This is the fourth in a five-part series on head coverings. See the index here.

Now that we’ve examined a few of the verses in depth in Part 3, let’s go over 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in a linear fashion. But let’s keep in mind that the passage is structured in chiastic form:

A. v. 2–3

B. v. 4–7

C. v. 8a

D. v. 8b

E. v. 9a

F. v. 9b

G. v. 10

F’. v. 11a

E’. v. 11b

D’. v. 12a

C’. v. 12b

B’. v. 13–15

A’. v. 16

The Greek word for “man” and “husband” is the same word. The word for “woman” and “wife” is also the same. The meaning is determined solely by context, unlike in English, where the distinction is made by the word itself. Up to this point, I’ve been using “man” and “woman” in each translation. But this is not accurate.

Let’s begin with the assumption—as derived in “Paul Addressed Wives“—that Paul is addressing husbands and wives and so translate every instance of those terms wherever the context that is clearly directed at the men and women of Corinth. We will not follow the approach of Dominic Bnonn Tennant who insists in his podcast that every instance of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ must be translated identically, as if they were all the same context. Nor will be conclude, as Tennant does, that translating these words according to context is inconsistent or self-refuting.

For example, in verse 5, the subject is a Corinthian woman praying and prophesying, whereas in verses 8-9 the “man” and “woman” allude to mothers and fathers and/or Adam and Eve as the sources of humanity. It would be a mistake to treat these instances the same, as the contexts are unambiguously distinct.

In this respect we are copying the approach found in the ESV here, which rightly adapts the translation to the context. Tennant, in his podcast, audibly scoffs at this approach, but we find it both reasonable and consistent.

This is an important transition. Paul first asks them to remember the things he taught them, and then says “But…” indicating that the Corinthians were getting something wrong. Whatever they were teaching, Paul had not passed it along as part of the tradition he had previously delivered. We can infer that they were creating a new doctrine where there was none previously.

Note that this is the chiastic pair (“A” and “A'”) with 1 Corinthians 11:16, which we discussed in Part 3. Our conclusion there was that Paul was concerned with stopping the debate, that is, preventing the contentiousness of establishing new doctrines. The Corinthians were to focus on what Paul had already delivered to them (and the other churches).

If one reads this through the lens of 1st century Greek, the word kephale (‘head’ in English) conveys the idea of rank, status, priority, or preeminence; without the control, authority, rule, or subjection implied in the modern sense. This reflects how kephalē was commonly understood in both secular and Jewish-Greek usages of the time. Even if one reads this in the frame of the late 4th century, John Chrysostom, in Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians 11:3, explicitly stated that Paul was not speaking of rule and subjection.

But if one reads this with the medieval or more modern understanding, one risks importing hierarchical notions of ‘headship’, an anachronistic interpretation foreign to Paul’s era. The proponents of mandatory head covering rely on this anachronism in order to support the rest of their interpretation. We reject that approach out-of-hand.

For more information, see my list of posts discussing this topic at this index: “Headship Submission.”

Now we have our first problem.

If you’ve read Part 3, you know that Paul explicitly states that it doesn’t matter whether man comes from woman (or Eve) or woman comes from man (or Adam), because all persons come from God. Is Paul contradicting himself?

Dominic Bnonn Tennant argues that there is no contradiction (or, as he notes in his podcast, ‘tautology’) and so interprets the passage in order to avoid it. The problem is that he’s simply traded one problem for another. By avoiding contradiction (or tautology), he’s relying on incoherent grammatical interpretations. This is no solution.

There are many reasons why a writer might intentionally engage in contradiction or tautology.

The first comes from the field of mathematics. Many proofs are made by supposing a particular stance and then reasoning until you reach a contradiction. Upon doing so, you then argue for the opposite conclusion.

Another approach is almost identical. You quote (or paraphrase) your opponent’s viewpoint and then reason until you find a stance that contradicts this. Upon doing so, you declare that their view is invalid.

Either one of these is a possible explanation for the apparent contradiction. But it is not the only option.

Intentional contradictions are quite common when one is using figures of speech, such as hyperbole, sarcasm, irony, or even simply contrasting and comparing by analogy in order to highlight absurdity.

Some have argued that this section is a paraphrase of the teachings given by the Corinthian men, and that Paul is setting it up (in chiastic fashion) only to tear it down point-by-point with the chiastic pairs paired together (e.g. v.4-7 paired with v.13-15 and v.8-9 paired with v.11-12). To wit:

This is certainly a plausible explanation. Since the Greek contains no punctuation, this is hard to prove. But, as the various examples above show, it is not necessary to draw this conclusion. As stated above, a paraphrase-refutation “quotation-theory” is indistinguishable from simply reasoning from a contradiction or even the heavy use of figurative language (e.g. irony) to show absurdity and contradiction.

Indeed, in Homily 26 on First Corinthians, John Chrysostom—a native Greek speaker from the end of the 4th century—understood that Paul was speaking through absurdities. Paul was intentionally being tautological, using ironic absurdity as a literary device.

This is extremely important for two reasons.

First, verse 6 and verse 15 are discussing the same thing: the length of hair. Verse 6 (“covered over”) is the chiastic pair to verse 15 (“given instead of a mantle”). A mantle wraps you up on every side. By using this language of being “covered over” rather than merely “covered,” Paul is explicitly contrasting long hair (which is a substitute for a mantle) with short cut hair and a (possibly) a cloth mantle. In light of verse 15 (the chiastic pair), Paul is saying this:

Second, this is obviously reasoning to a contradiction by absurdity. As Chrysostom noted, cutting her hair is not actually a solution to the problem of not being covered over (whether that means being unveiled or having cut one’s hair). Cutting one’s hair cannot result in one being covered over (i.e. being unveiled or having uncut hair)! Paul is, instead, refuting this idea, suggesting instead that women should be covered (i.e. by having long, uncut hair) because cutting hair at all is shameful.

(Alternatively, Paul could just be making fun of the incoherence of the Corinthian viewpoint)

Let’s emphasize this further. Because of his misquotation of v10, John Chrysostom understood this to be about cloth head coverings, just like other proponents of head covering. Even so, he still recognized that Paul was speaking ironically (i.e. through absurdity) because cutting hair isn’t a solution to not wearing a covering of any kind, be it cloth or hair. So even though Chrysostom thought Paul was talking about veils and I do not, we both correctly recognize the literal contradiction inherent in Paul’s figurative language. Bnonn Tennant also sees the problem, but he has decided instead not to allow Paul to write this way. This is quite presumptive!

Now, whether you think verses 5-9 are the paraphrased views of the Corinthians, an completely ironic or sarcastic portrayal, or even if you think Paul was being completely serious, his clarifications contained in chiastic pairs in verses 11-15 (see below) show that he didn’t think a woman needed anything more than the hair on her head as a covering.

But this is not the only problem with this passage. Regarding verse 4, A. Philip Brown II noted that:

This is why I interpret the unclear verses in light of the clear ones, rather than the other way around as many do. There are just too many inherent, unresolvable ambiguities in some of these verses to make dogmatic claims about them.

This is the central part of the chiastic structure. It has no chiastic pair, but rather stands on its own as the central theme. We discussed this in great length in Part 3 so we didn’t have to do so here. This is how the verse should be translated according to the Greek grammar:

It’s very clear from this that Paul was not promoting mandatory cloth head coverings (even if he has head coverings in mind). It is also notable that Paul does not say that she should do whatever her husband wants her to do.

These two verses are chiastic pairs of these verses:

This pairing is a pretty straightforward point/counterpoint. Given how prevalent the chiastic structure is in Paul’s writing, it is quite hard to miss here.

It is very obvious to this reader that Paul first sets up a hierarchy based on creation order (in verses 8-9) and then tears it down (in verses 11-12) based on the actual biological ordering (i.e. what nature teaches) and divine ordering. To paraphrase:

These three verses are chiastic pairs with these verses:

The chiastic pairing is, once again, rather straightforward. Point-by-counterpoint the claims of verses 4-7 are compared and contrasted with verses 13-15.

However, just as we stated above, there is a problem here that is often overlooked: Greek contains no punctuation. As a result, verse 13 can plausibly read as a statement, not a question:

This ambiguity is precisely why, in Part 3, we focused on the uncontested portions of the passage. Whether verse 13 is a rhetorical question or declaration depends entirely on what one believes that Paul is arguing. If one assumes he supports requiring cloth head coverings, they will read it as a rhetorical question. But if one reads Paul as ultimately affirming that long hair is sufficient as a covering, it will be taken as a statement of conclusion. Either way, we cannot use this verse to prove the very point that is under debate, as that would be circular reasoning.

This is not the only problem. Paul speaks of men with long hair as dishonorable, but according to Acts 18, Paul himself grew his hair out while he was in Corinth for 18 months while under a Nazarite vow. At a typical growth rate, Paul’s hair would grown 9 inches, enough to fall below his shoulders. There are also a number of Old Testament references to men with long hair. Paul cannot be categorically forbidding the men of Corinth from having long hair. Something more nuanced is going on with Paul’s statement.

There is another issue to consider. If we define ‘nature’ in the modern English sense to refer to the natural, biological world, then cutting hair is unnatural. Hair just keeps growing until it falls out by itself. No animal cuts its own hair. And so, nature does not teach that a man should not have long hair. Paul is either being ironic and absurd again (this would be suitably reciprocal with the chiastic pairing), or he means something else by the word nature (such as conveyed in the statement “do what seems most natural or instinctual to do”). Strong’s lexicon notes that the word nature is often contrasted with the word “nomos” (law or custom). In other words, Paul is explicitly not identifying any divine, Mosiac, or Roman law or formal social custom that justifies head covering. Instead, it seems he wants his audience to do what seems “natural” to them according to their cultural or moral instincts.

To resolve these difficulties, I go back to the center of the chiasmus: verse 10. There we see that women are to have authority over their own mantle. It is logical, therefore, that men also have authority over his own “mantle” as well. Let men and women decide for themselves what is shameful and what is not. This is the most sensible explanation.

This, I argue, is exactly why Paul said “judge for yourselves.” He doesn’t want to decide what is sufficient. To wit:

We’ve already discussed this in Part 3 and the relevance of its chiastic pair above.

So far in this series, I have not attempted to propose a full interpretation of this passage. We can look at individual verses (as we did in Part 3) and see what some of the meanings are quite plainly. We can make certain historical claims about the text too. But what we can’t do is actually eliminate the inherent ambiguity. Thus, there are multiple mutually exclusive explanations for Paul’s words that are similarly plausible. So I’ll give you my opinion of what Paul was talking about, but it’s just that: an opinion. It’s not inherently superior to a number of other explanations.

We know from 1 Corinthians that the Corinthians were a divided, factional group. Paul’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper immediately after the passage we’ve been discussing indicates that different factions (possibly rich vs. poor) were forming, with some viewing themselves as the “approved ones” for the purpose of self-recognition. Some Corinthians viewed themselves as superior to others in the group.

We also know from Roman history that the palla—the Roman mantle—was stratified by socioeconomic status. Wealthy matrons wore it, while (at the extreme) poor single women and slaves did not. This suggests that the “approved ones” were raising a class-based fuss about who should and shouldn’t be wearing a palla or mantle, potentially bleeding over into the practices of prayer, prophecy, and communion.

Considering that the Lord’s Supper was being eaten before everyone arrived, one possibility is that some women were being excluded from worship as well (based on their attire or social standing). If v5-9 is a quotation or intentional absurdity, then we know that some women were being shamed for not wearing (or having) a mantle.

But another possibility is that the matrons were unveiling to fit in with the unmarried or lower class women, thus scandalizing their husbands and dishonoring them. This is another possible explanation for v5-9.

Another possibility involves men growing their hair long, causing consternation.

Still another possibility is that masters and slaves were attempting to keep social separation over the right to participate in worship through their differences in attire (or hair length).

Due to the inherent ambiguity of Paul’s words, we don’t really know for sure. We can only guess, we can never just know. We can deduce what Paul was not talking about, but we can’t deduce what he was talking about.

Regardless, I infer that Paul was putting a stop to these class-based disagreements, whatever they were. Whether one was a wealthy matron (with a cloth mantle covering) or a poor, unmarried, or slave woman (clothed by a “mantle” of long hair) did not change their right to participate in prayer and prophecy as they were. Whether or not one was male or female, all are equivalent in the sight of God. No faction was greater than another. In the eyes of God, a woman’s long hair was just as suitable as a mantle as was the matron with her cloth mantle, which functionally meant that the church could not discriminate between the slave, poor, and rich in worship (or in communion).

Paul made it clear that women were supposed to decide on their own authority what is best, according to the nature of what is proper. He stated that there is no formal custom over such matters (which is born out by the rest of the New Testament). Anyone in the group who had a problem with this should stop dividing and forming contentious factions.

I believe that Paul was mostly talking about hair length in this passage. He wants women who wear their hair as a mantle to have long hair. I see no restrictions on who can worship, how they can worship, or any form of authority or hierarchy between men and women. I see that Paul only mentions hair (his primary focus) but that a cloth mantle is implied, but not stated explicitly. In short, I see this:

If a married woman chooses not to wear a cloth mantle—a palla—on her head, then she should have long hair instead. Husbands should keep their hair cut. Otherwise, people can judge for themselves.

That’s what I take away from this passage.