Dear friends,
This episode of Two Ways News brings us to one of the most controversial passages of the Bible. Since the Sexual Revolution and feminist movement of the late 20th century, the roles of men and women have been fiercely debated in our society. Within the church, this topic has been contested with the main focus being on the various ministries of men and women.
So when we come to 1 Corinthians 11 and read of women praying and prophesying, our debaters are alerted to possible data for discussion. But when it turns to the head covering of women, the issues brought up are very complicated. I doubt that our discussion here will be the last word or even a significant turning point in the debate. But I hope that, irrespective of the debate, we may make 1 Corinthians 11 a little clearer.
By the way, I recently spoke on Prophecy Today at the Kings Birthday Conference. You can listen to the recordings of that conference at phillipjensen.com.
Yours,
Phillip
Phillip Jensen: Today and next week, we will be reading 2 extraordinary passages from 1 Corinthians 11 which have sparked considerable debate down the centuries.
Peter Jensen: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16
Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 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. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Phillip: This raises incredible issues for us. What things stuck out to you?
Peter: I noticed that the ESV uses the words ‘wife’ and ‘husband’, which isn’t the way that other translations have used.
Phillip: But the original passage talks about ‘her man’. The word ‘husband’ here is the same as ‘man’, and the word ‘wife’ is the same as ‘woman’. But because it talks about ‘her man’, this passage describes a wife and a husband, so it’s not a wrong translation.
Peter: It’s certainly possible. But it’s rather strange in telling us how to style ourselves, at least regarding hair. There is not much in the New Testament about how to dress; in fact, nothing much is said about symbols, artwork, music, cooking, which turn up in other religions. But it’s also rather controversial in the statements it makes about the relationship of men and women. It seems rather restrictive on women.
Furthermore, the relationship of God and Christ and its impact on the doctrine of the Trinity is involved here. God is the head of Christ. What does that mean? It challenges the culture in which we now live, and is unpopular for doing so, but can we defend it? I’ve even heard that in some lectionaries—the Bible reading stipulations in churches—it is omitted lest it offend people. So a bit of the Bible is omitted from the reading of the Bible because it offends people. Is that fair?
Phillip: That’s a very stupid thing to do, because if you’re going to determine which parts of the Bible are going to be left out according to your culture and views, you shouldn’t bother reading the Bible. You may not like what the Bible says, but if you’re going to study it, then you must read what it says, for better or for worse. If you have confidence in God and his loving kindness and generosity to us, his view will turn out to be of greater kindness and blessing to you than your culture’s view. Cultures often find themselves wanting, so it’s silly, dreadful, and offensive to leave part of the Bible out because you don’t like what it says.
The translation does add words to make the passage clear. It’s an inevitability in translation that you must smooth across the words from one language to another. But you do have to therefore be careful, for instance, in figuring out whether the passage talks about men and women or husbands and wives. In this passage, it’s both at different times. It talks about the creation of the woman, mind you, but the woman who is created is Adam’s wife. But the approach these days won’t be to go through the passage verse-by-verse. If people want to see that, whether in a Bible study or through listening to a sermon, I’d recommend that you look up phillipjensen.com. As for the subject of prophecy, I spoke on this a few weeks ago at the King’s Birthday Convention, in a series of talks titled Prophecy Today. But for now, we will discuss some of the central issues which arise from this passage, trusting that what we say may be helpful to Christians struggling with the differences between culture and the Bible. First, there is the difference between men and women, especially as it’s played out in our activities of ministry.
Peter: Let’s unpack the passage by asking the key questions: ‘When?’ ‘Where?’ ‘What?’ ‘Why?’
Starting with the ‘When?’ question, the trigger for the passage is the practice of public prayer and prophecy. I see a distinction between the canonical prophets—Moses, Amos, Isaiah, Hosea and the rest—and what Paul is talking about here. The church is built, as Ephesians 2:20 says, “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Here, I believe ‘prophets’ refers to the canonical ones whose words remain authoritative. But particularly since the day of Pentecost, we come across other prophets in the New Testament, both men and women. As Peter says in Acts 2:17, quoting one of the canonical prophets, “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” In Acts 21, the 4 daughters of Philip are described as prophets. I see prophets as being particularly gifted to take the word of God and apply it to the moment in which we’re standing. But their words can be tested as we read and even set aside by those who hear them. It’s a particular gift of bringing the word of God home to the audience to whom you’re speaking. But how do you read it?
Phillip: We are told in 2 Peter 3:1–2
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles.
So the apostles, in a sense, replaced the Old Testament prophets in God’s big, authoritative statement of his word. But there are prophets today. This brings up an interesting discussion, namely that of the distinction between prophesying and being a prophet. All can prophesy, but not all are prophets. It’s like evangelism: all can evangelise, but we’re not all called evangelists. The evangelist has a particular gift in doing that which any Christian can do. Prophets are like that, too. There are certain people, like the 4 daughters of Philip, who are identified as prophets and who have this particular gift to prophesy, but it’s not as if they have an exclusive right to prophesy. In fact, Acts 2 says that one of the signs of the new age is that we’ll all prophesy.
But I think the emphasis of prophecy is placed on speaking God’s word, which is the gospel. Revelation 19:10 says, “The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus.” While that may have applications for the particular situation at the time, I don’t think the prophet is necessarily the person who can apply the word of God to the situation; it is the one who brings it to the situation. So it is the word of God that the prophet will bring, not greatly different to the evangelist or the apostle, except it’s not necessarily going to be written down. I think a prophet can repeat what prophets before have said. It’s not that it has to be unique in the moment. There is a sense in which all that the prophets need to say have already been found in Jesus.
Peter: That leads to the ‘Where?’ question. I’ve always taken this passage to be talking about church in particular, but it is applicable to both church and private life.
Phillip: No, I’m not as persuaded of that. I think there are certain things you do in life as a Christian, like preaching and prayer. It’s like worship: you worship God everywhere, therefore you worship God in church. You breathe everywhere, therefore you breathe in church. But is it specific only to church? I don’t think so. For instance, when Agabus prophesies in Acts 21, he’s not in church, yet no one doubts that it’s a prophecy. Prophecy is not limited to church. I don’t think that in this chapter there is any indication that he’s speaking about church, especially because, as we’ll see in next week’s passage he says, in 11:17
But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you.
So in the flow of 1 Corinthians, the discussion of the church coming together occurs at 11:17, not at 11:2.
Peter: I’ve always taken it that 11:2 onwards rings the bell for a discussion that will go on until the end of chapter 14. That’s how I’ve read it. But you’re raising questions about that, and I suspect we will be talking about those questions now for the next few weeks.
Phillip: Yes, and the majority view of people is that 11:2 onwards is about church, and I’ve taken it that way myself for many years. But the more I’ve discussed it with some people lately, the more I see that notion as being an assumption, which then colours the way in which we read the passage. It then gives us problems in other passages, such as chapter 14, although I don’t want to enter into chapter 14 until we get there. Nor do I want to change my view on chapter 11 just to solve my problems in chapter 14. Calvin says that this passage isn’t about church, but then Calvin is trying to solve the problem of chapter 14 in saying that. That is to say, this view is not unique to myself; it’s a minority view.
Peter: It’s a bit rich to quote Calvin at us, but he is still a great one.
Phillip: He did get things wrong sometimes.
Peter: No doubt. So you’re not saying, “This does not apply in church.” You’re saying, “Not definitively in church.”
Phillip: Yes. The passage is not about church; it’s about prophesying and praying as men and women, which we can do inside and outside of church.
Peter: So now we come to the “What?” question. This is where the passage takes an odd turn. It’s clearly envisaging that both appropriately gifted men and women can pray and prophesy in public. I think you’re right in saying that all Christians can pray and prophesy, but there are some who are gifted. But what has this to do with what you wear on your head, and why does Paul make a fuss about differentiating the headgear of men and women? There are differences of opinion about this, and different translations of this passage. There’s the idea that women must wear a veil in church, although over the years, the idea has been that women should wear hats and men should not wear hats in church. But he’s not talking about all men and women; he’s talking about prophecy. Nor is he talking about church buildings.
Phillip: But it has become that way. However, lately we’re used to seeing women not wearing hats or veils in church. Indeed, the other day I was in church, and there was a man who didn’t take his hat off throughout the whole service. It’s funny that I reacted by thinking, “You should take your hat off.” I thought he must be a visitor who hasn’t yet worked it out.
Peter: But that’s old-fashioned, and a misunderstanding of this passage. Is Paul talking about women wearing a veil? Personally, I think it’s more likely that he is referring not to a veil or a hat, but to hairstyle: whether your hair is let down or worn up. He’s saying that when women pray and prophesy (I would say in church particularly, but that’s a matter for debate), they should wear their hair up. You’re not saying, of course, that women should wear a hat to church or in church, but that’s an issue.
Furthermore, we’ve already touched on this, but the Greek words for ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are the same as for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. Is Paul speaking of married people and their relationship with each other, with the married woman prophet wearing a hair in a certain way and the married man not? There’s also the reference he makes in 11:10, “because of the angels,” which has provoked a great deal of thought over the years. How do angels fit into all this? The key to all of this may be to examine the question, “Why?”
Phillip: I think your point about hair is right. 11:15 says that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, “for her hair is given to her for a covering.” In 1 Timothy 2, when Paul talks about women learning to dress themselves appropriately, hair and braiding is one of the factors of modesty and immodesty. So there is an attitude about hair, but we have to be careful not to think of it as just being limited to the culture of its day. For in 11:2, he talks about commending them because they “remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” And 11:16, “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” There is, from Paul’s point of view, an apostolic tradition for the churches of God that we must abide by.
There is also a universal implication which comes out of the concept of headship: the headship of the Father over the Son, the Son over the husband, and the husband over the wife. In our culture of egalitarian sameness, we don’t like the concept of one person being appointed as head over another. We don’t even like it within the Trinity. In our society built on meritocracy, we think people deserve to do what they do because they merit it in some way by their abilities, their education or the like. We certainly have, as a fundamental moral argument today, the subject of dominance and oppression. The essence of being the superior victim is to be more oppressed by anybody else, and therefore call upon greater argument on your behalf than any others. So there are a lot of objections to the very concept of headship, but this passage is quite clearly teaching it.
Furthermore, 11:7–12 talk about the activity of creation, mentioning the image of God and the glory of man. The greatest thing a man has is his wife, and while all humanity is in the image of God, the image of God and the glory of man is being spoken of here as a universal concept. It’s not just the culture of 1st century Corinthian, Roman or Jewish culture at this point. He even goes on in 11:6 to talk about “the nature of things”. In 11:13–15, he appeals to the physiology of humans, that a secondary sexual difference between men and women is hair. By and large, women do not grow bald; by and large, men do. Men grow hair at the bottom of their heads; women grow hair out of the top of their heads. So there is a visible difference between us that is part of our very creation, and is her glory as she is the glory of the man.
As for the mention of the angels, it could refer to the angels in Genesis 6 desiring the daughters of men, but I think not. It’s to do with the order of creation, for the angels are disturbed by the rebellious attitude of rejecting the order of creation. But I don’t think I can prove that point. Nevertheless, you can’t base the idea of unisex in the New Testament with a passage like this. The idea that men and women are the same and interchangeable is an impossibility from this passage. Rather, there is an interdependence between men and women. As brought out beautifully in 11:12
As woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
So when we pray and prophesy, while we’re doing this wonderfully spiritual activity, we cannot do it as persons; we do it as men and as women. When we prophesy, we do it before God in the order that God has created as men and women. It will reflect the nature of God and his Son, the nature of the husband and wife, and creation. So we mustn’t pray or prophesy in rebellion against God or his created order.
Peter: I’m presuming the fundamental issue here is to sustain the difference and the interdependence between the sexes. Do you mean that men and women have to be very careful about how they do their hair when they come to church?
Phillip: Yes, I’m saying that it should be immediately obvious from your hair whether you are a man or a woman. Any attempt to disguise our sex by confusing our hairstyles is an error, as is any attempt to minister on the basis of unisex, that there is no difference between men and women.
Peter: That goes to the motive for doing these things. Back then, the issue may have been about whether hair is worn up and down, but your point is, what is the motive? The motive is that it remains clear that the men are men and the women are women.
Phillip: Yes, and that they can be seen to be doing it like that.
Peter: There are cultural elements here about the way hair was worn when Paul was writing this which come into account. But there’s the more fundamental issue of the difference between men and women which must be evident.
Phillip: Yes. While there may have been 1st century cultural fashions for hair, there are still 21st century differences between men and women’s hairstyles.
Peter: It’s the fundamental issue of the difference and the interdependence of men and women. They are not independent species. I remember a lady telling me once about the doctorate she had written about some people in the Amazon who believed that men and women were different species. It’s surprising, but why do we think otherwise? That goes back to Genesis 1–3, that we are not 2 independent species, nor are we identical humans. We recognise the wonderful differences between the sexes, each with their own contribution to all sorts of things. So humanity depends upon the reality of this relationship of men and women, each one honouring their head and symbolising that honour appropriately, whatever that means, by appearing to be what God has made us to be, both men and women.
It’s hugely important to note that by headship, which does involve the idea of authority, it doesn’t imply that we are not equal in being. This is very important when it comes to the Trinity: that God the Father and God the Son are equal and of the same essence. But there is an order in the relationship, and that order does not disturb the equality. So if there is a headship in marriage, which I believe there is, it doesn’t mean that women are less precious or less important than men. This is very important in everyday life. In all parts of our society, we have a structure of authority for those who have to make the decisions and communicate them, and those who have to abide by the decisions. It is very important that we don’t regard the ones in authority as somehow more significant than those who keep the rules.
Phillip: It is important too that those in authority do not think that those over whom they have authority are less than them.
Peter: I use the illustration, which is far removed from this topic, of prisons. The prisoners are very dependent upon the prison guards. If the prison guards say, “This is the scum of the earth here, and they are obviously less than us, so we can order them around,” they’ll do an awful job. We need the prison guards to acknowledge that the people in the prison are human beings, as they are made in the image of God, as of equal importance. Yes, you hope they will obey your authority, but nonetheless, it doesn’t make them of less importance. On the contrary, in many ways, the prison guards are there to serve the prisoners.
Phillip: Men and women are equally human. That’s a critical thing to be asserting and reasserting. But being equally human does not mean you are the same. It doesn’t mean that you have equal opportunities to do certain things. I am equally human with Olympic runners, but I’m not quite the same as them, and I don’t have the same opportunities they do to run for Australia. You can’t say that just because we’re equally human, we can all do the same things, or that we’re all the same. We’re just equally human. Jesus and his Father are equally divine.
Peter: The take-home from this passage in particular in the cultural context in which we are living is this: we must not confuse the sexes, in the exercise of this ministry of prophecy or elsewhere, because to do so is to confuse and destroy our humanity.
Phillip: Yes, and this reminds me of 1 Timothy 5:1–2
Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.
Here, he says that in Christian ministry, you treat people older than you as being older than you, and people younger than you as equals with you in age. You treat older women differently to the way you treat younger women, and you have to emphasise “in all purity” with the younger women in a way that you don’t when talking about younger men. There are differences between people that must be reflected in the way in which you minister the gospel, both from the point of view of yourself and of whom you are serving.
Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Links & Recommendations
For more on this topic, check out this talk on 1 Corinthians 11 entitled Man and Woman in Christ. Also remember to listen or watch the talks from the King’s Birthday Conference 2026 on Prophecy Today.
Freely available, supported by generosity.
If you enjoy Two Ways News, why not lend us a hand? Consider joining our Supporters Club—friends who make it possible for us to keep producing this article/podcast.
To join the Supporters Club, follow the link below to the ‘subscribe’ page. You’ll see that there’s:
a number of ‘paid options’. To join the Supporters Club take out one of the paid ‘subscription plans’ and know we are deeply grateful for your support!
also the free option (on the far right hand side)
