Preliminary Considerations
The Bible is the inspired word of God consisting of sixty-six ancient (albeit pertinent) documents produced as a result of our Creator having chosen to communicate through real people in actual historical-geographical-sociocultural-linguistic-literary environments that happen to be fundamentally and unavoidably foreign to our own. Before any biblical text speaks to you or me, it has already spoken to those to whom it was first addressed. A shallow hermeneutic ignores this divine process, gives little attention to the Sitz im Leben (“life setting”) of the sacred writings, and immediately asks, “What is this saying to me, and how does it apply to my life?”
A sound hermeneutic approaches scripture asking, “What was the inspired writer seeking to convey to his original (targeted) audience, and how were they expected to understand the message in the context in which it was first communicated?” If this is our preliminary concern, we are in a much better position to apprehend the original intent of the passage, less likely to misunderstand or misconstrue it, and better equipped to make application to our often very different circumstances.1
Contrary to what is sometimes asserted, the head-covering and hair-length discussion in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 (which is without scriptural parallel) is not unique or innovative or countercultural in relation to Corinthian social conventions of Paul’s day. One of the closest contemporary sources relevant to this topic comes from the Greek historian Plutarch (ca. AD 46-120), who served as procurator of the Achaia province of which the Roman colony of Corinth was the capital. In his Moralia, responding to questions from a Greek perspective about irregular practices in special situations among the Romans, he observed as the standard custom: “it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered …. for it is usual for men to have their hair cut and for women to let it grow” (Roman Questions 14, vol. 4 LCL). Apparently when Paul addressed hair length and head-coverings, he was not enjoining a distinctively “Christian” peculiarity.
There are clearly teachings and principles in 1 Corinthians applicable to all churches (4:17; 7:17; 14:33), but the correspondence itself is addressed specifically “to God’s church in Corinth” (1:2a),2 an actual group of Christians in a real place at a real time in history. While they shared the same spiritual blessings “together with” [σύν] all other believers (1:2b), Paul’s manuscript was produced as an occasional letter dealing with issues and questions particularly relevant to the designated addressees (note, e.g., 1:11; 4:18-21; 7:1; 16:3-12). The discussion in 11:2-16, which is only a tiny segment of a much larger discourse, does not concern what all churches are doing but rather a customary practice all churches “do not have” (v. 16).
Some commentators make reference to what they call the biblical (even universal) head-covering “command,” yet the only real command in the entire paragraph is the emphatic aorist imperative, “You all judge among yourselves” (v. 13), directed to the Corinth church based on what they already understood as proper.3 When 1 Timothy (2:9-10) and 1 Peter (3:3) were later written and sent to Asia Minor, the issue at hand was different, not cloth headdresses but women’s expensive clothing and ornately braided hairstyles (see further here).
Brief Overview
For those unable or unwilling to read all the detailed materials I have tried to make available over the years,4 here is a brief synopsis of my understanding of the passage.
Paul does not formulate a rule the mid-first-century Corinthian church had to follow but offers a few reasonable premises and then calls on them to make their own judgment. Gender roles are according to God’s design, so a Christian ought to be careful not to do something that might give the impression this arrangement is being disrespected or ignored. In ancient Corinth men were not expected to routinely cover their heads, with the opposite applying to the opposite gender. A Christian woman, therefore, in her demeaner and appearance, especially when engaged in religious activity, should modestly reflect her God-given submissive role. At the same time, she ought to have freedom over her head and be trusted to use it responsibly. In the Lord neither man nor woman is independent of the other, and all things are from God. You [Corinthians] must decide among yourselves, already knowing what is proper. But if it is going to generate strife, be aware that “we do not have such a custom,” i.e., this is not a religious mandate. As a social convention it should not be an issue that causes disputes among brethren.
Concluding Thoughts
The passage makes sense and is far less confusing when read through mid-first-century Corinthian glasses in the context of the entire letter. Applied in today’s world, the wearing or not wearing of a head-covering is a matter of personal liberty and is not a collective work of the church. Therefore, it still should not be a contentious or divisive issue.
In an attempt to add further clarity, future posts will respond to the more pertinent questions and criticisms I’ve encountered over the past three decades.
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Among copious hermeneutical models, the Impressionistic Approach equates the meaning of the text with the interpreter’s immediate thoughts, an easy, subjective, and emotive exercise practically guaranteeing missing or misconstruing scripture’s original intent. On the idea of Holy Spirit Illumination, see The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Understanding. The Dogmatic Approach views scripture as a storehouse of proof-texts to be selected and arranged to bolster a preconceived doctrine or set of beliefs, giving little attention to context or authorial intent. The Grammatical-Historical Approach is a concerted attempt to understand what the words of scripture meant in their original setting, i.e., what the inspired author intended to communicate to his targeted audience. For exegetes with a high view of scripture, this methodology is also concerned with current-day application.
2 Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.
3 There is no English equivalent to the Greek third person middle imperative (v. 6), so 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 tense (especially in a conditional statement) is far less pressing than the aorist (especially in an emphatic statement). The significance of the term ὀφείλω (“ought”) with a negative (v. 7) can be either “bound not to” or “not bound to.” The only other time this construction occurs in Paul’s extant correspondence to Corinth is 2 Cor. 12:14 (using almost identical wording), where there is no obligation to do a certain thing rather than an obligation not to do it. Before attempts are made to draw a command out of v. 10, the usage of ἐξουσία (“authority”) should be consistently interpreted within the broader context and thematic flow of thought (7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12, 18) without the distortion of unnecessary added words and subjective surmising. 4 See K. L. Moore, “Female Head-coverings (Part 1 of 5),” Moore Perspective (8 June 2013), <Link> and accompanying articles. This five-part series is an abbreviated version of the author’s We Have No Such Custom (Wanganui NZ: By the author, 1998), which is a revised version of the author’s “A Critical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 11.2-16,” FHU Graduate School of Theology Master’s thesis (1996), <Link>, an extension of in-depth personal and congregational studies initiated in Wellington NZ a couple of years earlier that have continued to this day. Also Freed-Hardeman University Bible Lectureship (2010), Polishing the Pulpit (2016), Southeast Institute of Biblical Studies Lectureship (2023).
Related Posts: Female Head-coverings: Questions & Criticisms Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
Image credit: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/704109722978732897/
Kevin, I am curious how much you've looked into Roman practices where men (and women) covered their heads with a part of the togas they wore. You say that Corinth was a Roman colony and that's exactly right. But you state that, "In ancient Corinth men were not expected to routinely cover their heads. . ." With a few examples from Roman art and archaeology, one can easily see that Roman men did cover their heads (Lat., capite velato): e.g., Augustus statue as Pontifex Maximus; the procession relief on the Ara Pacis; a first-century altar at Pompeii depicts a Roman priest with head covered at a sacrifice. I'm not sure the reason you would overlook this aspect of Roman culture. If, in fact, Corinth was a Roman colony during Paul's Corinthian correspondence, then certainly Roman culture would influence Christians who were recently converted from paganism, including Roman religious practices of men covering their heads in religious contexts. Christians who were no more than a couple of years into their Christian faith perhaps were inclined to bring in Roman customs into the assembly. Richard Oster (NTS 34 [1988]: 481-505) and Cynthia Thompson (Biblical Archaeologist 51 [1988]: 99-114) cover these points. Thompson gives photographs of statues from Corinth portraying men with heads covered. I'm curious if you will address this historical issue in forthcoming posts: do you think it's worthy to consider or do you dismiss this aspect? If you dismiss or minimize the archaeological evidence, what is reasoning to do so? Thanks so much.
ReplyDeleteKevin, I'm curious if you have looked at Roman art and archaeology of the early Roman empire in which you do find Roman men (and women) who cover their heads with a part of the togas they wore. There are numerous examples of this and here are a few: the statue of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus; the procession relief on the Ara Pacis; a first-century altar in Pompeii depicting a Roman priest with head covered (Lat., capite velato). You say that, "In ancient Corinth men were not expected to routinely cover their heads. . ." but what are your thoughts that it is actually evident in Roman culture in religious contexts? In Paul's context of writing the Corinthians, it is not difficult to imagine that some recently converted Christians, who are no more than a couple of years in their new faith, might be inclined to bring into the assembly their Roman religious practices. If you say that Corinth was a Roman colony, and that is exactly right, one would expect Roman influences in Corinth at that time. In fact, Richard Oster (NTS 24 [1988]: 481-505) and Cynthia Thompson (Biblical Archaeologist 51 [1988]: 99-114) cover these points. I'm curious to know what you think about this historical issue: would you address this in forthcoming posts and how will you deal with it? It is worthy to consider or would you dismiss it? If you dismiss or minimize it, what is the reasoning to do so? Thanks so much for your consideration.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your contribution(s). Yes, I have looked into Roman art, archaeology, and practices concerning men (and women) covering their heads, and no, this is not something I overlook, dismiss, or minimize. You seem to take issue with my comment, “In ancient Corinth men were not expected to routinely cover their heads,” against which you have pointed to evidence of pagan sculptures and reliefs. My comment, in part, is based on 1 Cor. 11:7, where the term ὀφείλω (“ought”) with a negative can be either “bound not to” or “not bound to.” The only other time this construction occurs in Paul’s extant correspondence to Corinth is 2 Cor. 12:14 (using almost identical wording), where there is no obligation to do a certain thing rather than an obligation not to do it.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested in the broad range of artistic representations of how men and women dressed in antiquity, I would recommend vol. 11 of Erwin R. Goodenough’s Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. However, discretion is needed before drawing definitive conclusions about head-coverings or other styles of dress, considering variables like different time periods, geographical locations, sociocultural distinctions, religious ceremonial customs vs. everyday life, whether reality or fiction is portrayed, or contemporary vs. archaic, whether respectable or immoral persons are depicted or societal elites or average citizens or pagan deities, and whether or not some = all. The plethoric nude representations in ancient art surely does not provide a realistic impression of normal life.
It is hard to be convinced by images of Augustus as supreme high priest and other pagan priests, priestesses, and ceremonies, scenes from Roman legends and cultic processions, et al. One can “imagine” what certain ones “might be inclined” to do, but such surmising is void of a solid basis.
My chief concern, as it relates to how men and women customarily dressed in mid-first-century Corinth, is what was regarded as respectable in the everyday lives of ordinary people in this particular sociocultural environment.
The above reply is not "Anonymous" but is from Kevin L. Moore
Delete