Female Head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Part 4 of 5): Brief Exegesis of Verses 11-16

     ⁽¹¹⁾ Nevertheless woman is not without man and man is not without woman in the Lord; ⁽¹²⁾ for just as the woman is out of the man, thus also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.¹ With this qualifier, Paul prevents wrongful conclusions being drawn from what he has just written. Even though the woman ought to have authority over her own head (v. 10), she is still not independent of the man. And while the woman was created out of and for the sake of the man (vv. 8-9), man is not independent of her. In the Lord both sexes are mutually dependent. God made man out of dust, woman from man, and now both through woman.

     ⁽¹³⁾ You judge among yourselves; is it proper for a woman to be praying to God uncovered? The aorist imperative here is the only real command in the whole paragraph. Paul is appealing to the common-sense reasoning of his Corinthian audience (cf. 5:12; 6:2-5; 10:15). The call to personal judgment and propriety necessarily involves a social norm and the convention of a given time. “You . . . yourselves” is emphatic, stressing to the readers that the decision must be their own.

      ⁽¹⁴⁾ Is not even the nature itself teaching you that, on the one hand, if a man has long hair it is a shame to him, ⁽¹⁵⁾ but on the other hand, if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her? For the hair corresponds to a covering having been given [to her]. Since a man’s hair can naturally grow long and there is no way for the natural world to define or quantify hair length, reference to “the nature itself” apparently applies to “the native sense of propriety,” i.e., “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (Thayer 660). Paul is not talking about what nature teaches just anybody, but what it teaches “you” (plural), viz. his first-century Corinthian audience. In the cultural context of this Greco-Roman society, hair length not only distinguishes women from men, but also respectable ladies and gentlemen from immoral persons (see, e.g., Plutarch, Roman Questions 14; Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 12.15; 35.2; 72.2).²

     In this particular setting, a woman’s long hair serves as a natural covering and demonstrates the appropriateness of her being covered. The significance of dedotai (“having been given”) cannot be that God has provided to the woman and not to the man the ability to grow long hair. A man’s hair can in fact grow long, and “God” is not even mentioned here. In view of the allusion to their natural sense of propriety (v. 14) and the admonition to “judge among yourselves” (v. 13), the point seems to be that the woman’s long hair is recognized as peculiarly hers and characteristic of normalcy and dignity among Corinthians ladies. Her long hair in this society “corresponds to” a covering. The preposition anti may have signified “instead of” in classical Greek, but not in the Koine Greek of the NT (D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 480 n. 86).

     ⁽¹⁶⁾ But if anyone seems to be contentious, we do not have such a custom nor [do] the churches of God. Whether or not there was actually contentiousness over this matter is unknown, but Paul obviously wants to avoid disputes and to promote unity (cf. 1:10). The “we,” as distinct from “the churches of God,” probably has reference to Paul and his apostolic colleagues (cf. 4:9-13). The NASB, NIV, NLT, and RSV rendering of toiauten as “other” is an unfortunate mistranslation that communicates the opposite of what the apostle has actually stated. The word means “such” (cf. ASV, ESV, N/KJV). The term sunetheia is more than a mere “practice” (prassō); it means “custom,” “habit,” or “customary usage.”

     Contentiousness is not normally described with the word “custom,” and it seems unlikely that Paul would deem it necessary to affirm that he and the other apostles and churches have no specific habit as this. If “unveiled women” is the custom in view, as some have insisted, why would the translators of the NASB, NIV, and RSV feel compelled to render the expression, “we have no other practice”? Moreover, how could these readers have judged for themselves regarding the impropriety of unveiled women (v. 13) if the standard practice was that very thing? There is no real indication in this passage that it had become customary for the ladies in Corinth to routinely uncover their heads. A stronger rebuke from the apostle, of which he was capable, would be warrented if propriety was consistently being violated.

     Ample evidence shows that the convention of the time was for proper ladies to cover their heads, not to be uncovered. Based upon the immediate and the historical-cultural contexts of this passage, the female head-covering is the most evident custom in view. Why, then, would Paul presumably argue in favor of this convention (vv. 5-13), then conclude by saying, “we do not have such a custom” (v. 16)? This apparent discrepancy is similar to the one encountered in v. 10, namely that Paul is saying the opposite of what is expected. We can therefore do one of two things: (a) rework what the verse says to mean what we expect it to say, or (b) let it mean what it says and seek to harmonize that with the context.

     Since only one side of the conversation is available to us, the particular situation Paul is addressing can only be deduced from his response to it. Perhaps there were some among the Corinthian brethren who were questioning the necessity of head-coverings in special gatherings of women praying or prophesying in private homes. The reaction of others may have been to bind the headdress as religious law while denying the women freedom to choose in expedient matters. How should this sensitive and potentially disruptive issue be addressed?

     Paul appeals to common sense and to reason. His tone throughout this whole section is a far cry from stronger arguments used elsewhere in the letter (e.g. 4:18–5:5; 11:29-34). In an indirect and tactful manner, he tries to assist the Corinthians in making their own decision. He complements them and introduces the underlying principle of God’s hierarchical arrangement (vv. 2-3). He appeals to social disgrace (vv. 4-6) and to female subordination (vv. 7-9), while affirming the woman’s liberty (v. 10) and male-female mutuality (vv. 11-12). He then calls for their own judgment based on propriety (vv. 13-15). In the end, however, Paul cannot make a binding law, so he concedes that this is neither an apostolic nor a congregational custom and should therefore not generate disputes among brethren (v. 16).

     The head-covering custom did not originate with the apostles or the churches. It was not bound by the apostles on the churches. The conventional headdress or veil was no doubt worn by Christian ladies in many different regions at the time, but this was part of their cultural environment, not inherent in or distinctive to their Christian religion.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation.

     ² It was not always considered degrading for a man to have long hair. Nazarites were not allowed to cut their hair (Numbers 6:1-21). Solomon’s horsemen let their hair grow to considerable length (Josephus, Ant. 8.185). There was a time in history when Jewish men typically wore longer hair (2 Samuel 14:25-26; Song 5:2, 11; Ezekiel 8:3; cf. Judges 13:3-5; 16:13-22). In fact, the 9th-century BC Assyrian Black Obelisk of Shalmanezer III depicts Israelite men with shoulder-length hair.

Related posts: Female Head-coverings Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5

Image credit: http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/130013547?rpp=20&pg=8&rndkey=20130530&ft=*&what=Figures%7cMarble&pos=148

Female Head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Part 3 of 5): Brief Exegesis of Verses 2-10

     ⁽²⁾ Now I am commending you because you remember all things of me and are retaining the precepts just as I delivered [them] to you.¹ The commendation is to “you” (plural), i.e. the specific audience to whom Paul is writing (cf. 1:2). These “traditions” (NKJV) or “ordinances” (KJV) or “teachings” (NIV) had been handed down to them by Paul’s personal instruction (3:2), in a previous letter (5:9), and through a personal representative (4:17).

     ⁽³⁾ But I am desiring you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is head of woman, and God is head of Christ. The contrast here indicates something new that Paul had not previously addressed, introducing the entire section about the relationship between God’s hierarchical arrangement and social decorum. The metaphoric use of the term “head” (kephalē) is “of superior rank” (cf. Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:10, 19). Of the three occurrences of the term kephalē (“head”) in this verse, only the first has the article appended (“the head”), indicating the greater sense in which Christ is the head of man. The absence of the article with the other two uses of “head” may suggest that man is head of woman and God is head of Christ in a different way.

     ⁽⁴⁾ Every man praying or prophesying having [something] down upon his head disgraces his head. The context confines “every man” in this verse not simply to every man in the universe or even to every Christian man but to every Christian man praying or prophesying, and perhaps even further to every Christian man at Corinth praying or prophesying. Praying means to communicate to God, and prophesying means to proclaim a divine revelation (a gift not conferred upon everyone, 12:10, 28). Seeing that Paul ends each phase of his argument with a mention of women (the main topic of concern), his allusions to men are probably to bring out the contrast with the women. The setting here is not restricted to a corporate worship assembly; the observations would apply to any situation where praying or prophesying was done.

     ⁽⁵⁾ But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered is disgracing her head; for she is one and the same [thing] as the one having been shaved. Contrary to popular opinion, since the women are said to be doing the same thing as the men in the previous verse, a corporate worship assembly cannot be in view here (cf. 14:34-35). Because no particular setting is specified, these observations would apply to any situation (e.g. all female gatherings) where women could legitimately engage in praying or prophesying (see Acts 2:17; 16:13; 21:9; Titus 2:3-4). In light of v. 6, the covering here appears to be an artificial headdress in addition to her hair (consistent with societal norms). Even in gatherings restricted to females, especially in the context of spiritual activity, the customary emblems of modesty and decorum ought to be maintained. Just as shorn hair on a woman was considered disgraceful in this culture, the removal of the customary head-covering was regarded the same. A woman who ordinarily has her head covered in public should also (especially) cover her head while engaged in observable spiritual activities.

     ⁽⁶⁾ For if a woman is not being covered, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is dishonorable to a woman to have her hair cut or to be shaved, let her continue to have her [head] covered. This reinforces the argument of v. 5. If one thing happens to occur, then consistency should follow. The present imperative, “let her continue to have her head covered,” indicates further that the limited setting of a corporate worship assembly is not the exclusive focus. At whatever times it was considered indecorous for a Corinthian woman to have short hair or to be shaved, a respectable Corinthian woman was to have her head covered as often.

     ⁽⁷⁾ For indeed a man is not obliged to be covered continually, being the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. Apparently for a man in Corinth to habitually wear a head-covering would in some way obscure or diminish the image and glory of God which he reflects. This is the opposite of v. 6. Paul is not saying that a man is to never have his head covered, but rather he is not duty-bound to continually or habitually have it covered.

     ⁽⁸⁾ For man is not out of woman but woman is out of man; ⁽⁹⁾ for also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. The creation order is introduced here to further emphasize gender roles (cf. 1 Timothy 2:11-13). The head-covering, in this particular cultural setting, is linked to the principle of female subordination, and female subordination is tied to the order of creation, but the head-covering itself cannot be traced back to the garden of Eden.²

     ⁽¹⁰⁾ On account of this the woman ought to have authority over her head: on account of the angels. While the statement begins with dia touto (“on account of this”), does it point backward or forward? The demonstrative pronoun touto (“this”) is singular, indicating a solitary reason, and it naturally connects to the expressly stated reason in the same sentence: dia tous aggelous (“on account of the angels”). Paul is saying, “On account of this … [namely] on account of the angels.” Otherwise the last phrase is left hanging with no attachment to the rest of the sentence.³

     The woman ought to have exousia over her head. The word exousia means (a) freedom of choice, right; (b) ability, capability; (c) authority; (d) power (BAGD 277-78). The words “a veil” (RSV), “a sign of” (ASV), or “a symbol of” (ESV) do not appear in the original text, and the insertion of any of these significantly alters the sense of what the inspired writer has stated.

     Paul employs the term exousia eleven other times in his extant letters to Corinth, and in each case it is used in the active sense, i.e., the person has or exercises the authority rather than being passively submissive to it. Every time the word is used in 1 Corinthians leading up to 11:10, it has the connotation “freedom of choice” or “right” (7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12, 18), not to mention synonymous expressions (7:39; 8:9; 9:1, 19; 10:29). Granted, in the immediate context the apostle has indicated that women are in a position of submissiveness, and the head-covering appears to have been a distinctive indicator of this status in first-century Corinth. Nevertheless, v. 10 says what it says, and it should not be modified or embellished to force Paul to say what we might expect him to say.

     The basic idea of submission is to willingly sub-order oneself or to put oneself under the authority of another. In this sense submission is not forced but one exercises personal freedom in choosing to submit (cf. Ephesians 5:21-24). In the three chapters leading up to the head-covering discussion, Paul has been discussing Christian liberty. While recognizing that a child of God may have the right to do certain things, this freedom must be exercised responsibly and in consideration of others (8:9; 9:18; 10:24; 10:32–11:1). When Paul goes on to say that a woman ought to have exousia over her head, surely he means this freedom of choice is to be used in accordance with all that he has just written.

     The angels have freedom to choose yet remain in their rightful sphere of subjection (Psalm 103:20). In the proper use of their freedom God is glorified (Revelation 7:11-12). Likewise, if a woman was nothing more than a subjugated slave, forced against her will to submit to man, she would not be a glory to him. It is only when she has the freedom of choice (exousia), and exercises that freedom to fulfill her submissive role, that she avoids disgrace and is truly the glory of man.

     Admittedly what Paul affirms in v. 10 is not what one might expect. Rather than building upon the previous arguments, this verse appears to stand on its own. While it is linked to the exousia theme of the preceding chapters, if readers are attuned to the chiastic structure of the paragraph (see Part 1), this verse is recognized as the centerpiece of the immediate discussion.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation.

     ² If the head-covering itself is tied to creation, as some have maintained, then God’s people should have observed this convention since the beginning. The evidence for this, however, is lacking. There is no record that Eve wore a garment over her head; the Lord initially clothed Adam and Eve alike (Genesis 3:21). No specific examples are found in the Old Testament of what is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 11. The Law of Moses contains no explicit head-covering legislation. With the exception of the present text, the New Testament is silent on this topic. The creation-order argument is about gender roles rather than specific clothing regulation.

     ³ The expression dia touto is used elsewhere in Paul’s writings to point forward: cf. 4:17; 2 Corinthians 4:1; Romans 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 3:5; Philemon 15.

Related posts: Female Head-coverings Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, Part 5

Image credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig89cuL1xSg4pLUw4Q1ORvq7EXDtTVOGz1bPxzmb-RkTxVFnNFITj2Vy_K6xWIK729iBFzimM5VmTTf8_Wg3st5bXDQ2fqofzDMB81JAZI_fK7CmMPcytFID0q_G9dDFZgZ-J6a_LVF6o/s1600/praying_hands_bible.jpg

Female Head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Part 2 of 5): The Setting and the Nature of the Covering

     The original text of 1 Corinthians had no chapter or verse divisions and certainly no chapter headings like, “The Christian Assembly” or “The Behavior of Women in Public Worship.” What is recognized today as chapter 11 could just as easily have been started at 10:14, 10:23, 11:2, or 11:17, but it is almost unanimously agreed that it was a mistake to mark the beginning of the chapter at 11:1.

     Since a Christian assembly is not specifically mentioned until 11:17-18, there is no legitimate reason to reverse this context to incorporate the previous discussion. The contrasting statements of commendation in v. 2 and of rebuke in v. 17 clearly demonstrate that a new section begins at v. 17.

The Setting:

     One of the more prevalent assumptions among commentators and other interpreters is that the corporate worship assembly is the setting under consideration in 11:2-16. While the acts of “praying” (communicating to God) and “prophesying” (proclaiming divine revelation) were part of the early first-century church services, they were by no means restricted to them. Praying was done individually in private (Matthew 6:6) as well as in public (Luke 18:10-13), collectively in small groups (Acts 12:12; 20:36), and in the presence of both believers (Luke 11:1; 22:39-41) and unbelievers (Acts 27:35). Prophesying took place at special gatherings (Acts 15:30-32), at informal settings (Acts 21:10-11), and in the presence of individuals (Acts 24:25), small groups (Acts 19:6), crowds (Luke 2:3 ff.), believers (1 Corinthians 14:22), and unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:24; Revelation 10:11).

     Since prophesying was not done individually in private, the praying in 1 Corinthians 11 probably does refer to group prayer. Nevertheless, whatever men are said to be doing in v. 4, the same is attributed to women in v. 5. And Paul goes on in 14:34-35 to forbid women from leading in these activities in the public assembly. Instead of specifying a particular environment, Paul merely identifies the act of praying or prophesying in 11:2-16.

     In the first-century church, women as well as men were endowed with the miraculous gift of prophecy (Acts 2:17; 21:9). Women were expected to be teachers (Titus 2:3-4) and workers in the Christian community (Romans 16:1; Philippians 4:2-3). At the same time, there were restrictions placed upon Christian women. They were not permitted to teach or have authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12), nor were they allowed to speak as to lead the public assembly (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

     Since the women in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are said to be praying or prophesying the same as men, and only men are authorized to lead in the public meetings of the church, and assuming Paul is consistent in his teachings, the sensible conclusion is that the apostle is not pointing his directives here to the corporate assembly. His observations would therefore apply to any situation where praying or prophesying was done, such as all female gatherings (cf. Acts 2:17; 16:13; 21:9; Titus 2:3-4).

     In context, Paul has been discussing a Christian’s influence “in all things” – social and religious, toward both believers and unbelievers (8:1–11:1). In 11:2-16 he does not employ the church-assembly phraseology that is repeatedly emphasized later on (11:17, 18, 20; 14:23, 26). One should not presume that it was inconsequential to discard the emblems of modesty and decorum in gatherings restricted to women, especially in the context of spiritual activity.¹

The Nature of the Covering:

     The expression akatakaluptō (“uncovered”) in v. 5 does not inherently reveal that which covered the head before it became uncovered. Accordingly some have argued that the covering under consideration is the natural covering of hair (cf. v. 15),² and to be “uncovered” means to have the hair removed. This interpretation, however, is improbable considering Paul’s argument in v. 6. It would be senseless for him to have said that if a woman’s head is not covered with hair, let her “also” (kai) have her hair cut off.

     Seeing that there is no object in the phrase kata kephalēs echōn (lit. “having down upon the head”) in v. 4, could this be referring to long hair? There is no known precedent for this phrase being used in relation to hair, but there are examples of an artificial covering depicted this way. In the LXX version of Esther 6:12, Haman is described as mourning with his “head covered” (kata kephalēs). In Plutarch’s Moralia 200.13, Scipio the Younger is said to have “his toga covering his head,” and the phrase kata kephalēs echōn is identical to the wording of 1 Corinthians 11:4.

     The noun peribolaion (“a [wrap-around] covering”) in v. 15 does not correspond to the verb katakaluptō (to “cover”) used five times in vv. 5-13. Paul did not use kalumma (the noun form of katakaluptō) in v. 15, neither did he use periballō (the verb form of peribolaion) in vv. 5-13. It stands to reason that the covering mentioned in v. 15 is different from the covering alluded to in vv. 5-13. The apostle affirms that a woman’s long hair is a peribolaion, whereas there is something else that serves to katakaluptō her head. Moreover, an artificial headdress in addition to the woman’s hair is consistent with what is known about the societal norms of the time.

     Some will argue that the statement in 1 Timothy 2:9, which discourages a particular hair style, shows that there were women who did not wear garments covering their hair. Despite the fact that Ephesus is in view here rather than Corinth, this conclusion is still not definitive. While Jewish women typically concealed all of their hair, other women, particularly among the Greeks and Romans, generally wore loose-fitting headdresses exposing at least some of the hair (see, e.g., vol. 11 of E. R. Goodenough’s Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period).

     Different types of head-coverings were worn in ancient times. Some concealed the head and face, others covered the hair but not the face, while others were loosely worn, exposing the face and part of the hair. Taking into account the cultural diversity of Corinth’s population, a variety of fashions would be expected. It is interesting that Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is somewhat ambiguous with reference to the type of covering. His ambiguity suggests that he is dealing with the head-covering in general without regard for any particular style.

--Kevin L. Moore    

Endnotes:

     ¹ The present imperative in v. 6, “let her continue to have her head covered,” indicates further that the limited setting of a corporate worship assembly is not the exclusive focus. At whatever times it was considered indecorous for a Corinthian woman to have short hair or to be shaved, a respectable Corinthian woman was to have her head covered as often.

     ² The NIV marginal note offers the following alternative version of vv. 4-7: “Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head – she is just like one of the ‘shorn women.’ If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. A man ought not to have long hair.” Gordon Fee responds to this unconventional rendering: “How this option made the NIV margin is a great puzzle. It does disservice to the Greek at too many places to be viable. One might allow any one of these, but their cumulative effect requires the acceptance of too many contingent improbabilities” (First Corinthians 499 n. 28).

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Image credit: http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/130013547 rpp=20&pg=8&rndkey=20130530&ft=*&what=Figures%7cMarble&pos=148

Female Head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Part 1 of 5): Context and Translation

     Nearly every student of the Bible is aware of the discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 concerning women praying or prophesying with covered heads. But when it comes to understanding the meaning and application of this passage, most will have to admit that they haven’t really studied it in detail, at least not beyond examining one or two English translations and perhaps a few commentaries.

     This fifteen-verse paragraph has been the subject of considerable debate over the centuries, and a sizeable mountain of literature has been written about it, much of which has hardly contributed to clarifying its complexities. In fact, the difficulties have been accentuated by multiple and varying translations, interpretations, and applications that are often at variance with the inspired writer’s original purpose.

Literary Context:

     The passage in question is just a small section of a larger literary unit. It forms part of a letter that was occasioned by special circumstances and must therefore be viewed, not in isolation, but in relation to the entire document. From 7:1 to 16:12 Paul is responding to correspondence he had received from the Corinth church, addressing issues such as (a) marriage and related matters (7:1-40); (b) limits of exousia (“liberty”): food sacrificed to idols and ministerial support (8:1–11:1); (c) woman’s exousia and covering the head (11:2-16); (d) abuse of the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34); (e) spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40); etc.

     In trying to understand any biblical passage, the interpreter must be alert to what is said (content), how it is said (form), and in what situation it is said (life setting). In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul seems to be employing a common literary device known as chiasmus, i.e. an inverted parallelism in which the center line receives the emphasis. The following arrangement shows the chiastic structure of the text:

A (2-3) Introduction

B     (4-7) woman, praying, uncovered head, man, glory

C          (8a) man is not out of woman

D               (8b) woman is out of man

E                    (9a) man was not created for woman

F                         (9b) woman was created for man

X                              (10) woman ought to have exousia over her head

F’                         (11a) woman is not without man

E’                    (11b) man is not without woman

D’               (12a) woman is out of the man

C’          (12b) man is through the woman

B’     (13-15) woman, praying, uncovered, man, glory

A’ (16) Conclusion

     Failure to recognize this structure and its implications can contribute to overlooking the main point and drawing faulty conclusions. While v. 10 is admittedly the most problematic verse in the paragraph, it appears to be the central point. What it means and how it relates to the other lines of argumentation is fundamental to understanding the whole passage.

Historical/Cultural Context:

     First Corinthians was written early in 56 from Ephesus by the apostle Paul to the church of God at Corinth (1:2; 4:19; 16:8). At the time Corinth was a Roman colony, the seat of the Roman proconsul, and the capital of the Roman province of Achaia. The church was predominantly Gentile, the majority of whom were of lower social status, along with Jewish and upper class minorities (1:26; 6:9-11; 7:18-24; 12:13; cf. Acts 18:1-18).¹

     Evidently it was the customary practice among nearly all cultures at the time for respectable ladies to wear long hair and to regularly have their heads covered in public; reputable men, on the other hand, ordinarily kept their hair short and did not routinely cover their heads (see, e.g., Plutarch, Roman Questions 14; Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 12.15; 33.51-52; 35.2; 72.2). Since the chief concern of this study is what was regarded as morally decent in mid-first-century Corinthian society, the wide-ranging depictions of ancient pagan rituals, goddesses, prostitutes, and other immoral persons and acts are of little consequence.

     For a woman to have short hair or to appear in public without the customary headdress was considered inappropriate, for various reasons, typically causing derision. Some pagan religious practices may have deviated from the normal standards of decency, but this does not represent the general state of affairs in everyday life. Paul’s directives in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 were not innovative, as some have alleged, but appear to be consistent with the social conventions of the time in that part of the world.²

English Translation:

     The aim of the following translation is not ease of reading but an attempt to render the text as literally as the translation process will allow so that it essentially corresponds to what the apostle originally wrote. Added words and a single textual variant are in [square brackets].³

     ⁽²⁾ Now I am commending you because you remember all things of me and are retaining the precepts just as I delivered [them] to you. ⁽³⁾ But I am desiring you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is head of woman, and God is head of Christ. ⁽⁴⁾ Every man praying or prophesying having [something] down upon his head disgraces his head. ⁽⁵⁾ But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered is disgracing her head; for she is one and the same [thing] as the one having been shaved. ⁽⁶⁾ For if a woman is not being covered, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is dishonorable to a woman to have her hair cut or to be shaved, let her continue to have her [head] covered. ⁽⁷⁾ For indeed a man is not obliged to be covered continually, being the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ⁽⁸⁾ For man is not out of woman but woman is out of man; ⁽⁹⁾ for also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. ⁽¹⁰⁾ On account of this the woman ought to have authority over her head: on account of the angels. ⁽¹¹⁾ Nevertheless woman is not without man and man is not without woman in the Lord; ⁽¹²⁾ for just as the woman is out of the man, thus also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God. ⁽¹³⁾ You judge among yourselves; is it proper for a woman to be praying to God uncovered? ⁽¹⁴⁾ Is not even the nature itself teaching you that, on the one hand, if a man has long hair it is a shame to him, ⁽¹⁵⁾ but on the other hand, if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her? For the hair corresponds to a covering having been given [to her]. ⁽¹⁶⁾ But if anyone seems to be contentious, we do not have such a custom nor [do] the churches of God.

Explanatory Notes on the Above Translation:

     V. 3: Of the three occurrences of the term kephalē (“head”) in this verse, the first is preceded by the article (“the head”), whereas the other two are not.

     V. 4: There is no object in the phrase kata kephalēs echōn (lit. “having down upon the head”), so it must be supplied by the context. While the word “something” is inserted here, the noun kalumma (“a covering”) would be a valid inference seeing that it corresponds to the verb katakaluptō used five times in verses 5-13.

     V. 5: The gender of to auto (“the same”) is neuter, pointing to a general quality rather than a person, thus the translation, “she is one and the same [thing].”

     Vv. 6-7: The translation reflects the continual or ongoing action of the present tense: “is not being covered . . . let her continue to have her head covered” (v. 6); “to be covered continually” (v. 7). Since there is no equivalent in English to the third person imperative, it is difficult to translate and must therefore be somewhat idiomatic, typically rendered “let her …” The context determines how much stress the imperative mood carries, though the present imperative is far less pressing than the aorist (cf. v. 13).

     V. 7: The significance of the term opheilō with a negative can be either “bound not to” or “not bound to.” The only other time opheilō occurs with a negative in Paul’s extant correspondence to Corinth is 2 Corinthians 12:14 (using almost identical wording), where there is no obligation to do a certain thing rather than an obligation not to do it.

     V. 10: The word exousia means (a) freedom of choice, right; (b) ability, capability; (c) authority; (d) power (BAGD 277-78). Whenever this term occurs elsewhere in scripture with the preposition epi, it always means “authority over.” The words “a veil” (RSV), “a sign of” (ASV), “a symbol of” (NKJV), or “subjection” (Moffatt) do not appear in the original text, and the insertion of any of these significantly alters the sense of what the inspired writer has stated.

     V. 13: The verb krinate (“judge”) is an aorist imperative and constitutes the only real command in this whole paragraph. “You . . . yourselves” is emphatic, stressing to the readers that the decision must be their own.

     V. 15: The dative pronoun autē (“to her”) is absent from a number of manuscripts and is variously positioned in others. The preposition anti, originally meaning “facing, over against,” does not always mean “instead of” but also carries the sense of “equivalence” and is thus rendered here, “corresponds to.”

     V. 16: The NASB, NIV, and RSV rendering of toiauten as “other” is an unfortunate mistranslation; it actually means “such” (cf. ASV, ESV, N/KJV). The word sunetheia denotes more than a mere “practice” (prassō); it means “custom," "habit," or "customary usage.”

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ For further background on 1 Corinthians, see the author’s A Critical Introduction to the New Testament 138-44.

     ² For further information from primary sources about ancient cultural practices relating to the head covering, hair length, and worship conventions, see the author’s We Have No Such Custom 9-26. Misinformation and confusion are almost guaranteed if one relies too heavily on secondary sources. For example, nearly all women wore veils in public (F. H. Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands 98-99) vs. the veil was exceptional in ancient times (Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary 719); Jewish women were always veiled in public (C. K. Barrett, First Corinthians 251) vs. they were usually not veiled in public (Encyclopedia Biblia 4:5247); reputable Greek and Roman women wore veils in public (ISBE 4:3047) vs. Greek women were not compelled to wear veils in public (TDNT 3:562)???

     ³ Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation. The underlying Greek text is the UBS The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (1994).

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5; Female Head-coverings: Questions & Criticisms Part 1

Image credit: http://suite101.com/article/appearance-of-the-veil-in-the-bible-a184260