1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is a text that is commonly regarded as one of the most difficult sections of scripture to interpret[1]. For this reason, I would like to say that while I am reasonably comfortable with my understanding of this passage, I remain open to further discussion and the possibility of being wrong.
From the outset of this article, I want to say that Lucy Peppiatt’s book, Unveiling Paul’s Women has been very helpful in understanding this passage of scripture. That doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with everything she says or that I am a hundred percent certain that she is right in her understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. However, her position is persuasive and worthy of due consideration. In this article, I draw on many of her points, add my own thinking and research and hopefully provide something to further your own studies on this matter.
Since it is a hard passage with various interpretations, we need to remain loving in any discussion on this topic and mindful of those with sensitive consciences who may feel the need to wear some form of covering on their head. I know several godly, loving and dedicated Christian women, my Mum included, who dutifully wear a head covering, endeavouring to be obedient to God and respectful to their husbands. To those ladies who feel strongly about the need to wear something on their head, I encourage you to continue in it for the sake of your faith. As long as you hold to your view without binding it on others, I have no problem with it. Overall, I would say your attitude in wearing a head covering is admirable and may even be based on an accurate understanding on 1 Corinthians 11.
That said, let me provide some background, textual observations and some interpretive guidelines before we tackle this passage. Firstly, it is important to have some sense of Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians before he wrote this letter. After travelling through Macedonia, Paul arrived in Corinth and spent a significant amount of time evangelizing, teaching, and establishing the Church. That meant the Corinthian Church would have at one point had a good understanding of what Paul believed and taught. However, it is reasonably clear that after Paul left Corinth, some of his teaching became distorted, disregarded and opposed by false teachers (2 Cor chapters 11-12). The result was that many of the Christians in Corinth had remained immature, sinful, divisive and arrogant (1 Cor 1:10-17, 3:1, 5, 11:17-34, 14:20). Secondly, this letter is primarily Paul’s response to rumours he had heard about regarding division and also a previous letter he had received from the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:11, 7:1)[2]. It should not surprise us then to find Paul in 1 Corinthians alluding to comments, questions or even positions held by the Corinthian Church.
When seeking to understand a Biblical text, we should be endeavouring to come to an interpretation that provides the most cohesive and comprehendible explanation. To do this requires minimising textual gaps and ensuring that the majority of questions raised in our study have answers. If we find that our view of the text leaves us with more questions than answers or that our conclusions are contradictory to other parts of the context, or even other parts of scripture, then we need to go back to the drawing board. What I am looking for when I read a passage, especially a difficult one, is an interpretation that pulls all the parts of the text together in a way that makes the most sense culturally, contextually and in view of kingdom values.
With that said, it’s worthwhile considering a few of the common interpretations of this text. The first is the interpretation that women should literally be wearing a head covering when praying or prophesying – this often takes the form of a hat or a veil. This position does not see the instructions on head covering as cultural but a command from God for all Christian women of all time. Interestingly, many in the Church of Christ who believe in a literal head covering are unlikely to publicly pray or prophesy. Often that is because they are Cessationists and have a strong belief in women’s submissiveness. Practically, then, this usually amounts to women wearing hats when being led in prayer and throughout worship.
The biggest issue I have with the literal view of head coverings is that it perhaps causes those who adhere to it to hold to error. Consider the argument made for a literal heading covering in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9: “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman but woman from man, neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” For most of my life, I read the above verse and never questioned whether it was accurate. I mean, where else in the Bible does it suggest that women are not created in God’s image? Nowhere. Where else does it say in the Bible that women are the glory of men? Nowhere. Where else does it say in the Bible that women were created just for man’s benefit? Nowhere. If you read Genesis 1:27-30, it says that both man and woman are created in God’s image[3]. It also says that men and women were both given the responsibility to be stewards of this world. I agree that God created Eve out of Adam to be a helper to him. But that in no way suggests that she wasn’t made in God’s image or was only there to serve Adam. In 1 Corinthians 7:3-7, Paul writes that a husband’s body belongs as much to the wife as the wife’s body belongs to the husband[4]. Considering the above, it makes you wonder if the literal head covering position sets up the idea that women must go through men to relate to God[5].
The other major problem I see with this view is that it doesn’t seem to fit with 1 Corinthians 11:8-10, where Paul counteracts the previous verses saying, “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” Notice the word “however”. Some translations may use “nevertheless”. As indicated by these words, Paul seems to be disagreeing with the points previously presented.
In the end, interpreting this passage to mean women need head coverings today leaves large unexplained gaps with some critical questions unanswered.
Probably the most popular interpretation of this passage is that it relates to the culture of the day. To some extent, this view makes sense. Part of the reason for this conclusion is that you will not find any command for women to wear a head covering in any other New Testament documents. In other words, the instructions to wear a head covering was specific to Corinthian culture and any others like it. As head coverings are a cultural issue, Christian women in cultures that do not promote them are not required to wear them. In support of this is the use of the word’s “dishonors” and “disgrace”, which may refer to an honour and shame culture[6].
The problem with this position is that the main argument in 1 Corinthians 11 for wearing a head covering isn’t based on culture but the order of creation (1 Corinthians 11:7-9)[7].
Another interpretation of this passage is that Paul wanted to ensure that women look like women by having long hair and men look like men by having short hair[8]. However, this view often struggles to explain the first half of the discussion from verses 3-10. Furthermore, it fails to consider that Jewish men who made a Nazarite vow were required to let their hair grow (Numbers 6:1-21)[9]. Samson was one of these men who became a Nazarite. Despite having long hair, these men were accepted by God and served Him. Even Paul allowed his hair to grow longer while in Corinth because of a vow that he had made. He eventually had it cut in Cenchrea (Acts 18:18)[10]. With this in mind, it’s hard to believe that Paul was concerned about hair length in 1 Corinthians 11.
One interpretation that I heard recently concluded that head coverings are best understood metaphorically – covering indicating respect or protection. In other words, men should pray in a way that is respectful to Jesus, who is their head. And women should pray in a way that does not publicly shame their husbands, their heads. But I would ask, shouldn’t women also be respectful of Christ when they pray? Also, how does this view fit with Paul’s mention of hair being a covering? So, at the moment, I have come to reject this view.
So, where does this leave us? It is possible the Corinthians were holding to a distorted understanding of Paul’s teaching and Paul is simply outlining their view in 1 Corinthians 11:4-10 before addressing it in verses 11-16. How can I say that? Firstly, it is clear that the Corinthians had an issue with pride. They were fighting over who was following the right person (1 Corinthians 1:10-12). Their pride was allowing gross sin into the congregation (1 Corinthians 5). Their knowledge of what was right regarding food offered to idols was endangering the faith of those with a sensitive conscience (1 Corinthians 8:1). They were treating poor people in their midst terribly (1 Corinthians 11:17-33). And they seemed to have been arguing about which spiritual gifting was the greatest (1 Corinthians 12-14). It, therefore, would be entirely consistent to believe that some in the Church at Corinth had come to have pride in their own position before God based on created order and were seeking to ensure that women knew their place.
Additionally, there is evidence that Paul frequently quotes the sayings of the Corinthians and then follows up with a correction[11]. It is suggested that the following passages are possible places Paul quotes the Corinthians[12] (I have underlined the possible Corinthians sayings): “Everything is permissible for me but not everything is beneficial” (1 Corinthians 6:9 & 8:23). “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexuality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” (1 Corinthians 6:13). “It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife (1 Corinthians 7:1).” “We all possess knowledge” (1 Corinthians 8:1).
Even if the above is Paul quoting the Corinthians, the question remains whether Paul would quote longer sections of Corinthian beliefs or sayings[13]. Also, would Paul quote someone without indicating that it is a quote. Although there are ways to indicate a quote in ancient Greek, Paul did not always use them. In 1 Corinthians 2:16, 4:6, 5:13, 10:26, 15:26, 15:32 and 15:33 Paul quotes from the Old Testament and possibly from other ancient poets but does not indicate in the Greek that it was a direct quote[14]. Since this is the case, it certainly makes it possible that Paul was quoting the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:4-10 despite the absence of markers to indicate that is what he was doing.
So, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 tends to make much more sense and answers a lot more questions if you see verses 4-10 as a Corinthian distortion of headship. It could be that Paul is using a rhetorical technique of first stating error and then correcting it – which he does in verses 11-16. Hence, why Paul starts verse 11 with “nevertheless” or “however”[15].
Of course, it isn’t all bad for the Corinthians as Paul is quite happy that the Corinthians are at least attempting to stay faithful to the teachings he handed down to them (11:1). Yet somewhere along the way, they had veered from his view on headship. In following on from praising them, Paul states, or even restates his teaching on headship saying, “Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” The word head, at least from a Biblical perspective, never means to dominate. However, there is an ongoing debate about the meaning of the word Head (Kephale) as to whether it relates to authority[16], leadership[17] or source[18] (origin). Like most Biblical words, I would suggest that the context is most helpful when defining hard to understand words. In considering the use of the word head in passages like Ephesians 1:22-23, I find it hard to believe that head doesn’t indicate in some sense the authority and leadership of Jesus. However, in Ephesians 4:11-16, Ephesians 5:22-33 and concerning the use of the word body in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, I would suggest that it signifies union, responsibility and duty of care. In other words, anyone who is the head of others provides the basis for deep connection and takes responsibility for ensuring their wellbeing.
In 1 Corinthians 11:3, however, I believe it means origin because the arguments for head coverings are based on the created order. In other words, who came forth from who. It seems the Corinthians may have taken Paul’s teaching, distorted it and were making a case for head coverings based on women originally coming from men. Paul counteracts this teaching in verses 11-12, also arguing from origins stating that men also come from women[19].
So, after praising them, Paul begins by going back to a proper understanding of headship. That is, men originally came forth from Christ (Christ is the agent through which God made everything), women came forth from a man and Christ (as a Messiah and in human form) came forth from God. That’s what Paul had been saying. The Corinthians seemed to have corrupted that view resulting in them wanting women to wear some form of head covering while praying and prophesying to demonstrate they were under the authority of men. To not do so would be as shameful as having their head shaved. Men didn’t need to because they were made in God’s image and for God’s glory, while women came forth from men and were therefore made to demonstrate men’s glory and made for their benefit. To top it all off, not having a covering would upset angels[20].
After stating the Corinthian view, Paul then proceeds to counter it by dismantling the core of their argument. Their argument being: since women came forth from men, they need to have some indication of being under man’s authority when praying or prophesying.
Paul, in verse 11, states that their point doesn’t make sense when seen through the lens of Christ. In Christ, the reality is recognised that just as women originally came forth from men, so also men come forth from women through childbirth. So, in the end, does it really matter who came forth from who? Ultimately, what matters is that we all come forth from God.
In making this point, Paul then says, “Judge for yourselves is it proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered.” To paraphrase Paul, “Since everyone comes from God, does it really matter if women pray with their head uncovered?” I suspect the answer that Paul was expecting from this answer was no.
Paul continues, arguing that if the Corinthians accept that nature already indicates that women should not have short hair (Again this is probably more accepted by the Corinthians than Paul as he would have understood the Nazarite vow) and long hair is a glory to women, then why do they need an additional covering since they already have hair[21].
The apostle Paul concludes this section by emphasizing that neither he nor other churches encouraged the practice of ladies covering their head while praying or prophesying. In other words, it was a unique belief held by the Corinthians.
In conclusion, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 may be Paul correcting a distorted concept of headship resulting in demands being placed on women to cover their heads when praying and prophesying. Paul, however, actually seems to oppose that idea freeing women to approach God and serve Him on the basis they too came forth from God and are made in His image.
[1] L. Peppiatt. Unveiling Paul’s Women. Eugene, Cascade Books, 2018, p. 83.
[2] E. Watson and M. Curly, Quoting Corinthians, Eugene, Pickwick Publications, 2018, loc.434-445 & L. Peppiatt. Unveiling Paul’s Women. Eugene, Cascade Books, 2018, p. 26.
[3] L. Peppiatt. Unveiling Paul’s Women. Eugene, Cascade Books, 2018, p. 47.
[4] Ibid., p. 63.
[5] Ibid., p. 45.
[6] E. Ferguson, E. (2015). Women in the Church: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, 2nd ed., Abilene, Desert Willow Publishing, loc. 397.
[7] L. Peppiatt. Unveiling Paul’s Women. Eugene, Cascade Books, 2018, p. 15 & 35.
[8] J. Murphy-O’Connor. Keys to First Corinthians, Revisiting the Major Issues, New York, Oxford University Press, 2009, loc 2263-2264 & L. Peppiatt. Unveiling Paul’s Women. Eugene, Cascade Books, 2018, p. 54.
[9] L. Peppiatt. Unveiling Paul’s Women. Eugene, U.S.A, Cascade Books, 2018, p. 37.
[10] Ibid., p. 19.
[11] E. Watson and M. Curly, Quoting Corinthians, Eugene, 2018, loc. 111.
[12] L. Peppiatt. Unveiling Paul’s Women. Eugene, U.S.A, Cascade Books, 2018, p. 26-29.
[13] Ibid., p. 29.
[14] E. Watson and M. Curly, Quoting Corinthians, Eugene, Pickwick Publications, 2018, loc. 859 -880 & L. Peppiatt. Unveiling Paul’s Women. Eugene, Cascade Books, 2018, loc. 859 -880.
[15] Ibid., p. 48.
[16] W. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More than 100 Disputed Questions, Illinois, Crossway, 2004, loc. 5201-5338.
[17] M. Mowczko, ‘4 reasons “head” does not mean “leader” in 1 Corinthians 11:3’, 14 August 2017, https://margmowczko.com/head-kephale-does-not-mean-leader-1-corinthians-11_3/ (accessed 25 November 2021)
[18] K, Giles, What the Bible Actually Teaches on Women. Eugene, Cascade Books, 2018, p. 14-20.
[19] For helpful criteria on determining quotes in the Corinthian letter see E. Watson and M. Curly, Quoting Corinthians, Eugene, 2018, loc. 175.
[20] L. Peppiatt. Unveiling Paul’s Women. Eugene, Cascade Books, 2018, p. 5.
[21] Ibid., p. 38.
