28 Should Women Wear Head Coverings? (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. Today we're going to be studying 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 2 through 16. This is the 28th talk in our series on the book of 1 Corinthians, and it is the first in a series of four talks on this particular passage. Lecture notes for today's talk are on the link below the podcast, or you can find them by going to the website. You'll find that at wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 2 8. And also on the website, you'll find a lot of helpful information about how to improve your Bible study. There's no charge, no spam, no ads, just Bible study. Let's get started. We're going to spend the next several weeks on 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 2 through 16. And this is the infamous passage about women having their heads covered. Before we start, let me say something about my goals for this series of podcasts. I realize that this is not a sermon, it's not an academic theology class. I'm not a typical motivational speaker, and I do not have a denominational agenda. This podcast is all about what the Bible means and how we know. So when I create a podcast, I have three goals. First, to understand what the author intended to say. Second, to explain to you why I think the author is saying that. That's my goal in this series. First Corinthians 11 is one of the more difficult passages to understand. And while I have reached a level of certainty in my thinking, I acknowledge that there is a greater than average chance that I am wrong because this is just a really difficult passage. People I greatly respect disagree with me on my conclusions about this passage, and they disagree with each other. This is one of those passages that we have to approach with a great deal of humility and openness that whatever position we hold, it might be the wrong one. My standard advice on difficult passages and controversial topics is twofold. One, make it your goal to know what you believe and why. And second, make it your goal to understand the other side or sides well enough to know why they failed to persuade you. So you may disagree with me on my interpretations of this passage, that's okay, and I would encourage you to make it your goal to know why my arguments fail to persuade you. On passages like this, we have to realize that genuine believers are going to reach different conclusions. One day God's going to make it all clear, but for now we give it our best shot and we hold our conclusions loosely. Ultimately, we are like a class of kindergartners fighting over who reads the best. One of us may in fact be the best reader, but we all have a lot of growing up to do. I've been studying the passages that relate to women in authority and women teachers for over 30 years, and over that time I've refined my understanding and reached a fair degree of confidence in my conclusions, and I can say before God, this is my best shot given the resources I have, the abilities I have, the faults and the blindnesses I have. I can equally say I may be wrong. I have a lot of respect for people who have reached different conclusions than me, but they are acting out of a principled, reasoned study of scripture. I'm sorry we disagree, but I appreciate that we have the same goal, which is to understand and apply scripture. On the other hand, I have very little respect for people who may agree with my conclusions, but they're acting primarily out of a fear of offending the culture or a desire to be seen as hip and cool and not really because they've tried to grapple with scripture. Now that said, if we take Paul seriously and what he said so far in this letter, this issue does not have to be divisive. Everything we talked about in the meat sacrifice to idol section comes into play right here when we deal with other believers who disagree with us on the issue of women in authority in the church. Now I am assuming that all of us have made a sincere, good faith effort to understand scripture. I'm not addressing the camp that says something to the effect of, well, Paul was just wrong and we can ignore him, or we can just ignore those verses because we like these verses better. I don't have any common ground with people who approach the Bible that way, and I'm not even going to address those kinds of arguments. I'm talking about other believers who have made a sincere effort to understand the passages and reached different conclusions. Now when I'm with people who think that women have less freedom than I think God allows, I limit my freedom so as not to offend them. When I'm with those who agree with me, I gratefully exercise my freedom with them. When I'm with those who think women have a wider range of freedom under the scriptures than my understanding allows, I do only what my conscience allows. And when I'm with people who have crossed a line into a disregard of scripture or a willful rejection of the truth, then I try to stand up for the truth, speaking the truth in love whenever necessary or possible. And through all of that, I realize that I may in fact be the weaker sister. I may be the one whose understanding is wrong or incomplete, and I definitely still need to grow in maturity. So we come to 1 Corinthians 11, and every verse in this section contains something difficult. The very first verse says man is the head of woman, and if you've done any research on this topic, you know that that little phrase is hugely controversial and debated. Pages and pages have been written about what the term head means, and there is widespread disagreement just on that phrase alone. Everyone agrees it's some kind of metaphor, but exactly what the metaphor is getting at, well, that generates a lot of conflict. There's also quite a bit of discussion over the cultural background that informs Paul's advice. We are missing a lot of background information, which would be really helpful to have, and some of the background information we have is contradictory. What exactly was the situation in Corinth that Paul is addressing? What question did they ask that prompted this response? It would be really helpful to have all that information without having to speculate or reason backwards. And on top of all that, we have the question of how much of this is culturally specific to Corinth and how much of this is a universal, timeless biblical principle. And there is a huge debate over whether this issue of head coverings is cultural or not. And if that's not enough, there are several linguistic and translation issues in the section. Now, as we approach this discussion, realize that I am giving you my educated but good for nothing opinion. It's my best shot, and I may be wrong. Believers who hold to biblical inerrancy and who seriously seek to follow the Bible as a source of truth have and will probably continue to reach different conclusions on this passage. It's important that we seek the truth together and not resort to judgment and name-callings. Those who hold a more restrictive view are sometimes accused of being chauvinist or sexist. Those who hold less restrictive views are sometimes accused of choosing culture over scripture or playing fast and loose with the scriptures. And we should make it our goal in discussing these questions to not let them turn divisive or personal and to avoid the name-calling and judging the sincerity of each other's faith. What I'm going to do in this podcast is put the passage together. So I'm going to go straight through the passage explaining how I think it makes the most sense. So I'm going to present it almost as if there is no controversy about it. Then in the next few podcasts, we're going to go back and look at the problems and the debate and some of the specifics that are controversial in this passage. So as I go through this today, if you find yourself thinking, wait a minute, that's not the only option, you're right, it isn't. And if you think, hold it, she didn't explain why she reached that conclusion and not this other conclusion, you're right. I'm not going to try to answer those type of questions today. I'm going to try to address some of those in the next several podcasts. There is so much to talk about in trying to put this passage together that I just thought it was overwhelming to start off with all the details and the controversies and the debate. So I decided to give you essentially my conclusions first. I'm going to go through what I think the passage means. Almost as if there were no controversy about it, and then I will go back and look at the details, the questions, and the debate. So just remember as I explained my conclusions today that almost everything I say here is debated. Someone out there disagrees with almost every statement I'm going to make in today's podcast. I am going to try to avoid starting every sentence with the words I think. That would just make listening too hard, but I think is implied on everything. Almost everything I say in this podcast is debated. And in presenting the material this way, I do not mean to suggest that I have the market cornered on truth or understanding. I don't. These are my conclusions after copious research and many hours of study. This is my best shot, and I realize I could very well be wrong. And I know that is true about every passage I teach, but there is a higher than average probability that I'm wrong on this passage because this passage is really difficult. So let's remember where we are in the book. We're in a section of the letter where Paul is responding to specific questions the Corinthians have asked him. These are questions and controversies in the Corinthian church and they have asked Paul to weigh in, and we've been seeing this phrase now concerning, which signals the start of a new question. We don't have a now concerning here, instead we have now in 11.2, which I understand to be short for now concerning. So 1 Corinthians 11 2 reads, Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you. I suspect that the Corinthians wrote something to Paul that said, Paul, we are really trying to follow everything you taught us in this area. We want to hold firmly to the traditions you gave us when you lived here, but we're having this debate over whether women should keep their heads covered or not, and we can't figure it out. And Paul is responding, I'm glad you want to follow the traditions I gave you. And then he's going to explain how he wants them to handle the situation. And the tone of this section is that he's pleased they're trying to follow his instructions, but they haven't got it quite right. He concludes near the end of this in 1113, judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? And that suggests that this is the question he's been asked. When, and I will argue a married woman is participating in a public worship service, is it proper for her to pray to God with her head uncovered or should she keep her head covered? Now we're gonna have to figure out why that would be a problem either way, and we will unravel all that, but for now that appears to be the issue on the table. And unlike the other sections we've looked at so far, Paul is praising them for the way they're trying to handle it. It's interesting to note that in all the sections, these now concerning sections that we've looked at in Corinthians so far, this section has the most moderate tone. We don't see the kind of strong warning language we saw in chapter 10, we don't see the rebukes of chapter five. There's just not much in this section that would suggest that Paul is angry with them, that he's rebuking them, or that he's even strongly warning them. It is possible that there's a disruptive group in the church that's causing a ruckus over this issue, but I think Paul is responding to it more as if there is simply genuine confusion. They're trying to sort it out, and Paul is giving them his advice. I think we can see a contrast in tone between the first half of chapter 11 and the second half. In the second half, Paul addresses the Lord's Supper, which would be another one of those traditions that Paul gave them, but he starts that section in 1117 with, I do not praise you in this. And as we read through that section, you can hear a difference in tone. There's a serious problem in the way they're handling the Lord's Supper, and he is deeply concerned about it, and his tone in the second half of the chapter is quite different. But in this first half, he's not deeply concerned. He's addressing their confusion. So let me read the whole passage, and then we're gonna go back and take it section by section. So I'm gonna start in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 2, and read through 16, and this is the New American Standard Translation. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 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. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head, but every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought to have his head covered since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man, 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. Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. However, in the Lord neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman, for as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering, but if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. Well that seems clear enough. Let's move on to the next section. Just kidding, let's go back to eleven two. Now I praise you because you remember me and everything and hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you. Paul starts this section by praising them for holding firmly to the traditions he gave them. So what does he mean by traditions? He's not talking about issues of getting the gospel right. Rather, he's talking about the practices and conventions he taught them. So these would be, I think, things like expressions of worship, but not the gospel itself. So traditions might include how they handle music, how they dress, how often they meet, what they do during their meetings, and so on. And I think that gives us a clue that this topic is specifically cultural as opposed to theological. This is not a matter required to honor God and obey Him. Rather, this is a matter of cultural tradition. And their convention and their cultural tradition was for married women to cover their heads during corporate worship. As I read the text from now on, I am going to be reading the New American Standard Translation, but I am going to switch two words. Instead of reading man, I'm going to read husband, and instead of reading woman or women, I'm going to read wife or wives. I think that's the better way to translate it. The Greek words here can be translated man or woman or husband-wife. So the same word that means man also means husband, and the same word that means woman also means wife. And the context determines which one the author means. Now that is one of those controversial decisions that I have reached, and that is I think Paul is talking about husbands and wives. So as I read, I'm going to switch that in the translation. And as we go along, I think you'll see why I've reached that conclusion. Alright, let's read 11, 2, and 3. Now I praise you because you remember me and everything and hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every husband, and the husband is the head of a wife, and God is the head of Christ. Here's how I think Paul sets up the section. He's saying, Some of you in Corinth are calling this cultural practice of head coverings into question. There's some confusion about how to handle the situation, so let me Paul explain the reasoning behind the practice and you decide. I think you'll agree when you see my reasoning about the right way to proceed. There is a very real sense in which everything in this passage hinges on the meaning of head. And I can't even begin to describe how many pages and pages have been written on what this word means in this passage. And I am going to get into that controversy in later podcasts. I'm going to spend two podcasts on it. Most everyone agrees that head is a metaphor for something, but exactly what the metaphor is, well, that's extremely controversial. For now, let me say that it is critically important not to read into this verse all the abuses of patriarchy that have been practiced throughout the history of the church and in various cultures. The Bible never teaches that Head has the privileged position of being able to get his own way in every situation. The Bible never teaches that a husband owns his wife the way a master owns his slave. The Bible never teaches that the man has the authority or the freedom to dictate and impose his will on the rest of the family. And the Bible never teaches that the head is the boss, master, or ruler in that kind of sense of lording it over or being a dictator. As I'm going to argue in a later podcast, to be the head is to be the one who will be held accountable and is charged with the responsibility. So Paul says in 11 3, but I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every husband, and the husband is the head of a wife, and God is the head of Christ. Paul gives us three paired relationships where there is a lack of symmetry. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the husband, and the husband is the head of his wife. Now it is also true that Christ is the head of his entire body, the church, and the church is made up of both male and female. I don't think Paul mentions that here because it's not relevant to the discussion or the question at hand. Each relationship pair is different, but within each pair, the two differ in their role and their responsibility. And that difference in role and responsibility implies a certain kind of honor or respect from the one who is not held responsible in the pair. Showing that respect is the basis for this tradition in their culture, and that's what's creating the problem. So Paul says God is the head of Christ. In the relationship between God and his Messiah, God is the responsible party. God is the one who sent Jesus Christ. Christ into the world. God designed and created the plan of redemption. Ultimately, it is the Father's name and his glory that's on the line, but Jesus is the one who is implementing the plan. As Messiah, so now we have the relationship between Jesus and man, or the husband in this case, but it's true of all mankind. As the Messiah, Jesus is responsible for bringing his people into the kingdom. He is responsible for calling us together as the people of God. He's responsible for redeeming us and rescuing us. God gave him the responsibility of being the Messiah, and we are to respect and honor him in that role. And in Jesus, we see the clearest example of what headship looks like or what it means to be a head. Jesus did not come and act like a king, even though he is a king. He did not act like a dictator, even though God will put all things in subjection under his feet. And when Paul talks about headship, I don't think he's saying, look, the model is Jesus is the boss who always gets his way, because that's not what we saw. Jesus modeled exactly the opposite. As the head, Jesus served his people to the point of laying down his life for them. And Paul makes a big deal of his service and his humility in Colossians 2 and in Philippians 2, and Peter makes the same point about this self-sacrificing service in 1 Peter 2. And Christ himself tells us in Mark 10 that he didn't come to be served. So this is Mark ten verses forty two through forty-five, calling them to himself, that's the twelve, calling the twelve to himself, Jesus said to them, You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you. Whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave to all. For even the Son of Man, and he's referring to himself there, for even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many. So Jesus is telling us right there, exercising authority among believers, that looks like service. It looks like self-sacrificing love. And that's the understanding we're to bring when Paul says the husband is the head of the wife. I think he has the marriage relationship in view. I do not believe that the Bible teaches anywhere that all men have some kind of headship over all females. I think these are roles that come into play only within a marriage. And that we learn that from Genesis 2. In Genesis 2, in a marriage, the husband is charged with a responsibility that is not given to the wife. She is given a different responsibility. And in the context of that relationship, the husband is the one who's going to be held accountable for their life together and the family in a way that the wife will not. Now, in a later podcast, we're going to go through Genesis and we're going to define that in more detail and look at more of the debate about what being ahead means. I'm sure you have lots of unanswered questions, and I am going to try to address some of those later. For now, what I want you to notice is we see three pairs of relationships. And in each pair, one person is the head. That is the person who is charged with the responsibility and will be held accountable. The responsibility is very different in each pair, but they are similar in that each pair has different roles to play within that relationship and is given different responsibilities within that relationship. And that difference implies a certain kind of honor or respect from the one not held responsible. The one who is not head needs to grant the one who is head the freedom to follow his conscience since he's the one that's going to be held accountable. And again, we're going to talk a lot more about that in later podcast. Now in Corinth, they have a certain cultural practice for showing respect for this headship role. Let's go on and look at 11 four and five. Every husband who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head, but every wife who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. Okay, what's going on here? In modern American culture, we remove our hats when we stand to sing the national anthem. It's considered disrespectful not to, just like it's considered disrespectful to sit down during the national anthem. That's why athletes who want to make a statement are taking a knee during the national anthem. Their refusal to follow this cultural tradition is what's making the statement. Our culture assigned a significance to removing your hat and standing in this certain situation. We consider it disrespectful not to remove your hat and not to stand. Now I think Corinth had a similar kind of situation. Exactly what that situation was is a matter of some debate, and we're going to talk about that debate in the next podcast. But I think the situation in Corinth was that when men stood to pray or prophesy, they removed their head covering as a symbol of their respect for God. If a husband wore something on his head when he stood to pray or prophesy, he was disgracing his head. So leaving his hat on was symbolically disrespectful to Christ. Similarly, in Corinthian culture, a wife kept her head covered in public as a sign of honoring her husband. So a married woman kept her head covered as a symbol of respect for her husband. Now we have a problem. A married woman is in two different relationship pairs. In one relationship, Christ is her head. In another relationship, her husband is her head. And again, we're going to talk a lot more about what that means in later podcasts, what it means to be head. So she's in these two different relationships. What should she do when she stands up to pray? If she leaves her shawl or her scarf on as a sign of respect for her husband, that is disrespectful to her Messiah. But if she removes her scarf as a sign of respect for Christ, that is disrespectful to her husband. Now I'm gonna probably use the word hat, veil, scarf, shawl, I mean all the same thing, some kind of head covering. So we have this clash of symbols. We have a clash of cultural traditions. Which tradition should we go with? And Paul's going to say you should adopt the practice that speaks loudest to your culture. Essentially, he's applying the same principle that he just applied in the section about should you eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols. Now, why is this an issue now? Because in Judaism, women did not participate in the worship service. They sat in a separate area and watched as men conducted the service. But in Christianity and the Christian churches, the women are now participating in the worship service. So in the Jewish temple, women didn't pray or prophesy in public. Now in the Christian church, they're participating. They're included right alongside the men in public worship. So when a married woman is now participating by praying or prophesying, we have this problem. Should she show respect for God by taking her head covering off, which would disrespect her husband, or should she show respect for her husband by leaving her head covering on and be disrespectful to God? And Paul's short answer is, well, which action speaks loudest in your culture? How is your culture going to interpret her actions? If she stands up and removes her head covering, are they going to say, Oh, look, there's a woman who's honoring God? Or are they going to say, Oh no, look, there's a woman who's dishonoring her husband? And he's going to argue, they're going to say the latter. They're going to look at her and say, There's a woman who's dishonoring her husband, so you should keep your heads covered. There's nothing incompatible with sending the message that Christian wives respect their husbands. That ought to be true. That's part of a Christian marriage. And it's perfectly okay to send that message. Now, of course, we don't want to send the message that it's okay to dishonor Christ or God, but look at your culture. That's not the message you're sending. That's not the conclusion others are reaching. Paul's applying the same principle that he applied in the section on should you eat meat sacrificed to idols? He's asking the question, what message are you communicating? Think about that and communicate the message that brings glory to God. Paul thinks in this culture, in this situation, the stronger symbol is for a wife to keep her head covered. He thinks removing her scarf will not send the message that she also honors God, but will send the message that she does not respect her husband. He takes that to be the stronger cultural symbol and message and says, therefore, leave your heads covered. Because we don't want to send the message to our culture that Christian women freely and publicly disrespect their husbands, that's not a message that's consistent with what you believe. So just like we saw in the previous chapters, in certain situations, eating meat sends the message that you're worshiping an idol. So refrain from eating in those situations. It's unloving and confusing to someone who doesn't fully understand their freedom in the faith. Similarly, here in a public worship service, when a wife removes her head covering, it's sending the cultural message that she's disrespecting her husband, and it's unloving and confusing to someone who doesn't fully understand our freedoms in the faith, so don't do it. We want to stand up for the truth we believe in and not act in a way that confuses that truth to our neighbor. Okay, 11 6, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. Okay, what does he mean here by have her hair cut off and have her head shaved? Everyone speculates on this verse. From my research, I don't think we really know the cultural reference with certainty. From the context, it seems clear that a woman whose head is shaved is dishonoring her husband in that culture. Now why or how she would have her head shaved, that's unclear. There is lots of speculation, but we don't know for sure. Did she shave it to make a statement? Did someone else shave it to publicly punish or disgrace her? We don't know for sure. But I don't think Paul is saying the woman who takes her head covering off is the moral equivalent of this woman who's got her hair cut off her head shaved, but that the message they're sending is the same. So the message a woman standing up and removing her head covering is sending is the same message that's sent by a woman with her head shaved, and that was considered disgraceful. So for whatever reason, a woman with her head shaved or her hair cut off was disrespectful to her husband, and he's saying removing your veil or your scarf or your hat sends the same message. So this practice is just as shaming as and dishonoring as that practice. I think he's speaking to the side in this debate that is arguing for a hats off position. And he's saying, look, if she doesn't cover her head, it is the same message as if her hair was cut off. And since you agree and your cultural agrees that that is disgraceful, then cover her head because it's the same symbol, it's the same message you're communicating. So Paul's saying, we've decided that women will keep their heads covered in public worship, but if you insist they should uncover their heads, well, why don't you just shave them? Because it's the same message. The position you're arguing for of them taking their scarf off is having the same effect as if they were shaving their heads or cutting their hair. And you find that disgraceful. So let's not send the wrong message. Let's keep their heads covered. In 11.5, Paul says, a woman who does not cover her head while praying or prophesying. That implies to me that he has no problem with a woman praying or prophesying. So what does he mean by prophesying here? That is another hugely debated issue. And we're going to get into that more when we hit chapter 14. Briefly, I want to say here that a prophet is one who speaks for God. We think of prophesying today as a synonym for predicting the future. But predicting the future was a very small portion of what the prophets did. Most often they were warning about and correcting behavior. Frequently they were reviewing the past, saying, Remember what God has done for you in the past, and here's the lessons you should learn from what God has done for you in the past. Often they were calling people to remember that, to remember what God has done, and then take heart in the situation they're currently facing. And more often than not, they're calling Israel to repent. All of that is prophecy. Their job was to speak for God. Sometimes God was telling them what would happen in the future, but sometimes he was just saying, go warn them, go remind them, go encourage them, or some other message. I think the primary meaning of prophecy is speaking for God, or what we would call teaching today. Now in the New Testament church, it didn't mean speaking for God because they had a direct revelation from God. People who were prophesying were teachers. They were people who understood what Scripture taught and they explained it. So they were speaking for God, not because he gave them direct revelation like an Old Testament prophet, but because they understood God's past revelation, i.e., they understood scripture and they could explain it. So they were speaking for God in that sense. They aren't making up a new message, they are speaking about a message that God has previously given. Again, this is controversial. I would argue that what I do in these podcasts could be described by this word. I'm not speaking from my own authority, I'm not saying anything new. I am simply trying to pass on what the scriptures teach. And I think that's the primary re meaning of prophesying. So I do think that this means that there were women teachers in Corinth and in other New Testament churches, and I do think they were teaching a mixed adult congregation. But we're going to get into that more in chapter 14. And hopefully one day I'll do a podcast on 1 Timothy 2 so you can see how I put all this together. Okay, back to Corinthians 11. This is verse 7. For a husband ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God, but the wife is the glory of her husband. Okay, another controversial verse. I would argue Paul is not saying that the husband is the image and glory of God, but a wife, unlike her husband, is not the image and glory of God. She's the glory of her husband. Paul is not saying that. That is not compatible with the rest of what we know of Scripture. It's not compatible with Paul's other teachings and other letters. Both husbands and wives are created in the image and glory of God. In addition to being the image and glory of God, a wife has an additional role as the glory of her husband. So not only is she in the image of God, she is also the glory of her husband. That additional complication is what's making it problematic for what to do with her head covering, because she has two roles. She has two cultural symbols and they are coming into conflict. Now, what does Paul mean by image and glory? We're going to talk about that again in the next podcast, but for now, I think he means the husband brings honor and praise to God through his actions and behavior. And a wife not only brings praise and honor to her God, she can also bring praise and honor to her husband through her actions and behavior. And that's the issue at the center of this controversy. And that concept ought to make sense to us. We are very familiar with this idea that our behavior reflects on groups and organizations and relationships that we are part of. So children can bring praise to their parents or shame to their parents depending on how they act. Employees can bring praise to their company or shame to their company. Students can bring praise to their teachers and their university. Our actions often reflect on someone else we're in a relationship with, particularly if there is some kind of authority structure involved. So we have this concept of well, you've disgraced your family name or you've made your mother proud. It's the same idea. What you do or say reflects back on your teacher, your boss, your parents, your university, your family, and so forth. So Paul is saying a husband ought not to have his head covered because part of his role is to bring praise and honor to God. And removing his hat is a symbol of that respect. Keeping his hat on is a symbol of disrespect in that role. But a wife has two roles to fulfill. She not only brings honor to God, she also brings honor to her husband. Now we don't construe wearing hats or veils or scarves as symbols of respect or disrespect anymore. And remember the issue here is these two cultural symbols. The head covering left on is not the opposite of a head covering left off. They have different cultural meanings on different people. It's the opposite physical act, but it's not the opposite cultural symbol. He goes on to explain for husband does not originate from wife, but wife from husband. For indeed the husband was not created for the wife's sake, but wife for the husband's sake. So I think he's defending here what he just said in 11.7. He's saying, How can I say that the wife has this additional role of bringing glory to her husband? And he's saying we know this from Genesis. We know this from the way God created men and women in marriage. And he's referring to the creation account of Genesis 2. And we're going to look at that in more detail in a later podcast. But briefly to summarize, I think what he's referring to is that God created Adam first and gave him responsibility to cultivate the garden. He then created Eve from Adam's rib to have a different responsibility. Her role and responsibility was to be a helper, suitable or corresponding to him. So Adam and Eve's relationship is the paradigm for all husbands and wives, and Adam was charged with a responsibility for which he will be held accountable, and Eve was given a different responsibility to help him meet that calling. And again, you probably have lots of questions. We're going to look at that in more detail in a couple more podcasts. But I think this is what he's referring to when he says for the sake of the role she was given in marriage is different than the role he was given in marriage. And that's why she has this additional role and this problem of cultural symbols. Because in a marriage, husband and wife play these different roles. Then 1110, therefore the wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of this message. Now, right away, you will notice that I've translated the final word here as a message and not angels. The word ungaloi means a messenger. It can be a divine messenger or it can be a human messenger. So if a soldier leaves the battlefield and runs back to headquarters with news of the battle, he is an ungaloi. He is a messenger and he is also human. If Gabriel comes to Mary with news, he is an ungoloi. He is also a supernatural ungoloi. Both of them are messengers and both can be described by the same word, even though one is human and one is supernatural. Now in Greek literature, it's relatively rare, but there are places where the word angoloi here, the word messenger, came to stand for the message. And we call this in literature a metonymy. A word that means one thing stands for and represents something else. And I think that's what's going on here, that the word for messenger has come to stand for the message. Now we do this all the time. Google is the name of a company. It started as a noun, but it has become a verb. It's the same kind of linguistic shift. That's a metonymy. Google is the name of a software company, but it has come to stand for and represent the ability to search for information. In the same way, ungoloi is the Greek word for messenger, but it can in some context stand for and represent the message that that messenger carried. And I think that's what Paul is saying here. We know this to be true because of this message from God. Because of what we know from the creation account, this message from Genesis that I just referenced is the reason that we know about these different roles. And in your Corinthian culture, wearing a scarf has some cultural meaning with respect to those roles, and it's creating a problem, so keep your hats on. Okay, he also says in 1110, therefore our wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. What does he mean by authority in this verse? Again, that is another controversy, but briefly, I think he's saying in your culture, a wife ought to have a covering on her head that symbolizes that she respects the headship of her husband. The head covering in your culture symbolizes that she honors her husband in his role as head in their marriage relationship. I think by authority here he means she should have something on her head that symbolizes honoring this marriage relationship we've just been talking about. Again, that's controversial, but that's my conclusion. Now he clarifies in 11, 11, and 12, however, in the Lord neither is the wife independent of the husband, nor is the husband independent of the wife. For as the wife originates from the husband, so also the husband has his birth through the wife, and all things originate from God. This phrase in the Lord, I think, means in Christian culture. In a Christian marriage, neither is independent. In a Christian marriage, this is a partnership of equals. Neither is independent, they have become one flesh, as we're going to talk about in a later podcast. They are bound together in love, respect, service, and calling. Yes, there is this head helper relationship, but those roles function in the context of a relationship of equals who have vowed to make each other the most special thing in all creation. There's a mutuality to the relationship despite this difference in role. So yes, God created different roles in marriage, but he created male and female equally in the image of God. Now, if you're reading the New American Standard, you'll notice the phrase has his birth is in gray font. That means the phrase is not in the Greek, but the translators added it to clarify what they think the verse means. I would not add that phrase here. I don't think he's talking about creation order or birth order here. I think more the idea is these roles that husbands and wives are given within marriage are not independent, they're dependent. Yes, the wife was given the helper role in marriage, so also the husband was given the servant leadership role. He's not Lord, King, and fiefdom master. He is a servant leader who should seek her best. When God created Adam, he knew that Adam would become a husband. He created Adam with that in mind, just like he created Eve with her marriage role in mind. This is all part of God's purposeful design. So on the one hand, Eve came from her husband because God fashioned her from Adam's rib. Eve was created with her marriage role in mind. That is more obvious from the Genesis account. But on the other hand, when God created Adam from the dust of the earth, God knew that Adam would become a husband and Eve would come from his rib. I don't think you can claim that only Eve's origin has something to do with her becoming a spouse. Both of them were created with this marriage relationship in mind. And even though Adam didn't come from Eve in the same way that Eve came from Adam, God created them both and purposefully planned for marriage even at Adam's creation. So Adam serves Eve in this mutually dependent relationship of equals, just as she helps him meet this responsibility he's been given in this mutually dependent relationship. Both of them should view themselves as in this relationship where they are like one body. They serve and love and respect each other, and they should care for each other in the same way that they care for their own bodies, to pick another of Paul's analogies. So again, I think Paul is talking about marriage here. He has the marriage relationship in view. He's not talking about all men in relation to all women. There are many other verses which speak to how believers should treat each other like love your neighbor as yourself. Now the question often comes up, what would Paul say to single women in the church service? And I would answer, we don't know, because we don't know what the cultural symbols were for adult single women. Did a single woman need to keep her head covered to honor her father? Could be. Did she uncover her head because she had no husband? Could be. Did it not matter one way or the other whether she had her head covered? That's also a possibility. Or perhaps she kept her head uncovered until she got married and then she covered it. That's also a possibility. We just don't have enough information to know. That last one is my guess because we see that practice today, but I don't think we have enough cultural evidence to know what was going on in Paul's time. Then at 1113, judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Notice this judge for yourself. That implies this is a judgment call on cultural symbols and practices. And I think that phrase makes it clear that Paul does not intend to give universal transcultural moral truths in this section. He's made his case for why he's arguing that they should keep their head coverings on, and now he's saying, What do you conclude? Judge for yourselves. Which symbol speaks loudest in your culture? What message do you think you're communicating to those around you? And does it glorify God? Is it consistent with the gospel? Paul would never write, judge for yourselves. Is murder right or wrong? He would never say that because that is a universal transcultural moral truth. Murder is an absolute. It doesn't matter what you judge, murder's wrong. But this issue of head coverings is not, so he can say, judge for yourselves. Then he says in 11, 14, and 15, does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, for her hair is her given to her for a covering. He's saying, Does not nature itself teach you that a wife ought to have her head covered when she prays in public? Okay, how? How does nature teach that long hair on a husband is a dishonor and long hair on a wife is an honor? Again, I think he's speaking to cultural symbols. In Corinthian culture, a husband who wore his hair long would be seen as disgraceful. In that culture, men who wanted to dress and act like men were expected to have short hair. If he had long hair, he was dressing and acting like they expected a woman to act, and they considered that disgraceful. Similarly, a wife with long hair in Corinthian culture was seen as honoring herself. Women in that culture who wanted to dress and act like women grew their hair long. Married women kept their hair up in some fashion and covered in public. Those are the cultural symbols in Corinth. This is not necessarily true of every culture in history. I think Paul's saying Corinthian culture understands long hair on a woman the same way they understand her wearing a hat or a scarf. Decent, respectable wives have long hair just like they have veils. It's a covering for her. The way we in Corinth react to a woman with a head covering is the same way we in Corinth react to a woman with long hair. It's considered proper, right, respectable. Similarly, in Corinthian culture, a man with long hair dishonors himself because he is acting like we in Corinth expect a woman to act, and we see that as disgraceful. A woman with long hair honors herself because she's acting like we expect women to act in Corinth. A woman with her hair cut off or head shaved is not acting like we expect respectable, honorable women to act, and we think that's a dishonor. Hair is a natural head covering, hats are an artificial head covering, and the Corinthian culture has assigned meaning to both of them. The Corinthians have cultural expectations about how men and women are to wear their hair as their natural head covering and how they are to wear their artificial head coverings of scarves or shawls or veils. Now why are long hair and hats honorable to wives? Because their culture decided it to be so. Do long hair and hats always mean that in every culture throughout time? I would say no. And then finally 1116, but if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. I think Paul is concluding here. Look, this is what we've decided to do. This is what we think speaks loudest in our culture. If you disagree, we have no other practice. This is the judgment call we've made on how to interact with our particular culture. This is what we decided to put into practice. In other churches, the wives are leaving their head coverings on. But judge for yourself, you can decide in your specific culture what symbol speaks loudest. I think he's appealing to them not to be different for the sake of being different, to take into account that this is what other people are doing in other Christian churches, and that adds weight to the practice. And if one church decides to be different by doing the opposite, it's going to create confusion by mixing up the symbols. So my guess is that Paul would say if you have good reason in your situation that love demands some other practice, judge for yourselves and do it. But otherwise, don't be contentious. Let's just be consistent and avoid confusion. Now I realize there's still a lot of questions to answer. I'm going to try to address some of them, as many of them as I can in the next podcast. But let me say in conclusion that I don't think it's an accident that this passage immediately follows the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. I think Paul is applying the same principle to head coverings that he applied to eating the meat sacrificed to idols. Even if an action is allowed as part of our freedom in Christ, we should avoid actions that are culturally shocking or offensive, especially if those actions might confuse the gospel. There was nothing sinful in a woman removing her head covering, but it was not wise given the cultural reaction to it in Corinth. So I would say wearing head coverings is not binding today. It was an issue of what message we are communicating to our culture. So what can we learn from this passage? First, I think women can pray and teach in public. Second, women and wives do not need to wear head coverings today unless they are in a cultural situation where it would be expected. And third, we need to seriously consider the message our actions send to our culture and make sure we're not confusing the gospel. You've been listening to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. My mission is to teach both what the Bible means and how we know. I really appreciate you listening, and I have three favors to ask. Subscribe to the podcast, leave a positive review wherever you listen to your podcast, and tell a friend. And if you can only do one thing, telling a friend is best. I do not accept advertising on my website, nor do I ask for donations, but it does encourage me to hear what you've learned. I try to answer as many emails as I can, and I hope I hear from you soon. If you'd like to learn more or hear previous episodes of this podcast, go to wednesdayintheword.com. Our theme music is graciously provided by my friend Reggie Coates. You can find his music on heartfeltmusic.org. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I'll meet you here next time at Wednesday in the Word.