Head Coverings for Women

by Eric Svendsen
In the eleventh chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, Paul discourses on the necessity of head coverings for women in the Christian assembly. Interpreters of this passage have found themselves in one of two camps when deciding what relevance this passage has for the church today. On the one hand, there are those who see this passage as having relevance for churches in Paul’s day (though perhaps not all churches in Paul’s day) and either no relevance for today or a modified relevance for today. Those in this camp include Christian feminists who see absolutely nothing in this passage to speak to the church today, as well as traditionalists who see an abiding principle of headship and submission but no binding custom of head coverings for women. In the other camp are those who see not only headship of men and submission of women, but also a command from Paul that head coverings for women are to be a custom of church practice.

As one might gather based upon our stance on other church-related issues, we do not feel at all comfortable with the position of those in the first camp. There are inherent weaknesses in explaining away New Testament commands using the guise of cultural relativity—indeed, cultural relativity could be used to dismiss any or every part of the New Testament. Needless to say, we can't have that.

Aside from the obvious weaknesses of this approach, there is absolutely nothing in this passage to suggest that Paul sees a cultural limitation to his injunction about head coverings. On the contrary, every reason Paul gives for his injunction is arguably timeless and universal in scope. His reasons include the chain of headship (God-Christ-man-woman, v 3), the priority of creation (vv 8-9), the angels (v 10), and nature itself (v 14). None of these things is temporary or culturally limited, but rather timeless; Paul’s injunction must therefore be seen as timeless. Moreover, Paul calls this practice a custom of the church (v 16), and a tradition which he has handed down and to which he expects his churches to hold (v 2).

Those of the second camp (i.e., those who see head coverings as a binding church practice) obviously enjoy the luxury of being able to argue the previous points. They also have the advantage of taking Paul's words at face value and can apply the passage without compromising hermeneutic integrity. Theirs is the stronger position based upon the preponderance of evidence. This is the position that we once took and perhaps would still hold if it were not for four or five points of grammar in this passage that forced us to adopt a third position.

Before positing the third position it will be necessary to look at several key elements of Paul’s argument in this passage. First, it is notable that Paul takes one tone from vv 3-10, but from vv 11-16 takes quite another tone. Verse 11 seems to be the pivot point of the two tones. The key phrase in v 11 is "However, in the Lord." In the passage immediately preceding this phrase Paul makes several observations that, after v 11, he seems to balance. For instance, in vv 8-9 Paul seems to be arguing that man is completely independent of woman and, indeed, that woman is completely dependent on man ("for man did not come from woman but woman from man; for also man was not created for woman but woman for man"). Paul's point seems to be two-fold: (1) man does not rely upon woman for his existence, and (2) woman does rely upon the man for her existence, and, indeed, her existence is for the very purpose of benefitting man.

Yet, beginning with v 11 Paul seems to add balance to (if not to controvert) what he said in vv 8-9. Paul argues in v 11 that, yes, while it is true woman is not independent of man, in the Lord neither is man independent of woman. The statement in vv 8-9 is true in itself, but does not go quite far enough. Man and woman are interdependent; neither one can claim independence. Paul expands upon this in v 12. In essence he says, yes, it is true that woman was made from man, but also the man is born through the woman—hence, interdependence, and hence, vv 8-9 are balanced by vv 11-12.

One last balance seems to be between v 7 and v 12. In v 7 Paul seems to argue that man was made in the image of God but woman was not. Instead, she was made in the image of man. However, the idea that woman was made in the image of man (not untrue in itself, but misrepresentative of the fact that both man and woman were made in the image of God; see Gen 1:27) is balanced in v 12: "All things have their source in God." If v 9 makes the point that woman has her source in man, v 12 places it in proper perspective by pointing out that all thing (i.e., both man and woman) have their source in God.

The question then becomes, Why does Paul make statements in vv 7-10 that he later must balance in vv 11-12? Before answering this question it will be necessary to reconstruct the occasion of Paul's response in this section of his letter. The best starting point is in v 16. There Paul gives us a clue as to what is going on. He says, "If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God." It seems relatively clear from Paul's words that someone (or, perhaps more likely, some group) was insisting that the church take a specific position on women's head coverings. Most standard translations (including the NASB and the NIV) render Paul as saying, "we have no other custom." This would indicate that the "contentious" group was insisting that women should not wear head coverings. Paul then would be correcting this group by appealing to a universal church custom of head coverings for women. What is so surprising (and what is the very thing that caused us to rethink this passage) is that the Greek word translated "other" in v 16 (toioutos) never means "other" anywhere else; and, in fact, means only "such" ("we have no such custom"). Needless to say, this drastically changes the meaning of Paul’s words. If Paul is saying "we have no such custom of women wearing head coverings," then obviously the "contentious" group was insisting that women should wear head coverings.

Based upon this information we may assume the following to be true of the Corinthian situation. The "contentious" group had been trying to get the rest of the Corinthians to adopt a custom of women covering their heads with some kind of veil when praying or prophesying. The Corinthians, uncertain as to what to do in this situation, include a section about this teaching in a general letter which they wrote to Paul (see 7:1 for evidence of this letter). In the letter they may have said something to this effect: "There is a group of Christians who have come to us and told us that we are supposed to have our women wear veils during the meeting. We don’t recall you saying anything about this. So far we have not changed the way we have been doing things, but we would like to get your thoughts on this teaching." To which Paul replies, "Now, I praise you for remembering me in everything, and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you" (v 2). In other words, "I praise you for not changing the way I taught you to do things, especially in light of the fact that you were under pressure by this group to modify your meetings."

Paul then begins to outline in vv 3-10 the building blocks upon which those in this "contentious" group have built their teaching that women need to wear head coverings. The important thing to note here is that Paul does not disagree with the building blocks used by those in the "contentious" group to develop their theology of head coverings. On the contrary, he agrees that a woman does indeed need a head covering when praying or prophesying. Everything that Paul says through v 10 is something that Paul firmly believes. He believes that woman was created in the image of man; he believes that woman is dependent on man and that man was created independent of woman—he believes all of this to be true. But he does not believe it to be the whole truth. Yes, woman was, in a sense, created in the image of man (v 7) (it was from Adam that Eve was created), but ultimately she, too, was created in the image of God (v 12). Yes, woman is dependent upon man for her initial existence (v 9), but so is man dependent upon woman for his further existence (vv 11-12).

So, while Paul does not disagree with the theological foundation of those in the "contentious" group, neither does he think they have gone far enough in building their theology. At best they have a lopsided view of a woman’s status before God. Likewise, Paul does not disagree that, on the basis of male headship, women should have a covering on their heads when praying or prophesying. His disagreement is with the application of this principle.

All through this passage (vv 3-10) Paul has been insisting that a woman must have a "covering" on her head. The Greek word he uses here is katakaluptos. Here he is in agreement with those of the "contentious" group. They, too, have been insisting that a woman have a covering on her head. But then Paul shifts his tone in v 11: "However, in the Lord," and from that point on begins to explain how this principle applies to the church.

In vv 13-14 Paul asks the Corinthians two questions: (1) "Decide for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God without a covering?"; (2) "Does not nature itself teach you that . . . if a woman has long hair it is her glory?" The two questions are to be answered as a set. The second question is intended to buttress the first. In other words, by answering the second question first, the answer to the first question should then be obvious. A wise sales manager might ask his sales team: "Is an increased sales effort something that we want to do away with," and then buttress that with: "Don’t we want to see an increase in our bonuses next month?" By answering the second question first (yes, we do want to see an increase in bonuses), the answer to the first question then becomes obvious (no, an increased sales effort is not something want to do away with). Paul uses the same reasoning here. To answer the second question first: yes, a woman’s long hair is her glory (that is, it keeps her from the "shame" of being uncovered). This makes the answer to the first question obvious: no, it is not proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered.

But here Paul is thinking about a specific kind of covering. Up until this verse Paul has consistently used the generic word katakaluptos ("covering") to insist that a woman be covered while praying or prophesying. Paul agrees with the contentious group that a woman does need a covering. What he disagrees with is the application. The contentious group insisted that the covering be a garment (a veil or shawl), whereas Paul is arguing that, in the case of the church ("however, in the Lord," v 11), the covering is the woman’s own hair. Long hair, Paul argues, is the glory of a woman (v 15). He further argues this point in the very next phrase: "for, long hair is given to her for a covering." The word "for" here is anti, and means literally "instead of." The word for covering in this verse is not katakaluptos, which is a very generic term for "covering." Here Paul uses the word peribolaios, which means literally "that which is wrapped around [the head]."

In other words, Paul is saying that, yes, women do need a covering (katakaluptos) on their heads when praying or prophesying. But, "in the Lord" that covering is not a peribolaios (cloth wrapped around the head), but rather the woman’s own hair. In fact, "in the Lord" (that is, in the church), long hair is given to a woman "instead of" (not "for") "that which is wrapped around the head." Women in the church have a ready-made covering and are therefore not in violation of the principles expressed in vv 3-10.

No other interpretation of this passage seems to grapple with the literary structure of this passage (the point/counterpoint dialogue that pivots around v 11) or the points of grammar brought up in this article (the use of anti ["instead of"] in v 15, and the use of toioutos ["such"] in v 16). Our reconstruction, though admittedly not without its own inherent weaknesses, goes much farther in unraveling a difficult passage about which there is much dispute. We hope that it will be of help to those who seek to follow apostolic tradition.