Paul & the Head Covering: An Alternative Interpretation

Introduction

         The broader challenge of interpreting 1 Corinthians stems from the fact that Paul sorts out a seemingly unending list of problems and we are privileged to hear (read) only one side of the conversation. Paul’s First letter (as we know it) may very well be a second or third letter, and we know from 7:1 that the Corinthian church had written to Paul, asking a series of questions. These other letters are now lost, and what remains for the church is 1 & 2 Corinthians. To make matters more interesting, the Greek language doesn’t use punctuation marks, so we have no quotation marks to rely on, nor do we have question marks to tip us off. Because of these hermeneutical hindrances, interpreters need to make sure that they are reading things in context, and this includes picking up on some of Paul’s linguistical ‘cues’ that are sprinkled throughout the text. We are not in a position to draw unassailable conclusions solely based on what a Greek word may or may not have meant. Sound interpretation requires contextual considerations, both in the immediate context and in the larger context of a particular epistle. While knowing some of the cultural background can be invaluable for doing exegesis, this, too, isn’t always a foolproof process. There are a lot of opinions regarding the cultural background of this particular passage, and it can be helpful to trace what may or may not have been the case regarding head coverings in the Roman city of Corinth. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, we need to be able to do the exegetical work necessary to reach our conclusions—cultural ideas notwithstanding.

         My goal in this article is straightforward: to provide an exegetical interpretation of the text that (1) Consistently makes sense of all aspects of the passage; (2) Resolves any potential contradictions in the passage; and (3) Provides a healthy framework for interpretation that will hopefully alleviate besieged consciences that are struggling with whether or not to wear a head covering. Because there has been a recent uptick in advocacy for head coverings from various social-influencing pastors^[1] who are (rightly) frustrated with feminism, I found it important to answer these questions by giving a biblical defense for abstaining from head coverings. Many pastors have seen first-hand the divisive nature of head coverings in a congregation, and because our culture continues to reject God’s ordering of the sexes, the allure of covering a wife’s head in response has become an increasingly exciting option for those wishing to establish patriarchalism in the home and church. I have no doubt that there are many men and women who read this passage and think to themselves, Why haven’t we been obeying this? Obedience to Scripture will always be, indeed it should always be, a motivating factor in the life of the Christian.

         However, to suggest that the passage is ‘obviously pro-head covering’ is dishonest. It may be obvious to you because your righteous anger at our culture overfloweth and you’re looking for a fight. Furthermore, to suggest that ‘all of human history did this’ and ‘basically every theologian taught that a woman should cover her head’ is equally dishonest. Were head coverings argued for in the early church? During the Reformation? Yes. Still, there were others in the early church and during the Reformation who suggested otherwise. My point is this: there is no uniform position of adherence to head coverings throughout church history. An appeal to history just doesn’t work.

         There are innumerable interpretations of the passage. The confusion surrounding the veil is fairly conspicuous. Are wives to wear head coverings on the Lord’s Day when gathered together with the people of God for covenant renewal worship? Or should they wear them all the time? In the home? In the marketplace? What about daughters? Besides, what sort of “covering” are we talking about? A doily? A shawl? A large veil that covers the entire head, hair included? The face? What about headbands and burkas, or cloth handkerchiefs or big, bright Easter hats? What color, shape, size, and material? I ask these questions because the apostle Paul does not specify.^[2] In fact, for us today to even know what Paul is talking about, one would have to have some sort of understanding of the culture of the time, which means that we do need to know something about the life and times of first-century Christians. And yet what we do know doesn’t answer all of our questions. Oftentimes it only exacerbates the confusion.

         The head covering passage is somewhat mystifying for several reasons. First, nowhere else does Paul give us information about it. If it’s true that there are some things to know about the cultural context of Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth, why wouldn’t it have been an issue in other places, especially places like Rome or Philippi, which were both heavily Romanized cultures? Are we to assume that only the church in Corinth had issues with this borderline sacramental procedure? Second, not only do we not have more information about it in other places, but the passage itself isn’t that clear. Remember that we are reading someone else’s mail—so to speak. Piecing together the problem by reading only one side of the conversation can be challenging, however, if we’re going to understand the passage, we have to try and understand the exact problem Paul was addressing. Like it or not, it does require some perusal of other ancient texts coupled with archeological evidence and cultural knowledge. Lastly, the passage is mystifying because there are certain assumptions that are foisted upon the text, which can be—and oftentimes is—an anachronistic, etymological fallacy. In other words, when we read the Bible, we are tempted to assume that the words we read mean back then what they mean to us today. Delving into the language, culture, history, and social context is all part of doing sound exegesis.

         Before we dig into the text, I’d like to point out that there are four basic views: (1) It was merely cultural, and thus, it doesn’t apply today; (2) It’s about hair, not a piece of fabric; (3) Women must wear them today (either all the time or only when praying or prophesying, inside the church service or even outside); (4) It pertained only to the time leading up to A.D. 70. Some of these views can be held together in some fashion or another. Of course, there are variations of each. That said, I’d like to offer up an alternative interpretation of the text for your consideration. You may not find it compelling and you may disagree. That’s okay. My aim here is to dig in and provide an exegetical case against wearing head coverings today.

A Glance at the Text and Its Challenges

         I want to begin our exegetical study by showing that Paul uses his typical writing style known as a chiasm.^[3] Chiasms are extremely useful interpretative tools because they can show us what the main point of an argument was/is, and how the writer develops this main point. Frequently Paul will quote the Corinthians directly (or even passively take a swipe) only to then state his main point in the middle of the chiasm and build it out from there.^[4]

A. Introduction (v. 2-3)

         B. “Man,” “woman,” “head,” “uncovered,” “praying,” “glory” (v. 4-7)

                  C. “Man not from woman” (v. 8a)

                           D. “Woman from man” (v. 8b)

                                    E. “Man not created for woman’s sake” (v. 9a)

                                             F. “Woman for man’s sake” (v. 9b)

                                                      G. “Therefore, the woman ought to have authority over                                                                      her head, because of the angels” (v. 10)

                                             F’ “Neither is woman independent of man” (v. 11a)

                                    E’ “Nor is man independent of woman” (v. 11b)

                           D’ “Woman originates from the man (v. 12a)

                  C’ “Also man through the woman; all things from God” (v. 12b)

         B’ “Man,” “woman,” “head,” “uncovered,” “praying,” “glory” (v. 13-15)

A’ Conclusion (v. 16)

         Chiastic structures in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians are ubiquitous. Any essay one chooses to examine will invariably stumble upon a chiasm. It was Paul’s main rhetorical tool.^[5] And here, we can see that the topics and phrases line up quite nicely. Paul builds his argument, it crescendos at the center (v. 10, in this case), and after reaching his main point, he oftentimes contradicts, or, at the very least, shifts the trend of thinking on what was said before.^[6]

         A few points of consideration. Scholars have noted the tensions in the text itself, particularly when comparing verses 4-9 with verses 11-15. For example, what are we to believe about the image of God in both males and females? Clearly Genesis 1 teaches that both bear the image of God. And yet, why the statement in verse 7 about man being the image and glory of God, but the woman being the glory of man? It is true that the woman is doubly glorious, she is the “glory of the glory.” Proverbs 31 explains that she is the glory of her husband, she is his honor. Correspondingly, what are we to make of the issue of ‘origination’ or ‘source’? “Man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” (v. 8). So who came first? Clearly Adam was made first, and Eve was made from Adam. Why does Paul come back to this in verse 12 to state the opposite? He says, “The woman originates from the man, so also the man through the woman.” And then he adds a statement at the end of verse 12: “But (de) all things originate from God.” Why this extra statement? Could it be that the Corinthians “misunderstood the teaching on headship to imply that men have a privileged and more glorious role above women because [the Corinthians] have a mistaken view that man alone is the image and glory of God and woman derives her glory from her relationship with man”?^[7] Paul already brought Galatians 3:28 (“there is no male and female”) into the discussion earlier in chapter 7 by reminding the married couples of the reciprocity between both of them. He says very clearly, “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (7:3-4). We already know that Paul elevated women to a place of having full membership in the Body of Christ (they weren’t second-class citizens in the church, though they oftentimes were in the culture).^[8] Does that have anything to do with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?

         What are we to do with the issue of verse 5 in comparison with verse 15? In verse 5, Paul writes that every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying “shames her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.” It appears as though he’s talking about an additional covering, otherwise the shaven part doesn’t seem to make sense. Conversely, why does Paul make an abundantly clear statement in verse 15, namely, that “her hair is given to her for [anti] a covering”? Some writers (e.g., Partridge) claim that there is an argument from authority, creation, and the spiritual realm (“because of the angels”). But what exactly is the creational argument? What do we learn from this text about creation and head coverings? We learn what Paul says in verse 12, that woman (Eve) comes from Adam, but every other man (or woman for that matter) comes from woman—and yet all things originate from God (v. 12). Does this really tell us, this alleged argument from creation, that a woman needs to cover her head in worship? Did Eve do so?^[9] And what exactly does one mean by ‘authority’? The only time the word ‘authority’ (exousia) is mentioned is in verse 10, and, as we’ll see, this speaks about a woman’s own authority over her own head.

         Pro-head coverers are grasping for straws when they try to string together arguments about authority, creation, and the spiritual realm from this text. They fail to do justice to the glaringly obvious differences between verses 4-9 and verses 11-15. Any time we find intertextual difficulties in the passage we either need to: (1) Claim that Paul was confused or perhaps he didn’t write it out clearly enough; or (2) Realize that it was a common practice for Paul to quote the Corinthians and offer up a corrective. It is my position that, based on the multiple issues facing the Corinthian church (e.g., shame/honor, knowledge, worldly status, food sacrificed to idols, disorderly worship, rich against poor at communion, the resurrection, etc.), Paul uses the occasion to correct their faulty understanding of headship and what it means in relation to head coverings.^[10] Often called the “quotation theory,”^[11] I believe this understanding of the passage best resolves the tensions in the text and clarifies what Paul was driving home in verses 10-16.

         To sum^[12] up: the contumacious Corinthian men^[13] were teaching that all the women needed to veil themselves in the house church when praying (v. 4-6), that the men themselves weren’t to do so (v. 7; which went against Jewish^[14] & Roman custom), and that the woman’s main role is to simply live for the sake of her husband and not the husband for his wife (v. 8-9).^[15] All of these problems were the result of misunderstanding what the “head” teaching was all about (v. 3). Paul had praised them for holding on to some things (v. 2), but there was a clear misunderstanding (v. 3) that needed a correction. So, Paul rehearses what they had said to him (v. 4-9), corrects the teaching (v. 10-15), and then concludes for them that the veiling of women isn’t something God’s law requires; the apostles (“we have no other practice”) didn’t teach any of this veiling stuff in the other churches of God (v. 16).^[16] That is, the Corinthians had developed a rule and were doing something in their assembly totally unfamiliar to other assemblies.

A Closer Look (Verse-by-Verse)

         Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)

         In verse 2, Paul praises the Corinthians for remembering him and holding firmly to the traditions that he had taught them. When someone offers praise, they are doing it to give honor and glory to the recipient. This honor and glory is an echo of the honor and glory of the Triune God. Yet, this verse is quite peculiar. In various parts of the letter, Paul has, at times, excoriated the Corinthian church. He has dealt with several problems and it is well-known that the church was dysfunctional. So, it seems odd that he would praise them here. Why does he do this? I think the answer lies in the fact that Paul is always careful to balance his correctives with encouragement. He called these troublemakers “saints” back in 1:2 but shortly thereafter he has to deal with the divisions in the church. It is not unusual for Paul to encourage them and remind them of their status in Christ while a few verses later grab them by their baptisms and tell them to get in line. Pro-head coverers typically see one of the “traditions” here as being the wives wearing the veil, however, this is unlikely because in the very next verse Paul’s tone changes again. Based on verses 10-16, which, as I’m arguing, is a corrective to verses 4-9, Paul appears to be untangling something that they were doing wrong. Fee explains: “Thus, even though he may very well be picking up language from their letter, and perhaps in the first instance (vv. 3–16) speaking to something they are advocating, this opening sentence most likely serves to introduce the whole of these correctives regarding their gatherings for worship (chaps. 11–14).”^[17] Fee sees the tenor as a corrective, indeed the whole of chapters 11-14 is a corrective for corporate worship. They held to traditions, but they were disorderly.

         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. (11:3)

         It is clear from the “but” (de) here that Paul needed to fix a problem. He wants them to get something straight and it all flows from this issue of headship, particularly the metaphor “head.” The Corinthians had drawn some wrong conclusions about the relationship between a husband and wife (c.f. 7:3-4), and more broadly, between men and women in the church. Paul says that Christ is the head of every man, the man is the head of a woman (husband and wife is most likely in view), and God is the head of Christ. Pro-head coverers who are partial to patriarchalism^[18] assume that the issue in the text is primarily about authority and submission, whereas I have pointed out, the only mention of authority is in verse 10.^[19] Scholars have long debated what kephalē (“head”) means. I cannot exhaust that discussion here. Sometimes the word means the literal part of the body^[20] that contains the brain, sometimes it can mean “ruler,” other times it can refer to higher rank. Sometimes it can refer to “source of life.” The context determines its meaning. Fee explains: “Paul’s understanding of the metaphor, therefore, and almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped, is “head” as “source,” especially “source of life,” or origin. This seems to be corroborated by the two explanatory sentences in the next paragraph (vv. 8–9), the only place where one of these relationships is picked up further in Paul’s argument.”^[21]

         It seems to me that, based on the context, “Paul’s concern is not hierarchical (who has authority over whom), but relational (the unique relationships that are predicated on one’s being the source of the other’s existence).”^[22] The context has to do with man’s relationship to woman and who is the priority; who came from whom and why does that matter?^[23] There is little doubt in my mind that the head covering debate in Corinth had conflicting opinions. Sometimes Greeks would bare their heads while in public; we do know that Romans typically covered their heads. All of this was endemic to the area. Corinth was a bustling metropolis with Roman, Jewish, Greek, and Christian influence, so it makes sense that they had a problem in the assembly. Which position was correct? Nevertheless, we need to ask: what was the root problem? Something about the head in marriage.

         Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, shames his head. (11:4)

         I believe Paul is alluding to, or exaggerating, something that the Corinthian men were saying in verses 4-9. Let me explain. We find in the Old Testament several places where men frequently covered their heads. Moses put a “veil over his face” in Exodus 34:33. David’s “head was covered” when he fled Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 15:30. Elijah “wrapped his face in his mantle” after experiencing Yahweh in “a thin gentle whisper” (1 Kings 19:13). Ezekiel was told by Yahweh that He was going to take his wife from him and that he ought to “bind on [his] headdress” as symbol of mourning. He was to “groan silently; make no mourning for the dead” (Ezekiel 24:15-18). The Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, were prophesied to restore the worship of the sanctuary, and Yahweh said, “Linen headdresses shall be on their heads” (Ez. 44:18). Aaron was to wear “the turban of fine linen, and the headdresses of the caps of fine linen” (Ex. 39:28). If it is true, as Partridge (and others) believe, that Eve would have been required to wear a head covering after sin entered into the world, and that it would be a disgrace for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered—and all of this is a ‘creation ordinance’ of sorts—then why would God see to it that the priests and Levites (all men) wear head coverings in the worship & liturgy of the tabernacle/temple?^[24]

         Who exactly is shamed here sounds as though it were Christ, man’s head. If this is Paul’s teaching, then he’s definitely going against Jewish custom.^[25] If it is the Corinthian position—that a man shouldn’t cover—then they may be conflicted themselves as: (1) Roman men would veil while making temple sacrifices; (2) Veiling in the Jewish world was oftentimes a sign of mourning. Perhaps the Corinthian men didn’t want the men to view worship as being a time of mourning? Either way, John Trapp is worth quoting here. He says, regarding men dishonoring Christ, their head:

         “As they accounted it then and there. In other places it is otherwise. The French preach covered. The Turks neither kneel nor uncover the head at public prayer, as holding those postures unmanly.           Several countries have their several customs. Basiliades, duke of Muscovy, showed himself a tyrant in       nailing an ambassador’s hat to his head, for not uncovering it before him.”^[26]

Whatever the case, it seems to me that the Corinthian men were concerned—based on their understanding of ‘head’—that if they were to cover, Jesus would find that offensive. “Shame” would be heaped upon Him.

         But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, shames her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. (11:5)

         While I’m not convinced that the argument in Corinth was about whether or not a woman needed to wear her hair pinned up while praying and prophesying, the fact remains that there were varying degrees of beliefs about a woman’s hair and veiling. Troy Martin has suggested that the Greek word peribolaiou in verse 15 is better understood to be a reference to ‘testicles’ and that the passage itself deals with the sexually arousing nature of a woman’s long hair.^[27] It is true that in Greco-Roman culture, the woman’s hair was considered to make a woman more sexually desirable. Martin cites Aristotle, Euripides, and the followers of Hippocrates as believing that a woman’s hair was part of her genitalia.^[28] While I do not find Martin’s argument compelling enough to sway me from my position, it is both interesting and historically curious.

         Cynthia Westfall takes a different approach. “However, while the man’s uncovered head was a sign of his humility before God, a woman’s uncovered head was not a sign of a woman’s humility before God; rather, it sent out a signal about her sexual availability that could be tantamount to solicitation.”^[29] In the Roman world, both men and women covered their heads to pray. Apparently, the men in Corinth believed that, based on their understanding of headship, that it wouldn’t be appropriate for the man to do so, but the woman ought to, otherwise, without the head covering, she would be akin to a woman whose head was shaved. Westfall again: “…a woman’s hair represented her feminine beauty, and the way she dressed here hair represented her honor….Covered hair in public represented modesty, honor, status, and protection for a woman, and an uncovered head in public disgraced a woman and put her sexually at risk.”^[30]

         Be that as it may, I must add that the cultural-historical record is convoluted and sometimes obscure. For example, Riddlebarger says, “These [upper-class] women set fashion trends and saw nothing wrong with going without a veil or a head-covering in public, while working-class women, Romans and Jews, all covered their heads in public, the Jewish women even veiling their faces.”^[31] Given what we know to be true about the multi-cultural, sophisticated nature of Corinth, it should not be surprising to us that there would have been a lot of opinions on women, their hair, and whether one should cover in prayer and worship.^[32] From what I can tell, having surveyed a lot of different texts, it seems to me that there was not a unified consensus across cultural lines regarding head coverings, and whether or not to wear them in certain situations. It appears that in cosmopolitan Corinth, there were as many opinions as there were people.

         Having said that, I do believe that the issue was compounded when it came to the house church gathering for worship each Lord’s day. What happens when you have rich, married women, who are free to veil or not—it’s their call—sitting next to poor, unmarried women, who do not have the same social privileges as the rich women? Did the men simply ask all the women to veil as a comprise? I think so. Unfortunately, part of this cultural tension in the church developed from the fact that the Aphrodite temple prostitutes^[33] in Corinth covered their heads, possibly even putting their hair up in a bun (if they had hair—many were shaven). Did the women not want to do this same thing? Were they hesitant to want to do this? Certainly, Paul wants gender distinctions to have their expression. Moreover, what do we do when the leadership of the church (the men) are at odds with the women? Paul has to correct them.

         Additionally, what about this comment regarding a woman being shaved? It would seem that a woman whose head was shaven may have been guilty of adultery. We know from the Old Testament that a man with leprosy^[34] needed to have all his hair shaved off (Lev. 14:8) as a part of ceremonial cleanliness. After winning a battle against God’s enemies, the young, single men of Israel were allowed to take a woman to be their wife. God commands them: “You shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails” (Deut. 21:12). Why? Rushdoony comments: “The captive woman either trimmed her hair, or shaved her head, according to some, to indicate her changed status. Paring her nails was ritual of purification as was cutting the hair.”^[35] A woman who was brought into the covenant of grace was to have a “fresh start,” which included shaving her head. Did the men in Corinth not realize this? Did the culture of Corinth in that first century assume that a shaved head was a sign of prostitution? And that to not wear a head covering was the very same affront? Perhaps.

         A few more comments should suffice for this verse. Note that Paul, referencing again the Corinthian position, puts this in a particular context, namely, while praying or prophesying. A lot of ink has been spilled on this, but we need to deal with it. First, Ray Sutton ties praying or prophesying to the office of prophetess (cf. Acts 21:9 and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist who prophesied), and prophecy in this format ceased in A.D. 70.^[36] Therefore, as many have argued, head coverings are moot since the old heavens and old earth has passed away. James B. Jordan has a similar view. He writes, “Prophecy has ceased, and it is very likely that the praying spoken of here was praying in tongues, which has also ceased. Thus, these rules in their strict sense applied only to the interim Church.”^[37] Whatever the case may have been in the pre-A.D. 70 church, the Corinthian men were wanting women to cover when doing certain activities in worship. (Which is interesting given what we find in 14:34-35).

         For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut short. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut short or her head shaved, let her cover her head. (11:6)

         The Corinthian argument continues. An uncovered woman during prayer or prophecy is akin to a shaved woman, or even a woman whose hair is cut short. Were the men arguing for head coverings for the women, but the women were conflicted? That’s what I’m arguing. Perhaps there was a concern of blurring the gender lines, which is why shaven and short hair is brought up twice. In either case, the Corinthian men believed that it is disgraceful for a woman to have short hair or a shaved head, presumably because of its cultural connection to temple prostitution, so they were arguing that she should cover her head. The reason I believe this to be a Corinthian saying is because Paul will come back to it and tell us plainly, “Her hair is given to her for [instead of] a covering” (v. 15). They wanted more. Paul says “no.”

         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. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. (11:7-9)

         The Corinthian’s had a mistaken view of headship because they insisted on the priority of the men. Paul rehearses it for them here and will then clarify momentarily. Here, the rationale for a man not covering his head is because he is the image and glory of God. They believed that the woman was the glory of man, which is why she should cover. If she doesn’t, she shames her husband-head. Their perception of image-bearing was based on this particular “source of life” understanding of kephalē. Man doesn’t come from woman, but woman from man—this is what we see with Adam. And the woman was created as man’s helpmeet—this is true. Remember, Paul will contradict/clarify this one-sided perspective shortly.

         Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (11:10)

         Everything changes here. Verse 10 begins Paul’s refutation of the Corinthian men’s stubborn insistence on women wearing head coverings. The verse begins with a typical Greek phrase (dia touto), translated here in the LSB as “Therefore.” One could legitimately translate that same phrase, “For this reason.”^[38] Because this is at the center of the aforementioned chiasm, it stands as the pivotal point in Paul’s rhetorical defense. Further, the word “authority” and “angels” is brought up for the first time in this section. It is probable that these words were used by the Corinthians in some fashion. So, what do we do with this text?

         The way this verse is typically translated has to do with certain assumptions from translators. The LSB, which follows the NASB95, puts “a symbol of” in italics, indicating that it’s not in the Greek text although it may be implied. The ESV says of this verse, “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” The NRSV is similar: “For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” In opposition to these common English translations, we have the King James Version, which reads, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” The Geneva Bible^[39] states it this way: “Therefore ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the Angels.”

         Before we construct the message, we need to deal with the words. We’ll start with exousia, which is translated as “authority” or “power.” There are only two possible interpretations of this text: (1) The “authority” here has to do with the woman recognizing the authority of her husband, and thus she must wear the veil; (2) The “authority” actually belongs to the woman. “Exousia epi” means “authority over” or “authority on.” Some believe that this is in the passive sense, meaning that her husband has the authority over her.^[40] She is, as a passive party, to acknowledge someone else’s authority. The problem we run into is that there is no text in Scripture or antiquity that uses this passive sense of exousia epi.^[41] When kings wear a crown on their head, it is a symbol of their own authority, not someone else’s. Rather than being passive, it is active.^[42] The better, more accurate translation—removing any sort of confirmation bias—is thus: “For this reason the woman/wife ought to have the freedom/authority to do what she desires with her own head.” The Corinthian men were hubristic and insistent, but Paul gives the authority back to the woman to do whatever she decides is best for her. This is the Achilles heel of the pro-head covering argument.^[43] Even so, he adds a good reason.

         To make matters more interesting, Paul adds, “because of the angels.” Many commentators take the view that the angels are watching Christian worship, therefore, women should cover their head. It could be because they might lust after the woman (!), or because they want to see authority and submission in worship just like in heaven.^[44] Alternatively, what if there’s something else going on here? Whenever doing exegesis, it’s helpful to look at what has gone before—perhaps the apostle Paul has mentioned angels already? Lo! He has. In 1 Corinthians 6:3 Paul says, “Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?” Paul has already told the church that men and women will judge the world (6:2) and the angels. If that is true, he says it plainly: “How much more matters of this life?” Matters of this life. Like head coverings? If the ladies are going to be judging angels, Paul says, they can decide what to do with their own heads—they have that authority. Why do they have that authority? They, too, shall judge angels and matters of this life. The linchpin of Paul’s argument is the woman’s active authority over her own head because she is capable of exercising judgment, too.

         Nevertheless, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman, but all things originate from God. (11:11-12)

         Because the Corinthians had drawn the wrong conclusions about headship, Paul establishes the same thing here that he did in 7:3-4. Authority runs both ways, as it turns out, and this is because a husband and a wife are not independent of each other. The Corinthians had argued in verses 8-9 that the woman came from man and that the woman was created for man’s sake. True enough, but that’s not the whole story. Paul says here that this doesn’t mean that there is some sort of independence and/or division between the two requiring one to refrain from veiling and the other to veil. What he means is that it is useless to argue about who has the priority. One time in history do we have a man created from the dust (Adam) and one time in history do we have a woman created from the side of a man (Eve).^[45] And it is true that the woman is man’s helpmeet and not the other way around. However, when it comes to being contentious about mandatory veiling in a church, Paul says this argument will not work. All men and women have come from the one woman (Eve—the life giver), “but all things originate from God.” Paul effectively says, You want to argue priorities between the sexes as it pertains to making a woman veil? Let me tell you, the opposite of what you’re saying is also true and the argument doesn’t work. Besides, all things come from God anyway, so if you want to misunderstand headship to mean that the male shouldn’t veil but the woman should, don’t you forget the we all equally owe our origins to God Himself.

         “While it is true that woman is man’s glory, having been created for his sake (v. 9), Paul now affirms that that does not mean that woman exists for man’s purposes, as though in some kind of                     subordinate position to his aims and will. To the contrary, God has so arranged things that “in the               Lord” the one cannot exist without the other, not meaning of course that every Christian man and             woman must be married, but that as believers man and woman are mutually dependent on each  other.”^[46]

         The pro-head coverers rarely, if ever, do justice to these clarifying statements. If we assume that Paul writes this whole thing without quoting or exaggerating their claims, then it would appear as though Paul is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Why say what he says in verses 8-9 only to then come back to it in verses 11-12 and clearly offer a different story and emphasis? Obviously, he’s not confused. In fact, one of the interpretive clues we have is at the beginning of verse 11. “Nevertheless,” Paul says (Greek, plēn). At the beginning of a sentence or clause, it means, “marker of something that is contrastingly added for consideration.”^[47] It can mean “however,” or “whereas,” and certainly “nevertheless” also indicates a contrast or contradictory argument. The point is, Paul makes a statement here which stands in contrast to what they were saying in verses 8-9 and he drives it home by reminding them that all things have their origin from God (cf. Romans 11:36).

         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. (11:13-15a)

         In contrast to the oversimplification of some commentators, this verse poses numerous textual challenges. Perhaps at the front of the line is the question of whether or not these are actually questions! The original Greek, of course, has no question marks to track down. One is forced to look for interrogatives (“where,” “how,” or “what”) in order to determine/guess if it’s a question. I propose, along with other interpreters, that these are statements and are not necessarily questions. Paul clearly says, “Judge for yourselves,” indicating that he is desirous of the Corinthians to think deeply about what he has just said (the things that stood in contrast to what they were saying) and to make a sound judgment call about it. He wants them to agree with him, to accept his apostolic decision, be it a rhetorical question or a statement.^[48] He then follows it up with the statement: “It is proper for a woman to pray uncovered!” The phrase, “It is proper” is a combination of two Greek words: prepon estin. There are two other times in the New Testament where the phrase is used: Matthew 3:15 & Hebrews 2:10—both of which are statements.^[49]

         The second “question” in verses 14-15a ought to be considered a statement as well for the simple fact that the Greek word (a negative conjunction & adverb) oude never introduces a question.^[50] Fee admits that “there is no other example in Paul of this negative conjunction starting a rhetorical question.”^[51] Consequently, the statement can look like this: “Nor does Nature teach you that it is dishonorable for a man to have (long) hair, but for a woman it’s an honor to have (long) hair.” Oude, when used at the beginning of a sentence, can just as well be translated as “and not.”

         The word “nature” (physis) has been a source of much perturbation. It’s used eleven times in the New Testament^[52] and we can say a couple of things about it. First, “Nature is not used as an argument for a Divine commandment; rather, it becomes clear that Nature cannot be referred to as a source of Divine commandments which can only be derived from the Word of God.”^[53] Second, Fee believes Paul’s statement may have a “Stoic ring to it,” however, this is inconclusive. Fee also believes that this isn’t an appeal to Nature, or to “natural law,” or to “natural endowment”; “nor is Nature to be understood as pedagogic (actually “teaching these “laws”).”^[54] He also notes that what nature teaches comes about by an unnatural means—a haircut. Rather, Fee thinks it’s a question of propriety and of “custom” (vv. 13, 16), which connotes “disgrace” or “glory” (vv. 14-15). Fee concludes: “Thus Paul is not arguing that men must wear their hair short, or that women must have long hair, as though “nature” meant some kind of “created order.” Indeed, the very appeal to “nature” in this way suggests most strongly that the argument is by way of analogy, not of necessity.”^[55] Calvin is quick to point out that what Paul is really getting at is decorum in the church.^[56] Whatever the case may be, Paul makes an analogy though we should note that he’s not using it as a question, rather, he’s using a statement. Nature doesn’t teach us anything about hair lengths because men can grow long hair just like women. What “should” be the case with hairstyles varies from culture to culture.

         Now, there are reasons for understanding it this way. In the Old Testament we find that men would sometimes wear their hair long. King David’s son, Absalom, would only cut his hair once a year. 2 Samuel 14:26 reads, “When he shaved the hair of his head (and it was at the end of every year that he shaved it, for it was heavy on him so he shaved it), he weighed the hair of his head at 200 shekels by the king’s weight.”^[57] Samson, of course, is another example, but he (like others) had taken a Nazirite vow which required them not to cut their hair while under the vow (Numbers 6:5). It is very, very curious that Paul himself, while in Corinth for 18 months, was under a Nazarite vow as well (see Acts 18:18). Peppiatt observes:

         “It would be very odd if it were Paul who was saying this because he himself had long hair while he was in Corinth! In Acts 18:18, Luke makes a reference to Paul cutting his hair when he left Corinth in relation to a vow he took before he went there. Scholars believe that Paul took a vow when he arrived at Corinth, which meant that he only cut his hair after he left. If he had been growing his hair for eighteen months, it would have been about nine inches long—past his shoulders. It’s unlikely, first as a Jew, and secondly as a Jew who had probably taken a Nazrite vow, that he really believed long hair on a man was a disgrace. And it seems doubly odd that he would tell the Corinthians that long hair on men was against nature when they were the very same people among whom he had lived while his own hair was long! They could hardly miss the inconsistency!”^[58]

This simple observation alone should lead interpreters away from making any fast and loose conclusions about what Paul means here, especially if he himself is indicted in the process! Besides, another explanation may be helpful. In the Greco-Roman culture, it is possible that the “disgrace” or “dishonor” of a man having long hair lie in the fact that it was at that time, generally speaking, culturally uncouth for men to do so. When Paul concludes in v. 15b, “For her hair is given to her for^[59] a covering,” he likely means that the long hair on a woman functions in such a way as to exemplify her beauty and glory; no other covering is necessary. He’s clearly contrasting men and women and their hair styles. If the Corinthian men are asking the women of the church to cover their hair up with some sort of fabric or shawl, Paul says, Why? If you’re insisting on a covering, why not embrace the natural, God-given covering of her own beautiful hair? Fee again: “Long hair is the woman’s glory because it has been given in the place of a covering. The natural meaning of these words is that her long hair, let down, functions for her as a natural covering.”^[60]

         Despite the fact that pro-head coverers still insist on additional headgear, I remain unconvinced based upon this very clear statement from Paul. In fact, given the analogy of Scripture and our own basic hermeneutical principle of interpreting the unclear in light of the clear, it stands to reason that pro-head coverers, with all their inveterate passion for the subject, would much rather interpret the clear in light of the unclear. Make no mistake about it: Paul is abundantly understandable when he concludes that the long hair of woman is “given to her” (by God!) “for [instead of; anti] a covering.” I believe that Paul plays on their words, particularly “covering” (paribolaiou), by correcting their erroneous views on headship and source and their insistence on the women of the church wearing head coverings. Paul removes all doubt by stating it ever-so-plainly: her hair is her covering. And that’s sufficient. Besides, if long hair is her glory and honor, why cover it with something else?^[61]

         But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (11:16)

         Paul brings his chiasm to its appropriate conclusion. Some of the men may hear this letter read out loud and be frustrated by it. Perhaps one guy is wound too tight and responds by being contentious.^[62] He wants the women wear the headgear and Paul has just dashed his wishes on the rocks of apostolic authority. Paul concludes by issuing a warning: if you, sir, are inclined to be contentious, then hear me out because this is my final argument. We don’t do these things in other churches. Some of the men might not like that the woman can decided for herself what to do with her own head. Some might not like that her hair is given to her for a covering. Others might wonder what’s going on in other churches. Paul cuts to the chase: as apostles, they have no other practice. Other assemblies aren’t fighting about any of this, either. There has been no apostolic law laid down on head coverings.

         Fee notes: “This is now the third^[63] time that Paul has tried to correct Corinthian behavior by appealing to what is taught or practiced in the other churches.”^[64] The Corinthians had the habit of going their own way, which is why Paul had to bring them back into apostolic and ecclesiastical conformity. And what it is they were doing? The men were pungently insisting that women cover their heads. Without a doubt this was contentious in the house church; yet Paul says that it shouldn’t be for there is no other practice and no other churches were forcing the issue.

Do you disagree?

         Opponents of the quotation theory incredulously object to verses 4-9 as being a quotation of the Corinthian position for the quotation is quite lengthy in comparison to the other quotation passages. Their objection is worth dealing with. First, not all quotations are necessarily long quotes verbatim. Sometimes the quotes are very short (e.g., “All things are lawful”) and Paul interjects quickly. Other times there may be allusions to phrases intermixed with Pauline commentary. In verses 4-9 Paul only deals with a couple of ideas. First, he deals with the shaming of one’s head based upon whether or not a man or woman is wearing a head covering. If the man does it, he shames Christ. If the woman doesn’t do it, she’s like a shaved prostitute—and that’s disgraceful so she better cover up. All of this is predicated on some faulty understanding of headship and image-bearing. Second, Paul deals with their understanding of “source”—who originated from whom? Both topics are dealt with in verses 4-9 and while they are longer developments (spanning six verses total), they are one simple line of thinking. Paul doesn’t bounce from one thing to the next; he develops what they were saying. The quotation theory does not rest on a zero-sum game: either all of it is a quote or none of it is. Instead, the theory rests on the intertextual tensions in the text as noted previously.

         The other objection to the quotation theory assumes that Paul thinks in a linear fashion like us Westerners. Our detractors might assume that the entire argument is just one long discourse and that Paul builds on each thing, one after the other. That’s why Partridge, et al., assume there is a creational argument to be made along with other “principled” reasons for covering. But as the chiasm has shown, that’s not how Paul thinks. He thinks in Hebrew, writes in Greek, and theologizes in confessional Christianity. As I have shown in the previous exegesis of the text, there is a flow to Paul’s argument, and it starts with a critique of their faulty understandings. When you have abundantly clear texts like vv. 10, 12, 15b, and 16, why assume them to be unclear so that you can try and prove something that’s not there? Linear Paul isn’t a thing. He doesn’t do beginning, middle, and end. He does beginning, middle, beginning, which is a very Hebraic way of doing theology.

         Objections to the quotation theory oftentimes revolve around cultural or eisegetical considerations. I agree with my interlocutors: feminism is a cancer. Yet, I don’t agree that asking our women to cover their heads is a way to push against the threat. I agree with my interlocutors: biblical authority matters; we need to be obeying our bibles! Nevertheless, I don’t agree that asking our women to cover their heads is the antidote to lazy, uninformed Christianity. If the assumption of our text is based on serious cultural threats like feminism and an anti-hierarchical spirit of revolt against authority, then I do not see how reading that into the text isn’t Eisegesis 101. So many pro-head coverers like Webbon, Suavé, and Partridge believe that the entire passage is about authority and submission and thus they read the passage with those lenses. But why not get into the actual text itself instead of imposing our cultural objections onto it? Objections to the quotation theory will erode when people see the validity of what has been presented especially given the strong, linguistical and exegetical arguments that are fully capable of standing on their own merits.

Conclusion

         Based on the exegesis provided above, the whole passage can be summarized as follows:

         Having sorted out the meat sacrificed to idols problem, I want to take a moment to praise and honor you because you have remembered me in everything I have taught you and you have, to some degree or another, held firmly to those traditions I and others have taught—those things I delivered to you from the very start. However, there is one thing you’ve misunderstood as it pertains to this head covering debacle in your church. Christ is the head of every man, the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Write this down if you must because I’ve been very clear on it. But you have gone off the rails getting mixed up with the local, cultural customs of the day there in Corinth! As a result, you’re teaching something contrary to what I was teaching when I was with you. You’ve been saying that every man who has something on his head while he’s praying or prophesying shames the Lord Jesus Christ (are you familiar with the priests in the temple as described in the Old Testament?); you’ve also been saying that a woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying shames her husband, for she is essentially like the temple prostitutes who shave their heads. To make matters worse, you men are telling these women to cover by putting pressure on them and saying that if a woman doesn’t cover when praying or prophesying, she’s like a woman whose hair is cut short—an insult! You have tried to carefully argue that the disgrace of a shorn or shaved head leads you to a place of asking the women to cover her head. And you’ve twisted my teaching on the image Dei, too. You’ve said that a man shouldn’t cover his head because he, as the priority in this relationship, is the image and glory of God; but you have emphasized only one part of the truth! You’ve said that the woman is the glory of man, which is fine and true, yet you’ve based this on a half-truth. You’ve said that the man does not have his source from woman, but the woman has her source from man. You’ve even gone so far as to say that the man wasn’t created for the woman’s sake, but the woman for man’s sake. This is only partly true, friends.

         In light of all this I need to state very clearly that the woman has authority over her own head, and this is because she, too, will be judging angels and matters of this life. She can decide. Remember what I said earlier in this letter? She is capable of deciding how to appropriate certain customs regarding headgear. Christ has given her this authority. And for this very reason let me clarify your half-truths. In Christ, there is no independence between the sexes. The woman isn’t independent of her husband, and the man isn’t independent of his wife—both have authority over each other, as I stated earlier. The woman does have her source in man—you’re right. But all of mankind has its source thanks to the woman! And don’t forget everything is sourced from God! Make the right judgment call here: it is proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered—the Scriptures do not require such things. Nature simply does not teach us that if a man has long hair, he’s disgraced and shamed; nor does nature tell us that if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her. And yet! Her hair is given to her as a glorious covering. You guys are all caught up in the gears of honor and shame and the cultural pressure has gotten to you, just like it has in the various issues I’ve already discussed. But here, the woman already has a suitable “covering”—since you require a covering, and all.

         And one more thing before we deal with the Lord’s Supper. If any of you men are inclined to want to fight and argue over what I have just presented, just know that we apostles have been consistent on this issue the entire time, we have taught nothing else. And, since I keep having to bring up the other churches, just know that they have been consistently teaching the very same thing. We don’t have a biblical law to appeal to, and the other churches aren’t requiring a veil either.

         In 1 Timothy 2:9-12 Paul writes,

         “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, with modesty and self-restraint, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly clothing, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women professing godliness. A woman must learn in quietness, in all submission. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

Rich Lusk has pointed out that Paul does not ask the women to cover up their braided hair, which would have had gold and other beautiful artistry in it, with a head covering. The apostle doesn’t want ostentatious displays going on in the churches. Rather than telling them to cover up the braided hair with a veil, Paul says not to even go there. Be modest. Show self-restraint in how you dress. Your hair needs no adornments. What you wear on the outside reflects what is going on on the inside. Furthermore, women are different from men and that should be expressed in dress as well as in the family, the church, and in the wider world.

         Peter argues the same thing in 1 Peter 3:1-14,

         “In the same way, you wives, be subject to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, as they observe your pure conduct with fear. Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on garments; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible quality of a lowly and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.”

If head coverings were a universal practice based on apostolic authority, why wouldn’t Peter make that abundantly clear here? He almost says the same thing that Paul has just said. Adornment on the external ought to match the adornment of the internal. A lowly, quiet spirit doesn’t match the fancy braids and jewelry. Peter could have said, “Wear a head covering to show your submission and keep away from the gold,” but he didn’t. Does his silence lend itself to head coverings or no? The rhetorical question gives the answer.

         In 1 Timothy 2, Paul does not allow a woman to exercise any authority over a man; she cannot teach in the assembly and one must ask: could she lead the liturgy? Perhaps prayer time? I say no, for many different reasons. Even still, how exactly do we square this with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16? Pro-head coverers have some explaining to do, particularly those who do not see A.D. 70 as playing any significant eschatological/redemptive role. Can a woman who covers her head in worship today lead the worship service in any capacity? Can she lead in public prayer? What about prophesying or even preaching? Does the fabric give the permission? If not, why not? If it is Paul’s position in 1 Cor. 11:4 that women can pray or prophesy as long as they have a head covering (seemingly contradicting 14:34-35), and this isn’t something that passed away in A.D. 70, then why can’t a woman lead in worship today? If all of this is tied to A.D. 70, then why insist on an additional covering today? There are many questions that are left unanswered by those who insist on women wearing head coverings in our day.

         There is one final piece to this puzzle that needs to be emphasized. Paul’s attitude in this passage is clearly pastoral, but he doesn’t back down, either. He’s not a pushover, he’s insistent. And he insists on solving the ecclesiological quagmire by applying the balm of the gospel to the wounds of injured men and women. I have little doubt in my mind that Paul was dealing with a variety of perspectives on the headgear and while there were a whole lot of opinions, it is the opinion of the gospel that matters more than any social custom or practice. That is, the Greco-Roman laws and customs which created lower classes of people (especially for women^[65]) are obliterated with the work of the gospel (cf. Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). In seeking peaceful resolution, Paul’s solution was to elevate the socially besmirched women to their proper, subordinating roles in the marriage, but lifting them up to their righteousness and authority in Christ; Paul is not reducing them, but equalizing them in Christ. It was the men who were stressing their priority and source of life (and thus headship) in a direction that Paul did not intend for it to go. This does not necessitate an egalitarianism—far from it. But it does necessitate an honest look at what the gospel actually accomplishes in the lives of both men and women.

         When Paul writes that God, who brought us near by the blood of Christ, has given us the Lord Jesus in such a way as to make peace between all peoples, having broken “down the dividing wall of the partition” (Eph. 2:13-14), he means that in the making of one new man (v. 15), there is nothing that can separate those who are in Christ Jesus. It’s not that men are brought in and women remain strangers and sojourners. No, we are all “fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household” (v. 19). We’re all being “built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (v. 22). This is why Paul can say that in Christ, there is “no male and female” (Gal. 3:28). Paul doesn’t mean that gender distinctions no longer exist and that we all ought to embrace androgyny. Instead, he means that there is no second-class citizenship in the household of faith. It’s not that men have to do things this way and women have to do this that way. We all stand equally before the foot of the cross in need of grace. Again, this isn’t egalitarianism, nor does this somehow disarm or render patriarchalism useless. Paul still teaches authority and submission albeit that’s not the primary aim of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The Corinthian men thought that was the deal, but Paul, as we’ve seen, corrected them. What we are dealing with here does not mean that women can be pastors and that they should lead in the liturgy—far be it. We have a host of other passages forbidding such things. Only qualified men can be elders. Nevertheless, what we do have here is an apostle who stands diametrically opposed to adding to the gospel. We’re justified by faith and thus any sort of external adornment to the gospel is an affront to the gospel, be it circumcision, ceremonial regulations, or the enforcement of cultural expectations regarding hair and veils in the assembly of the Way. “For we all are made in the image and glory of God, and we must do everything in our power to keep the peace in Christ’s church.”^[66]

         I hope and pray that this contribution to the discussion on head coverings can be a great aid for beleaguered consciences who want to be obedient to Scripture but are struggling with cultural pressure to do something they might not otherwise do. I also realize that the passage is very difficult and that if I am at all wrong, it’s obviously my fault and not the fault of the Holy Spirit. We all desire to be obedient to Scripture which means we really do need to wrestle with what the Spirit gave us in God’s Word. It’s not enough to simply assume certain things. Rather, we need to be able to dig deep with the hope of discovering the truth and faithfully deploying it in an age of mass apostasy and sexual confusion. There is certainly a need for orderliness in both the church and the home, and while I join you, reader, in decrying the state of our culture, I want to encourage you to remain vigilant in Christ and remain unimpressed with the Shiny New Things our world wants you to be enamored with. Instead, stay close to the Word, build your homes, and each Lord’s day participate in covenant renewal. I leave you with some Lewis to chew on,

         “Good and evil both increase at compound interest. That is why the little decisions you and I make every day are of such infinite importance. The smallest good act today is the capture of a strategic point from which, a few months later, you may be able to go on to victories you never dreamed of.”^[67]

---

^[1] E.g., Dale Patridge, A Cover for Glory: A Biblical Defense for Headcoverings (Prescott, AZ; Relearn Press, 2023); Brian & Lexi Sauvé, Bright Hearth Podcast, “What About Head Coverings,” Released on February 13, 2023 (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bright-hearth/id1616730798?i=1000599283561); and Joel Webbon, Theology Applied Podcast, “Biblical Womanhood & Head Coverings,” Released on April 26, 2022 (https://rightresponseministries.com/radio/shows/theology-applied/biblical-womanhood-head-coverings/).

Perhaps one of the more popular books that advocates for head coverings is: Jeremy Gardiner, Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times (Edmonton, AB Canada: The Head Covering Movement, 2016).

^[2] “Since we don’t know what kinds of head coverings are in view, we cannot make a rule for church life today from these verses. God has not seen fit to preserve a description of this headgear, and so has not bound us to observe the letter of this passage.” James B. Jordan, “The Woman’s Head Covering in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16,” in Biblical Horizons, 54th ed. (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1993), 293.

^[3] I have utilized and slightly adjusted the chiastic structure of Thomas P. Shoemaker, “Unveiling of Equality: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” Biblical Theological Bulletin 17 (New York, 1987), 60-63.

^[4] It should be noted that there are several places where Paul seemingly alludes to, or quotes directly, what the Corinthians were saying: 1:12; 6:12-13; 7:1; 8:1-7; 14:22; 15:12 (and possibly more). We’re able to identify these places because Paul will state something and then say something completely opposite, or, at the very least, he builds on it and/or clarifies it. A great example is 1 Corinthians 6:12. The ESV puts “All things are lawful for me” in quotation marks. “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.” It seems quite clear that the phrase in italics, “All things are lawful for me” was, in fact, a Corinthian saying. The same phrase shows up again in chapter ten.

^[5] See Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 28-53.

^[6] “It is often alleged that in 11:7 Paul teaches the ontological inferiority of women by faulty exegesis of Genesis 1:26 and more or less blatantly contradicts himself by granting to women the right to speak in Chapter 11 and commanding that they be silent in chapter 14. Numerous efforts have been made to reconcile these texts.” James B. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor. 11:2–16 and 1 Cor. 14:33b–36,” Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 2 (1972): 190.

^[7] Lucy Peppiatt, Unveiling Paul’s Women: Making Sense of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018), 33.

^[8] I agree with Gary North: “It must be pointed out at this point that the biblical requirement of the functional subordination of women, children, unordained church members, and new Christians in no way implies a personal inferiority, a fact with contemporary Women’s Liberation members cannot seem to grasp.” Gary North, “The Covering for the Woman’s Head,” (https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2010/the-covering-for-the-womans-head/), accessed June 6, 2024. I should hasten to add that I do believe in male headship and that the husband has the ultimate responsibility for the health and well-being of the covenant of marriage. I do believe the woman ought to submit to her husband, per Ephesians 5:22-33. However, this does not preclude a faulty understanding of headship from the Corinthian perspective. Much of this is based on my understanding of 1 Cor. 11:10 and the woman’s authority over her own head. 

^[9] Patridge writes, “In a sinless state where perfect imaging and representation of divine order existed, it was unnecessary for Eve to wear a head-covering. Namely, there was no need for worship regulations as God was in perfect union with Adam and Eve. Furthermore, it is crucial to understand that Paul’s basis for headcovering [sic] is rooted in creation principles, rather than creation practices. In a post-fall world, the practice of headcovering visually communicates a proper understanding of the biblical order of headship between men and women, which is based on the principles of God’s design seen in the creation of Adam and Eve.” Patridge, A Cover for Glory, 173-174. A couple of things. First, if it is true that Eve did not wear a head covering in the Garden (which was a sanctuary for worship), because sin had not yet entered into the world, then why would Paul require a veil or shawl for Christian women who have been restored in Christ? Does not the gospel itself restore the image of God in us? Sure, we see dimly, and we do not yet have resurrected bodies. But Paul says very clearly in 2 Corinthians 3:18, “But we all [male and female], with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” Secondly, Partridge wants to say that “there was no need for worship regulations” in the Garden of Eden, yet God gave a very clear sacramental regulation in forbidding them from partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (something they would have eventually partaken of, had they chose the eat from the Tree of Life, first). It seems as though this was a very serious “worship regulation” that Partridge overlooks.

^[10] “I’m suggesting that the Corinthians have taken some Christian teaching, some ideas from Scripture, and even some of Paul’s teaching, and blended it with their own ideas (cultural and religious) to come up with teachings and practices that where oppressive to women, all in the name of doing what they thought was “honorable” in the sight of God and to avoid shame.” Peppiatt, Unveiling Paul’s Women,33.

^[11] One of the earliest quotation theorist comes from a member of the Assembly of Westminster, John Lightfoot (1602-1675). “John Lightfoot demonstrates in great detail that Jewish women, although completely veiled outside the home, were free to lay aside their headcoverings during the church service. His question is whether Paul is supporting or rejecting the adoption of the Jewish custom by Gentile-Christian congregations.” Thomas Schirrmacher, Paul in Conflict with the Veil: An Alternative Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Nürnberg, Germany: VTR Publications, 2007), 45. Lightfoot himself writes, “It was the custom of the Jews that they prayed not, unless first their head were veiled, and that for this reason; that by this rite they might show themselves reverent, and ashamed before God, and unworthy with an open face to behold him.” John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Acts-1 Corinthians, vol. 4 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 229–230. If it’s true that the Jewish men of the congregation were pressuring the women to cover because they were “unworthy with an open face to behold” God, then clearly we need to square this with 2 Corinthians 3:18.

^[12] I am indebted to Thomas Schirrmacher. Someone had posited the quotation theory to me in a group on Facebook many, many years ago, and it had been my working theory. It wasn’t until I discovered Schirrmacher’s work that I finally gained a better understanding of this perspective.

^[13] Many people assume that the women were the problem in Corinth [e.g., Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990); Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992)]. They were loud and ostentatious feminists, it is commonly believed, and they didn’t know how to submit to their husbands. Therefore, Paul has to tell them to be quiet (14:34) and to wear a head covering to show their submission to the husband (but apparently, they could pray & prophecy with the headgear on?). As demonstrated in this article, this has is own set of problems. But what if it was a problem with the men? What if there was a different dynamic going on in Corinth? Perhaps the rich, married women (who were allowed to veil in public—a Roman custom) were insisting on doing so and it caused problems with the young, unmarried women (and even the former prostitutes), all of whom weren’t permitted to veil in public? And what happens when we toss in the Jewish understanding of covering for prayer? Reconstructing the problem and who it was that was causing the issue has been the source of much scholarly dismay. I do not pretend to assume that I know exactly what was going on, but I do think that, when working with certain presuppositions, it does affect our reading of the passage. I believe the men—both Jewish and gentile—were at odds on the issue.

^[14] “Men therefore veiled themselves when they prayed, partly, for a sign of reverence towards God, partly, to show themselves ashamed before God, and unworthy to look upon him. In which thing that these Corinthians did yet Judaize, although now converted to Christianity, appears sufficiently from the correction of the apostle.” Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Acts-1 Corinthians, vol. 4, 231.

^[15] As if one has to chose between the two. Again, see 1 Corinthians 7:3-4.

^[16] Which makes sense because we have no other evidence of it any of the other epistles, Pauline or otherwise.

^[17]  Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse et al., Revised Edition., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 552.

^[18] I am too, depending on how we define our terms.

^[19] “The metaphor itself is often understood to be hierarchical, setting up structures of authority. But nothing in the passage suggests as much; in fact, the only appearance of the word exousia (“authority”) refers to the woman’s own authority (v. 10).” Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 554.

^[20]  William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 541.

^[21] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 555–556.

^[22] Ibid., 556.

^[23] “Paul is concerned to show how certain relationships are based upon one party being the source of the other, and how shame coming upon one, therefore, brings shame upon the other.” Kim Riddlebarger, First Corinthians, ed. Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Powder Springs, GA: Tolle Lege Press, 2013), 261.

^[24] Not to mention that it is possible that God Himself, the Ancient of Days, is wearing a priestly head covering in Daniel 7:9. There, His clothing was like “white snow,” and “the hair of His head like pure wool.” In Exodus 39, the priestly headgear is made of fine linen. This is only a suggestion, and I am not sure where I have heard this before.

^[25] Hurley agrees: “This too must be considered an affront to God. If, then, we conclude that 11:4, 5 have reference to head coverings, we conclude that Paul: 1. rejected Jewish and OT worship customs for men, and 2. imposed Jewish worship customs for women. James B. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor. 11:2–16 and 1 Cor. 14:33b–36,” Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 2 (1972): 195. Overall, Hurley believes that Paul’s talking about women wearing their hair pinned up.

^[26]  John Trapp, Trapp’s Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Book House, 2010), 685.

^[27] Troy W. Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering,” Journal of Biblical Literature 123:1, 2004.

^[28] Ibid., 75-84. This is worth looking into because it is quite fascinating. Clearly the Greeks had some interesting ideas about sperm, fertilization, and the role of a woman’s hair in the process. The late Dr. Michael Heiser did a podcast on this topic: Trey Stricklin & Michael Heiser, The Naked Bible Podcast, “Naked Bible 86: The Head Coverings of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 (https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-86-the-head-covering-of-1-corinthians-1113-15/).

^[29] Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 31.

^[30] Ibid., 30-31.

^[31]  Kim Riddlebarger, First Corinthians, ed. Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Powder Springs, GA: Tolle Lege Press, 2013), 259.

^[32] “Women not entitled to the veil may have wanted it, and women entitled to the veil may not have wanted it….They [Christian women with pasts] were entitled to be there [at worship]—but the norms of the time said that they had to be there in the outfits of degraded, vulnerable beings. It was against custom and perhaps even against the law for them to be veiled…. Any married woman found to have committed adultery would lose forever the right to wear a floor-length, heavily bordered stola and a veil. Any woman who had ever been a prostitute was of course not allowed to wear them either.” Sarah Ruden, Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time (New York: NY, Image Books, 2010), 86-87. Ruden thinks that Paul was elevating all the women to a position of respect and dignity by allowing all of them—regardless of social status—to don the veil. In her mind, based on Greek literature, there are a lot of sexual overtones connected to the woman’s hair. Certainly, many have assumed a similar thing when Mary washed/anointed Jesus’ feet with “very costly pure nard” and “wiped His feet with her hair” (John 12:3).

^[33] Do not forget the ancient Hebrew story of Tamar. She “removed her widow’s garments from herself and covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself. And she sat at the entrance of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah had grown up, and she had not been given to him as a wife. Then Judah saw her, and he thought she was a harlot, for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:14-15). In this case, the veil symbolized sexual immorality. However, when Rebekah wore the veil in Genesis 24:65, 67, it symbolized her purity and innocence before she was married to Issac. Adam McIntosh rightly asks, “The face-veil, which concealed a woman’s facial beauty, was not for the purpose of modesty. How is it that a headcovering, which covers less of a woman’s beauty, is the hallmark of modesty? This view cannot stand under scrutiny. Until 1 Corinthians 11, there is no evidence in the Bible that women were required to cover their head for any reason, let alone modesty.” Adam McIntosh, “Uncovering the Headcovering Movement, Part 3, Kuyperian Commentary (https://kuyperian.com/headcovering-pt-3/), accessed June 19, 2024.

^[34] See my ebook, Outside the Camp: On Sickness, Quarantine, and Biblical Law (Warrenton, VA: Cross & Crown Books, 2021).

^[35]  Rousas John Rushdoony, Commentaries on the Pentateuch: Deuteronomy (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2008), 307.

^[36] Ray Sutton, “The Covenantal Structure of 1 Corinthians: Part II,” Covenant Renewal, Vol. II, no. 11(Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988).

^[37]  James B. Jordan, “The Woman’s Head Covering in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16,” in Biblical Horizons, 54th ed. (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1993), 293.

^[38] “Although the difficulty lies primarily in the language, it begins with the syntax. The inferential conjunction “for this reason” with which the sentence begins can point either backward or forward, that is, it can draw an inferred conclusion on the basis of what has been said, or it can anticipate a reason that will be given in what follows.” Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 573.

^[39] It’s worth noting that in the Geneva Bible notes from the 1599 edition, it says on note 2, from 11:4 the following: “It appeareth that this was a political law serving only for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly, is a sign of subjection” (emphasis mine). Also worth quoting, “Paul, when writing to the Corinthians who were Greeks, gives the preference to that custom. In doing so, he did not intend to lay down a universal law which should be everywhere observed. He merely accommodated himself to a custom of civil life observed, at that time, by those to whom he was writing.” Herman Witsius and William Pringle, Sacred Dissertations on the Lord’s Prayer (Edinburgh: Thomas Clark, 1839), 87–88.

^[40] In a surprisingly odd interpretation of the text, Rushdoony writes, “This means that a woman’s longer hair and veil is at one and the same time not only a sign of subordination, but also of authority.” Rushdoony goes on: “If a woman fails to rely on her sign of subordination she also fails to claim the authority which is rightfully hers.” R.J. Rushdoony, Sermons in 1 & 2 Corinthians (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon/Ross House Books, 2023), 125-126. Somehow, with exegetical magic, the hair and veil transform into both subordination and authority, as though the Greek text can be both passive and active! Commentators who do such things seem to be trying to loosen the blow of subordination of a wife to her husband by trying to elevate her authority. She has the authority to be submissive!

^[41] “The difficulty with this view is that there is no known evidence either that the word exousia was ever taken in this passive sense or that the idiom “to have authority over” ever referred to an external authority different from the subject of the sentence.” Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 574. Fee also comments in n. 112 that “It is not so once in its 103 occurrences in the NT, nor in the LXX, Philo, or Josephus.” He also quotes Ramsay in footnote n. 113: “Cf. W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St Paul (New York, 1908), 203: “[That her authority] is the authority to which she is subject [is] a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the New Testament, where (as they seem to think) Greek words may mean anything that commentators choose.” Strong words, indeed.

^[42] See, for example, Matthew 9:6, where Jesus has authority on earth to forgive sins. It is His authority, not someone else’s. Hurley writes, “Unlike the English word “authority” EXOUSIA is not used in a passive sense, either by NT authors or by secular writers. To have “authority” on one’s head is not to have a symbol of the authority of another but to have a symbol of one’s own authority. James B. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor. 11:2–16 and 1 Cor. 14:33b–36,” Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 2 (1972): 207–208. Hurley also notes that Paul uses this word nine times in First Corinthians (7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5; 6:12 (twice), 18; 15:24) and all are in the active sense.

^[43] E.g., Partridge & Gardiner don’t even mention this. Perhaps they don’t know how the Greek works in this situation or perhaps they have never heard of this. Either way, it’s imperative for sound exegesis that we understand these dynamics lest we teach things completely opposite to Scripture!

^[44] “The purpose of head covering is to provide a visual symbol of God’s created order to the gathered church. If angels are a reason why we obey this command, it presupposes that they must be watching us worship.” Gardiner, Jeremy. Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times (p. 34). Head Covering Movement. Kindle Edition.

^[45] And one time in history do we have a virgin give birth to a young savior without the help of man’s seed!

^[46] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 578–579.

^[47] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 826.

^[48] Shirrmacher, Paul in Conflict with the Veil, 62.

^[49] Ibid., 61.

^[50] Ibid., 59.

^[51] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, n. 142, pg. 582.

^[52] Romans 1:26, 2:14, 2:27, 11:21, 11:24; 1 Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 2:15, 4:8; Ephesians 2:3; James 3:7; and 2 Peter 1:4.

^[53] Schirrmacher, Paul in Conflict with the Veil, 59.

^[54] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 582.

^[55] Ibid., 583.

^[56] “He passes on now to another subject—to instruct the Corinthians, what decorum ought to be observed in the sacred assemblies. For as a man’s dress or gesture has in some cases the effect of disfiguring, and in others of adorning him, so all actions are set off to advantage by decorum, and are vitiated by the want of it.” John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 350.

^[57] This is roughly five pounds! (The young man could grow quite a bit of hair!)

^[58] Peppiatt, Unveiling Paul’s Women, 37-38.

^[59] I agree with Douglas Wilson, who writes, “My reading of this is that a woman’s long hair is given her “for a covering” (v. 15). I do not take it as her long hair is given her ‘for an illustration of how an additional covering is necessary’.” Douglas Wilson, Partakers of Grace: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2018), 172.

^[60]  Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 584.

^[61] Partridge speaks of the Mishnah which “made it clear that a woman untying her hair in public was an extreme act of immodesty.” He goes on, “She became eye candy for lustful men.” He then writes, “I am not saying Scripture teaches us that a woman’s hair must be covered at all times as a form of sexual modesty.” Patridge, A Cover for Glory, 139. Well, why not? If the argument for head covering is rooted in “nature” and this sexually charged understanding of a woman’s hair, and if the basis for head coverings in worship is built on that understanding, too, why wouldn’t we want a woman’s hair covered at all times? He says on page 140, having cited a study, “A woman’s hair can be very sexually arousing and distracting to a man.” If a woman is always at risk of exposing her hair in front of other men, and this would be considered “immodest,” then clearly, she ought to be covering at all times, especially if she’s out in public. Simply put, if that’s not what one is arguing for, then why use that cultural tidbit at all? Is her hair only sexually arousing in church?

^[62] “A contentious person is one whose humour inclines him to stir up disputes,and does not care what becomes of the truth.” John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 362.

^[63] 4:17 & 7:17.

^[64] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 586.

^[65] “In this chapter I have attempted to establish four things. First, Christian subcultures in the ancient world rapidly developed a very substantial surplus of females, while in the pagan world around them males greatly outnumbered females. This shift was the result of Christian prohibitions against infanticide and abortion and of substantial sex bias in conversion. Second, fully in accord with Guttentag and Secord’s theory linking the status of women to sex ratios, Christian women enjoyed substantially higher status within the Christian subcultures than pagan women did in the world at large. This was especially marked vis-à-vis gender relations within the family, but women also filled leadership positions within the church. Third, given a surplus of Christian women and a surplus of pagan men, a substantial amount of exogamous marriage took place, thus providing the early church with a steady flow of secondary converts. Finally, I have argued the abundance of Christian women resulted in higher birthrates—that superior fertility contributed to the rise of Christianity.” Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996), 128.

^[66] Riddlebarger, First Corinthians, 272.

^[67] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 132.

The post Paul & the Head Covering: An Alternative Interpretation appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.