There are so many different teachings concerning the woman's covering. At least some of them have to be wrong. Some Baptists teach that a woman should wear a covering on her head in the assembly. Some others say that the woman's hair is the only covering she needs. Others say that since a covering is a token of her subjection to her husband, and since she refuses to be in subjection, the covering would make her a hypocrite. Then with the advent of the Southern Baptist convention 135 years ago, it seems that most Baptists just said, 'forget it'.
    But since there is no insignificant nor unimportant thing found in the dear old Book, it behooves us to do everything we can to get to the bottom of this subject. Much of the confusion just may be the result of the translation. If our translators had been more careful to give us the different meanings of the different Greek words found in I Corinthians 11:1-15 it would have made it easier for us to understand. The way these words are dealt with seems to justify the teaching that the woman's hair is all the covering she needs. For instance, the word "covering" in verse 15 seems to be the same as "covered" in verse 6. But really there is a world of difference between, both the meaning and the manner in which they are used, in the original. Please do not get the idea that I am setting my self up as an authority on this, or any other subject in the Bible.
    I once heard a speaker say that an educated person is not someone who knows everything, rather he is a person who knows where to find everything. I sure do not know everything, and I have an awful hard time trying to find some things. But I do know how to find some things. The word "covered" in verse 6 comes from the Greek word KATAKALUPTO which means to cover, or something down upon. And the word "covering" in verse 15 comes from PERIBOLATON. This Greek word does mean a covering. But if this covering can take the place of the cover in verse 6 it poses some problems for me. If you notice, in verse 6 we are told that if she does not have her KATAKALUPTO covering on her head, then let her be shorn. That means that if she does not have that covering on her head, then let her be shorn, or have her hair cut off. If the hair is all the covering she needs, then verse 6 would read, if she does not have her hair on her head, then let her have her hair cut off. All this means to me that if she does not have the KATAKAL UPTO covering on her head, then let her have her hair cut off. That means to me that for her to have her head shaved, let her wear the KATAKALUPTO, or man-made covering.
    Another problem for me, if the hair (PERI BOLIAN) is all the covering she needs, why the different voice in the two verses? In verse 6 we have the middle voice, but in verse 15 we have the passive voice. I will try, as best I can, to explain the difference between these two. In our study of grammar we have what is called active voice, passive voice, and middle voice. In the sentence, 'John killed the rabbit', John is the subject, and he is the doer of the action. So this makes it active voice. If we turn the sentence around and say, 'the rabbit was killed by John', that makes rabbit the subject. And since the rabbit is the receiver of the action, that makes this sentence passive voice. But if we say that 'John shot himself', that makes John the doer and also the receiver of the action. That makes this sentence the middle voice. I am not trying to teach a lesson in Grammar, rather I am trying to show the difference between verse 6 and verse 15. Verse 6 is middle voice which means that the KATA KALUPTO covering is something the woman puts on herself. She puts this covering on just as she does her dress and shoes. No one else plays any part in this transaction. But if you notice, verse 15 is passive voice. She just receives the hair the Lord puts on her lead. She plays no part in it. She may spend a lot of time pampering, and changing it to make it look more to her liking. She may even change the color of it, but it is still the hair the Lord put on her head.
    I hope I am making myself clear. In verse 15 the woman has absolutely nothing to do with putting this covering on her head. In verse 6 she has to do it all. There is just no way one of these coverings can be substituted for the other one. Another problem that I am unable to solve connected with these two verses is, if the hair is all the covering the Lord requires the woman to wear, why was verse 6 put in holy Writ? I am persuaded, and that fully, that the Holy Spirit used Paul to write both verses. So did He have Paul write verse 6 and then change His mind and have him give the woman an altogether different kind of covering in verse 15? In Malachi 3:6 our Lord says, "I change not". So do you believe that he changed His mind between verse 6 and verse 15? I sure hope you don't believe anything like that about our Lord. If the woman's hair is all the covering the Lord requires, verse 6 has no business in the Book. It is absolutely worthless. And I simply cannot believe the Holy Spirit put any worthless thing in His Book. And I hope you do not believe any such thing about Him either. I have had some to tell me that the original really says in verse 15 that the woman's hair is given her as a covering instead of the KATAKALUPTO covering in verse 6. To me that seems to belabor the subject. It is true that the new King James version, and Berry's The Inter linear Greek-English New Testament does have the word 'instead' in this verse. But if that be the right translation why did our Authorized version, and all others that I know of overlook that word 'instead'? However, if that were to be the right translation in verse 15 that would still mean that verse 6 is superfluous, that is, not necessary. So I prefer to stay by the Authorized version concerning the verse.
    Now that I have tried, in my weak way, to show that a woman should wear a covering over her hair, may we look for the reason why she should do so. We have already mentioned that some Baptists do not contend for women to wear a covering, because the woman would be a hypocrite if she wore a token of subjection when there is no subjection there. But, beloved, if the Bible commands her to wear a covering and she refuses because she is not under subjection to her husband, is she not rebelling against the Word of God? Is the sin of rebellion not as bad as hypocrisy? In this case who will our Lord hold more responsible, the woman, or her pastor? As a pastor I sometimes fear that I have not taught this part of God's Word as I should have. Wearing a covering in the Lord's house is the woman's responsibility, but teaching what the Bible says about it is the pastor's responsibility. And I fear that if the pastor fails to meet his responsibility he is rebelling against the precious Word.
    Verse 10 of I Corinthians 11 tells us that the woman should have a token of her subjection to her husband on her head because of the angels. Some says these are our ministering angels, and they may be right. But the word "messengers" in Luke 9:52 is the same identical word as the word "angels" here in verse 10. The Greek word ANGELOS means either a Heavenly angel or a messenger. So if we change the word "angels" to the word "messengers" in this verse no one can accuse us of changing God's Word, because this Greek word means messenger just as much as it does angels. So it is my feeling that the woman should wear a head covering because of the Lord's messengers, or pastors. The pastor who has a burning desire to see his flock being obedient to every iota of Scripture has an aching heart when he sees some of them not being obedient. But I want to hasten to say that the disobedience may very well be our fault, rather than the member's fault.
    Another reason for some Baptists not taking this teaching seriously is the way verse 16 is translated. The translation here seems to cause some to think it does not really matter. But our Lord does not say anything that you can take it or leave it, and it really makes no difference. He always means what He says. A better translation of this verse says, "But if anyone is inclined to be contentious about it, I for my part prescribe no other practice than this, and neither do the churches of God!"
    Still another reason for the woman wearing a covering over her hair is one that I have never set forth before. And, to me, it may well be the most important one of all. But here may I stop and say something about the nature of the covering? Some seem to think that this covering must be a hat. I for one like to see a woman in the assembly with a hat on her head. But the original Greek does not require a hat. It calls for a veil, or a shawl. Hats as we know hats today were unknown in that day. The important thing is that she have something over her hair. And the real reason is that her hair is her glory, verse 15. Our Lord made woman and her lovely hair for man's glory. And He expects men to enjoy, and appreciate the glory He has given us, if we do that at the right place. But the place for His glory to be manifested is in his churches. He wants us to see His glory in the assembly. So He tells the woman to cover her glory while in the assembly in order that His glory may shine forth without competition. In Psalms 4:2 He says, "O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame?" In Isaiah 48:11 He says, "My glory will I not give to another." In John 17:24 in His great intercessory prayer He says, "Father I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory." Now where is He today? He, in His body, is seated on the Father's throne. But in Revelation 1:13 we see Him in the midst of His churches. So, He, in His body is seated at the right hand of the Father, but in the person of the Holy Spirit He is present with His people in His churches. To be sure, He is with His individual saints where ever they may be. But He is with us in a special way in His churches. I want us to notice that He says, "That they may behold MY glory, which thou hast given Me." The complete fulfillment of this will be after the rapture. But the pre-fulfiliment of it is today. Today He wants us to behold His glory in the assembly, and then forever more. So He tells His beloved women in His churches to cover their glory in order that His glory may shine the more brightly. Is that not plenty of reason why a woman should wear a covering in the assembly?