26The Subordination and Equality of Women (11:2-16)
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 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. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. 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. 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. 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. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with 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. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (11:2-16)
The role of women has become a battleground in society during the last several decades. The struggle for women’s rights has escalated to a place of imbalance in society that threatens the future. In our day, the efforts of the enemy began with secular society and worked back into the church, which so often catches the world’s diseases and adopts the spirit of the age. Some leaders and writers, in the name of Christianity, have gone so far as to teach principles that attempt to redefine, or even alter, biblical truths to accommodate the standards of contemporary thinking in the world. To do that, of course, they have to believe that Paul, Peter, and other scriptural writers added some of their own opinions to God’s revealed truth or that the apostles sometimes taught culturally determined customs rather than divinely revealed standards. When that approach is taken, man must decide for himself what part of Scripture is revealed and what is not—making him the judge over God’s Word. Satan feverishly tries to upset the divine order in any way he can, and one foundational way is by perverting male-female roles and relationships.
The Corinthian church faced a situation similar to the one we face today, and the believers who wrote Paul (7:1) apparently had asked for his word on the submission of women. The apostle was pleased that they sought God’s revelation in this and the other matters, that they loved and respected him, and that basically they held to sound doctrine. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. The term remember means to be continually remembering, as indicated by the perfect tense. Despite their immaturity and their many problems, they respected Paul’s apostolic authority and divine wisdom, and in some areas of doctrine were seeking to know and follow the Lord’s will.
Traditions (paradosis) means “that which is passed along by teaching” and is used in a negative way in the New Testament when it refers to man-made ideas or practices (as is Matt. 15:2-6; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8). But the term is also applied to divinely revealed teaching, as here and in 2 Thess. 2:15. To Paul’s inspired apostolic teaching the Corinthian believers had held firmly.
The basic problem in the Corinthian church did not concern doctrine but morals, not theology but life-style. They were orthodox but not pure. They remembered and believed the cardinal truths about God’s nature and work, but they did not live godly lives. And so Paul praises them for their strengths before he again begins to correct their weaknesses—in this case their misunderstanding of malefemale roles and relationships.
THE PRINCIPLE STATED
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. (11:3)
Paul begins his corrective by stating succinctly the basic divine principle he is going to discuss, and he uses the phrase I want you to understand to introduce something he was greatly concerned about but had not taught before (cf. Col. 2:1). Women in that Greek culture lived in the background and were often only to be used for prostitution. The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gave them dignity and honor, which was apparently abused in some cases. Paul responded to the situation by showing that men and women were not on the same level of function in God’s design.
The principle of subordination and authority pervades the entire universe. Paul shows that woman’s subordination to man is but a reflection of that greater general truth. Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. If Christ had not submitted to the will of God, redemption for mankind would have been impossible, and we would forever be doomed and lost. If individual human beings do not submit to Christ as Savior and Lord, they are still doomed and lost, because they reject God’s gracious provision. And if women do not submit to men, then the family and society as a whole are disrupted and destroyed. Whether on a divine or human scale, subordination and authority are indispensable elements in God’s order and plan.
Head refers to the ruling and sovereign part of the body. In stating the general principle, Paul gives three ways in which headship is manifested. First, Christ is the head of every man. He is uniquely the head of the church as its Savior and Lord (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15; Col. 1:18; etc.). He has redeemed and bought it with His own blood (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Pet.1:18-19; Rev 5:9). But in His divine authority Christ is head of every human being, believer and nonbeliever. “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth,” Jesus declared (Matt. 28:18). Most of mankind has never acknowledged Christ’s authority, but all things have been put “in subjection under His feet” (Heb. 2:8), and one day “every knee [will] bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and … every tongue [will] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11). Those who willingly submit to His authority constitute the church, and those who rebel against His authority constitute the world. In His patience and forbearance God has allowed rebellious unbelievers to ignore Christ’s lordship, but one day even they will acknowledge their subjection to Him. He is in ultimate control of all men, now and forever.
Second, the man is the head of a woman. The principle of subordination and authority applies to all men and all women, not just to husbands and wives. It extends beyond the family to all aspects of society. That is the basic order of creation, as Paul explains later (vv. 8-9). That is the way God planned and created mankind; it is the way He has made us.
It seems that most of the fads and misconceptions of the world eventually find their way into the church. Worldly Christians continually try to find ways to justify their worldliness, if possible on the basis of Scripture. Christian feminists appeal to such passages as Galatians 3:28 (“there is neither male nor female”) and 1 Peter 3:7 (“and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life”) to disprove the idea that husbands are to have authority over their wives and that wives should be submissive to their husbands—not to mention the idea that women in general are to be submissive to men in general. But it is impossible honestly to interpret what Paul says as being supportive of contemporary feminism. He is therefore often charged as being a male chauvinist, who frequently taught his own prejudices instead of God’s Word.
But he makes no distinction between men and women as far as personal worth, abilities, intellect, or spirituality are concerned. Both as human beings and as Christians, women in general are completely equal to men spiritually. Some women obviously are even superior to some men in abilities, intellect, maturity, and spirituality. God established the principle of male authority and female subordination for the purpose of order and complementation, not on the basis of any innate superiority of males. An employee may be more intelligent and more skilled than his boss, but a company cannot be run without submission to proper authority, even if some of those in authority are not as capable as they ought to be. Elders and deacons are to be chosen from among the most spiritual men of the congregation, but there may be other men in the church who are even more spiritual. Yet, for the very reason that they are spiritual, those who are not in positions of leadership will submit to those who are.
A church may have some women who are better Bible students, better theologians, and better speakers than any of the men, including the pastor. But if those women are obedient to God’s order they will submit to male leadership and will not try to usurp it—simply because that is God’s design. A wife may be better educated, better taught in Scripture, and more spiritually mature than her husband. But because she is spiritual, she will willingly submit to him as head of the family. That proper relationship is specifically described in Ephesians 5:22-33. Isaiah spoke judgment on his generation because they had allowed women to rule over them (Isa. 3:12).
Third, God is the head of Christ. Jesus made nothing clearer than the fact that He submitted Himself to His Father’s will (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; cf. 1 Cor. 3:23; 15:24-28; etc.). Christ has never been—before, during, or after His incarnation—in any way inferior in essence to the Father. But in His incarnation He willingly subordinated Himself to the Father in His role as Savior and Redeemer. He lovingly subjected Himself completely to His Father’s will as an act of humble obedience in fulfilling the divine purpose.
Paul inseparably ties the three aspects of the principle together. As Christ is submissive to the Father and Christians are to be submissive to Christ, women are to be submissive to men. You cannot reject one part without rejecting the others. You cannot, for example, reject the principle of woman’s submission to man without also rejecting Christ’s submission to the Father and believers’ submission to Christ. It is clear that the man’s being head of the woman means the same thing as Christ’s being head of man—that is, sovereign leadership requiring submission that recognizes the benefit of such leadership of love.
The authority and submission in each of these cases is based on love, not tyranny. The Father sent Christ out of love, not under compulsion, to redeem the world; and the Son submitted to the Father out of love, not compulsion. Christ loves the church, so much that He died for it; and He rules the church in love, not in tyranny. In response, the church submits to Him in love. Likewise, men in general and husbands in particular should exercise their authority in love, not in tyranny. They do not have authority because of greater worth or greater ability, but simply because of God’s wise design and loving will. Women respond in loving submission as they were designed to do (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-15). This is not a matter of relative dignity or worth but of task and responsibility.
THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. 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. 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. (11:4-6)
It is best to understand that Paul is here referring to activities of believers in ministry before the Lord and the public, where a clear testimony is essential.
In the most general senses praying is talking to God about people, including ourselves, and prophesying is talking to people about God. One is vertical (man to God) and the other is horizontal (man to man), and they represent the two primary dimensions of believers’ ministry. Admittedly, the detail of this passage related to head coverings is difficult because of the scarcity of historical data. But the content helps to clarify the principle Paul has in mind, whatever the special covering may have been. He wants the church to live according to divine standards.
When Paul said a man disgraces his head if he has something on his head while praying or prophesying, he had to be referring to local Corinthian custom. The phrase has something on his head literally means “having down from head,” and is usually taken to refer to a veil. The context here implies that in Corinth such a head covering would have been completely ridiculous for a man and completely proper for a woman. For Jews, who came to wear head coverings, the practice seems to have come in the fourth century A.D., though some may have tried it in the time of the apostles. But generally it was regarded as a disgrace for a man to worship with his head covered.
It seems, therefore, that Paul is not stating a divine universal requirement but simply acknowledging a local custom. The local Christian custom, however, reflected the divine principle. In Corinthian society a man’s praying or prophesying without a head covering was a sign of his authority over women, who were expected to have their heads covered in these ministries. Consequently, for a man to cover his head would be a disgrace, because it suggested a reversal of the proper relationships. Disgraces her head could refer to her own head literally and to her husband’s metaphorically.
In Paul’s day numerous symbols were used to signify the woman’s subordinate relationship to men, particularly of wives to husbands. Usually the symbol was in the form of a head covering, and in the Greek-Roman world of Corinth the symbol apparently was a veil of some kind. In many Near East countries today a married woman’s veil still signifies that she will not expose herself to other men, that her beauty and charms are reserved entirely for her husband, that she does not care even to be noticed by other men. Similarly, in the culture of first-century Corinth wearing a head covering while ministering or worshiping was a woman’s way of stating her devotion and submission to her husband and of demonstrating her commitment to God.
It seems, however, that some women in the Corinthian church were not covering their heads while praying or prophesying. We know from secular history that various movements of women’s liberation and feminism appeared in the Roman empire during New Testament times. Women would often take off their veils or other head coverings and cut their hair in order to look like men. Much as in our own day, some women were demanding to be treated exactly like men and they attacked marriage and the raising of children as unjust restrictions of their rights. They asserted their independence by leaving their husbands and homes, refusing to care for their children, living with other men, demanding jobs traditionally held by men, wearing men’s clothing and hairdos, and by discarding all signs of femininity. It is likely that some of the believers at Corinth were influenced by those movements and, as a sign of protest and independence, refused to cover their heads at appropriate times.
As with meat that had been offered to idols, there was nothing in the wearing or not wearing of the head covering itself that was right or wrong. It is the rebellion against God-ordained roles that is wrong, and in Corinth that rebellion was demonstrated by women praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered.
Dress is largely cultural and, unless what a person wears is immodest or sexually suggestive, it has no moral or spiritual significance. Throughout biblical times, as in many parts of the world today, both men and women wore some type of robe. But there always were some clear distinctions of dress between men and women, most often indicated by hair length and head coverings.
It is the principle of women’s subordination to men, not the particular mark or symbol of that subordination, that Paul is teaching in this passage. The apostle is not laying down a universal principle that Christian women should always worship with their heads covered.
The mention here of women’s praying or prophesying is sometimes used to prove that Paul acknowledged the right of their teaching, preaching, and leading in church worship. But he makes no mention here of the church at worship or in the time of formal teaching. Perhaps he has in view praying or prophesying in public places, rather than in the worship of the congregation. This would certainly fit with the very clear directives in 1 Corinthians (14:34) and in his first letter to Timothy (2:12). The New Testament has no restrictions on a woman’s witnessing in public to others, even to a man. Nor does it prohibit women from taking nonleadership roles of praying with believers or for unbelievers; and there is no restriction from teaching children and other women (cf. Titus 2:3-4; 1 Tim. 5:16). Women may have the gift of prophecy, as did Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9), but they are normally not to prophesy in the meetings of the church where men are present.
In other words, it is only necessary to combine the relevant passages to get the composite truth. Women may pray and prophesy within the boundaries of God’s revelation, and with a proper sense of submission. And it is critical that their deportment in so doing reflects God’s order. Certainly they must not appear rebellious against God’s will.
Paul’s point in verses 4-5 is that, whenever and wherever it is appropriate for men and women to pray or prophesy, they should do so with proper distinction between male and female. Every man should speak to or for the Lord clearly as a man, and every woman should speak to or for the Lord clearly as a woman. God does not want the distinction to be blurred.
For a Corinthian woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered disgraced or shamed her and made her the same with her whose head is shaved. If a woman took off her head covering she might as well make the symbol of her role rejection complete by taking off all of her hair, the God-given identifier of her special role as a woman. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. In that day only a prostitute or an extreme feminist would shave her head.
The Talmud indicates that a Jew considered a woman with a shaved head extremely ugly, and Chrysostom records that women guilty of adultery had their hair shaved off and were marked as prostitutes. Aristophanes even taught that the mother of unworthy children should have her hair shorn.
Paul therefore is saying, “If you are not willing to look like a prostitute or a rebellious feminist by cutting off your hair, don’t pray or prophesy with your head uncovered either.”
It is remarkable that any Christian woman would seek such an identification, until we think of how some appear today so worldly as to make the same comparison possible.
THE PRINCIPLE DEFENDED
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. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (11:7-10)
As has been mentioned, covering the head appears to have been a customary symbol of subordination in Corinthian society, as in much of the ancient world. But the principle of male headship is not a matter of custom but a matter of God’s order and creation and should never be compromised. Because a covered head was a sign of subordination, a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. Man was created in the moral, mental, and spiritual image of God. He was created with intellect, will, emotion, knowledge, and holiness, to which he is restored in Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:24).
Man is also uniquely created to bear the image of God as a ruler, who is given a sphere of sovereignty. In that sense, he was also created to be the glory of God. God gave man dominion over all the created world, to care for according to His divine plan. Man was given rulership of the world. Both men and women are created in God’s image, but as Paul points out in verse 8, the original creation from the “dust from the ground” was of Adam only (Gen. 2:7). Eve was created later from part of Adam himself (2:21-22). The male was given the dominion and authority over God’s created world, and is by that fact the glory of God.
The fall confirmed these roles in an even more dramatic way, as Genesis 3:16-17 indicates by saying, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” So the man is to represent God in authority and rulership, thus being the glory of God. After the fall man’s rule was strengthened. Consequently he is not to wear any symbol of subordination.
Because some ancient rabbis had misinterpreted Exodus 34:33-35, they taught that Jewish men should cover their heads when they prayed because Moses veiled his face in the presence of God’s glory. But it was in the people’s presence, not God’s presence, that Moses wore the veil. As Paul explains in his next letter to Corinth, Moses “used to put a veil over his face that the sons of Israel might not look intently at the end of what was fading away” (2 Cor. 3:13). He did not want them to see the glory of God, which he had received in God’s presence, fading from his face. The Jewish tradition of men covering their heads to pray is therefore a human tradition, not a divine one.
On the other hand, woman is the glory of man. Woman was made to manifest man’s authority and will as man was made to manifest God’s authority and will. The woman is viceregent, who rules in the stead of man or who carries out man’s will, just as man is God’s viceregent who rules in His stead or carries out His will. The woman shines not so much with the direct light of God as with the derived light from man. Man is both the image and glory of God, while woman is only the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and not the image of man, and the glory of man, not the glory of God. The point is that man shows how magnificent a creature God can create from Himself, while woman shows how magnificent a creature God can make from a man (Gen. 2:21-22).
Yet as far as saving and sanctifying grace is concerned a woman comes as deeply into communion with God as a man. She was made equally in the image of God, and that image is equally restored through faith in Jesus Christ. She will be as much like Jesus as any man when we see our Lord face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). But though woman is fully in the image of God she is not directly the glory of God. She is directly the glory of man, the indirect outshining of man’s glory of God. Her role in the world is to submit to the direction of man, to whom is given the divine dominion.
To further defend that truth Paul points out that man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. Adam was created first and was given dominion over the earth before the woman was created; and when she was created she was created from him. She was given the very name “Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:9-23; cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-13).
Woman not only was created from man but for man. For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. She is not intellectually, morally, spiritually, or functionally inferior to man. She is unique from him. Her role is to come under the leadership, protection, and care of man, and she is to be “a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:20).
In verse 10 Paul returns to the application of the principle. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. The cultural use of a head covering represents the divine and universal principle of a woman’s subordination to man’s authority. Symbol of authority is one word (exousia) in the Greek and means “rightful power,” or “authority.” The covered head was the woman’s authority or right to pray and worship, since it demonstrated her submissiveness. Symbol is implied because of the obvious reference here to the head covering mentioned in verses 4-7. In that culture, a woman was to wear such a symbol as an indication of her subordinate role to man.
The basic meaning of angels is “messenger.” Paul here is speaking of the holy angels, God’s ministering angels, whose supreme characteristic is total and immediate obedience to God. Throughout Scripture God’s holy angels are shown as creatures of great power, but it is always derived power and submissive power. Satan and the other angels who followed him were thrown out of heaven for the very reason that they sought to use their power to their own selfish purposes and glory rather than to God’s. The holy angels, on the other hand, are the supreme example of proper creaturely subordination. Hebrews 1:4-2:18 focuses on Christ’s superiority to the angels and their willing subservience to Him.
These messengers are God’s protectors of His church, over which they stand perpetual guard. It is proper for a woman to cover her head as a sign of subordination because of the angels, in order that these most submissive of all creatures will not be offended by nonsubmissiveness. Furthermore, the angels were present at creation (Job 38:7) to be witnesses of God’s unique design for man and woman, and would be offended at any violation of that order. The idea of caring about the response and attitude of angels is also seen in Ephesians 3:9-10 and Matthew 18:10. The Midrash taught that angels are the guardians of the created order.
THE PRINCIPLE HARMONIZED
However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. (11:11-12)
If Satan cannot get men to deny or disregard God’s Word he will try to get them to misinterpret it and carry it to extremes the Lord did not intend. Lest men abuse their authority over women, Paul reminds them of their equality and mutual dependence. Man’s authority over woman is a delegated authority and a derived authority, given by God to be used for His purposes and in His way. Man as a fellow creature has no innate superiority to woman and has no right to use his authority tyrannically or selfishly. Male chauvinism is no more biblical than feminism. Both are perversions of God’s plan.
Far from oppressing women, the church has been their greatest liberator. In Greek and Roman societies most women were little more than slaves, the possessions of their husbands, who often virtually bought and traded their wives at will. It was largely because of this inhumane treatment of women that feminism became so popular in the Roman empire. In many Jewish communities the woman’s situation was not much better. Divorce had become easy and commonplace, but it was almost entirely the prerogative of the man. Some Jewish men held women in such low esteem that they developed a popular prayer in which they thanked God that they were not born a slave, a Gentile, or a woman.
But in Christ all believers, male and female, are in the Lord, and are alike under the Lord. In His work women are as important as men. Their roles are different in function and relationships, but not in spirituality or importance. Neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. Men and women are complementary in every way in life, but particularly in the Lord’s work do they function together as a divinely ordained team. They serve each other and they serve with each other. In this regard “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). This equality is supported in many biblical passages. Our Lord, for example, commended Mary’s act of listening to theological discourse over Martha’s work in the kitchen (Luke 10:38-42), and women are given spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:7-11).
From the earliest history of God’s people women have had a vital role in His work and ministry. The psalmist declared that “The women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host” (Ps. 68:11), indicating that many of God’s greatest workers have been women. Immediately after our Lord’s ascension, some 120 believers, including the apostles and a number of women, gathered in the upper room for prayer (Acts 1:12-15). The entire last chapter of Romans is devoted to Paul’s commendation of and greetings to various friends in the church at Rome, among whom are eight honored women. He begins with a beautiful commendation of “our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea” and the request “that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well” (Rom. 16:1-2). Among her many other works, Phoebe ministered even to an apostle. Mary, the mother of John Mark, opened her home as a meeting place for the Jerusalem believers (Acts 12:12) and Lydia opened her home in the same way to believers in Philippi (Acts 16:40). When Apollos, “an eloquent man … mighty in the Scriptures,” began preaching in Ephesus, both Aquilla and his wife, Priscilla, “took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:24-26).
In many times and places, faithful women have kept the church alive with little or no support from men. Many mission fields would not exist if it were not for God’s elect women. A church without godly women cannot be a strong and effective church. The man’s proper authority does not make him independent of woman, nor does her proper subordination make her alone dependent. Neither is independent of the other; they are mutually dependent.
God created both men and women. The first woman was created from the man, but since that time every man has been created through a woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman. Most importantly, all things originate from God. Men and women have different roles but not different importance. Women are equal to men in the world, in the church, and before God. That is God’s wise and gracious harmony and balance—difference in roles but equality in nature, personhood, work, and spirit. He created both for His glorious purposes.
Women are not to be teachers of men, but they are usually the most influential shapers of men. Bearing and nurturing children give women salvation from any thought of lower status than men (1 Tim. 2:15). As mothers they have a unique and indispensable role in training and developing boys, who are men in the making. From conception to adulthood a man is dependent upon and shaped by his mother in a unique and marvelous way. And throughout adulthood, whether married or single, he is dependent on women in more ways than he is often willing to acknowledge. In marriage men cannot be faithful to the Lord unless they are willingly and lovingly dependent on the wife He has given them. In the Lord’s work men cannot be faithful to Him unless they are dependent on the women to whom He has given responsibility in His church. They are perfect complements—one the head, leader, provider, and the other the helper, supporter, and companion.
THE PRINCIPLE RESPONDED TO
Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with 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. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (11:13-16)
Paul asks the Corinthians to disregard his apostolic authority for a moment. Judge for yourselves, he tells them. The principle of authority and subordination is not only given by God in His divine revelation but is self-evident from His creation itself. The cultural practice of a woman’s covering her head as a symbol of subordination to man is a reflection of the natural order. 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.
Men and women have distinctive physiologies in many ways. One of them is in the process of hair growth on the head. Hair develops in three stages—formation and growth, resting, and fallout. The male hormone testosterone speeds up the cycle so that men reach the third stage earlier than women. The female hormone estrogen causes the cycle to remain in stage one for a longer time, causing women’s hair to grow longer than men’s. Women are rarely bald because few even reach stage three. This physiology is reflected in most cultures of the world in the custom of women wearing longer hair than men.
Nature (phusis) also carries the idea of instinct, an innate sense of what is normal and right. This is an appeal to human consciousness. Paul is saying that as man looks around himself he recognizes that, but for rare exceptions, both nature and human instinct testify that it is normal and proper for a woman’s hair to be longer than a man’s. Beautifully dressed hair is a glory to a woman, God’s special gift to show the softness and tenderness of a woman. The Greek word (homē) for long hair can mean both long hair and a neat hairdo.
A woman’s hair is itself given to her for a covering. Her hair is her natural covering or veil, and headwear is a cultural symbolic covering, both representing her subordinate role. Both nature and general custom reflect God’s universal principle of man’s role of authority and woman’s role of subordination. The unique beauty of a woman is gloriously manifest in the distinctive femininity portrayed by her hair and her attendance to feminine customs.
In modern cultures where the wearing of a hat or veil does not symbolize subordination, that practice should not be required of Christians. But women’s hair and women’s dress is to be distinctively feminine and demonstrate her womanly loveliness and submissiveness. There should be no confusion about male and female identities, because God has made the sexes distinct—physiologically and in roles and relationships. He wants men to be masculine, to be responsibly and lovingly authoritative. He wants women to be feminine, to be responsibly and lovingly submissive.
As in almost every age and every church, some of the believers in Corinth were not satisfied with God’s way and wanted to disregard it or modify it to suit themselves. Paul anticipated their objection to what he had just taught. He knew that some would be inclined to be contentious, but he could say nothing additional to them that would be more convincing than what he had already said.
In summing up his argument, we note that Paul has established that women are to be submissive to men because of the relationship in the Godhead (v. 3), the divine design of male and female (v. 7), the order of creation (v. 8), the role of woman (v. 9), the interest of the angels (v. 10), and the characteristics of natural physiology (vv. 13-15).
That is why he declares that neither God, represented by His apostles, nor the faithful congregations of His church will recognize any other principle or follow any other pattern of behavior. The argument is utterly convincing. “If you want to find a sympathetic ear to your dissent,” he says, “you won’t find it among the apostles or in the churches.” We have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. The apostles and the other churches were firmly committed to the practice that women should wear longer hair than men and should have distinctively female hairdos. And where custom dictated it, they should wear proper head coverings to distinguish themselves as submissive.