(A) Introduction. (Read the reference)

This is a very perplexing passage for the modern reader. Parts of it are difficult to translate from the Greek and seem to have defeated the best efforts of the scholars responsible for different versions of the Bible. I find it incredible that three different Greek words are all given the meaning 'covered' or 'covering'. I am grateful for Jerome Murphy-O'Connor for his interpretation of these verses. I agree with him - except for his reluctance to admit that Paul taught woman to be submissive to men! However much I might regret the fact that Paul taught this I cannot deny that he does so in his epistles on at least four occasions.

Paul commences this section of his letter promisingly: I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. v2. It appears that after raising some controversial matters to do with sex and attending feasts in pagan temples where they may have differed from Paul the Corinthians were at pains in their communication to reassure the apostle that in most things they held to his teachings. I wonder if there is just a hint of irony about Paul's praise! Paul did not depend upon the assertion of the Corinthians alone. Members of the household of Chloe had visited Corinth and brought a tale of woe back to Ephesus. They had been scandalised by the way men and women wore their hair. They had never seen anything like it!

(B) What was it that annoyed Paul?

(1) It wasn't that men prayed wearing hats and women didn't. There is no reason that this should have shocked Paul. Jews prayed with their heads covered and still do. The narrative in Genesis that Paul quotes in this passage applied as much to Jews as to Christians. The Jews used it to demonstrate the inferiority of women who were segregated from men in the synagogue and never participated in public worship at all.

(2) If the proper use of hats or veils was the issue for Paul why does he bring in the subject of hair length in verses 14 to 16? Why switch from hats to hair?

(3) The problem Paul addressed was all to do with hair! Men were engaging in public worship wearing their hair like women and women were praying and prophesying wearing their hair like men.

The way that respectable Gentile women wore their hair at the time is described in v15: For long hair is given to her as a covering (wrapper). Paul introduces a word that has not been used up to this point and 'wrapper' is a better translation than 'covering'. Women plaited their hair and then coiled it, or wrapped it, round and round on their head to make a sort of cap or covering. I can remembering my mother wearing her very long hair just like this when I was a little boy.

(4) The women at Corinth were no longer styling their hair like this but praying and prophesying in public with it hanging loose and probably trimmed to make it more like a man's. Paul inquired rather nastily why they don't go all the way and have their hair shaved off altogether: If a woman does not cover her head she should have her hair cut off. v6.

The instruction Paul gave the women of Corinth has been completely misread down the years. Paul wrote: For this cause ought the woman to have power on (her) head because of the angels. v10. AV. As Murphy-O'Connor puts it: The most literal translation of Paul's words is 'a woman should exercise control of (her) head.' She should manage her hair properly! She should do so for the sake of the angels! It is probable that again Murphy-O'Connor is right to suggest that this means messengers or visitors. The Greek for 'angel' and 'messenger' is the same. Chloe's people were messengers from the church at Ephesus and were scandalised by the behaviour of the sexes at Corinth.

(5) According to the NIV men were praying with their head covered: Everyman who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. v4. Once again this is not an accurate translation. Yet another completely different Greek word has been translated 'covered' when the literal meaning is, 'having something hanging from the head.' So what was this thing that hung from the head? In all probability it was a pigtail. No doubt men sometimes wound it up and wore it on their head in the same fashion as the women.

Paul was annoyed because men wore their hair like women and women wore it like men. He got steamed up, like many since, over hairstyles!

(C) Why were the Corinthian Christians behaving unconventionally?

There are at least three possible explanations:

(1) It was part of the everything is permissible philosophy. If Christians were free to do anything then they were certainly free to break with convention. An outlandish hairstyle showed that you were liberated - a bit like the women who burned their bras (except they didn't!).

(2) It was a way to be different - to show that you belonged to the freedom loving Pauline faction. These Christians were neither traditionalists nor legalists and probably considered themselves the natural allies of Paul. This made it especially hard for Paul to scold them.

(3) It was a very childish demonstration of one of Paul's teachings: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal3v25. What better way to assert this oneness than for men to look like women and women to look like men. This motive seems the most likely because Paul argues strongly in this passage that although one in Christ Jesus men and women are very different.

(D) Why was Paul so cross?

(1) Paul was certainly cross! Everyman who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. v4and5.

Paul doesn't accuse the Corinthians of dishonouring God or Jesus or the church. No they were putting themselves to shame; bringing disgrace upon themselves. We sometimes use the word 'head' like this when we say, "On your own head be it", meaning, the outcome will be your responsibility.

The question remains: Was Paul justified in making such a fuss over hairstyles? Most people today have a very relaxed attitude to hair.

(2) One of the reasons for Paul's unease was that hairstyle was an important distinguishing feature between men and women. Both sexes dressed alike in flowing robes.

I think we might be disturbed if men came to church in dresses and women attended in strictly masculine attire. This could happen in very liberal, feminised churches in the U.S.A. that promote gay relationships as God honouring. In Paul's time there was a tendency for lesbians to wear their hair short and homosexuals to wear it long.

Women, although not inferior to men, are different. It is impossible to say what is inferior and what is superior unless comparing like with like. It is foolish to claim that an elephant is superior to a wasp. It may be superior in strength and intelligence but the wasp is far better at flying, stinging and sculpting. In several places in his epistles Paul makes it clear that differences between men and women are very important. Therefore he would be very upset if the sexes were failing to recognise these differences and suggesting by the way they wore their hair that such dissimilarities were irrelevant.

(E) The arguments Paul uses.

(1) It is possible to be one but different.
Now I want you to realise that the head of everyman is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. v3.

It is not immediately obvious what Paul is getting at by this statement. I occasionally feel quite sorry for the Corinthians. This epistle was read out to them and it must have been very hard to take it all in!

At the time Paul wrote his letter the word 'head' was never used for the leader of a group. It does not mean 'supreme over'. It was commonly employed, as today, for the source of a river or beginning of a valley. Now the source, upper, middle and lower reaches and mouth of a river are one - they are the river. But they are also distinct and stand in different relationships to each other. The mouth of a river depends on the source; there would be no mouth without a source.

So let us see how this applies to what Paul has written:

(a) And the head of Christ is God. Jesus said: "I and the Father are one." Jn10v30. See also Phil2v6. Jesus was not inferior to God but his relationship to God was different from God's relationship to him. He was the Son and God was his Father. The Father takes precedence. Jesus submitted to his Heavenly Father. He said: "For I always do what pleases him." Jn8v30. When Jesus pleased his Father it did not lessen him!

(b) The head of everyman is Christ. I take this to mean that the Christ is the head of everyone who believes. Men are not one with Christ in creation but in redemption. Jesus prayed: "I have made you(God) known to them, and will continue to make you known to them in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." John17v26. Christ is in us and we are in him. Christians are sons of God and joint heirs with Jesus.

But we are, of course, different from Jesus in spite of our oneness with him. Our relationship to him is not the same as his relationship to us. He is the head - the source of our redemption and change in status. He is the Saviour and we are the saved. It behoves us to be submissive to him.

(c)The head of the woman is the man. It should be evident by now that although a man and woman might be one in marriage and one in Christ the man's relationship to the woman is not identical to the woman's relationship to the man.

Men and women are one in the same way that two pieces of a jig saw that fit together are one. A man and a woman compliment each other. Paul does teach, and there is no getting away from it, that woman was made for man. Once again there is the idea that women should be dependent and submissive - just as Jesus was dependent upon his Father and submissive to him without being inferior to him. If a woman is submissive in church she is not lessened any more than by doing his Father's will Jesus was diminished.

(2) The argument from creation.
Paul taught that the Biblical account of creation indicates men and women will be different because God created them for dissimilar purposes. Man was created for God's own pleasure - since he is the image and glory of God. v7. Woman was created for man's pleasure - but woman is the glory of man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man. v9.

(3) The argument from nature.
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. v14.

Biological differences exist between men and women. Man's hair actually grows faster than a woman's but it grows for a much shorter period before it falls out and is replaced by new hair. (Except when a man is going bald.) This means women can on average grow their hair longer than men. Paul was aware that biological differences indicate that men and women will also be different in relationship terms.

(F) Men are not superior to women.

(1) In this chapter Paul accepted that women would pray and prophesy in church. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head. v5. Paul could hardly deny a woman who received the gift of prophecy from the Holy Spirit the right to speak in church. Peter quoted Joel in his sermon on the day of Pentecost: Even my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. Acts2v18. See also Acts21v8and9. Paul's later comment that women should remain silent in the churches (1Cor14v34) must be interpreted in that light. (I will deal with what Paul may have meant when I deal with this passage.)

(2) Paul seemed to realise that his words might be misconstrued by the Corinthians and used by some to oppress women. The Jews used the Creation Story to justify treating women like second-class citizens. So, the little apostle stressed the mutual dependence of men and women: Woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. v11. Men and women rely on one another and are incomplete without each other. He also reminded men that although woman came from men ... so also man is born of woman. There would be no new men without women.

(3) Paul concludes by saying everything comes from God. v12. Both men and women rely on God for everything - their existence, redemption and hope of glory. Christians, whatever their gender, are one in dependence and gratitude. We are back to Paul's assertion that believers are all one in Christ.

The main thrust of Paul's teaching is not that women are inferior to men but different. It is wrong to ignore or blur these differences and the relationship between men and women must reflect the differences that exist.

(G) Was Paul making a lot of fuss about nothing?

No, because there are implications in what Paul teaches for:

(1) Marriage. Now as the church submits to Christ so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. Eph5v24and25. In brief, husbands should be respected by their wives and wives should be valued by their husbands.

(2) Family life. Father and mother are each going to contribute something different to the family. I think a man is more likely to be robust, a risk taker, physically strong and courageous, spatially aware, forbearing. He should have broad shoulders and exercise discipline over his children. A woman will be more protective, sensitive, feeling, careful and thoughtful. She will be better at empathising with her children and supporting them emotionally.

(3) Church life. A woman must be allowed to use the gifts she has received from the Holy Spirit for the sake of the church. But Paul does teach, notwithstanding the discomfit of Protestant commentators, that the church should have male leadership. Paul wrote to Timothy: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. For I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. 1Tim2v11to15. In the early church the apostles were all men and so, too, were the elders. Paul would have said that this was the Divine order of things.

(H) Conclusion.

It is wrong to quote Gal3v28: For ye are all one in Christ Jesus to prove that all distinctions between men and women cease to exist in the church. Archbishop, bishop, vicar, curate, deacon and layman are all one in Christ Jesus but nevertheless the relationship of the bishop to the layman is rather different from that of the layman to the bishop.

In the passage we have studied Paul is once again trying to strike a difficult balance. The bishop needs to remember that he is one in Christ with the humblest member of his diocese - that, he, too, is a sinner saved by grace. But the humble layman is required to respect the authority of the bishop. He is not diminished by so doing! If the layman is truly humble he could be greater in the eyes of God than the bishop!

So it is with men and women. Male and female believers are one in their common dependence upon God's grace and Christ's mercy. This does not mean that men should not be the ones to exercise authority in the church rather than women. Such an arrangement does not preclude women being great in the estimation of their Maker.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in the very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made himself nothing ..... . Therefore God exalted him to the highest place ... . Phil2v6to11.