This article is part of the Corinthians Controversy series. Please read 1 Corinthians chapter 11 in a King James Bible before reading this article further.
One of the controversial chapters in Corinthians is 1 Corinthians chapter 11. The specific controversial verses are verses 2-16. If one has previous teachings on this, a study Bible that looks into this, or has read other's teachings on it, they may come away with a specific view on these verses, which may be incorrect. In order to understand this so-called controversial passage, you may need to deprogram yourself.
Forget about what you already know about this passage. Forget what you've been taught, or have read about it. There is a danger in listening to other's teachings or reading other's conclusions, as it can taint how we see the Word of God. What if what we've been taught about it is wrong?
Often, we need to throw out man's teachings, and just read what the word says. A false teaching on this passage is that it's only teaching about the authority of the husband over the wife, and that is all. That's man's teaching. Reading the straight text reveals to us that there are two types of heads discussed in this passage:
The physical head - "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." - vs. 6 This must be referring to the woman's physical head, as it's saying if she's not covered, then she might as well have short hair, or a shaved head. We know long hair is a glory to a woman, from verse 15, so we know it is a shame for a woman to have short hair. Therefore, her husband must not be her covering, else, what would her hair have to do with it? Absolutely nothing.
The authoritative head and the physical head - "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." vs. 5. This Scripture is clear - if a woman prays or prophesies with her physical head uncovered, then it dishonors her authoritative head, and is the same as if she were shaved bald.
The teaching that this controversial passage is only referring to authority, and that the woman is covered, if she is under the authority of her husband is a half-truth. She must have her head covered a well, as is clear from verses five and six.
Another teaching on this passage, is that the woman's head covering is her long hair. This teaching is derived from verse 15, which says a woman's long hair is "given her for a covering." Long hair cannot possibly be THE head covering, as all of this passage, until this verse, tells us about how the woman needs to wear a head covering, else it's ALSO as if she had short hair or a shaved head: "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn." - vs. 5a. "Also" is a very important word here. If the woman's headcovering is her long hair, then we could replace "covering" with "long hair" in the above passage, and it should make perfect sense. To make this a bit simpler, we can also replace "shorn" with short hair, since that's what it means - hair cut short. Let's try it - 'For if the woman have not long hair, let her also have short hair.' This makes no sense. Of course if a woman doesn't have long hair, then she as short hair (unless she doesn't have any). Long hair isn't THE head covering, it is A covering - "her hair is given her for a covering." Verses 14 and 15 are parenthetical. They are there to give us an example in nature, so that we can easily answer the question set forth in verse 13 - "...Is it comely that a woman pray to God uncovered?" We know from the preceding verses to verse 13 that the answer is no, and now we have an example in nature, agreeing that it is not comely for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. Hair is A covering, but not THE covering.
It is clear that a woman is supposed to wear a headcovering, else why did Paul bother writing that a woman should put a covering on, and then change his mind at the end of the passage? That would make no sense.
Another teaching is that this passage is, rightly so, discussing a physical headcovering, however this teaching (falsely) states that that was just for Corinth, or for that time and culture, and is not a command for women today. This, in my opinion, is the most ludicrous of the views on this controversial passage. First off, EVERY Epistle in the Holy Bible is to EVERY Christian. Why would certain churches be given certain commands, but other churches would not? Why would Corinth be told their woman must headcover, but not any of the other churches? There are some crazy theories on this, but it is a moot point, because this command was not given to just Corinth.
The second half of 1 Corinthians 11 is about properly partaking of Communion - the Lord's Supper. If one is going to state that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is not for today, or was only for the Corinthians, then they'd also have to agree that the Communion isn't for today, since that is in the same chapter. Further, they can't stop there. They have to discount ALL of both the books of 1 and 2 Corinthians, else they are inconsistent. However, why stop there? Why not pick and choose which passages in the Bible are for today, and which passages are not? If you don't like something the Bible says, just throw it out, as "not for today." Wow, your own designer Bible! What a dangerous path. What a false teaching.
Further proof that 1 Corinthians 11 is for all Christians, and not just for the Corinth church is found in chapter 1, verse 2. It states:
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:"
Just read the passage, and pay attention to every word. The word "also" in verse six is very important. The word "a" in verse 15 is very important. Before I started covering my head, I'd cringe every time I read 1 Cor. 11. It was clear that it's describing a physical covering on top of the hair, and it must not be just the hair, else verses 4-10 make absolutely no sense.
For more information about the controversial passage of verses 2-16 in 1 Corinthians 11, click here.