The Head Covering Saga - Part 2

The head covering, as we saw in the last post, when seen in the Biblical context was not limited to a localized congregation and was not, by any means to degrade the value of the woman or make her inferior to man. What then is the significance of observing this custom ? Let's find out.


1. The Case for Glory
a. The uncovered head of man : As we saw earlier, the Corinthian church was planted in a city with diverse customs pertaining to head covering, some even included men covering their head. So Paul addresses this very specifically, by saying that men should not cover their heads and that women should cover their heads while in service. You have probably seen the כִּיפָּה or Kippah that is worn by Jewish men or even the priestly turban worn by the High Priest while ministering. Have we never wondered why God Himself instituted the head covering for male High Priests in the Old Testament (Exodus 28:4) ?  If man is the glory of God then wouldn't this principle have applied to the high priest and shouldn't he also have not covered his head ? That's why the head covering is so important, though man has always been the glory of God, the Glory of God was never uncovered. Be it Moses's face as it shone or the glory of the Holy of Holies were all veiled. In the New Testament, the glory has been unveiled in Jesus (John 1:14). So no wonder Paul says that now men must not cover their heads, because the glory of God stands unveiled.

b. The covered head of a woman: What does the woman's head represent ? She carries two glories, so to speak. The glory of man (1 Corinthians 11:7) and the glory of woman ( 1 Corinthians 11:15). Technically she is glorious and because she represents the glory of man, she must cover that which is the glory of man while in service/worship/ministry because only the glory of God should be manifest. Though not a direct parallel, its easy to remember how the Seraphs in Isaiah 6 cover their faces and feet. Even when the case is made for the "feet" to, by euphemism, be for the genitals, the act of twinning its covering with the covering of faces is done to show humility and modest propriety before the glorious presence of God. They don't need to cover their faces elsewhere except in the worship of God. Glorious beings that they are, when in God's presence, they cover their faces as they sing Holy, Holy, Holy. Paul's case here is pretty clear, the display of no other glory is permissible in worship, except God's. He even says that if a woman cant cover her head and hair, which is her glory, she should shave it off. Almost implying that if it can't be covered, it has no business to be there.

2. The Case for Angels

Paul then makes a case for angels. He says a woman must have a 'symbol' of authority on her head because of angels (symbol is not a word in the Greek text, translators understood that to be implied therein). Two offshoots of thought primarily appear and I will visit them not just because it is there in the text but also because many reformed church fathers also believed this reference to angels to be a prime reason for the case of head covering.

a. An Angelic Lesson Angels see in this the only place in creation where someone who is equal to another accepts the other as "head" and comes under their authority willingly without in anyway being inferior or lesser. The only other place is in the Godhead where Jesus being equal with the Father willingly submits to His authority and accepts the Father as His Head. They have seen lesser beings struggle with God Himself for power but they never see a volitional submission to an equal other than in God. No wonder God shows His multi faceted wisdom to the angels through the church. Now, since this is something Scripture puts in place, non conformity to this could come across as very offensive to God's holy angels. Being the sinless creatures that they are, every offense, no matter how trivial in our eyes could be brazenly offensive to them who are now appointed to minister to the people who will inherit salvation. It violates the purpose to show angels how the body of Christ reflects what is seen in God himself and also can easily offend angels.

b. A no trespassing signboard? While the merit of this argument may or may not be mainline thought, I include this because we do not have sufficient grounds to rule out this as irrelevant. The Old testament shows how the 'sons' of God had sexual relations with the 'daughters' of man. Jude v6 shows us that there were angels who did not reserve their authority and power but gave up their habitation were bound in darkness by Jesus. Let's take a closer look.

ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλ’ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. (NIV)

Here the word the King James version translates as estate is the same word Arche Paul uses to identify angelic beings of the first order in his list in Ephesians 6

πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις.

against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms

These beings have a huge level of autonomy and authority and even the very classification of Ephesians 6 is more a testament to their hierarchy on the basis of their power/ authority and the understanding of Jude v 6 also testifies to the kind of power they wielded. What they did was very interesting, they "abandoned their proper dwelling" It doesn't mean a change of house. For spirits, the word οἰκητήριον signifies the body of the spirit that acts as a tent/habitation (2 Cor 5:1). So effectively when we look at the subsequent verses of how inhabitants of Sodom and likened to them, these gave up their bodies which more specifically put, their sexuality (since angels are generally sexually neutral), so they could have intimacy with the "daughters of men". 

Now Jude talks about Sodom and Gomorrah as having 'in like manner' having sexual preferences which were not the norm which makes a clear case for the implied similarity of the angelic beings' actions as relating to sexuality. Now we see Jude says those angels God bound in darkness and also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. But just as sexual preferences continued to be altered over history though Sodom was no more, it is not possible to totally rule out the possibility of angels wanting to have sexual relationships with mankind. Though we don't see giants roaming the earth as in Old Testament times today, we see that even after Noah's flood there still were giants, which may point to a repetition of the pre-Noahic problem even after God destroyed the world with the flood. When a woman willingly submits to the order of God by wearing a head covering its like a "No Trespassing" board because ultimately she is covered under the authority of God Almighty. So not only does the covering cover the glory of man, it also acts as a symbol of authority with God being the enforcer and possessor of the said person.

I really don't want to make this too long for the reader and so will conclude part 2 here as I leave you with this thought, be it the case for the glory or the case for the angels, irrespective of the nuances of interpreting Genesis 6 or Exodus 28, we see that Paul clearly lists both those as literal reasons for the covering of the woman's head and for the man's head to be uncovered. 

But then are there exceptions ? Can't we just have women shorten their hair instead of covering their hair ? Well stay tuned for part 3.


 .