But Biblically, the word must be reclaimed for the beauty it is supposed to represent:  

“I love you and trust you so much for my wellbeing and thriving that that I will follow.”

Ephesians 5 says that the responsibility is so great to lead someone who trusts you like this, that should it be best for you to sacrifice yourself so that they might flourish – you do it – as standard!  

Think about it like this, if Christ submits to the Father then there is nothing undignified about submitting to someone worthy of that trust.  

Christian marriage is radically different and radically smells like Eden.  

One of the beautiful aspects of this headship dynamic is that leader is to be walking advertisement for the glory of the one who is following. That is proclaim from the roof tops the:  

• significance,  

• wonder,  

• value of the other!  

• When hummanity is created God proclaims that creation isn’t now just good, it is very very good.

• When Jesus is baptised, God the father proudly proclaims with joy: “You are my beloved son, with you I am well pleased”.

• When Eve is created from Adam her husband, Adam’s joy bubbles over into a poem: “this is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.”

It’s an ancient world way of saying: “You complete me!”

The word ‘helper’ that is used to describe the role of wives in a marriage, is not the equivalent of ‘lesser servant’,

‘helper’ - can be found 20 times in the Old Testament. Seventeen of those times it is used to describe God, and the other three times to describe a military aide.

When a married couple dances through life in a way that echoes the God-head, it brings glory to God and is a powerful sign post to the world of the goodness of God.  

The context of 1 Corinthians

The church in Corinth had its work cut out to survive.  

Which Roman customs do they redeem and bare with and which customs do they reject as inconsistent with following Christ?

• Paul  in this book has challenged them on the custom of picking favourites and creating factions.

• He has challenged them on eating food offered to idols.

• And now he challenges the customs they were bringing into the Lord’s supper.

For it would not be customary for the poor to have the same food as the rich, or the slaves to sit beside royalty.  

And Paul’s point in chapter 10 and 11, these divisive social customs need to be rejected.  

But nestled in between these two critiques of the Lord’s supper is our passage, because Paul wants to address another complex custom that needs to be navigated by this new church – what are you going to do about hair?

The context of hair

Hair was a big deal in Roman society. It was as if men and women used their hair as an equivalent of their social media profile. They would use their hair style to communicate anything from their relationship status to their political affiliation.  

A common custom for many, married women wore a special veil.

The married woman wearing a veil marked their status as respectable married women. Much like a wedding ring.

However, just as one fashion becomes custom another counter fashion develops as a rebellion.  

One notable example in the first century, was where wives all over the Empire began adopting the dress of hetairai – this is where they would refuse to where a veil and adopting more flamboyant clothes make themselves the talk of society. A move that was:

• part ancient world ‘click-bait’ to increase your followers  

• and for some a public way to conduct a marital breakdown by embarrassing their husbands.  

Such moves were discussed by Philosophers such as Seneca, Ovid and Cicero. Much like today it became a royal scandal when the Emperor Augustus’s own niece, Julia, was tried and convicted for this fashion crime – by the shaving of her head.

Men’s hair was no less contentious.

The Roman  custom was for men to keep their hair relatively short as a sign of dignity and control.  

But Politicians used artistic depictions of their hair to send a political message about how they viewed themselves, and how they wished their leadership to be perceived.  

At the time Paul was writing, it is likely that Nero was emperor and his extravagance set a hair trend of longer hair that could be styled more elaborately to command the attention like wearing a gold Rolex.  

Moreover a new style trended in the empire known as “Philosopher Locks,”  it was a hairstyle to convey a sense of intellectual superiority – to make you ‘head and shoulders’ above the rest.

In combination with this “I’m better than you hairstyle”, men would use a veil in pagan worship to denote that their participation was more important than anyone else.

And it was believed that a man, when acting like priest, should cover himself because it almost cloaked his tainted humanity before the gods.

So how would these hair customs workout in the cocktail of Roman Corinth and the new gospel?

Where should hair customs be rejected and where should hair customs be redeemed?

Exegesis of passage

That brings us to our passage.  

The summary is this: where the custom echoes the picture of Eden it should be retained, but where it breeds disunity it should be rejected.  

**Confusion warning there so contested word translations in these few verses – your Bible might say something quite different to the person next to you.

[3] Paul opens with a description of Eden relationships.

Christ the maker of all things has headship over Adam,  

Adam has headship over Eve.  

And God the Father has headship over God the Son.  

Just as we looked at: Trinitarian unity and distinction involves one submitting to another. Marital unity that echoes the trinity involves one submitting to another.  

The language of ‘woman’ in the original text is wife.

So married people are in particular focus here.

Having established the necessity to echo Eden, Paul applies this to Roman customs first relating to men and then to women.  

[4]  men shouldn’t cover the heads because that custom (remember  pagan priests) would signify that they are the most important people in the room which is an insult to Jesus the true high priest.  

*To dishonour his ‘head’ isn’t his physical skull but referring to dishonouring Christ.  

[5] switches to the custom of married women wearing veils. And his point is you can keep that custom because it honours marriage.  

It publicly declares that Christian marriage is special because it uniquely and wonderfully echoes what God is like. (Remember headship in marriage echoes the relationship between the Father and the son)

[6] picks up the consequence in Roman culture of a woman not wearing a covering, and his point is: its scandal and dishonour in Roman culture why would you want to taint your own marriage with that image when it’s such a beautiful picture?

[7-8,9] Paul is summarising his argument so far, acknowledging to men he’s saying “don’t cover your head” and to women “do cover your head” –

“I’m not being hypocritical because the pattern laid down in Genesis engages with these two customs in different ways.

[10] The most persuasive translation that I’ve read is ‘For this reason … a wife should exercise control over her head’  

Meaning, a Christian woman has freedom to do as she pleases, please use your own agency to intentionally honour your marriages in this custom.  

[11] Paul is aware that this talk of male headship over women, might in the Roman culture, sound like he’s affirming the horrendous cultural practice of treating women like they are less valued than men.

So going back to the Eden pattern he wants to reiterate, both men and women are image bearers of God, and just as the Father is equal in divinity to the Son and Spirit, despite their roles in creation and salvation being distinct.  

Similarly, men and Women are equal in dignity, and equally need each other to fulfil their purpose and bring God glory. Both submit to the will of God, because ‘everything comes from God’.

In other words, don’t get distracted by male headship in marriage because everyone and everything submits to God the Father – “I’m not saying men are more important”.

[13-15] Paul closes his argument about the difference between men and women in applying or rejecting the custom of head coverings by appealing to the cultural perceptions of the differences between the sexes.  

(He now broadening out to talk about all men and women in the church)

He needs to do this because Christianity was so radically counter-cultural for the Romans. For a Roman there are so many areas of life, where men and women were separated and women we subjugated.  

But Christianity made women equal in status, and dignity, gave them opportunity to equally participate in worship with men [5].  

To a young Christian you might even think believe that Christianity eroded any difference between men and women altogether.

So Paul, wants to reiterate that there is a natural distinction between men and woman, and to do that, he appeals to a Roman cultural idea that women have long hair and it is a mark of their beauty.  

And men typically in the empire had short hair as a mark of their honour as a military ready ‘good citizen’ – Rome was a warlike culture.  

In other words: “For a Roman, ‘natural’ expectation was for a woman to look different to a man. Therefore, don’t be embarrassed about that in the church.”

[16] Paul’s summary of which customs to retain and redeem and which to reject, has a default: Pursue unity even at personal expense!

Application

Some of you just waking up want to know – “Just tell me if women should wear a hat in church?”

Martin Luther and John Calvin commended women covering their heads in public assemblies, but both noted it was a matter of custom. Charles Hodge puts the matter this way:

“Dress is in a great degree conventional. A costume that is proper in one country would be indecorous in another.”

In other words – if wearing a head covering in your culture signifies the beauty of Christian marriage and echoes the relational dynamics of the trinity then wear a hat, if in your culture it doesn’t, then don’t wear a hat.  

But if the focus is more on unity and the fragrance of Eden, in Christian community, then I think the application is we must work hard to discern how to show the sacrificial love of Jesus in the specific culture we live in?

And sometimes the answer to that question means you break cultural norms, and at other times you keep them.

• Remember when Jesus, meets the woman from Samaria (John 4).

• He talks to her (total cultural outrage) - he breaks the custom.

• He challenges her about her attitude towards marriage (she’s living with a man unmarried) - he reinforces a custom.

• He then reveals he is God-himself, (the ultimate headship) and offers her the water of life, that is, the hope of the Gospel.  

• But that invitation, ultimately requires him to, in love, sacrificially die for her on the cross so this abandoned woman can share in the very glory of God!  

The fragrance of Jesus, the fragrance of Genesis 1-2, whatever it smells like, it doesn’t smell of:

• I’m too cowardly to challenge unloving cultural customs because it will look bad on me.

• I’m too proud to lay down my power, my rights for the benefit of others.

No, the fragrance of Jesus is beautiful and unique. Based on this passage, in a church community it smells like:

Retain customs that help promote the beauty of marriage:

We need to be a church where marriage is held up as a good thing, where loving sacrificial marriages that point to Christ are honoured and thrive.

• It’s a custom to ask people how they are, but it can be awkward if you’re married and you’re talking to a single person to be silent about your marriage. When appropriate be honest talk about your marriage. Talk well of your spouse. When he takes the rubbish out, he doesn't leave wet towels on the floor – proclaim it from the roof tops – sorry that’s just a personal application for my marriage.

You get the idea.  

Secondly, the fragrance of Jesus in our community, based on this passage:

Reject customs that don’t promote male humility:

In Corinth big dogs covered their heads – for us, men are not to pursue the arrogance of status.  

You come to church, attempting to show case you’re the alpha – by what you wear, by what you are seen to do. No, the fragrance of Christ is that you sacrificially give away your power. You want to be the spiritual giga-chad, then be the last one to leave church because there’s chairs to be stacked and washing up to be done.  

Thirdly, the fragrance of Jesus in our community, based on this passage:

Retain customs that promote the male and female distinction:

Your friends should notice something different about City Churchers in the way that men and woman talk to each other, about each other, where they are tripping up over each other to give honour and respect to each other.  

Our culture has a custom of men opening doors for women, not because women can’t do it for themselves, but as a sign of particular honour and respect – perhaps that’s something visitors would notice.  

We’ll need to figure this out together.  

But the headline is:

‍