This is an exploration of Paul’s discussion about women being veiled in worship (1 Cor 11:3-16).

1 Corinthians 11:3 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. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. 6 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. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. ¹³ Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him, ¹⁵ but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. ¹⁶ But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (NAS).

This is a passage which I have personally found difficult to understand, and which others have been divided on. To my knowledge, there are two positions which have been taken in regard to this. The first is that taken by conservative Open Brethren and Free Presbyterians, that is, that women must cover their heads during church worship services or during prayer meetings. This involves hats or scarves. Women are free to remove these head coverings outside of times of structured worship. The second position is that this passage reflects the culture of the first century and is therefore irrelevant to cultures in which women do not wear veils. Those who hold this view seem to generally ignore this passage as if it is did not exist and find no application of it to present day society.

Neither of these positions on the passage seems adequate to my mind. The first, at least, attempts to apply the passage to contemporary settings. But my experience in churches which insist that women cover their heads during worship would not allow a woman to speak in church at all and certainly not to prophesy. Not only this, but I doubt that Paul is suggesting that first century women in Corinth should be unveiled outside of church if that culture considered women being unveiled as shameful. The second position has the advantage of acknowledging the reality that contemporary Western culture is very different to the culture of the first century in Corinth. However, it cannot be appropriate to then ignore this passage as if it were non-existent. I assume that this passage is present in the New Testament within the sovereignty of God and therefore has something to say to Christians in 21^st century Australia (and the Western world in general, since Australia does not stand apart from Western culture).

I believe that this passage has something to say about male and female roles in the church and in society and can therefore be applied (with care) to our culture. There are, I believe, two keys to understanding what Paul is saying in the passage: the relationships within the trinity and the sacramental nature of marriage as it mirrors the relationship between Christ and the church.

The first key to understanding what Paul is speaking about here is the relationships within the Trinity. Verse 3 “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.” Within the complex of headship that Paul discusses is the relationship between Christ and God, or, to put this another way, between the Son and the Father. The fathers of the church insisted that Jesus is homoousios (of one substance) with the Father. Subordinationism was decisively rejected, yet it can be said that the Father is the source of the Son.[1] The Son is begotten of the Father (although not in time). The Son is distinct from the Father because we cannot speak of Father and Son if these are not two distinct persons. The Father is not the Son nor is the Son the Spirit, but each person in the Godhead is distinct from each other person, even while they share the same essence.[2] It is important for our understanding of God that we recognise these two facts: that Jesus is equal with the Father and that he is distinct from the Father in his personhood. Here is the reality which Paul is trying to convey to the Corinthian church.

Paul goes on to speak of the distinct ways in which men and women (or husbands and wives) are to behave. He does this because of the fact that humanity is created in the image of God, but humanity is not made as one indistinct set of people, rather human beings are created as male and female. Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” One of the ways in which human beings image the creator is to be male and female, that is to exhibit distinctions. This is because there are distinctions within the Trinity. Just as the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, Adam was not the same as Eve nor Eve the same as Adam. There are certain characteristics which all humans share regardless of gender, by which we are defined as human. But the distinctions of gender are important in understanding humanity.

These distinctions of gender are what Paul is trying to emphasise in 1 Corinthians 11. For some reason (possibly a misunderstanding that the resurrection of the dead had occurred and thus marriage had become irrelevant so the Corinthians thought of themselves as genderless like the angels – see Matt 22:30) the Corinthian believers did not see the importance of distinguishing between genders. This passage suggests that some men were dressing or acting like women or that some women were dressing like men, having short hair and going unveiled. Apparently, from the argument that Paul adopts here, it was considered culturally unacceptable for women to have short hair and to go about unveiled. Paul asks (verse 6), “For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil.” This is apparently rhetorical. He is not suggesting that women should shave their heads, but rather that women are shamed in that culture when they have shaved heads. For the women of 1^st century Corinth, going about without a veil amounted to a disgrace.

While the church felt “liberated” and able to do whatever they pleased (no doubt because of their understanding of grace cf. 6:12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.), there are some ways of behaving which are not beneficial. Abandoning gender differences is one such practice. In order to make this point Paul employs a number of different arguments and makes use of the word kephalē in various different (possibly overlapping) ways. Kephalē, I think, has three related meanings, being used to mean head as in the uppermost part of the body, head as in one with authority, and source (i.e. the head of a river)[3].

He begins with kephalē as authority. (Verse 3) “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.” Then Paul goes on to argue that for a woman to have an unveiled head (top of the body) to is dishonour her head (either her husband or the top of her body or both), because being unveiled is the same as being shaved. It is shameful for a woman to unveil her head. This seems to be an argument from the culture of that city and that century. Because it is culturally shameful for women to have short hair and unveiled heads, it is not appropriate for women in that culture to act that way. In the most literal sense, an unveiled woman dishonours her head, that is, the top of her body, by having a man’s hairstyle and dress. Why is it that women dishonour their heads if they pray or prophesy that way? The reason, I believe, lies in the matter of appropriate behaviour for the female gender. I am not saying that this is appropriate behaviour for all cultures and for all times, but certainly it was not appropriate behaviour for those women in that time and that culture. If women pray or prophesy while dressing like men then they are denying the importance of gender roles and gender differences. When a woman denies that being female is important in manner, in dress, and in role, then she dishonours her head, that is her husband in this instance. Women and men are different and marriage cannot be marriage if that were not so. The one flesh union of man and wife, to give one example, is not something which is possible without physical differences in men and women.[4]

1 Corinthians 11:7 “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” Then Paul switches to an argument about the order of creation. Adam was created first and then Eve. At first glance Paul seems to be saying that women are not in the image of God, but I don’t think that this should be understood in this way. I believe that an understanding of these verses will require that we look at several other passages in turn.

Let’s begin in Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” It is clear here that male and female are created in the image of God. Humanity is like God, and part of the way in which this is so is to have two genders. There is no female inferiority implied in the Genesis account. However, there is an order, and that order is important in the New Testament understanding of the roles of men and women.

Genesis 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

The Genesis account shows that Adam was created first and placed in the garden which God had made. Adam was alone in the garden and he alone was given the command of God regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But God saw that Adam was alone and decided to create a companion for him[5]. Having brought all the animals to Adam and having found none which were suitable helpers for him, God put Adam to sleep and took Eve from Adam’s side. So Paul can say that man did not come from woman but the woman came from man, and also that the woman was formed for the man not the man for the woman. Both of these are true because of the order of creation.

Again none of this implies that the female gender is inferior to the male gender. The order of creation is significant in terms of the roles which God has assigned to each gender but not significant in terms of importance or status. The way in which Eve was created out of the side of Adam reflects the nature of the Trinity. If we accept that the Father is the fount of the Godhead, and that Jesus is begotten of the Father then we see that the Father brought the Son into being. This did not take place in time, so that “there never was when the Son was not”[6]. Yet in some sense the Son comes from the Father’s side (cf. John 1:18). No orthodox believer would think of the Son being in any way inferior to the Father. The creation of woman out of the side of Adam gives her a status which is equal with Adam’s but a role which is different. She is Adam’s complement, and must therefore be different, balancing his masculine qualities with her feminine qualities.

The way in which Eve was created out of Adam’s side also reflects the creation of the church out of the side of Christ.[7] This brings us to the sacramental nature of marriage.

Eph 5:21 “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church– 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery– but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

Marriage is, as Paul says here, a mystery representing Christ and the church. In order to represent the union of Christ and the church, gender differentiation is necessary. Husbands and wives have different roles in marriage. Wives, as representative of the church, should submit to husbands. Husbands, as representative of Christ, are to love their wives and care for them in a sacrificial way. The sacramental nature of marriage means that these roles must neither be confused nor reversed, regardless of culture, gifting or any other factor. Gender differentiation must not be ignored or undone in the church. The matter of women being veiled and men unveiled in 1 Corinthians is only one aspect of gender differentiation. Other aspects are possibly of more importance in the present Australian church. Back to this later on.

The passage in 1 Corinthians affirms that women should act and dress like women, and that men should act and dress like men. Female and male roles are different due to the order of creation. But this passage also affirms that women are to use the gifts which they have been given by God. The exhortation is for women not to prophesy with unveiled heads. Prophecy is a gift which Paul ranks as important in this letter. In his discussion about gifts in chapters 12 and 14 Paul places prophesy above speaking in tongues. 1 Corinthians 14:1 “Pursue love and strive for the spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy.” 1 Corinthians 12:28 “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.” Here prophets are second only to apostles in importance in the church.[8] That (at least some) women are expected to prophesy in church makes it clear that women are not inferior in terms of the gifts which are given them by God.

The difference between the use of gifts for men and women is not that one gender is restricted to a particular set of gifts, but that in the use of those gifts each gender should act in accordance with their own gender. Women should use their gifts in keeping with the fact that they are female. Men should use their gifts in keeping with their masculinity. Women should not try to usurp male authority (1 Tim 2:12) while at the same time justifying this on the basis of gifting. Men should not remain passive on the basis that they are lacking certain gifts. But men and women must faithfully use their gifts as men and as women respectively.

The passage ends with a statement that a woman should have authority on her head because of the angels. Why do the angels have anything to do with the way men and women dress in church? I believe that the answer to this question lies in the fact that angels are part of the spiritual realm. Because angels are before the throne of God they are aware of the nature of God as three-in-one. Angels, I believe, understand the reality that God is Father, Son and Spirit, and that therefore God has within his being diversity in unity. They are aware of the reality that within the Trinity, the divine Persons are distinct and play distinct roles in salvation and in the world. Specifically, the Father sends the Son into the world to die, the Son lives a human life and dies for sins of the human race, and the Holy Spirit is now the presence of Christ in the church and in the world.

Not only are angels beings which operate within the heavenly realm, they are also sent to minister to those who will inherit salvation (Heb 1:14), namely the people of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Spirit. Angels are, therefore, present during times when the church gathers together. The clear spiritual sensitivity of those who dwell with God in heaven means that angels will be offended by behaviour (in church) which denies the different roles of men and women. When men do not act like men and women do not act like women, then they implicitly (and in some instances explicitly) deny the distinctions of the Persons within the trinity. This denial of the heavenly reality of who God is in Godself is offensive to the angels.

For this reason, Paul says that a woman should have [a symbol of] authority on her head. For the 1^st century Corinthian church, this was clearly a veil because the wearing of a veil showed that women were women and therefore they recognised, in the way they dressed, the place and role of women in that culture. Wearing a veil in public was a means by which women honoured their husbands. I am not sure what might be an appropriate way in which women in 21^st century Australia might have authority on their heads.[9] Some suggestions would be that Christian women should dress modestly (all the time not simply in Christian gatherings) since immodest dress does not honour a husband. Also the way a women dresses should be indicative of being female. In the present day there are, sadly, many people (both male and female) who are unhappy about their gender and attempt to live and dress in ways which suggest that they would rather have another gender. I would say that this is not an appropriate way for Christian women (and men) to behave or to dress. Thirdly, a way to honour husbands in terms of dress would be to attempt to dress in a way which is pleasing to the husband. I say this knowing that men sometimes have particular preferences for the way in which their wives dress. (This is not a licence for men to be controlling in every way about what their wives do, but rather a voluntary sign of submission on the part of the wife.)

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is a passage which is generally applied (if applied at all – see above) to women. Women must cover their heads in church etc. However, the passage speaks also to men. Men should not cover their heads while praying or prophesying. Instead of using this passage to target women in the church, and even to “put women in their place”, as has been the case in various churches, let us see this passage as having something to say to both genders. Many men have abdicated their God-given gifts and calling, believing that church and spirituality are a matter for women. Men must act like men in church and in marriage. Let us consider that dressing and acting like men who are not afraid of masculinity is an important corollary of this passage.