2. Common Objections Answered

Objection #1 – “The commands for long hair and a head covering are culturally relative and time bounded issues.”

This view says that Paul was asking the Corinthian Christians to adapt to their culture. Since long hair is no longer shameful for men, nor short hair for women, we are not bound. Since being covered with a shawl in worship is no longer considered shameful for men or necessary for women, we are not bound.

The only proofs used to demonstrate this are supposedly taken from archeology.

However, the following points demonstrate that even if archeology had authority to overthrow exegesis, archeology now shows the opposite of this objection.

See Appendix B “Five Myths About Corinthian Headwear,” by professor Bruce Terry. This article examines the archeological frescoes, paintings, etc of women from the 8^th century BC to the 1^st Century BC. These pictures blow apart the following myths:

1. that women in Corinth were expected to cover their heads when appearing in public.
2. that only prostitutes appeared without a headcovering.
3. that the covering women wore covered the whole head including the face.
4. that Greeks shaved the heads of women caught in adultery.
5. that men always prayed bare-headed.

What is clear from the archeological evidence is that Paul was bucking the culture of Rome (since both men and women prayed with heads covered), the culture of Greece (since both men and women prayed with their heads uncovered), and the culture of later Judaism (since men covered their heads when praying).

Paul was indifferent to many cultural matters. In 1 Corinthians 8-9 he deals with the issue of liberty of conscience. Notice the stark contrast between the language of those chapters and the language of chapter 11. In 8:8 he says, “for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.” In regard to head coverings Paul uses the language of divine imperative: “imitate Christ” (v. 1), “dishonor” (see vv. 4-5,14), “shameful” (v. 6), “ought not” (v. 7), “ought” (v. 10), and “judge” (v. 13). It is clear that Paul treats head coverings as non-optional imperatives, whereas he gave great liberty of individual choice on the issues in chapters 8-9. This is strong divine testimony that Paul cannot be speaking of cultural matters here.

Furthermore, there is evidence of pagan men with long hair. Adam Clarke comments: “In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great variety of places, ‘the long-haired Greeks’”³² Paul was clearly going against culture, not conforming to cultural tastes and mores.

It is a dangerous practice to explain away doctrine based on archeology. We should share Paul’s attitude: “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Paul gives more reasons to show that this binds every church, in every culture and in every time period, than he does for any other doctrine in 1 Corinthians.

Paul not only wrote this epistle “to the church of God which is at Corinth,” but “to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Cor. 1:2, emphasis added). That alone ought to show that he intended these principles to be kept by Rome, Ephesus and every other portion of the church. In addition to this, Paul explicitly says that what was enforced at Corinth was also the custom of “the churches of God” (v. 16).

That passage uses universal: “every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” (v. 4, emphasis added). “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…”

Paul appeals to his own apostolic authority on this issue as well as the authority of Christ: “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” (v. 1) That phrase by itself takes this whole section out of the realm of that which is relative and culturally bound into that which is universally binding.³³

Paul says, “I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you” (v. 2). Which things was Paul praising them for? Commentators point out that it can’t be the issue of the Lord’s Supper (chapters 10; 11:17-34) because he says precisely the opposite when broaching that subject: “Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you…” (v. 17). Though a few members had perhaps questioned the church policy on head coverings, the church as a whole was keeping everything that Paul had taught. With that as background, consider the next very important point.

That phrase “the traditions as I delivered them to you” uses the Greek word paradosis, which means “a handing down, transmission” (Liddel & Scott), “a handing down or over, a tradition.” (NAS Greek) The word occurs twice in that phrase and could be rendered “the things handed down, I handed down to you.” Scripture knows of only two types of traditions handed down. It forbids any subjection for a moment to the “traditions of men” (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; Col. 2:8), but it treats as infallible and binding the traditions handed down from the apostles (2 Thes. 2:15; 3:6). What the “culture bound” advocates are ironically saying is that Paul was mandating that the Corinthian Christians subject their consciences to the traditions of men; this despite the fact that Paul had earlier said, “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (4:6). Paul would never have imposed man-made traditions in the language of ethics (“ought not” [v. 7], “ought” [v. 10], “imitate Christ” [v. 1], etc.). This would violate Christ’s maxim: “in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). Either it is a commandment of men (culture) or a commandment of God. I cannot conceive that the same Paul who castigated men when they succumbed to ‘innocent’ traditions such as “touch not, taste not, handle not” (Col. 2:20-23) would bind their consciences to the changing whims of culture in 1 Corinthians 11. Where does this leave the regulative principle of worship? Paul’s maxim is “let no one judge you” and do not submit to “the commandments and doctrines of men” (Col. 2:22). In 1 Corinthians 2:3 Paul insisted that the “things we also speak, [are] not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit.” Paul had been given a sacred trust on the teaching of these first 16 verses and he was passing it on to the disciples. These traditions did not originate in Corinth, nor did they originate in Paul. They were a deposit of truth given by revelation of Christ to Paul to Corinth (thus the command in verse 1 to “imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.”)

Notice also the parallel in language between verse 2 and verse 23. The teaching on head coverings and hair is a paradosis (v. 2) and the teaching on the Lord’s Supper is a paradosis (v. 23). If one “tradition” is cultural and relative, perhaps the other one is also. If the symbol of head coverings is meaningless today, what about that of the Lord’s Supper? The authority of the one is the same authority as the other.

Pardon one more application of verse 2: Paul wants the Corinthian Christians to “keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.” The word for “keep” is a very strong word which means “to prevent from going away; to hold fast; to guard” (BAGD). Thus this verse is translated variously as “guard the traditions” (BAG), “held fast the traditions” (ASV), and “keep unchanged the rules” (Con). Why would they need to guard these teachings if they were culturally relative? Furthermore, why would Paul insist that they be kept “as I delivered them to you”? That too implies that there should not be any change whatsoever.

Paul appeals to apostolic custom and church custom (v. 16) but not to the customs of the world. Indeed, he is bucking the cultural customs of the Greek world.

Paul makes this teaching a necessary implication of the headship of Christ and the abiding role relationships between men and women in the church. (vv. 3-5,7-9,11-12) If headship calls for this “sign,” then the sign should be as abiding as the headship of a man is.

Paul calls for all “glory” to be covered in worship except for the glory of God. (See exposition under Objection #2.) Surely if it was important to cover man’s glory (the woman) and the woman’s glory (the woman’s hair) back then, the need still exists for God’s glory alone to be shown today. (See more under objection #2.)

It is an implication of the image of God in man (v. 7). If the “sign” is relative, why does Paul appeal to so many non-relative reasons to enforce the use of this sign? The creation order of woman coming from the man preceded cultures (v. 8). Paul appeals to this creation order when discussing coverings.

Paul appeals to the woman’s role as a help-meet (v. 9). This too roots Paul’s discussion in the creation account and takes it above any cultural relativity. Has she ceased to have this role of help-meet? Obviously not.

Paul appeals to the presence of angels in the worship service as a reason why women need to have a covering (v. 10).³⁴ I won’t go into the meaning of that phrase here, but it is clear that whatever it means, Paul appeals to something beyond culture.

Childbirth (vv. 11-12) continues to happen and the man and the woman’s interdependence becomes yet another reason why Christians should not deviate from Paul’s admonitions on coverings. If this “sign” is as transient and relative as many make it out to be, it seems difficult to account for Paul appealing to so many supra-cultural norms to enforce it.

Many appeal to 1 Corinthians 11:13 to try to prove that Paul was talking about convention, not ethics. However, the text proves just the opposite. The text says, “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (v. 13). If this proves that the head covering issue was cultural or relative, then the Lord’s Supper is also cultural and relative because Paul uses the same language to describe Communion: “I speak to wise men, judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ…” (1 Cor. 10:15-16). To appeal to the conscience makes this a moral issue, not a cultural issue. Secondly, the word for “proper” (πρέπον - prepon) is used everywhere else in the New Testament in connection with ethical absolutes: “…it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints” (Eph. 5:3, emphasis added); “which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works” (1 Tim. 2:10). See also Titus 2:1-5; Heb. 2:10; 7:26.

Paul appeals to “nature.” In Romans 1:26-27 he does the same to prove that homosexuality is against nature. In other words, it violates God’s creation order. It is unnatural in that God did not intend it to be that way when He created the natural order. Again, this would be gross hyperbole if it was not intended to be an abiding “sign.” The particular sign that Paul says is the natural one is hair. After the fall, God added a cloth covering as required.

Women failing to wear head coverings deviates from the universal custom of all the churches, not just the churches in one geographic or cultural area (v. 16).

Objection #2 – “The passage only calls for long hair. It does not mandate a head covering.”

Many teach (and I used to believe) that the covering Paul talks about in verses 2-16 is hair and only hair. They base this on verse 15: “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” [emphasis added]. They say that if her hair is a covering, then she needs no other covering. They say that verse 15 is the clue to understanding all the other coverings in the passage.

The value of this argument hangs entirely on the assumption that Paul is defining his terms in verse 15.

The fatal flaw with that reasoning is that the Greek term Paul is supposed to be defining doesn’t occur in verse 14. Paul uses an entirely different word for “covering” in verse 15 than elsewhere in the chapter. This is extremely confusing if one holds to the “hair is the only covering” view, but it makes perfect sense if Paul is arguing from God’s natural covering (hair) to reinforce the need for the post-fall covering of clothing (see earlier commentary). This sudden change of terms cannot be accidental. If Paul wanted to say that hair is the only covering he intended in the chapter, he could have a) used the same word for covering elsewhere and/or b) used the word hair to make it clear. (See point 5 for quote that draws out distinctions Paul makes.) Thus the “hair-only” interpretation lacks simplicity and ignores the distinctions in vocabulary that Paul uses.

This understanding fails to appreciate Paul’s argument in verses 5-6.

The common excuse women (and some men) give for this [1 Cor. 11:4-6] is that a woman’s hair is her covering. Let’s look at it logically. If a woman prays without a head covering, she should be shaved. Therefore, if she should be shaved, she couldn’t have already been shaved. It’s kind of hard to shave a shaved head. …If she doesn’t have hair (ie., a covering), she should be shaved. But how can you shave the head, if there is no hair to shave?! Paul is speaking of women who DO have hair, and hair can’t be the covering. If it were a covering, then men should be bald.³⁵

This seems quite plain from ver. 6: ‘If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.’ If the hair were the covering referred to, this verse would read, ‘If she has no hair, let her cut her hair’! which [makes no] sense.³⁶

The “hair only” interpretation fails to distinguish the glory of the woman, the glory of the man and the glory of God.

Indeed, it destroys the central mandate of Paul that no glory be seen in the assembly except the glory of God.

Paul speaks of three glories in this passage: a) the glory of God, b) the glory of man, and c) the glory of the woman. The man is the glory of God (v. 7). The woman is the glory of the man (v. 7). The woman’s hair is the glory of the woman. Only the glory of God is to remain uncovered during worship. The glory of man (the woman) is to be covered and the glory of woman (her hair) is to be covered. As Richard Bacon explains: “the hair of a woman cannot be both the glory and that which covers the glory! ‘A’ is not ‘non-A.’ Nothing can be both ‘A; and non-A’ at the same time and in the same way. Paul taught us that the object which is the glory cannot also cover the glory! And he taught us that only God’s glory is to be seen in the worship service.”³⁷ Also see the excellent paper by Dr. Peter H. L. Wee, “Woman’s Head Covering & the Glory of God.”³⁸

Surely a careful reading of the text would show such an interpretation to be a weak avoidance of the truth as it is set out. Notice that for the woman there are two glories involved. She is a glory: ‘The woman is the glory of the man’ (v. 7). But she also has a glory of her own. Her hair is a glory to her (verse 15). For the glory that she is (the glory of the man), God has given her a natural covering, her long hair. For the glory that she has (her hair), she must submit her will to cover that with another covering which she places over her own glory.³⁹

The issue of what garment is “proper” (Greek “prepon”) to prayer is commented on by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:8-10.

In that letter Paul says that males are to pray with raised hands (showing leadership) whereas women are to pray with “modest apparel… which is proper [prepon] for women professing godliness” [emphasis added]. In both passages there is a fabric covering which is said to be “proper” for prayer and which shows submission. There is only one kind of clothing in either Old or New Testaments that shows submission, and that is the head covering.

What is meant in verse 5 regarding any woman praying or prophesying with her head “uncovered.”

Many people say that the “covering” in 1 Corinthians 11 is hair; then does v. 5 mean that she has taken her hair off? Some say it means long hair, but there is implication here that her head being uncovered is voluntary and immediately reversible. One obviously cannot lengthen ones hair except over a long period of time. Verse 6 further states that IF she be not covered, let her ALSO be shorn, which seems to rule out that her hair being cut was what was meant by “if she be not covered”.

Furthermore, verses 4 and 7 tell us that a man is not to wear a head covering. Would this mean he was to remove his hair, or to wear it extremely short? If so, how short? 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us that God is not the author of confusion, and it certainly seems that trying to inject hair of ANY nature here is, at the very least, confusing! (Could this be because hair of any length is a very recent interpretation by modern man to get away from the true and original intent of this passage? Man in this day and age has indeed become very style conscious.)

Verse 10 says that women ought to wear it because of the angels. Would we be able to use hair or even long hair here as the reference (“that she ought to have hair on her head” or even “that she ought to have long hair on her head”)? If it were hair or long hair, how could the angels differentiate between the appearance of the woman of God and the woman of the world? Apparently they need to be able, for whatever reasons, to see an outward and visible covering.

It should be obvious at this point that the intent of the covering in this passage is something that could be put on or taken off - a covering not provided by nature, but one we choose to wear or not to wear. The confusion regarding the use of hair as covering seems to come from verses 14 and 15. These verses tell us, however, that EVEN NATURE resounds God’s will for woman to cover her head by ITSELF covering her head with long hair. Her long hair is, in itself, a glory to her, and the essence of this entire passage is that the glory of woman should be covered. To cover this glory of woman would necessitate that something be worn on top of the hair itself.⁴⁰

Objection #3 – “If what is symbolized is honored, it doesn’t matter what sign we use.”

Many teach either 1) that the heart is all that matters whether the sign is there or not, or 2) we can use a culturally relevant sign to demonstrate our submission.

There are three symbols called for in chapter 11: the head, the bread, and the wine.

If we took the same attitude with the bread and the wine as we do with the hair and the head covering we would be in trouble. What would your reaction be if someone said, “We have communion with Christ in our hearts. What difference does it make if we use the signs of bread and wine”? Reformed people would rightly object that the language of 11:23 makes observance mandatory: “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread….” (11:23). Notice that exactly the same language is used to preface Paul’s discussion of head coverings. Paul says, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ… keep the things handed down as I delivered them to you” (vv. 1-2). All three symbols were delivered to Paul by Christ and were in turn delivered to the people. (See notes on verses 1-2.) Any attack against head covering could equally come against the Lord’s Supper. If someone sought to make a culturally more relevant sign than bread or wine, we would rightly object, even though what the bread and the wine symbolizes deeply offends our modern culture. Logically, what the bread and the wine symbolizes renders society’s opinions irrelevant. The same is true of submission and the sign of submission.

Paul was not an innovator.

Read what Scripture says about the three words connected to this symbol:

• “tradition” (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thes. 2:15; 3:16)
• “received” (1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3; Gal. 1:12)
• “delivered” (1 Cor. 11:2,23; 15:5; Jude 3)

Objection #4 – “This interpretation contradicts the law of the Nazarite and the fact that the high priest wore a head covering when he went into the holy place.”

Many try to escape the clear teaching of this passage by appealing to other “problem” passages.

Complexity is no excuse.

God does not allow people to get off the hook of responsibility simply because they can’t answer all the reasons why. We don’t need to know why God has commanded something before we obey it. All we need to know is that He commanded it.

Resolving the difficulty.

Let’s just assume for the sake of the argument that a contradiction exists between the Old Testament passages and this New Testament one. What does that prove? It simply proves that God has the right to change the rules of worship relative to head coverings just as He changed the rules of worship relative to priests, sacrifices, etc. To my shame, this was an argument that I used to keep from coming to a conclusion long after I knew what 1 Corinthians 11 meant. We cannot ignore New Testament rules by appealing to Old Testament rules of worship which have passed away.

There is no contradiction between Paul and the Old Testament.

With regard to the Nazarite vow.

It is clear that the Nazarite vow applied equally to the woman as to the man: “When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazarite, to separate himself to the LORD…” (Numb. 6:2). This means that both the man and the woman had equal shame when they went against the natural order to take this vow of radical submission: the man in having long hair and the woman when her head was shaved. Everything about the Nazarite vow was an exception to the ordinary rules of life. Exceptions don’t remove rules, they prove the rules. It was clear that men ordinarily were not allowed to grow their hair long and women ordinarily were not allowed to shave their heads. It says of the men, “They shall neither shave their heads nor let their hair grow long; but they shall keep their hair well trimmed” (Ezek. 44:20). So when the Nazarite grew his hair and when he shaved his head, he was going contrary to the norm. The exceptions to long hair for the woman were when a woman Gentile converted to Christianity (Deut. 21:12), cleansing from leprosy (Lev. 14:9), and breaking or ending a Nazarite vow (Numb. 6). None of those situations apply today except for the health issue. Some might say that Jesus was a Nazarite and we are to imitate Him in growing our hair long. However, Christ was not a Nazarite, but a Nazarene. If He had been a Nazarite, He would have broken the law by drinking wine (Numb. 6:3-4 with John 2; Matt. 11:19; 27:34,48). Some see in Paul’s comments an application of the law of the Nazarite to all women. Though I disagree, the footnote gives a sample quote.⁴¹

With regard to the high priest’s hat.

Priests had special clothing (including hats) that were to be worn in the holy place (Exod. 28:40; 29:9; 39:28; Ezek. 44:18). However, the priest was not allowed to take his temple garments out of the holy place of the temple (Lev. 16:24 NIV). Any time he stood before the people he removed his hat. For example, Ezekiel 44:19 says, “When they go out to the outer court, to the outer court of the people, they shall take off their garments in which they have ministered, leave them in the holy chambers, and put on other garments; and in their holy garments they shall not sanctify the people.” 42:14 says, “When the priests enter them [the holy chambers], they shall not go out of the holy chamber into the outer court; but there they shall leave their garments in which they minister, for they are holy. They shall put on other garments; then they may approach that which is for the people.”

Why this distinction? The answer ties in perfectly with Paul’s discussion of glory in 1 Corinthians 11. In worship, only God’s glory may be visible. Within the Holy Place was God’s Shekinah glory and the symbol of that glory called variously “the ark of the covenant,” “the glory of Israel,”⁴² the throne of His glory,” etc. Outside of the Holy Place, the only glory of God that was visible was representative, in the priest. The priest took on two roles in the temple. When he stood before the people He represented God to the people and was the glory of God; but when he went into the Holy Place he represented the people to God.⁴³ When representing man he was covered. When representing God he was uncovered. Therefore, far from being in contradiction to 1 Corinthians 11, it parallels Paul’s teaching completely. When the priest was in the Holy Place he had to be covered because the only glory that was to be visible was the glory of God. When the priest stood outside the holy place and before the people he had to be uncovered because the only glory that was to be visible was the glory of God, and he represented God’s glory. In the synagogues (the Old Testament equivalent to the church), priestly garments had no role whatsoever.⁴⁴ All men were uncovered in the synagogue worship. (For proof see objection 8.) Paul said, “For the man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:7). Man as the representative of God’s glory should not be covered, whereas woman as the glory of man should be covered.

Objection #5 – “The head covering was only to be worn while praying or prophesying (v. 4) and since these supernatural gifts of ecstatic prayer and prophesying have passed away, women no longer need to wear head coverings or wear long hair.”

This interpretation fails to deal with the sticky problem in chapter 14 where Paul specifically forbids women from praying in tongues or prophesying in the worship service.

(Please read the comments I have made under 11:5 which show how Paul used an identical method of argumentation in other passages. Those should be key in understanding what he is doing here.)

It should be remembered that 11:5 is forbidding an activity, not endorsing an activity. One must always be much more cautious in drawing positive implications from a negative statement. Though such an interpretation is possible in the abstract, it is contradictory of 14:34-35. Interestingly, Gordon Fee, an “evangelical” commentator who favors the interpretation that women don’t have to wear head coverings and who permits women to pray and prophecy in church admits that there is a contradiction on his interpretation. Rather than submitting to Scripture, Gordon Fee chooses to say that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not part of Scripture and is “certainly not binding.”⁴⁵ How low have we come that we must defend our modern theories by rejecting the Scriptures?! Though there are difficulties associated with understanding the verse, it is clear that 14:34-35 is an absolute prohibition for women to speak. So how do we answer this question?

While the traditional interpretation may seem odd, the alternatives are far more odd. The prohibitions of women prophesying in church are so strong, that it is more than a little odd to set them aside by a positive permission being implied from a negative prohibition in 11:5. (If the same method were used to interpret 1 Corinthians 8:10 there would be a blatant contradiction with 10:20-21!) Consider the things that Paul says women cannot do in 14:34-35. “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” He repeats the prohibition in five different ways. Though Gordon Fee rejects the authority of the text, he is at least honest in what it means.

Here is the traditional argument as explained by Charles Hodge and John Calvin:

It was Paul’s manner to attend to one thing at a time. He is here [11:5] speaking of the propriety of women speaking in public unveiled, and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public in itself. When that subject comes up, he expresses his judgment in the clearest terms, 14,34. In here disapproving of the one, says Calvin, he does not approve of the other.⁴⁶

It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophecy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church (1 Tim. ii.12) It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by her condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely, in chapter xiv.⁴⁷

Third, in support of the traditional argument it should be pointed out that Paul uses exactly the same kind of procedure in the same epistle. As John Robbins says,

The matter of women speaking in church is not the only instance in which Paul delays, for the sake of argument, his condemnation of an objectionable practice to another chapter, and even to another book. In 1 Corinthians 8:10, speaking of the matter of giving offense to a brother, he writes: ‘For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols?’ But it is not until 10:20-21 that he condemns the practice of eating in pagan temples, and it is not until 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 that he blasts the Corinthians for their obtuseness.⁴⁸

Fourth, it is a logical fallacy to say that 11:5 means that every woman prayed and prophesied or even that any did. John Robbins says,

The lesson in logic Calvin gives is extremely important: ‘By here condemning the one [speaking with uncovered head] he does not commend the other [speaking].’ If one were to say, it is wrong to go through a red light while speeding, he cannot be understood to say that it is right to speed. It is wrong both to speed and to ignore red lights. So it is with women speaking in church uncovered. Women speaking uncovered in church is wrong, and so is women speaking in church.⁴⁹

People object that women sang in the Old Testament worship; Paul does not forbid women singing. As John Robbins states, “Paul forbids women to speak, to pray, to prophesy, to teach, to exercise authority, and to ask questions in church meetings. Congregational singing in worship is not forbidden by Paul.”⁵⁰

Even if you reject this traditional argument, there is no way to get around the head covering issue. See the text notes in the first part of the booklet for other options people have taken.

The whole context of chapters 10-14 is decorum in the worship gatherings of the people.

As we pointed out under the earlier objections, the context and themes of this chapter indicate a much broader reason for wearing head coverings than simply prayer and prophecy. Those are two examples Paul gave to show the impropriety of what women were seeking to do, but later in the chapter he gives more universal prohibitions.

Verse 2 and verse 17 are bookends of what is good and what is not good.

“Now I praise you…” (v. 2) and “Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you…” (v. 17). Though not definitive, the contrast here argues for a similar context in which praise is given or withheld.

Verse 16 explicitly speaks to those who refuse to wear head coverings.

“We have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” This is not only a general principle for the bride of Christ in its common affairs (church singular would have been used). Rather he has been discussing principles related to local congregations (churches plural).

The language of traditions delivered to you is the same in verse 2 as in verse 23.

The passage is limited to public worship.

If you do not see this as being a worship service it destroys the structural and thematic unity of this passage with the rest of Paul’s discourse on glory in 1 Corinthians. (See the articles by Dr. Peter H. L. Wee and Richard Bacon for the unity and cohesiveness of the passage.)

Objection #6 – “This should just be an issue of individual conviction, not of church polity.”

Paul took the issue seriously.

The problem with this viewpoint is that Paul went to great lengths to convince the Corinthian Christians that it should be a part of their polity.

If individuals have the right to ignore this command, then they likewise may challenge many other commands of Scripture.

In fact, the same hermeneutics which argue against long hair and head coverings, also argue that the doctrine of the headship of the male and the submission of the female no longer apply, and that homosexuality was a cultural thing that Paul was arguing against. If you need evidence, then I can easily direct you to the literature which argues this way. There are so-called “evangelical feminists” who started out insisting that their feminism did not logically necessitate a defense of homosexuality. Years later, they are now champions of the “evangelical gay movement,” and they now argue that evangelicals who reject head coverings and/or headship of males are inconsistent since the same hermeneutics can overturn other traditionalist arguments like marriage, homosexuality, etc. (If interested, I can direct you to several Websites which publish such material and to books published by “respected” scholars.) This is no minor issue!

Objection #7 – “These instructions were only written to the Corinthian church and were not being imposed on other churches (cf. verse 16 ‘no such custom, nor do the churches of God’).”

This assumes a cultural situation that was unique to Corinth.

This assumption is contradicted by both the archaeological evidence (see Appendix B) and the fact that Corinth was a very open-minded, multi-cultural city.

General address.

Paul not only wrote this epistle “to the church of God which is at Corinth,” but also “to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Cor. 1:2). Paul claimed to be writing principles that applied “everywhere in every church” (4:17). In light of this language, it is hard to imagine Paul (without clarification) excluding Corinth from the “we” and “the churches of God” of 11:16.

Legalism rebuked.

Paul and Christ speak in the harshest terms about imposing any moral mandates upon the church that do not have the backing of Scripture. See the answers to Objection #1 for an in depth analysis of this problem.

Universal language is used.

“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head” (v. 4). “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…”

Reference the answer to Objection #1.

See the first objection for the proofs that this was intended as a universal principle in all churches and for all times.

Objection #8 – “If Paul was mandating that men not be covered, then he would have run into conflict with Jewish men in the synagogues since Jewish men always wore a head covering in the synagogue.”

Rare situations where Jewish men were covered.

The only cases of men covering their heads in the Old Testament was 1) during times of shame⁵¹ and 2) the unusual situation of the Nazarite and the priest (while in the temple). For my treatment of how God’s provision for the Nazarites and the priests actually supports the thesis of this booklet, see objection #4. The examples of men being covered when shamed in the Old Testament also parallel Paul’s teaching of shame and dishonor in 11:5-7. Consider the following examples of a head covering being a “mantle of shame” (Psalm 89:45 NIV). 2 Samuel 15:30 says, “So David went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up; and he had his head covered and went barefoot. And all the people who were with him covered their heads and went up, weeping as they went up.” Jeremiah 14:3 says of the nobles: “…they were ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads.” Jeremiah 14:4 says, “Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered their heads.” So the Old Testament treats what the Jewish men do as being a shameful thing, just as Paul does. We must realize how out of accord Judaism is with both the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. It is a man-made religion.

Anachronistic assumption.

The practice of Jewish men wearing head coverings in worship (and often outside of worship) did not begin until after 135 AD after the Bar Kochba rebellion. Even then, the practice was not firmly entrenched until the middle ages. This man-made tradition was added by Jewish rabbis to symbolize the shame of their exile and had other explanations such as the shame men should feel when in God’s presence. It was a late addition and should have no bearing on the exegesis of this passage. John Lightfoot cites evidence that early Pharisaic tradition held that men did not have a head covering in the synagogues.⁵² He also cites evidence that the Judaizers (perhaps out of reaction to Christianity, perhaps out of a perverted notion of hyper-spirituality?) changed both the covering of the men and the covering of the women. The men who were formerly uncovered became covered in the synagogues and the women were formerly uncovered in the public but covered in the synagogue were no longer covered (for a time) in the synagogues, and had to be covered outside of the synagogue.⁵³ There has never been uniformity on this amongst the sects of Jews, and there were even regional differences in evidence. Thus (as frequently happened in Judaism) God’s Word was distorted beyond recognition. As Christ said, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” (Mark 7:9). We need to be careful that we do not set aside God’s clear statements in this chapter because of Jewish tradition. It is also important that we avoid the error of the Jews by allowing the opinions of men to overthrow the clear writings of Scripture. The fact that women do not wear head coverings in church in the majority of Protestant churches is clearly a tradition of man that began in the 1900’s.

For those that think that we shouldn’t worry about minor doctrines like this, I leave the following two Scriptures.

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”
– Matt. 4:4

“This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men… All too well you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition.”
– Mark 7:6-9