The Woman's Covering
First Corinthians 11:2-16 is a much disagreed upon passage among brethren. Thus, it always strikes a spark of interest when it comes up. I believe that if brethren will put preconceived ideas out of their minds and just take the chapter along with a good word study like Vine or Thayer (or both) they can arrive at an understanding of the passage. Herein I attempt to direct such a study.
Application Not Limited To Those Who Had Scriptural Gifts
The subject of the passage is the line of subjectivity, i.e., God is over Christ, who is over man, who is over woman, Paul then develops the idea of woman's subjection to man. The covering of the passage is a mark or token of this subjection. The fact that the very point that Paul was developing is as applicable today as it was then is a pretty strong indication that what he said is as applicable today as it was then. And I believe that a close look at the passage will show that the view that the passage is limited in application to persons who had spiritual gifts is false.
Verse 3 - Head of every man is Christ. Is Christ not the head of every man today?
Verse 3 - Head of the woman is the man. Is not man still head of the woman?
Verse 4 - Every man praying or prophesying with head covered dishonoreth his head. Does this just apply to the men who had spiritual gifts?
Verse 5 - Every woman praying or prophesying with head uncovered... Is this limited to those women who had spiritual gifts?
Verse 6 - If it be a shame for a woman to be shorn, let her be covered. Does this have no application today?
Verse 7 - For a man indeed ought not to cover his head. Is this limited to the man with spiritual gifts?
Verse 7 - Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. Is man not the image and glory of God today?
Verse 8 - The woman is not of the man. Could this be limited to those who had spiritual gifts?
Verse 9 - Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Would you limit this to those who had spiritual gifts?
Verse 10 - For this cause the woman ought to have power on her head. Is it indeed not necessary for woman today to have power (sign of subjection) on her head?
Verse 11 - The man is not without the woman and the woman not without the man. Limited to those with spiritual gifts, you say?
Verse 12 - As the woman is of the man, so is the man by the woman. Could this be limited to those who had spiritual gifts?
Verse 13 - Is it comely that a woman pray uncovered? Is this limited to those women who had spiritual gifts?
Verse 14 - Does not nature teach that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him? Did I hear some -one say that it does not apply today?
Verse 15 - If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her. Is not long hair a glory to a godly woman today?
Verse 15 - Hair is given her for a covering. Isn't hair a covering for woman today?
Prophesying was a spiritual gift, but not necessarily so of prayer. And the context shows that prayer is to be understood in its general sense - not just praying with the spirit, a spiritual gift. Out of the above seventeen quotations, I know of only three that men have claimed to be limited to those who had spiritual gifts - verses 4, 5, and 13. Thus, it seems evident that to so apply these three verses is to lift them out of context. Therefore, I conclude that the application is general; it included men and women with spiritual gifts and it includes men and women without spiritual gifts. It is applicable today.
Covering - Katakalupto - Verses 4,5,6,7,13
The word (katakalupto) translated covering in these verses is defined: "To cover up... to cover oneself... having (something) down the head." - Vine. And, "To cover up...to veil or cover one's self, one's head." - Thayer. Hence, covering here just means "having something down the head." In these verses the covering is not identified. The word could mean a covering of hair down the head or an artificial covering down the head. So we must look further for identify of the covering.
The Covering Identified - Verses 13-15
Paul asked two questions that sum up the point. (1) "Is it comely that a woman pray to God uncovered." And (2) "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" In verses 4 and 5 he spoke of a man being covered and a woman being uncovered. In verses 13 and 14 he spoke of a man having long hair and a woman being uncovered. Thus, "long hair" is used synonymously with "covered." Then it plainly states that "her hair is given her for a covering." Therefore, the covering that is to hang down the head of the woman in verse 6 is "long hair."
Further Proof That "Long Hair" Is The Covering In This Chapter - Verse 15
Here we have a different word translated "covering." it is "peribolaion," and is defined: "Denotes something thrown around; hence, a veil, covering, I Cor. 11:15, or a mantle around the body, a vesture, Heb. 1:12." - Vine. And, "A covering thrown around, a wrapper, a mantle." - Thayer. This is the only word in the passage that specifically means an artificial covering.
The word translated "for" in verse 15 is "anti" and is defined: "Instead of, in place of, to serve as a covering." - Thayer. Thus, the verse is saying that LONG HAIR WAS GIVEN A WOMAN INSTEAD OF AN ARTIFICIAL COVERING, Here is the way it is in Berry's Interlinear: "But if a woman have long hair; glory to her it is; for the long hair instead of a covering is given her,"
Now, if Paul had talked for eleven verses about the Lord's Supper and then concluded by telling us that unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine were the elements of the Supper, I would make myself absurd to argue that some other elements were meant in the first eleven verses. Just so, as Paul did talk about the covering for eleven verses and then conclude by telling us that long hair is the element of the covering, does not one make himself absurd to argue that some other element was meant in the first eleven verses? Why, he even said that long hair was given her instead of an artificial covering! That should settle the matter.
How Long Is "Long Hair"?
This is determined by both the context and by the word Paul used. From the context we see:
1. Woman is to be in submission to man.
2. A covering of long hair is the token of this submission.
3. Thus, woman's hair must be long enough to clearly distinguish between her and man.
From the word "katakalupto" we see:
1. Something has to be down the head.
2. Hair is the something, verse 15.
3. Thus, woman's hair must be long enough to hang down the head.
The conclusion is that a woman's hair must be long enough to hang down the head and to clearly distinguish between her and a man.
Does this mean that it is wrong for a woman to cut her hair? Not necessarily so, for a woman can cut her hair and still have hair down the head that distinguishes between her and a man. If a man had hair down to his waist and then cut off four inches, would he have hair short enough to satisfy the demands of the passage or would he still have "long hair"? All agree that he would still have "long hair." Just so, when a woman has hair down to her waist and then cuts off four inches, she still has "long hair." She still satisfies the demands of the passage and has not sinned.
Four Lengths Of Hair Under Consideration - Verse 6 1. The covered state - longhair as defined above.
2. The uncovered state - hair that is too short to hang down the head and to distinguish woman from a man, but still not cropped off.
3. Shorn or cropped hair.
4. Shaven like a man's face.
Paraphrase Of Verse 6
For if a woman does not cover herself with hair down her head, let her also go so far as to crop her hair; but if it be a shame for a woman to crop her hair or to shave her head, let her be covered with hair down her head.
Why Did Paul Just Demand The Covering When Praying Or Prophesying?
As long hair was the covering, to have long hair when praying or prophesying was to have long hair all the time. A woman's hair is not something that she puts on and off. If she had long hair when she prayed or prophesied, she had long hair all the time; thus, Paul just said when she was praying or prophesying. Of course, we have no woman who prophesy today, but we do have women who pray. And if their prayer life is very constant, and if they have long hair when they pray, they have long hair all the time. It would be impossible for our women to be covered with long hair when they pray and then not have the covering at other times. Therefore, if our women have long hair when they pray, they cannot appear any place or any time without the covering that Paul enjoins. In other words, when he enjoined the covering of long hair when praying, that took complete care of the situation; nothing further needed to be specified.
Conclusion - Verse 16
This verse says that the rules Paul had here laid down are binding and any other practice is not recognized by the apostles or churches of God. The Revised Version reads: "If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." Thus, women must obey the instructions herein given or their practice is not recognized by God.
-Route 2, Box 233 Odessa, Texas 79760