
This is part of a series on patriarchy, headship, and submission. See this index.
In the fourth point of “Paul Addressed Wives“, I took issue with those who argue that “The hair is not the only covering in 1 Corinthians 11“[1]:
What is a Covering?
Before we go to far, let’s jump straight to verse 15 and note that peribolaion means a wrapper, mantle, veil, cloak, covering, while word used earlier was katakaluptó meaning “I veil, cover the head.” Even if you have not read any of the previous articles on this topic, you may see that something weird is going on here. Let’s read what Paul is saying in verse 15:
Paul likes to use literally incoherent nonsense to represent coherent figurative language to emphasize his point (which he also does in verse 6). Hair is obviously not a cloth mantle, veil, wrapping, or cloak, but Paul is clearly saying that the hair counts as if it was. That’s the whole point of the sentence! That’s why he uses this word only here and not elsewhere where it really would be incoherent to his argument about hair. And to top it off, Paul immediately silences those who disagree with this assessment:

A mantle is a full-length hooded cloak that almost completely covers the body. We’re not talking about a mere veil here. We’re talking about being completely covered. Long hair is treated as if it were a complete covering. As Tennant notes, the word is only used in one other place, when referring to the expanse of the sky:
Now we are going to read a quote from John Chrysostom’s Homily 26 on First Corinthians. It is a fairly lengthy read. John Chrysostom was an expert Greek speaker from the 4th century, albeit a few centuries of language development after the original was written, but still much earlier than Dominic Bnonn Tennant. Chrysostom espoused many patriarchal views, as we will see below, but he did not agree with the modern “Red Pill”.
Notably, Chrysostom doesn’t mention the significance of the change of words for covering, even as he dedicates two paragraphs—over 200 words—to verse 15. Whatever distinction that Tennant—a non-native speaker—wants to make, Chrysostom didn’t notice this supposed obvious error. Let’s see what Chrysostom actually said.
This is quite revealing. Chrysostom’s fictitious opponent is saying exactly the same thing that Bnonn Tennant’s opponents are saying, exactly the same thing that I have said above. But Chrysostom—the native speaker—can only counter it with a citation of a different verse using a completely different reason! This isn’t because Chrysostom failed to notice the word change, as he often highlights the specific meanings of certain words when it suits his argument (as we will see below). He never once states that his ‘opponent’ is misusing the word, because of course he isn’t! Paul was using a figure-of-speech, using absurdity as a literary device. It is impossible to conclude from…
Now, pay special attention to the fact that Paul says that “long hair” is given to her as a cloth wrapping, as her mantle. This will be especially important as we examine verse 6.
Be Covered, or Cut it Off
“For if a woman is not long-haired, let her also cut off her hair: now if it is shameful to a woman to cut off her hair or to be shaven, let her be long-haired. (1 Co 11:6)”
This is obviously incoherent nonsense, and makes Paul’s argument incomprehensible. It has him saying, in effect, if a woman cuts her hair off, then she should cut her hair off. Well…she already did that.
covered over ,meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn. As if he had said, If you cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.”
Chrysostom recognized that cutting hair short isn’t a solution to not being completely covered over, to revealing skin on the head, face, neck, and legs. He concluded, correctly, that Paul was reducing it to an absurdity. Of course it makes no sense for a woman who is uncovered—for any reason—to cut her hair, which, we might add, may already be cut short. It doesn’t solve the problem and that’s the point. Tennant’s simple “find and replace” strategy misses that Paul was intentionally being absurd and ironic!
Paul’s statement on cutting her hair is a figure-of-speech to emphasize her shame. This is why he immediately says “But if it is a shame…” because Paul didn’t actually want men to go around shaving women’s heads because they were (or wanted to be) uncovered, he wanted them to feel shame for not covering and do better next time. And that is exactly what Chrysostom states: “…by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand…” It is a reprimand, not a command for churchman to become barbers.[2]
Mutual Exclusion
Before we continue, we must step back for a moment. Recall also how in v15, Chrysostom cited v14 to argue that a woman should wear both a cloth veil and have long hair, even though he acknowledged that Paul had literally said that hair was her wrapping? Chrysostom does the same thing again here:
I often cite my enemies and those hostile to my point-of-view, much to the chagrin of people who read my arguments. I find that if your argument works when you cite both your friends and your enemies, then your argument as a whole is that much stronger. You can’t be accused of being biased only towards friendly sources.
While Chrysostom disagrees with me on matters of patriarchy, he makes mincemeat of the modern argument for veiling. See, Tennant is arguing for women to veil in his article is not based on some general principles of her will or the Law of God, but based on the specific Greek words of Paul, the very words that Chrysostom interprets differently to arrive at his version of patriarchy. Consequently, their respective views of patriarchy are mutually exclusive.
Chrysostom disproves Tennant’s understanding of the language, but Chrysostom’s reasons for making a woman veil (Law of God and her will) are not Paul’s reasons. The arguments by both gentlemen are flawed.
On Glory
I don’t find Tennant’s argument obvious at all. Like Chrysostom, he is making an argument that Paul did not make. What Paul actually said is that her hair is her mantle, completely covering her. Of course in actuality hair does not completely cover the body, Paul is speaking figuratively and symbolically.[3]
The conclusion that a woman must be literally covered by a cloth when she prays[4] completely misses the point of Paul’s symbolism. Paul even calls a woman’s hair a symbol. It is both natural and symbolic.
Let’s further examine how Tennant is grasping at straws. Paul only mentions glory twice. First in the context of men…
For Paul, a wife having long hair was sufficient to meet the biblical standard of modesty and respect owed to their Lord Christ Jesus when she addressed her Lord in prayer.[6] Paul forbid the cutting of her hair. The confusion here may stem from the likelihood that Paul was only addressing husbands and wives.[7] A cloth veil was a cultural symbol of being married…
This confusion leads to asking why, if they were wearing veils, did Paul have to talk about hair?
The Problem of Hair
This question is also a problem in reverse: what did shaved heads indicate? We know it indicated dishonor, but not the reason why. The Roman practice of covering while worshiping may explain why it was dishonorable to pray without a cloth veil, but it does not explain why Paul differentiated between short and no hair, nor why he was talking about hair at all. Advocates of head covering must provide a rationale. In Tennant’s three posts, I saw no rationale, nor did the head covering gotcha explain why Paul said…
Similarly, what, precisely, is the point in arguing that shaved heads don’t indicate prostitution if you agree with Paul that shaved heads are dishonorable? It can’t be to avoid a cultural argument, as even the “Roman men and women covered while worshiping” is a cultural argument. Nor can this…
Unveiled Women
No one denies that there were women in Corinth going around without a cloth veil, whether you think a cloth counts as a covering or long hair counts as a covering or no covering at all is required. It is evident that there were women who were unveiled, at the very least, during Christian gatherings inside people’s homes, as they prayed together. Regardless of how you interpret Paul, this must have been the case. Paul would not talk about shaved heads, short hair, and long hair if no one could see anyone’s hair under those opaque cloth veils.
So, the rationale is this. Everyone agrees that at least some women were unveiled, otherwise this would not have been an issue. This almost certainly included children, virgins, and widows[8], but probably also included wives. Consequently, people could see how long their hair was (or wasn’t). Paul solved the problem by telling them, not to veil, but to have long, uncut hair as their mantle. This solved all disagreement.
This makes even more sense if you assume that Paul was only addressing married men and women—the vast majority of his adult audience. In many places wives had to veil when in public to announce to all that they were completely off the market. But if the married Christian women of Corinth were unveiling—in response to their freedom in Christ or due to Roman custom—then cutting hair was tantamount to an announcement of infidelity. A married woman with short hair—or perhaps even no cloth veil—was announcing herself as an unfaithful wife. This is a good reason for Paul to be so upset with married women cutting their hair at all and more-or-less fully explains Paul being hyper-focused on hair.
On the Length of Hair
But there is another problem. Some faulty conclusions can be reached if one says that Paul is concerned primarily about the length of hair. Paul mentions long hair, but he doesn’t mention how short hair has to be before it is considered uncovered. There is a good reason for this.
Long hair is what happens when one does not cut their hair. Paul is concerned with cutting and shaving and not cutting and shaving, not length. In the critical section on covering (v5-6), Paul uses words cutting and shaving. He only mentions length twice (v14-15), and in the latter case only so he can say that long hair counts as a cloth mantle, not even a mere head-covering veil. This isn’t about a woman growing her hair long, it’s about not cutting it! There is no length at which hair ceases to be a covering, for length doesn’t determine what makes hair a covering, cutting does.
To understand this, we have to go back to the Old Testament and the Nazirite vow. When a Nazirite vow was taken, the man or woman subject to the vow was forbidden from cutting his or her hair until the vow was completed. The length of hair at the start of the vow didn’t matter, only the cutting during the vow. He or she wasn’t even allowed to comb their hair, lest it be pulled out.
A woman or man who doesn’t cut her hair is covered. The length doesn’t matter. To be covered is to commit to not cutting one’s hair. A woman can cover at any time by simply ceasing to cut her hair, even if she currently has short hair. Based on this, here is one of the more reasonable explanations of Paul’s absurdity:
“…but if having short or no hair is shameful, have her stop cutting her hair.”
Footnotes
[1] Dominic Bnonn Tennant, 2023-07-03. (archived pdf)
[2] For whatever reason, Daniel B. Wallace—who is certainly familiar with Chrysostom—does not consider the possibility that Paul was being ironic (see here):
Paul says “Do X, but if X is bad, then do Y.” Since X is bad, he clearly does not want anyone to actually do X. It obviously wasn’t what he wanted them to do, because he immediately told them not to do it and to do Y instead. As Chrysostom notes, the point was to reprimand them for even considering it! Paul was mocking the very idea, not encouraging it. In using a tautology, Paul makes sure that you the reader are smart enough to not actually try to do X because it would be irrational.
Before I had ever read Chrysostom’s view that this was an intentional absurdity, I had already drawn this natural conclusion from the English and so was pleasantly surprised to find that the idea was at least 1600 years old and not some novel invention created from my bias.
[3] Paul uses figure-of-speech—absurdity and irony—in v6, a figure-of-speech—simile—in v15, explicitly calls hair a symbol of authority in v10, and all the mentions of glory in v7 and v15 are figurative connotations—“in a use foreign to Greek writing”—of the literal denotation “good opinion.”
[4] When she prays, not when she worships. Tennant’s explicitly and repeatedly pushes for the latter in contravention to Paul’s actual words. While there is some reason to discern that covering is proper at other times, this is a speculative leap.
[5] Let’s again revisit Daniel B. Wallace, who says:
[6] The early church banned kneeling on Sunday and at any time between Easter and Pentecost…
[7] Tertullian (155-220 AD), in “On the Veiling of Virgins,” noted that some in the church said that Paul was only speaking to husbands and wives in 1 Corinthians 11, and argued against this position.
[8] Tertullian noted that virgins, widows, and young girls were not required by the universal church to veil. This had been left to discernment.
[9] Daniel B. Wallace concedes that “No word for veil occurs in vv 2-14.” He continues by saying “Thus, that the hair is regarded by Paul as a veil in v 15 is not necessarily an argument that the hair is the same as the head covering that he is describing in these verses.”, which I’ve addressed in this article. The point is we know deductively that Paul was talking about hair throughout vv 2-15, but we do not know that he was talking about veils. So while Wallace is correct, it’s not clear that this helps his argument, nor harms the alternative, in any practical way.
LOL Thats a lot of reaching to explain why you’re letting your wife defy God.
When I gave my own view you said:
“As there is no custom in the churches of God to override the husband’s contention on this matter, it is frankly none of [Editor: Name Redacted]’s business what another man does with his wife. I have family that wears coverings and no jewelry. I have other family that wears no coverings, but the wife wears a symbol of her husband on her ring finger instead of her head.
I do not condemn any man for what he believes is proper, and we have no such custom in the church to demand such a thing. “
So, when I, or Tertullian and others, and Etc., give instruction, we should just mind our own business, while you get to post your excuses publicly for other men’s wives to read?
If the woman is to cover her glory, before God, I’m not seeing how wearing a pretty diamond ring is believed to be an alternative in the same vein of the humbling that God requires.
———————————————————————
I also note that when Bnonn disagrees with me based upon his own logic and his hermeneutical method, you cite that as evidence of me being an unteachable fool. But when your own peculiar logic and hermeneutical method are at odds with Bnonn then he supposedly isn’t even making sense.
FWIW I previously mentioned some of Bnonn’s head-covering views and things he discussed on his website before he deleted a large number of comments after I had mocked him for their foolishness:
https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/10/07/bnonnas-foster-a-delightful-treat/
But, I agree with Bnonn, and 1950 years of church history, that women should wear a head covering that isn’t just their hair, although I also don’t normally care for his bizarre hermeneutics and strange leaps of reasoning.
———————————————————————
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
A head covering wouldn’t likely be an unbearable burden for your wife.
You might try rereading Tertullian’s “On the Veiling of Virgins”:
https://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/anf04-09.htm
It’s an easier read than Derek’s post. It starts out by saying:
Having already undergone the trouble peculiar to my opinion, I will show in Latin also that it behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription—-no space of times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions. For these, for the most part, are the sources whence, from some ignorance or simplicity, custom finds its beginning; and then it is successionally confirmed into an usage, and thus is maintained in opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ has surnamed Himself Truth, not Custom.
It’s a good read from a early church culture quite foreign to us today.
Any man—male; boy; husband—can read my ‘excuses’ and decide for himself. He has my respect as a man. What another man’s wife does is none of my business, and none of yours either.*
What do you think is going to happen if you challenge another man for control of the wife within his domain? Are you insane? Do you want to be smacked down or do you want to be treated with respect? You get to pick one, and only one.
I cannot figure out why you do not respect a husband’s patriarchal rights. Such is no better than Dalrock who disrespected a man’s patriarchal right to make a wife out of whoever he chooses.
Rather than focusing on another man’s wife, each man should focus on his own wife and his own domain. If he can’t even do that, he’s not qualified to teach anyone else on the subject:
As far as Tennant goes…
…it could be because you were mocking him. Your strategy of challenging, mocking, and disrespecting the patriarchy of a patriarchal man seems to have ended precisely as one would expect: a smack-down.
Yes, paying special attention to these quotes.
—————————————————
* Unless there is a sin that is subject to the Matthew 18 protocol, in which case email or in person is the more appropriate forum for such things.
Pingback: On Women, Part 4
Pingback: Headship Is Still Not Authority