In 1 Corinthians 11 the apostle Paul writes, “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels” (vv. 5, 10). At first glance, this could be taken as an on-going command for all generations. Thus, the practice of wearing an artificial headcovering (for Christian women) has gained popularity in recent months and years.
Upon second glance, Paul’s teaching is not as clear-cut as headcoverers say it is. Exegesis of the text will reveal 10 vital questions that must be answered. The majority of these questions are not answered for us by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, which means they will be answered according to one’s presuppositions. By God’s design, we have to insert assumptions into the text to make sense of it.
Is Paul speaking of husbands and wives, or men and women in general?
Verses 3-5 pose a dilemma. The words for “man” and “woman” in Greek are the same words used for “husband” and “wife.” The context is what usually determines if the subject is men or husbands, women or wives. Paul refers to creation later in the passage, so Adam and Eve are clearly in view. But this alone doesn’t help much. Adam and Eve were the first man and first woman, as well as the first husband and first wife. Is Paul talking about the genders broadly or marriages specifically? Arguments could be made for either case, and even headcoverers are split on this question. Some think headcovering is for married women only, others think it is for every woman including children. But if headcovering is an on-going command, there should be no ambiguity on this question. We must be able to determine who is required to do it and who is not.
What does Paul mean by “praying and prophesying”?
Is Paul speaking of any regular prayer in verses 4-5, or does he mean something more specific? He places it together with “prophesying,” which is a miraculous sign-gift. Is the “praying” also a miraculous sign-gift, such as praying in tongues? Since “praying and prophesying” is the only time Paul requires a headcovering, we must be able to determine what these phrases entail.
What environment does Paul have in mind?
Is Paul’s instruction limited to the worship service, or is it for any Christian gathering (e.g. Bible studies and prayer groups)? Going a step further: Does Paul require headcovering all day, every day, all the time? Elsewhere he tells us to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17). Since a person can pray anytime throughout the day, should women always wear a covering? The passage doesn’t specify the environment. In verse 18, it’s clear that Paul is talking about the worship service, but that’s when he switches topics to the Lord’s Supper. It’s not certain what environment he has in mind for headcovering. This is another area in which headcoverers disagree. Some think the covering is only for corporate worship, others think it’s for all day, every day.
Has headcovering always been in effect?
In verses 7-9, Paul refers to the creation story to defend his argument. Some headcoverers take this to mean that the practice of headcovering was in effect from creation forward. Is that a plausible position? Did God require women to cover in the old covenant, or was Paul teaching something new?
Is the covering a symbol?
From the Greek, verse 10 says the woman ought to have “authority” on her head. Yet most English translations say a “symbol” of authority on her head. The word “symbol” is inserted into the text, which was an interpretive decision by translators. This isn’t necessarily a problem, but it is based on some sort of assumption. We must determine if that assumption is justifiable, or if it distracts from Paul’s true meaning.
What does Paul mean by “because of the angels”?
Paul says the woman should have authority on her head “because of the angels” (verse 10). Many scholars will admit that they have no idea what Paul means by this. Paul does not elaborate on it, leaving us to make our own assumptions. Is Paul speaking of “angels” as we normally think of them (i.e. spirit-beings), or is he speaking of human rulers? “Angel” is sometimes a designation for humans in the Bible (Matthew 11:10, Revelation 2:1ff, 3:1ff). Paul’s use is ambiguous.
As our study unfolds, this question will prove detrimental to the headcovering movement. Headcoverers often give three primary reasons for their practice: (1) to show submission to their husbands, (2) to fight the perils of feminism, and (3) to restore modesty in a sexualized culture. But none of these reasons are given by Paul. They are absent from the text. Paul says it’s “because of the angels.” We must account for his reasoning instead of creating our own.
What does Paul mean by “nature”?
In verses 14-15, Paul says “nature itself” teaches that long hair is dishonoring to men, but a glory and a covering for women. How does “nature” teach that men shouldn’t have long hair and women shouldn’t have short hair? This cannot be deduced by observation. Men have the ability to grow long hair and their hair would grow naturally unless it was manually cut. Neither does the nature of other species give us much help. For lions, the females have shorter hair and the males have longer hair. In what way is Paul using “nature”?
Is the covering a woman’s hair, or is it an artificial covering?
The debate over 1 Corinthians 11 is largely divided into two camps: the covering as hair vs. the covering as an artificial fabric. Many scholars maintain that Paul’s teaching is still relevant for today, but that the covering is the woman’s hair, not a fabric. Verse 15 affirms that hair is given to the woman “for a covering.” Headcoverers maintain that while hair is a natural covering, an artificial covering is needed to pray and prophesy. Which is it? If Paul’s teaching is an on-going command, we must be able to determine what he is requiring.
How should the covering be worn?
If the covering is a fabric, then how is it to be worn? Should the entire hair be covered or just a small portion of it? The text is silent on that point, and this is another disagreement among headcoverers. Some headcoverers conceal all of their hair, others wear a fabric on top of the head with the majority of the hair visible. Again, which is it? If headcovering is an on-going command, women should know how to do it properly.
What does Paul mean by “custom”?
In verse 16, Paul says, “But if anyone be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” What custom? What is the term referring to? Does Paul mean the custom of headcovering, as if we can disregard everything he has just said? Does he mean the custom of being contentious, so that everyone must submit to his teaching on headcovering? Does he mean the custom of something else, perhaps? Our conclusions about headcovering will depend on how we interpret verse 16.
Conclusion
With these questions, I hope you see how difficult this passage really is. It is one of the most mysterious teachings in the Bible. Anyone who says otherwise is being naive. Acknowledging the complexity of the text is not a cop-out. We must make conclusions, and we will do so. But if the apostle Peter remarked at how difficult Paul’s teachings were (2 Peter 3:15-16), we should be able to say the same.
None of our questions are answered plainly in the text. Assumptions must be inserted in order to make conclusions. This means that no theory on headcovering can be 100% certain. You can say what you think it means, but the mysterious element will always remain. This should give everyone pause from jumping on the bandwagon. If headcovering cannot be proven from the text with certainty, then you cannot say it is an on-going command. You cannot make it a standard of holiness and obedience. Women, therefore, ought not be burdened with guilt for not wearing a covering.
The ambiguities of 1 Corinthians 11 do not mean that every person is allowed to make up their own interpretation and run with it. Every person must rely on assumptions, but some assumptions are more biblical than others. We will pick up that topic in the next installment.
Excellent summary of the issues.