I’ve heard three beliefs about the covering that is referred to in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 beginning in verse 3. I’d like to break it down and hear what others think about what the true message of the scripture is. I’ll be covering verses 3 through 16.
- One belief I’ve heard has been made known by women who wear a bonnet such as Mennonite and Amish women. My understanding is they believe a woman’s head is to be physically covered.
- Another belief I’ve heard has been from women of the United Pentecostal Church who believe a woman’s long hair to be the covering as there is specific reference to it in the scripture. There are other denominations and religions that also believe in long hair or the covering of their heads by a particular garment.
- A third belief is that scripture is referring to covering in more of a spiritual sense; the man being the covering over the woman and God being the covering over man, though Christ sees them as one. When hearing this view, which I lean toward as well, I think of Genesis 3:16 where God tells Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” People with this view also tend to believe the reference of a physical covering was stated because during the time in which this scripture was written, it was considered odd for a woman to be uncovered. Please follow with me and let me know what you think…
“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (Vs. 3)
This verse sets the stage, so to speak, for me. It gives credit to the third definition I’ve stated…
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn, But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” (Vs. 4-6)
I believe they are literally referring to a covering, but the “as if” in verse 5 leads me to believe Paul is using a parallel of the cultural dress to convey a point about spiritual covering…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.” (Vs. 7-12)
These verses seem to give some validation to all three beliefs. It kind of looks like here there is an actual physical covering in reference because Christ had been established as the covering of man, but now it’s stating man’s head doesn’t need to be covered because he is in the image of the glory of God. I have had a tendency to skip over this section because I become confused here. When I go to the next set of verses, I feel like I’m back on track…
“Judge among 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 a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” (Vs. 13-15)
So, by “judging among” ourselves, does this mean then we have a choice? It’s obvious a woman’s longer hair is considered her covering and since it’s been established than women need a covering but men don’t because of their image of the glory of God. I’m seeing reference to a spiritual covering in addition to a physical one here. I would like to know if this hierarchy of sort was established because of the result of sin in Genesis where women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands. Finally, verse 16…
“But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
The belief I’ve gathered from this is, clearly, the third definition named is accurate and, it is my belief that the other two views I’ve mentioned are with option. What do you think? Please post your comments on the forum for discussion.
Scriptural references are quoted from the NKJV.