worship. The next topic addressed in 1 Corinthians is the Lord’s Supper which similarly is an ordinance that only has bearing in the corporate public worship of God.
D) All the time
Similar to the above objection, the passage in 1 Cor 11 does envision a specific time when the covering is applicable. If one is to argue for full-time covering the view would be based more on a principle of modesty stemming from the creation ordinance. But that is a different issue than the one specifically in view in this passage.
3. Is this practice for today?
A) No, it was cultural
Even if one agrees with the exegesis of this passage up to this point they may sometimes dismiss the entire thing as a practice that was only for that specific culture, arguing that the meaning is different today, our cultural context has changed, and thus we need not worry about the practice. Needless to say, I think this is a major cop-out.
If Paul was making an argument based on the culture, why doesn’t he mention the culture at any point? Paul makes a clear 4-point case for covering, he argues for head-covering in worship based on the creation order, angels, nature, and accepted church practice. None of those reasons are cultural. Creation-order and nature are especially transcendent, universal principles.
Furthermore, most conservatives take the opposite approach in 1 Cor 11 as they do in 1 Tim 2 where they hold that Paul prohibits women from teaching or having authority over a man in church. Liberals respond saying that Paul only commanded that based on culture, where women were uneducated (or any other number of reasons). Conservatives respond, and rightly so, showing how Paul argues based on creation order (that Adam was formed before Eve) and grounds the practice in creation. However, when it comes to 1 Cor 11 most conservatives swap places with the liberal arguing against the continuing relevance of head-covering even though Paul similarly grounds the argument in creation and nature. It’s quite bewildering!
B) No, Paul rejects the entire premise in the last verse
This is the wildest of notions. Why would Paul make an extended argument for a practice and then finish by say “ya actually you don’t have to do it??” It would be very odd of him to do so. Instead the final verse of the passage is saying that all the churches practice covering and are not inclined to be contentious over the matter.
C) No, there are no more prophets
This has already been dealt with in 2. A).
D) Maybe, better be on the safe side
There are few topics in which Paul spends so much time drawing out an extended argument as he does with head-coverings. Undeniably the passage has often been considered difficult to understand and has generated much controversy. However, which practice is ‘safer?’ If head-coverings are not required and a woman decides to wear them, then she is simply wearing a hat, no harm done. But if head-coverings are required and a woman does not wear one, then she is walking in disobedience to God’s command. So even from a pragmatic viewpoint, covering seems to be much wiser. (Not to mention the fact the the practice of covering is ubiquitous in the history of the church and has only been discarded in the last century or less.)
E) Yes, Paul gives us the reasoning
For all the reasons described previously Paul seems to teach in 1 Cor 11 that women ought to wear a physical covering on their head when they participate in corporate worship. He grounds his argument in God’s created order and in nature itself.
