1. Exegesis of the Passage

1 Corinthians 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.

What Paul is about to discuss is not only apostolic tradition, but also carries with it the authority of Christ. Imitation of his and Christ’s practice relative to head coverings is not an option.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

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). Instead, he is praising them for keeping the apostolic tradition on head coverings and long hair. 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.

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, 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 too Paul’s approval that they “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? If we can adapt to our cultural dress codes (as many claim) why couldn’t the Corinthians do so? Furthermore, why would Paul insist that they be guarded “as I delivered them to you”? This is a strong argument against the issue of head coverings and hair being culturally relative. There were outward cultural pressures which were causing them to drift from the apostolic practice (just as such cultural pressures make people ashamed of these verses today).³ Paul wants them to guard the tradition on dress code from any change.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Notice that the authority issue comes 1^st, not 2^nd. Paul makes head covering a necessary implication of the fact that man is the head of the woman. As long as this authority structure continues to be relevant, the head coverings that flow from it are relevant.

This also means that it would be hypocrisy to wear head coverings while rebelling against the authority structure that they symbolize. In the 1800’s there were many feminists who continued to wear head coverings while inconsistently overthrowing the distinctions between the sexes. An attack against the authority structure is an attack against the symbol. Conversely, an attack against the symbol (as we will see) is an attack against the authority structure (see verse 10).

1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

Notice that Paul says, “every man.” This was not an outmoded principle that applies only to first century men in Corinth. It is universal language.⁴ The word “man” is literally “male,” and so this prohibition applies to young and old. Notice too that it is not just women who are singled out for correction. Dress codes apply equitably to men and to women.

Notice how important this was to Paul. The male who covered his head in this way dishonored his “head.” Paul has already defined the man’s “head” as Christ in verse 3. If something dishonors Christ, we ought to sit up and take notice. The Greek word for “dishonors” means to humiliate or disgrace or shame. If our head, Jesus Christ, is disgraced or dishonored by any behavior that we might engage in, then we must flee from it. We must not dismiss this matter lightly as a matter of inconsequence. If it is that important to Christ, it cannot be a mere cultural convention.

The Greek phrase translated “having his head covered” occurs only here, and is the most general of the three terms for “covered” used in this chapter. The Greek is κατα κεφαλης εχων and means literally “having [anything] down the head.” Later he amplifies what he means by forbidding a man to have a garment covering (v. 7) or to have long hair (v. 14). Any kind of covering that hangs down the head is forbidden to the man. (This gives a clue as to the kind of coverings God calls women to have. The natural covering of hair hangs down the head and the fabric covering of cloth hangs down the head.)

Some have offered the following objection: “Perhaps there were only two or three men who weren’t wearing shawls since 1 Corinthians 14:29 says only two or three prophets may speak. Since the pastor is usually the only one who speaks, is it the pastor alone who must have his head uncovered?” However, the context of the whole passage calls for the dress code not just during prayer and prophecy, but during the entire service. Paul frequently uses a figure of speech called synecdoche where a part is used to describe the whole. Since prayer and prophecy are the principle parts of the worship services, that phrase represents the whole worship service. Paul confirms this by the fact that he makes prohibitions to men in verses 7 and 14 as absolute prohibitions, not just prohibitions during prayer and prophecy. This conclusion is further borne out when it is remembered that the hair could not be selectively put on or off during various parts of a worship service and there is a parallel need for both coverings. All of this argues that the man was to keep a covering off his head during the whole of the worship service (versus during only two activities). (See “Objections Answered” for more information.)

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

Many have puzzled over this verse which appears to allow women to pray and prophesy in church since it seems to be in apparent contradiction with 1 Corinthians 14:27-36 where women prophets are explicitly forbidden from bringing their prophecies during the worship service or publicly speaking (as a voice of one). Many attempts to resolve this have been suggested.⁵ The simplest explanation is the traditional one which I explain under the heading of objection #5. In summary, Paul describes the problem that has happened in two places: in chapter 11 and chapter 14. In this chapter (which deals with head coverings) he only addresses the part of the problem relevant to head coverings. In chapter 14 (which deals with tongues and prophecy) he only addresses the part of the problem relevant to speech.

There are three main arguments in defense of this view. First, 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, especially since 14:34-35 is so absolute in its prohibition of speech “in church” to a woman.⁶ Second, Paul typically argues in this fashion. Precisely the same method was used in 1 Corinthians 8:10 and 10:20-21 when dealing with the problem of eating and drinking in the pagan temples. In 8:10 Paul says, “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?” Does this mean that people with knowledge are permitted to eat in an idol’s temple so long as weaker Christians don’t know about it? No. Both the eating and the causing of the weaker brother to stumble are prohibited. In chapter 8 Paul is content to deal with the conscience of the weaker brother and in 10:20-21 he absolutely prohibits eating and drinking in pagan temples. Third, it is a logical fallacy to derive the positive permission to pray and to prophesy from this negative prohibition. As 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.⁷

Even if a person believes that women are permitted to speak in church, they still cannot get around the clear implications regarding head coverings. First, God says this mandate applies to “every woman.” Again, this argues for a universal practice, not just certain women in the congregation, or women in a certain age. The definite article is not attached to the word for “woman” (γυνὴ), indicating that it was the female gender rather than wives which is being referred to.

Second, the woman dishonors her head (her husband or father) if she does not have this covering on her head. Again, Paul is not talking about what the man or woman will subjectively feel; this is talking about God’s objective standard of honor and dishonor.

Thirdly, Paul throughout this passage distinguishes the covering of hair from the fabric covering women are to wear. In verse 4 Paul uses a general term⁸ to rule out a man having anything hanging down his head (whether hair or fabric). The Greek word for covering used in verses 5-13 means a garment thrown over the head.⁹ The word used for covering in verse 15 is literally “a wrap around”¹⁰ and refers to the flowing hair of a woman. It is not valid to use the “covering” in verse 15 to invalidate the different covering in verses 5-13.

Fourth, there is a clear connection between the dishonor experienced relative to the fabric covering of verses 5-13 and the dishonor experienced relative to the covering of hair in verses 14-15. Paul says that for a woman to not be covered “is one and the same as if her head was shaved”? Notice that he doesn’t say that she is shaved. If she were shaved, one could argue that the hair and the covering were the same, but this is “one and the same as if.” He uses the “as if” language to distinguish the covering of fabric (which she is not wearing) from the covering of hair (which she would be ashamed to cut off). The “as if” language powerfully uncovers just how much the lack of a head covering is a dishonor. Just as a woman’s shaved head would have shamed the man who was her head, God sees the failure to have a head covering as being similarly shameful.

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

In the first sentence Paul argues that if women are going to be unisex in clothing, they might as well be unisex in hair style. In the second sentence he builds on his argument by using a first class conditional clause (the “if” of certainty or the “if” of argument). He is saying, “If (as is certainly true) it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” Some translate it “Since it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” The word for covering here is a common word for a fabric covering that hung down around the shoulders.

On the distinction between shorn or shaved, Price says,

Whereas “shaven” refers to hair cut close by a razor, shorn refers to hair cut short by means of other implements. Though the implements may vary in cutting the hair, the result is all the same: the woman takes on the appearance of a man.

The key point that Paul drives home is that the Old Testament makes clear that it is an abomination for men and women to look and dress like each other. This is especially true in the worship service. Their appearance must reflect their created order.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

The issue of glory and boasting unifies all the diverse strands in the book of 1 Corinthians. It is a book that contrasts the glory of man and the glory of God. In this passage, Paul applies the concept of glory to worship. This is truly the heart of his argument: no glory should be present in the worship service except for the glory of God. Verse 15 says that a woman’s hair is her glory. This verse says that the woman is the man’s glory. So if God’s glory alone is to be symbolically represented, the man alone should be uncovered. The woman’s glory and the man’s glory are both covered with a garment.

As we will demonstrate under “Objections Answered,” the issue of hair length and head coverings is clearly rooted in the Old Testament. Even this concept of the glory of God versus the glory of man can be seen in the Old Testament in connection with head coverings. For example, this concept is key to understanding why the high priest’s head was always covered when he represented man to God (before the glory cloud in the holy of holies), but he would always take off his head covering when he left the holy place and represented God to the people.¹¹ In both places of formal worship, only the glory of God was to be visible. In the holy of holies the glory of God was symbolically represented by the glory cloud, and since the high priest was representing the glory of man to God, he was covered. When he ministered before the people however, he had to take off his head covering (like every other male) because he now represented the glory of God to those under his authority. Males as the visible representatives of the glory of God had to remain uncovered.

Therefore, Paul is not inventing a new concept when he applies the glory of God and the glory of man to the issue of who should and should not be covered. This is a concept clearly rooted in the Old Testament.¹²

1 Corinthians 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

1 Corinthians 11:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

Paul gives two more reasons why men should be uncovered in worship while women should be covered. He bases the need for distinctions in head covering on the creation of Eve from Adam, and secondly, the fact that Eve was made as Adam’s helper, not vice versa. Any time Paul bases a subject on the Creation order, he is enforcing an abiding principle. If head coverings reflect this creation distinction between men and women, then it argues that they are not a cultural oddity.¹³

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

The vocabulary, grammar, and meaning of this verse have all proved difficult to understand for commentators of all theological persuasions. How do the phrases “for this reason” and “because of” relate to each other? Should we insert the word “symbol of” into the verse (as many versions do), or should we leave it literally “have authority on her head” (as the WEB, Geneva, KJV, TNIV, and Bishop Bibles do)? Is the “authority” a reference to the woman’s own authority or her husband/father’s authority? Should we translate the verb as “to have” or “to keep?” What role do angels have in all this? Hodge said, “There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators as this. After all that has been written, it remains just as obscure as ever.”¹⁴ Though this may be overstated, almost all commentators agree with Gordon Fee who says, “this is one of the truly difficult texts in this letter.”¹⁵ So I approach this verse with humility, and do not claim to have the last word on the subject.

However, though there are still some ambiguities, I believe Gordon Clark is correct when he says, “in spite of the difficulty the verse must mean that woman’s subordination to man, as asserted in the previous verse, implies a moral obligation to have something on her head…”¹⁶ That much appears to be clear, and for the purposes of this book ought to be sufficient.

However, I have found encouragement for my personal worship in this verse, and would like to briefly give my understanding of the verse as it relates to Paul’s argument. I will do so by breaking the verse down into smaller pieces.

For this reason… Does this point backward to the argument in verses 7-9 (the most natural way to read it in the Greek), or does it point forward to the “because of the angels?” Gordon Fee is probably correct when he observes that in Paul’s arguments elsewhere, it often goes in both directions at once:

It first of all indicates that what is about to be said is the proper inference from what has immediately preceded: the woman ought to have authority over her head because she is man’s glory. At the same time it anticipates yet another closely allied reason to be given in the conclusion that is being advanced. The NIV caught the sense – and the difficulties – by translating “for this reason, and because of the angels [the woman ought to have the sign of authority on her head.]”¹⁷

This means that the authority structure of the man and the woman are somehow related to what Paul is saying about the angels.

For this reason a woman ought to have… At a minimum, this reinforces our contention that Paul is not trying to get the Corinthians to be more culturally sensitive. Instead, he treats this as a moral mandate. His argument is that the created order (verses 7-9) and the presence of angels (v. 10c) mandate (“ought”) certain behavior. This behavior is that she must possess, have, or keep something on her head.

…ought to have a symbol of authority on her head… Commentators are divided on whether the covering is a symbol of her being under authority or her having authority. I believe that this is a false dilemma since the Bible indicates that we only have authority when we are “under authority” (Matt. 8:8-9). When women attack the symbol of authority¹⁸, they ironically lose authority in Paul’s eyes. This is brought out most clearly in the last phrase:

…ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Since the context of the passage is worship, and specifically the covenant vows of submission in the Lord’s Table (chapters 10-11), it is time to mention that angels are present in our worship services. They are witnesses to our vows (Eccl. 5:6; 1 Tim. 5:21), our singing (Psalm 138:1), our prayers (Rev. 8:1-6), our repentance (Luke 15:10), and our covenant faithfulness or lack thereof (Rev. 3:5). They join us in our worship of God (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 5:11; 7:11) and are troubled when we do so with hypocrisy (Eccl. 5:6). God has given each of His children angels to be “ministering spirits sent forth to minister to those who will inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:12). These angels are sometimes called “watchers/guards” (Dan. 4:13,17,23; 10:13; 12:1) because they are assigned to protect us (Psalm 34:7; 91:11-12; Dan. 6:22; Luke 4:10; Matt 18:10; Acts 27:23-24). These angels also take sides in disputes and/or offenses between believers (Matt 18:10) and are used by the Lord for inflicting discipline (Eccl. 5:6; 2 Sam. 24:10-25).

Therefore, contrary to what some people think, these angels are very relevant to Paul’s discussion of worship. It is my contention that angels are highly offended when they see women casting off their symbol of authority. It is also my contention that wicked angels (demons) take this as an invitation to tempt such families.¹⁹ The wicked angels abandoned God’s created order and He judged them. The elect angels must be dumbfounded that men and women routinely reject God’s creation order. Demonic angels certainly know how to take advantage of such rebellion. The symbol is thus not just a testimony to men, but to angels (fallen and elect). Though men may not appreciate the symbol, the angels do.

Bengel points out that by rejecting the symbol of subjection, the woman jumps beyond both men and angels to take authority that is not hers.²⁰ To overthrow the symbol is to overthrow the system. Just as a person who defaces government property has attacked the government itself, so too Paul indicates that the one who rejects the symbol of authority (head covering) rejects the authority itself.

The reference to angels is yet another evidence that Paul is not imposing a culturally relative custom upon this church. As Greg Price worded it,

It should be apparent to all that Paul’s argument from the angel’s observation of Christian worship is not an argument from culture. Angels are not cultural beings, nor are they limited to particular cultures in ministering to God’s people or in witnessing the worship of God’s people. If women are obligated to have the sign of man’s headship upon their heads in worship because of the angels, then this obligation is universally binding in all the churches of Jesus Christ until Christ returns.²¹

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Paul clarifies that men and women are mutually dependant upon each other, but this mutual dependence never effaces the distinctions of the sexes or the authority structure that God put in place.

It is interesting that every illustration Paul has given to bolster the idea that head coverings should be worn by women and not by men are illustrations of an abiding character. Men are born of women, and the woman’s role as a bearer of a child is an incredibly honorable one. In 1 Timothy 2:1-15, which also deals with what is appropriate to a woman’s clothing, prayer and submission in the worship service ends with this same argument of childbearing. As long as it is a woman’s calling in life to bear children, this head covering is an appropriate symbol to wear.

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

There are two possible ways of taking this phrase. The first is to say that Paul is appealing to custom in verses 13-15 (the sociological argument). This is certainly a possibility (but see exposition of verse 14). If this interpretation is correct, Paul’s progression of thought would be as follows:

• Christological argument (v. 1) – do it to imitate Christ.
• Apostolic argument (vv. 1-2) – do it because this is the apostolic practice.
• Headship argument (vv. 3-6) – do it because it honors the principles of headship.
• Glory argument (vv. 7-15) – do it because all glory except for the glory of God must be covered in worship. The man’s glory must be covered, and since woman is the glory of man (see v. 7), the woman must be covered with hair. The woman’s glory must be covered, and since her hair is her glory (see v. 15), her hair must be covered.
• Creation argument (vv. 7-12) – do it to honor God’s creation order.
• Angelic argument (v. 10) – do it so as not to offend the angels.
• Sociological argument (vv. 13-15) – do it because custom itself reinforces the Biblical norm.
• Ecclesiastical argument (v. 16) – do it because this is the custom of all the churches; to be contentious over this custom is to go against the church.

Some people adopt the sociological explanation and then assume that Paul’s whole argument was simply to honor cultural norms. Adding a sociological reason for coverings does not do away with the other seven arguments.

Though I have been attracted to the above argument, I cannot accept it because this is not how Paul uses the phrase “judge among yourselves” elsewhere. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10:14-15 he wants the Corinthians to flee from the ingrained custom of idolatry. When he tells them, “judge for yourselves,” he is not making his commandment relative, but is asking them “as wise men” to judge if he has not made a Biblical case.

This is how we should understand 1 Corinthians 11:13. Having instructed them on the Old Testament’s teachings on this subject, Paul now asks them to re-judge this whole issue and verify that they come to the same conclusion, namely that it is not proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. He does not ask them to judge properness based on culture, or on feelings, but on his prior instructions. The same usage of the term “proper” (Greek πρέπον) appears in the other New Testament passage that mandates particular clothing for prayer.²² There it clearly means proper when judged by the Bible: “which is proper for women professing godliness” (1 Tim. 2:10). Note these other examples of this usage of “proper”:

But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting (πρέπον) for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him. (Matt. 3:15)

But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine.
(Titus 2:1)

1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

Thiselton outlines four possible meanings of the word “nature.”

(1) an intuitive or inborn sense of what is fitting, right, or seemly (Bengel and Meyer); (2) the way humans are created, ie., their constitution as men and women (de Wette); (3) the physical reality of how the world is ordered (Osiander, Hofius); and (4) the customs of a given society (Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Schrage).²³

The first definition of the term would mean that God had written this distinction of long and short hair into men’s consciences as part of His natural law. Those who take this view say that Paul is appealing to their conscience.

The second option has in its favor that this is the way Paul uses the term elsewhere (see Rom. 1:26; 2:14; 11:24; Gal. 2:15; 4:8). Interestingly, in Romans 1:26 Paul discusses how unnatural homosexuality is, and uses the same terms for nature (phusia) and dishonor/shame (atimia) that are used in 1 Corinthians 11:14. If this is the definition of the term that Paul had in mind, then Paul is saying that God’s intention when he created men and women was to have them look different from each other in their hairstyle. In Romans 1:26 naturalness is not dictated by cultural custom because Greek custom had no difficulty with homosexuality – indeed they glorified it. Similarly, what is natural in 1 Corinthians 11:14 is not what custom dictated because many Greek men in Corinth had long hair.²⁴ Instead, it was what God had made men and women to be like. To change the differences in hair is just as much an overthrow of God’s order as dressing like the opposite sex (Deut. 22:5). Demons are described as overthrowing God’s order when they had faces “like the faces of men… [but] hair like the hair of women” (Rev. 9:7-8). The created order that God established seems like the most natural interpretation.

The third possible definition of this term “nature” is that this is the physical nature of things.²⁵ Though there is some support in the literature for this, it is unlikely. As Fee says, “After all, what ‘nature teaches’ comes about by an ‘unnatural’ means – a haircut.”²⁶

The fourth argument is that Paul is introducing a sociological or cultural explanation. Though this is possible, it is unlikely for two reasons. First, the culture in Corinth did not mandate short hair for men. Second, Paul is opposing a cultural problem that is coming into the church, not adopting it. (See answers to objection #1.). But even if one were to adopt this interpretation, it is clear that should culture change, the other seven reasons Paul has given have not changed.

1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

Some have tried to argue that Paul is finally defining his terms, and that he now makes it clear that all references to “covering” earlier in the chapter simply meant “long hair.” The fatal flaw with this argument is that the Greek term Paul is supposed to be defining doesn’t occur in verse 15, and therefore wouldn’t have defined the term at all for the Greek reader. Paul uses an entirely different word for “covering” in verse 15 than elsewhere in the chapter. This would be 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 (clothing of the head). 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. Paul appears to go out of his way to distinguish between two kinds of covering for two kinds of glory.

This distinction between two coverings is also implied in verse 14. The word “even” in “does not even nature teach you,” shows that Paul is using a new subject (hair) to give teaching about the previous subject (putting something on the head), and that even the covering of hair implies a difference between men and women on the issue of coverings. Thus the “hair-only” interpretation lacks simplicity and ignores the distinctions in vocabulary that Paul uses.

Beyond that, this objection completely misses the flow of Paul’s argument in verses 7-15 as he develops the two glories that must be covered so that only the glory of God is seen. Since the woman is the glory of man (v. 7), she must be covered (with her hair), and since the woman’s hair is the glory of the woman (v. 15), the hair itself needs to be covered. As Richard Bacon says, “The hair of a woman cannot be both the glory and that which covers the glory!”²⁷ Since I have written in great detail on this subject under objection #2 in the back of the book, I will refer the reader there. The reference to even nature teaching us by way of hair (v. 14) indicates that nature’s covering is not the same covering as what Paul has been talking about. Thus, there is a natural covering and a clothing covering. Nature had only one physical covering (the hair), whereas God insisted on additional covering after the Fall.

It is important to remember that God gave a natural covering to Eve the moment she was created. As John Lightfoot said,

Hair was given to our grandmother Eve for a covering, (as the apostle clearly asserts in this place,) from the first moment of her creation, before she was subjected to a husband, and heard that “He shall rule over thee;” yea, before she was married to Adam.²⁸

There are two important implications of this fact. First, the issue of long hair and a corresponding head covering is not just for wives, since Eve was created with a covering of long hair before she was given to Adam. Lightfoot continues, “The apostle treats not of wives alone, but of women in general, whether they were wives, virgins, or widows.”²⁹

Second, God sets the pattern which man is to follow. God’s work of making a natural covering before the fall must be imitated after the fall during the era of clothing. Adam and Eve lost the covering of innocence (which some take to be a glory radiating from them) with the fall, and immediately required a covering for their shame.³⁰ Sin introduced the need for coverings of clothing. Paul’s point is that if the natural order created by God before the Fall required a covering for the woman, how much more so after the fall. (That is how I take the force of the “even” in “does not even nature itself teach you…”)

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

When Paul says “we have no such custom,” what is he referring to? This is key, because whatever it was, all the churches sided against those being contentious. The options given are:

1. no custom of being contentious.
2. this was the pagan custom in Corinth, but not elsewhere.
3. no custom of having head coverings.
4. no custom of having head coverings or long hair.
5. no custom of blurring gender distinctions.
6. head coverings “is not something over which [Paul] has great passion… [it] is not to be raised to Canon Law”³¹
7. no custom of women having their heads uncovered or of men covering their heads in worship.

This last view is the historic interpretation of the passage and the one which I hold. It is the apostolic declaration that this was not cultural, but was cross cultural and practiced by all the churches in Christendom.

The first option, while possible, seems unlikely. It is difficult to imagine Paul referring to contentiousness as a custom rather than as a sin. However, since it does not overturn our thesis, but rather supports it, I will not spend any time seeking to overturn this interpretation.

The second option is directly contradicted by the stated purpose of the book which was to guide not only “the church of God which is in Corinth” but also “all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1:2). It is also contradicted by the universal language used in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 itself: “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…” [emphasis added].

It seems extremely unlikely that Paul would have spent so much space and energy imposing customs on Corinth that no other church followed, especially since Corinth was a large city that was familiar with many different customs. Additionally, Paul and Christ speak in the harshest terms about imposing any moral mandates upon the church that do not have the backing of Scripture. Paul’s motto is, “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). See the answers to objections #1 and #7 for a detailed refutation of this view.

The third view is answered in detail under objection #2. This view holds that verse 15 should have been translated as “her hair is given to her instead of a covering” (as opposed to “for a covering”). Verse 16 supposedly follows up by saying that the use of a fabric covering is not a custom anywhere in the churches. The strength of this view is that it takes seriously Paul’s mandate rather than relegating it to a culturally relative custom. The difficulty is that the word for “covering” in verse 15 is totally different from the one used throughout the passage. This only makes sense if hair is a different kind of covering.

The fourth view is ludicrous on the surface of it. If there is no church custom for having long hair or head coverings, why would Paul have argued so vigorously for it? Why would he have called it a “tradition” of Christ in verses 1-2? Why would he have used such rebukes as “dishonor” (vv. 4-5,14) and “shameful” (v. 6)? Why would he use the imperative language of ethics if it is not mandated? After all, Paul says that they “ought not” (v. 7) to do one thing and they “ought” (v. 10) to do another. In effect this interpretation says that verse 16 does away with everything that has been established in verses 1-15. It makes no exegetical or logical sense.

The fifth interpretation is that there is no custom for blurring male/female distinctions in any of the churches. While the passage as a whole has that as an underlying motif, it fails to adequately deal with the immediate context of coverings and long hair (vv. 1-15). It is a specific kind of distinction that Paul has been arguing for, and unless good exegetical reasons can be produced to ignore the specifics, they should still apply. The answers to objection #3 deal with this interpretation.

The sixth view is that Paul is now saying that this advice is optional. It says that though Paul prefers head coverings, he is not overly exercised about it. The problem should be evident to anyone who has read this far; Paul was very exercised about it. He gave commands and reprimands to anyone thinking of changing the church policy, and praised the church for guarding his teaching on this subject. Nor is there any indication in Scripture that there are optional ethical imperatives and Canon Law imperatives in the Bible. This passage has all the earmarks of Biblical ethics. May we not be so profane as to relegate issues of dishonor and shame to the unimportant.

My interpretation is that there is no support that the contentious person can appeal to anywhere in church practice. Every church was following Paul’s custom, not the custom that was being contended for. As F.F. Bruce translates this in his commentary, “we have no such custom as you are trying to introduce, and neither have the churches of God elsewhere.” Thus, Paul’s mandate is universally practiced in the first century. He is ending by saying (in effect), “If you still want to be argumentative, there is only one more thing to say: ‘You are out of line with the custom that has been established by all of the apostles in all of the churches.’” This was not a Greek thing, or a Roman thing. This was a cross-cultural mandate for every church. Also, Paul was not alone in giving this mandate. He had the backing of Christ (vv. 1-2) and of the apostles (“we” – v. 16).

We would expect that if this was indeed the custom of all the churches in Paul’s time, that there should be an unbroken tradition within the church in the first few centuries. And this is indeed exactly what we find, despite the fact that church fathers said this custom was mocked by pagans. See Appendix A for some examples from the time of the catacombs and onward.