Men and women were created differently and are, therefore, different. The distinction that exists between the sexes should be embraced and celebrated, not resented and rebelled against…. Most of you probably agree on these issues of gender distinction, so let’s get to the question at hand: “What does all this have to do with what a person wears to church?”

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 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.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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. 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.

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. 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.  Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 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. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

 

In these verses, the Apostle Paul, under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, institutes a standard for public decorum in the public assemblies of Christ’s church. Namely, that men should wear nothing upon their heads and that the women should wear something upon their heads.

All Christians used to agree on this point, but sadly — and as you well know — those days are long passed. After all, they say, “Cultures change… styles change… churches change, but do you know what does not change? The Holy Word of God.

My aim in preaching today is to encourage you in your obedience to these commands and also to assist you as you seek to explain this standard to others. I have three main points and the first, unfortunately, has to be this:

1st Answering The Objections

Sadly, many Christians (even conservative ones), approach this passage with certain objections already fixed in their minds. I’ll name a few of the most common:

“Hair is the Covering” — While this is one of the most popular objections, this passage simply does not allow it as a possible interpretation. If a woman’s hair was the covering Paul had in view here, he would not have used two different words to distinguish headcoverings from long hair.

We see this in vs. 15. The Greek word translated as long hair is koma and that’s easy enough to remember, because it sounds like the word “comb” — doesn’t it? But the word translated as covering is from the word periballo. It’s a compound root: peri means upon or around and ballo means to throw or cast. So a covering is, literally, “something you throw upon, or around, your head.” Two different words, two different things, but I also know the objection, “Well, Pastor, that all sounds like Greek to me…” fair enough. How about a little logic instead?

If the only question at hand here was about having long hair or short hair, then the argument in vs. 6 would make no sense whatsoever. It would essentially read: “For if a woman will have short hair, then let her also have short hair.” What in the world is that supposed to mean? The argument is unintelligible if Paul was not talking about actual cloth veils here. And he is. Most commentators agree. The only thing they disagree about is whether the passage is still applicable today. Hence, the next objection:

“It’s no longer applicable” — Some think that Paul was here teaching a culture-specific lesson, only to first-century Christians. This objection is also very popular, but it is also invalid and easily proven so.

First of all, when Paul began this epistle he addressed it not only to the saints at Corinth, but to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Corinthians 1:2). That’s obviously all Christians. That’s you. Even here in chapter 11, Paul reminds us of the broad scope of his intended audience. vs. 16, But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

This, then, is not just advice to the Corinthians. It is for all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord… and it is for all the churches of God. On now, to another objection:

“Paul was just a misogynist” — That’s what many people think and they will point to this passage as proof that Paul had some kind of prejudice against women. But that’s certainly not true.

Even here in this passage he affirms the essential equality of the sexes. vs. 11-12,Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

More, Paul actually honors women in this passage. He speaks of a glory and a beauty that is uniquely theirs’ as women. Namely, their long hair.

Paul had no problem with women. His only concern here is that their glory might be on proper display during times of public worship. That is, displayed in such a manner that only God — who gave them that beauty — is glorified. One last objection:

“This is just too novel” — Many say that today because they have never seen it practiced, but here’s the thing: Many of the saints at Corinth could have raised the same exact objection because Paul’s policy on head coverings was somewhat novel in his own day. It was different than Jewish practices — different than Roman practices — and different than Greek practices at the time.

Paul was here establishing a new custom — a distinctively Christian custom — that transcended all the existing customs that were represented in the diverse city of Corinth in the 1st century AD.

But the argument of novelty is no longer valid today, because once Paul established this custom, it then became the norm in every branch of Christendom — in every culture — and in every century: Roman Catholic – Greek Orthodox – Lutheran – Reformed – Baptist – Anabaptist – Charismatic – Pentecostal – all were once agreed on how to interpret and apply this passage.

That is, until the women’s suffrage and liberation movements of the 20th century.

Read More