{"id":53558,"date":"2023-06-15T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-06-15T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.olivetree.com\/blog\/?p=53558"},"modified":"2023-06-15T08:35:52","modified_gmt":"2023-06-15T15:35:52","slug":"what-does-paul-say-about-head-coverings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.olivetree.com\/blog\/what-does-paul-say-about-head-coverings\/","title":{"rendered":"What Does Paul Say About Head Coverings?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Have you ever wondered why head coverings, or the lack thereof, was such a big deal in the Corinthian church? We may be used to the practice of removing hats indoors or prior to praying, but what about head coverings? Let\u2019s take a deep dive into 1 Corinthians 11:2\u201316<\/a> where Paul addresses the topic of head coverings with these notes from the ESV Expository Commentary<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First Corinthians 11:2\u201316<\/a> addresses the seventh of ten major issues in this epistle: wearing head coverings.<\/strong> This is another area in which the Corinthians have apparently adopted the worldly values of their pagan culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wearing Head Coverings (11:2\u201316)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For most of the NT, knowing a passage\u2019s historical-cultural context can enhance one\u2019s understanding, but this is usually not necessary to understand the passage accurately. This passage on head coverings, however, is one of the few places in which there is simply no way we can understand the text without understanding its historical-cultural context.<\/strong> What did covering one\u2019s head communicate in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul\u2019s day? If we cannot answer that question, then we cannot accurately understand this passage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Head Coverings and the Historical-Cultural Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The most helpful insights on this passage I have encountered are from Bruce Winter, a historian and NT scholar who is an expert on the first-century historical-cultural context of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world, and Corinth in particular. Here is basically what he argues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) During pagan religious ceremonies, priests\u2014Roman men with a high social status\u2014pulled their togas over their heads when they led by praying or sacrificing. If socially elite men in the Corinthian church covered their head when they prayed or prophesied during corporate worship, they would be highlighting their social status instead of highlighting Christ, the church\u2019s head. They might even exclude low-status people from praying or prophesying. So Paul commands Christian men not to adopt that syncretistic custom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) A woman\u2019s covering her head socially indicated that she was married. A thin headscarf or head covering symbolized a married woman\u2019s modesty and chastity and submission to her husband. This was one way in which a wife honored her husband publicly. A wife who refused to cover her head publicly disgraced her husband. The Greek word gyn\u0113<\/em> can mean woman or wife depending on the context, and in this passage it refers specifically to the wife in verses 3, 5, 6, 10, and 13<\/a>. The ESV rightly translates it as \u201cwife\u201d (cf. 11:3<\/a> ESV mg.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(3) A new kind of wife was emerging at this time in the Roman world\u2014one who rebelled against the cultural milieu that allowed husbands but not wives to be sexually promiscuous. One way in which such wives would flaunt that freedom was by removing their veils. So a Christian wife should not deliberately remove her veil\u2014especially while praying or prophesying during a time of corporate worship\u2014because that would contentiously identify her with these other promiscuous women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary of the Historical-Cultural Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

So the problematic issue is that the Corinthian Christians could wear or not wear head coverings in a way that defiantly flouted God\u2019s beautiful design for husbands and wives.<\/strong> Paul states his main argument in this passage in verses 4\u20135a<\/a>: when praying or prophesying in a church meeting, men who cover their heads dishonor Christ, whereas wives who uncover their heads dishonor their husbands. Paul supports that argument with at least six reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction: Paul commends the Corinthians (11:2)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Paul begins by praising the Corinthians (as opposed to how he begins the next issue; v. 17<\/a>). He affirms them for following what he taught them. \u201cEverything\u201d is hyperbole (cf. vv. 17\u201322<\/a>!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not clear how verse 2<\/a> connects to verses 3\u201316<\/a>. It is possible that the Corinthians are not abusing head coverings and that verses 3\u201316<\/a> simply explain why Paul already taught them the content contained in verses 4\u20135a<\/a>. But the way Paul argues in verses 3\u2013<\/a>16<\/a> implies that at least some of the Corinthians are abusing head coverings and that Paul is correcting them. He begins with praise as a gentle prelude to what follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Paul teaches in the rest of this passage is part of the \u201ctraditions\u201d\u2014that is, doctrine, which is binding for all Christians (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15<\/a>; 3:6<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reason 1 for the main argument: the husband-wife relationship should reflect the Father-Son relationship with reference to authority and submission (11:3)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This verse contrasts with the previous one\u2014first Paul commends the Corinthians; now he corrects them. He begins by providing the first reason for the main argument in verses 4\u20135a<\/a>: the husband-wife relationship should reflect the Father-Son relationship with reference to authority and submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ESV rightly reads \u201cthe head of a wife [gyn\u0113<\/em>] is her husband [an\u0113r<\/em>]\u201d instead of \u201cthe head of the woman is man\u201d (NIV; cf. NASB, CSB, NET, NLT).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHead\u201d translates kephal\u0113,<\/em> which refers not to source (as in the source of life, that is, origin) nor to preeminence (e.g., socially foremost) but metaphorically to authority (cf. Eph. 1:22<\/a>; 5:23<\/a>; Col. 1:18<\/a>; 2:10<\/a>). Paul specifies three relationships in which one person is the head and the other submits to that head.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

TABLE \u2013 Headship and Submission in 1 Corinthians 11:3<\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Headship<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Christ<\/p>\n\n\n\n

husband<\/p>\n\n\n\n

God (the Father)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Submission<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

every man<\/p>\n\n\n\n

wife<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Christ (the Son)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Paul presents an analogy regarding headship and submission:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the Father : the Son :: husband : wife<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The husband-wife relationship should reflect the Father-Son relationship with reference to authority and submission. God the Son submits to God the Father while still being equal in essence and value; the Son is not inferior just because he submits to the Father. Similarly, a wife who submits to her husband is still equal in essence and value; a wife is not inferior just because she submits to her husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Main argument: when praying or prophesying in a church meeting, men who cover their heads dishonor Christ, and wives who uncover their heads dishonor their husbands (11:4\u20135a)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

These verses are an inference of verse 3<\/a>. When praying or prophesying, a man who covered his physical head in Paul\u2019s day dishonored his metaphorical head (i.e., his authority\u2014Christ)<\/strong> because doing so mimicked the socially elite pagan priests, and a wife who uncovered her physical head in Paul\u2019s day dishonored her metaphorical head (i.e., her authority\u2014her husband)<\/strong> because she was refusing to wear a symbol of her being married. This is the passage\u2019s main argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reason 2: a wife\u2019s uncovering her head is culturally shameful (11:5b\u20136)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Paul adds a second reason for the main argument in verses 4\u20135a<\/a>: a wife\u2019s uncovering her head is culturally shameful. Paul argues deductively like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n