1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation

By Bruce K. Waltke

[Bruce K. Waltke, Professor of Old Testament, Regent College, Vancouver, British Columbia.]

In 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 the Apostle Paul discusses the appropriate headdress for the sexes. If churches would include that passage (along with 1 Cor 11:17–34) as part of their reading at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, they would be guarded against some of the extreme positions of the women’s liberation movement and the theological error that denies a hierarchical structure of the sexes. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and as a result many believers are succumbing to pressures from both without and within the church to abandon Paul’s clear teaching on this subject.

Perhaps this text has been neglected because of the many interpretive problems with which it confronts the expositor. In the light of the present crisis facing the churches regarding the social ordering of the sexes and the centrality of this text to that discussion, it seems fitting to reconsider the passage. A fresh interpretation will be attempted by considering some of its key theological terms and concepts, by reconstructing its historical background as much as possible, and by synthesizing its argument to expose Paul’s intention.

Although Paul does not say so explicitly, it seems probable to suppose that some of the individualistic Corinthians were proposing that their women throw off their traditional veils which symbolized their subordination to the men. Such a radical cultural change, they may have argued, would be consonant with the radical, revolutionary character of Christian theology.

Indeed, a strong case can be made for the social parity of the sexes and therefore against the wearing of a veil symbolizing a hierarchical relationship. For example, the Lord Jesus accepted and promoted not the lower standard of the Mosaic law, given after man’s Fall, but the higher standard exhibited in the creation before the Fall (cf. Matt 19:3–9). Whereas the Law assumed a lower social standing for women, the creation accounts assume their ontological equality. God created man as male and female in His image, according to Genesis 1:26–28, a text showing their complementary nature and inferring their ontological equality. Moreover, Adam, when presented with his wife, exclaimed, “This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23), a statement showing that he regarded her as his equal.

Then, too, Jesus had accorded women the same dignity He bestowed on men. In fact, He even commended Mary’s “manly” posture of sitting in the living room enjoying theological discourse over Martha’s “womanly” posture of taking care of the practical needs in the kitchen (Luke 10:38–42).

In addition, Paul explicitly states in his letter to the church at Galatia that men and women are spiritual equals as the children of God (Gal 3:26–28). So then, if they are equal both in the old and new creation, why maintain a hypocritical symbol that masks the theological reality?

But even more significantly than any of the above considerations is the fact that God was pleased to give the Spirit’s gifts to the church without regard to sexual differences. Through Joel, God had predicted that in Israel’s future He would do just that: “I will pour out my spirit on all mankind, and your sons and daughters will prophesy” (Joel 2:28). Moreover, even as He was pleased to give His gifts to individual women in the old dispensation, such as Miriam (Exod 15:20–21), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14–20), and Anna (Luke 2:36), in the new dispensation He gives gifts to all as He pleases (1 Cor 12:7–11). Thus it may be assumed that some of the women at Corinth were indeed prophesying along with the men (cf. Acts 21:9).[1] The old symbol of subordination surely seemed outmoded.

But Paul, who is otherwise zealous not to bring new converts under old ways and traditions, demurs here, for to treat the sexes as positionally equal would destroy the order God intended for man. After introducing the subject of traditions (1 Cor 11:2), he bases the practice of women wearing the traditional head covering (in contrast to men not doing so) on the doctrine of headship (v. 3). To reverse this practice, he argues, would disgrace “one’s head” (vv. 4–6), and he proves his thesis by noting the order of the original creation (vv. 7–12) and by appealing to the nature of creation as presently experienced (vv. 13–15). He concludes, therefore, that the churches’ universal practice of women wearing a head covering in contrast to men in the public assembly be maintained (v. 16).

The Doctrine of Headship (11:3 )

At the outset of this argument, using the metaphor of “head,” Paul sets forth the basic doctrine that there is a social order in the relationship between Christ, man, woman, and God. Obviously, to understand the doctrine one must have a clear understanding of “head” (κεφαλή), a word used repeatedly throughout the passage.

Bedale has demonstrated that κεφαλή, like the Hebrew word ראשׁ which it translated in the Septuagint, has two senses: a literal meaning referring to the anatomy, and a metaphorical sense of “priority.”[2] In this latter usage two ideas are present: (1) a chronological priority including the notion of “source” and “origin,” and (2) a resulting positional priority including the notion of “chief among” or “head over.” Concerning this enlarged and metaphorical use of the term Bedale reasons that “this idea of ‘authority’ would seem to be connected, not with the controlling influence of the head over the limbs [a scientific deduction anachronistic for Paul] but with the idea of priority…. A chieftain’s authority in social relationships is largely dependent upon his ‘seniority,’ or ‘priority,’ in the order of being.”[3] Thus κεφαλή is a metaphorical equivalent of ἀρχή, “first,” “ruler.”

Paul is using κεφαλή in this metaphorical sense to set forth the hierarchical, social structure in God’s economy (v. 3). Christ, then, is the “head” of every man because “through him are all things, and we exist through him” (1 Cor 8:6; cf. Col 1:16); and man is the head of the woman because “man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” (1 Cor 11:8; cf. Eph 5:23); and of course, God is the head of all because “all things originate from God” (1 Cor 11:12; cf. 1 Cor 8:6). Thus because of the order in the process of creation there is both a unity and a hierarchy of social relationships that may be outlined as follows:

God

Christ

Man

Woman

Concerning this hierarchy, however, Kaiser cautions, “Such a ranking speaks not of their relative dignity or worth (Is Christ any less than God? Or is woman any less created in the image of God than man?), but only of their job relationships, responsibilities to each other and ultimately to God.”[4]

The Practice of Covering the Head (11:4-6 )

To preserve and to symbolize this order of being, Paul now teaches that whereas men should not wear a covering while praying or prophesying,[5] believing women should have their heads covered when exercising their priestly rights or when prompted by the Spirit to utter divine truth in the midst of the congregation for the mutual edifying of those gathered together.[6] Later on, Paul informs the church that apart from prayer or this immediate prompting by the Spirit, however, women must not speak at all.[7] Thus women may pray and give expression to the Spirit, but to preserve the Creator’s ordering of social relationships they must wear a sign of their subordination.

Regarding the meaning of the covering in that culture Morna Hooker, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, wrote, “According to Jewish custom a bride went bareheaded until her marriage, as a symbol of her freedom; when married, she wore a veil as a sign that she was under the authority of her husband.”[8]

Although Paul does not use the word veil,[9] it seems reasonable to suppose that he has this article of apparel in view. Jeremias describes the veil of a Jewess of Jerusalem at that time: “Her face was hidden by an arrangement of two head veils, a head-band on the forehead with bands to the chin, and a hairnet with ribbons and knots, so that her features could not be recognized.”[10] Both Jewish and Greek women wore such a covering, according to Conzelmann. After sifting both the written and graphic sources, he concluded, “For a Jewess to go out with her head uncovered is a disgrace (3 Macc 4:6) and grounds for divorce…; it can also be assumed that respectable Greek women wore a head covering in public.”[11]

Paul asserts that for a woman not to wear a covering would be as disgraceful as having her hair cut, a sign of a disgraced wife or mother. According to Tacitus the husband of an adulterous wife cut off her hair, stripped her naked, and drove her from her house; and according to Aristophanes the mother of unworthy children should have her hair shorn.[12] In Judaism a woman going out in public without a head covering was considered so shameful that it was grounds for divorce without the husband being obligated to pay the ketubah.[13] To appear at the public assembly, then, with inappropriate headdress would disgrace one’s head.

But when Paul says that one’s head is dishonored, it must be asked whether the word head is to be taken literally or metaphorically. Does one dishonor his anatomical head or his social head? The answer is both. The word head in this context is an intentional double entendre and serves as the Stichwort, the crucial term about which the rest of the argument is constructed. First he shows how the reversal of head coverings would disgrace one’s metaphorical and social head (vv. 7–12), and then he argues that it would disgrace one’s literal and anatomical head (vv. 13–15).

The Disgrace of One’s Social Head (11:7-12 )

The logical particle “for” (γάρ) introducing this section relates it to the preceding statement that improper headdress disgraces one’s social head. In 11:7a Paul argues that a veil on a man would disgrace Christ because it would veil the image and glory of God mediated to man through Christ, and in 11:7b–10 he shows that a woman without a veil would in effect be displaying positional equality with the man and would thereby usurp the glory that properly belongs to him by the Creator’s design. The key word drawing the moral obligation for both men and women and uniting the first part of this section is ὀφείλει (vv. 7a and 10).

Since Paul argues that a man must not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, it is obvious that the meaning of “image” (εἰκών) and its connection to a man’s face must be clarified. In Greek thought an “image” gives tangible, perceptive expression and substance to that which is invisible.[14] Thus Christ is the “image of God” (Col 1:15), and significantly this image and attendant glory is manifested preeminently “in the face of Christ.” Of Christ, Paul wrote, “[He] is the image of God… [and God gave] the light of the knowledge of [His] glory in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:4, 6). According to 1 Corinthians 11:7, man also gives expression or substance to the glory of God, and this glory is in some sense resident in the head. This glory, then, like the glory of the gospel of Christ, ought not to be veiled (2 Cor 3:12–18). Even though the new image of God in Christ transcends the old image as the brightness of the sun transcends the light of the moon, the created glory of God should not be veiled in the worship of the Creator.

But whereas man “exists for” (ὑπάρχει) God’s glory, the woman “is (ἔστιν) the glory of man.” The particle “for” (γάρ) introducing 1 Corinthians 11:8 points to the twofold basis for this assertion: she was made out of (ἐκ) the man (v. 8; cf. Gen 2:21), and she was made “for the sake of” (διά) man (v. 9; cf. Gen 2:18). Because of this order and purpose in the creation, the logical conclusion is now drawn: “Therefore, the woman ought to have authority (ἐξουσία) on her head” (v. 10). Almost all will agree that “authority” or “right” is used here as a metonymy for the covering on the head. Most commentators, however, hold that the headcovering worn by the woman is a symbol of her being under authority. But this widely held view runs into the strong objection that this is never the meaning of ἐξουσία elsewhere, and that in fact quite the reverse is true, for it is a symbol of subjection. Without investing ἐξουσία with new meaning the passage most simply means that the covering gives her the “authority” to pray and prophesy.

But how precisely does it do this? Or to put the question another way, What is the veil’s function? Hooker,[15] followed by Bruce,[16] reasons that the veil is necessary in order to hide man’s glory in the presence of God and His angels. “In their presence,” she writes, “the glory of man must be hidden. If she were to pray or prophesy with uncovered head, she would not be glorifying God, but reflecting the glory of man, and in God’s presence this must inevitably turn to shame.”[17] This interpretation has consistency in its favor, for in the case of both the man and the woman the veil functions as an instrument of hiding another’s glory. In the case of man, however, God’s glory must not be veiled, but in the case of the woman, man’s glory should be veiled.

But this interpretation should be rejected because it offers no clear connection between veiling the man’s glory and the woman’s right to pray and prophesy. Moreover, this interpretation severs the connection between the use of the veil in the church with its use in the culture of that day, a connection assumed in verses 5–6. Finally, it is unclear in this view how the woman disgraces the man by not veiling his glory (cf. v. 4). Therefore, this writer prefers the normal interpretation that the veil symbolizes her subordination to the man. Accordingly, the veil serves two different functions: for the man it would hide his glory, even as it did for Moses (2 Cor 3:13), and for the woman it symbolizes her subordination to the man. By wearing a covering she preserves the order of creation while exercising her priestly and spiritual right.

The Apostle Paul now adds that this symbol of the created order is necessary “on account of the angels” (1 Cor 11:10). Many interpretations have been offered to explain the connection between the woman’s headdress and presumably good angels.[18] Caird suggests that the statement means that Christian women must conform to the normal conventions of society, which are regarded as being under the control of “angels” for the time being.[19] But elsewhere when Paul speaks of those spiritual beings that control this world he has in view evil forces (cf. 1 Cor 2:6–8; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 1:4; Col 1:13).

Moffatt offered the explanation that Paul refers to the angels because they were regarded as guardians of the created order. He wrote: “Paul has in mind the midrash on Gn. 1:26ff, which made good angels not only mediators of the law (Gal 3:19), but guardians of the created order….”[20] Consequently, a woman should wear a covering out of respect for those rational beings who were present at the creation and are concerned with the maintenance of that creation.

To this function of angels, Moffatt adds yet another, which some commentators give as the only one, namely, the angels are thought to assist at gatherings of public worship. Fitzmyer supports this opinion from the Qumran literature which mentions the presence of angels in sacred gatherings. According to this literature no form of uncleanness or blemish should be allowed in the public assembly because it would be offensive to the angels present in the congregation. He concluded: “We are invited by the evidence from Qumran to understand that the unveiled head of a woman is like a bodily defect [cf. vv. 5–6, vv. 14–51 ] which should be excluded from such an assembly….”[21] Fitzmyer’s understanding, however, is less than compelling for no evidence exists elsewhere that Paul banned bodily defects from the assembly, and, as Hurd points out, the Qumran parallels are “rather distant.”[22]

Ryrie considers the unveiled head as conduct offensive to the angels because it would signify her refusal to recognize the authority of her husband. He notes, “The insubordination of an uncovered woman…would offend the angels who observe the gathering of believers in their church meetings (1 Pet 1:12).”[23] The context of 1 Corinthians 11 strongly suggests that Paul has in mind not to offend the angels, but the reference to 1 Peter 1:12 is less than convincing, for in that passage the angels were presented as rational beings seeking to learn about God from the revelation of Himself on earth. But elsewhere Paul presents both the cosmic powers and angels as spectators of men’s actions (cf. 1 Cor 4:9; Eph 3:10; 1 Tim 3:16). Synthesizing the best from the above interpretations, it may be concluded that the uncovered and therefore insubordinate woman would offend the angels because they are the custodians of the created order. Moreover, such insubordination would occur in the sight of those whom the saints will judge (1 Cor 6:3), an unthinkable incongruity.

In 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 Paul interrupts the flow of his argument by noting that after the original creation God designed a mutual dependence of the sexes in carrying on the creation. This is especially true “in the Lord” because in Him they are not only equal in their humanity but they are also spiritual equals having been baptized together into His body (1 Cor 12:13). Applying this truth to life will produce a spirit of humility, mutual respect for each other, and dependence on God.

The Disgrace of One’s Literal Head (11:13-15)

Paul now turns to the nature of the creation and draws the conclusion that it corroborates the order of creation. The order of creation shows that improper dress disgraces one’s positional head and deprives him of the honor and glory with which the Creator endowed him. Nature, on the other hand, shows that improper dress disgraces one’s literal head. Here the apostle personifies “nature” as a teacher of what is seemly and becoming. Since Paul invites his readers to judge for themselves whether or not nature teaches that long hair dishonors a man’s head but honors a woman’s head, it would be pompous and fatuous to defend his view. This reality is grasped intuitively or not at all. So then the appropriate covering of the head according to one’s sex is congruent with the natural state of creation and not contradictory to it.

When Paul says that a woman’s hair “is given her for (ἀντί) a covering,” he cannot mean “in place of” a covering, but rather “asking for” a covering. Although the Greek preposition frequently implies substitution, that is not its sense here, for such a meaning would render the rest of the argument, especially that in verses 5–6, nonsensical. Therefore, the preposition is used here nearer to its original meaning of “over against.” Her long hair stands “over against” and “corresponds to” the covering desiderated for the public assembly.[24]

Conclusion (11:16 )

Although the argument from nature may be debated since it must be judged for oneself, the practice of covering one’s head appropriate to one’s sex is not open to debate as seen in the fact that the whole apostolic church, both Jewish and Gentile, taught and practiced this regulation. Jewett correctly comments on this point:

Therefore the apostle’s remark (v. 16) that the churches of God have no such custom (συνηθεία) of women unveiling themselves during public worship cannot mean that he regarded the whole matter as mere custom. Though one may argue that such indeed is the case, one cannot say that this is what the text means.

Quite the contrary, this particular custom, in the thinking of Paul, was part of the apostolic tradition which he had given them and by which they were bound. This, in fact, is the note on which he opens the whole discussion, praising them for holding fast the traditions (παραδόσεις) “even as I delivered them to you” (v. 2).[25]

Unfortunately, Jewett goes on to say that males have been “slow to acknowledge the inadequacy of the argument.”[26]

Some argue that even as the modern church has superseded Paul’s instruction concerning the subordination of slaves to their masters by freeing the slaves on the basis of Christian principles, so the modern church is rightfully liberating women from their subordinate social position on the basis of those principles and truths suggested at the beginning of this article. But the analogy cannot stand. Paul never grounded his instructions concerning the behavioral relationship of master and slave to the abiding order of creation. Rather he both expressly and obliquely suggests that Christians move beyond this institution. To the Corinthians he says explicitly, “If you are able to be free, rather do that” (1 Cor 7:21). In his letter to Philemon he obliquely suggests that Philemon grant the runaway slave Onesimus legal manumission. It is clear then that Paul did not teach there should be an abiding master-slave relationship; rather he attempted to humanize the institution through Christian principles. But in the case of the male-female relationship he grounded his teaching on theological principles as old and enduring as the creation itself. Later on, in his letter to Ephesus, he based the husband-wife relationship on the eternal relationship of Christ and His church.

This writer concludes, then, that a woman who prays or prophesies in an assembly of believers should cover her head as a symbol of her submission to the absolute will of God who has ordered His universe according to His own good pleasure. This picture of His rule must not be seized by believers into their own hands to shape it according to their own pleasure. Ahaz incurred the Wrath of God by changing the shape of the altar to conform it to Assyrian demands (2 Kings 16:10–11). Of course, the appearance of the headdress will change, just as the practice of the Lord’s Supper may vary from culture to culture, but the symbol must be present or the reality and its truth may be lost. Thus the face with which God chose to reveal Himself to the world is one that the world desperately needs to see, namely, a man who displays the image and glory of God through Christ, and a woman who, despite her ontological equality with the man, submits to him.

In the historical process of administering His church, however, God has been pleased with the completion of the canon of Scripture to withdraw the gift of prophecy. In the practice of the churches today the apostolic teaching has relevance directly only to prayer. In this writer’s judgment, however, it would be well for Christian women to wear head coverings at church meetings as a symbol of an abiding theological truth.

Notes

1. Cullmann shows that in the primitive church the χαρίσματα were part of the worship service centered in the Lord’s Supper (Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, trans. A. Steward Todd and James B. Torrance [London: SCM Press, 1953], pp. 26-32).
2. Stephen Bedale, “The Meaning of κεφαλή in the Pauline Epistles,” Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954): 211-15.
3. Ibid., p. 213.
4. Walter Kaiser, “Paul, Women, and the Church,” Worldwide Challenge, September, 1976, p. 12.
5. In primitive Christianity there is a direct connection between prayer and prophecy. See Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, s.v. “προφήτης,” by Gerhard Friedrich, 6 (1968): 852.
6. Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), p. 53.
7. Cullmann sharply distinguishes the free expressions of the Spirit, such as prophesying, speaking in tongues, and interpretation of tongues, from the service of the Word, such as teaching and preaching. He further notes that “by the time of Justin we find that the free expressions of the Spirit…have disappeared” (Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, p. 30). For a classic treatment on the cessation of the χαρίσματα see Benjamin B. Warfield, Miracles: Yesterday and Today (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965).
8. M. D. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI.10 ,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963–64): 413.
9. According to Kaiser, “The almost universal mistranslation of this verse [10 ] has been ‘veil.’ Dr. Katherine C. Bushnell traced this mistake back to Valentinus, a founder of the Gnostic sect about A.D. 140, Clement and Origen [Katherine C. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women: One Hundred Bible Studies, 4th ed. (Oakland: By the author, 1930), Lesson 34]. In their native Coptic tongue, the word ‘authority’ or ‘power’ would be ouershishi while the word ‘veil’ was ouershoun. Valentinus deliberately corrupted the first term into the second in order to give biblical justification to his needed veil used in the sexual initiation rites of the Gnostic sect. Without carefully checking it, the church fathers and modern translators merely followed along in this same erroneous rut” (Kaiser, “Paul, Women, and the Church,” p. 12).
10. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1969), p. 359.
11. Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, ed. George W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 185.
12. See C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 251.
13. Leonard Swindler, Women in Judaism: The Status of Women in Formative Judaism (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1976), p. 121.
14. Conzelman, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 187-88.
15. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI.10 ,” p. 413.
16. F. F. Bruce, 1and 2 Corinthians, New Century Bible, ed. Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Block (Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1976), p. 106.
17. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI.10 ,” p. 415.
18. The ancient notion followed by some modern commentators that the veil protected the woman against evil angels who lust after them (cf. Gen 6:1–4) must be rejected because nowhere else does the New Testament conceptualize angels in this way, and the notion that such beings might attack women in the act of worship seems ridiculous.
19. G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), pp. 17-18.
20. James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1947), p. 152.
21. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), p. 200.
22. Ibid., p. 204.
23. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), p. 303.
24. For an opposite interpretation see William J. Martin, “1 Corinthians 11:2–16: An Interpretation,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 231-41.
25. Jewett, Man as Male and Female, p. 118.
26. Ibid.