Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 1 Cor 14:33b-36

By James B. Hurley

Cambridge, England

Paul’s treatment in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 of the role of women in the worship service has long been a source of controversy. It is often alleged that in 11:7 Paul teaches the ontological inferiority of women by faulty exegesis of Genesis 1:26 and more or less blatantly contradicts himself by granting to women the right to speak in Chapter 11 and commanding that they be silent in chapter 14.[1] Numerous efforts have been made to reconcile these texts. Historically the majority of scholars have accepted 14:34, 35 as the more explicit text and have sought to bring 11:2–16 into line, concluding that, although at first sight 11:5 appears to permit women to pray and prophesy in the assembly, it is intended to be coupled with 14:34 in order to curb other than charismatic outbursts.[2] Recent scholars have tended to take 11:2–16 as normative and have subjected 14:34, 35 to the critical scalpel.[3] It is not within the scope of the present project to review the many conciliatory efforts which have been made. Our goal is rather to examine the two passages separately, each within its own context, and then to consider their relationship. It is our hope that this procedure will in some measure guard against premature harmonization of the texts at the expense of one or the other of them.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16: “Coverings” and “Authority”

Paul’s Praise: v. 2

Paul initiated his discussion of “coverings” with praise of his readers for their efforts to “remember him and to hold fast those traditions which he delivered to them” (v. 2). It would seem, however, that their efforts were not altogether successful, for Paul found it necessary to go on to inform them of things which they had evidently not taken into account: “But I would have you know…” (v. 3). Many scholars feel that the Corinthians radically departed from the customs which Paul had passed on to them and that Paul’s “praise” is in fact irony or sarcasm.[4]

It is difficult for us to glean from the text the precise details of the controversy, for Paul, responding to a question posed by the Corinthians, presumed them to be acquainted with the matter at hand. The letter which we have is therefore only one half of a conversation. Despite our uncertainty as to the other half, it is obvious that the strength of feeling revealed by the remainder of the text does stand in pointed contrast to this opening praise. This naturally leads to the conclusion that if Paul’s praise is not sincere, it is in fact strong irony and even sarcasm. The import of the words of praise must therefore be rendered, “You have utterly discarded that which I taught you!” Verse 16 seems to confirm such an interpretation, insisting that the Corinthians have left the universal custom of the Church and must conform, “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice [as you have initiated], nor have the churches of God.”

Despite the attractive simplicity of this reading, we do not think it adequate to the full context. We believe that Paul’s praise must be taken at face value, that the Corinthians were in error, but not that they were defiant or deliberately rejecting that which Paul had “delivered unto them.” In support of our conviction we would offer the following considerations:

1. Taken by themselves, vv. 2, 3 give no indication that they are not meant to be taken straightforwardly. If it were not for the strength of v. 16, it would not at all be necessary to assume irony. A view which would allow both v. 2 and v. 16 to have their obvious meaning would be preferable to one inferring irony at v. 2.

2. That Paul’s praise in v. 2 is seriously intended is confirmed by the fact that it stands in contrast to his refusal to praise in v. 17. Concerning the Corinthians’ faulty obedience with regard to “coverings” Paul has praise and instruction, “I praise you…but I would have you know.” (vv. 2, 3). Verse 17 is deliberately set in contrast, “Now in this I cannot praise you: that when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.” If the opening remarks of v. 2 are in fact ironic or sarcastic, the Corinthian readers of the letter would have been fully aware of the fact; and consequently, the contrast of v. 17 would utterly fail. Sarcasm does not stand in antithesis to refused praise. The obvious sincerity of v. 17 demands equal sincerity for v. 2.

3. Paul’s approach to the Corinthians was always that of a father (4:15). His goal was uniformly to win their “obedience from the heart.” His goal would not have been served by sarcasm. We assume too much hostility if we assume that the Corinthians had openly defied Paul and that he responded with sarcasm. Paul’s concluding point, that he had no such practice as the Corinthians nor did the churches of God, would be of little value if the Corinthians had deliberately discarded Paul’s instruction and if Paul himself had called their attention to this fact with sarcasm in v. 2. We are closer to the mark if we begin with Paul’s description of the situation of Corinth: “…as a wise masterbuilder, I laid a foundation…let each man be careful how he builds on it” (3:10). We have every reason to believe that the Corinthians had wrongly built upon Paul’s foundation. We can learn from the letter as a whole much about the reasons for their errors. But we assume too much if we assume that they had wantonly discarded the traditions as Paul delivered them to them.

The conclusion that Paul’s praise is sincere is not without importance for our study of the remainder of the chapter. It forces us to look for an understanding which will explain how the Corinthians could view themselves as faithful to Paul and yet at the same time move beyond that conduct which was common to the whole Church of God. It will not do to understand the issue as simply a discarding of the veil, for this would be a breach of the conduct which obtained while Paul was with them; it would be rebellion not faithfulness.

With her Head “Uncovered”: vv. 3-6

Verses 3–6 discuss the central problem of this passage. They focus upon the manner in which a woman’s head should be adorned. As we come to consider these verses we must discuss three fundamental topics:

1. The hierarchy of God, Christ, man, woman
2. The precise custom signified by the verb KATAKALUPTŌ, and
3. Veiling customs in the Near East in Paul’s day.

It is perhaps best to begin with the veiling customs of the day.

We have very little information available to us about veiling customs in the early church. We will begin with a few relevant pieces of information from extra-biblical sources and then consider the biblical data. Evidence concerning veiling customs must be drawn from source material not specifically designed to give information upon this subject. The best sources available for the earliest periods are the Assyrian Laws.[5] These have detailed information relating to the use of the veil as a sign of ownership or proprietary rights over a woman.[6] Dated some five hundred years after Hammurab/pi, these cannot be adduced to interpret customs of the first century. Similarly irrelevant are the Moslem traditions of total veiling. These can be shown to be late in origin and novel in their day.[7] They represent an innovation on the basis of Moslem thought and must not be made normative for the first century. Grecian pottery provides abundant information concerning elegant hair styles and an absence of head coverings among the Greeks from a very early period.[8] This material is, however, to be treated with caution for it is generally dated well before Christ. If we were to summarize the information offered by pre-Christian Greek and Oriental cultures, we would have to say that there is every indication that oriental women were veiled in public and that Greek women were not. This generalization must be restricted to the city dwellers, as the desert nomads seem not to have veiled their women.[9] If we were to relate this material to 1 Corinthians, we would first conclude it likely that the Greek and Oriental customs would clash forcefully and then, as have many commentators, conclude that Paul’s letter provides evidence that such a clash did indeed occur. We must be wary, however, of drawing this conclusion on the basis of evidence which is decidedly pre-Christian. The intermingling of cultures had not yet begun on a widespread basis at the time of the Assyrians or of the Greek pottery from which our evidence is drawn. After Alexander the cultural exchange was enormous, as recent evidence in many fields suggests. We must look for evidence nearer to the date of the New Testament.

A considerable body of Jewish literature exists which discusses headcoverings for men and women. This material dates from the 1st Century B.C. to the 6th Century A.D. Goodenough has investigated in detail the murals of the Dura synagogue.[10] His investigations have shown extensive blending of Greek and Jewish motifs within the murals, and these must therefore be treated with caution as sources of information concerning purely Jewish customs. A garment frequently seen in the drawings is the HIMATION, a long rectangular mantle draped over the body with the ends over the arm of the wearer. Epiphanius identifies this garment as that to which Jesus refers in Matthew 23:5 in his remark about broad phylacteries and fringes.”[11] Heroes at Dura have himations with broad purple stripes clearly displayed. The lesser figures have narrow stripes. Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees is thus that they enlarge the borders of their garments and add tassels in order to be seen of men. This garment, the TALLITH of the Talmud and modern Judaism, was spread as a sign of reverence over the head of a Jewish man when he prayed and over a body in the grave. The purpose was that the person might “appear white before God.”[12] A similar understanding of purity, white garments, and reverence may be seen throughout both Testaments.[13]

The relevance of this information becomes clear as we consider Paul’s discussion of a man KATA KEPHALĒS ECHŌN in 1 Cor 11:4. If Paul is making reference to praying with a shawl over the head, he is arguing that the Jewish custom is in fact a dishonor to God. If Paul does have shawls and head coverings in view, he is still more profoundly in opposition to Jewish thought than simply with regard to the tallith customs. The high priest had been ordered by God to come into his presence with elaborate headgear (Exod 36:35–37). This too must be considered an affront to God. If, then, we conclude that 11:4, 5 have reference to head coverings, we conclude that Paul

1. rejected Jewish and OT worship customs for men, and

2. imposed Jewish worship customs for women.[14] This con-clusion must be regarded as highly suspect. It becomes virtually untenable when we consider the implications of it for Paul’s missionary efforts. How could Paul join in synagogue worship if he could not wear the tallith? Could his principle of “all things to all men” (1 Cor 9:22) be stretched so far as to allow him to do that which he declared to be a dishonor to God? Perhaps most difficult of all to explain is the fact that if Paul did reject all head coverings for Christian men, the matter of headcoverings would of necessity have arisen in each city where the Christians met to worship. As Jewish men became believers they would cease to wear the tallith and would denounce the High Priest for wearing headgear. On such a basis it is hardly possible that the matter of coverings could have arisen only after Paul had departed from Corinth. We conclude that it is difficult to understand KATA KEPHALĒS ECHŌN as referring to a shawl and that we must look in another direction to discover the meaning of Paul’s words.

To this point we have considered only veiling customs. These, from Assyrian times through the Talmudic period, applied to women only in public gatherings with strangers. Within familiar gatherings, it was not necessary to cover the women. (In this respect Mohammed introduced new elements with the Moslem laws.) Within the home it was permissible for a woman to go without veil. The same was true of a woman in the home of friends. These customs still survive today in that, despite the rulings of Mohammed, nomadic bedouins have never veiled their women in camp, evidently following the older customs.[15] This same principle may explain why Rebecca travelled without veil when with the servant of her betrothed and put it on as she saw a strange man approaching (Gen 24:65).[16] This freedom of women to be without veil may help us grasp the situation to which Paul spoke at Corinth.

We concluded above that the Corinthians had sought to be faithful to the teaching of Paul, but had in fact gone beyond it and in so doing had gone beyond that which was the universal custom of the church of God. For various reasons it is unlikely that their error was in removing the shawl from the head of the women. We propose that the custom in view was not the wearing of the shawl but rather the wearing of that hair style which marked a woman in proper relation to her husband or father. It was the custom of women to wear their hair pinned up in a “bun” rather than hanging loose. If the issue at stake was the hair style rather than the PERIBOLAION, the passage can be consistently interpreted. Let us first consider evidence to support our contention and then its implications for the passage.

The Meaning of KATAKALUPTŌ and KATA KEPHALĒS ECHŌN

It is interesting to note that only at one point in the passage does Paul use a word which specifically indicates a shawl. This is in v. 15 where he tells us that HĒ KOMĒ ANTI PERIBOLAIOU DEDOTAI. Taken apart from the context this would be translated: the long hair is given instead of a shawl. Translators, convinced that the passage argues for the need for a shawl, have uniformly undercut this meaning, translating: the long hair is given for a covering.[17] We will discuss this verse below. Let us examine at this point the other words used to refer to the covering of heads.

Assuming that the readers of his letter understood the nature of the issue at stake, Paul initiated his discussion using the phrase KATA KEPHALĒS ECHŌN of the man. Unfortunately for us, this phrase, like the adjective AKATAKALUPTOS must take its specific content from its context. Each translator must either supply an object for the phrase or treat it idiomatically. Most have chosen the latter course and rendered it “with his head covered.” This rendering follows Paul in being indefinite. It is with the rendering of the adjective AKATAKALUPTOS that most translators take a decisive stand on the meaning of the passage, the majority translating it “unveiled.” The Greek adjective is not as specific as the normal English translations of it.

A study of the KALUPTŌ word group in the LXX is helpful at this point to illustrate the range of meaning with which Paul would have been familiar from his knowledge of the LXX. Ezekiel 44:18–20 discusses the garments of the priests in the New Temple, basing its description on Exodus 39:27–29 MT (= Exod 36:35–37 LXX). They are not to shave their heads bald (TAS KEPHALAS OU XURĒSONTAI). They are to cover their heads (KALOUPTONTES KALOUPSOUSI TAS KEPHALAS) with turbans of linen (KIDAREIS LINAS). Here we have a number of elements found in 1 Cor 11. We have a KALUPTŌ verb used of head covering, (cf. 11:5), XURAŌ as an unattractive option, KOMĒ negatively used with regard to men. In certain circumstances this much overlap of vocabulary would be a convincing demonstration that Paul had this passage in mind. We find, however, that Paul has not built upon this passage. If he had it in mind as he wrote, he accepted some parts of it and rejected others. He agrees with the Ezekiel passage that man are not to wear long hair. He agrees that shaven hair is not desirable, but rather than forbidding it to male priests as did Ezekiel, he commands it for women as the shameful equivalent of being AKATAKALUPTOS. With regard to the covering, Paul seems to stand diametrically opposed to this passage. We must conclude that if this passage was in Paul’s mind, it is beyond our ability to discern the principle by which he has made use of it. It is certain, however, that some in Corinth would have adduced this passage to show that Paul was wrong in his regulations regarding men’s heads.

A more fruitful text for our study is Leviticus 13:45. This verse describes the signs which publicly show a leper to be unclean. One of these is loosed hair. The LXX renders the Hebrew פָרוּעַ by AKATAKALUPTOS. The same Hebrew expression is used by the Rabbis to describe long hair on a priest (which was forbidden under penalty of death).[18] We thus have evidence from both Hebrew and the Greek sources to show that Paul’s word may indicate loosed hair rather than a lack of covering upon it. Van Unnik has shown that loosed hair continued to be a sign of uncleanness even to Paul’s day.[19] Within Jewish circles loosed hair symbolized uncleanness and/or the setting off of the person so groomed from the rest of the community, e.g., lepers, warriors, Nazirites, menstrual women, etc. Is it possible that Paul was indicating loosed hair rather than the lack of a shawl when he spoke of a woman’s being AKATAKALUPTOS?

Numbers 5:18 suggests that this may have been the case. This text discusses the water ordeal for a woman accused of adultery. The MT instructs that וּפרַע אֶח־רֹאשׁ; the LXX reads KAI APOKALUPSEI TĒN KEPHALĒN. The Hebrew root is the same as that in Leviticus 13:45. AKATAKALUPTOS occurs only in the adjectival form. Verbal forms of פָּרַע must therefore be rendered by alternative verbs. The Greek translator of this section has chosen APOKALUPTŌ. The woman accused of adultery was set apart in public by the loosing of her hair. This symbolized the accusation of uncleanness by virtue of infidelity. If she was found innocent, her hair was once more put up. During the NT period the Jews no longer had the right to inflict capital punishment and therefore could not stone offenders. Certain corporal punishments were allowed them, and the final sentence was putting out of the synagogue.[20] For a woman found guility of adultery, the penalty was the shearing of her hair, a penalty seen today in various places including Northern Ireland.[21] If we supply KOMĒ rather than KALUMMA to complete KATA KEPHALĒS ECHŌN and understand AKATAKALUPTOS to refer to the loosed hair, our passage is quite intelligible and avoids the objections raised to understanding the wearing of a veil as the custom in view.

One NT passage is immediately relevant to our study. 1 Timothy 2:9 discusses the attire appropriate to women. The women are to be “moderately and discreetly dressed, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.” (MĒ EN PLEGMASIN KAI CHRUSIŌ Ē MARGARITAIS Ē HIMATISMŌ). Many interpreters have taken this to refer to four distinct and forbidden items. Such is not the case. The first two are joined by a KAI rather than a Ē and form a hendiadys, two for one.[22] That which is being referred to is gold-braided hair rather than braids and gold ornaments. In Paul’s day, as in ours, braids were not viewed as indiscreet. The custom in view was that of the courtesans, the dancing girls, who did their hair in eleven to twenty-one long braids and put a teardrop or circular gold bangle every inch or so for the length of the braids. The result was a striking screen of gold which shimmered as they moved.[23] It is this which is forbidden. From the point of view of our present study, this verse provides important information in that it would not be possible to wear a PERIBOLAION (1 Cor 11:15) and to wear gold-braided hair. The shawl would cover the braids entirely. The presence of a prohibition of such a hair style argues forcefully that it was in fact being worn in churches. This in turn implies that it was not the custom to wear shawls. It would not be necessary to warn against loose flowing braids if the universal custom of the churches of God required shawls to be worn by the women.[24] We conclude that it is very unlikely that Paul was referring to shawls in 1 Cor 11:3–6 and that it is possible that he meant loose hair instead. The words which he chose for 1 Cor 11:3–6 suit either with equal ease and other considerations render the shawl reading highly questionable.

In order to demonstrate the appropriateness of the “hair” interpretation, let us reconstruct the situation into which Paul spoke and the flow of his thought.

Let us assume that, following the accepted custom for familiar gatherings, the brothers and sisters in Christ gathered for worship, the women not wearing veils (which may or may not have been current at public gatherings in Corinth), but wearing their hair up, pinning or folding the braids on the top or at the back of their heads. To this audience Paul preached the Good News concerning Jesus. Such a gathering would upset none in Greece or in Jerusalem.

After Paul had left, the Corinthian believers began to extend his teachings, building upon the foundation which Paul had laid (3:10). They evidently came to believe that they already reigned with Christ (4:8) and that their bodies had no part in the triumphant life (15:12).

In connection with this there seems to have been considerable confusion with regard to the role of marriage in their new estate (Chs 5, 6, 7), some of which was based upon the words of Jesus (which Paul probably first brought to the Corinthians, 7:10, 25).[25] The conduct intimated in chapter 7, when laid alongside the attention paid to angels throughout the letter, suggests that a portion of the Corinthian argument may have been based upon Jesus’ saying that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels” (Matt 22:30). Being as the angels, there being neither male nor female in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28), the Corinthians may have decided that the gospel, consistently carried through, allows no distinction between man and woman. On this basis, the women would let their hair down in the worship service, thereby proclaiming their new status. In so doing, they would depart from the universal practice of the church while making every effort to be faithful to the center of Paul’s Gospel.

It would be inevitable that this move to loosed hair would horrify some of the congregation. A controversy could then arise in which both a hair-up and a loosed-hair party might cite Paul for support. One can also envisage an ultra-conservative party arising which would argue that not only the putting up of the hair was proper, but also the wearing of a shawl. Such a party could be designated a pro-shawl party. In the midst of this controversy, Paul was asked his position: How do you stand, Paul? Is it proper that a woman should pray AKATAKALUPTOS? (11:13) Paul must answer the three groups. In doing so he would not wish to alienate any but rather to win all parties to his side. Praising their effort to remember him and to hold fast the traditions which he delivered to them, he does not directly attack any of the groups but rather seeks to instruct them further in that which he taught.

Paul’s argument begins from a hierarchy of God, Christ, man, woman. Of each the preceding is the head. For the sake of space, we must by-pass the theology of this hierarchy in order to examine Paul’s development from it. Paul began the hierarchy with the statement that “of every man, Christ is head” (11:3). This would have been accepted by all of the Corinthians. He then went on to the debated relation of man and woman. He followed a similar pattern in approaching the matter of hair styles. Verse 4 initiates the discussion of style with a statement which would have been quite acceptable to all parties: Any man praying or prophesying with his hair up as a woman’s dishonors his head. This simple statement establishes Paul’s base. The deliberate double meaning is not simply a verbal trick but rather reaches to the bottom of Paul’s thought. On the one hand the man who dresses his hair as a woman’s dishonors himself, announcing by his hair that he is under the authority of a man. On the other hand, he dishonors the One who is his true head and whom he should reflect in his relation to his own wife, for Christ is dishonored when one who should be under none save Himself and God publicly proclaims that a man is over him.

Verse 5 carries the argument on to the sphere of the wife: every woman who prays or prophesies with her hair loose dishonors her head. Once again we have a double meaning. It is clear that a husband would be dishonored in his wife’s rejection of his authority. It is not so clear why the woman is herself dishonored. Nor is it clear why she is one with her whose head is shorn or shaven. On the basis of the customary shawl interpretation it is generally assumed that this is some form of hyperbole, or points to the end of a process which the woman begins when she removes her shawl. The weight of the shame is thus made to depend upon the social embarrassment of a bald woman. Such an argument fails to carry conviction with it. On the basis of our contention that the hair style is in view, the argument is both cogent and logical. If a woman lets her hair hang loose (AKATAKALUPTOS in the sense of Lev 13:45), she puts upon herself the public sign of an accused adulteress. This action dishonors her husband and dishonors herself. It is a statement that the proper authority of the husband has been disregarded and that the one who should be under him alone has been given to another. In this formulation the statement is exactly parallel with that which is made of the man who puts his hair up, publicly putting upon himself a sign which announces that one who should be under Christ alone has been given to be under another. We can now understand why Paul considers that such a woman is in fact one with her who is shorn or shaven. If a woman places upon herself the accusation of adultery, it is equivalent to a confession. Among Jews of Paul’s day, a woman convicted of adultery was to be shorn or shaven; that marked her publicly declared guilt.[26] The woman who publicly accuses herself is with equal certainty a violator of the marriage relation and is therefore one with her who is shorn or shaven.

Verse 6 follows naturally from this. If a woman publicly disavows her husband’s authority and places upon herself the sign of the adulteress, let her accusation stand and let her have her hair cut off. If, on the other hand, this is shameful, then let her put her hair up.

To this point, nothing has been said within the chapter to indicate that anything other than the maintenance of an authority symbol is under discussion. There has been no hint that women are not actually intended to pray or prophesy. Indeed, the opposite appears to be the case. Paul is concerned that proper authority relations be maintained in the midst of a woman’s exercising of the gifts of prayer and prophecy. Paul’s point was not that a woman might not pray or prophesy, but that while doing so she must continue to maintain her proper relation to her husband. He was concerned to maintain the simultaneously operational authority relations of God, Christ, man, and woman. It is not difficult to understand how confusion might have arisen among the Corinthians at this point. In Jewish worship it was customary for the men to worship for the household.[27] This was not the case within the Christian church. The women had a new role in the congregation of the Lord. The gifts of the Spirit fell upon them as well as upon the men. Did this new role do away with all previously existing roles? If not, how were the new and the old roles to be related? Some of the Corinthians evidently answered the former question in the affirmative. Paul developed the latter. He argued that the presence of the gifts of the Spirit and the initiation of the new creation in Christ had not done away with husband-wife relations, nor parent-child relations within the church (Eph 5, inter alia). With regard to structures external to the renewed community it is clear that the presence of the first fruits of salvation had not done away with the need for governments, that those living under governments were to obey them, but that the believers were not to take their brothers before them for judgment (Rom 13; 1 Cor 5). Tempting as it may be, it is not possible within the scope of this article to explore the structure of redemptive history within Paul’s thought. It must satisfy us to explore only a small portion of that which is hinted at within the passage at hand.

Image and Authority: 1 Cor 11:7-18

It has often been alleged that Paul applied local and passing customs to the Corinthian church, and that he did so on the basis of poor or faulty argumentation.[28] The ten verses developing the theological basis of Paul’s discussion bear the brunt of such allegations. We cannot here examine them in full detail, but we can indicate the flow of thought within them.

Verse 7 begins a theological discussion of the fact that a man ought not to have his hair up. In defense of this contention Paul alludes to Genesis 1:26. He argues that the man is the image and glory of God while the woman is the glory of man. Commentators have often pointed out that the Genesis text does not at all support this argument, but rather indicates that both are in the image of God. A simple comparison of Gen 1:26 and 1:28 sustains this point in the form in which it is usually raised. Gen 1:26 informs us that God determined to create man in his own image and that he determined to give them dominion over other parts of creation. It is possible to argue that men as opposed to women are in view, but this is a weak defense. Its weakness becomes evident at v. 28, which is a description of God’s fulfillment of his own purpose: God commanded the man and the woman to be fruitful and to multiply and to have dominion over the earth. Both partners are in view. The ADAM of v. 26 is a collective reference to mankind. If Paul intended to argue that man in contrast to woman was created in the image of God, and if he cited Gen 1:26 to prove his case, he chose weak ground.

It does not appear to us, however, that this was his intention. It must initially be noted that Genesis has not actually been cited. Paul’s wording is deliberately not image and likeness but image and glory.[29] The entire 1 Cor passage is concerned with authority relations rather than ontological relations. Man, in his authority relation to creation and to woman, images the dominion of God over creation (a central theme of Gen 1) and the headship of Christ over his church. The woman has a corresponding but different role to play. The woman is not called to image God in the relation which she sustains to her husband; she is rather to show loving obedience (Eph 5:22). It would be inappropriate to identify her as the image of God in her relation to her husband, although, as we shall see below, she does rule over creation with him. We must conclude from the context that Paul is not appealing to Gen 1:26 but to the dominion theme of Gen I and indeed to the whole OT, and that the term “image” is used in a relational rather than an ontological fashion.

We must now turn our attention to the term “glory” which Paul used of both the man and the woman. Some would say that Paul intended to identify woman as the image of man, could not bring himself to twist his text that far, and settled for the term “glory” which intimated the same point. We do not believe that this is fair to Paul. Within the context of this passage, man sets forth the image of God as he reflects God’s and Christ’s headship by being head of his wife. By properly taking his place under God and within the cosmos, he glorifies God and is the glory of God. The element of correspondence is important for Paul’s use of glory. The glory of the sun is that brightness corresponding to its station. The glory of the moon is that brightness which corresponds to its station (1 Cor 15:41). The brightness of each points to that of which it is the brightness or glory. Man is relationally the glory of God as he is in an appropriate relation to Him: under God, thereby pointing to God’s dominion; over the remainder of creation, thereby reflecting dominion. In such a relation man is free to be what he truly is and shows truly what he is meant to be. A woman is the glory of her husband as she stands in a proper relation to him and demonstrates the truth concerning her created role.

In the sense developed above, and within the marriage relationship, the role of image is an active one while that of glory is passive. In this sense therefore the man ought to be designated the image and glory of God, and the woman the glory of man. It is therefore correct to say as Paul did in v. 7 that the man ought not to have a sign indicating the dominion of a man over him while the woman should. It might even be said properly that the woman, who under man rules over creation, is in exercising that rule the image of man. Mindful perhaps of the confusion which this could engender vis-à-vis Gen 1:26, Paul did not call woman the image of man. We shall see below that the concept of woman’s rule over creation was a part of his thought at this juncture. It is to underscore man’s dominion that Paul introduced the fact that the woman was created to have a relation to the man rather than vice versa (vv. 8, 9). Similarly, although not identically, man was created to have a relation with God rather than vice versa.

If we look back over vv. 2–8 of this passage we discover that a strong emphasis has been laid upon the necessity of maintaining the authority structure which the Corinthians had discarded. What, we may ask, of the fact that women are co-heirs with men (Gen 1:26; 1 Pet 3:7)? Does this have no reflection in the present? It is our judgment that it is to this fact and its relation to the woman’s role of obedience to her husband that Paul turns in vv. 10–12.

Verse 10 presents difficulties for exegesis. The structure of the verse, the repeated use of DIA, the meaning of EXOUSIA and the connection of the angels to the remainder of the verse are all problems to be wrestled with. Let us first consider the structure and the repetition of DIA. The verse can be considered as a single thought pointing to the relation of the covered woman to the angels. While this is possible, we think that this view is not to be preferred. The repetition of DIA reflects the presence of two related but not identical thoughts in Paul’s mind. The verse seems to look backward and forward at the same time. It is not unusual for Paul to make his transitions of thought by means of a bridging sentence which at the same time concludes one discussion and leads into another. This verse seems to us to be of this sort.[30] It concludes one topic and enters into another. DIA TOUTO through KEPHALĒS should be construed as the conclusion of the theological argument set forth in v. 7 and supported by vv. 8, 9. It might then be understood to say, “Because of this [which has been said] a woman ought to wear [a sign of] authority on her head.” We might paraphrase it: And so you see why a woman ought to have her hair up as a sign of her husband’s authority. For reasons explained below, we do not think this rendering adequate, although the thought is certainly present as an integral part of the bridging sentence.

If we take the first part of the verse as a single unit we have a cryptic, isolated remark about the angels left over. It seems to be an afterthought, added to enhance the previous points. It is generally understood in one of two manners: either it is taken to indicate that a veil somehow protects a woman from marauding angels[31] or it is taken to indicate that friendly angels would be indignant at an unveiled woman and that from respect for them if not for the sake of God or the preceding theological argumentation, a woman ought to put on a veil. We feel that neither of these views, however, does adequate justice to the context and we would offer a third possibility.

The relation of the woman to the angels and to her husband is complicated by the fact that Paul has chosen the word EXOUSIA to designate that which she has upon her head. Unlike the English word “authority” EXOUSIA is not used in a passive sense, either by NT authors or by secular writers.[32] To have “authority” on one’s head is not to have a symbol of the authority of another but to have a symbol of one’s own authority. Insofar as the hair put up behind a woman’s head is a symbol of her husband’s authority over her, this word is inappropriate. This suggests that Paul chose EXOUSIA to indicate her authority with reference to the angels rather than her husband’s authority over her. If she has authority with reference to the angels, then this word can take its natural, active sense. Two objections present themselves at this point: first, the context has not previously focused upon the woman’s authority; second, commentators who have understood EXOUSIA to refer to the woman’s authority have not usually conceived of it as relating to good, but rather to evil angels.[33] The fact that women’s authority has not previously been in view need not prevent it from being introduced at this point, although we may wonder why it has been introduced at this particular place. The evil-angels theory requires more careful attention.

Those who support the position that Paul is referring to a covering as a prophylactic device against angels appeal to Jewish speculation concerning the sons of God in Gen 6:2.[34] Such speculation is not in line with NT thought, which understands believers as having been freed from the power of Satan and his hosts. Those angels which the NT views as present at the worship service are the hosts surrounding the throne of God, the obedient rather than the evil angels (cf. Heb 12:22; Rev 5:11). It is not necessary, however, for us to turn to Hebrews or to Revelation to understand the angels of 1 Cor. A brief survey of the letter will show that the relation of the Corinthians to the angels was a topic concerning which Paul felt it necessary to instruct them. The Corinthian believers felt themselves to be reigning already with Christ (4:2). Paul sought to correct various manifestations of this basic error. One of these was with reference to the angels. It is striking that the angels are mentioned four times in 1 Cor, more than in any other letter, and that in each case issues are raised which tie the angels in with the central problems of Corinth.[35]

We are first introduced to the angels in 4:9 where we learn that the apostles have been made by God a spectacle before men and angels. In contrast to the Corinthian claim to rule at present (4:8) Paul insisted that the way which God had appointed for the present was one of suffering (4:9). In contrast to the cosmic rule of the Corinthians, Paul proclaims himself to be part of a cosmic THEATRON. It is distinctly possible that Paul was correcting Corinthian angelology as well as eschatology. He informed them in effect that the church is as yet before the angels (cf. Heb 2:7; Ps 8:5–7) and that it is not yet as the angels (Matt 22:30).

The time reference is more pronounced in 6:1ff, where we next meet the angels. In this passage Paul rebuked the Corinthians for going before pagan judges with legal affairs rather than settling them among themselves. In this connection he remarked with pointed irony that the saints who will judge the world and the angels should be able to judge matters of daily life. It is important to note his wording. He asked “OUK OIDATE HOTI….” This formula is one which he uses repeatedly throughout this letter.[36] Paul used it to introduce material which he thought pertinent and of which he was certain that his readers were well aware but had not properly utilized.

It is an ironic phrase. Paul assumed that the Corinthians were aware that they would judge angels. We would venture one more step to suggest that their judgmental relation to the angels was one source of their pride. Paul used this pride as a base from which to rebuke their failure to keep legal matters within the Church. That Paul’s rebuke was deliberate cannot be questioned as he himself told them, “I say this to your shame” (6:5). The shame arises from their failure at the very point of their boasting. We may safely conclude that Paul was using the Corinthian boast that they were above the angels as a vehicle by which to instruct and to correct them. It is valuable for our purposes to notice that Paul did not challenge their claim to a place superior to that of the angels, but rather used that claim to advantage. It would appear that he agreed with them at this point.

A word is perhaps in order here concerning the relation of 4:9 and 6:1. It might be objected that it is inconsistent to portray the Church as before the angels and at the same time their judge. It should be noted, however, that Paul describes in 4:9 the present situation of the church as an actor in a dramatic situation before an audience of men and angels. These spectators include those of the seen and unseen world without reference to their status before God. Thus, both obedient and disobedient men and angels are in view. In 6:1 it is presumably the disobedient angels who will in the future be judged by the Corinthians. Paul agreed with his readers that it was their role as fellow-heirs with Christ to judge angels. Paul saw this as future; the Corinthians considered it a present fact. There is no necessary conflict with 4:9: those who are now THEATRON will later judge angels.

The final encounter with angels in 1 Cor is found at 13:1. This verse is the introduction to the so-called hymn to love. It is often assumed that this praise of love is more or less independent of its context. Its content, however, is quite directly aimed at the Corinthian situation. We may certainly take this first line as intended to show the Corinthians that their ways are valueless if they do not show love toward one another. The “I” of the passage is gnomic but its force could, without total distortion, be rendered “you Corinthians.” As we have suggested before, the Corinthians had assumed an over-realized eschatology and thought themselves to be “as the angels.” One effect of this may be seen in the fact that some of them lived celibate lives…or sought to do so (chapter 7). They evidently considered their speaking in the tongues (of angels) to be a demonstration of their ruling status. Once again, Paul does not challenge their claim…who knows with what tongue a pneumatic speaks. Paul does, however, temper their claims to “know all mysteries and all knowledge” (13:3) by instructing that “we know in part, and we prophesy in part…now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been known fully” (13:12).

The Corinthians did not move in half or partial measures. If they had the firstfruits, they assumed it to be the harvest. Being heirs with Christ, they wished to possess all immediately. Paul repeatedly had to correct their pace. In chapter 11 he stressed the fact that there is a divinely structured hierarchy which places women under their husbands’ authority. This same hierarchy, however, does not place any created being other than their husbands over them. To accept one’s place under Christ and within the redeemed community is to accept an exalted place indeed. For a woman this means that until marriage is done away by the return of the Lord she must be under her husband. Having accepted this fact, she may rightly claim a place as vice-regent under God with her husband. It is as we consider the exalted place of women within the order of creation together with the Corinthian boast of their relation to the angels that we come to a proper understanding of Paul’s remark concerning the angels at 11:10.

The context of v. 10 leads us to expect Paul to lay emphasis upon the subordination of women and this in turn has caused many commentators to take EXOUSIA in a passive sense. The context must certainly have led the Corinthians to look for subordination. Verse 10, however, marks a transition in Paul’s development. Having stressed the subordination of women within the marital relation, Paul moved on to develop a more positive side with respect to women. Verse 10 is the beginning of that development. The woman’s hair marks her as a woman. Its style marks her as a woman accepting her role in the creation of God in this given moment of the course of redemptive history or as a woman rejecting it. Her place is not the empty, valueless place of women in Eastern culture generally. The biblical place of the woman is above all of creation, barring only her husband. The hair upon her head must therefore be understood as a sign of tremendous authority, as well as a sign of a particular relation to her husband. It is this fact to which Paul chose to draw attention in v. 10. The Corinthian women no doubt saw the loosing of hair as a sign that they possessed authority equal to that of men. Paul pointed out that it was in fact a sign of rejection of the order of God and of the role of woman; it was a sign of rebellion and disgrace. In contrast, he stressed in v. 10 that the hair upon a woman’s head, rather than hanging from it, was the proper sign of her authority. Viewed from this perspective it is easy to see why Paul chose an active word, EXOUSIA, for authority. It very well expresses his meaning: the woman’s hair marks her as vice-regent over creation and in particular it marks her as a woman, part of mankind and over the angels. It marks her as a woman who is obedient to God and to his ordering of creation rather than as a rebel against it. As a rebel, she would stand to be judged rather than as judge. That Paul’s word is surprising in this context which has previously stressed subordination is no doubt to be interpreted as part of his design. It calls attention to his point that this sign which they interpreted as one of abject subjection is in fact one of great authority. Her hair is indeed glory to her (v. 15). We are convinced that those interpretations of v. 10 which interpret the EXOUSIA DIA TOUS AGGELOUS as being a prophylactic device to protect her from marauding angels or a sign of man’s authority to be worn from respect for angels who are the guardians of the created order are to be rejected in favor of a view that the authority referred to is the possession of the women by virtue of their place in creation and that Paul’s point is sympathetically apologetic, designed to win women to obedience.

Instruction from Creation: 1 Corinthians 11:11-12

Verse 10 represents the culmination of the argument for economic subordination of women to men and of angels to both men and women and prepares the way for the argument that a woman’s subordinate role in relation to man does not mean that she is ontologically of lesser value than man. Paul does not confuse economic and ontological subordination. Verse 11 develops this theme, discussing the interrelatedness of men and women. In essence Paul wishes to argue that in the design of God there is to be economic subordination and ontological interrelatedness. Verse 9 stressed that it was God’s design that woman be created DIA TON ANDRA rather than vice versa. Verse 11 informs us that in the Lord’s design this does not mean that the man is independent and the woman dependent, but rather that they are mutually dependent. Verse 12 explains this from creation in that the woman was created from the body of man (HĒ GUNĒ EK TOU ANDROS), yet it was the creator’s intention that man should be born through woman (DIA TĒS GUNAIKOS). Paul considered man’s temporal priority to be related to his economic authority. The woman’s creation as זֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, taken from the body of man, is similarly related to her subordinate role. She was created “for the man” (DIA + accusative). Man, on the other hand, and in a different sense is DIA the woman. He is born “through” her (DIA + genitive). Her relation to man in childbirth is ontological rather than economic. She has a necessary part; man is not independent of her (CHŌRIS). It is clear that women’s economic subordination is no more incompatible with ontological equality with men than the economic subordination of soldier to general with their ontological equality. Paul’s concluding remark that all is from God is intended to draw attention once more to the fact that the ordering which he has stressed is God’s plan.

Paul wished the Corinthians to understand that possessing authority (over angels) is not incompatible with being under authority (of husbands), that it was God’s design that there should be economic differentiation and ontological equality. At this point we observe a parallel between creation and the worship of the community of the new creation. At creation, women were in one sphere equal with men and in another subordinated.[37] In the initiation of the new creation it seems that they were equal with their husbands in the sphere of charismatic gifts. (cf. Acts 2:17–21; Joel 2:28–32) and subordinate within the family sphere. That NT women possessed gifts of the Spirit is undeniable (Acts 21:9). We have shown that nothing within this passage suggests that women did not (or should not) exercise charismatic gifts of prayer and prophecy within the worship service. The Corinthian women evidently felt that such high gifts were incompatible with subordination to their husbands. “On the contrary,” Paul argued, “God intended in the design of Creation that both partners be equal in one area and that they stand in an authority relation in another.” The evidence does not suggest that Paul intended to silence women, but rather that he intended to insist that they retain their proper roles vis-à-vis their husbands.

Nature and Long Hair: 1 Corinthians 11:13-15

The closing section of Paul’s argument links both of the major themes which he has developed: creation and the shame involved in having inappropriate hair. It picks up the “dishonor” theme of vv. 4, 5 in the context of creation. In order properly to evaluate this section, we must determine the function of v. 13.

Verse 13 poses the rhetorical question: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered (AKATAKALUPTOS)? It would seem that we have here either a direct quotation or a paraphrase of a question posed by the Corinthians. Paul, having discussed the question, lays the issue once more at the feet of his questioners. There can be no doubt whether he is offering them a choice, for he has already answered the question and will once again do so. Why then does he repeat their question at this point if he has already answered it? In our initial discussion we suggested that three positions were likely to have arisen at Corinth. One would have argued for the continuation of that custom which prevailed while Paul was there, that women should continue to wear their hair up. A second group contended that this symbol of subordination should be removed. A third party, reacting to the challenge of the second, might easily arise arguing not only that appropriate hair styles but that veils also ought to be worn in order to make explicit the relation of husband and wife. This last party might also be the one concerned with the ceremonial cleanliness of children of mixed marriages (7:14). All three parties would have a view concerning the need to have a woman “covered.” Having developed a position rather than having attacked parties, Paul seems to have quoted the question posed to him in order once again to focus attention upon the central issue.

In response to this question he adduces evidence from “nature,” which we must understand in the sense of Romans 1:26; 2:14, 27; etc. as meaning created order rather than custom. The point of his comparison is that an improper hair-style is a dishonor to its wearer. In this respect his point is precisely the same as that of vv. 4, 5 but built from nature.

Verse 13 refocused attention on the central issue; vv. 14, 15 answer each of the three groups involved in the controversy over hair. They argue that it is a function of created order that women should have distinctive hair. This is God’s “natural” sign of their role as women. This sign is not dishonoring to them but rather “glory” to them. As we have seen above, it identifies their distinctive place in creation. To the “loose-hair” party this points out the necessity of differentiating between men and women. To the “hair-up” party this offers confirmation with a basis rather than by fiat. The remaining party is the “pro-veil” or reactionary party. Paul’s concluding remark is directed to them: her hair is given her instead of (ANTI) a veil.[38] A woman’s hair is the divinely given sign of her role. It is enough; to it man need add no further covering. To the pro-veil party, Paul says “no.”

Biblical translations have, without exception, understood this verse to indicate that a woman’s hair is given her “for” or “as” a covering, taking ANTI to indicate equivalence rather than substitution. On this basis the verse teaches that nature has given woman a covering and man should give her another. It is easy to understand that the verse must be taken in this fashion if the first part of the chapter is taken to demand a veil. In the absence of such a view, the ANTI may be given its normal substitutionary force.

Verse 16 is Paul’s formal answer to the question, “Should a woman pray to God AKATAKALUPTOS”? To this question, after much discussion, he says, “if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.”[39]

Summary and Conclusions

We have now surveyed the passage as a whole and come to two central conclusions: 1) that the primary issue was the authority of husbands in relation to their wives as focused in the hair-style of wives at the worship service, and 2) that Paul did not intend to silence women but rather to regulate their relation to their husbands as they charismatically prayed and prophesied. It is now our obligation to consider the relation of these conclusions to Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 14:33–36.

1 Cor 14:33-35: Silence of Women in Church

Recent scholarship has tended to remove this segment of the text, primarily on the basis of its seeming to conflict with chapter 11.[40] There is in fact only one textual issue to be discussed and it is but a minor one. A small group of manuscripts headed by the poor combination D G 88* transposes vv. 34–5 to follow v. 40. The overwhelming weight of external evidence as well as the internal evidence is against this transposition. The easier reading is that of D G 88* et al. in that the subject of prophecy is discussed in vv. 33, 36, making vv. 34–35 appear strange in their present location. Shifting them to follow v. 40 places them under the heading of order in the church rather than prophecy. Such a rationale explains the transposition to follow v. 40. It is difficult to provide any rationale for the reverse transposition. There is no evidence to support the contention that these verses are a gloss or a later addition. To take such a position involves a freedom with the text which seems to us unwarranted. We will accept the text as it stands in the bulk of the manuscripts and seek to understand why its location is as it is.

Chapter 14 as a whole deals with confusion within the Corinthian assemblies. This confusion arose from chaotic exercise of the gift of tongues. Paul repeatedly encouraged them to prophesy instead and offered guidelines for the ordering of the meetings.

Modern versions have differed as to the proper paragraphing for the chapter. Divisions are normally made at vv. 26, 33b or 34, 37, and 39. On this basis the discussion of women is isolated from its context and includes v. 36. As will be explained below, we believe the major divisions to come at vv. 26, 36, and 39. On our basis the discussion of women falls under the heading of order for worship as either an independent topic or in connection with prophecy. It is difficult to discover a satisfactory rationale for its inclusion as an isolated topic in the midst of a discussion of prophecy. We believe that by considering it as a portion of the prophecy discussion it is possible not only to discover a rationale for its location but also to understand satisfactorily its relation to chapter 11.

Verse 29 outlines principles to govern the exercise of the prophetic gifts of the Spirit. Two or three prophets are to speak and the others are to pass judgment. Verses 30–33a elaborate upon the manner in which the prophets are to speak: they are to maintain order, being silent when another is given a message. Verses 33b–35 deal with a particular problem which had arisen with regard to the second half of Paul’s outline in v. 29, the judging of the prophets. Paul required that the others judge the prophets, discussing and evaluating their messages to explore the meaning and to see that they were not false to the gospel. Women were among the prophets and it would seem that women entered into the judgment of the prophets as well, thereby assuming the anomalous role of judging men. It is to this situation that Paul addressed himself as he forbade the women to speak. Paul’s wording shows that the antithesis in his mind was not simply that of silence or speaking but rather that of subjection to or violation of created authority structure. It is clear from chapter 11 that Paul did not understand charismatic prayer or prophecy from women as violations of this order, as these involve no direct authority on the part of the speaker. It would, however, be a violation were women to sit in judgment over men. If we envisage a question period after the prophecies in which the congregation explored and evaluated the messages of the prophets, we have a setting adequate to explain Paul’s injunction. Chapter 11 dealt with a rejection of authority in prayer and prophecy; here we have a corresponding rejection in the questioning afterwards. Verse 35 counters an objection which might be raised: If women may not question, how can they learn? Throughout chapter 14 Paul has been concerned that the Church be edified (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 26, 31). His aim in v. 35 is not to prevent learning but rather to prevent a wrong exercise of authority. It helps the modern reader to understand that men and women were separated in the synagogues. It is very likely that the same pattern was followed by the new church at Corinth. The women were therefore unable to reach their husbands to talk with them during the service itself, to say nothing of the disturbance which this talking might have caused. Paul’s instructions are thus geared to the situation which existed. They prevent a wrong use of authority but guard the instruction of the women, with which Paul was vitally concerned.

Verse 36 is generally assumed to belong with vv. 34, 35 as a condemnation of women. It does not seem to fit such a role. It is hard to see how the women who spoke to judge men could think that the Word came first from them or that it came to them only. Even if it were understood that Paul intended to silence all women prophesying in church, it would be hard to understand the force of this criticism. To what advantage would a woman argue that the Word of God came first from her or that she only (presumably in contrast to the men) spoke it? This verse makes good sense if Paul addressed it to the congregation as a whole and by means of it led into v. 37, where he demanded that the prophets and spiritual people recognize his words to be the Word of the Lord.

That our interpretation is correct is supported by Paul’s grammar. Paul ironically asked them whether the Word came first from or only to them. Their answer had to be, “No, you first preached it to us and therefore it must come from you as well.” Verse 38 follows up on this admission: “Then let those who think themselves spiritual acknowledge that what I write to you is the command of the Lord.” He concluded: Ē EIS HUMAS MONOUS KATĒNTĒSEN. Paul addressed either men or a mixed audience. If he had intended to speak to women, he would have said “MONAS.” The transposers of D G 88* also understood the division to come after v. 35 rather than v. 36 as they moved vv. 34, 35 but not v. 36. We conclude that v. 36 does not belong with vv. 33b–35 and that it forms the start of a new paragraph.

Conclusions and Summary

Our study of 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35 has shown that it should be understood as a portion of the discussion of prophecy begun at v. 29 and that it forbids women to join in the judging of the prophets. So understood there is no conflict with chapter 11, which clearly grants women the right to exercise the charismatic gifts of prayer and prophecy within the assembly. Viewed in this light, Paul did not require that women wear veils, nor did he require that they always be silent in the assemblies. He insisted instead that the divinely ordained authority structures must not be set aside.

By way of summary, we would offer the following expanded paraphrase of chapters 11:2–16 and 14:33b–35.

1 Cor 11:2-16

“I am glad that you try in every area to remember what I said and that you hold fast the traditions just as I handed them on to you. I praise you for your faithful efforts. I would, however, have you know that of every man, Christ is head; the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. It is clear that any man who prays or prophesies with his hair up as a woman’s announces that he is under the authority of a man and thereby dishonors both himself and Christ, under whose authority alone he ought to stand. Conversely, any woman who lets her hair hang loose dishonors both herself and her husband. By letting her hair down, she puts on herself the sign of an accused adulteress. If she herself does that, it is as if she had been convicted and shaved. If, then, a woman will not wear her hair up to show her proper relation to her husband, let her shave it off. If it is shameful to have it clipped or shaved off, let her wear it up!

“A man should not have his hair up because his dominion reflects God’s and by his exercising of it he honors God. His wife, on the other hand, honors him by her obedience. The bare head and loose hair of the man show his place under God’s authority and his own authority in relation to his wife. Because of her different role the wife wears her hair differently. She wears it up as a sign of ‘authority.’ It signifies her husband’s authority over her and her authority over the angels.

“The subordination of women to their husbands does not mean that the men are of higher value than the women. In the Lord neither the man is independent of the woman nor the woman independent of the man. From creation it was His design that there should be an authority relation between them but that they should be of equal value. Thus the woman was taken from the side of the man to be his helper, but men are born of women. Within the church we see this pattern continuing until the Lord returns, in that both men and women are the source of prayer and prophecy through the gifts of the Spirit and at the same time the husband is the head of the wife.

“You asked me to judge whether it is proper that a woman pray to God uncovered. I’ve told you enough that you can see to judge for yourselves. God’s plan in nature shows you the way. A man is shamed if he has long hair, while that same long hair brings glory to a woman. You can see that hair is given to be a sign of the distinction between men and women. This natural sign of long hair is also sufficient covering and there is no need for a shawl.

“If anyone still wants to argue about the need for a covering, he should know that neither we nor the churches of God have any other custom than that women should pray and prophesy with their heads covered…by their hair.”

1 Corinthians 14:29, 34a-35

“And let two or three prophets speak and let the others judge whether what they say is true to the gospel….Let the women keep silent and not enter into the judgment of the prophets for they are not permitted to participate in the formal judgment of men. Let them rather subject themselves as Genesis also directs.

“If they have questions about the teaching they should not pose them during the judging of the prophets, nor should they walk across the assembly to their husbands. If they wish to learn more they should ask their husbands at home.”

Notes

1. E.g., R. St. J. Parry, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Cambridge Greek New Testament), (Cambridge: at the University Press, 1937), pp. xlvi, 221, and J. Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Moffatt New Testament Commentary), (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1945), p. 152.
2. E.g., A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (International Critical Commentary), (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1967), pp. 232-233; J. Héring, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (London: Epworth Press, 1969) p. 154; and seemingly, L. Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, (London: Tyndale Press, 1969), p. 201.
3. E.g., J. Weiss, Der Erste Korintherbrief, (Meyer Kommentar), (Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1952), ad. loc.; and R. Scroggs, “Paul: Chauvinist or Liberationist?,” in The Christian Century, 891 (March 15, 1972), 307. Scroggs remarks, “Among the several reasons for regarding these verses as spurious, the most weighty is that they contradict 1 Cor 11:2–16.”
4. E.g., E. Evans, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, (The Clarendon Bible), (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 117; J. C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians, (London: S.P.C.K., 1965), pp. 182-4; and Moffatt, op. cit., p. 149.
5. G. Driver and J. Miles, The Assyrian Laws, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935).
6. Numerous sections of the Assyrian Laws deal with women, among the clearest with reference to veiling is col. V, 11:42–87, Driver and Miles, op. cit., pp. 406-8.
7. Cf. R. De Vaux, “Sur le Voile des femmes dans l’orient ancien,” in Revue Biblique, 44 (1935), 400.
8. Cf. E. Potter, M. Albert, E. Saglio, v.s. “Coma” in Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines, vols. 1,2, Ch., Daremburg and E. Saglio, eds., (Paris: Lib. Hachette, 1887).
9. Burckhardt, J. L., Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabys, (London: Colburn and Bentley, 1830), pp. 233-34.
10. E. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (Bolingen Series), (New York: Pantheon Books, 1956), 10 vols.
11. Epiphanius, Pamarion, loc. cit.
12. E. Goodenough, op. cit., 9,173.
13. Cf. For a discussion of various texts A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Testament (Acta seminarii Upsaliensis), (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1965), p. 185.
14. We allow here for the sake of argument that it was a Palestinian custom to cover women.
15. Burckhardt, op. cit.
16. Another factor worthy of consideration here is the fact that Rebecca was Isaac’s fiancée and therefore certain marriage customs would apply to their encounters prior to matrimony which would not apply at any other time. It may be that she customarily wore no veil at all.
17. Among the English versions we include the KJV, RSV, ASV, NASV. A list of commentators making this assumption would be virtually all-inclusive.
18. Taan, 17b, where u^Wrp* is used of men with long hair.
19. W. van Unnik, “Les Cheveux defaits des femmes baptisées,” in Vigiliae Christianae, 1 (1947), 87–89.
20. T. Reinach, s.v. “Diaspora” in The Jewish Encyclopaedia, I. Singer, ed., (London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1893), 4, 566–7.
21. Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, (Amsterdam, 1752), ad. loc. and Buchler, “Das Schneiden des Haares als Strafe der Ehebrecher bei den Semiten, in Weiner Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XIX (1905), 91–138.
22. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), p. 442.16.
23. J. Neil, Everyday Life in the Holy Land (London: Church Mission to the Jews, 1930), pp. 200-203.
24. A similar point might be made with reference to 1 Pet 3:3 where the same hendiadys is regularly mistranslated.
25. For an interesting view of the role of Jesus’ words in Paul’s preaching, see D. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). D. Balch has suggested “Q” as a document lying behind the controversy at 1 Cor 7. (“Background of 1 Cor vii: Sayings of the Lord in Q; Moses as an Ascetic THEIOS ANE÷R in 2 Cor 3” in New Testament Studies, 18 (1972), 351ff. J. C. Hurd, op. cit., identifies the problem as change in Paul’s preaching rather than confusion with regard to Q.
26. Cf. n. 21.
27. E. Goodenough, op. cit., I, 226.
28. Cf. n. 1.
29. Many commentators have assumed that Gen 1:26 was being quoted and have undone Paul’s point by taking DOXA as a synonym for HOMOIO÷MA. None of the commentaries available to us has offered an explanation for Paul’s failure to use HOMOIO÷MA as does the LXX, save Héring (op. cit., ad. loc.) who follows Ginsburger’s suggestion that Paul wrote DOGMA, owing to the fact that this word had passed into Aramaic as a loan-word and had taken the sense of DEIGMA (image). Our reading, DOXA is explained as a copyist’s correction of Paul’s Aramaised use of DOGMA. It must be acknowledged that Paul did not frequently use the HOMOIOO÷ group. The fact, however, that he used HOMOIO÷MA at Rom 1:23 shows that he was familiar with HOMOIO÷SIN at Gen 1:26, the reading of all our LXX texts. This in turn renders his substitution of DOXA for HOMOIO÷MA at 1 Cor 11:7 significant.
30. Verse 1 of this chapter provides a good example of this habit of Paul’s.
31. For a well-chosen bibliography on this subject, see Hurd, op. cit., p. 184, n. 4.
32. Paul uses EXOUSIA nine other times in 1 Cor (7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5; 6:12 (twice), 18; 15:24). All nine are without question active in meaning, Ramsey’s famous remark in Cities of St. Paul (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1908; pp. 202f) seems quite to the point. He terms the idea of identifying the authority with the husband rather than the wife “a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the N.T.”
33. M. Hooker (“Authority on her head: An examination of 1 Cor XI:1”, in New Testament Studies, 10 (1963–4), 410–16) has suggested that the veil on a woman’s head covers man’s glory and thereby enables her to speak to God without presenting the glory of man.
34. Cf. J. Weiss, op. cit., p. 274 and especially J. Héring, op. cit., pp. 106-8 for a full discussion and bibliography in support of the “evil angels” theory.
35. The relative infrequency of angels in Paul’s writings has often been remarked. It could be that Paul wished to avoid the excesses of the apocalyptic writers with whom he was obviously familiar and also the tendency among Gentiles to worship angels. This latter tendency would be especially pronounced in the proto-Gnostic atmosphere which seems to have existed in Asia at the time. We suppose that Paul’s frequent mention of them in 1 Cor is in response to Corinthian error concerning them.
36. It occurs at 3:16; 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24.
37. Gen 1:26 identifies both as created in the image of God. Gen 2:21–23 discusses Eve’s relation to Adam. Gen 3:15 points out that, along with other natural relations, the authority relation of the husband and wife will become a source of pain. That which is new in 3:15 is not that the husband shall rule but that his rule will be painful.
38. On the meaning of ANTI see W. Hendriksen, The Gospel According to St. John, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1951), pp. 88f.
39. The RSV, ASV, NASV assume that Paul is insisting that women be covered and alter the translation to support this by rendering TOIAUTEN with “other” rather than “such.”
40. Cf. n. 3.