1 Corinthians 11:2-16

The Text

Rex Banks

Verse 6 For if a woman does not cover her head let her also have her hair cut off;

In Nature of the Covering we noted that the word “also” makes it clear that the covering in question is not identical to the natural covering of hair. Brother Coffman who insists that Paul is not discussing an artificial covering does not discuss Paul's use of “also” here. Nor does brother Coffman discuss the words “one and the same with her whose head is shaved.”  

"For"- Paul is expanding his argument in v 5 that the uncovered female head in worship is equivalent in shame to the shaven female head.  This is the first of two conditional sentences in this verse. The particle (ει) “twice introduces conditional sentences with the indicative mood to show reality with the logical deduction of Paul's argument” (Kistemaker).  

NIV deals with the third person imperative here (“let her also have her hair cut off” NASB) by translating "she should have her hair cut off.” It's not easy to translate into English. In his Idioms of the Greek New Testament Stanley E. Porter has this to say about the third person imperative:     

" Whereas the second person is similar to the English form when translated, the third person imperative requires what has sometimes been labeled a permissive sense (let…). However, any permissive sense is a phenomenon of English translation, not Greek. The third person Greek imperative is as strongly directive as the second person ...” (p.  55).

If this is correct the stronger meaning is preferred.

KJV's “shorn” (as of sheep) captures the idea here. Findlay says that the use of the aorist middle here “denotes a single act on the woman's part 'to cut off her locks'” adding "the apostle bids the woman who discards the veil to carry her defiance a step further”   (Vol 2 p.  872).

but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

Paul continues with a second conditional sentence: "but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off..." The words "if it is disgraceful" do not leave open the question about disgrace. We have here a "Condition of the first class, assumed to be true" (Robertson p. 160 [emphasis mine]). The idea then is "since it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off etc." Chrysostom has: "If she flings away the covering provided by Divine ordinance, let her also fling away the covering provided by nature"

Earlier we considered Grant R. Osborne’s claim that use of the word “disgrace” (vv 4, 5) points to “a cultural tie” and we demonstrated that this is not necessarily the case. Osborne makes the same suggestion about use of the word “disgraceful” in this verse. But the word here is from αἰσχρόν which is also found in 1 Cor 14:35 where Paul says that it is “improper for a woman to speak in church” (NASB). Nor does the word carry cultural connotations in its third appearance in Eph 5:13 where Paul states that “it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.”

Regardless of first century custom, the text must be our focus and as we have seen (comments on v 5)  we need not go beyond the text to understand why “it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved.” As we have seen, in the divinely-ordained hierarchy, God's glory is man, man's glory is the woman and the woman's glory is her hair.  To discard God-given glory, (in this case hair) is to invite disgrace. This being the case, since similar shame is associated with the uncovered female "praying and prophesying," Paul concludes "let her cover her head."

A change of scene?

The words “let her cover her head” translate the present middle imperative of κατακαλύπτω.” Some have argued that because “let her cover her head” speaks of ongoing action and because nothing is said about “praying and prophesying” in v 6, Paul is instructing the woman to cover her head at all times, not just while engaged in worship. I have explained my objections to this view in Context but we will say a word about this argument.

First, it is true that there is no mention of praying and prophesying in v 6, but this does not justify the conclusion that Paul has suddenly changed from discussing the worship situation to discussing Christian attire in public. In v 7 Paul says "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head..." There is no mention of praying or prophesying here either, but it does not follow that Paul is now speaking of men in public non-worship situations.  Moreover if we adopted this approach in our study of other sections of scripture it would be well-nigh impossible to make sense of the Bible. Context is important.

·         In v 4 Paul has just spoken of the covering in connection with “praying or prophesying" in v 4, and he speaks of the disgrace involved.

·         In v 5 he again speaks of the covering in connection with “praying and prophesying" and again he speaks of the disgrace involved.

 In this verse (v 6) the very next verse, he again speaks of the covering and of disgrace. We are not free to make the assumption that Paul jumps to a completely different setting just because he does not also repeat the words “praying and prophesying.“ (See v 7 and the discussion of men).  If we adopt the position that each verse of the Bible must repeat all relevant details contained in the surrounding verses in order to preserve continuity of setting we miss the point of context and turn scripture into a confused mixture of disconnected threads.     

By way of explanation consider 1 Tim 2:12 where Paul says “But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.” Nothing in the verse itself limits this instruction to a particular sphere.  However when we look at context we find that Paul is discussing leadership in worship, and is not forbidding Christian women to occupy positions of authority in the business world, in maths class and so on. Similarly it is clear from context that 1 Cor 11:6 deals with the same setting as the previous verses.

Next there is the use of the present middle imperative of κατακαλύπτω.  Consider the statement "John keeps on breathing normally" and the statement “Throughout his life Peter observes the Lord’s Supper as the Bible prescribes." Because we understand the nature of breathing we know that as John keeps breathing he is taking about twelve breaths a minute. Because we know what scripture teaches about the Lord’s Supper we know that Peter partakes of the elements once a week. (The present indicative verb in v 24 [“Do this in remembrance of me”] speaks of on-going action, but we know from the rest of scripture that Paul is speaking of an activity which is to be continued on a weekly basis.) Clearly use of the present tense does not supply these details. Similarly the words “let her cover her head“ speak of ongoing action, but in and of themselves they do not supply details. Context however does supply details and  context tells us that the ongoing action under discussion is not covering the head in public, but rather covering the head in the circumstances under discussion (See above).

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.

It has been suggested by some who take the custom position that 7a be rendered "For a man is not obliged to be covered..." Clearly this is very different in meaning from "ought not to have his head covered."  Evidently in the negative the word translated “ought” (ὀφείλω) can have a weaker meaning (“need not”) and a stronger meaning (“ought not”). Consider the following points:

·   Of the versions that I have consulted the  following all convey the idea that the apostle is speaking of the man's obligation: KJV; NKJV; ASV; NASB; NIV; ESV; ERV; Aramaic Bible in Plain English; God's Word Translation; Douay-Rheims Bible; Young's Literal Translation; World English Bible; Webster's Bible Translation; Weymouth New Testament. However the Good News Bible opts for the weaker meaning:  “A man has no need to cover his head.”  

·   Charles J. Ellicott says: "As this is the second reason, following upon a first (ver 3) of great weight and importance, the (translation) will naturally carry the stronger meaning 'ought not'  (St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians p. 203). In my view this is a good point. Ellicott is reminding us that in v3 Paul has spoken of the eternal headship (“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”).

·   Kenneth T. Wilson: “Did Paul mean a man ‘is not obligated,’ or was he saying the man ‘ought not.’  It is better to view this as a command, because as Paul did not leave women a choice, so it is not likely that he was giving men liberty to do as they pleased.” (Should Women Wear Headcoverings  Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 Oct 1991).

·   In a footnote to v 7 Fee has:  “The verb ὀφείλω, which occurs again in v 10, usually carries moral overtones; this is something that should, or should not be done. The negative in this instance negates the thought of the entire clause” (p. 514). Barrett makes the point that “the parallel in verse 10 shows that Paul thinks it not merely unnecessary but wrong for a man to be veiled” (p. 251).  

Keep in mind that Paul has just said “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” The weaker meaning here (“need not”) would not place an obligation upon Christian men to remain bareheaded in worship.

Question:  Could Paul really be telling Christian men that if they cover their heads in this setting they are bringing disgrace upon Christ, their own head or both but that they are not obliged to remain bareheaded? To ask the question is to answer it.

The explanation

Note carefully just why the man ought not to have his head covered. He ought not to have his head covered (lit) "being the image and glory of God."  Now both males and females are made in the image (εἰκών, express image, likeness) of God (Gen 1:26). But here the key point is that the male is the glory of God as opposed to the woman who is the glory of man. "Glory" is the key difference between the male and the female in this verse. The woman, like the man is the image of God, but unlike the man she is not the direct glory of God.

(Recall that in discussing v 5 and the woman's hair, we reasoned to certain conclusions concerning the role of "glory" in Paul's argument. Now in v 7 Paul expressly introduces the "glory" argument, which neatly fits the above discussion of v 5).

Man's being the "glory of God" has everything to do with creation and nothing to do with custom. According to Paul man "ought not to have his head covered" because of an eternal, unchanging fact – the fact that he is the glory of God. Paul does not simply say that he ought to cover his head. He says that the man ought to do so and explains why he ought to do so - because he is "the image and glory of God." This is an eternal, unchanging reality. Regardless of head covering customs this fact about male glory is set in stone.

We are not going to discuss various suggestions as to the meaning of δόξα in this verse. We simply note that whatever “glory” means here, the male is the glory of God and the woman the glory of man because of creation order not culture. This is an unchanging reality. 

In verse 7 the Greek text has two contrasting participles which means that the sentence carries the idea: "man on the one hand as opposed to woman on the other." Whereas man is the glory of God, and ought not to cover his head for this reason, woman is the glory of man. Again this is an eternal unchanging fact of creation, just as it is an eternal unchanging fact of creation that Eve was not created first (1 Tim 2:13). Lest anyone feel that woman's being the glory of man demeans her, let's keep in mind that Jesus says of the Holy Spirit: "He shall glorify Me" (Jn 16:14). This does not make the Holy Spirit inferior to Jesus, and Paul is certainly not suggesting that the woman is inferior to the man. But Paul’s  head covering instructions are grounded upon male and female glory, which are eternal unchanging realities.

Keeping in mind that Paul does not go into details, it is nevertheless reasonable to ask "Since the male (whose head is Christ) is the glory of God, whose glory is covered up if the male is covered up?" It is reasonable to conclude that since the male is God's glory, then to cover the male head is to cover God's glory. Hence the suggestion:

" Since the Christian man reflects the glory of Christ, if he were to wear a veil concealing his head, he would rob his own head of its chief function of reflecting the glory of Christ" (Rienecker/Rogers Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament).

“Man indeed ought not to cover his head in prayer; it would be tantamount to veiling the glory of God, and this would be an insult to the Divine Majesty” (BBC)

“(T)he glory of God should not be concealed but revealed; but man’s glory is to be concealed“ (Aquinas 608)

It is reasonable to suggest that since the woman is the glory of man, and since her hair is her own glory, it is humanity’s glory which is covered up when the woman’s head is covered. Hence the suggestions:

"A woman must be veiled because whereas in herself she is the glory of man (verse 7) in worship ... God only must be glorified.’ If she were to pray or prophesy with uncovered head, she would not be glorifying God, but reflecting the glory of man, and in God’s presence this must inevitably turn to shame. The glory of man must therefore be covered, lest dishonor is brought upon the woman’s head’ (Hooker p.  415)” (C. K. Barrett The First Epistle to the Corinthians Blacks NT Commentary p. 254).

"The glory of God should not be veiled in the presence of God (that would be an acted contradiction in terms); by the same token the glory of man (manifested by the woman [Rex] ) should be veiled in the presence of God” (F.F. Bruce pp. 106, 107).

“In a worship setting, where persons are to give glory to God, Paul reasons that a woman must cover her anatomical head, which reflects man's glory, who is her metaphorical head” (1 Corinthians David E. Garland p. 523).

“The woman was to veil herself in worship because for her an unveiled head ‘would symbolize pride in her reflection of her humanity, which would be shameful and pretentious in the presence of God.’” (Hermeneutics and Women in the Church Grant R Osborne Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 20:4 Dec 1977 p. 342)

The following is taken from a Brethren tract entitled A New Testament Church:

“God's glory is to be seen alone in the assembly of the saints. In order to do this, the men remain uncovered by not having long hair and by removing any head coverings, because the man is "the image and glory of God" (I Cor. 11:7). Any covering on the man would veil God's glory. The women, however, are the stewards of the coverings.

There are two competing glories in the church. ‘The woman is the glory of the man’ (I Cor. 11:7). And ‘if a  woman have long hair, it is a glory to her’ (I Cor. II: 15). Because there are two symbolic glories to be covered, there must be two coverings. The first covering (Gk., peribolaion) is the woman's long hair (v. 15b) to hide the glory of the man (the woman herself). The second covering (Gk., katakalupto) is to hide her glory-her own hair. In this way, God's authority is declared in the church. By it, the men are reminded that, in their ministry, their glory is to be hidden. The angels are also instructed by it (I Cor. 11: 10)” (Andrew Stenhouse).

What we can know is that culture does not affect the fact that the male is God's glory and the female the male's glory and it is on the basis of this glory arrangement that Paul issues his head covering instructions in v 7. Culture is nowhere in sight.

I read of an older minister teaching on John 12 who asked this question of the women in class:

"How would any of you Christian women here feel, if you could have had the privilege of washing the Savior's feet in this manner, but instead you have cut off your glory and laid it at the feet of modern style and custom?"

Verses 8, 9

For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

From the point of view of our present discussion our real interest is in the relationship of vv 8 and 9 to v 7. Verse 7 ended with Paul's assertion that his head covering instructions are grounded upon male and female glory. Verse 8 begins with the explanatory "for," and v 9 with the explanatory "for indeed". Together vv 8 and 9 explain why the woman is the "glory" of man.

The reason that the woman is the glory of man is that woman is "out of" (εκ) the man, rather than the man being "out of" the woman (See Gen.2:18-23, the creation account). So too man was not created (KJV) "for" (δια) the woman, but the woman for the man. There is a great deal in these verses, but from our viewpoint the main point is that the glory argument (v 7) upon which Paul bases his head covering instruction is grounded upon eternal unchanging creation order, not custom. Woman is man’s glory because she originates from him and was created for him, and this will never change. Therefore the “glory” argument concerning the head covering will never change.  

Although something lengthy, the following citation from the discussion of kephalē (head) in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is worthy of close consideration at this point:

"The same point emerges from (1 Cor.11) v 8 where the being of woman as ... (glory), and indirectly of man as ... (image and glory) is explained by the fact that the origin and raison d'etre of woman are to be found in man.  Hence man is the image and reflection of God to the degree that in his created being he points directly to God as Creator. Woman is the reflection of man to the degree that in her created being she points to man, and only with and through him to God. In this relation of man and woman we are dealing with the very foundations of their creaturehood.  In formal terms, we have a determination of their being and not just of the mode of their historical manifestation...

Not merely as a Christian, nor historically, but ontologically (meaning by the nature of her being -Rex) and by nature woman lives of man and for him...

Paul presupposes that man and woman are distinct by nature.  This is rooted in the fact that woman is by nature referred to man as her basis (in a twofold sense). This distinction is expressed in the veiling of her ... (head), in the non-exposure of her head before God and Christ ... It would be an offense against their head (in the twofold sense) if they were not to cover themselves" (Schlier, vol 3 pp. 679, 680 [emphasis mine]).”

Paul has expressly grounded his head covering instructions upon the  the very nature of the male and the female (man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man) just as he expressly grounds his instructions in 1 Tim 2:13 upon the very nature of the male and the female (For Adam was first formed, then Eve).

I have studied the works of many commentators who are adamantly opposed to the idea that Paul's head covering instructions apply to men and women today, but I have never come across anyone who uses grammar and syntax to disconnect Paul's instructions from his revelation concerning male and female glory. Gordon Fee's views on Biblical egalitarianism are well known. He suggests that 1 Cor 14:34, 35 is an interpolation and explains away 1 Tim 2:8ff as Paul's response to a local situation. Fee is considered a leading expert in textual criticism and has authored several books on biblical exegesis. Given his egalitarian views Fee has every reason to deny that Paul's instructions are grounded upon male and female glory, and he is well qualified to argue this position on the basis of grammar and syntax. Instead he says: