Men and Women Relating Properly in Church (1 Corinthians 11:2-15)

Introduction

The battle of the sexes has been going a long time. The sexual revolution was in the 60s. We heard of the Women’s Liberation Movement, feminism, sisters throwing off male chauvinism. "I am woman hear me roar." Their aim was to rid the earth of patriarchy and all it’s attendant evils.

But the battle of the sexes has been going on much longer than that. Actually, it’s been going on since Adam and Eve. It started with Adam talking back to God:

‘The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.’ (Genesis 3:12 NIV)

God, it’s her fault I at the fruit. She gave it to me. And more to the point, it’s your fault. You put her here with me.

And ever since, we’ve had the battle of the sexes. Adam acquiesced and said to himself, "Let’s see what happens. After all, she is responsible, she is taking the lead." And there is Adam, silently, knowingly watching her be deceived, and letting it all happen. "Hey, let’s leave it up to the snake, and see if what God said comes true." And the silence of Adam meant the death of his whole family. And men have been sitting back and letting women protect their families ever since.

The punishment on the women speaks of the marital disharmony and battle of the sexes that has filled our world. God condemned them to domestic disharmony for their disobedience. Here are those ominous words to the woman, Genesis chapter 3 verse 16:

‘Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’ (Genesis 3:16 NIV)

Which I take it to mean, ‘Your desire is to master your husband, to want his job, and he will react against you, and rule over you. God says to the woman, you can fight, but you won’t win! And she won’t win. And neither will he.

The man will do one of two things when his woman takes him on. He will withdraw and say, "OK, I’m out of here. You can do it all yourself. I don’t care. You can cook and clean and look after the kids all by yourself. There will be another women desperate enough to have me for a while." Until, of course, he moves on.

And even when he leaves her, he will rule her by the tyranny of his absence, from a distance, having abandoned her and her children, to fend for herself. He will have left scars that will never fully heal. His sinful, unfaithful, irresponsible decisions will rule her in his absence and even from the grave.

Or alternatively, perhaps even worse, he will react angrily and violently. He has the bigger bicep and the louder voice. He can kidnap her, and keep her in his basement for 10 years. Hey, Ariel Castro was able to do it in Cleveland USA, the land of the free, to three women at once (http://www.webpronews.com/three-kidnapped-women-were-held-at-this-house-for-10-years-2013-05).

And less dramatically, but no less really, many women will be intimidated, and ruled by fear of the man in their life. Why do you think we have in our supposedly civilized society the education programs, ‘to violence against women, Australia says no’? Is it because we’ve cleansed our land of domestic violence? Why do we have ‘Apprehended Violence Orders’ and women’s refuges? Because of Genesis 3:16. Because of human sin and it’s consequences.

So the woman hasn’t won the battle of the sexes. Recently, we have had the Queen as a woman, the Governor-General as a woman, the Prime Minister as a woman, the Premier of NSW as a woman, the Mayor of Sydney as a woman. And still feminists will say that there's so much more to be done. They haven't won.

And has the man won in all of this? He might rule, but is he a winner? No. He is turned into either a boy or a brute.

He either stays immature, failing to launch, a commitment-phobe, irresponsible, sowing his wild oats with no thought for the outcome, pathetically trying to hang onto his youthful virility, moving on when it gets hard, and leaving it up to others. He remains a boy, only his toys have gotten bigger.

Or he becomes a despot, a tyrant and ogre, a grumpy old man, who rules by grunts, who makes his displeasure known, having everyone dance to his tune through fear and his borish overbearing dominance.

No longer do the man and woman rule together over God’s creation, as God originally intended. They fight to rule. No one wins. Only the lawyers.

And so now we have all manner of fighting between men and women. Feminists against chauvenists, Chauvenists quietly seething against the feminists, mysogynists, secretly hating these pushy upstart women but not able to say anything anymore. And the feminists, bitter and vitriolic, shaking their heads at men, laughing at them, and now with the media on their side, with their dumb men TV ads and Homer Simpson straw men.

And they fight. Feminists say, "Women can do anything a Man Can do", then moving to, "Hey, Women make better chefs, better prime ministers" because of this or that study, and of course, that is not sexist. Then the chauvenists quietly think, ‘Woman, get back into the kitchen, and give me sex, or I’ll go get my wife from a country where women know their place, and if she puts on weight, I’ll divorce her.’

There are no winners in the battle of the sexes. Everyone loses.

Living in a patriarchal culture doesn’t get you out of the fight, either. In the words of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, ‘Man might be the Head, but the Woman is the neck, and she can move the head whatever way she wants’.

And then of course, some decide to cross the gender boundaries. The gender benders, the cross dressers, the sex change recipients. Recently I picked up the Australian Women’s Weekly, that bastion of Royal Stories and maternal morality. One story, ‘Why I don't care that my son wears dresses’ (http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/news/inthemag/8647213/why-i-dont-care-that-my-son-wears-dresses) And at one level, who cares, it’s a seven year old. But then there was another story ‘Raising my androgynous son…’ (http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/news/inthemag/8630757/raising-my-androgynous-son-andrej-pejic). A 21 year old man quite happy to model as either a man or a woman.

And we are all supposed to say, ‘Well isn’t that wonderful, viva la difference, that’s OK, whatever takes your fancy’. We are the country that brought ‘Priscilla, Queen of the Desert’ to the world, after all.

And we Christians are the awful, terrible, narrow-minded, old fashioned bigots, who think that women should look like women, and men should look like men, and that God made them equal but different. Shame on you!

Why do you think beards are so unfashionable nowadays? It’s not just that I don’t want to look like a Muslim, or fat, or old, although they're three main reasons I don't wear one. But also, our society doesn’t want to acknowledge there is a difference between men and women.

And of course, it spills over into homosexuality. So people assert their sexual autonomy. 'I don’t want to have to live with someone of a different gender. I shouldn’t have to. I won’t.'

And so in our wealthy medically advanced liberal progressive society, fatherhood can simply amount to the contractual provision of semen, motherhood the provision of an egg and it’s incubation for the period of gestation, and we men don’t have to have anything to do with you women any longer. Welcome to our brave new world.

Principle of Headship & Ordered Relationships in Godhead and Creation (verse 3)

We’ve come to 1 Corinthians 11. And Paul now addresses the issue of headcoverings and hair length. And we think, ‘What? What difference does hair make? Or what you wear on your head?'

But of course, symbols are vitally important in any society. Stick your middle finger up at someone while you’re driving, and see if symbols matter.

Symbols teach us about our relationships with each other. And it is the relationships that we want to focus on. That’s where Paul starts. The relationships. Verse 3:

Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)

We are given three ordered relationships. God with Christ, Christ with Man, and Man with Woman.

First, God is the Head of Christ. Even in the Trinity, there is order.

The Athanasius Creed says of the persons of the Trinity, that ‘neither is before, and neither is after’. I understand that this is talking about temporal succession. There is never a time when the Father existed, but the Son or Spirit didn’t. No one person in the Trinity is before or after the other in time or order of existence. The persons share the same eternal essence. No person of the trinity created another person of the trinity. Each person is co-equal and co-eternal. So the Father doesn’t create the Son or the Spirit, but begets the Son, and both Father and Son send the Spirit.

According to Calvin, 'we must not seek in eternity a before or an after, nevertheless the observance of an order is not meaningless or superfluous, when the Father is though of as first, then from him the Son, and finally from both the Spirit' (Institutes, I.13.18, cited in M S Horton, The Christian Faith, 293).

So though the Persons are Equal, there is an order in the persons (Greek taxis). The Father is called the font of all divinity. He begets the Son. That begetting is eternal. So that Father was forever and eternally Father. The Son was forever and eternally Son, all in the eternal unity of the Holy Spirit. The Son doesn’t beget the Father, but the Father begets the Son. The Father commands the Son, the Son does not command the Father. That’s just not what sons do, as all the Fathers here know. That would be disorderly. The Son willingly submits to the Father’s headship, and willingly obeys the Father’s Word. The Father does not submit to or obey the Son, but hears and glorifies the Son.

Again, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father and the Son do not proceed from the Holy Spirit. There is an order in the Trinity.

So you cannot just copy and paste the role and functions of the Father and say, ‘I’ve copied and pasted the Father, so now I’ve got the Son’, and then control–v, paste again, and say, ‘That’s the Holy Spirit’. While each person is equally and fully God, there are personal distinctions between the Father and Son and Spirit. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. They are equal as to Godhood but different as to their roles as persons.

Note that Michael Horton says, 'The Father, the Son, and the Spirit do not differ in their divine essence and attributes. However, there are also personal attributes that cannot be shared' (M S Horton, The Christian Faith, 301). Again, 'Along with their unity in essence and activities, each is an unsubstitutable person who lives and acts differently. This difference never provokes opposition, but love, because each person has something different to bring to the intratrinitarian relationships and extratrinitarian works.' (M S Horton, The Christian Faith, 302). Similarily, Letham states, 'As Barth indicated, we can even argue - with caution - that the submission displayed by the Son while securing our redemption reflects eternal realities in God. This must be done in such a way as not to undermine the one being of God, in which all three persons completely inhere.' (Letham, The Holy Trinity, 483) '[T]he submission or obedience of the Son in the Trinity is in terms of the order, the relations of the persons, and is such as is fully compatible with their unity and equality' (Letham, The Holy Trinity, 492-3, emphasis his). Again, 'These relations are not reversible' (Letham, The Holy Trinity, 491).

And so Paul says, ‘The Head of Christ is God’. And what he means is that the eternal Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is in a relationship of willingly submission and obedience to the Father. This willing submission and obedience is part of him being eternally Son. And this is expressed in the fact that the Son, not the Father, becomes incarnate. The Sonship of God the Son doesn’t make him inferior to the Father as to his essence or being. The Son is still fully and equally God as to essence. But as to the order within the Trinitarian relationships of the persons, the Son submits to, obeys and follows the lead of the Father. And this will be reflected into eternity, for the eternal Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, bears his human nature into eternity. For we read in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verses 27 and 28:

For he "has put everything under his feet". Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:27-28 NIV)

Both Father and Son are fully God, fully divine. But the co-eternal Son willingly submits himself to the Father, both by becoming human in accordance to the Father’s will, and into eternity future, when the Son hands the kingdom over to the Father. And his incarnation is fitting because in his person he is uniquely God the Son, which neither the Father or the Spirit is.

Then Paul says that Christ is the head of Man, 'man' being male humanity. Christ is the head of man because Christ the eternal Word of God made man. Christ also made the woman. But he made man first, according to the Genesis account. There was a time when the woman was not, but the man was.

And so the man is said to be the head of the woman, because the woman was taken from the man. She was made from his rib. And as a matter of purpose, she was made for the man, to be his strong helper.

Headship, of course, is a controversial idea. The word translated head can mean ‘head’ in the sense of ruler or authority, such as the head of the house or head of state. (http://bible.org/seriespage/head-coverings-prophecies-and-trinity-1-corinthians-112-16). Less frequently, it can mean ‘head’ in the sense of source, such as ‘head’ of the river (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_source) But I think the first meaning, head as ruler or authority, makes more sense here, and in Paul. I'm not sure these meanings need to be exclusive of each other, anyway.

Application: Man and Woman and Headcoverings (verses 4-6)

And the way Paul applies this headship between man and woman to the church in Corinth is to stipulate certain headcoverings. Verses 4 to 5:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. (NIV)

We need to understand the situation into which Paul writes. In ancient Graeco-Roman culture at the time of Paul, you were what you wore[1]. The emperor Augustus introduced legislation forbade marriage across classes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Julia#Moral_legislation_of_Augustus). As part of this, the culture developed conventions about clothing that distinguished respectable married women from freedwomen, call girls, and prostitutes.

It appears that before a Graeco-Roman woman married, she did not wear a headcovering. Instead, she wore long hair. But when a woman married in the Roman culture, she covered her head. The covering of the bride’s head was the chief symbol in the Graeco-Roman marriage rite. She took her cloak, probably a toga, and drew it over her head to cover her head. And thereafter, when she left the house, no respectable women would uncover her head[2].

There are statues and coins of Livia, Caesar Augustus’ wife, wearing her cloak over her head as a covering. And there are also statues of virgins not wearing head coverings. See www.worldof1corinthians.com. 'Married women are generally depicted as wearing head coverings in Greco-Roman artwork, especially in settings designed to highlight piety; but sometimes they are presented bare-headed with their hair tied up:' (Matthew R Malcolm, The World of 1 Corinthians, 106-7). The following two images are of Livia, wife of the Emperor, wearing head coverings.

So unmarried women in the Graeco Roman culture did not wear head coverings, but the married woman did[3]. A married woman took the head covering at her wedding, and it became the symbol of the wife’s modesty and chastity, as well as the husband’s headship over the wife. See also http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1990_41_2_05_Gill_HeadCoverings1Cor11.pdf.

Now if a married woman discarded her headcovering in the church as she prayed or prophesied, it was a symbol of withdrawing herself from the marriage[4]. It would be like a wife today throwing away her wedding ring away, but still going to church and taking part in the service. It would dishonor her head, her husband.

I heard a story a few weeks ago, about an engaged woman, outraged at her fiancé, throwing his ring into the garden, and slamming the door in his face. Needless to say, they didn’t end up marrying.

So it was when a woman wouldn’t cover her head in public. It would be like throwing away a wedding or engagement ring. It was not just a fashion statement, it was a statement about the marriage. It was a statement about the woman’s attitude to society. The woman was flouting societies conventions about modesty and propriety.

So Paul points out that having an uncovered head in that culture is as disgraceful as a woman shaving her head. And he says to the Christian women, that even if they are at a home church, they should cover their heads, as is appropriate in that culture.

Now, if you’ve had kid’s at school, at some point or other, you’ve had to deal with nits. That’s right, nits, head lice, that scourge of many a mother.

You know, I’ve solved the problem of nits on my sons. Just shave the problem away. Use the clippers on 2 or 3, easy fixed, no problem. In two weeks it will grow back. But when I suggested the same solution for my primary school daughter, both mother and daughter looked at me with incredulity like I had no idea. Even the bob cut I suggested was a despicable abomination. So it was for Paul, when he says in verse 6:

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. (NIV)

In fact, those women’s heads who were shaved were those guilty of adultery. So Dio Chrysostom, records that ‘a woman guilty of adultery should have her hair cut off according to the law’ (Discourses, 64.2-3). And Tacitus tells us of the husband of an adulterous wife who cuts off her hair, strips her naked, and drives her from his house (Germania 19)[5]. It was a sign of disgrace.

Yet, it’s OK for a man to have short hair. In fact, if he has long hair, he shames his head. In other words, He is looking like a woman, which is shameful.

And Paul is probably picking up the Old Testament in saying this. Men are to look like men, women are to look like woman.

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. (Deuteronomy 22:5 NIV)

Now, in our culture, head coverings don’t mark out the married woman. So I don’t think we need to apply the passage by ladies wearing hats or scarves. You of course can, if you think that will please God and the angels. But head coverings don’t mean the same thing in our culture.

Maybe you can apply this ladies, by wearing feminine clothes and respecting your husbands role in your family, speaking respectfully about him and not ditching your wedding ring. It involves deferring to your husband, trusting him, letting him lead your family, encouraging him to take the lead in bible and church, and not cutting him down. I know I speak as an interested party, but that is what I think it means for you.

Reasoning from creation: The Origin and Purpose of the Woman (verse 7 to 10)

And Paul reasons from creation that the man and the woman should look different. Verses 7 to 9:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (NIV)

Paul here is reminding us of the creation narrative in Genesis 2. It tells us two things. The woman was drawn from the man, from his rib. And the woman was made for the man, to be his companion. And so the woman is the glory of man.

Now, women are also made in the image of God. Paul does not deny Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27 NIV).

Both man and woman bear the image of God. Paul doesn’t say the women is the image of man. She remains the image of God. But Paul does say she is the glory of man. She is so amazingly beautiful, just right for the man, yet she was taken from him, from the rib of man. So by her amazing beauty and femininity she brings glory to the man from whom she took life and from whom she was taken.

Think of Women's Magazines. Who features on the front? Either Princess Mary, or Nicole Kidman, or some other beautiful woman. And who features on the front of Men's Magazines? Yes, other beautiful women. Because women are beautiful. They are the glory of man.

Think of a man with a beautiful woman on his arm. We might say he is 'punching above he weight' for she brings glory to him. So to do beautiful daughters. Wow, such a beautiful daughter came from him! So women are the glory of man.

But church is not a fashion parade. It’s not about seeing how beautiful humanity can look. Church is not about bringing glory to man, but to God. And so the woman should cover her head so as not to distract from the glory of God. There is a place for the woman to show her glory, and that is at her home, with her husband. Ladies, church is not a fashion parade, or for showing the glory of humanity in your beauty. There is a place for that, but it is not church.

So I think this is a call to modest dress. How modesty looks, of course, will be culturally determined. Looking like a muslim does not betoken modesty in our culture, it stands for being a muslim. Wearing jeans and a blouse is quite modest, in my opinion. Wearing an evening dress with a plunging neckline or backline is not, in my humble opinion, modest. There might be a place for that, at a ball or a wedding. But not at church. It will be different from one time to another, one culture to another, one climate to another. But ladies, you will need to remember that church is not the place to show your glory, which is the glory of your man.

Verse 10, Paul gives another reason, and one that no one is really sure about. Verse 10:

For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (NIV)

No one is quite sure what the angel’s interests are in women’s headcoverings. Maybe they are interested in the orderliness of church, and of marriage. Maybe they are interested in the propriety and faithfulness of married women. After all, we have thousands of angels serving us, so of course they are interested in our godliness.

But I want to draw your attention to another interpretation of this verse. That is, that 'angels' may not mean angelic messengers but human ones. The word can sometimes mean human messengers. On this understanding, the human messengers saw that the women in the Christian home churches were praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered, and were perhaps reporting this fact to the community leaders, that there was in the Christian churches a serious breach of decorum. To an outside observer in that culture, by being uncovered, the Christian women appeared like the immoral new women, who flouted both the law and conventions of modesty. Such ‘New Women’ were on the rise. One of whom was Caesar Augustus’ daughter, Julia. She was so immoral that her father the emperor exiled her for her many affairs. And so, on this reconstruction, Paul wants to guard against such a misunderstanding. The Christian wives in the Corinthian house churches must appear as they do in public, with modesty and decorum, and with her cloak demurely pulled over her head.

Created Mutual Dependence (verses 11 to 12)

But if there is headship and order, and the man is the head of the woman, there is also mutual dependence, where the man cannot exist without the woman. Verses 11 to 12:

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (NIV)

Here is the great corrective for the battle of the sexes. We need each other. The man needs the woman. The woman needs the man. After all, you don’t get any men without women. Every man has a mum. No matter how many times kids are taught to say, ‘I’ve got two mums’, or ‘I’ve got two dads’, you just don’t get a baby unless there is a mum and a dad. So we need each other. That’s the way God made it.

And what we need to do, brothers and sisters, is to redeem marriage and gender relations, in this anti-authoritarian, anti-male, anarchical, gender bending society. For as long as we live in this gendered world, we need to continually refer back to Genesis 1 and 2.

And God’s original intention was that male and female would be united in marriage, made together in God’s image, ruling creation together, the husband as first and leader, the wife as taken from him, and strong helper. That is how we redeem our marriages, in well ordered and mutually respectful partnership, acknowledging that both husband and wife cannot fulfill God’s mandate to fill and subdue this earth without the other. We need to try and get back to Genesis 1 and 2.

And we need to continually refer forward to Ephesians 5 and Revelation 21, where our marriages are the picture of Christ’s love for the church and the churches submission to Christ, which will be consummated in the ultimate marriage of the new heaven and the new earth. We must never say that submission is demeaning. Christ submitted to his Father. The church submits to Christ. All Christians are to submit to authority. And so wives are to submit to husbands, in everything not sinful. And in saying that, I’m only quoting the bible.

Argument from Propriety, Nature and Custom (verses 2, 13-16)

The final section, verses 13 to 16, shows Paul appealing to propriety, nature and custom. Verse 13:

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (NIV)

Answer being, no, it is not proper in that culture. It implied that the woman was rebellious and immoral.

Verses 14 and 15:

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (NIV).

In other words, short hair is masculine and long hair is feminine. Of course, there is such a thing as men with long hair. For example, Samson, Absalom, and the Nazarites. And both of those guys were men’s men. But generally speaking, those with long hair don’t look like men, but women. And you have to look twice. Is that a man or a woman?

And finally Paul says, this is what we do all over the world. Verse 16:

If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God. (NIV)

Conclusion

Unapologetically, we want to have masculine men and feminine women.

Ladies, if you feel you need to wear a scarf, that’s fine, but I don’t think that’s how we apply it. Because to our culture headcovering doesn’t signal that you are married and under the authority of your husband. It just would look weird and cultish.

But we need the reality, that the men are the heads of their families, leading their households, and their wives and children submit to their leadership because it is sensible. It is about respecting the ordered relationships God has placed in the world, particularly in marriage and the church.

Men, we mustn’t do an Adam, and cop out. And then our wives won’t be tempted to take over. If we do a good job of leading, like Jesus did, in other-person centredness, servant-leading, loving way that took Jesus to the cross, our women will trust us that we won’t just be using our rule to please ourselves, but to serve them and their children.

And ladies, God has made you as our strong helpers. We need you. We’re sorry for our sulky withdrawing and saying, ‘Well then, if you don’t like it you can do it all yourself’. We’re sorry also for our angry reacting, our loud yelling, our grumpiness, and our scary anger. We would like to do better than that. Please help us, not by taking over from us, but by praying that we would be better leaders of the family and the church. And we thank God that he made you to help us.

Let’s pray.

[1] Bruce W Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 85

[2] Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 90

[3] Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 78-80

[4] Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 81

[5] Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 82; C K Barrett, 1 Corinthians: HNTC, 251

11:2 Now I commend [praise] you because [Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι] you remember me in everything [remembered everything of me, πάντα μου μέμνησθε] and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you [just as I handed them over to you, you are holding on to the things handed over to you, καί, καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε].

11:3 But I want you to understand that [Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι, to know, ὅτι] the head of every man is Christ [παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν], the head of a wife [the woman] is her husband [the man, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ], and the head of Christ is God [κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός].

11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered [πᾶς ἀνὴρ προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων, every man praying or prophesying having something down from his head{kata + genitive}] dishonours [shames] his head [καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ.] 11:5 but every wife [woman] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered [πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ προσευχομένη ἢ προφητεύουσα, praying or prophesying, ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ] dishonours [shames] her head [καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς], since it is the same as if her head were shaven [for it is one and the same if she were shaved, ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ]. 11:6 For if a wife [woman] will [does] not cover her head [εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή], then she should cut her hair short [she also should be shorn, καὶ κειράσθω·]. But since it is disgraceful [shameful] for a wife [εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ] to cut off her hair or shave her head [to be shorn or to be shaved, τὸ κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι], let her cover her head [she should cover up, κατακαλυπτέσθω].

11:7 For a man ought [is obliged] not to cover his head [Ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλὴν], since he is [being] the image and glory of God [εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων·], but woman is the glory of man [ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν]. 11:8 For man was not made [is not] from woman [οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικὸς], but woman from man [ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός·]. 11:9 [for also] Neither was man created [καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ] for woman [διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, διὰ + acc, because of, on account of], but woman for man [ἀλλὰ γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα, διὰ + acc, on account of]. 11:10 That is why a wife [the woman] ought to have a symbol of authority on her head [διὰ τοῦτο, because of this, ὀφείλει, is obliged, ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, to have authority upon her head], because of the angels [διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους].

11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man [πλὴν οὔτε γυνὴ χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς, apart from man] nor man of woman [οὔτε ἀνὴρ χωρὶς γυναικὸς ἐν κυρίῳ,·apart from woman]; 11:12 for as woman was made from man [ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ γυνὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός], so man is now born of woman [οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ διὰ τῆς γυναικός·, thus also the man through the woman]. And all things are from God [τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ].

11:13 Judge for yourselves [Ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς κρίνατε·]: is it proper for a wife [woman] to pray to God with her head [to pray to God] uncovered? [πρέπον ἐστὶν γυναῖκα ἀκατακάλυπτον τῷ θεῷ προσεύχεσθαι;] 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that [οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι] if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace [dishonour] for him [ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν], 11:15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? [γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν;] For her hair is given to her for a covering [ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται [αὐτῇ], Because her hair has been given to her instead of a cloak].

11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious [Εἰ δέ τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι, But if anyone seems to be a lover of strife], we have no such practice [custom, ἡμεῖς τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν], nor do the churches of God [οὐδὲ αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ].