1 Corinthians 11:2-16

The Text

Rex Banks

Verse 5 a But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head;

Every woman

Again, as in v 4, the immediate context is important. In v.3 Paul has quite deliberately introduced his discussion of “every woman" whose head is man. He is not discussing every Corinthian woman or every first century woman, but every woman who occupies a God-ordained position in the headship hierarchy because of her unchanging relationship with God and the male. He is discussing every woman whose nature makes her the "glory of man" (v.7). 

who has her head uncovered

See Replacing Old Customs with new Customs and Appendix 1- Loosed Hair where I have argued at length that the words ακατακαλυπτω τη κεφαλη καταισχυνει refer to an artificial head covering.

What kind of artificial covering?

Some have concluded from the use of the word “uncovered” (ακατακαλυπτω) that a certain type of covering is in view. Some insist that the covering in question must hang down from the head, and some assert that the covering in view would have hidden the entire head including the face.

Those who insist that some kind of all-encompassing veil is in view usually do so because the preposition κατα  can carry the idea of “down from” but we need to keep in mind that when prepositions are prefixed to a verb they may simply intensify the meaning of that verb.   

“There is still another very common use of the preposition in composition. It is that of a mere adverb and intensifies or completes the idea of the verb. Sometimes the frequent use of the compound form tends to obscure this adverbial idea” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament A.T Robertson p 563).

It is clear from the Greek Old Testament that the idea of “hanging down” does not inhere in the word.

·   Moab complains that the Israelites “cover (κατεκαλυψεν) the face of the earth” (Num 22:5). This does not suggest that the Israelites were “hanging down from” the face of the earth.

·   When the Lord warns Tyre “great waters will cover (κατακαλυψη) you” (Ezek 26:19) He does not mean that the waters will “hang down” from the city.

·   Ex 26:34 “You shall put the mercy seat upon (κατακαλυψεις) the ark of the Testimony in the Most Holy.” A quick look at a concordance and check of the Septuagint may provide other examples.

 Certainly a scarf or shawl would qualify as a head covering, and the expression "having down the head" does suggest this. However in his Exegetical Fallacies, Carson warns against what he calls the "root fallacy" which "supposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its etymology."  Among other things he points out that our "good-bye" is a contraction of "God be with you," but many who use the expression are unaware of its origin. "Only-begotten" may come from "only" and "to beget" in which case it would suggest that the one so-described is the only son begotten by the father, but clearly this cannot be its meaning when applied to Isaac (Gen 25:1, 2). Carson's point is that "the meaning of a word may reflect the meanings of its component parts" but that it need not. It is clear from the use of κατακάλυπτος in scripture that the idea of “hanging down” does not inhere in the word. 

In 1 Cor 11:5 Paul is simply speaking of the “uncovered” head.  The word speaks of complete covering, but says nothing about the requirement to wear a particular kind of artificial covering. By way of illustration, the word  βαπτίζω means to dip plunge or immerse but nothing in the word specifies that the candidate for baptism need be immersed forward, or backward or sideways, head first, feet first or so on.  Similarly ακατακαλυπτω cannot be pressed beyond its meaning elsewhere. In Roman Greek Corinth a range of coverings was available to both men and women.

Moreover while it is true that the face is part of the head it is also true that the word “head” is  used in contexts where the face is not included. For example in Deut 21:12 it is said of the captive woman that she “shall shave her head and trim her nails.” Face shaving is not in view.  When Paul says that the uncovered woman is “one and the same with her whose head is shaved” he is not speaking of face shaving. Moreover the woman's hair which is her natural covering does not cover her face.

Misinformation

In 1941 brother R. L. Whiteside wrote in the Gospel Advocate (Sept 18):

“The indoor veil extended to the waist; the outdoor veil to the heels or nearly so. A hat is about as poor a substitute for either style as sprinkling is for baptism … Is it not strange how some preachers can read into a passage of scripture things that are not there, and then severely criticize those who do not agree with their perversion?” (from A Review of 'God's Woman' by John T. Willis). 

As explained, in my view brother Whiteside is incorrect in his assumption that the text requires a certain kind of covering. Nothing in the text hints at a veil extending to the waist, and in fact a variety of head coverings were worn by women in Roman – Greek cities just as in today's world. 

Brother Coffman says that “If Paul really meant that women should be veiled, then no fancy little hat will do it.” Citing another commentator he adds:

“One thing is certain; within the context of our contemporary culture, the modern western hat - decorative, attractive, and often obstructive - cannot be said to compare with the veil, either in appearance, function or purpose.”

If brother Coffman is arguing that expensive, elaborately decorated head wear designed to make a fashion statement and to display wealth miss the point of Paul's instructions, I agree entirely. I would also argue that if wealthy brethren took to bringing decorative jewel-encrusted gold and silver cups to worship for the Lord's supper so as to display their social status during the sacred feast this too would make a mockery of the assembly. However if some turn the Lord's Supper into an opportunity to display wealth and success and draw attention to themselves, we should supply corrective teaching, not dispense with the cup. We need to approach 1 Cor 11:5 in the same way.  

while praying or prophesying

Again see Context and v 4 above where I have argued that Paul is discussing corporate worship. Anyway whatever our view on other verses   this verse is dealing with women engaged in worship.

Those who take the custom position must show that in first century Corinth the bareheaded female worshiper was an object of disgrace. We have seen that this was not the case in the Greek setting at least. In this verse at least Paul is not speaking disparagingly about the uncovered female head in public, but about the bareheaded female worshiper. Just about everyone keeps this in view when dealing with the male in v 4 and it is equally important to remember this point when dealing with Paul's comments about the woman (v 5a).

disgraces her head

Again "disgraces" is καταισχυνει.  She brings shame upon her head by worshiping without a covering. Her own head?  The men present?  Both? Again likely there is deliberate ambiguity and both are meant. By her action the woman "disgraces" both herself and the male, her God-ordained head.

The custom problem

This verse, like v 4 presents the “custom position” with a problem. No, there is no evidence that all Greek women worshiped bareheaded, but there is good reason to believe that some did, and that they did not incur social disapproval (see First Century Worship Practices).  On the basis of the available evidence we cannot argue that the recipients of 1^st Corinthians would have said   "Yes Paul, we all agree that given recognized custom it is quite shameful for women to worship bareheaded.”

Moreover it is clear from context that Paul is not discussing Corinthian women steeped in some custom. He has deliberately introduced this section by speaking of  the woman whose head is the man (v 3).

Declarative statements 

Some argue that vv 4, 5 are simply "declarative statements" and contain no commands. Some contend that 1 Cor 11:2-16 contains no imperatives. In other words Paul does not say "you must do such and such!" but simply makes a statement of fact: "such and such is disgraceful." However Thomas B Warren points out:

"A declarative statement is one which states that something is or is not the case, that a particular object has a certain property or that it does not have that property, or that a certain state of affairs exists or it does not exist"  (When Is An Example Binding p. 61).

Brother Warren points out that “it is possible for declarative statements to be used to show that a particular thing is essential to the gaining of a certain end” (p 63). For example Mk.16:16 says: "He who has believed and has been baptized will be saved." Jesus expects us to reason "I need to be baptized." James says: "This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world " (1:27). There is no imperative here but Christians are expected to reason, "This is the kind of religion I should practice." The Bible is full of statements such as “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov 16:18) which require us to draw the appropriate conclusions. Brother Robert Camp points out:

“As a matter of fact the Bible is a record of God’s dealings with men to be sure but it is largely a record of God’s STATEMENTS to men. (Emphasis his)

Genesis 3 contains a great many statements which God made to the first human pair, one of which was ‘Ye shall not eat of it neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die’ referring to the fruit of the forbidden tree.

When God warned Noah of the impending disaster of the flood, he expressed His will to Noah in statements (Gen 6)…

God dealt with the disobedience of Adam and Eve but if there was never a command, then how are we to interpret God’s actions?”  (The Nature of Bible Truth – Is It Propositional? Rightly dividing the Word Vol 1 p. 75 editor Terry M Hightower)

Another contributor to this excellent lectureship book, brother Phil Davis, has the following:

“Direct statements are neither more nor less authoritative than any other method of expressing the will of God in Scripture. As we have seen they are inclusive of much more than the ‘command’ – the only type of instruction permitted God by some people.” (The Bible Authorizes by Direct statements, Implication, and Example)

Some brethren who generally have no difficulty understanding this seem to miss the point when it comes to 1 Cor 11:2-16. In view of the attention devoted to the study of hermeneutics in the Restoration Movement this is surprising. When Paul states that the covered male head and uncovered female head are disgraceful he expects the response, "We should not disgrace Christ or ourselves by such behavior." A few verses later in discussing the Lord's Supper assembly Paul says: "Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?" Now there is no imperative here either, but Paul expects them to reason that it is indeed sinful to despise the church and to shame fellow Christians.

Verse 5 b for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved

Paul has stated that the woman who prays and prophesies with uncovered head disgraces her head (5 a). By way of explanation, he now tells us that the uncovered female head in worship is disgraceful in the same way that the shaven female head is disgraceful. Thayer informs us that the word "shaved" is from "razor.”

Despite the NASB rendering above ("she is one and the same"), the rendering "it is" is preferable to "she is". Thus KJV has "for that is even all one as if she was shaven".  Robertson has, "literally, one and the same thing with the shaven" (Robertson p.160).  Similarly Blass and Debrunner: "1 Cor 11:5 (the unveiled woman) ... identical in meaning but not in person, hence the feminine (i.e. 'she is') is inconceivable " (p. 73). The idea then is this: the state of being uncovered in this setting and the state of being shaven are "one and the same thing" in terms of disgrace. (Literally Paul refers to the "having been shaved woman”) Net bible has "for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head."

An explanation from the text

Paul does not tell us in 5 b why the shaven female head is a disgrace, but he does tell us that this same disgrace belongs to the female who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered. It is “one and the same thing” in terms of disgrace.

Usually at this point discussions of custom and ancient head shaving practices are introduced by those who take the “custom” position. However as I see it, whether we are dealing with the head covering or any other topic, the first place to look for clarification of some point is always the text itself. Surely it makes sense to see if the immediate context, the remote context or the total context of scripture helps us with a difficult point before we invoke custom? After all, there is much we do not know about custom, and most Christians for the past 2,000 years have had little knowledge of first century head covering practices.

In my view then, any explanation by Paul himself as to why the shaven female head is disgraceful, or anything in scripture which offers a clue about this matter is of greatest value. In light of this consider these facts:

·   This same section Paul says this: "if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her" (v 15). He has said that man is the glory of God and woman the glory of man, and now we learn that the woman's hair is her glory.

·   Why is this the case? Why is it that a woman's long hair is “a glory to her”? Paul himself tells us why and he does not invoke custom. Listen to Paul. He says: "For (ὅτι “that because since”- Thayer) her hair is given to her for a covering (περιβόλαιον)" Thus, according to Paul, a woman's long hair is her glory because the woman's hair has been given to her as a covering.

·   As we will see later, the word translated “covering” in v 15 means something like shawl or wrap around. (See discussion of "covering" later.) God has so ordered creation that God's glory is the man, (v 7), man's glory is the woman (v 7) and woman's glory is her hair.

1.Culture does not determine that man is God's glory. This is God’s arrangement

2.Culture does not determine that woman is man's glory. This is God’s arrangement.

3.Culture does not determine that hair is woman's glory. It is her glory because “her hair is given to her for a covering.” This is God's arrangement.

Of course God gives hair to both the male and the female. According to scripture God and God alone forms man in the womb, (Psa 139:13) God and God alone “clothe(s) (him) with skin and flesh,” and “bones and sinew” (Job 10:11). God and God alone provides the mouth (Ex 4:11) ears, eyes (Psa 94:9; Prov 20:12) and every other part of the body. Naturally the hair of both the male and of the female has been given by God. But there is a difference. And it’s this: only in the case of the female is the hair her “glory” when it is long, because only in the case of the woman is it given to her by God to function as a shawl or mantle.

By way of explanation, suppose a father gives his engaged daughter a gift of $10,000 and explains: “Daughter I have given this gift to you as a dowry. This is the purpose of my gift.” He then gives $10,000 to his son to start up a business. The father has given the same gift to both, but only in the case of the daughter does it function as a dowry. Similarly God has given hair to the male and the female, but only in the case of the female is her hair designed to function as a covering (shawl, mantle) which brings glory to her. When the woman's hair functions as a περιβόλαιον and fulfills its divinely ordained purpose it is a glory to her. However the woman's hair can only function as a shawl or wrap around if she refrains from shearing her head. The woman who shaves her head thwarts God's design by depriving her head of its περιβόλαιον. Is it shameful to discard a divinely- ordained symbol of glory in the trash can? Would it have been shameful for Aaron to have treated with contempt the priestly garments given to him “for glory and for beauty” (Ex 28:2). To ask the question is to answer it.

In summary

Bringing it all together, according to Paul the woman who prays and prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head because “she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved” (v 5b). The uncovered woman in worship and the shaven woman are "one and the same thing" as far as disgrace goes. Both are involved in disgrace of the same kind. As we have seen, in the case of the shaven woman this disgrace results from perverting God's glory arrangement. As long as the woman's hair is her God - given glory the shaven female head is a disgrace and according to Paul the uncovered female worshiper shares this same disgrace being “one and the same with her whose head is shaved.”

An important point when looking at v 5 b is this: rather than look for examples of head shaving practices in the first century to explain why the shaven female head is disgraceful, we need to first look for a reasonable explanation in scripture. In my view Paul supplies this.

“If we examine verses 5 and 6 in light of verses 14-15, we see that for a woman to wear her hair short or to shave her hair is contrary to what brings her glory, namely long hair” (John Piper and Wayne Grudem Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood p. 122).

Chrysostom’s reasoning

We need to comment on John Chryostom’s (c 347-407) reasoning on this verse. Chrysostom believed that women were required to be covered in the public setting. He reasoned from this verse:

“(T)he man he compels not to be always uncovered, but only when he prays ... But the woman he commands to be at all times covered ... (he) also proceeded to say ‘for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.‘ But if to be shaven is always dishonorable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach" (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 26, ver. 4a)

Chrysostom has drawn an unwarranted conclusion. Consider the following statement:

“The individual who sleeps on the job is one and the same with the individual who steals from another."

Suppose, following Chrysostom's approach we reasoned as follows: if to steal from another is always wrong it is plain too that sleeping is always wrong. The problem is that we have ignored the fact that it is sleeping on the job which is equivalent to theft, not simply sleeping.

Another example may help. The preacher says:

“Any woman who speaks authoritatively in the public mixed assembly is one and the same with the woman who refuses to be in subjection to her godly husband."

The preacher‘s meaning is that in both cases the woman exhibits the same stubborn rebellious spirit. Suppose following Chrysostom's approach we reasoned: But if to fail to be in subjection to one’s godly husband is always dishonorable, it is plain too that speaking authoritatively is always a reproach. Of course this would exclude women from leadership positions in the classroom, business etc. But we can only draw this unwarranted conclusion by ignoring the preacher‘s qualifying words “in the public mixed assembly.“ Chrysostom does the same. He simply ignores Paul’s own qualifying words in v 5 (“praying or prophesying“) and falls into the same trap.