“Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”

Fifth in his line of argumentation, Paul now appeals to the innate sense that all believers have, including the redeemed Corinthians, who “have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). Many argue that this verse nullifies or overrides the previous non-cultural, non-time-dependent teachings, and that Paul is using logic that only those of a culture already practicing head-coverings would “get.” Some reason that in our culture today, the covering doesn’t mean anything (unless it is pejoratively associated with oppression of women).

This falls flat on a number of fronts. First, it is not at all certain that head-covering conveyed headship in the first century, or that it was practiced consistently among Greek, Roman, or Jewish societies (in fact, Jewish men covered their heads in worship). Further, the meaning Paul gives to the head-covering was not at all the meaning of any society that practiced it in his day. Outside of Christianity, head-covering was not a reflection of headship among the sexes, God’s glory, or headship in the Godhead. Third, the practice of head-covering was certainly not the common practice of the Corinthian believers—otherwise why would Paul give so much instruction concerning it? In fact, the symbol and its meaning were counter-cultural then, as they are today.

Some argue that head-covering doesn’t mean anything today. But just like other symbols of Christian practice, we need to explain its meaning precisely becauseit is not immediately obvious. For example, most every time we practice the Lord’s Supper or baptism, someone explains its meaning. We don’t stop practicing them because their meanings are not obvious; we simply explain them when we practice them. Similarly, we should treat the cover as a symbol that needs explanation.

What causes some people to stumble are the phrases, “Judge for yourselves” and, “Does not even nature itself teach you …” Some say, “When I judge for myself, I don’t see nature teaching me that!” On the surface, we would respond that even if this verse were ambiguous, the weight of Paul’s first four arguments for head-coverings stand on their own. Paul is here providing collaborative reasoning. If this is a weaker argument, then it does not invalidate the stronger arguments given earlier. But, as we shall see next, Paul’s appeal is not to be dismissed out of hand, for it is indeed a weighty argument.

Lord, help me to see with the renewed mind of Christ that I have and desire.