In chapter eleven Paul relates instructions for worship. There are two parts to this instruction, which directly relate to two problems in the Corinthian form of worship. The first part is in regard to women (verses 2 through 16), and the second in regard to the "love feast" (verses 17 through 34). On the surface, it appears that Paul is a male chauvinist. This is one of the passages liberal women theologians either allegorize to distort it’s meaning, or they avoid it all together. Let's cautiously approach the paragraph, because there is an awful lot of questions it raises.

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

First, Paul wants us to understand the ladder of authority. While the NIV (and other translations) use the terms “man” and “woman,” the Greek is not that explicit. In fact, the same Greek words are also used for “husbands” and “wives.” To be consistent with the theology of Paul in other books, as well as in this passage a little later, I think it is important to use the marital terms. That being the case we then have a structure of authority that descends from the Father, to Christ the Son, on through to husbands, and from husbands to their wives. This is the example in the Garden of Eden. God made man, and spoke to man. Then God made woman, and while God instructed both of them to not eat of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God instructed man and man was responsible for communicating those instructions to the woman.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved, if a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

What is Paul trying to teach? The apostle is giving them a statement which he then backs up with reason. Paul does this often, and to modern readers it may be easier to look at the argument from the opposite end. For this reason, we will examine the arguments first and then deduce the result.

First, “the man is the glory of God.” The NRSV reads, “the man is the image and reflection of God.” Due to the chain of authority (Christ to man, man to woman in verse 3) man is the image of Christ to his wife. In this way man reflects the authority of Christ, since his authority comes from Christ.

The Greek word used for authority here (exousia) is also used of rulers and their subordinates. The term, in fact, did not have the connotation of being ruled, but of ruling. So Paul is explaining that husbands and wives can rule because God has granted them that right. Man can rule because Christ has given him authority; likewise, wives can rule because husbands hand that right on to them.

Why the fuss over head coverings? There are two reasons head coverings are important. The first reason is that covering the head was a sign of where the woman’s authority came from. Married women wore a certain head covering showing that they were married (similar to our modern wedding rings), that they had authority extending through them from a husband somewhere. By not wearing a head covering a woman was claiming allegiance to no man, and worse, that she was a prostitute. Single women often became temple prostitutes in the worship services honoring Aphrodite. Other single women became prostitutes as a way of life, rather than for religious reasons. From extra-Biblical sources we find that approximately 100 years before Christ Rome punished prostitutes by shaving their heads. This is indicative of the woman having no authority, for her covering has been removed. By the time Paul penned these words prostitutes were in the habit of shaving their own heads to display which subculture they belong to, similar to wearing knee high leather boot, fishnet stockings and a mini skirt in the red light district today. Therefore, Paul encouraged women to wear a head covering, if married, to show they had authority from a husband, and if single to show they were not a prostitute. As we will see later in verses eleven and twelve, the second reason for this action was to show that they claimed authority from Christ, rather than Aphrodite.

In verses 8-10 Paul introduces two more distinguishing marks of the sexes. First, he distinguishes who was created from whom. Originally, Paul says, woman was created from man. This is merely a restatement of Genesis 2.21-.22. The second reason Paul mentions is a very troubling phrase, “because of the angles.” There has been much debate concerning the meaning of this phrase. Some have suggested that angels can lust, as they might have in Genesis 6.2, and that they would continue to lust for women unless they kept their heads covered. This is not a very satisfactory answer, since nowhere else in either Testament does such a concept exist, and since Genesis six probably does not refer to angels, but to a foreign people.

Rather, it seems that Paul is giving a third reason for his ordering of authority. We know from other Scriptures (4.9, Ephesians 3.10, 1 Timothy 5.12) that angels are spectators of the church. For a woman not to wear the sign of her authority would be tantamount to bringing the wisdom of God into disrepute, since God has made man the glory of Himself, and woman the glory of man. Therefore, because of the divine ordering of authority, because of the way in which men and women were created, and because angels observe the church and its example of God's wisdom, women are to be showing their allegiance to their authority in a way in which everyone can understand. The Corinthians understood head coverings, as do many Middle Easterners today.

Though head coverings may be a cultural practice and we show this line of authority in other ways, the idea of male headship is not culturally based. Notice the reasons Paul gave for man’s authority; not one of them is related to culture. Head coverings on the other hand, Paul appeals not to Scripture but to “the natural order of things” as he appeals to them to “look around.” So while head coverings may be cultural, indicating an allegiance to Christ, male headship in the home is God’s ordained plan.

As noted earlier (7.5), husbands and wives are not to be independent of each other. Verses 11 and 12 teach likewise, adding that both are necessary for the propagation of mankind. In essence, Men are not more important than women, since women are needed to create men. Importance is not being addressed, only authority. Importance of both man and woman is evident in both Scripture and nature, but everything, including authority, comes from God. Head coverings, for a single woman, was a claim to fidelity and morality, things which came from God. Not wearing a covering was a claim to the values of Aphrodite.

In the closing of the argument (.13-.16) Paul gives us some clear cut indications of this being a cultural problem. “Judge for yourselves,” is the first indication. Next, “The very nature of things” cannot refer to nature, since a mans hair can grow as long as a woman’s. Paul is saying this is the nature of things, of our society, i.e. take a look around and see what is normal. Finally, we see that hair on a woman is a form of covering which can be used to show her allegiance to her husband, or morality to God if she is single, both things which the church practices.