A Christian Woman's Headship Veiling: A Breif Explanation of I Corinthians 11

By Kurt M. Simmons

Any reasonable interpretation of I Cor. 11:1-16 must have it that God would have Christian women don a covering in token of male headship and the modesty, purity, and submissiveness enjoined upon the fairer sex. The following article provides a verse-by-verse analysis of the text.

I Cor. 10:31-33 – Whether therefore ye eat, or drink or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of man, that they may be saved.
This passage belongs to chpts. 8-10, not chpt. 11. In chapters 8-10 Paul is talking about liberties and concludes by saying we should so conduct ourselves as to win men for Christ. Some commentators attempt to attach these verses to I Cor. 11:1-16 to make them say that Paul is merely speaking to cultural traditions among Greeks, and that his instruction regarding veiling should be followed merely to accommodate Greek sensitivities. This is wrong. The translators correctly began a new chapter at I Cor. 11:1 to reflect the change of subject from eating meats offered to idols to matters pertaining to Christian witness and worship. Nothing in these verses authorizes the church to set aside scriptural instruction merely to accommodate the culture in which they live.
I Cor. 11:1-2 – Be ye followers of me as I 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.
The church is keeping what ordinances it knows and Paul praises them for this. These would have been delivered during his personal presence at Corinth and would likely have consisted of the decrees of the “Jerusalem council.” (Acts 15; 16:4) The decrees promulgated by the Holy Ghost (Acts 15:28) through Christ’s apostles at the Jerusalem council were not exhaustive, but merely illustrative of the sort of moral and ethical conduct required of alien sinners (Gentiles) to remain members in good standing of the church. Hence, they were subject to further explanation, elaboration, and supplementation as need required. St. Paul is now going to instruct the Corinthians of doctrinal and ethical instruction they had not previously received.
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.
In saying “I would have you know” Paul is imparting new instruction. This obviates completely the argument that he is merely addressing circumstances arising from Greek cultural traditions. The Corinthians were Greek and would know their own customs; they surely did not need a Jew like Paul to explain these to them. That Paul is totally unconcerned with cultural traditions in the present passage - Greek, Roman, or Jewish – is apparent from his argumentation and his appeal to creation principles and spiritual realities. Not once will he resort to culture or custom in support of what he is about to say.
4, 5 – Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth is 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.
Roman custom was for men to cover their heads in prayer. Pagan priests among the Romans always covered the head in their offerings and prayers. Similarly, Josephus describes Vespasian at his triumph, saying: “And when everybody entirely held their peace, he stood up, and covering the greatest part of his head with his cloak, he put up the accustomed solemn prayers.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Bk. VII, Chpt. v, Sec. 4; Whiston ed. - See picture below.) Some commentators suggest that for the man to cover his head was also a Jewish custom, but this cannot be proved by scripture. What Jews do today or did in the middle ages is not proof of what obtained during New Testament times. Even if they did have this custom, it is clearly disallowed by Paul. Paul indicates that for the man to cover his head dishonors Christ, presumably because it denigrates male headship, confuses the roles of the sexes, and demeans the man. In other words, as Christ’s appointed head of the woman, it shames Christ for the man to assume the token of feminine subjection.
For a woman to go uncovered is tantamount to her being shaven. This proves unequivocally that the hair is not the covering in contemplation; Paul is not asking women merely to wear long hair, he wants them to wear a veil. The veil complements and answers to long hair. Hence, to go without the veil or covering is all the same as if she were shaven. God has given the woman long hair as an ornament of her feminine figure and nature; it is her glory. (I Cor. 11:15) To have short or shaven hair is masculine and is confusion. God wants the sexes to maintain their several roles; men are to be masculine, women are to be feminine; dress and adornment help preserve these God-given distinctions. The notion of "unisex" clothing would have been unthinkable and abhorrent to the Jews; for man to wear what pertained to woman or woman to wear what pertained to man was prohibited. (Deut. 22:5) The veil reinforces the ornament and token of a woman’s femininity. The veil is also an incident of modesty and submissiveness. Paul indicates that God would have women adorn themselves in "modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." (I Tim. 2:9) Broided hair speaks to glamor, worldliness, and vanity of the perishable outer-man. In mankind's fallen condition, a woman's hair, given in token of her purity and submissiveness, was turned against nature and a woman's uncovered head made a token of feminine brazenness, sensuality, and frowardness. The veil exercises a restraining influence upon feminine wantonness, standing as a call to the modesty, purity, and simplicity of a heart surrendered to the will of God. God's women will adorn herself accordingly.
Nothing supports the notion that Paul’s instruction is limited to worship of the church during times of general assembly. Women are prohibited to lead prayer or teach over the man in the church. (I Cor. 14:34-37; I Tim. 2:1,9-15) Since women were prohibited to lead in prayer or to prophesy in church, we are constrained to understand Paul to be speaking to circumstances outside the assembly, to her conduct in general. Although he addresses only the question of praying and prophesying, the better view is that the covering was a token of a woman’s modesty, purity, and submissiveness and was to be worn while in public, if not at all times – not just during prayer. It is noteworthy that Tacitus, the Roman historian, reports that Poppaea Sabina, Nero's wife, adopted the custom of wearing a veil in public. (Tacitus, Annals, XIII, xlv; XVI, xvi.) This is typically interpreted as evidence that Poppaea was a Jewish proselyte and testifies to Jewish practice of wearing a covering in public, not merely in the synagogue. This, in turn, suggests the broader application urged here and that Paul is not speaking merely to worship in the assembly.
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.
Paul has already indicated that it is a shame for a woman to be uncovered. This is not a reflection of cultural traditions, but of spiritual ethics and realities rising out of male headship. If she is going to go uncovered (without a veil), Paul says the woman may as well also be shorn of her hair, for the one answers to the other. The word “also” proves the hair is not the covering. Thus it is not a question of one or the other, but of both. God would have women don long hair and a covering. As long hair is an ornament of her feminine nature (vv. 13, 14) and to be shaven is against nature and shameful, so laying aside her covering (veil) is shameful also. The veil is a voluntary expression that she consents to God’s creation principles and male headship; to cast aside the covering is all the same as to renounce the headship of her husband or father and therefore is reproachful to them.
7 – For a man 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.
Man is closer in origination and priority to the woman; he is the image and glory of God, she is the glory of man. This does not mean she is less in value or essence, it merely means that she is different in role and function. The symbol of the covering has a specific message it conveys and it is confusion for the man to wear the symbol set aside for the woman.
8-10 - For the man is not of the woman; but the woman is 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 over her head because of the angels.
Paul does not appeal to culture once in his argument. He appeals to creation principles and the order of creation. Woman was made for man; the covering is an expression of this fact. In the garden the couple were naked an unashamed, and her long hair was a sufficient token and ornament of woman’s feminine and passive nature. After the fall, God clothed the man and the woman. The veil was apparently ordained at some unrecorded point of sacred history as an affirmation of what in nature the woman’s long hair symbolized; viz., that she is under the coverture (power and authority) of man. Hence, God’s woman has been covered from the earliest recorded times. (Gen. 24:65) Reference to the angels seems to speak to the fact that a wife's or daughter’s prayers and vows were subject to the approval of her husband or father. If a wife or daughter made a vow binding herself in someway, it was subject to disallowance by her husband or father in the day he learned of it. (Num. 30) Hence, the veil reflects the fact that she is not “sui juris” (of her own legal right or person), but under the legal power and protection of man. The veil would therefore seem to serve as a sign to the angels that her vows may be set aside by her husband or father, and, hence, must be carried to God with this qualification. Older widows who did not return to their father's house were sui juris (Naomi, for example) and this reasoning would not have applied to them, though we may well expect that she doned the covering in token of feminine submissiveness all the same.
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.
In God and Christ, man is now born of woman, hence there is a condition of interdependence. However, this does not nullify the headship principle of the man it merely shows that woman also has her place in God’s economy.
13 – Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
In Romans, Paul speaks about Gentiles who although they "have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law.” (Rom. 2:14, 15) Paul makes a similar appeal here: Paul wants the Corinthians to look at the nature of the two sexes and decide if it is appropriate that the woman behave with the same boldness and independence as the man. When the couple had sinned, God addressed the man, not the woman. She is under his authority and her spiritual well being was Adam’s responsibility; he was answerable for what had transpired with his knowledge or by his neglect. Woman’s status before God placing her under her husband or father requires that she affect a more humble demeanor when approaching the Almighty in recognition of, and submission to, His created order.
14 – Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him.
By its very nature, long hair is uniquely feminine. It is an ornament of the woman’s feminine nature; it is her glory. (v. 15) Combing, brushing, and caring for long hair is appropriate to the woman, but it is altogether unbecoming for a man to give such attention to his appearance and would be effeminate. Thus, for men to don long hair is a shame and is against nature. By the same token, for a woman to wear masculine clothing and assume the mannerisms of the male is a confusion of nature and shameful in the sight of God.
15 – But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
"The glory of young men is their strength: and the beauty of old men is the gray head." (Prov. 20:29; cf. 16:31) A woman’s glory is her feminine figure and her long hair. They are an ornament given her of God to grace her appearance. In the garden, the hair was a sufficient covering and token of her passive nature, but after sin entered in there was a need for a constant reminder of male headship. One of the consequences of sin was that God’s established order was subverted and willfulness in the woman would express itself by seeking to usurp man’s authority. This is the meaning of the phrase “Thy desire shall be for thy husband but he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. 3:16) The identical phrase occurs regarding sin’s desire to dominate Cain. (Gen. 4:7) Hence, the meaning is that woman would desire to dominate her husband or father, but that he was to retain his place of headship over her. The veil is an object lesson of male headship. The woman who dons a covering expresses her willing assent to male headship in the home, church, and state. A woman’s hair also has poetic meaning as a token of modesty, purity, and submissiveness (hence, the bridal veil), and is reflective of the larger ethical instruction concerning the demeanor of the Christian woman, her devotion to godliness, and avoidance of worldly fashion and values. A woman who covers will instinctively reject immodest clothing and traditional male clothing such as pants and short hair styles as inconsistent with her Christian witness.
16 – But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Paul is not dismissing what he just labored for 15 verses to establish. What he taught is timeless and based upon unchanging principles of creation and male headship. Saying "if any man seem to be contentious" is but another way of saying "if any man is contentious." Since to be contentious and resist the Spirit can never be appropriate, the mature Christian will want to discover God’s will in this area and conform. There is always a blessing attached to obedience and we lose a blessing when we reject the instruction of scripture. Even in matters that are not essential to salvation, the Christian should seek the blessing obedience brings. This is particularly true at a time when feminism is subverting the family and attempting to subvert the church by women presuming to teach over the man. (I Tim. 2:9-15) In I Cor. 14:37, 38 Paul, after enjoining silence upon the woman in church, states: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” The commandments Paul sets out in I Cor. 14:34-38 directly relate to those set out in I Cor. 11:1-16. Both passages speak to the roles and conduct becoming the sexes. In I Cor. 11:1-16, Paul speaks to appropriate attire in women praying or prophesying out side of the assembly, in I Cor. 14:34-36 he enjoins their speaking in and to the assembly. Doubtless, the same “contentious” men who resisted Paul's teaching in chapter eleven are addressed again in chapter fourteen when he states "if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." Willing ignorance is no more appropriate to the Christian than contentiousness. Paul is not condoning either trait or quality, and merely indicates that he will not waste further effort attempting to instill instruction to those who have an un-teachable spirit. Their disobedience will be upon their own heads.
What is the meaning of Paul's statement "we have no such custom?" One possibility is that Paul here indicates that what he is setting out is praiseworthy and therefore commended, albeit not commanded. In other words, his teaching would be like other points making up the larger ethical instruction of the church which, while bringing God's blessing, are not essential to salvation. For example, fasting is commendable, but not required. If so, Paul may arguably stop short of enjoining this tradition in the churches as a test of fellowship.
Against this interpretation, however, it may be urged that it would be extremely unusual, indeed, unprecedented for the apostle to take fifteen verses explaining and establishing the spiritual principles which underlie a custom or practice only to dismiss obedience at the end. Hence, the better view is that the apostle is not stating that the catholic (universal) church has no such custom, for clearly it did have such a custom, which Paul here both explains and enjoins. Rather, he is stating we have no such custom as the contentious party is advocating in its stead. In effect, then, Paul would be saying "we have no other custom" than the one he has stated and set out. This was the understanding of the translators of the New International Version who, perhaps not incorrectly, paraphrased the passage precisely this way.
Conclusion
If I Cor. 11:1-16 is to have any meaning at all, we must acknowledge that God would have his woman cover. That, after all, is the very thing Paul is attempting to establish or correct. Any construction or interpretation which negates this purpose renders the passage meaningless and nullifies the word of God. If it is not commanded, it is clearly commended and our homes and families will receive a blessing if we obey. Of this much we may be certain.