We would much prefer that this passage had no difficulties. It is not perverseness on our part, nor any desire to avoid clearly expressed Bible teaching which makes us list the following. These are difficulties which make any exposition of this passage uncertain, and any application has to be a matter of balancing the issue in relation to clearly expressed Bible principles as a whole.

(a) New Life in Christ

The essence of Paul’s understanding of the significance of the new life in Christ is that it is not a matter of following regulations on food, ceremonial observances or special days.

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.                                                      (Galatians 5:1)

If no headcovering for men but headcovering for women was in itself a basic principle, we would expect to find it specified in other passages in the Bible. While it is not impossible for a new doctrine to be introduced in just one passage, it is odd that there is no mention of any requirement for headcovering elsewhere. What is emphasised elsewhere is a criticism of ritual practices and a stress on spiritual worship. If therefore this passage is enunciating a new ritual practice for all time, it appears to run counter to the spirit and teaching of Jesus and the New Testament.

(b) Headcovering for men in the Old Testament

Headcovering for men in the form of bonnets/caps was prescribed for the priests, so would have been observed in the Temple. Jewish practice for men in general, perhaps in the first century and certainly later, approved the wearing of headcoverings for men when at prayer. It is strange, therefore, if Paul without further explanation denounces this as a disgrace (1 Corinthians 11:4), especially as a few verses previously he has instructed the Corinthians to be as accommodating as possible towards both Jews and Greeks.

Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.

                                                                                  (1 Corinthians 10:32)

Paul was careful to fit in with the Jews over circumcision for Timothy (Acts 16:3) and in Acts 18 he grew his hair long according to the Nazirite vow. It seems surprising and inconsistent if he is now condemning Jewish practice as disgraceful (1 Corinthians 11:4, 7).

(c) What Kind of Covering?

In translation, the impression is given that the same types of coverings are under discussion; men are not to wear headcoverings, while women must.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head.                       (1 Corinthians 11:4-5. KJV)

In Greek however the expressions are different, and the passage therefore may be referring to two different things. The Greek translated “having his head covered” is literally “having down from head” (kata kephales echon), while of the woman the expression is “with the head uncovered” (akatakalypto te kephale). In verse 6 & 7, however, the same verb is used of both (katakalyptesthai – “to be covered”). The suggestion is that men are told not to pull part of their clothing over their heads (as was the normal Roman practice when a priest offered sacrifice), while for a woman it is talking about keeping on her marriage veil.

(d) Veils or Long Hair?

Some translations use the term “veil”, but the word “veil” never appears in the original Greek.[1] In verses 6, 14 and 15 mention is made of hair. There is therefore some difficulty in knowing how much the instructions are about hair length, and whether it is hair length or veils that are intended.

(e) Brothers and Sisters, or Husbands and Wives?

Is the passage talking about brothers and sisters in general, or about husbands and wives? The King James Version translates verse 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.

(1 Corinthians 11:3, KJV)

The RSV translates:

I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 

(1 Corinthians 11:3, RSV)

In Greek the same word is used for man as for husband (aner); likewise the Greek word gyne means either woman or wife according to context. It is sometimes argued that Paul teaches here that sisters in general in the ecclesia are subordinate to brothers in general: that every brother is the head of every sister. Although Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 11:12 to man and woman rather than husband and wife, it does not seem likely that this whole passage is to be taken as referring to men and women in general for 1 Corinthians 11 is singular throughout, i.e. it does not say “the sisters” or “the brothers”. If reference is made to Genesis 3:16 (“he shall rule over you”), of which several interpretations are possible, the passage nevertheless is in a husband-wife situation and does not say that all men in general should rule over all women. Nowhere else does the New Testament teach that brothers are the head of the sisters, only that the husband is the head of his wife as in Ephesians 5:23. Here verse 3 in the RSV says “any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head”, which suggests her husband rather than all the men in the ecclesia. A woman’s veil indicated that her head was her husband; only unmarried girls and widows were not expected to wear veils. There seems good reason to think, as the RSV translators have done, that Paul is talking about the relationship between husband and wife in 1 Corinthians 11.

(f) Does Paul mean all who attend?

Is the passage referring to all who are at a meeting, or only to those who take a spoken part in praying and prophesying? Since prophesying has to be a spoken activity and praying and prophesying are linked, it seems reasonable to think that the reference is only to those who are speaking out loud in prayer or prophecy. Such brothers and sisters would be in the public eye and could, according to the customs of the time, be thought to be breaking accepted standards.

(g) Does Paul mean praying on every occasion?

If the passage refers to silent praying, not just spoken prayer, should sisters cover their heads when grace is said at meals, when offering silent prayers during the day, or when prayer is said before going to sleep at night? Sometimes prayer is introduced by a phrase such as “Let us come into the presence of God”, but according to Bible teaching, we are always in the presence of Jesus and of God. This is a permanent spiritual reality, and is independent of where we are and what we are wearing:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.   (2 Corinthians 3:17-18)

(h) What was happening in Corinth?

The facts are unknown, and here, as elsewhere, we need to deduce the circumstances from the letter Paul wrote. Evidently some brothers were covering their heads (in whatever sense the words are translated) when praying and prophesying, and were possibly wearing their hair long. Some sisters, by contrast, when praying and prophesying were not covering their heads, and were possibly wearing their hair short (verse 15).

(i) The Meaning of “Head”

The manner in which “head” is used in this passage appears to be different from usage elsewhere. In Ephesians 5 Paul teaches that “the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church”. In this sense, Christ is head of the man, and Christ is also head of the woman (for the church consists of both men and women). In 1 Corinthians 11, the impression is given that this is not so: Christ is head of every man, and the head of a wife is her husband. Is Christ not therefore the head of the wife? Or is he only indirectly her head, through her husband?

(j) “The shorn woman”

The last part of verse 5 is translated in the RSV: “– it is the same as if her head were shaven”. The NIV alternative reading says: “– she is just like one of the ‘shorn women’”. The literal translation is: “It is one and the same thing to the (feminine) shaved”. Note the NIV alternative which puts inverted commas round “shorn women”, but the Greek is singular and it would have been better to translate “to the shorn woman”. The suggestion is that a woman who was accused of adultery was punished by having her hair shaved off, but it is an obscure phrase.

(k) The Image of God

According to verse 7, only man (masculine) is the image of God; yet Genesis 1:26-27 states that man (i.e. male and female human beings) is created in the image of God.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... and let them have dominion....” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 (Genesis 1:26-27)

Many commentators consider that Paul is inaccurately drawing the term from Genesis 1. We suggest, instead, that this could be taken as an indication that Paul is dealing primarily with Genesis 2. But other explanations are possible too.

(l) Glory of God

According to verse 7, “… man is the glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”

This needs to be seen in the context that both men and women are created to be the glory of God.

… bring my sons from afar

and my daughters from the end of the earth,

everyone who is called by my name,

whom I created for my glory,

whom I formed and made.  (Isaiah 43:6-7)

(m) “The Woman ought to have authority”

“Authority” in verse 10 is sometimes translated as “veil” (thought to be the symbol of authority) and sometimes as “husband’s authority”. Elsewhere in the New Testament the word always means the authority of the person who possesses it, the authority to do something. In verse 10 the normal translation would mean that the woman has authority over her own head (i.e. how she dresses it), her own authority not someone else’s. (Compare Paul’s use of “authority” in 1 Corinthians 7:37 and 8:9, where it means the right or liberty to do something.) A parallel could be seen in how officials wear a uniform to indicate the position they hold in the job they are doing.

(n) “In the Lord”

Although the first half of the passage seems to present the woman/wife as in a subordinate position to the man/husband, verse 11 qualifies or even revokes this.

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man so man is now born of woman.  And all things are from God.

“In the Lord” – which is the true position for believers – there is “not male and female”, as Paul has stated in Galatians 3:28.

(o) “Because of the angels”

There are various suggestions but no certain knowledge as to the meaning of the phrase “because of the angels” (verse 10). Suggestions include:

(1) “Sons of God” as in Genesis 6:2, who therefore could be tempted by attractive, unveiled, sisters. This understanding of Genesis was given by the writer of the apocryphal book of Enoch:

In those days, when the children of man had multiplied, it happened that there were born unto them handsome and beautiful daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw them and desired them, and they said to one another, “Come let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and beget us children.”                  (Enoch 6:1-2)

(2) Angels in charge of order in the world:

… we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men.

(1 Corinthians 4:9)

(3) Good angels present with believers:

Are they [angels] not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?                            (Hebrews 1:14)

(4) Personal guardian angels:

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.”                                                                      (Matthew 18:10)

(5) Inter-ecclesial messengers, like the messengers (angeloi – the same word exactly) who were sent to Jesus by John the Baptist (Luke 7:24, cf. James 2:25). Phoebe could be considered in this category too (Romans 16:1-2).

(6) Spies (Galatians 2:4) Paul describes “false brethren secretly brought in … to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus”. In Galatians he is talking about spies from Jerusalem. But the Romans used informants to report back to the government. Security services today infiltrate groups which are under suspicion. Gallio in Acts 18:15 dismissed the dispute which led to the founding of the church in Corinth as an internal Jewish dispute: “… it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law”. The Jews had special dispensation to meet weekly, but Rome did not allow this to others. Rome was worried about subversive movements, and allowed societies and clubs to meet only once a month. It would soon be evident that the Christians were not regarded as Jews by the Jews in Corinth, and their weekly meetings would be regarded as illegal if the authorities realised that something un-Jewish was happening. Praying and prophesying by women would certainly mark a difference, and even more so if they behaved in a manner which infringed the Roman concern for dress and propriety. “The messengers”, therefore, may be those who could take such information to the Roman authorities: the meetings were public, and unbelievers could attend (1 Corinthians 14:23).

(p) “Does not nature teach you?”

It seems strange to say that nature (verse 14) teaches that long hair is degrading to a man. When left uncut men’s hair by nature grows long, and this receives approval in other parts of the Bible. In Acts 18:18 Paul cut his hair after a vow, which means that he was living and teaching at Corinth for some time before this with long hair himself (Acts 18:5-18). See instructions for the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6).[2]

 (q) “For a covering” or “Instead of a covering”?

What does verse 15 mean when it says that long hair is a woman’s pride and is given to her for/instead of a covering? The words “to her” are considered as of doubtful textual validity[3]. The word “for” (anti) would normally be translated as “instead of”, “in place of” but because translators have felt that Paul could not have meant this, they have said “as” or “for” a covering.

(r) “It is proper”

It is possible to translate verses 13-15 as follows:

Judge for yourselves. It is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered, and nature itself does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory, for hair is given [to men and women] instead of a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such practice [as headcovering] – nor do the churches of God.                                       (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)

By translating the first few verses of 1 Corinthians 11 as statements, verses 13-15 are normally seen as questions. But perhaps the position should be reversed: Paul starts with questions and produces verses 13-15 as statements of his position. No question words are used to indicate a question in any of these sections, and Greek had little or no punctuation, so we rely on translations and the text-editors’ punctuation. If we read verses 13-15 as straightforward statements, we need to consider that some of the earlier part consists of questions presented to Paul and which he is quoting or paraphrasing in order to answer. As explained on pages 41-52, it is possible to translate the whole passage differently.

(s) Hair decoration

The comments in 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 about fancy hair decoration imply that the hair of sisters could normally be seen in public. It is not easy to fit this in with their wearing veils; hence the alternative interpretation (explained on pages 36-40) that this passage is talking about a kind of hairstyle which received social acceptance as respectable.

(t) “We do not have such a practice”

Verse 16 does not say “We recognise no other practice” (RSV). It literally says: “We do not recognise such a practice.” Such a practice as what? Such a practice as headcovering, other than by long hair? Again, this might be an indication that the earlier part of chapter 11 is from people in Corinth.

With an awareness of these points, let us examine the four suggested interpretations in the hope that some satisfactory explanation may be discovered. And if we feel worried by the difficulties of understanding, let us remember that 1 Corinthians 11 is considered by everybody to be a difficult passage. The approach of Jesus and Paul is to follow positive, general principles, and though this passage may present us with problems, the basic Christian attitudes are clear elsewhere.