The Woman’s Head Should Be Covered by the Order of the Economy (1 Corinthians 11:2–6)

This concerns two subjects: 1) women not covering their heads in church (1 Cor. 11:2–16); and 2) disorders at love feasts (1 Cor. 11:17–34).

1. Against Women Not Covering Their Heads in Church (1 Cor. 11:2–16)

“The matter was this. “Women with bore and uncovered heads prayed and prophesied—women prophesied then too—while men grew their hair long, like those engaged in philosophy, and covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied, following pagan law in both respects” (Saint Chrysostom). Finding this unbecoming for Christians, the Apostle writes against it; however, as appears, his discourse is directed chiefly against women who did not cover their heads. He insists that they should cover them as a sign of their subordinate position with respect to their husbands, clarifying this position by a) the order of the economy of salvation (1 Cor. 11:2–6), and b) the order of creation (1 Cor. 11:7–12), applying as confirmation of his thought c) the requirement of common sense (1 Cor. 11:13–16).”

o) A Woman’s Head Should Be Covered According to the Order of the Economy of Salvation (1 Cor. 11:2–6)

1 Cor. 11:2. I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.

With these words he paves the way for the rebuke that follows. When he was with them, he established among them comprehensive orders by which their family, civil, and church life was formed. All my teaching, he says, you remember, and the traditions I delivered you hold fast to. Remember what I commanded, and keep the orders that I established. At the same time, he was already rebuking many disorders among them, and will continue to do so. What does this praise mean? – One may suppose that the disordered matters were revealed in the Apostle’s absence and were discovered in subjects regarding which no detailed provisions had been made; therefore he speaks as if to say: the things I established among you, these you all keep well, but lo, disorders have appeared among you in other respects; I am writing to you about them and making new provisions so that you may correct yourselves, in full hope that you will also keep and hold all this faultlessly. Or we can understand it this way: that for the most part the Church of Corinth was correct in everything and acted as he commanded, deviations occurring only in some cases and appearing in some persons. In such a case praise for the majority is the best incentive for the minority to rival them in correctness. Saint Chrysostom understands it this way too. “By praising the correct ones and rebuking the incorrect, the Apostle encourages the former and shames the latter. Rebuke, though it can affect of itself, has even greater power when joined with praise of the correct. Therefore he does not begin with rebukes but with praises, and great praises at that, and says: ‘I praise you because you remember all my teaching.’ So Paul usually acts: for small virtues he gives great praise, doing this not from flattery—far be it!—for how could he who sought neither money nor fame nor anything of the sort have used flattery? But in all things he had in view their salvation. – ‘And hold fast to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.’ Consequently, he had previously delivered much to them orally, as he expresses in many other places too; but before he only left them traditions, and now he adds the reason. Thus he further strengthens the obedient and destroys the pride of the disobedient. He does not say: I praise you for obeying when others did not obey, but, without expressing it directly, hints at it in the further exposition of his instruction.”

1 Cor. 11:3. Now I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

He speaks as if to say: on the whole I praise you, but behold, this and that with you are not entirely correct. And, intending to begin with women’s not covering their heads in church, he first sets forth a firm foundation for reasoning about this: the hierarchy of subordination that is ordered in Christ Jesus, according to the economy of salvation.

“I want you to understand.” As if they did not know what he speaks of here? – Certainly they knew, and the Apostle’s word means only: bring to mind, acknowledge, or imagine the following truth. Unless we suppose that they did not know it in the form or relation in which it is presented here, for it is presented here as nowhere else. In such a case the Apostle communicates to them a new truth for their knowledge.

“The head of every man is Christ.” Christ is the head of all, the Head of the entire Church, as in the body the head is the head not of the chest only, or arms or legs, but of the whole body. Consequently, the woman’s head too is Christ. But as in the body some members relate directly to the head while others do it through the mediation of other members, so in the Church the holy Apostles and their successors, the presiding elders of the Churches, and generally the priesthood relate more directly to Christ as the head; other members of the Church, though united with Christ as the head, in many cases have need of their mediation. Similarly there is something by which the man appears to relate more directly to Christ as the head, while the woman, though she has Christ as her head just as the man does, relates to Him in a certain way through the man. In what sense precisely? Certainly not in that in which she is saved in the Lord; in this respect everything is from the Lord for her as for the man. Faith is from the Lord, grace is from the Lord, all help is from the Lord too. And all this is communicated to the woman not at all through the man as man. This all follows its divinely ordained order. What order? – The Apostle does not clarify this, and it is very difficult to bring forth a certain guess about it from oneself. One thought suggests itself—that in Christ Jesus the customary subordination of the woman to the man is not broken, and that although the woman is also united with the Lord, she is not cut off from subordination to the man; and she is in the Lord while remaining under the man. As children and parents, masters and servants, subordinates and superiors remain in the Lord what they were according to the worldly order, so do husband and wife. Here the man is taken as the head and representative of the family.

“The head of the woman is man.” Did not the women in Corinth claim equality with men in all respects, knowing that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female and that women have access to Him as freely as men? The Apostle with this word puts them in their proper order. You are baptized in the same way, and you received the gift of the Spirit in chrismation in the same way, and you partake of the body and blood of Christ in the same way, and the inheritance of the kingdom is promised to you in the same way; but for all that do not forget that the head of the woman is man. “Wishing to subordinate women to men and teaching that from of old God commanded them to be under the authority of men, the Apostle employed this form of expression” (Theodoret).

“The head of Christ is God.” Christ’s head is God, as the God-man, according to the economy of salvation. And the Son of God incarnate is God, in no way less than God the Father and God the Holy Spirit; but having taken upon Himself, in the counsel of the Godhead, to fulfill the economy of salvation, He, even as God, is the fulfiller of what was determined in the counsel of the Godhead. Therefore He says that He came down from heaven not to do His own will but the will of the One who sent Him. In this respect God is the head of Christ.

Theodoret holds that “the Apostle did not present divine dogmas or expound theology, but ordered his discourse in this manner.” What then did he intend? Only to direct attention to the submission of the wife to the husband from a Christian perspective. On the basis of these words one cannot conclude that just as the wife submits to the husband and the husband to Christ, so also does Christ submit to God. If the husband falls immeasurably short of Christ, and in the same measure his submission to Christ, then, measuring the wife’s submission to the husband by this same measure, where would we find the extent of it? Holy Chrysostom says: “If in this entire discourse we take the word ‘head’ in the same sense, then the wife will be lower than the husband to the extent that the husband is lower than God the Word. But who can accept this?” In presenting this ladder of the wife’s submission to the husband, the husband’s to Christ, and Christ’s to God, the Apostle does not define the precise measure of the wife’s submission, but only directs the mind to it, having principally in view the subordinate position of the wife with respect to the husband. Though we do not understand this text precisely, the Apostle’s principal thought is evident, and this is sufficient for us.

1 Cor. 11:4–5. 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: for it is one and the same as if she were shorn.

The connection these words have with the preceding ones is not apparent. They seem to form a separate statement, independent of those. One might suppose that between them a connecting thought has been omitted, namely this: if the woman even in the order of grace remains in a subordinate position with respect to the husband, she ought to manifest this in all her external appearance, just as the husband by his external appearance ought to show his authority and superiority over the woman. Among these signs of the woman’s submission to the husband and of the husband’s authority over the woman is this: that she always covers her head, while he does not cover it in certain situations. From this it follows directly that if she uncovers her head and he covers his, they step outside their proper place, and thus shame themselves.

Holy Chrysostom introduces this mediating thought into the commentary on this passage: “To the man and woman many signs have been given—to one of authority, to the other of submission—among them also this: that the woman is covered and the man has his head uncovered. If such are the signs, then both of them err if they violate good order and God’s commandment, if they transgress their proper bounds, the man falling to the degradation of the woman, and the woman raising herself above the man by her external appearance. For if it is not permitted them to change their clothing, that is, for the woman to dress in men’s garments or for the man to put on women’s clothing, ‘there shall not be’, it says, ‘the garment of a man on a woman, nor shall a man clothe himself in a woman’s robe’ (Deut. 22:5); then it is not permitted to change with respect to head coverings either. That one is covered and the other not covered comes from nature itself. By the name of nature I understand God, for He is the creator of nature. Therefore, if you transgress these bounds, see how much harm will result. Do not say to me that this transgression is trivial; it is great in itself, because it is disobedience, and even if it were trivial in itself, it would be great because it concerns the sign of great matters. And that this sign is great is evident from the fact that it produces good order in the human race, presenting in the proper manner both ruler and subject; but one who acts contrary to this brings everything into confusion, deprives himself of God’s gifts, diminishes the honor given to him from above—not only the man but also the woman. For it is a great honor for her to keep her place, and conversely, it is shameful to step outside the bounds. Therefore the Apostle speaks thus of them both.”

However, since in all this discourse on head covering the attention is directed principally to the woman, one can say with confidence that mention of the man shaming himself by covering his head is made here only for completeness of speech and for clarity by means of contrast. With respect to the woman, some interpreters conjecture that a woman who covers her head signals to all that she has a husband and lives with him honorably, while one who uncovers her head signals that she has no husband and is not steadfast in her principles. Thus she shames herself before all honorable people. Some also say that in the locality for which this epistle was written, pagan women went openly to their temples with unchaste purposes. In driving this custom out of the Christian temple, the Apostle writes thus, not mentioning the shameful purposes of the pagan women, but deriving the prohibition from other sources, so that by this mention he not defile chaste souls, but by this derivation of the command from a higher source, sanctify it and the very matter it concerns by universal Christian understanding, so that in all things Christ the Lord with His commandments is seen.

Holy Chrysostom says also about the very derivation of the commandment from Christian principles, or its confirmation by reasons, that there need not have been any, for the believing are sufficed by the commandment alone; the Apostle brings this reason for the weak. “The Apostle brings this reason,” he says, “so as to make the weak more attentive. For the believer who is properly faithful and steadfast in faith has no need of either proof or reason for what is commanded him, but is content with tradition alone; but the weak one, learning the reason, observes what is said with greater zeal and obeys with greater devotion.”

What does it mean: “a woman praying and prophesying”? In the first time, in the gatherings of the believers, God’s Spirit manifested its special working on some, and inspired one with prayer, another with a word of edification. Both prayer and the word of edification could arise from one’s own reflection and deepening in Christian truths. But they knew how to distinguish what was from the Spirit and what was their own. The one who felt this stirring would rise and utter before the assembly what God’s Spirit had inspired him: a prayer or a word of edification. The gift of being in such a state was not denied to women either, and they likewise would rise and utter prayers or words of edification. But the Apostles found that it was unseemly for women in the church to utter prayers or to read instructions, and therefore forbade it, as holy Paul later forbade it as well (in 1 Cor. 14). Here he speaks only of the impropriety of doing it with head uncovered, so as not suddenly to burden them with his commandment. The word of edification is called prophesying here because this inspiration resembled the prophetic state. Moreover, both in prayer and in speech there often entered direct prophecies—that is, predictions about the future.

Holy Chrysostom says: “At that time there were both men who prophesied and women who had this gift, for example the daughters of Philip and others before and after them. Of them the prophet of old spoke: ‘Your sons shall prophesy… and your daughters shall see visions’ (Joel 2:28). The Apostle commands a man to be uncovered not always, but only during prayer; but he commands a woman to be covered always, as is evident from the addition: ‘for it is one and the same as if she were shorn’. If being shorn always is shameful, then it is clear that being uncovered always is shameful.”

1 Cor. 11:6. For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself.

“First he requires that the woman not uncover her head during prayer, and then explains that she must be covered constantly; and moreover, covered with all care and circumspection, for he did not say simply ‘let her be covered’ (καλυπτεσθαι), but ‘let her cover herself’ (κατακαλυπτεσθαι)—that is, she must carefully cover herself on all sides. He shows also the impropriety of the opposite course of action, and severely reproaches it when he says: ‘if she does not cover herself, let her be shorn’; if, he says, you cast off the veil established by God’s law, then cast off what nature has given you as well. But someone might say: how can it be dishonorable for the woman if she attains to the honor of the man? To this we answer: by doing so she not only does not exalt herself but deprives herself of her own honor. For to fail to keep one’s own bounds and the laws established by God, but to transgress them—this is not exaltation but degradation. Just as one who desires what is another’s and seizes what does not belong to him does not gain but is degraded and loses even what he had, as happened in paradise; so also the woman in this case does not gain the nobility of the man but loses her own propriety. Thus, having pointed to what is undoubtedly recognized as shameful in the words: ‘if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved’, the Apostle finally says of himself: ‘let her cover herself’—he did not say ‘let her grow her hair’, but ‘let her cover herself’, suggesting that both are the same. Veil and long hair, he says, are one and the same; just as a shorn and uncovered head are one and the same, ‘for it is’, he says, ‘one and the same as if she were shorn’. But someone will ask: how are they one and the same when the one has a natural covering and the shorn one does not even have this? The one, we answer, with an uncovered head by her will has rejected even the natural covering; if she is not without hair, this is the work of nature, not of her; therefore, just as the shorn one has an uncovered head, so does she. For this reason God commanded nature to cover the head with hair, so that the woman, learning from nature, would also cover herself” (Holy Chrysostom).