Female Head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Part 5 of 5): Summary, Application, and Conclusion

     For many, the difficulty in interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 seems to rest on two underlying assumptions: (1) if what Paul has written is taken at face value, it cannot be harmonized with the context; and (2) if the context is considered, what Paul has written cannot be taken at face value. Thus the passage has a long history of being modified (distorted) by well-intentioned translators and interpreters, while the apostle’s original purpose remains aloof. However, the inspired text does not need additions or alterations for a reasonable and consistent understanding of it to be attained.

Summary:

     Precise knowledge of the occasion which prompted Paul’s directives is unavailable to modern exegetes. The best we can do is to reconstruct, as closely as possible, a scenario that is consistent with the information provided by the passage itself and its surrounding context. The popular conjecture that the women at Corinth were engaged in a defiant emancipation movement, casting off their head-coverings and flaunting their independence, is untenable. Nothing in Paul’s discourse, or anywhere else in the New Testament, warrants this supposition.

     The Christian ladies at Corinth were probably meeting in private homes to pray and/or prophesy. Gatherings restricted to females (inclusive of children) would have been the only settings in which they could legitimately exercise their gifts and fulfill certain ministries (cf. 14:34-35; Titus 2:3-4). Some of these women might have questioned the necessity of wearing headdresses in the home, especially when no men were present. Should they have the right to uncover their heads in these situations? If others reacted against this notion and sought to bind the head-covering in every circumstance as a matter of faith and religious law, the resulting conflict needed the wise counsel of the apostle Paul.

     On one hand, should women be denied the right to decide in matters of personal expediency, and should a man-made tradition be sanctioned as a matter of objective faith? On the other hand, should the more sensitive and conscientious brethren be dismissed, with the potential of weaker Christians being caused to stumble (cf. 8:9-13) and unbelievers being offended or left with the wrong impression (cf. 10:23-32)?

     Paul does not formulate a rule they had to follow but offers a few reasonable premises and then calls on them to make their own decision. Female submissiveness is according to God’s design, so a Christian ought to be careful not to do something that might give the impression that 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 demeanor 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,”¹ i.e. this is not a religious mandate. As a social convention it should not be an issue that causes disputes among brethren.

     This passage makes more sense when read through mid-first-century Corinthian glasses. For example, Paul goes on to say to the very same readership, “greet one another with a sacred kiss” (16:20b). Does this mean that modern-day Christians in western cultures ought to be kissing each other as the divinely ordained mode of interaction? We understand that the apostle is not initiating a new and distinct form of greeting for all churches of all times. He is simply regulating the customary kiss-greeting already practiced by his mid-first-century Corinthian audience. In other words, when they greet one another in the conventional way, they are to make sure it is done in a sacred manner for a holy purpose.

Application:

     The conscientious Bible student will begin his/her investigation of any biblical text by considering what the inspired writer was seeking to convey to his original audience and how they would have understood the message in the context in which it was first communicated. When this is the preliminary focus, one is in a much better position to correctly interpret and apply the sacred writings as they were intended (see Biblical Interpretation: Asking the Right Questions).

     The question is not whether Paul’s teachings should be applied today, but rather how the directives and underlying principles should be understood and observed. For example, to dress modestly is a biblical principle, but how does it apply? In 1st-century Ephesus is was applied by women not wearing braided hair or expensive jewelry and clothing (1 Timothy 2:9). In 19th-century Europe it was applied by ladies not wearing skirts above their ankles. In 21st-century Saudi Arabia it is applied by women not exposing their hair or faces. Just because braided hair no longer betokens immodesty in most cultures today, the underlying principle is still valid.

     Seeing that the issue in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 involves culturally relevant symbols, other means which sustain the same principles may be acceptable in different historical and cultural settings (akin to the kiss-greeting, feet washing, laying on of hands, anointing with oil, etc.).² The enduring principles include (1) God’s hierarchical arrangement = God-Christ-man-woman, (2) consistency of Christian behavior, (3) the sanctity of spiritual service kept separate from anything shameful, (4) Christian freedom and responsibility, (5) natural gender distinctions, (6) divinely appointed gender roles, (7) Christian demeanor involving purity and decency, and (8) living in harmony with customs that are right within themselves.

     The means of expressing these principles in mid-first-century Corinth involved women having long hair and covering their heads, with the opposite applying to men. While the principles remain relevant today, the symbols do not, unless one’s cultural conventions are similar to those of the original addressees. It is a mistake to wrest a local directive from the circumstance in which it was given and transform it into a universal decree.³

     In societies where being unveiled is not “one and the same [thing] as the one having been shaved,” it would seem that the appeal to “let her continue to have her [head] covered” would not be directly applicable. Where else would a conditional pronouncement be obligatory when the condition was no longer true? “While the logical conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing is that it is not necessary for women to wear a hat or other head-covering, Christian women, nevertheless, in their dress and behavior will always comply with the accepted conventions consistent with decorum.”⁴

     What about those who wish to bind the precise details of this passage and insist that ladies cover their heads in worship assemblies today? An initial response is one of consistency. Where in this passage is the wearing of a headdress restricted to the corporate worship assembly? If the headdress symbolizes modesty and submission, should not modesty and submission be manifested outside the assembly as well?     

     The meaning of the head-covering was clear to those living in ancient Corinth, but the same is not true for those living in 21st-century western societies. Seeing that Paul is appealing to social disgrace and shame, collective judgment and propriety, and cultural normalcy, the enforcement of the head-covering in cultures where such is not the norm would reverse the purpose of these directives. God’s people are most certainly to be different from the world, yet we are not totally divorced from our environment. Granted, secular society does not set the standard for what is right, but at least in some circumstances it can help define what is improper and offensive.

Conclusion:

     If a Christian woman chooses to wear a head-covering today, she has the right to do so. If a Christian woman chooses not to cover her head, if it is not expected in her culture, she has the right not to do so. The wearing or not wearing of a head-covering is a matter of personal liberty and is not a collective work of the church. If one woman is veiled in an assembly and another is not, neither affects the activity of the other. Both are individually responsible before God.
     Brethren who differ on this matter can still work and worship together, as long as proper attitudes are manifested, opinions are not bound, and consciences are not violated. “There are some issues over which brethren may disagree without any break in fellowship, and wise Christians generally recognize this” (W. Jackson, A Sign of Authority 21).

     Every woman who exhibits a sincere desire to please the Lord and humbly fulfills her divinely ordained role deserves utmost admiration and respect. May all who approach this passage of scripture do so with humility and reverence, avoiding extremes, and seeking to comprehend and obey its timeless message.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations in English are the author's own translation.
     ² While the head-covering no longer expresses the same symbolism that it once did, this alone is not sufficient grounds for rejecting it. After all, the symbolism of baptism and the Lord's Supper requires instruction for the meaning to be understood. But unlike baptism and the Lord's Supper, the significance of women covering or uncovering their heads was already established in ancient eastern societies. Paul is not telling ladies to cover their heads. His arguments concern women, who ordinarily cover their heads, not removing the coverings while praying or prophesying.
     ³ Cf. L. Morris, First Corinthians 156. “It seems that Paul was asking the Corinthians to follow a normal cultural practice that in that day reflected an understanding that God has created men and women to function in different roles. As long as men and women today are not communicating by their dress that the creative order and distinctions are done away, they are being obedient to this passage” (K. T. Wilson, “Should Women Wear Headcoverings?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 [Oct.–Dec. 1991]: 461).

     ⁴ W. J. Martin, “I Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretaion,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel. Eds. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970): 239 n. 3.

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

Image credit: http://jamywhitaker.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mp900400642.jpg

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