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.
(more…)
