Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (1 Corinthians 11:13)

The Greek word for veil is καλύπτρα kalyptra gives rise to the verb κατακαλύπτω katakalyto ‘to completely veil’ or ‘to cover up’, and the resultant adjective (above) ἀκατακάλυπτος akatakalyptos ‘uncovered’ or ‘revealed’.

Since the classical era, it was a common custom for Greek women to be veiled.  Some would wear a headscarf or mantle, some a full veil that covered the face, too.  The practice of veiling continued in the Roman era, where it signified the husband’s authority over his wife.  In 166 BC, Sulpicius Gallus, consul, astronomer and man of great learning, divorced his wife because she left the house uncovered.  In abjuring the veil, he stated that that others could look on what only he should see by right, his wife.

But what, if anything has to do with godly worship in the church of Corinth?

Paul comments:

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head – it is the same as having her head shaved.  For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.(ibid 11:5-6)

What is the context for this Paul’s remarks?

Remembering that there are no chapter headings in Paul’s letters, directly preceding the passage of head covering is this:

 ‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say – but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’– but not everything is constructive.  No one should seek their own good, but the good of others…’  (ibid 10:23-24)

Paul continues his argument the example eating and drinking, especially regarding meat that could be brought from the market from animals sacrificed in pagan temples.  This passage covers the same issues as does his letter to Rome:

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarrelling over disputable matters.  One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.  The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.  (Romans 14:1-3)

Paul is talking about custom and practice that is not inherently sinful but nonetheless, can cause offence and harm, if any ignore the strength of feeling of others regarding them.

Part of the problem, it seems, is that the Corinthian women were exercising freedoms that offended the men because the only (adult) females who routinely went unveiled were slaves and temple prostitutes.  Thus women casting off the veil was an affront to men, specifically their husbands.

Clearly in this case, people were not looking to resolve ‘disputable’ matters.  But why put the onus on the women?  Why not ask the men to be more flexible, even forgiving?

Paul opens the passage by first stating what should not be disputed:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

The concept of headship should not cause contention in the body of believers of which Christ is the head.   But it is not Jesus’ headship that causes contention but that of man being the head of his wife.  He makes the case by reminding the church of the first creation:

 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.  It is for this reason that a woman ought to have a sign of authority over her own head, because of the angels. (ibid 11:8-10)

Paul is saying God created woman from man and for man, and this is itself should not be contentious because he paraphrases Genesis. Adam is given stewardship (headship) of the new creation, but God thinks he needs help:

The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’

 But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So…the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

 The man said,

‘This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called “woman”,
for she was taken out of man.’ (Genesis 2:18 & 20-23)

So the authority structure is hereby defined and Adam is the head of the woman.

It is important to remember that biblical headship, God-Christ-man-woman, is not a command and control structure.  Of course, God rules and His commandments are to be obeyed not disputed, but authority is the exercise of hedging behaviour within these limits formed by His commandments.  In any case, submission is not subjugation, but is conferred willingly.  Jesus submitted to his father’s will in Gethsemane because of his love for his father.  Headship requires complete trust, that is enacted faith.  Neither does authority imply relative worth or value – there is no superiority or inferiority – it is about accountability.  Hence Paul mentions the angels.  Earlier in the letter Paul says that humankind will judge the angels (1 Corinthian 6:3) – and given that every man and woman has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, it would be better for everyone to come under the covering of authority of Christ by whom all are made righteous.

Thus Paul, in chapter eleven of his first letter to Corinth, does a characteristically Pauline thing and seeks to illustrate headship by speaking literally about heads; nevertheless, it is a live issue for the church he founded in that great city.  Whereas the Jews had had the Law to guide them in godly practice, it was not meant for Gentiles, indeed applied to the church it was destructive (in the letter to Galatian church, Paul scolds them for considering circumcision necessary for the faithful).  This is why Paul gave instructions to converted pagans on how to conduct themselves, including in this case, the issue of head covering and hair length (ibid 11:2).

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.  (ibid 11:14-15)

So if long hair on a woman is a symbol of her willing submission, why should her hair be covered a second time?  Here we return to application.

Paul is pointing out that the unveiled wives were not just rebelling against the societal norm, but were, in effect, refuting headship and shaming their husbands – not dissimilar to the case of Sulpicius Gallas (who had once been a Roman ambassador to the Greek in Macedonia and Asia).

So was Paul being purely cultural in his instructions? Yes and no!  God’s authority, and the structure of headship He put in place, is eternal and sits outside of time and place.  To flaunt headship is go up against God.  Paul concludes the passage saying:

If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice – nor do the churches of God. (ibid 11:16)

Paul’s intention was to promote practices that remove contention and in  ‘disputable’ matters, application is always individual.  It is for the ‘stronger’ brother (or sister) to adopt the practices of the ‘weaker’ so as not to cause offence (in truth, Paul recognises that weakness and strength are interchangeable here).  Universal application of head covering for women would therefore become contentious.  Paul says, ‘judge for yourself!’