Sermon Discussion Questions:
1. Read through 1 Cor 11:2-16 together. What questions do you have?
2. "If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellent; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellent which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know," (C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory). Was there anything that feels or felt "puzzling and repellant" in this passage to you? Was there any truth that you saw for the first time?
3. What are culturally appropriate ways we can apply this passage to our lives today?
4. Why is abusive authority so detrimental?
C.S. Lewis once admitted that he didn’t like something he read in the Bible. In his essay The Weight of Glory, he found that the rewards being given to Christians in heaven at first sight struck him as vain and contrary to Christian virtue, but he admits that this is no reason to reject what Scripture teaches:
“If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellent; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellent which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know,” (Lewis, The Weight of Glory). And the entire essay—the most important thing, in my opinion, that Lewis wrote—is him showing you what he discovered by submitting to the objective truth presented in God’s Word.
Not only does ignoring the puzzling parts of the Bible not solve the problem (and may even make it worse), but, more importantly, there will be truths in those “puzzling and repellant parts” of the Bible that we desperately need. God never put anything in the Bible needlessly. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work,” (2 Tim 3:16-17). If the Spirit inspired it, then it is profitable, it is here to make us complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife 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 wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife 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 wife 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 was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears 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 practice, nor do the churches of God.
- 1 Cor 11:2-16
Whenever anyone reads this section of 1 Corinthians, they are left with some questions. Let me answer the strangest and simplest question off the bat. What does Paul mean when he says that a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head “because of the angels”? Paul means that when the church gathers for worship, there is an angelic host in the heavenly realm joining us, thus we should conduct ourselves with what “is proper” (vs. 13) and decorous. Okay, that is the easiest question to answer, so prepare yourself.
But here are some things to keep in mind:
- We are studying a letter that was written in response to another letter, so we are only getting one side of the conversation here, which makes interpretation sometimes difficult.
- To borrow a phrase from the British preacher, John Stott, the Bible is “culturally conditioned.” Meaning, God condescended to His people to speak to them in a particular culture, in a particular place, with a particular language. When Jesus tells His disciples to wash one another’s feet, for instance, this had such significance because at the time all persons walked on dusty streets littered with animal waste wearing open toed sandals. It was customary to then have a servant ready to wash the feet of guests who would come in from outside. So, when Jesus commands His disciples to wash one another’s feet, He was saying that we should take the typical place of a servant and be willing to humble ourselves before one another, since Jesus Himself has served us. Now, were I to have greeted you at the door with a wash basin and asked you to let me wash your feet, my guess is that you would not feel grateful but very confused. Your feet did not get soiled as your travelled to church this morning. We do not have servants in hour home that wash our guests feet when they come over for dinner. The cultural setting that gives sense to that command has since passed. So what are we to make of Jesus’ command for us to wash one another’s feet? Well, just because we now embody a different cultural setting, that doesn’t mean that the principle undergirding it goes away, it now adapts to our current culture. So, when you feel frustrated at having to change a diaper or take out the garbage, you remind yourself that no act is too menial for you.
What we are seeing in Paul’s discussion of head coverings in 1 Corinthians is the application of the universal, eternal truth of the distinction between men and women being applied in the first century Greco-Roman context that the Corinthians lived in.
The timeless truth: Men and women should embrace and display their distinct roles as husband and wife, man and woman in their cultural setting.
The application of that truth in the culture of Corinth: head coverings.
What Are Head Coverings?
But that brings us to the question: what is the actual head covering? There is a lot of debate on this, but after spending an inordinate amount of time researching this week, it seems like there are two basic interpretations: hair styles or a veil of some kind worn over their head. And were I to walk through the arguments for these I would bore almost all of you to tears. But if you are interested in my reasoning here, I will put a link in my sermon manuscript to a fuller explanation of the merits of each of these views.
While I previously held to the view that Paul was describing hair styles, I have changed my mind to the view of head coverings. In the world of Corinth, women would pull part of a robe or scarf over the back of their heads when going out in public to display their status as a married, submissive wife. Plutarch, the Greek philosopher, who lived in the 1st century and near the city of Corinth, wrote, ‘it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered’ (Quaest. rom. 267A).
There had been a recent movement in Roman history where Roman wives sought to abandon the practice of head covering out of protest for the sexual double-standards of the day. Roman men were assumed to be having extra-marital affairs, but women were punished severely if they did. But a group of Roman women sought to fight against this unfair system by becoming just as sexually promiscuous as their husbands. Their abandoning of their marriage veil came also with abandoning their marriage vows. All of this is taking place a generation before the Corinthian letters, but it would have been well known to all.
So, Paul writes: “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife 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 wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.” (1 Cor 11:4-6).
Okay, why is it shameful for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered? Well, it could be just another way of saying the wife’s unveiling is shameful—her uncovered head causes him to cover his in shame. Or, given Paul’s comments about men wearing long, disgraceful hair in vs. 14, then perhaps the way that men were covering their heads would have been seen as if men were presenting themselves androgynously or effeminately, donning apparel that was usually reserved for women.
Why is it shameful for a wife to pray or prophesy in the church with an uncovered head? If a woman is standing up in the worship service with her head uncovered this could lead others to assume she is rejecting her marital vows, engaging in the same adulterous activity other Roman women engaged in who didn’t wear their marriage veils, or maybe totally abandoning her marriage. A shaved head was a common punishment for a wife who committed adultery (see Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth). Thus, Paul says her failing to wear the head covering is tantamount to having a shaved head: in other words, appearing like an adulteress.
There is a lot of conjecture here, but here is what we know clearly: husbands and wives should present themselves in such a way that shows that they happily embrace their marriage, and their distinct roles as husband and wife. In the Corinthian culture, that looked like wives wearing a head covering, and men not. Now, were you to see a woman today wearing a head scarf, you would likely not immediately assume it means that she is a chaste, married woman. You would likely assume that she is a practicing Muslim. Our context is different. But before we try to think about what it means for us to translate this principle into our culture today, let’s see what the whole passage teaches us about the distinction between men and women.
Distinction in Marriage
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor 11:3)
Obviously, you can see how Paul is going to use some double-entendre with the word “head” throughout this section. Later, when Paul says that a man and woman dishonors their “head” by their head covering practices he intends both meanings: they are dishonoring themselves, and the head that they are under. Here Paul explains, the head of every man is Christ. The term for “man” can also be translated “husband” and I think that would be more helpful, since marriage seems to be exclusively in view in this section. The head of every husband is Christ, and the head of a wife is her husband, and then (surprisingly) the head of Christ is God.
The term “head” obviously implies authority. Elsewhere, Paul describes Jesus as the “head of the church”, as in Colossians 1:18, “And he is the head of the body, the church.” (Eph 1:22-23; 4:15; cf. 1 Cor 12:27). The church obviously includes both men and women, but here Paul specifies that Christ presents a unique headship over a husband. So, in what way is Christ the authority over a husband that is distinct from the wife? Apparently, in regards to their marriage, the authority of Christ is mediated to the wife through her husband. We are given an order of descending authority—Christ, the husband, the wife. We see this presented clearly in Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5:22-23, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.” So, a husband is to love His wife as Christ does the church because he has been given to her to mediate Christ’s own good, life-giving authority.
This is the very design of Eden, where God creates Adam first, charges Adam to work and keep the garden, to protect it, and teaches him the warning of eating the forbidden fruit. “Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him,” (Gen 2:18). And so, God creates Eve as a help-mate, one who possesses the power, capacities, and calling that Adam lacks and is in need of. She is made from Adam’s rib but beautified. She bears God’s image, just like Adam, yet is distinct from Adam. And Adam, the one charged with protecting and keeping the garden that God has made, is entrusted now with Eden’s most precious creation: woman. He must teach her the words of warning God had given him. He is there to mediate God’s own good, life-giving authority. The authority that God has been using thus far in Genesis to create, order, and beautify creation, to provide with abundance and wisely warn. This should be the flavor of Adam’s authority: generous, life-giving, and wise. But, of course, he fails to do that.
After Adam and Eve fall, who does God come looking for specifically? Adam (Gen 3:9), the head, the one responsible. God tells Adam, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you,” (Gen 3:17). Obviously, it is a good thing to listen to your wife. But in Hebrew the word for “listen” and “obey” is the same. Adam, who was charged with protecting the garden, with teaching his wife, listened to, obeyed his wife to the exclusion of obeying God.
The reason why abusive authority is so detrimental is because God has hardwired our souls to receive from authority figures a picture of what God is like. One of the reasons God has given us pastors, parents, and policemen is so that we would see what God’s own good, life-giving authority looks like. But when an authority, a mediator of God’s own authority, steps between us and God and then abuses the authority? It is infinitely more heinous than if the same offense were committed against us by anyone else. Being slapped in the face by a friend is not the same thing as being slapped in the face by your husband. There are two ways that husbands can abuse their authority: aggressive domineering or passive negligence. Both are destructive and both lie about what God is like. God is not domineering or aggressive; He is patient, compassionate, generous, and steadfast. God is not negligent or passive. He will not sit back and watch His bride destroy herself. He will intervene, He will crush the head of the serpent, He will redeem His bride.
And in the church God is restoring what was lost at Eden. Jesus has not come to throw away God’s blueprint for nature and marriage, but to restore. If you hear Paul’s command for a wife to submit to her husband and something inside of you prickles, it may be because you have experienced the painful consequences of authority abused, whether through aggressive domineering or passive negligence.
But notice two things: (1) Paul did not only say that the head of a wife is her husband. He also said that the head of a husband is Christ. A husband’s authority is not infinite nor is inherent. His authority is given to him by a higher authority. And if he uses that authority to contradict the higher authority? Then his authority is no real authority. This is true of all authority. All authority is predicated on submission. And if the authority over you fails to submit to the higher authority of God over it, if they are telling you to do something that violates the authority of God, you are not bound to that authority. If in the garden the serpent deceived Adam instead of Eve and then Adam told Eve: you must eat this fruit. Should she obey? Of course not.
Young women, if you are interested in seeking a man to be a husband, but find that he cannot submit to his parents, to his pastors, to his employers, then you should not marry that man. A person who cannot submit is not ready to have authority. A husband’s authority comes from him submitting to Christ’s authority.
And, (2) even more surprising, we are told that even Christ’s authority is under an even greater head: God’s. Obviously, this is referring to the Son of God as He became a man, not Him in His divine nature. “Christ” is the Greek word for Messiah, so it implies Him as a human. In Jesus’ humanity, he said: “I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me,” (John 5:30; 5:19; 8:28; 14:10; Matt 26:39). If submission were inherently dehumanizing, then why do we see the perfect man submissive throughout His entire life? Jesus submits to His parents as a child (Luke 2:51), He submits to the governing authorities (Mark 12:13-17), He is among His disciples like one who serves, and most supremely of all, He submits to the heavenly Father: not my will, but your will be done. Jesus submitted Himself to the Father to the point of death, even death on a cross.
And you might say, see! That’s exactly what I am afraid of! Submission, setting aside my control and assertion might destroy me! And if you have come from a background where authority has been used against you, I understand that response. But friend, consider this: the gospel summons all people to submit. No one will be saved unless the submit themselves to God. To put faith in Christ you must submit to Him. James tells us, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God,” (James 4:6-7).
Jesus is inviting all of us, men and women, to bow the knee in submission. It is possible to reject abusive authority without rejecting life-giving submission. Jesus’ submission resulted in His destruction. True. But His destruction was your destruction, your death. It was the punishment your sins deserved. He walked down the narrow path to that crushing place of judgment. But He did so that you never would have to. And because He fully paid your sin debt, He didn’t remain in the grave, but rose again and now is exalted at the right hand of the Father! His submission led to His exaltation! So now, if you submit to Him, if you will humble yourself before Him, you (1) won’t be crushed, because He already was crushed for you, and (2) you will be exalted to where He is. Submission is the path to life.
So now, when He calls you to submit to Him in your marriage, you can trust that He isn’t summoning you to the crushing place, but to the path to life.
Distinction in Appearance
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 wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Cor 11:7-10).
Here, Paul grounds his defense in why a man ought not to cover his head, while a woman ought to. And his argument is, at first glance, rather puzzling. First, man is made in the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. First, Paul is not denying the clear Biblical teaching that women are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27)—Eve is made from Adam, she is “bone of my bone” and thus bears the image of God as well. He is pointing to the order of creation, as is made clear in verse 8. Man was not made from woman, but woman from man. So, in what sense is Adam the “glory of God” and Eve the “glory of man”? This is likely connected with the teaching on headship in vs. 3. The head of every man is Christ, the head of every wife is her husband. To glory something is to honor it, “An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,” (Prov 12:4). A wife honors Christ by striving to honor her husband as her head, just as he strives to honor Christ.
Second, man was not created for woman, but woman for man. God did not make Eve and then fashion Adam as a helper for her, but the other way around. Eve was formed as Adam’s help-mate. Therefore, a wife ought to adorn herself with a head covering, as a symbol of her submission to her husband. A wife is coming alongside her husband, not the other way around. But, Paul immediately cautions against a misunderstanding: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God,” (1 Cor 11:11-12).
Whatever differences exist between the roles and calling of men and women, it does not come at the expense of the mutual dependence they have. In other words, a husband cannot live like his wife is just along for the ride he was one before they got married. A wife cannot live as if her husband is dead weight that she can ignore in her own pursuits. They are dependent on one another and so must learn to forge a unified vision and life together. At one point, woman was created from man. But from that point on, every man who has come into the world was born of a woman—the God-man was born of a woman! Paul is not seeking to inflame a battle between the sexes. He is showing us that it is possible to delineate real differences and distinctions between men and women, without assuming that one is more valuable than the other. While there are real, complementary differences between men and women, all things ultimately are from God.
If I set the sun beside the moon,
And if I set the land beside the sea,
And if I set the flower beside the fruit
And if I set the town beside the country
And if I set the man beside the woman
I suppose some fool would talk
About one being better.
- K. Chesteron
Our culture does not know how acknowledge differences between men and women without assuming that distinctions mean differences in worth or value. When you acknowledge that men possess callings that women don’t, or vice versa, there is an assumption that what is “really meant” is that “one is superior to the other.” And our church gets the honor of showing that we can hold on to the distinctions that God has given between men and women, without insisting that one sex is superior to the other.
“Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears 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 practice, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Cor 11:13-16).
Paul obviously assumes that this practice of head covering is self-evidently true because he invites them to judge for themselves, and then closes by saying that if anyone has a practice of being contentious on this, of stirring up strife over head coverings, he argues that no one else among the apostles or the churches of God are contentious about this. In other words, it’s a settled practice. And, to appeal to us, he points to what nature teaches us about men and women. Nature teaches us that it is disgraceful for men to wear long hair, but it is the glory of a woman.
A woman’s long, beautiful hair—Paul argues—is a sign that her wearing a head covering (a symbol of her marital submission), far from being restrictive, is beautiful, glorious. But if a man dons this same garment—were he to appear submissive to his wife—it would be as shameful as if a man were to grow out his hair in a long, effeminate way.
Practically, What Does this Mean?
Husbands and wives should seek to adopt a clear cultural custom that telegraphs to others their happy embrace of God’s design of headship and submission. Some Christians, therefore, conclude that we should continue practice head-coverings of some kind like Paul recommends. And if you are convicted of that, then feel free to pursue that whole heartedly! I am not, however, convinced that that is required. Paul’s rhetorical question in verse 13 seems to give us a different answer than the Corinthians did: “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?” The answer is not at all obvious to us. Nor does Paul’s referent to “all the churches” resonate either, since very few churches today practice this. And, in fact, like I said earlier, while the wider culture would have seen women wearing head coverings and understood that it meant that woman was a chaste wife, that is not immediately clear in our culture.
I would suggest one option would be for wives today to adopt their husband’s last name, or wearing a wedding ring, and dressing in such a way that makes it clear that you are not attempting to catch any other potential suitors.
But what about Paul’s comments about hair length? When Paul says that it is a “disgrace” for a man to wear long hair, but it is shameful for a wife to have short hair…how long is too long? How short is too short? Of course, this is determined by the culture you inhabit.[1] But we all know what it looks like when a man is attempting to look like a woman, or when a woman is attempting to look like a man. That is what is “contrary to nature” that Paul describes. Practically this means that we should adopt hair styles, dress, and mannerisms that display that we happily embrace the gift of gender that God has given us. Christians should never seek to treat their gender-expressions with ambiguity or androgyny.
For parents, this means that you need to speak clearly to your children that their identity as a boy or a girl was not a mistake, and that their bodies is God’s good gift to them. We use wisdom, of course—don’t coerce your tomboy daughter into wearing dresses all the time or force your quiet son to love hunting like you do. Don’t rely on rigid gender stereotypes, but help your children see that their gender is a gift to be embraced and enjoyed, not a burden to bear.
[1] Interestingly, in Acts 18:18, right after Paul leaves Corinth after staying there for 18 months, we are told he “had cut his hair, for he was under a vow,” (Acts 18:18). Paul’s hair, therefore, was likely somewhat long while in Corinth.
