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

Question #13: Is it still wrong for men to have long hair and for women to have short hair?

Response: In 1 Cor. 11:14-15, what constitutes “long hair” vs. “short hair”? The text does not give specific measurements, so how do we make this determination? How “long” can a man’s hair grow and how “short” can a woman’s hair be before the passage is violated? When Paul says, “You all judge among yourselves” (v. 13),¹ he is not speaking directly to present-day readers in a variety of cultural environments where hair length is assessed differently (e.g., long-haired Indigenous-Native-American men, or short-haired African tribal women), not to mention the connotations (or lack thereof) of the artificial headdress. He is speaking to mid-first-century Corinthians already accustomed to a standard of dress and hairstyles that would enable them to make their own judgment in relation to their particular circumstances.

     It was not always considered degrading or shameful for a man to have long hair. Jewish male Nazarites were not allowed to cut their hair (Num. 6:1-21). Solomon’s horsemen let their hair grow to considerable length (Josephus, Ant. 8.185). There was a time in history when Israelite men typically wore longer hair (2 Sam. 14:25-26; Song 5:2, 11; Ezek. 8:3; cf. Judg. 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.² The significance of hair length must be gauged by the societal norms of any given time and culture.

 

Question #14: Based on 1 Corinthians 11:15, are women with shorter hair going against what the Bible says?

Response: This depends on which women are under consideration. If the Christian women of mid-first-century Corinth are in view, then yes, because in their cultural environment it was disgraceful for a woman to appear in public without her customary headdress or with short hair, deemed immodest and shameful. If Christian women in modern-day western societies are in view, then no, as long as exposed hair or “short” hair (however that is to be measured) is not regarded as inappropriate or disreputable. 

 

Question #15: If a man wears a hairpiece and is thus “covering” his head, does he violate 1 Cor. 11:4, 7 when he prays? 

Response: No. As Paul penned these words, the men he had in mind, unless they were all completely bald, had their heads covered with hair, albeit with a Roman-style haircut. To forbid the wearing of a hairpiece in modern times is to force a meaning on the text that is foreign to its original purpose. Contextually these Christian men in mid-first-century Corinth were expected to refrain from covering their heads with a female garment while praying or prophesying.

 

Question #16: If one accepts the underlying principles of gender roles and appropriate dress and demeanor but rejects the literal female head-covering, isn’t this a non-literal view of the Bible?

Response: It is not a matter of literal vs. non-literal but discerning what the inspired writer was seeking to convey to his targeted audience and how they would have understood the directives in the context in which they were originally communicated. Once this is ascertained, we are in a much better position to comprehend and make application of the relevant teaching, albeit in a very different cultural environment with different connotations and expectations.

 

Question #17: If in Paul’s time men customarily wore short hair and it was disgraceful for them to wear it long, would it follow that Paul growing his hair for a vow (Acts 18:18) would have been disgraceful? Why would he continue to take such vows, especially since he had just been in Corinth?

Response: With respect to hair length, the concept of “long” is subjective. What constitutes “long”? Presumably this could vary from one culture to the next, not to mention individual perception.³ In the context of ancient Judaism, hair growth as part of a vow involved allowing the hair to grow for a specified period of time, whether or not it actually reached the point of being viewed as “long” (however that might be defined). Acts 18:18 does not say Paul cut his “long” hair in Cenchrea but had his hair sheared or shaved, irrespective of the length it had grown. The point about men customarily having short hair in Paul’s time needs to be qualified. We’re talking about a Greco-Roman context, particularly the mid-first-century Roman colony of Corinth. Paul was a Hellenized ethnic Jew writing 1 Corinthians to a predominantly Gentile congregation in a particular cultural setting. 

     We cannot be any more precise than the text allows. Cultural peculiarities (whether Jewish, Greek, Roman) and the distinctiveness of each must be taken into account, but also the inevitable blending of cultures throughout the first-century Mediterranean world. Other variables would include time periods, e.g., the different historical contexts of Rebekah (Gen. 24:65) and Tamar (Gen. 38:14-15), Samson (Judg. 13:5), Absalom (2 Sam. 14:25-26), and Paul (1 Cor. 11:13-15), as well as geography (western, central, eastern provinces). We should not assume that Palestinian Jews would share the same cultural views as Gentiles or even fellow-Jews in Corinth, or that a Jewish person in the eighth century BC would be representative of first-century Judaism.⁴ While Paul was not divorced from his ethnic heritage, he thoughtfully and strategically conformed to and communicated in a variety of cultural environments to most effectively advance the gospel (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19-23; 10:32-33).  

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² See Warren Reinsch, “The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser,” Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology (11 Dec. 2018), <Link>.

     ³ When I was a kid and buzz cuts, crew cuts, and flat tops were common hairstyles for most men, my older brother, whose hair merely touched the top of his ears, was criticized by a visiting missionary for having “long hair.” 

     ⁴ There were occasions in the distant past when Jewish men were expected to wear on their heads an artificial covering (Ex. 28:4, 37-40; 29:6, 9; 39:28; Lev. 8:9; 10:6; 21:10; Ezek. 24:17, 23; 44:18; Dan. 3:21).

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

 

Image credit: https://www.pitara.com/non-fiction-for-kids/features-for-kids/roman-holiday/

Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms (Part 3 of 4)

Question #7: If 1 Cor. 11:2-16 merely involves a temporary social custom, how do you explain what appears to be a divine injunction according to the unchanging realities of apostolic tradition (v. 2), God’s hierarchal design (v. 3), creation order (vv. 8-9), angels (v. 10), “all things are from God” (v. 12), “nature … is given” (vv. 14-15), and the churches of God (v. 16)?

Response: There is no debate about the passage alluding to these scriptural concepts, but what is actually said about them and how are they used in Paul’s argumentation? To claim the directives are not culturally relevant is to ignore not only the original audience, their particular circumstances, and the occasional purpose of the letter, but the relationship at the time between gender roles (divinely enjoined) and Corinthian head-coverings and hair styles (culturally relevant), involving the societal implications of honor and shame (vv. 4-6, 14-15), collective judgment based on propriety (v. 13), and a “custom” [συνήθεια] that Paul says “we do not have,” neither apostolic nor congregational in its origin or significance (v. 16). There is also “the nature itself” [ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ] in relation to social decorum. Biblical examples (e.g., Judg. 13:5; 2 Sam. 14:25-26) and the realities of the natural world (a man’s hair can naturally grow long) make a convincing case that the shamefulness of which Paul speaks is based on the native sense of propriety in a particular cultural setting rather than some innate sense of shame inherent in all humans. In the broader context there is also Paul’s consistent use of ἐξουσία (“liberty,” “right,” “authority”) in the letter (v. 10; cf. 7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12, 18), along with synonymous expressions (7:39; 8:9; 9:1, 19; 10:29), serving as an inspired commentary that makes strained explanations and added modifiers unnecessary.

 

Question #8: If hair “is given” to a woman to be her covering, is it to remain uncut? 

Response: In 1 Cor. 11:15 Paul does not say “is given by God” or “is given by the natural world,” which would ignore the fact that a man’s hair can also grow long. In many societies beyond mid-first-century Corinth, long hair on a man was natural, normal, and acceptable. And in some cultures the given norm was for a woman’s hair to be cut short (e.g., married women in ancient Sparta) or shaved (e.g., Maasai women in Kenya). 

     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 distinguished women from men but also respectable ladies and gentlemen from immoral persons.

     In this particular setting, a woman’s long hair served as a natural covering and demonstrated the appropriateness of her being covered. The significance of δέδοται (“having been given”)¹ 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 Corinthian ladies. Her long hair in this context “corresponds to” a covering. The preposition ἀντί may have signified “instead of” in Classical Greek but is not limited to this sense in the Koinē Greek of the NT.

 

Question #9: In regard to hair length and “nature,” what about the contention that biologically there appears to be some difference due to hormones and other factors in the length-potential of women vs men with head hair and facial hair, both indicating some biological differences, at least in growth-potential, as a normative rule?

Response: Length-potential of head hair as a biological difference between men and women is not factual (note, e.g., 2 Sam. 14:25-26). If modern-day hair growth is comparable to hair growth among the ancients, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry notes very little if any difference in growth rates between males and females <Link>, while studies have shown that male hair actually grows faster than female hair <Link>.² Moreover, the hair of the head [κεφαλή], not facial hair, is the topic of discussion in 1 Cor. 11:14-15.

     Women having longer hair than men is a gender distinction relevant to a cultural convention (see, e.g., Rev. 9:8), when men customarily cut their hair short, but is not a biological rule of nature. If φύσις (“nature”) in this passage refers to natural law, and if neither women nor men ever cut their hair, then hair length would not be a distinguishing feature between the sexes. Any observable distinction, then, would have to be culturally discerned (notwithstanding the normal and natural gender differences). Paul does not say the nature itself teaches you (the Corinthians) about hair growth potential but about “long” and “short” hair, which is subject to and defined by cultural perception.

 

Question #10: Could the difference between a man’s hair and a woman’s hair according to “nature” (1 Cor. 11:14) be an allusion to the more common tendency of hair loss and baldness among men? 

Response: Paul alludes to hair length, not hair loss. A man who is bald on the top of his head can still grow the rest of his hair long, while female hair loss and pattern-baldness are not uncommon plights of the natural world.

 

Question #11: Is Revelation 9:8 (“like women's hair”) a general statement without alluding to cultural context, thus standing against the cultural idea?

Response: Everything in the Bible is written in a particular context, and before anything in scripture says anything to present-day readers, it has already spoken to those to whom it was first addressed. The book of Revelation was written to real people comprising real congregations in a real geographical locality (western Asia Minor) in a real historical-cultural setting (late-first-century Greco-Roman cities) dealing with real issues (chiefly persecution by the Roman government). If chap. 9 is dealing with judgment against Rome, how would the late-first-century Greco-Roman provincial Asians have understood “hair like women’s hair”? If men typically had their hair cut short and women typically wore long hair in this setting, the description is understandable. If the so-called barbarian forces on the outskirts of the Roman Empire (which ultimately contributed to the empire’s downfall) typically had long hair, the original readers of John’s symbolism are thus provided insight into the prophecy’s fulfillment. If John had communicated the same words to the long-haired men of Rome’s enemies, it would have been nonsensical. Long hair on a woman cannot escape cultural perception nor establish a distinctive biological idiosyncrasy.

  

Question #12: Long hair given to a woman as a covering (1 Cor. 11:14) indicates the hair is analogically similar to the covering and demonstrates the propriety of the woman being covered rather than the man. Does Paul mean visually or functionally, or both? If visual similarity is the point, was it just a convenient happenstance in Paul’s day that he was able to utilize that as an analogy? Did culture and Paul’s purposes here just happen to merge because long hair, which is visually similar to a covering, happened to be a gender distinction and matter of shame and propriety for women in Paul’s setting? Does the ability to draw the analogy from the visual similarities of the hair and covering seem too convenient? If φύσις (“nature”) is understood from biology, the analogy was possible for Paul to utilize not by the convenience of the cultural moment but by design. Therefore, would it follow that visual similarity is not the analogy but the function?

Response: This line of inquiry seems to be looking for precision of meaning that is not explicit in the text. Whether visual or functional comparison or both served the intent of Paul’s point, in mid-first-century Corinth it was not necessarily just one to the exclusion of the other, i.e., respectable women customarily wore long hair with some type of headdress (cultural variation of styles notwithstanding) and respectable men customarily had short hair and no artificial covering, whether visual, perceptually functional, or both. This was no more “a convenient happenstance” than Jesus using the analogy of different types of soil affecting planted seeds. The Lord employed imagery already familiar to his listening audience, and Paul employed what was already familiar to his Corinthian reading audience to illustrate the point he wanted them to understand.  

Even if 1 Cor. 11:2-16 had never been penned, hair length and head-coverings still communicated the same thing in ancient Corinth. It wasn’t merely “too convenient” any more than the kiss-greeting was already customary in ancient Corinth (and elsewhere) when Paul gave directives about the “holy kiss,” or that feet-washing was already customary in ancient eastern cultures when Jesus used it as an object lesson (which some have interpreted as a binding religious ritual). Paul’s arguments are based on cultural design rather than biological design. Otherwise, why were men created with the natural ability to grow long hair? 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² The American Academy of Dermatology at one time published this finding, but it has since been removed from the site <Link>, presumably due to current transgender debates.

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

 

Image credit: https://www.thoughtco.com/roman-dress-for-women-117821

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.

 

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

Image credit: https://myloview.com/poster-continuous-one-line-drawing-of-woman-with-earphone-girl-listening-no-A3AC6DF

Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms (Part 1 of 4)

Through the years as I have studied, written about, taught on, and had discussions concerning 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 with reference to women praying or prophesying with covered heads, I have been asked a number of thought-provoking questions and have also been challenged and criticized. My responses have mostly been in private exchanges, so the current aim is to offer clarity to anyone who might have similar queries or concerns.

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/

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