» 11:2
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
From context, that is follow my example in seeking “the profit of the many, so that they may be saved” (10:33). Christ, through His supreme self-sacrifice for others, taught us that if we are His disciples, our focus will be on others rather than self.

Paul wants these Christians to continue to emulate not only his teachings but also his application of those teachings (“traditions”).

He made an almost parallel statement in 2Th 2:15: “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

A few verses later he said “keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us” 2Th 3:6.

[SIDE NOTE: The word translated “traditions” has a rich, historical meaning. Vine’s defines paradosis,(παράδοσις) as “that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching. The body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence.”]

“What Would Jesus Do” is a great question for our lives, but sometimes we don’t have a specific example from the Gospels of what Jesus would do in a specific situation. In those cases, if we’re unsure, it is worthwhile to think of, or consult with, a mature believer who models his or her life after Christ. Hopefully that believer is living for the sake of others and is happy to assist.

» 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

What teaching/tradition is he talking about in context? The eternal principle of headship. When used metaphorically, like here, “head” means what we mean when we call someone the head of a company.” It means “the primary leader.”

There are three parts to a single headship principle here:

1. The head of every man is Christ
2. The head of the woman is man
3. The head of Christ is God

Most Christians readily agree to first and third principles. God is the head of Christ. We know that. Christ is the head of every man. Agreed.

The dispute comes in with the second point: That man is the head of woman. But we can’t just accept #1 and #3 and throw out #2 because we are uncomfortable with it. If we can accept the meaning of the others, we must at least acknowledge that the one we don’t like is an accurate biblical teaching. If you won’t accept that man is the head of woman, you have to renounce your belief that God is the head of Christ, and Christ is the head of every man. They are presented as a complete package.

So let’s explore the meaning of these statements as objectively as possible.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR GOD TO BE THE HEAD OF CHRIST?
Christ (the begotten Son) came from God the Father but is not inferior to the Father. “…Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Php 2:5-6). Christ Jesus exists to advance the cause of the Father. So even though He has a head, is not inferior to His head.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR CHRIST TO BE THE HEAD OF MAN?
Let’s notice a few things about Christ’s headship over man. Just as Christ came from the Father, man came from Christ. “For by Him all things were created.” (Col 1: 16). And yet man has authority even though he has a Head.

From the above 2 examples, we can extrapolate the following about man’s headship over woman:

• The statement is clear enough: man is the head of woman.
• Headship does not imply superiority or inferiority.
  
• Woman came from man just as man came from Christ and Christ came from the Father.
• Christ chose to advance the cause of the Father, man should exist to advance the cause of Christ, and woman should chose to advance the cause of man - without implying inequality or superiority.
  

In marriage, a woman commits to doing what Christ did – choosing to lay down her independence and advance a cause beyond her own. A woman who does not want to do that doesn’t have to – she simply shouldn’t get married.

This does, in fact, mean that the man has the ultimate direction – and accountability – for the goals and objectives in the marriage. If she doesn’t support him properly, she has to account to God for that. If he doesn’t lead properly, he has to account to God for that.

This places a MASSIVE responsibility on the man. Just as God was “responsible” for advancing the right cause and leading in the right way as Christ submitted Himself, so the husband is responsible to advance the right cause and lead in the right way.

In other words, a husband must commit to becoming like the Heavenly Father as much as the woman must commit herself to becoming like Christ. Either of them being unfaithful in these commitments throws the whole thing out of kilter.

Headship is not inequality. I in no way feel inferior to those who have a degree of decision making leadership over me (my manager at work, or even his manager’s manager; the mayor, governor, or president, etc.).

Headship it demonstrates structure. It is about leadership, not domination.

» 11:4-6
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

Paul illustrates his point with an example that was common the in the first century Eastern cultures. He is simply using this as an illustration. His topic is headship, leadership, and followership – not head coverings. He’s demonstrating that their own traditions show an awareness of the different roles:
- Women should cover their heads
- Men should not

It’s easy to read right past this point, but look again: Both men and women were free to exercise public ministry - Both could pray and prophesy (vv. 4-5)!

Plus (we can talk about this more in Chapter 14), what Paul calls “prophesying” is what we call preaching – taking the Scripture and illuminating life through it to the benefit of others. Women could do that with covered heads.
So women and men are both able to do “preach” but it in different ways – women according to the role of women, and men according to the role of men.

THAT is the emphasis of this text. THAT is what Paul’s central topic is here.

As a side note, it was extremely counter-cultural for a Jew like Paul to say that men should not minister in public with anything on their heads. Both then and now, no Jewish man would ever consider ministering publically without a yarmulke.

On the other hand, if a woman ministered publically without anything covering her, she dishonored her head – that is, her husband. No one in First Century Greece would miss this point. Only temple prostitutes didn’t wear veils in that day.

Notice the important word “IF” in V. 6 He emphasizes that IF it is disgraceful for a woman to not have her head covered, she should cover it. Even in that day, there were cultures where that was not disgraceful. But if it was, that’s what a woman should do in order to not disgrace her husband. Otherwise, she may as well shave her head and present herself as a prostitute, because that’s what she’s proclaiming herself to be by not showing him respect.

» 11:7-9
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.

Paul returns to theology rather than customs in v.7.

He goes back to creation. Man was made in God's image in order that any creature, looking at a man, would see the likeness, the very nature of God. Genesis states that man was made in the image of God before the two sexes were separated. Adam was created first, and it was said before Eve was separated from him, that man is the image and glory of God. This means that the woman shares the image and the glory of God equally with the man. That is why Genesis 5 says that God created them in the beginning male and female and he named them Man.

Therefore, the female bears the image and glory of God equally with the male. Just as man was made from God and bears His glory, so also the woman was created from man and bears his glory – and through that she bears God’s glory! The point seems to be that God’s glory in the woman is less direct – it is by bringing glory to her husband that she brings glory to God.

» 11:10-16
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

In v. 10, Paul brings it back to the word “authority” – which, even in our language, is related to the word “author.” Man “authored” woman in that she was created from him like a book is created from its author’s thoughts. She should show this authority as she ministers. In vv. 11-12: She is not independent of him, and he’s not independent of her. They together bring glory to God. They are fully equal as persons, they simply serve different purposes in bringing glory to God

I confess to have no idea right not what Paul means in v.10 by “because of the angels.”

Vv.11-16 are the equalizer. Though this authority structure exists, man and women are indebted to each other for their existence.