1 Cor. 11:3-15 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. [4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. [6] For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. [7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. [10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [11] Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. [13] Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. Because he would have us to know the facts in v.3 we must interpret “head covering” in such a way that it harmonizes with this verse. Many cursory readings of this passage have generated confusion. One such misunderstanding is that the head covering in reference is some form of hat. Be it a veil, a bonnet, a ball cap, or a handkerchief, some take the passage to be thus. Various problems evidence themselves when trying to interpret the passage with such a reading; such as: A woman cannot remove the hat from her head. Note verse 6 “if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn” Some doubtless will say ‘Now certainly he allows for grooming and bathing, yea and even sleeping’. He may, however we wouldn’t know that from the passage. Therefore such an arbitrary assertion could be arbitrarily denied with the same lack of evidence from the passage. It could even be argued that since the woman should be subject to her husband in everything (Eph.5:24) she should have her head covered in everything. Or again if you make some exceptions, then another could make other exceptions. A man cannot wear a hat. Note again verse 7 “a man indeed ought not to cover his head”. ‘Now come on’ one will contend, ‘it’s not saying a man can never wear a hat’. Didn’t you say it was an ordinance, that a woman must cover her head and a man must not? ‘Well it’s referring to a bonnet, or a veil, so it’s a woman’s apparel.’ He doesn’t make that distinction. There is no specification of gender it just says ‘head covered’. Nonsense descends quickly when entering v.10 with that definition. Try to interpret this verse as a hat: ‘For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head (a hat or other material covering) because of the angels.’ Make sure you do not change the text; that is either add words nor change the words. No ‘a sign of power’, or ‘a sign she is under the power of’ etc., none of that. And finally this hat interpretation fails when applied to verse 3. For Christ is the head of man, right? Just like the man is the head of the woman, right? So how then does a man cover his head? “But, the man ought not to cover his head, because…” Yea, a man ought not cover his head relative to the women. Because the head of the woman is the man. But the same logic follows with reference to Christ. If Christ is the head of the man, then a man ought to cover his head. And if the head of Christ is God, then Christ ought to cover his head, or have power on his head, relative to God. Right? For since you must agree by necessary deduction, then you must say that a woman must cover her head, or have power on her head in the same way that a man does and the same way in which Christ does. Not therefore referring to a hat. Now that we’ve looked at a popular misunderstanding of the passage, lets see which interpretation fits consistently. It is obvious from v.5 and 6 that head covering is different from but equal to having long hair. [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. [6] For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. It is ‘as though’ she were shaven to have her head uncovered. But since nature teaches you (Rom.2:14-5) that a women should have long hair then ‘Judge in yourselves’ whether she should be ‘uncovered’. It is obviously unseemly for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered (v13). Nevertheless if she does, then let her also be shaven, for it is equal to it, or “even all one as if”. To what end would it be to say ‘If a woman has her hair shaven, then that is the same thing as if she had her hair shaven’? Therefore the ordinance of head covering is not long hair, even though her hair is also given her for a covering, and it is a glory to her. It is as though she is adorning herself with humility, having herself in subjection. 1 Peter 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: The only interpretation that fits consistently is where head covering is in a figurative sense even as ‘head’ is used figuratively in verse 3. If head is used in that sense then the head covering is also. It is indeed a biblical phrase as found in Ephes. 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. The head then would be the authority, the expressing of the will. An Old Testament phrase akin to uncovering the head is lifting up the head, which is interpreted as exalting yourself or someone, or placing them in authority. 2 Kings 25:27-28 And it came to pass …that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison; [28] And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon; God exalts and lifts up the head of his saints. Psalm 3:3 But thou, O Lord, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head. Psalm 27:6 And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me… Someone who exalts himself in rebellion is someone who lifts up the head. Psalm 83:2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. Judges 8:28 Thus was Midian subdued before the children of Israel, so that they lifted up their heads no more. And the country was in quietness forty years in the days of Gideon. Covering the head can indicate shame and mourning. 2 Sam.15:30 And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up. Esther 6:12 And Mordecai came again to the king's gate. But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and having his head covered. Jer.14:4 Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered their heads. (also v3) Someone lifting up the head or uncovering the head is someone in rebellion, usurping authority, resisting the will of their rightful head and trying to cause others to submit to their will, which is shameful. Eccles. 10:5-7 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: [6] Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. [7] I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth. Isaiah 3:5 And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. Proverbs 19:10 Delight is not seemly for a fool; much less for a servant to have rule over princes. These are examples of the shame associated with rebellion. The husband is to be the ‘prince’ and the ‘honourable’ as in these passages, and he must indeed be, even as Christ. Ephes. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Ephes. 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. This is as Christ and the church being revealed. Ephes. 5:31-32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. [32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Therefore ought the woman to have power on her head, or have her will in subjection, to have power over her own will, because these are things “the angels desire to look into”. Ephes. 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God. Likewise ought the man to have his will in subjection relative to Christ. The man thus covers his head placing himself under the Lord Christ. Otherwise he dishonours Christ his head. So the interpretation would look like this: 1 Cor. 11:3-15 But I would have you know, that the head (authority) of every man is Christ; and the head (authority) of the woman is the man; and the head (authority) of Christ is God. [4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (subject to the woman- as 1 Tim.2:12, 1 Cor.14:34), dishonoureth his head (Christ). [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (usurping authority) dishonoureth her head (the man): for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (it's like having her hair/her natural covering removed) [6] For if the woman be not covered (under authority), let her also be shorn (her hair/her natural covering removed): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (under authority). [7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head (subject to the woman), forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. [10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head (be under authority and not lift up the head) because of the angels. [11] Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. [13] Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered (usurping authority or lifting up the head)? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (meaning the long hair represents being under authority-"for that is even all one as if she were shaven") Some interpret the ‘head covering’ to be simply long hair. While this fits to a point, it is very important that in your mind you separate what fits with how you arrive there from the passage. If this interpretation does not follow from the information then it cannot be said to be true. This is focused on the errors associated with how you arrive at the conclusion that long hair is what is meant by head covering. Paul would be arguing the whole passage (v4-13) about a woman having long hair and a man not, finally (v14) appealing to 'nature itself' to confirm this. Which would mean he appealed to something else the majority of the argument (v4-13). What else would he appeal to as evidence that women should have long hair? You can't say he appealed to nature teaching us at the beginning of the argument only to make a second independent appeal to it at the conclusion of the argument. What would it be that was more convincing to Paul than 'nature itself' (which is an argument based on the conscience- Rom.2:14-15)? (Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, it would be a non-sequitur to conclude a woman should have long hair because she was created for the man- see #3.) Perhaps Paul is speaking by commandment and is not concluding this from sound reasoning? But in that case why would he appeal for them to "judge in yourselves" (v13) and not say "these are the commandments of the Lord" as in 14:36-8, or in 7:6, 10, 12, 25, ? Also Paul uses conclusion and premise indicators ('for' v5-8, 10, 'forasmuch as' v7, 'for this cause' v10, 'nevertheless' v11) meaning that Paul thinks he is arguing and not speaking by commandment. As you agree, the symbol of head covering (long hair) is not as important as what it symbolizes (under authority). This means that (in the face of verse 3) if he refers simply to long hair then in the entire passage the term 'head covering' never means 'under authority'. Or if you say it means both (dual interpretation see #6), then the primary meaning (subject to authority) becomes the secondary interpretation while the symbol (long hair) becomes the primary interpretation, in an apparent contrast to v3. You would be concluding that Paul is actually making an irrational argument. (A non-sequitur- the conclusion doesn't follow from the premisses. For example; If I know that all Greeks are men and that Socrates was a man, and I then infer that Socrates was a Greek. I cannot be said to know, that is have true knowledge that Socrates was a Greek, because, although my premisses and my conclusion are true, the conclusion does not follow from the premisses. I inverted all Greeks are men for all men are Greeks). The woman was created for the man (v9). The head of the woman is the man (v3). Therefore a woman should have long hair because it symbolizes her being under authority. (?) However if you conclude that therefore a woman should be subject to a man (since the man is head) you would not exceed the premisses. But in like manner you also would not conclude that ‘therefore a woman should wear a dress’ for again you exceed the premises. If you say 'That's a straw man fallacy and I'm not making that argument', then what is Paul's primary (not nature itself) reason for a woman having long hair? How would it follow that a woman should have long hair because the man is her head? The head of the man is Christ but the man should not have long hair. It is the same error. Paul does make this argument "v8-10 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." Simply put, a woman should have power on her head (under authority to the man) because she is of him and for him. Paul then proceeds to appeal to nature teaching us that woman should have long hair as further evidence ("even nature itself" that is the work of the law in the conscience- Rom.2:14-15) of the conclusion that she should have 'power on her head'. This seamless transition of logic is disrupted and becomes obtuse when the hair interpretation is applied. For then Paul would be starting from an unknown reason for woman having long hair, and making a non-sequitur error (see #3 previously) and then into a correct (but out of place because his vein of thought would go from hair, and then out of nowhere into subjection and back to hair) understanding of v10. Then immediately back into the wearing of the hair. It is a broken stream of logic. The logical error would be repeated again here: "v7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:" How does it follow that a man should have short hair because he is the image and glory of God? Now a man ought not to cover his head (submit to the woman) because he is the image and glory of God. A man should have short hair because it is a symbol of this; that he is the head of the woman. His conscience itself teaches him that long hair is a shame for him. You need to move from A. The man is the head of the woman. B. Therefore the man should not submit to the woman. To C. His short hair also independently is symbolic of this. Instead of A. The man is the head of the woman; to C. therefore he should have short hair as a symbol of this. Again it is a non-sequitur. No where does he actually make the case that the long hair symbolizes the woman being under obedience (or anything else). If you appeal to a dual application, then you need other scriptures to indicate the secondary or (in this case) the primary interpretation. Also you cannot point to the previous non-sequitur as proof. If you are simply saying that once it has been established that long hair symbolizes a woman being under authority and they are equal, that you can substitute the terms in the passage and they both work, then you will fare well. But you must not get the cart before the horse.
v16 "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Some read this like 'if anyone doesn't like these idea then abandon them'. As though this is a final attempt to not submit to the doctrine he just delivered. 'If I don't like these teachings then I can omit them'. Paul just said "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." v1 He then appeals to creation and conscience to make his case for authority. So, if someone contends by following their own custom then the churches should have no such custom. We see a similar passage in chapter 14 verses 34-38 and ends with what looks like the same thought; "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Comments