To follow along with this episode go here!
Introduction
Head coverings; in researching this topic, you might find yourself incredibly frustrated as you dig through the many different articles and videos out there telling you what to do. I know that I did. It is for that reason that I want to start my findings and studies with the conclusion: I am for head coverings. However, I want to plainly state that, though I am grounded in my understanding and my exegesis of the text, I would be arrogant to assume that I know every part of the argument down to the letter. With that initially being stated, it is also nay impossible to refute the many different parts of this argument altogether, even with a perfect hermeneutic, being that we are nearly two thousand years removed from the original writing of this letter. With this in mind, we must take into consideration all things that can help us in determining the text to include arguments for, arguments against, and church history and tradition. The author of this blog holds to the doctrine of the Inerrancy of Scripture. A good friend quoted to me once in this regard “If our understanding of Scripture coincides with what we perceive to be true in nature, it is not Scripture that is wrong but our understanding of Scripture.” Therefore, we incur the use of Church History in our understanding not because the men who came before us had more of an opportunity of being correct, but because their understanding and exegesis of the texts, as well as their practice and application of the text, can help us to see what arguments outside of Scripture that are against the use of head coverings really fail to hold any water as well as the ones from Scripture that were held to, firstly from obedience, then tradition, before being dissolved by those who no-longer understood the tradition.
As an introduction to this concept I wanted to quote English Bible Teacher A.W. Pink. “Now God has appointed that because man is the head, because headship or dominion or rule has been delegated by God into the hands of man, God has ordained that that shall be symbolically shown forth when he enters the house of God. His head shall be uncovered; his head shall be revealed; his head shall be manifest because God has given to him the headship. But because God has not given headship to the woman, because he has placed her in subjection to man, therefore that must be symbolically shown forth by her having head covered, her head concealed, showing that she is not her own head, and her own ruler.” We will, of course, dive into this much deeper as we go along.
The Text
Introduction aside, let’s first take a look at the text in question (1 Corinthians 11:2-16): 2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
3. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
5. but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
6. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
7. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
8. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
9. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
10. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
12. for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
13. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14. Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
15. but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Headship - Defined
The primary theme of what is being communicated by Paul in this passage is the idea of headship. We should not allow our understanding of these outward expressions to, in any way, marr the concepts of the headship that Paul is explaining in this section of text. On the contrary, we should use how we understand his explanation to aid in illustration by example how headship is identified as it relates to Christ, the Father, man, and woman.
Before we dive into the text beyond this point it would be helpful to define a couple of terms that are used in these conversations:
Complementarian or Complementarianism - This is a theological view that says men and women are of equal value and importance. This view paints men and women in distinct, yet complimentary roles in the relationship. These roles are different and yet equally important in the roles of family, marriage, and religious leadership. (This view is the Orthodox or Biblical view.)
Egalitarian or Egalitarianism - In specifically a religious connotation, this view supposes that all people maintain equality; supposing that both men and women can do as they wish within the relationship. This is often called Biblical Equality or Evangelical Feminism.
As you can see, these two terms are in opposition to one another in how they interpret the Bible. As an example, the Complementarian view of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 would suggest that the role of women in the corporate gathering is clearly limited against teaching and preaching by the fact that Paul illustrates his point by relating it to the creation event. In opposition to this, the Egalitarian view would argue that the statements made by Paul are purely cultural in application to the church in Ephesus and, despite it being illustrated by the creation event, it maintains no authority on the action spoken of. As you can see in this one example, these opposing views could change the interpretation of other important texts in Scripture. Arguably, the Egalitarian view is a slippery slope that could, and probably will, lead to the deconstruction of other important texts. After all, where would we draw the line against what is authoritative and what is merely cultural?
With these concepts defined and exemplified, we are going to take a look into the Complementarian view of how we would define headship, specifically how it relates to marriage. In the concept of marriage headship there can be understood multiple different roles the husband should cover. Just a couple of these roles are: Godly headship, Firm headship, Loving headship, Prayer headship, Sacrificial headship, etc. For the purposes of this definition we will specifically focus on Ephesians 5:23-25. Paul says, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” In these verses we see multiple things that were mentioned as roles for the husband, including (but not limited to) the idea of sacrificial headship in how “Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” (v25).
To bring the two roles into view together, the wife submits to the husband as the husband takes up the lead in headship. From a secular standpoint, this might sound a bit misogynistic. So, in order to paint the picture of this leadership in more depth I want to borrow from an article written by William Maclead. “God holds the man responsible before Him. On the judgment day the head of the home will have to answer to God not just for himself but also for his wife and children. Headship is not an option but a God-given responsibility.” This responsibility takes the form of education, finances, protection, example, and leadership. The man will, quite literally, stand before God in his role as headship of his wife and family. In essence, the argument from an Egalitarian perspective that the woman can handle the responsibilities of the man include a lot more than just the ability to preach and teach and should not be argued lightly 1) because it is against the created order and 2) because it is her headship who will stand before God for the responsibilities that she is trying to claim.
In response to that passage in Ephesians Martin Luther, the great Reformer, is quoted saying, “Women, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife” [Eph 5:22-23]. Again to the Colossians in the third chapter [3:18]. Because of this, the wife has not been created out of the head, so that she shall not rule over her husband, but be subject and obedient to him. For that reason the wife wears a headdress, that is, the veil on her head, as St. Paul writes in 1. Corinthians in the second chapter, that she is not free but under obedience to her husband.”
Roles: Defined at Creation
As we move along in the text there are a few things we can pull out without diving too deep, and these things are the cause for the text to be exegeted carefully. To be clear, we are not diving into this text in order to find a way to subjugate women - as the Trinity relationship in redemption is typological for how the marriage relationship can be viewed. By this, we mean that though Christ existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God something to be grasped (Philippians 2:6). It is in the same way with the marriage relationship. As one flesh, unified by God, you are equal with your spouse. Because authority is offered to the man, or husband, does not mean that subjugation is offered back. Each person has their role, just as in the body of Christ, just as in the relationship of the Trinity in redemption, just as in the marriage relationship. The reason that we are paying close attention to this text is because it is related back to the event of creation. Paul ties this recognising of authority back to the event of creation and the reason man and woman was created. And, beyond the tie to creation, Paul also uses an illustration which likewise ties the male role as bowing to the authority of Christ in much the same way. Theologian and Pastor R.C. Sproul can be quoted saying, ““…the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation, not to Corinth. If anything transcends local custom it is those things that are rooted and ordered in creation. That’s why I’m very frightened to be loose with this passage.” As those before us, we hope to take great pains in explaining this topic in a depth that will put your mind and heart at ease or grant you defense in times of attack on your belief.
I can not say it greater than is already said by Jeremy Gardiner in his article Why Head Coverings? Reason #1 when He says “Different roles do not have to mean different values or worth. This point can’t be stressed highly enough. Does a police officer have authority over you given by God? (Rom 13:1) Yes! Is that police officer of more value or worth than you as a human? No! Children submit to their parents (Eph 6:1), slaves submit to their masters (Eph 6:5), wives submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22), citizens submit to their government (Rom 13:1), church members submit to their elders (Heb 13:17), Jesus submits to God (1 Cor 11:3). There’s even different ranks in the angels as Michael is called the archangel (Jude 9) meaning “chief” 3) .”
The concept of the woman submitting to the husband has been marred and greatly disputed over the years. The argument has been twisted to suggest, as mentioned previously, that to call for a submissive wife is to call for a wife who can be, and should be, subjugated by her husband. One might reference this as a devilish strawman. This argument from authority may be more noticeable in the 20th and 21st century, however, the attack on the family and the roles thereof have been under siege since the Garden when the Serpent deceived Eve and convinced Adam to be disobedient in eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This image is perfect, in-and-of-itself, in portraying what Paul is communicating to us in the passage mentioned earlier. The woman stepped out of the role of the woman and took it upon herself to become the authority. She, listening to the serpent, determined that it was good of her own authority and gave some to her husband to likewise eat. It wasn’t just her that did wrong in this story, as we must remember the blunt of the blame is placed on Adam because he wasn’t deceived - he willfully acted disobediently to God in going against what he was told to do. As you notice, however, the biblical interpretation of the fall event will show that the story Paul is referencing has direct correlation to the role of the husband and wife in a biblical marriage as well as direct application in showing the attack on the roles of a biblical marriage.
Verse 10: Because of the Angels
Changing gears, I want to move down toward verse 10, which is often the argument used to give the metaphorical “nail in the coffin” to those who tend to look for a way out of the doctrine of head covering. To reiterate, the verse says: That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. The important things we can pull from this verse are 1) Paul gives a reason for the covering of the head of a woman and 2) that reason is because of the angels. Now, something that is missing is the context of what is meant when Paul says this - as many examples exist of the context missing from the epistles, it is likely this is something that Paul has already conversed with the Corinthians about. But it is clear that the argument in charge of the doctrine of head coverings is because of the angels - which transcends the idea of it being merely a cultural call for the Corinthians.
There are a couple of different arguments that appear for what is meant by Paul, here, and neither contradict the other. I will lightly glaze over these, now, by using a quote from a linked article: “So in summary, if God is primarily concerned with the angels' benefit, then this reason means one or two things. It would be an appeal to not offend the angels by our disobedience or a command to accurately show them a picture of the created order. If on the other hand God is primarily concerned with our benefit, then this is a warning as a means of accountability. God would be graciously reminding us that the angels are watching us worship and bringing our prayers before Him (Rev 8:3-4). They will let Him know if we’re obeying this command or not.”
It is important to note, as well, not only the interpretation of Mr. Gardiner, but the thoughts of those past scholars, preachers, and theologians. In like fashion, Charles Spurgeon held to this same view when it comes to the covering of the head of a woman during corporate worship. The prince of preachers is quoted saying, “The reason why our sisters appear in the House of God with their heads covered is ‘because of the angels.’ The apostle says that a woman is to have a covering upon her head because of the angels, since the angels are present in the assembly and they mark every act of indecorum, and therefore everything is to be conducted with decency and order in the presence of the angelic spirits.” A link to this thought and the foregoing of head covering is noted in the idea produced by the verse in Matthew 18:10 in which Jesus says “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.” In other words, “God doesn’t just say ‘I know about it.’ He says their angels come before Him. The implication is that the angel would be reporting to God what has happened.’
Paul, why the Contradiction?
There is a floating argument that if we hold to the tradition of head covering as authoritative, we must be consistent in our understanding of what Paul means in verse 16 when he says “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” The understanding that many people have when they read this verse is that Paul is saying “If people become argumentative of this subject, just forget it.” But that doesn’t hold up against verse two in which Paul makes it clear that the tradition of women being called to cover their head was taught as an authoritative tradition. He says “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” It would seem as if there is a blatant contradiction if both of these are held to the same standard of interpretation. We argue that there is not.
Firstly, verse two makes it clear that the traditions that were taught were being upheld by the Corinthians. We can safely make the assumption that the traditions spoken of were about the act of head covering because before he moves on to the Lord’s Supper section, Paul makes it clear that he is, in fact, not commending the Corinthians on how they practice the Lord’s Supper. Verse 17 reads “But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.” This makes it clear that Paul has moved on to another topic.
Following this concept, how can we be sure that this tradition is authoritative and not merely a “tradition.” Let’s take a look at another instance where Paul discusses the traditions taught by the apostles in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” What we see is the Spirit inspired word of God saying that we should “hold to the traditions that you were taught by us.” We could call this a positive ordinance. In order to define that term, I want to borrow from Jeremy Sweets in his article “Moral and Positive Law.” “Moral law is that which inheres in the nature of things and sets forth what is right between man and man. Positive law is that which depends upon the arbitrary authority of either God or man, which does not inhere in the nature of things.” Sweets goes on to say “Using this definition, there is no need to find a principle within laws in general because moral laws function as high level principles and positive laws come out of God’s arbitrary authority. They are to be done because God said so, and no principle undergirds it.”
Taking the Orthodox approach to our view on Scripture (that it is the word of God), we can say that Paul was the pen, in this instance, and God was the writer. Therefore, it is God saying through His word that the people of Thessalonica were to hold to the traditions taught by the apostles, “either by our spoken word or by our letter.” Tying this into verse 2 of 1 Corinthians 11, we see Paul saying, with divine authority, that the people of Corinth are commended for maintaining the “traditions even as I delivered them to you.” What is this tradition? That of the recognition of headship through the covering and uncovering of the head, depending on the role of the person given by God (being male or female).
Looking back at verse 16, do is there a contradiction when we interpret the text to say “If there are some who have a problem with it, don’t worry about it”? Of course! Divine authority makes it clear that the tradition is authoritative. But we do not interpret verse 16 in this manner. Borrowing from Jeremy Gardiner once more, I want to share his paragraph on the subject: “Daniel Wallace offers some help: ‘How do we reconcile 1 Cor 11:2 with 1 Cor 11:16 ? Verse 2 governs v 16. That is to say, because the practice was a paradovsi (tradition), it was put on the level of orthopraxy. It was a doctrine that the early church followed. Since it was on this level, most of the churches followed it religiously. Hence, Paul could appeal to what other churches were doing (v 16) as an appeal to the reasonableness and pragmatic outworking of this ‘tradition.’’ So Paul is saying that if someone is being contentious, the churches have “no such practice” as the one that the contentious person is advocating for. Not that there is no official position on head covering, he just finished giving that defense. Rather, there is no church that holds to the view that this contentious person is promoting. That’s why other versions translate this text as, “we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God” (1 Cor 11:16 NASB).”
In summary of what Gardiner has just stated, verse 16 is not a contradiction of verse 2. Rather, verse 16 is saying that all churches hold to the standard of head covering that Paul has just outlined. And if anyone disagrees, just know, they stand alone - as the church has no practice of the opposite.
Answering the Cultural Objection
For the sake of being concise, I included multiple objections under this one heading as it is all somewhat related. I will try to organize them in such a way that they are easy to follow.
The main argument against head covering/uncovering is that the practice was cultural. The claim is that women in Corinth used to maintain short hair and a lack of a hair covering to denote that they were prostitutes or something known as a ‘new wife.’ Therefore, the covering of one’s head is how respect would be shown - thus the covering of one’s head is no longer in practice as this is not an issue. In response to this, pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul made the following statement: “If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul Provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. He goes on to say, ‘We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said.’”
Let’s first make a logical claim from the cultural vantage point. If the culture was one that would need to wear head covering specifically for what was going on around them, i.e prostitution and promiscuity, then a head covering would be worn in more instances than simply at the corporate gathering. It would logically play out that if a woman was seen not wearing a head covering absolutely anywhere, not just church, she could be considered a cultic prostitute of Aphrodite and her modesty would come into question. The problem with this claim, however, is that the archeological evidence does not point to such a claim.
One of the stronger pieces of archeological evidence is the recovery of a Roman Urn dated from the same time as the church in Corinth. The urn depicts a man and his wife standing together, holding hands as though it is the day of their marriage, and it contains an inscription. The woman pictured not only is not wearing a wedding veil, but she is also not covering her hair in any way, shape, or form. Coupled with the depiction of the woman on the Urn, the inscription provides evidence contrary to the need for head covering due to a culture of prostitution. The inscription reads, “Vitalis, freedman and Private Secretary of the Emperor (dedicated this) to Vernasia Cyclas, the most excellent wife, she lived for twenty seven years. To this most faithful, loving and devoted woman.” As you can see, this uncovered woman was “most faithful, loving, and devoted.” These are not the words that would describe a cultic prostitute of Aphrodite, which is what we would assume by seeing her head uncovered, as culture would say. And it isn’t this one, single piece of evidence that denies the cultural need for head covering for those who are not claiming to be feminists or prostitutes; the vast majority of the recovered statues and busts from the time depict women with uncovered heads. I invite you, likewise, to seek this out for yourself.
I want to be clear, however, that cultic prostitution had been a problem in Corinth, just as Dr. Sproul alludes to in the quote above. As a matter of fact, evidence lingers to suggest that Corinth had 1,000 cult prostitutes, both men and women, in the temple of Aphrodite… 200 years before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. It would be one thing to assume that a lot of change happened in 200 years, but there is evidence that, not only was there a lot of change, but there was a complete change of hands of the city of Corinth.
“Dirk Jongkind (PhD, Cambridge University) says “The City of Corinth had a glorious Hellenic past before its destruction by the Romans in 146 bc. Yet when it was refounded in 44 bc, it was not rebuilt as a Greek city, but as a Roman colony.” So Greek Corinth had been destroyed and it was rebuilt 100 years later as a Roman colony.” The reason that this is significant is because the Hellenestic city of Corinth, or the city before it had become Roman, is the point in history when the 1,000 cult prostitutes was recorded by a Greek geographer named Strabo. Strabo wrote about the city of Corinth merely 30 years before Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians; however, Strabo wrote of Corinth in the past tense. As in, Strabo wrote about Corinth in the state it had been in before it had changed hands. The once rich temple that, at one time, had 1,000 temple prostitutes, was now more humble in existence. David W.J. Gill says, “Public marble portraits of women at Corinth, presumably members of wealthy and prestigious families are most frequently shown bare-headed.This would suggest that it was socially acceptable in a Roman colony for women to be seen bare-headed in public.”
In conclusion of the aforementioned historical evidence, it would be a stretch to suggest that the women of Corinth had to wear head coverings in order to differentiate themselves from feminists and prostitutes as it would not have been as common of a practice in the time of the letter (AD 53-54) as it would have been in 146 BC.
In Conclusion
It is quite clear where I stand on the head coverings, and, to be clear, it does not stop with women. It is important to note that Paul also mentions men and their need to have their head uncovered as Christ is his cover. It is my opinion, however, that these two points go hand-in-hand so I did not place too much time on the male side of the argument.
I believe that the conviction for wearing head covering for women, as well as not wearing head covering for men, is biblically rooted. I believe that the issue is in obedience - and once you start arguing away parts of Scripture as being cultural you run the risk of crossing over onto a dangerous road of deconstruction. I do not believe that if someone doesn’t know any better that they are inherently wrong. I believe if their heart is in obedience, that is how they will be judged. I believe, however, that once one does understand the truth of head covering that they should follow it and if they do not they are in a state of disobedience, and, therefore, sin. But I do not believe it prudent to dogmatically argue this to a congregation who 1) does not already hold to the doctrine or 2) has much larger, salvific issues.
Finally, I find this paragraph by Jeremy Gardiner very conclusive in summary of my own research. “In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul appeals to the creation order, nature’s witness and angels, all which transcend culture. He tells us that head covering is a part of official apostolic teaching and is the practice of all churches, everywhere. So that means a local situation in Corinth cannot explain head covering since it was the standard practice outside of Corinth as well. Earlier in Paul’s letter when he had a command that was due to the situation at the time, he mentioned it. He recommended not to marry “in view of the present distress” (1 Cor 7:26). Paul could have done the same with head coverings, but he didn’t because what was happening at the time wasn’t the reason for the command. Additionally, the fact that he commands men to remove their coverings (1 Cor 11:4) in the same sentence cannot be explained by a situation that deals only with women.”
List of Names
Unfortunately, there is also an argument that those who exegete the need for head covering do so from a place of poor hermeneutics. In response to that, I borrowed from “The Head Covering Movement” and included a list of those who believed at the end. I believe the list speaks for itself.
Dr. Michael Barrett
Tim Bayly
Dr. Joel Beeke
Dr. Gerald Bilkes
Dr. Robert Culver
Dr. S. Lewis Johnson Jr.
Dr. David Gooding
Wayne Jackson
Dr. Elliot Johnson
Mary Kassian
Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones
Witness Lee
William MacDonald
John Murray
Watchman Nee
Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley
Zac Ponen
Derek Prince
Dr. Charles Ryrie
Andree Seu
Dr. R.C. Sproul Sr.
Dr. R. C. Sproul Jr.
Dr. W. Andrew Smith
Alexander Strauch
Dr. Bruce Terry
Milton Vincent
Dr. Bruce Waltke
Dr. K. P. Yohannan
Dr. Latayne C. Scott
Dr. H.A. Ironside
A.W. Pink
Israel Wayne
R.J. Rushdooney
Dale Partridge
Doreen Virtue
Dr. Finny Kuruvilla
References
What Did A.W. Pink Believe About Head Covering?; Gardiner, Jeremy; Accessed 05/03/22; https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/aw-pink-believe-head-covering.
Christian Egalitarianism; Wikipedia; Accessed 05/02/22; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_egalitarianism
Headship in Marriage; William Mclead; Accessed 05/02/22; https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/headship-marriage
Why Head Coverings? Reason #1: Creation Order; Gardiner, Jeremy; Accessed 04/18/22; https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/why-head-coverings-reason-1-creation-order
Summarized from Headcovering is Still Relevant Today; Simonyi-Gindele, Caleb; Accessed on 04/18/22; https://oversight.today/head-covering-assembly-meetings/
Why Head Coverings? Reason #2: Angels, Gardiner, Jeremy; Accessed 05/02/22; https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/why-head-coverings-reason-2-angels
Moral and Positive Law; Sweets, Jeremy; Accessed 05/03/22; https://theologicalsweets.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/moral-and-positive-law/
Why Head Coverings? Reason #4: Church Practice; Gardiner, Jeremy; Accessed 05/03/22; https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/why-head-coverings-reason-4-church-practice.
New Wife - Often referenced a wife who did not restrict herself to the confines of the marriage bed in sexual relations. This can also reference a promiscuous woman, or even a feminist. (When the Evidence Doesn’t Match the Narrative; The Head Covering Movement; Accessed 05/03/22; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C0kL7st5Is)
Is Head Covering Cultural? What About the Corinthians Prostitutes? Gardiner, Jeremy; Accessed 05/04/22; https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/is-head-covering-cultural-what-about-the-corinthian-prostitutes
Cinerary Urn, The British Museum; Website Accessed 05/04/22; https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1805-0703-158
This list can be found at https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/which-christian-leaders-believe-in-headcovering
Comments