Follow1st Corinthians Chapter 11 Part One
© 2025 by C. O. Bishop
1st Corinthians 11:2-16
Introduction:
Chapter Eleven has two main divisions: verses 2-16 discuss separation from the world, in the matters of grooming and clothing. Verses 17-34 discuss the Lord’s table. Remember that both passages are corrective teaching (as is virtually all of both 1st and 2nd Corinthians.
We remember the specific circumstances of the city of Corinth, where Paul planted this church. We remember that gross immorality ruled this city. Aphrodite’s temple was there, with all its filth, depravity and disease. That environmen heavily affected the people. They had multiple carryovers from their old life. The Spirit had released them from the extremes of the Corinthian pit. But they still had to shake free from the effect on their lives.
When we read Paul’s corrections of those behaviors, we want to “listen within the context.” Ask “what was happening there.”
Paul gives a profound, powerful command, here, in 1st Corinthians 11:1
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
However, there were no chapter or verse divisions in the original manuscripts. So the command was in regard to 1st Corinthians 10. Paul gave a long statement saying the believers must not endanger the unity of the Body of Christ. They could do so by careless, self-centered behavior. He said that he, himself, sought to “please all men.” He did not seek his own best interest (“profit”.) Rather, he tried to do what was profitable for many, for the express purpose of possibly leading them to Christ.
In that context Paul said, “be ye followers of me as I also am of Christ.”
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
So, in general, the Corinthian believers tried to follow his example. Paul concludes “that is Good!” But he immediately follows up with some exceptions:
Clothing, Hair, and Head-Coverings
Remember, again, where the Corinthian church was located, and the utter corruption of the society surrounding them. Consider how the rest of their city was living. All the visitors to Corinth came specifically for the depravity that was there. That can give us some understanding of what follows.
In our present-day time, we have a city that literally advertises itself as “Sin-City!” People who vacation there are cheerfully admitting that they want to enjoy the excesses of that city. Years ago, that city briefly attempted to “re-invent itself” as a “family” city. But it did not work! Everyone knew the truth and everyone preferred the truth of that sin.
So, Las Vegas, Nevada went back to its old way, flaunting its depravity. And the people that desired it to be that way were happy to see their “return to the pit.”
Why Did People Visit Corinth?
The main attraction in Corinth was the temple of Aphrodite. With a working force of 10,000 prostitutes, male and female, they had visibility all over the city. People came there to join in the immoral behavior of that city.
If a Corinthian believer did not want to associate with that filthy lifestyle, something had to change. If they did not want to look like part of that society, they had to change their ways. They had to live in such a way as to “shine in the darkness,” not “blend in.”
Did God tell them to “crusade against the sin in their city?” No, not necessarily. But He did call them to “come out from among them and be separate.” (2nd Corinthians 6:17)
So, What Visible Difference Would be Most Obvious?
Flagrant sin filled Corinth. Transvestite male prostitutes and brazen female prostitutes were everywhere. Clothing, personal grooming and hair length would be a first line of defense, as an easy way to set oneself apart.
I believe this is the primary goal, here in 1st Corinthians 11:2-16. However, some teachers see this as a “rule for Christian living,” and have interpreted it as a “Christian Dress Code.” They exclude people from churches based on whether they “obey this rule” or not.
This rule has affected our courts, though they mainly applied it to women: Women were not allowed in a courtroom without a hat: a man was required to remove any head-covering. It is possibly instructive to note that the long hair issue was not applied to the men, and men in our colonial period wore their hair long, and in a braid.
If they had short hair, they wore a wig to court, emulating longer hair. To this day, in England there is an industry, making white wigs for lawyers and judges, called “perukes,” as a shortened form of the word “periwig.” Why does the tradition persist?? I have no idea! It would seem that law should have applied equally to men and women, but that has not always been the case. Seventy years ago, women in the USA always wore a hat in church or in court. Men were not allowed to wear a hat in either place. And the rule sprang from this passage of scripture.
What does the Rest of Scripture Say?
The problem that gives me pause is the issue of a head-covering for men being an offense, and a lack of such for women being an offense. If it were mentioned in the other epistles, it would be clear that it applies to all believers everywhere. But it is not: it is only mentioned here.
Verse three (so long as I limit it to the marriage relationship) is mentioned elsewhere. The marriage relationship is supposed to be a picture of Christ and the Church. (Ephesians 5:26-32) The relationship in marriage is clear. This passage does not clearly state that the relationship is limited to the marriage relationship, so some groups use it (and other similar passages) to declare a general superiority of men over women. (That is false teaching, by the way.)
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
This teaching seems plain, but it is uncomfortable in our egalitarian society. We don’t want to admit the sovereignty of God over our lives: Far less the authority of one human above another.
Other Scripture?
But herein lies my problem: I can’t find any other place in the Bible that clearly is about the issue of hair length or the importance of veils or lack of such. As a general rule, we find that the Bible is the best commentary on the Bible: That is, we can usually find somewhere else that confirms the meaning of an otherwise obscure passage. But in this case I have found either nothing, or maybe things that are a real “stretch” to try to apply to this.
Cultural Roots
So, Why do the orthodox Jewish men cover their heads with a “tallith” (prayer shawl) when praying? Two Christian commentators said it was because the rabbinical commentators misunderstood why Moses had covered his face when he left the tabernacle. Not to confirm the authority of God: It was to hide the “fading away” of God’s glory from people watching him. Moses had not been aware that his face was glowing after he had been in the presence of God. When he became aware of it, and that it was beginning to fade, he covered up, specifically so that the watching people would not see the “fading” of that glory. (But I still have questions.)
What Does It Mean?
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
People interpret this to say that women should always have their hair covered with a shawl, a scarf, a kerchief or the like. Then (some) say that to her own husband, she does not wear a veil, but is free in his presence to display the glory of her hair.
The problem I see, is that Rebekah, in Genesis 24, had not been veiled when crossing the desert with Abraham’s eldest servant and ten other servants. But when she saw Isaac in the distance, and knew that it was he, she got off the camel, veiled herself, and fell on her knees before him, with her face to the ground. (I don’t know any Christians saying this is a part of Christian life!)
And the Men?
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Furthermore, the priesthood (at least the High Priest) had to wear a special hat (KJV says “fair mitre”…a pointed hat) when he served in the temple, bringing a sacrifice on behalf of the people and himself, and praying for the people and himself.
I can’t find anything in scripture, to explain this: I can simply accept that there is a truth here that I don’t understand, and I promise that if I ever have better light on it, then I will re-teach it according to that better understanding.
What About The Creation Testimony?
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
This is in the Creation account. We can either accept the truth of it, or deny it: or, short of actually denying it, we may attempt to explain it in some way that erases the cultural offense. The plan is for Man to be incomplete without Woman. God says so. (Genesis 2:18) The relationship between the Man and the Woman is supposed to be a picture of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:26-32.) That prefiguring of Christ and the Church is demonstrated where Genesis 2:24 is quoted, verbatim, in Ephesians 5:31. (Believe it, or don’t! That is what it says.)
And the Woman was created specifically to fill the lack in Man. (What kind of lack? Possibly just the ability to reproduce, as with all the rest of the animal creation. Perhaps the lack of fellowship and companionship.
Possibly it is tied to Ecclesiastes 4:9-12. (“9 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. 10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. 11 Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? 12 And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.”)
What about the Angels??
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
I have no idea what verse ten means, unless it is somehow related to Genesis 6:1-5 where certain angelic beings chose to “cross over” and interbreed with humans. Those fallen angels were punished by confinement in chains of darkness, awaiting final judgment. (Jude 6; 2nd Peter 2:4) Is the head-covering a message to the angels that, “I belong to my human husband!”? Maybe, but I doubt it. Is it just a “message of submission,” as part of the things that God says the angels will learn through the church, according to Ephesians 3:10? Perhaps. But I really don’t know.
More from the Creation
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
This still ties to the Creation: Eve was literally “taken out of man,” and formed from part of him. On the other hand, every man since Adam has been born of woman: taken back from her. But all are under the authority, protection, and sustenance of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Evidently in many cultures, long hair in a man is not seen as shameful: So, I don’t know how to interpret this. Someone told me years ago that the Greek work “phusis,” here translated as “Nature,” could also be translated as, “Culture.” However, I looked up the word “phusis” in the Greek New Testament, and it is ONLY translated as “nature,” or “naturally.” So, I don’t know where they got that idea…clearly, it was not from the Bible!
Final Word on Head-coverings and Hair length:
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
It seems that the final word is “Don’t allow this to become a point of division: it isn’t worth it. This is not a cardinal doctrine. In the Corinthian culture, at least, it was a needed change in their behavior, because they were too closely reflecting the evil around them. The principle of “separation from the world” remains today, but I do not believe that Head-coverings and hair length were given as “legal requirements” or “rules” for believers.
Lord Jesus, give us greater light, and help us to apply Your Word to our lives so as to honor You and draw others to Your Grace.