First Corinthians 11:2–16, Calvin, And Reformed Praxis

By Christopher G. Petrovich

[Christopher G. Petrovich resides in Niška Banja, Serbia, and conducts research in the fields of New Testament exegesis, historical theology, and the sociology of religion.]

I. Introduction

It has been suggested that 1 Cor 11:2–16 is “one of the most obscure passages in the Pauline letters.”[1] Victor Furnish has proposed that Paul’s argument “may well have seemed unsatisfactory even to the apostle himself”[2] while Francis Watson adds that this text has “flaws, obscurities, and illogicalities.”[3] What has made Paul’s case in 1 Cor 11:2–16 so controversial and “notoriously obscure”?[4] At the very least, it has arisen from our inability to understand several key statements that would have been transparent to the Corinthian church and “our inability to know exactly what Paul had previously taught the Corinthians on this subject and what they had written to him about it.”[5] Is κατακαλύπτω a reference to hairstyles or head coverings? Is Paul speaking to men and women in general or husbands and wives in particular? What does Paul mean by ἐξουσία? Why is it wrong for women to worship with their head uncovered? Is Paul reinforcing the subordination of women or is he elevating women to the role of preaching and teaching? What do the angels have to do with the κατακαλύπτω?[6] After an exegesis of this text in conversation with modern interpreters, I will consider the ways a traditional reading coheres or departs from Calvin’s reading of this text and then briefly discuss how contemporary Reformed praxis is the result not only of a particular interpretation of this text but of theological considerations.

II. Identification Of Κατακαλύπτω

Paul commences by praising the Corinthians because they remember him “in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2).[7] Fee suggests that this verse should be understood as “a kind of captatio benevolentiae to introduce chaps. 11–14”[8] because in these four chapters Paul focuses his attention on the conduct of men and women in public worship—head coverings and/or hairstyles (11:2–16), practice of the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34), and the proper use of spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40).[9] Although substantial unity can be detected in these passages, Paul’s arguments are not based upon nor exclusively applied to the ecclesiastical assembly.[10]

The tradition of which Paul speaks (see also 11:23–26; 15:1–8) includes both doctrinal content and training in Christian conduct, both of which apply far beyond the bounds of the local assembly.[11] Richard Hays points out that “Paul tactfully opened his discussion of worship practices by commending the Corinthians for keeping the traditions that he had passed on to them (11:2), but his approval is subject to severe qualifications, as the next section of the letter shows (11:17–34).”[12] Paul, therefore, provides further instruction—“But I want you to understand . . .” (1 Cor 11:3).[13] He is correcting their practice, although they were apparently conforming to previous teaching that he had given them.[14] John Chrysostom agrees when he points out, “It is clear from the way Paul begins this passage that he had already exhorted them about these matters while he was with them. Otherwise why, when he has said nothing about this earlier in the letter but dealt with other problems, does he suddenly say, I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you?”[15] In v. 4 Paul addresses three different sets of relationships—Christ and man, man and woman, and Christ and God. From this foundation Paul introduces the κατακαλύπτω. Is Paul referring to a hairstyle, as Banks, Blomberg, Collins, Evans, Furnish, Horsley, Hurley, Isaksson, Martin, Murphy-O’Connor, Padgett, Reynolds, and Schlüsser Fiorenza suggest?[16] Although the symbolic value of hairstyles deserves to be noted,[17] six reasons reveal the insufficiency of this identification:

1. In Rom 4:7 Paul quotes from Ps 32:1: “Μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι καὶ ὧν ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι.” BDAG defines the καλύπτω root as “to cause to be covered in some physical way . . . cover someone (up) . . . to cause something not to be known, hide, conceal, keep secret.”[18] Kittel points out that the basic meaning of καλύπτω “which may be traced back to Indo-European, is possibly that of hiding, or burying, in the earth. This gave rise to the more general sense, ‘to conceal,’ ‘to cover.’”[19] The καλύπτω root, therefore, has resonances of hiding or concealment which are more consistent with the function of a cloth head covering than a certain hairstyle.
2. Preston T. Massey has decisively shown that throughout the Classical, Hellenistic, and Imperial periods (1) ἀκατακαλύπτω meant “uncovered” and when it was used with κεφαλή it referred to having one’s head uncovered, (2) when loosing or unbinding the hair is described ἀκατακαλύπτος is never used, (3) when a construction such as κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν is employed a notion of a textile covering inheres in the verb, and (4) the theories of those who suggest that the κατακαλύπτω is a hairstyle cannot be supported from the language of traditional Greek dress descriptions.[20]
3. Paul used κατακαλύπτω and ἀκατακαλύπτω in vv. 4–7 and 13 but switched to περιβόλαιον in v. 15.[21] The περιβόλαιον is that which “is given to her.” It is, therefore, not an artificial style resulting from personal design but a natural endowment. The hair becomes symbolic of the further use of the head covering.
4. Paul’s increasingly adamant appeal to the Corinthians cannot be properly understood if the κατακαλύπτω is identified with a certain hairstyle because Paul is adding the significance of v. 15 to that of the κατακαλύπτω in v. 6.
5. Linda L. Belleville has pointed out that “regardless of whether ἐξουσία ἐπί τῆς κεφαλής is ‘authority upon’ or ‘power over’ her head, there is nothing in the literature of the day to connect hair with either one.”[22] Hair is the thing that is in need of covering.[23]
6. If the κατακαλύπτω Paul instructs women to wear is their hair, and a man is instructed to ἀκατακαλύπτω his head, then he must shave his head in order to pray or prophesy. This practice has never been documented by any Christian writer. If the Apostle Paul has textile coverings in mind when he is discussing the κατακαλύπτω then men would not be expected to shave their heads but women, by extension, would be expected to wear a textile covering in addition to their natural περιβόλαιον.

Several objections to this view have been raised:

1. κατά is normally translated “down” or “against” rather than “on.”[24] This objection can be resolved by identifying the nature of the covering. It is something that is not merely perched on the head but comes down over it. As I noted in the definition of καλύπτω, Paul’s emphasis appears to be on the ability of the κατακαλύπτω to hide that which it is in relation to. To “conceal against” does not make much sense. Therefore, the κατακαλύπτω is an object which comes down over and modestly conceals the head, with a possible emphasis on covering the hair (i.e., her glory).[25]
2. The word κάλυμμα is never used in this text. Paul most likely concluded that the use of κάλυμμα would have been confusing to those with backgrounds where the κάλυμμα included a face covering. Therefore, it was more appropriate to employ the more general term καλύπτω in the cosmopolitan city of Corinth. Furthermore, a noteworthy variant reading exists in v. 10: κάλυμμα is used in place of ἐξουσίαν in a Vulgate manuscript, a Coptic Bohairic manuscript, an Ethiopic text, and in the writings of Ptolemy, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and Bede.[26] Based upon this gloss, it is reasonable to conclude that since various church fathers identified the ἐξουσία as her head covering, the κατακαλύπτω is also linked to some type of head covering.
3. Since v. 14 specifically mentions men having long hair (κόμη), the real issue all along had to do with hairstyles. This third objection is mistaken because it fails to account for the analogical use of vv. 14, 15. The natural propriety of short hair for men (v. 14) and long hair for women (v. 15) acts as a counterpart to instruction about the proper use of head coverings for both men (v. 4) and women (v. 5). Paul’s argument in vv. 14, 15 is a continuation of his previous arguments and is intended to provide additional support for his appeal to their common sense in v. 13. An interpretation of the κατακαλύπτω as a hairstyle thwarts Paul’s rhetorical undertaking and undermines his logical coherence.
4. Padgett has suggested that if κατακαλύπτω is defined as “being veiled” then v. 10 would indicate that a woman would be free to veil or not veil, which would contradict vv. 5–6. Padgett’s suggestion is based upon the assumption that ἐξουσία should be defined as “possessing the ability or right to perform some act.”[27] It is difficult to see why Paul would make such an effort to convince the Corinthians of the importance of the proper use of head coverings only to leave women free to do as they wish in v. 10. If the women are free to do as they please then why are the men not given the same opportunity?
5. What should we make of Murphy-O’Connor’s suggestion that the ἀκατακαλύπτω is untended hair and the κατακαλύπτω is a head wrapped with hair?[28] Cynthia Thompson has suggested, based upon artifacts from Corinth, that Paul advised the Corinthian women to wear their hair long, in harmony with Greco-Roman practice.[29] She asserts that since most of the women’s portraits from Corinth “portray women with uncovered heads, one may infer that bareheadedness in itself was not a sign of a socially disapproved lifestyle. These women certainly wished to be seen as respectable.”[30] Thompson fails to recognize the progressive tendencies of many upper-class Roman women and also the full implications of 1 Tim 2:9 and 1 Pet 3:3 for Paul’s extended argument in 1 Cor 11:2–16. Most of the artifacts she analyzed reveal ornate bound-up hairstyles. Since Paul does not approve of such hairstyles, why should we think that he is encouraging the Corinthian women to follow their example? Furthermore, from Thompson’s vantage point it seems that “if his [Paul’s] problem were with loosed hair, one would not expect him to speak so positively about long hair (v. 15).”[31] Therefore, κατακαλύπτω is a cloth head covering as supported by Barrett, Conzelmann, Fitzmyer, Fee, Garland, Keener, Nash, and Witherington.[32]

III. Men And Women Or Husbands And Wives?

The editors of the ESV (2001) opted to translate ἀνήρ as “husband” and γυνή as “wife” throughout 1 Cor 11:2–16, whereas the NRSV adopted this translation only at v. 3. Are these translations faithful to Paul’s intended meaning? In favor of this reading, Craig Blomberg suggests, “It is much harder to understand how Paul could have claimed that every man is an authority over every woman and much easier to interpret the passage if husbands and wives are meant throughout (e.g., v. 5).”[33] Many commentators agree that γυνή might be properly translated “wife” in v. 5, due to evidence that married Roman women covered their heads in public while virgins did not.[34] The majority, however, conclude that the more generic term “woman” is the appropriate rendering throughout this text.[35] Nash challenges this conclusion by suggesting that the head covering found its significance within a family setting, and since the house church tended to blur the distinction between the home and the traditional religious setting in a temple or synagogue, the issue of proper adornment of husbands and wives needed to be addressed. Nash also suggests that the issue of married women uncovering their head finds special significance in light of the existence of the New Roman Women—when married women would go without a proper head covering it suggested that they were associated with this promiscuous group. Therefore, women going about uncovered affected the way the church was being perceived by outsiders.[36] Nash’s argument fails for two reasons. Why should we believe that the head covering was only symbolic of greater changes that would conflict with the theology of Paul, but that the casting away of the head covering itself did not constitute such a change? Second, although a blurring of the home and religious setting may have occurred (pro Garland) the fact remains that women would have been no more likely to be uncovered at home when the home became a public place than if she went to the public marketplace.

Several other considerations deserve note. First, Conzelmann has pointed out that “it is not questions of marriage that are being discussed here, but questions of the community. It is a case of the nature of man and woman as such. Paul marshals a number of arguments; the argument concerning the status of the two in marriage is not mentioned.”[37] Second, Belleville points out that Paul normally includes a possessive or reflexive pronoun or adjective for the sake of clarity.[38] Third, although Witherington recognizes that in some places Paul could be referring to husbands and wives “in some parts of the text it is clearly impossible . . . and elsewhere these translations are implausible, especially because Paul keeps saying things like ‘every man’ or ‘any woman.’”[39] It should further be observed that Paul bases his observations upon considerations linked to angels, who are not exclusively guardians of married persons,[40] and the order of creation.[41] Although the husband/wife relationship might illustrate the significance of the honor-shame motif more vividly in v. 5, it should not come as a surprise that the narrower husband/wife category is applicable to the instructions elucidated for men and women in general. Paul’s broader argument is ultimately based upon categories which transcend the more limited bounds of the marriage relationship.[42] Therefore, “man” and “woman” are the more accurate renderings of ἀνήρ and γυνή.

IV. What Does Paul Mean By ἐξουσία?

Paul informs the Corinthian men that they should not pray or prophesy with their head covered (v. 4) because they are the εἰκών (image) and the δόξα (glory) of God (v. 7).[43] Paul’s instruction to the Corinthian men about not wearing a head covering parallels the woman’s covered head (v. 5) and is based upon headship order (vv. 3, 7). He proceeds to point out that “the woman is the glory of man” (v. 7). Therefore, her glory is directed to her husband or father. She does not receive her glory from them but directs her glory through them. Her covering, therefore, symbolizes her position as a woman and her intention to glorify God through the proper channels, as Chrysostom notes: “Being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. It induces the woman to be humble and preserve her virtue, for the virtue and honor of the governed is to dwell in obedience.”[44] This brings us to a pivotal point in this text. How does v. 7 relate to vv. 8 and 9? Also, how do vv. 8 and 9 relate to v. 10 and Paul’s overall argument? Unless we dismiss the authority and inspiration of vv. 8 and 9, Paul appears to be establishing why woman is the glory of man—woman originates from man and she was made for the sake of the man. The next verse provides the conclusion of this brief argument, “Therefore the woman ought[45] to have ἐξουσία on her head.”

Commentators have posited various readings of ἐξουσία. These include authority to do things not allowed under the Old Covenant (Barrett), to have control over (Blomberg), power (Conzelmann and Fee),[46] or authority over her own head (Garland, Keener,[47] Padgett, Thiselton). The active sense of ἐξουσία seems to contradict the major thrust of Paul’s argument that a woman’s conduct should be determined not by an active assertion of the Corinthian women, but by the order of creation and the standard of propriety. As a result, many commentators have either interpreted this verse as a brief incursion into establishing women’s authority to pray and preach in the assembly (Barrett, Keener, Thiselton) or suggested that the proper reading of ἐξουσία is “a sign of authority.”[48] BeDuhn, however, avoids this maneuver by concluding that “we are forced to embrace the interpretation that the authority women have for Paul is the opportunity to exercise a right to veil themselves. By this reading, Paul is not attacking the Corinthian women’s freedom to uncover, but affirming their independence as responsible agents, even if only as a rhetorical ploy in his argument that they should cover themselves.”[49]

BeDuhn’s proposal enables us to (1) discern both active and passive aspects within ἐξουσία and (2) account for the fact that Paul is unlikely to have suddenly begun asserting a woman’s right to act as she pleases in light of his preceding arguments that she should act in accordance with the order of creation and standard of propriety.[50] BeDuhn has come close to affirming the suggestion of Kittel and other sources that ἐξουσία denotes something like a headband or veil.[51] Theodoret suggested that “Paul calls the veil authority. This means: let her show her subjection, making herself humble, not least on account of the angels, who are set over human beings and are entrusted with their care.”[52] The major drawback of BeDuhn’s perspective is that it appears counterintuitive. On the other hand, which commentator offers an explanation that does not appear counterintuitive? Other options include Watson’s proposal that since the angels are entrusted with the administration of the world then the head covering is a sign of freedom and authority in relation to these entities, Tertullian’s identification of ἐξουσία as a woman’s power against attack by evil angels,[53] or ἐξουσία as a power of protection in public (Edward, Ramsay, and Hooker) because of what she wears (κατακαλύπτω).[54] Although Watson’s theory has considerable support from egalitarian/feminist commentators,[55] it is unable to provide a coherent picture of Paul’s rhetoric or situate the conclusions within his broader realm of thought. Ultimately, it often results in the rejection of the authority and inspiration of Scripture, undermining the very foundation on which it rests.[56]

Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and Bede glossed this text as, “Therefore the woman ought to have a veil on her head.” This makes sense of the previous material because in v. 7 the reader was expecting Paul to follow “but the woman is the glory of man” with something along the lines of “therefore let her be veiled.”[57] Instead, vv. 8–9 provide the reason why she is the glory of man and v. 10 provides the conclusion, “Let her be veiled.” The main contours of Paul’s argument are now complete. In vv. 11–12, Paul endeavors to remind the Corinthians that although the preceding material is accurate and true, men are not therefore superior but interdependent, and vv. 13–16 reinforce the main points of Paul’s argument.[58]

V. Why Is It Inappropriate For Women To Pray Or Prophesy Uncovered?

Paul considers it inappropriate for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered in the church assembly. Fee suggests that the issue is a breakdown in sexual distinctions.[59] Nash proposes that although Paul was concerned with the distinctiveness of the genders, he was principally concerned that the church not be dishonored.[60] Paul argues that for a woman to be uncovered is disgraceful (v. 6).[61] She has failed to symbolize her gender role (v. 7) and to have ἐξουσία on her head (v. 10), and this is not only improper (v. 13) but is not in accordance with nature (v. 15) and is contrary to the practice of all the churches (v. 16).[62] Is Paul’s point really limited to the general principles of sexual distinction, providing an honorable witness for the church?

Most commentators argue that Paul is principally focusing on an honor-shame motif (Garland). The καταισχύνω (disgrace) of vv. 4–6 and the impropriety which is contrasted with the πρέπω (propriety) of v. 13 are therefore circumscribed by their cultural Sitz im Leben. Nature, defined by Chrysostom as “God” because “he is the one who created nature,”[63] is redefined as “the natural feelings of their contemporary culture.”[64] In Rom 1:18–28, Paul argues that since humanity was disobedient to the ethical standards clearly established in nature, they have therefore been subjected to darkened minds and divine judgment. Paul specifically states that they abandoned “natural function” (φυσικὴν χρῆσιν) and therefore “received in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Paul considered these passions ἀτιμίας (disgraceful). The parallel should not be lightly ignored. If disobedience to φύσις is ἀτιμία and results in divine displeasure in Rom 1, then it is likely so in 1 Cor 11:14 as well.

The subject of Paul’s dependence upon Stoic philosophy deserves attention. Frederick Copleston has noted that

for the Stoics . . . life according to nature meant life according to the principle that is active in nature, λόγος, the principle shared in by the human soul. The ethical end, therefore, according to the Stoics, consists essentially in submission to the divinely appointed order of the world, and Plutarch informs us that it was a general principle of Chrysippus to begin all ethical inquiries with a consideration of the order and arrangement of the universe.[65]

It is difficult to imagine that Paul was not inspired by Stoicism,[66] even if he was not directly dependent upon the Stoic interpretation of living in accordance with nature, because Cicero observed that

this formula [to live in accordance with nature] receives from the Stoics three interpretations. The first runs thus, “to live in the light of a knowledge of the natural sequence of causation.” . . . Their second interpretation is that it means the same as “to live in the performance of all, or most, of one’s immediate duties.” . . . The third interpretation of the formula is “to live in the enjoyment of all, or of the greatest, of those things which are in accordance with nature.”[67]

Paul himself sought to live in accordance with the “natural sequence of causation” even while recognizing that God has specific plans at certain times and actualizes these events through direct (or as some say, supernatural) intervention in history (Acts 16:6–7). Paul also invested considerable significance in discharging his duties, as is evident from the extended discussion about his calling and apostolic ministry in 2 Cor 2:14–6:13. In 1 Cor 9:16, Paul states, “If I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!” (NKJV). The parallels here, and also in the realm of ethical theory, are significant. Although Paul’s thought embraces a God who intervenes in history (contra Stoicism), Paul’s approach to φύσις is remarkably similar to that of Stoic thought. Therefore, the φύσις of 1 Cor 11:14 is a reference to nature as created by God rather than the societal conventions of first-century Corinth.

The disgrace (καταισχύνω) of 11:5 has endlessly been referred to as culture-bound. This approach fails to account for the diversity of Paul’s arguments. First, Pelagius points out that “Paul was complaining because men were fussing about their hair and women were flaunting their locks in church. Not only was this dishonoring to them, but it was also an incitement to fornication.”[68] This theme also appears in Tertullian’s extensive work entitled On the Veiling of the Virgins. Although the notion of modesty has been neglected in Western society, its rhetorical force becomes evident when v. 5 is viewed in light of v. 15. Her hair is given to her for a glory. This glory, which is the beauty of her natural, long hair, is therefore to be modestly covered.[69] Instead of suggesting that Paul is battling some proto-feminist movement within the Corinthian church which was attempting to inaugurate the New Jerusalem by extinguishing gender differentiation through a misappropriation of Gal 3:28, Paul encourages the women to dress modestly.[70] Modesty is the attempt to cover the form of the body and the avoidance of accentuating parts of the body which tend to act as visual stimulants of improper desire. The appeal for modesty is a call for the church to act for the good of the other through love which exhibits the beauty of the new life in the present evil age. Barrett has pointed out that “obediently to be what God intended them to be is the highest glory that human beings can achieve.”[71]

A second observation about v. 5 is that Paul parallels the disgrace (καταισχύνω throughout 11:4–6) of not wearing a head covering with the disgrace (ἀτιμία) of having a shaved head. A shaved head for a woman is set in direct contrast to v. 15 where her hair (κόμη) is considered her glory. This glory is based upon the natural order (vv. 14–15). Therefore, the use of the head covering is prefigured in creation. Since the strength of ἀτιμία is not vested in direct reference to the uncovered head of v. 5, the lack of a head covering should not be seen as being in direct opposition to nature but in direct opposition to the nature of postlapsarian conditions.[72]

VI. The Progression Of Paul’s Argument

Tremendous diversity exists over the question of how Paul’s argument develops throughout this text. Some scholars believe that Paul abruptly rewrote the history of gender relations in the middle of his argument while others read this text as an even and consistent aim toward his goal of establishing standards for the early Christian community in Corinth. The theories that have been offered include the following:

1. Verses 4–7 require women to submit to Greek cultural norms and imply their inferiority whereas vv. 10–12 allow women to wear whatever kind of head covering they wish (Padgett).
2. The sexes are differentiated in vv. 7–9, but woman is recreated with an authority equal to that of man in vv. 10–12 (Murphy-O’Connor).
3. Paul introduces creation-based hierarchical conceptuality in vv. 3, 7–9 which is surpassed and superseded by how things now stand “in the Lord” (Collins) as a turning-point between the old order of eros and the new order of agape (Watson).
4. This entire text reflects the to and fro of a discussion between schools of thought (Conzelmann).
5. This text follows a chiastic structure with v. 10 as the central assertion—women are to have control over their own heads (Garland).

It is not readily apparent how these perspectives could be reconciled with one another. What does each writer presuppose that directs his or her reading of this text in a given direction? Padgett, Murphy-O’Connor, and Watson appear to be animated by feminism while Conzelmann is preoccupied with Paul’s indebtedness to Hellenistic Judaism, and Garland is a progressive evangelical. What should we make of these five options?

1. It is difficult to see how the authority and inspiration of Scripture could be reconciled with Padgett’s perspective.
2. Murphy-O’Connor’s thesis is immediately dubious in light of the full breadth of the Pauline corpus. What indications exist within the text to suggest that Paul has revised his train of thought in vv. 13–16 over against vv. 4–9?
3. Watson’s theory is excessively speculative. It is difficult to see where he unearthed the categories of “the old order of eros” and “the new order of agape,” as though eros has diminished since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Collins’s perspective appears shaky because the question remains: “If Paul intends to affirm the new equality of man and woman, why does he select Gen 2:18–23 as his exegetical source instead of Gen 1:26, which suggests an equal . . . creation?”[73]
4. Conzelmann’s perspective relies too heavily on Hellenistic Jewish presuppositions. If “the arguments [of Paul] within it [1 Cor 11:2–16] are somewhat confused” then this would appear to be a viable hypothesis.[74] However, we have no textual reason to make this conclusion.
5. Although Garland claims to follow “the traditional way of reading this passage,”[75] he appears to diverge from this reading by assigning unwarranted weight to the shame-honor motif, asserting that Paul is instructing the Corinthian women to take control over their own heads in order to avoid losing their dignity. Why, then, does Paul go to such great lengths to reprove the Corinthians if they are only infringing on matters related to culturally defined decorum? Furthermore, why does Paul ground his arguments in nature if he only had localized concerns in mind? Finally, is it not true that Paul wrote this letter not only to the church of God at Corinth but also to “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:2)?

Where does Paul go with his argument in v. 11? A feminist or egalitarian reading of this text sees v. 11 as a decisive turning point from authoritarianism and submission to “freedom in Christ.”[76] The old ways established by custom and derived from nature have disappeared. Corrington suggests, “Here [vv. 11–12], as in vv. 8–9, Paul is once more referring to origins, but he has removed the language of hierarchy. . . . These categories have been temporarily suspended.”[77] Ciampa and Rosner have pointed out that “the very experience of human birth in the natural or created order demonstrates that the principle of mutual interdependence does not originate, Marcion-like, with the new order of the gospel in the Lord.”[78] Since Paul’s case for interdependence is based upon women’s role in giving birth to every male child, a fact which has been true since the time of Adam and Eve, it is not an eschatological category based upon the arrival of a new dispensation. Therefore, in vv. 11–12 Paul does not begin a new theme but appeals to a long-established fact to highlight that men and women are in mutual need of each other. Verse 11 is an attempt to keep his previous comments within proper perspective, as Ambrosiaster suggests when he argues that Paul’s “purpose here is two-fold: that the woman will not be upset because of her state of subjection, and that the man will not be proud, imagining that he has some exalted position.”[79] Paul’s arguments continue unabated in vv. 13–16. In fact, Paul intensifies his fervor by employing the term ἀτιμία in v. 14.

VII. The Conclusion Of Paul’s Argument

Paul asks the Corinthians in v. 13 if “it is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered.” If Paul had been arguing in vv. 6, 7, and 10 that women should not act disgracefully because of their cultural situation, that women have the authority to pray and prophesy, and that men and women have an equal status and equal roles (as egalitarian readings suggest), why should Paul think that he has provided them with reasons to conclude that women should not pray uncovered in the presence of the angels (v. 10)? Maybe they should not pray uncovered so as to avoid dishonoring the angels. The angels, however, would not be offended if the Corinthian women were going uncovered if it was only culturally relevant to the first-century Corinthian setting. Maybe, then, the angels would be offended that the Corinthians were offending their neighbors. This suggestion appears to be a case of special pleading. Instead, if Paul is arguing on the basis of (1) creational priority, (2) the nature of an honorable relationship between men and women (v. 7), (3) the importance of modesty and (4) symbolizing this situation before the angels, and (5) receiving the ἐξουσία, in the sense of an ethical authority to speak into the lives of others, that she would deserve for her faithfulness (v. 10), then we have substantial grounds to believe that the Corinthians should now be convinced of the importance of the head covering, and be prepared to offer an affirmative response.[80]

In vv. 14–15, Paul proceeds to argue for the head covering by way of analogy—the natural περιβόλαιον of the hair.[81] This analogy is grounded upon nature, that is, the natural order of things.[82] Although ἀντί can be translated “in place of,” BDAG identifies the significance of its use here as “indicating that one thing is equivalent to another.” This analogous usage is also evident in Rom 12:17, 1 Thess 5:15, and 1 Pet 3:9. Not rendering evil for evil is equivalent to “always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.” The shift often posited by egalitarian and feminist commentators (in vv. 10–11) commits them to acknowledging an inherent contradiction between vv. 4–7 and vv. 10–12.[83] If some readers still opt to follow the egalitarian paradigm, one more reason can be given for abandoning it—Paul’s appeal to the practice of all the churches (v. 16).[84] If this disgrace was culture-bound why did the Jerusalem Christians, who were overwhelmingly Jews of some stripe, practice the use of the head covering?[85] Furthermore, why did Paul make an appeal to a universal Christian practice? Commentators who adopt an egalitarian reading of this text, if they have not yet been convinced of the incompatibility of their view with this Pauline text, will now be forced to admit to the existence of an abrupt transition at the tail end of Paul’s discourse.[86] In conclusion, it is therefore preferable to adopt the traditional outline of this text because, among other reasons, it does not require such a sudden and unexpected shift at the end of Paul’s lengthy discourse about head coverings and other related topics in 1 Cor 11:2–16.[87] The practice Paul sought to establish was symbolized in creation and, though not part of Jewish law, had a place in God’s unfolding plan for humanity.[88]

VIII. Calvin On 1 Corinthians 11:2–16

In what ways does my exegesis cohere with or depart from Calvin’s reading of this text? I will begin by highlighting three significant ways in which Calvin concurs with my interpretation of this text. First, he did not consider the κατακαλύπτω to be the woman’s hair or a particular hairstyle but instead a covering, “whether it be a robe, or a veil, or any other kind of covering.”[89] He suggested this because “should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it.”[90] Second, Calvin agrees that ἀνήρ and γυνή includes husbands and wives because “if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection—involving contempt of her husband.”[91] Calvin suggests, however, that “Paul looks beyond this [husband and wife relationship]—to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men.”[92] For Calvin, Paul’s argument from nature is therefore “applicable to virgins also.”[93] In short, ἀνήρ and γυνή should be rendered “man” and “woman” rather than exclusively “husband” and “wife.” Third, Calvin interprets the ἐξουσία of v. 7 as “an instance of metonymy, for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband.”[94] Calvin therefore embraces the traditional reading of this text in three noteworthy ways.

Calvin’s discussion of 1 Cor 11:2–16 has several unique features. First, he suggests that Paul is encouraging his readers to imitate the life of Christ. Rather than compelling his readers to follow enactments which are the result of “contriving everything that might strike their fancy,” Paul only requires “that they should be imitated, in so far as they are imitators of Christ.”[95] Calvin is arguing for a return to Christian simplicity vis-à-vis the accumulated tradition of Roman Catholicism. This is a return ad fontes (argumentorum) to the biblical text which evades trampling the Pauline emphasis on the life of Christ as paradigmatic for rendering Christian faith(fulness) in concrete action.[96]Calvin is attempting to navigate his readers between the twin threats of spiritualism and traditionalism and in doing so he offers the motif of imitatio Christi as the guiding feature of the redeemed life. Second, Calvin’s interpretation takes on a polemical tone as he aims to destroy the foundation of Catholic traditionalism. He appears driven to his conclusions, at least in part, by the necessity of offering not only a more accurate interpretation of Holy Scripture but also a more feasible ecclesiastical structure for the citizens of Geneva.[97] Third, the issue of head coverings is labeled a matter of decorum and propriety. Paul therefore is unwilling to “disturb civil order or honorary distinctions” and argues in favor of “outward propriety and decorum—which is a part of ecclesiastical polity.”[98] Although some modern interpreters of Calvin consider his Ecclesiastical Ordinances to be excessive and overbearing, Calvin, a “child of the world of ecclesiastical courts,”[99] reduced the complexity of ecclesiastical law compared with late medieval canons. This feature not only provided justification for his reform movement in Geneva but also enabled him to be more demanding on subjects for which explicit scriptural direction could be found. Fourth, Calvin is not so exacting as to suggest that Paul’s injunctions need to be adhered to scrupulously, as when he argues that it is appropriate for a minister to, after he has uncovered his head to reveal his God-ordained order, “afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold.”[100] Calvin believes, however, that the use of head coverings is not merely limited to public worship because he explicitly states that “women should not go out in public with uncovered heads.”[101] Fifth, Calvin considers the uncovering of a woman’s head “as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust.”[102] Sixth, although ancient men often had long hair, Calvin argues that “as in Greece it was reckoned an unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long . . . he [Paul] reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed.”[103]

We now turn to Calvin’s application of propriety and decorum in church administration, as discussed in Book 4 of the Institutes. Calvin is here instructing those who have entertained the thought of discarding all external religious forms, as well as ecclesiastical discipline, in favor of spiritualized Christianity. He suggests that they must establish “legitimate church observances” because these observances “promote reverence toward sacred things” and “provide for its peace and quietness.”[104] Decorum in worship is then identified as “something so fitted to the reverence of the sacred mysteries that it may be a suitable exercise for devotion, or at least will serve as an appropriate adornment of the act. And this should not be fruitless but should indicate to believers with how great modesty, piety, and reverence they ought to treat sacred things.”[105] Decorum is then divided into two categories. The first category is identified as pertaining to rites and ceremonies and includes the injunction against allowing profane drinking bouts to be mingled with the Sacred Supper, that women should not go out in public with their heads uncovered, praying with bent knees and head bare, and administering the sacraments with dignity. The second category pertains to discipline and peace and includes setting hours for ecclesiastical meetings, fixed days for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and forbidding women to teach in the church. Calvin’s regulative principle is that he approved “only those human constitutions which are founded upon God’s authority, drawn from Scripture, and, therefore, wholly divine.”[106] His aim is to avoid the imposition of a burdensome tradition not explicitly founded on scriptural texts as well as the disintegration of all human structures in favor of a spiritualized ecclesiastical order. However, he also suggests that

because he [God] did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies to prescribe in detail what we ought to (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity of the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these.[107]

Calvin, therefore, wanted to adapt, albeit slowly and with considerable caution, to changing times.

Calvin’s treatment of this subject seems uneven. He appears to suggest that decorum is subject to adjustment according to the times, though he did not approve of charging “into innovation rashly, suddenly, for insufficient cause,”[108] deeming love the safest guide. However, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians Calvin bases the use of the woman’s head covering upon divinely established order and believes it is an institution that all women, not merely married women, should uphold, adding rather matter-of-factly, even when outside the home. It has been suggested that Calvin granted greater freedom to women than we read here,[109] allowing them to follow “the established custom of the region, or humanity itself and the rule of modesty.” However, Calvin’s exemption for women in Book 4 is such that “if a woman needs such haste to help a neighbor that she cannot stop to cover her head, she does not offend if she runs to her with head uncovered.”[110] This hardly grants her the right to cast it aside entirely or to re-appropriate its use at some later date based upon the state of societal opinion. Calvin, far from casting the covering aside or allowing it to become displaced by new customs, recognizes it as an explicit scriptural command and an aspect of the divinely established order. Although François Wendel observes that Calvin does not “advocate any servile imitation of the institutions of the primitive church,”[111] his traditional interpretation of this text was not in need of being propped up by a restorationist ecclesiology.

IX. Appropriating 1 Corinthians 11:2–16

The appropriation of this text has taken varying, and contradictory, forms since the advent of the Protestant Reformation (and earlier). Today, few Presbyterian women wear a head covering in public. However, it is not unusual to find the head covering being used in more conservative denominations such as the OPC or CREC, at least during prayer or public worship. In conservative Anabaptist groups, such as Old Order Mennonites, Old Order Amish, Amish-Mennonites, and conservative Mennonites, women wear a head covering at all times. What is the cause of such diversity? Although I have neither the space nor the expertise to expound upon the use of head coverings in the Reformed tradition from the death of Calvin until the present, I can point out that the contemporary Reformed community can be divided into two camps: (1) those who do not expect women to cover their head at any time, and (2) those who advocate the use of the head covering for women during prayer and public worship. The first group typically considers the head covering superfluous in light of contemporary societal values and possibly even counter-productive or wrong, depending upon the interpreter’s perspective on issues related to gender. The latter group adopts the use of head coverings for women but only applies it to times of prayer and public worship because they view it as a matter of religious ritual and not an instrument of modesty. Therefore, its use is most common among those who endeavor to retain, or revive, the values (and culture) of a supposedly more faithful Christian culture from a former era, or who adopt a pattern or style of dress which considers head gear an essential ingredient in its pattern. The question here is how Christ, and by extension new covenant believers, relate to culture.

The conservative wing of the Anabaptist tradition typically, though not universally, deems the woman’s head covering to be an instrument of modesty as well as an object brimming with symbolic significance, though they focus on day-to-day conduct more than weekly (or in their case, bi-weekly) “in house” ecclesiastical rituals. Their retention of the head covering as an obligatory component of women’s dress is based in large part upon their separation from societal influences and emphasis on modesty and humility. As a result, their members are much more likely to consider the preservation of the woman’s head covering an act of covenant faithfulness in spite of the waywardness of North American religious societies.[112] Therefore, it has become a sign of ritual separation from an ungodly multitude, a paradigm which is quintessentially Anabaptist but plays a much more muted role in Reformed thought.[113] Since the Apostle Paul declares that a woman’s hair is her glory, and yet expects her to cover it, wearing a head covering becomes an act of humility, a point which many interpreters overlook, seemingly searching for a theology of glory in spite of the fact that Paul can aptly be described as a theologian of the cross. The persistence of this practice, called an ordinance by Mennonites striving to retain this practice in the face of pressure to assimilate, will largely be determined by ethical (defining modesty), spiritual (how to embody humility), and ecclesiological (separation from vs. integration with “the world”) considerations.

X. Conclusion

Throughout this article I have engaged a Pauline text which stands at the nexus of dogmatic and practical theology. Although most scholars are preoccupied with the significance of 1 Cor 11:2–16 for the gender debate, I have endeavored to shift the discussion back to head coverings, ethics, and religious ritual. Although few will be inclined to adopt the traditional reading of this text, I hope to stimulate further discussion about hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and Pauline ethics and spirituality, and how a reconsideration of this text might inform and/or transform those discussions. Theological, not exegetical, considerations will primarily guide the way in which the Reformed tradition appropriates this text in the years to come.

Notes

1. Wayne Meeks, The Writings of St. Paul (New York: Norton, 1972), 38.
2. Victor Paul Furnish, The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 77. Did Paul approach the Corinthians in an aggressive (Conzelmann, Murphy-O’Connor, Padgett) or calm (Coolidge, Fee) manner? Cf. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975); John Coolidge Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983); Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 496-97, 506-12; Alan Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church: The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, ” JSNT 20 (1984): 69-86. Francis Watson, “The Authority of the Voice: A Theological Reading of 1 Cor 11.2-16, ” NTS 46 (2000): 520-36, suggests that Paul’s interpretation of male/female relationships is one of interdependence. The veil is a symbol of woman’s freedom from an erotic basis for the relationship of male and female derived from creation. The subordinationist language of 11:7-9 is juxtaposed with vv. 11-12, as it now stands “in the Lord.” Does the woman’s uncovered head bring shame to her and to her metaphorical head? Watson argues that shame only applies to her head. He appears, however, to make this move in order to detach overtones of headship from v. 3 in an attempt to make room for a revisionist reading of this text. Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church,” 69-84, has suggested that Paul responded to the radicalism of the Corinthians (conveyed in vv. 4-7) in vv. 10-12. Thomas P. Shoemaker, “Unveiling of Equality: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, ” BTB 17 (1987): 60-63, suggests that 11:3-9 is a quote derived from those who wanted women to submit to veiling and a hierarchical structure. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” CBQ 42 (1980): 485-87, 489, hypothesizes that Paul is responding to male hairstyles which were suggestive of homosexuality and to women who failed to wrap their hair around their head because they strove to be as scandalous as possible since they considered it a sign of their new spiritual freedom. For an overview of interpretive approaches taken from the mid-1800s until the late 1970s (and also including Calvin), see Linda Mercadante, From Hierarchy to Equality: A Comparison of Past and Present Interpretations of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 in Relation to the Changing Status of Women in Society (Vancouver: G-M-H Books, 1978).
3. Watson, “Authority of the Voice,” 522.
4. Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 287.
5. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 730.
6. The question of whether this text contains a non-Pauline interpolation was raised by William O. Walker, Jr., “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul’s Views Regarding Women,” JBL 94 (1975): 94-110; Walker, “The Theology of Women’s Place and the ‘Paulinist Traditions,’” Semeia 28 (1983): 101-12; Walker, “The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16: Pauline or Non-Pauline?,” JSNT 35 (1989): 75-88; and decisively handled by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?,” JBL 95 (1976): 615-21. Christopher Mount, “1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” JBL 124 (2005): 313-40, suggests that “Paul’s understanding of authority and identity for individuals within the community is determined by spirit possession, not by the created order of this age maintained by the church” (p. 315).
7. All Scripture quotations are taken from the NASB unless otherwise noted.
8. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 500.
9. This grouping is also adopted by Alfred Plummer and Archibald T. Robertson, First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 226. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 510, proposes that 14:34-35 functions as a bookend with 11:2-16. He suggests that 11:16 is parallel to 14:33b, 11:7-12 with 14:34, and 11:6 with 14:35. Should we regard just women (Ciampa, Collins, Garland, Meier, Rosner) or both men and women (Murphy-O’Connor, Oster, Witherington) as the focus of this passage?
10. Roy A. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 538-39, point out that since women should be covered in public, they should therefore be covered in worship. Although Roman decorum might not be what Paul has in view, the point remains that Paul’s argument could just as easily proceed from a general principle (modesty) to the particular application found in this text.
11. John P. Meier, “On the Veiling of Hermeneutics (1 Cor 11:2-16),” CBQ 40 (1978): 215-16.
12. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (IBC; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 192.
13. For a discussion of Paul’s tactic in these verses, see Hurd, Origin of 1 Corinthians, 90-91, 182-86; and Jason David BeDuhn, “Because of the Angels: Unveiling Paul’s Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 11, ” JBL 118 (1999): 298.
14. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “1 Corinthians 11:16 and the Character of Pauline Exhortation,” JBL 110 (1991): 680-81. Watson, “Authority of the Voice,” 526, argues that women prophets were not abandoning a traditional head covering based upon “some enthusiastic belief about the abolition of gender differences in Christ, for at Corinth the head-covering is not traditional but an innovation that Paul only now seeks to impose.”
15. John Chrysostom, in 1 Corinthians Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators (vol. 5 of The Church’s Bible; ed. Judith L. Kovacs; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 178.
16. Cf. Robert Banks, “Paul and Women’s Liberation,” Interchange 18 (1976): 81-104; Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 210-14; Mary J. Evans, Woman in the Bible (Exeter: Paternoster, 1983), 87-88; Furnish, Theology of the First Letter, 76-77; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990); J. B. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 1 Cor 14:33b-36, ” WTJ 35 (1973): 190-220; Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1965), 166-85; William Martin, “I Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel (ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martyn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970); Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Cor 11:2-16 Once Again,” CBQ 50 (1988): 265-69; Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 482-99; Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church,” 70; Stephen Reynolds, “Colloquium,” WTJ 36 (1973): 90-91; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroads, 1983), 227-29.
17. Kelly Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman: Self-Presentation and Society (New York: Routledge, 2008), 96-110.
18. “καλύπτω,” BDAG 505.
19. A. Oepke, “καλύπτω,” TDNT 3:556-58. Consult the discussion found in Garland, 1 Corinthians, 517-20.
20. Preston T. Massey, “The Meaning of κατακαλύπτω and κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16, ” NTS 53 (2007): 502-23.
21. Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman, 53, 71, has observed that ample locks, reaching even below the waistline, were required for elaborately constructed hairstyles and that such hairstyles were often extremely ornate from a front view and would have proven to be a difficult location to situate a head covering. Padgett has suggested that περιβόλαιον describes standard Greek coiffure while Cynthia L. Thompson, “Hairstyles, Head-Coverings, and St. Paul: Portraits from Roman Corinth,” BA 52 (1988): 112, suggests that it is in harmony with Greco-Roman customs. Padgett misses the point because he identifies the κατακαλύπτω as coiffure while Thompson’s suggestion falters because it fails to account for Olson’s observations and Paul’s criticism of elaborate hairstyles (1 Tim 2:9-10; 1 Pet 3:3-4).
22. Linda L. Belleville, “ΚΕΦΑΛΗ and the Thorny Issue of Head Covering in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, ” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict (ed. Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliott; Boston: Brill, 2003), 219-20.
23. Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter, 539. If modesty was an issue in Roman Corinth then Ciampa and Rosner are correct in pointing out that her hair is the very thing which needs to be covered.
24. Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 484.
25. Plutarch used κατά κεφαλής to refer to an item resting on the head. See Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 233.
26. UBS4, 592; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London-New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 495.
27. Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church,” 71.
28. Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 488-89.
29. Cf. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 185-86; Chrysostom, Homilies on First and Second Corinthians (ANF 10:149).
30. Thompson, “Hairstyles, Head-Coverings, and St. Paul,” 112.
31. Watson, “Authority of the Voice,” 534.
32. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1968), 249; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 188; Fee, First Corinthians, 496-97, 506-12; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 517; Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, 90-94; Robert Scott Nash, 1 Corinthians (Smyth & Helwys Commentary 25a; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2009), 319-20; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 831; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 237.
33. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 210.
34. See Judith Lynn Sebesta, “Symbolism in the Costume of the Roman Woman,” in The World of Roman Costume (ed. Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1994), 47-48; Ramsay MacMullen, “Women in Public in the Roman Empire,” Historia 29 (1980): 208-18; Joseph Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians (AB; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 413. This conclusion has been challenged by Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman, 34, 53-54. Richard Oster, “When Men Wore Veils to Worship: The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11.4,” NTS 34 (1988): 481-505, argues that the situation in Corinth was brought on by Roman practices and their fixation on “proper” apparel in contrast to Greek clothing styles which focused more on ornamentation (pp. 488-93) and that pious Roman men worshiped with a covered head (pp. 493-502). The men should set aside the devotional covering for theological reasons. It is difficult to understand why Paul would baptize a Roman custom and attach it to creation order, nature, reason, and the angels. Oster’s proposal that Paul is correcting some women who were in Corinth without a Roman background (who were therefore worshiping with uncovered head) and some men who were worshiping with covered head due to their Roman background, seems stretched. Why would Paul go to so much effort to stop some men from covering their heads and instruct some women to keep covering their heads if it was only a Roman custom? It seems quite antithetical to Paul’s approach to suggest that he is attempting to force local customs on believers from other cultures.
35. E.g., Fee, 1 Corinthians, 499, 508; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 514; Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 248-49.
36. Nash, 1 Corinthians, 327-28.
37. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 184.
38. Belleville, “ΚΕΦΑΛΗ,” 223.
39. Witherington, Conflict and Community, 235.
40. If the angels Paul has in mind are evil angels then it should be noted that evil angels do not merely target married persons.
41. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 188.
42. Although “husband” and “wife” might be more fitting in v. 6, BeDuhn, “Because of the Angels,” 300-301, has noted that vv. 11-12 require the generic translations “man” and “woman.”
43. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 183, argues that image/reflection was brought over from Greek philosophy.
44. Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians,” in 1-2 Corinthians (ed. Gerald Bray; ACCS; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 108.
45. Ben Witherington III, Women and the Genesis of Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 168, suggests that “ought” signifies moral obligation.
46. A Pentecostal interpretation, as evinced in Janet Everts Powers, “Recovering a Woman’s Head with Prophetic Authority: A Pentecostal Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16, ” JPT 10 (2001): 11-37, argues that Paul’s main thrust is to establish the ministry of women. She receives ἐξουσία by submitting to cultural custom in order to avoid causing offense. It is difficult to imagine that the rhetoric of this entire chapter is intended to establish the prophetic office of women, or at least ἐξουσία within this office, on the basis of avoiding cultural offense. Powers does identify the contextual link between creation order and the possibility of κεφαλή being translated “source” or “origin,” but she fails to recognize how Paul’s statement in v. 7 is completed in vv. 8-9, before the reader arrives at v. 10, “because of the angels.” Her case, therefore, appears to be dependent on imported ideology.
47. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, 94, suggests that she is given the freedom to do as she wishes but that she should ultimately do what is beneficial for the common good.
48. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 509, argues that Paul is not attempting to prove that speaking in public is permissible.
49. BeDuhn, “Because of the Angels,” 303.
50. She is both passively submitting to and accepting the principle of covering her head and actively participating in veiling herself.
51. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 838.
52. Kovacs, 1 Corinthians, 183.
53. “Some think that Paul refers to the fallen angels, who lusted after women in Genesis 6:1-4; although most later rabbis demurred, this was the most popular understanding of Gen 6 in Paul’s day (cf. 1 Enoch 6-19; 1 Pet 3:19-20; Jude 6)” (Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, 94).
54. See the suggestion of Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 188, that the head covering compensates for the natural weakness of women.
55. Cf. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 71, 89, 120, 161-62.
56. The Corinthian women prophets are sometimes seen as challenging Paul’s theological construction which will ultimately result in full freedom for women within the eschatological Christian community. See Elizabeth A. Castelli, “Paul on Women and Gender,” in Women and Christian Origins (ed. Ross Shepard Kraemer and Mary Rose D’Angelo; New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 229; Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction Through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 116-34.
57. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 514.
58. Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (SP 7; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1999), 403, has suggested that πλήν should be translated “on the other hand” as indicating a forceful contrast with what has come before. Collins believes that Paul reveals how new creation in Christ is comprehensive and transforms the established order.
59. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 512.
60. Nash, 1 Corinthians, 344-45.
61. Padgett, “Because of the Angels,” 71, has argued that although it is a shame for women in the church not to wear their hair bound up and beautified in the Greek manner, this does not say that it must or should be a shame. I find Padgett’s distinction between “is” and “should” unsatisfactory not only because he misreads ἐξουσία but also because it seems to overlook the main thrust of Paul’s argument. Paul is not merely stating that going uncovered is shameful but also explaining to the Corinthians why it is shameful. Watson, “Authority of the Voice,” 530, suggests that Paul’s use of the term “shame” refers to the shame of nakedness. Martin, Corinthian Body, 242-49, also argues for this interpretation but his overreliance on material from Gentile mystery religions and neglect of Palestinian Jewish sources distorts his conclusion.
62. Paul only provides an explanation of why it is shameful for a man to wear a head covering. However, by implication Paul assumes his readers will conclude that the woman should have her head covered because she is not the direct glory of God. See Fee, 1 Corinthians, 514. Her goal, then, is to glorify God through man. As she faithfully lives within her divine realm and calling (see Gen 2:18, 24, 3:16; 1 Tim 2:15) she brings honor and glory through her husband to God (see also 1 Cor 7:14). Although Fee argues that Paul is not explicating v. 3, woman’s relationship to man is not that she is a lesser being but that her role within the order of the universe is of a different type. Bringing glory to, and through, man as the means of glorifying God is the very essence of her position. Therefore, it is difficult to think that v. 7 would not be Paul’s way of explaining what he began in v. 3. See Fee, 1 Corinthians, 516. BeDuhn notes that “Paul’s views about the appropriate appearance distinctive to men and women in worship are based on a hierarchy of ‘headship,’ which in turn rests on created priority that subordinates women in origin (‘from’), purpose, and status (‘for’) to men. In other words, v. 8 serves Paul as an argument from procession, while v. 9 functions as an argument from subordination” (BeDuhn, “Because of the Angels,” 301). Although the term “hierarchy” has negative connotations among most contemporary interpreters, the core of BeDuhn’s argument is valid.
63. Kovacs, 1 Corinthians, 180.
64. Cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 527; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 509.
65. Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 1: Greece and Rome: From the Pre-Socratics to Plotinus (New York: Image, 1993), 395.
66. Collins, First Corinthians, 402; Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, 94; and Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 190, suggest that Paul’s argument has a Stoic ring to it, contra Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 491. For arguments that Paul is attempting to counteract influence from Epicureanism, see Graham Tomlin, “Christians and Epicureans in 1 Corinthians,” JSNT 20 (1998): 51-71. For the idea that Paul presents himself as a Cynic philosopher, see F. Gerald Downing, Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches (New York: Routledge, 1998), 27-32. Downing argues that Paul’s Stoic approach in 1 Cor 11 is in contrast to his wide-ranging Cynic approach (rejecting the Law and a variety of conventions) and is an attempt to reign in the results of a rejection of law and order (pp. 60-66). Stoicism is also presented as a sparring partner (pp. 70-74). I find these suggestions unconvincing because Paul was not opposed to law qua law but to the applicability of the Mosaic Law to the New Covenant. 1 Cor 11, rather than being an aberration, displays Paul’s underlying Jewish and Stoic sensibilities, as revealed within the framework of the New Covenant.
67. Jason L. Saunders, ed., Greek and Roman Philosophy After Aristotle (New York: Free Press, 1994), 112-13.
68. Pelagius, “Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians,” in 1-2 Corinthians (Bray, ed.), 106.
69. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 510, believes Paul is arguing that Christian women should show themselves to be “demure, chaste, and modest.”
70. Watson notes, “The distinction between Jew and Greek does not constitute a hierarchical relationship, since each party regards itself as superior to the other. From a Greek perspective, the distinction is related to the broader differentiation between ‘Greeks and barbarians’ (Rom 1.14). . . . The emphasis lies not on their ‘equality’ but on their belonging together as they participate in the new identity and the new practices and modes of interaction that this will entail” (Watson, “Authority of the Voice,” 21).
71. Barrett, First Epistle, 257.
72. The most likely reason for this is that Eve would have had long hair but not a head covering. Therefore, it goes against the very nature of woman to have a shaved head but going about uncovered goes against a postlapsarian condition.
73. Elaine H. Pagels, “Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion,” JAAR 42 (1974): 543-44.
74. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 182.
75. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 506.
76. Cf. Judith M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 196-99.
77. Gail Paterson Corrington, “The ‘Headless Woman’: Paul and the Language of the Body in 1 Cor 11:2-16, ” PRSt 18 (1991): 226.
78. Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter, 536.
79. Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (ed. and trans. Gerald L. Bray; Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove: InterVarsity: 2009), 173.
80. Plummer and Robertson, First Epistle, 233, argue, “If a woman thinks lightly of shocking men, she must remember that she will also be shocking the angels, who of course are present at public worship.” Although this appears to provide a reasonable approach to this text, it is not available to those who see hairstyles as culturally relative. Witherington, Conflict and Community, 232, suggests that Paul is basing his argument on inartificial and artificial proofs, Scripture, conventions (honor-shame), Pauline custom, the custom of other churches (Witherington, Women and the Genesis of Christianity, 170), nature, and order.
81. Watson, “Authority of the Voice,” 533.
82. Contemporary commentators have routinely rejected the view that Paul is referring to a physiological or creational order. See Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 844-46. The traditional view has maintained that Paul is referring to a creational order which is based upon a type of “natural law” with which humanity is endowed at birth. Paul’s anthropology remains a highly disputed subject.
83. Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church,” 69.
84. Some commentators have argued that Paul is dealing with behavior that is not overtly homosexual but manifests appearances of homosexual behavior. See Barrett, First Epistle, 257; Robin Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” JAAR 40 (1972): 29; Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 485-88. Padgett’s succinct comment, “It is nevertheless difficult to understand what this has to do with being the image and glory of God (v. 7),” conclusively handles this proposal (Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church,” 71). The proposal of homosexuality as one of Paul’s main focal points tends to indicate an eisegetical method in which modern problems are mapped back onto ancient texts. Although Murphy-O’Connor suggests that Paul avoided directly confronting the issue of suggestive dress because he did not want to make false accusations, Murphy-O’Connor’s narrative is too speculative to accept. However, his handling of this issue reveals that the practices dealt with in 11:2-16 are not necessarily bound to the assembly because they might be based upon more elementary principles which could and should be applied outside the gathering of believers. Thompson, “Hairstyles, Head-Coverings, and St. Paul,” 113, has suggested that Paul left the choice to each individual because the Corinthians were stuck between Greco-Roman practices and those from Asia Minor, Syria, and Arabia. Since Paul had spent time in Arabia, he would have brought this tension back with him. This is an interesting proposal and reflects the diversity in Paul’s background, although it seems unlikely this matter will be easily resolved.
85. Egalitarian commentators typically deduce that the use of the head covering was based upon a distinctively Greek or Roman custom. Since it was a Jewish custom, the above argument is invalidated. Tertullian, writing in the second century, noted that “among the Jews, so usual is it for their women to have the head veiled, that they may thereby be recognized” (Cor. 4.95). Tertullian’s view, as evidenced here in ch. 4 of De corona militis, is more subtle than simply assigning its origination to Jewish doctrine. The issue, therefore, does not revolve around the importance of being respectful of cultural norms, or even the appearance of culturally conditioned impropriety, but of the relationship between the Oral Law and the New Covenant. Additionally, the new birth is the inception of a new type of life—a transformed life lived out in the presence of Christ and in a community of believers. Therefore, the question should not even arise as to whether or not Christian conduct appears to be similar to a movement such as the New Roman Women. The women would offer no appearance that they are following the trends of a corrupt and decaying society. Although the theory of early Christian development offered by the history of religions school overemphasized the opposition to Hellenism within Palestinian Judaism, it remains accurate to assert that Hebraic patterns found more significant emphasis among certain groups in Jerusalem. Cf. Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); and Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 26-31, 117-18. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 185, argues that a modest Jewess of Paul’s day would have worn a head covering. Meier, “On the Veiling of Hermeneutics,” 216, suggests that Paul and the Corinthians are following a practice that was inherited from the Jewish synagogue both inside and outside Palestine.
86. On the contrastive strength of πλήν, see Engberg-Pedersen, “1 Corinthians 11:16, ” 683-84. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 847, proposes that the custom was “the acceptance of an equality of status in accordance with which woman may lead in public prayer or preaching . . . side by side with a recognition that gender differences must not be blurred but appreciated, valued, and expressed in appropriate ways in response to God’s unrevoked decree.” This suggestion is highly speculative because at no point does Paul explicitly declare that this is his subject. If this had been his subject all along then he would have presumably not needed to employ such circuitous and obscure reasoning.
87. Furnish, Theology of the First Letter, 77, has suggested that Paul makes an abrupt change in vv. 11-12. The incoherence of this position becomes evident when Furnish notes that “Paul runs the risk of sabotaging his own argument when he attests that their common dependence on God puts man and woman on an equal footing (vv. 11-12).”
88. Lucille A. Roussin, “Costume in Roman Palestine: Archaeological Remains and the Evidence from the Mishnah,” in The World of Roman Costume, 186. Cf. Melanie Landau, “Re-Covering Woman as Religious Subject: Reflections on Jewish Women and Hair-Covering,” Australian Journal of Jewish Studies 22 (2008): 57-63. I am not offering a radical, eschatological transition but rather a general improvement in awareness of the importance of wearing a head covering which comes to fulfillment and permanence with the theological case of Paul. Ambrosiaster hints at something similar when he states, “After giving reasons to refute dissenters, Paul lays down his authority, claiming that Jewish custom knew nothing of unveiled women, so neither Moses nor the Savior handed down such a tradition. This is why he says that neither he nor the churches of God [recognize any other practice]” (Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians [Bray, ed.], 173).
89. John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (vol. 20 of Calvin’s Commentaries; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1848; repr. in 22 vols., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 358.
90. Ibid., 356.
91. Ibid.
92. Ibid., 358.
93. Ibid., 358-59.
94. Ibid., 358.
95. Ibid., 352-53.
96. Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 142.
97. Karen E. Spierling, Infant Baptism in Reformation Geneva (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 18; William G. Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (New York: Manchester University Press, 1994), 231.
98. Calvin, Commentary, 354.
99. Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 82.
100. Calvin, Commentary, 355.
101. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1207.
102. Calvin, Commentary, 356.
103. Ibid., 362.
104. Calvin, Inst., 1206.
105. Ibid., 1206-7.
106. Ibid., 1207.
107. Ibid., 1208.
108. Ibid.
109. See McNeill’s comments in Calvin, Inst., 1208 n. 50. McNeill offers the category of “secondary matters” for the sake of classification.
110. Ibid., 1209.
111. François Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (trans. Philip Mairet; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 302.
112. Donald B. Kraybill and James P. Hurd, Horse-and-Buggy Mennonites: Hoofbeats of Humility in a Postmodern World (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), 57-60; Donald B. Kraybill, The Riddle of Amish Culture (rev. ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 57-63.
113. Ralph W. Wood, Jr., Peter C. Hill, and W. Paul Williamson, The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism (New York: Guilford, 2005), 134-37, 144.