Moore Perspective: Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms (Part 2 of 4)

Question #1: For those ignoring or dismissing the biblical requirement of women covering their heads in Christian assemblies today (1 Cor. 11:2-16), isn’t this a rejection of a straightforward reading of the text, subverting its clear teaching, and rationalizing disobedience?

Response: There is a considerable difference between a straightforward reading of the actual text, and a straightforward reading of a particular English translation of the text. Compare, for example, the respective renderings of 1 Cor. 11:16 in the ASV and the NASB, which set forth opposite, conflicting statements. Both cannot be correct. I have encountered individuals who apparently have their minds made up and attempt to explain each rendering to fit the position they have already embraced. But a more thorough investigation is necessary to discern what the inspired writer actually said before we can ascertain what he meant by what he said (in its original context).¹

A number of English versions have significantly altered the passage with unnecessary added words, mistranslation, paragraph headings, and interpretive commentary, not to mention the abundance of additional sources that promote further misconceptions. To insist that an artificial headdress is a biblical mandate for all women in all churches of all time not only misses the occasional nature of Paul’s letter and what it actually says and doesn’t say but seems to be reading the text through ahistorical interpretive lenses (see Part 1).

Question #2: Female head-coverings in churches were practically universal until modern-day feminist movements, so it wasn't until fairly recent times that the head-covering went out of vogue and primarily in the West. How can we so readily dismiss a position held by the majority of Christendom for the past 2,000 years?

Response: Historically both Christian and non-Christian women wore head-coverings, the former not only in church assemblies but generally in public, so consistency ought to accompany this line of reasoning. We should be wary of overgeneralizations about all churches in every culture worldwide since the apostolic age, seeing that head-coverings were not distinct among Christian women in all places through the centuries against their cultural environment.

In societies where head-coverings were not customary (e.g., African tribes, Pacific Island cultures, etc.), converts to Christianity have no doubt been influenced by the interpretations and cultural influences of European missionaries. In the North American culture of the 1950s, it was fashionable for women to wear hats, although it wasn’t considered inappropriate or shameful for a woman not to wear a hat. During this period in this particular cultural setting, sporting a hat as a fashion trend was very different than (and irrelevant to) the intended purpose of Paul’s message to the mid-first-century Greco-Roman readers of 1 Corinthians.

Irrespective of what people may or may not have believed and practiced through the ages, the crux of the matter is what Paul intended to communicate to his Corinthian audience, what he actually said, and how they would have understood the message in the context in which it was written. This cannot be adequately discerned without considering the real-life setting in which these directives were initially given, involving not only head-coverings and hair length, but also Greco-Roman idolatry, the preponderance and function of pagan temples, eating sacrificial meats, empire-wide slavery, miraculous gifts, et al.

Question #3: Female head-coverings (at least in the assembly) have been understood through the ages to be binding, so wouldn’t it have been sinful when women first started removing them? As long as head-coverings are not worn by women (in the assembly), isn’t this blatant rebellion against God’s will?

Response: The question assumes Paul’s head-covering discussion constitutes a universal mandate for all churches of all time rather than a dialogue with a particular congregation grappling with its own questions and problems in a specific historical-sociocultural environment. Would the same reasoning apply to other culturally-relevant exhortations in 1 Corinthians? These addressees also practiced the customary kiss-greeting, and Paul instructs them to continue the practice in a holy manner (1 Cor. 16:20). Were Christians sinning whenever they stopped kissing each other and started shaking hands or hugging, and do we continue to disobey if we don’t practice the ancient Mediterranean kiss-greeting?

How should we interpret other contextually-qualified directives, like, “Were you called as a slave?” (7:21a); “for if anyone sees you having knowledge eating in an idol’s temple …” (8:10); “but if anyone might say to you, ‘This is offered to an idol,’ do not eat …” (10:28); “be without offense both to Jews and Greeks …” (10:32); “Every man … prophesying …” (11:4); “every woman … prophesying …” (11:5); “eagerly desire the spiritual [gifts], but especially that you may prophesy” (14:1)?²

Question #4: If one rejects the biblical practice of women wearing head-coverings in Christian assemblies today, isn’t this explaining away and therefore negating biblical doctrine?

Response: This line of reasoning, which assumes a particular article of female attire is divinely enjoined, impugns either the competency or the moral integrity of those who have reached a different conclusion, unlikely to generate productive dialogue. Nevertheless, lacking additional biblical information, it is a mistake to wrest a local directive from the circumstances in which it was given and transform it into a universal decree. Without questioning the competency or moral integrity of those who may disagree, it boils down to a matter of hermeneutics. What methodology is being employed to interpret and apply the scriptures? I have major reservations about conclusions drawn and decisions made without having seriously considered the full range of contextual factors.

Charismatics have accused me of negating the biblical doctrine of tongue-speaking, but I regard their assessment as misguided. We should always strive to understand the original intent and application of any passage of scripture and avoid misappropriation. To affirm that the wearing or not wearing of a head-covering is a matter of personal liberty [ἐξουσία] and not a collective work of the church neither explains away nor negates any valid biblical doctrine.

Question #5: It is impossible to understand the cultural practices of first-century Corinth involving hair length and head-coverings, because so many sources give conflicting information. Therefore, shouldn’t we just stick to what the Bible says rather than relying on historical-cultural information that we can’t be certain about?

Response: The sources that conflict with one another (and there are many!) are mostly secondary sources (commentaries, encyclopedia articles, etc.).³ If we consider primary sources (ancient contemporary works) that are most relevant to the context of 1 Corinthians as per time, place, and genre, there is greater uniformity.⁴

Question #6: To insist on learning ancient history to understand the Bible implies that the Bible isn’t enough by itself. What other biblical teachings would require knowledge of historical-cultural information in order to understand them?

Response: To name a few: feet washing, laying on of hands, oil anointing, kiss-greeting, braided hair, Aramaic in the NT, Hellenists, synagogues, Herodians, the Roman Empire, et al. Why wouldn’t a serious Bible student want to know as much as possible about whatever is relevant to the Bible?

In 1 Corinthians Paul is responding to reports he has heard and questions he has been asked (1:11; 7:1; 11:18; 16:17). While the mid-first-century disciples at Corinth already knew what the issues and questions were, the best we can do is to draw inferences, with less specificity, from Paul’s responses. We only get to hear one side of the conversation. Paul repeatedly reminded his original readers, either directly or rhetorically, of what they already knew or should have known (5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24; 12:2).

We were not present to hear all that the apostle and his coworkers had taught in person (3:2; 4:17) or in previous correspondence (5:9), so we cannot demand, force, or expect precision of meaning that is just not in the biblical text. Even so, as modern-day interpreters we are advantaged by having access to God’s complete revelation that helps fill in gaps of assumed knowledge (albeit without comparable head-covering legislation), supplemented by a wealth of historical data. Pertinent information at our disposal should not be disregarded if it helps to understand the text as the first readers would have understood it. The alternative is trying to figure it out from a 21st-century westernized perspective, far removed from the original setting and the inspired writer’s initial purpose.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

¹ See K. L. Moore, “Female Head-coverings (Part 1): Translation,” Moore Perspective (8 June 2013), <Link>.

² Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

³ Be aware of conflicting claims like the following: 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)???

⁴ For more 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.