When exploring the practice of headcovering, it is of utmost importance to deal with the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11. Part 2 of this series attempted to do just that. By process of elimination, we were able to determine which interpretations are the most biblical and which ones are lacking in biblical evidence. It is my position that 1 Corinthians 11 in no way requires headcovering as a universal command for the church.

Beyond 1 Corinthians 11, headcoverers frequently appeal to history to defend headcovering. Indeed, some headcoverers focus on this aspect more than the biblical aspect. If your position on headcovering doesn’t match the historical consensus, it can be disregarded right away. “Two-thousand years of church history can’t be wrong,” you might hear. Or, “All Christians were pro-headcovering until the 1960s.” Are these claims accurate? The history isn’t as simple as you might think.

Female (and male) coverings, and not just in church

Yes, it was very common for women throughout history to wear headcoverings (scarfs, hats) as part of their regular attire. There is much evidence for this – written and photographic – even into the early 1900s. The claim is true, as far as it goes, and we need not say otherwise. But merely asserting this truth does not justify the headcovering movement. There are problems with this line of thinking.

First, the evidence shows that women wore coverings as regular attire in daily life. Headcovering wasn’t only for Christian activities, which works against the headcovering position. Most headcoverers do not require coverings all day, every day. They acknowledge that Paul was not teaching such in 1 Corinthians 11. Instead, they limit the practice to corporate worship. But this exposes the inconsistency of their argument: They are appealing to historical practice without actually following historical practice.

Read more

In my previous article, I attempted to show that 1 Corinthians 11 is one of the more difficult passages in the Bible. There are at least 10 questions posed by the text that aren’t immediately answered for us. While I’m certain that the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul meant by his words, we don’t have the same luxury. Every theory on 1 Corinthians 11 must rely on assumptions from outside the text. The task before us is to examine those assumptions and see which ones are the most biblical.

What follows are my conclusions on each of the 10 questions. Please remember that I acknowledge the impossibility of proving every point with certainty. In fact, my goal is not to provide the definitive interpretation of headcovering. As we examine the assumptions, we’ll find that there are multiple valid interpretations. But each of them come to the same conclusion: that artificial headcovering is not an on-going practice for the church.

My hope is to sort through the questions in the most logical order possible. We will start with some of the easier ones and move to harder ones. (Don’t miss the footnotes along the way.)

Read more

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.

Read more