1 Corinthians 11: Delving into Paul’s Words on “Headship” “Hair Length” and “Headwear”

Given the consensus among Christian denominations regarding the canonical authority of Paul's letters, it is not improper to inquire about the applicability of his teachings on traditions in our contemporary times, and consider, to what extent these traditions he delivered, were influenced primarily by the worldview of his day.

Welcome to 1 Corinthians 11: Delving into Paul's Words on "Headship" "Hair Length" and "Headwear"

Passage: I Corinthians 11:2-16

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 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. 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. 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. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Introduction

A Chiasm is a literary method used in many passages of Scripture. In a chiastic structure, sentences, or even large passages, are arranged to form an X-shaped pattern. The thoughts are stated sequentially in one direction until a main point or climax is reached, then the thoughts are repeated in reverse order. In a chiasm, the main point is at the center of a passage.

In this chiasm, Paul begins chapter 11 by asking the Corinthians to keep the traditions that he had delivered to them.

He then makes several statements about men and women, and about the state of their head and hair while praying and prophesying. These statements are likely rooted in culture and may reflect what some Corinthian Christians believed to be true.

Verse 10 becomes the central argument for what Paul just said. Then, after a “nevertheless” at the beginning of verse 11, Paul repeats his previous message in reverse order, seemingly attempting to clarify the roles and appearances of men and women in regard to their head or hair.

The Chiasm ends reminding the Corinthians of what is most important. If these traditions he layed out caused contention, He had no such custom and neither did the churches of God.

The Headship Order

In 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul writes, "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." Many teachers (both ancient and modern) have taken this passage to mean that Christ has authority over the man and man has authority over the woman. This teaching is often found under contemporary terms like "The headship order" or "The umbrella of authority".

The teaching goes: God is at the top. Everyone below has a role to play to the God-given authority figure directly above them, (man in submission to Christ and woman in submission to man etc). If they stayed under this umbrella of authority, they'd be protected from Satan's attacks.

While this may appear healthy and innocent enough (and at a mere glance at the text, even agreeable to what Paul is teaching), this belief system is actually quite dangerous. First of all, it destroys the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of believers. ALL believers have equal standing before the Father and have equal access to His throne. A woman’s mediator between herself and God the Father is "Jesus", not her husband. Men are not the only ones to experience the Holy Spirit’s guidance, women can too. Secondly, it forces each spouse into a pre-determined role to play in a system of hierarchy rather than each couple creating their own system that relies on individual God-given strengths. From the beginning, God never intended one human to rule over another. in fact, he instructed Adam and Eve to be co-rulers over creation. God created marriage to be an equal partnership, where husband and wife are co-leaders of their home. while this may have changed during the period of the Old Testament era because of transgressions, the purpose of Jesus was to carry the curses with Him to the grave. His sacrifice reinstates equality and gets us back to Gods original vision for His human family when He placed them in the garden.

Let's take a closer look at what Paul is doing when he starts his discourse by setting up cultural hierarchies of "headship" and "honor".

The Greek word for head used here in 1 Corinthians 11:3, is kephalē. While most have assumed the word kephalē to mean "a person in authority over others", one of the most exhaustive lexicons of Ancient Greek (including New Testament Greek), does not include any definition of kephalē that signifies leader, ruler, or authority.

When referencing this passage, some early church leaders (Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Saint Basil, Eusebius, and Ambrosiaster) argued to some extent that "origin" or "beginning", and not "authority", is the more coherent interpretation of Paul's usage of the term "head" in this passage.

These early Father's basis and primary concern for clarifying the term head, in this passage was that their readers understand that God and Christ are equal and made of the same substance. The phrase "...and the head of Christ is God" does not mean that God has any authority over Christ, or that Christ was in any way inferior to God.

Let's look at a few excerpts from John Chrysostom's commentary of 1 Corinthians where he interprets the meaning of head. He writes:

But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Here the heretics dart in upon us, with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if the man be the head of the woman, and the head be of the same substance with the body, and the head of Christ is God, the Son is of the same substance with the Father.

For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as thou sayest, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master. For what if the wife be under subjection to us? it is as a wife, as free, as equal in honour. And the Son also, though He did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God, it was as God.

If the term "head" is interpreted as meaning "origin" instead of "authority," the verse can be understood as follows: "But I want you to know that the origin of every man is Christ, the origin of woman is man, and the origin of Christ is God." This interpretation of "head" implies that the "woman" and "man" referred to in this verse is Adam and Eve.

Paul's overall teaching becomes easier to understand when considering the possibility of an existing order of superiority in the Corinthian community, perhaps established by the men due to being once origin, and therefore expecting cultural honor in return. Through his use of rhetoric, Paul initially affirms this cultural hierarchy of honor, but then subverts it by subjecting all humans to God. This can be seen in verses 3 and 12 of the passage. See examples below.

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

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

In each of these examples, Paul's statements in the Greek manuscripts (as well as most English translations), ends with the word Theos (God). In ancient Greek sentence structure, the final word is in an emphatic position. By using this grammatical function, Paul highlights his main concern, which is "God is over all".

Paul's Primary Chiastic Focus: "Because of the Angels"

Paul introduces different points in this passage about the merits of hair length and headwear for both men and women. It is not always clear how they interrelate, or to what extent they compose an overarching coherent argument. This is nowhere more true than in verse 10, where one of Paul's reasons for women having authority on her head was the phrase, "because of the angels". If verse 10 had been omitted, the argument would have proceeded smoothly from without anything being missed. Nevertheless, as we have touched on earlier, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is written in a chiastic structure. Verse 10 lands in the center, Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Paul intended verse 10 to be the focal point of his overall message.

When examining the teachings and commentaries of the earliest Church leaders from the first few centuries, there were varying interpretations of Paul's reference to angels in this passage. Some thought it was the Holy men of the church, others believed him to be referencing human messengers, and that the reputation of the church was at stake here. Still others thought it was ministering angels.

Perhaps, more widely taught in the earlier centuries but has fallen from view in a modern world is that these angels were the fallen angels of Genesis 6. Paul's teaching on the use of protective head coverings, and his reasoning for it, aligns with earlier Jewish interpretations of Genesis 6:1-4. This passage describes the rebellious "sons of God" (angels) who descended to earth and sired a race of oppressive giants through their union with human women. These giant offspring were seen as the result of an illegitimate violation of boundaries in the cosmic order. Many people have argued that the woman's hair is the covering Paul refers to, but even the earliest church fathers held this interpretation of the fallen angels in Genesis 6 and regarded it the primary reason in their arguments for recommending the woman to have her hair covered.

However, one factor to consider when interpreting this verse is that there is no Greek word that means “sign” or “symbol” in 1 Corinthians 11:10. There is also no word that means “veil.” Several English translations, however, add these words. For example, the NKJV has "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." The RSV has, "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels." The KJV translates verse 10 more accurately as "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

The Greek word exousia, is translated as “authority” in the NKJV and “power” in the KJV.  1 Corinthians 11:10 could mean that a woman has the authority or power over her own head; that is, she has the right to decide how to present her head while keeping in mind Paul’s concerns about reputation, either because of the "ministering angels" or "human messengers".

It is uncertain what Paul had intended to convey when he made reference to angels in his writing. It is useful for us to examine the broader societal customs on headwear to provide context, and also to consider the culture of his specific audience, the Corinthians.

In the ancient world, it was not uncommon for men to cover their heads. But for the women... a covered or veiled head, expressed assumptions about female status, morality, and sexuality.

In Hebrew culture, the practice of head veiling was a symbol of modesty and chastity, as well as a way to indicate that a woman was already the property of a man. An uncovered head was often seen as a sign of vulnerability or mourning. There is no historical evidence indicating that virgins were required to cover their heads in ancient Hebrew culture. However, there are several instances in the Bible where women wore veils when engaging their husbands in marriage. 

Philo of Alexandria, when expounding on "the test of adultery" recorded in Numbers chapter 5, refers to a woman’s covering as “a kerchief, the symbol of modesty, regularly worn by women who are wholly innocent" (Philo, Volume VII, The Special Laws, Book III, section 56). This covering was to be removed by the priest during the procedure of this test.

In some other cultures outside Judaism, the veiling in public was expected of women of higher social status. The first mention of veiling of women is recorded in an ancient Assyrian text that restricted the use of the veiling only to women of higher status. It reads: "Women of the upper classes, whether married or not, must be veiled in public." Further, prostitutes and common women were prohibited from assuming the veil, the sanction for which was a fearsome penalty. The text continues: “A hierodule, whom a husband has not married, must have her head uncovered in the (public) street; she shall not be veiled. A harlot shall not be veiled; her head must be uncovered. He who sees a veiled harlot shall arrest her; he shall produce (free) men (as) witnesses (and) she shall be beaten 50 stripes with rods, (and) pitch shall be poured on her head.”

This text also corresponds well with what is known about Roman law. In ancient Roman culture, a palla or veil did not signify subordination, but rather, was there to legally protect the woman from sexual harassment. The most subordinate women in Roman society did not wear veils. It was illegal for slaves, prostitutes, freedwomen, and women from the lower classes to wear either a stola or a palla, and there were no laws to protect poorer women or slave women from sexual harassment.

Today in the United States, we have sexual harassment laws that apply to everyone, and potentially protect everyone, both men and women, regardless of social standing or what they wear.

The significance of knowing these ancient cultural customs in light of Paul's recommendation, lies in the fact that cultural customs at Corinth and assumptions about women in broader society, no doubt would have had a significant bearing regarding his discourse. Culturally, a woman's hair and the state of her head, were a public statement of morality and status. Because of this, the strict boundaries of morality between members of Christianity, and outside influences held special importance as it relates to the appearance of the head. This is particularly relevant for Corinth, a city documented in ancient writings for having been known for their immorality and pagan temple prostitutes. Strabo in his Geography writes:

And the temple of Aphrodité was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple slaves, courtesans, whom both men and women had dedicated to the goddess. And therefore, it was also on account of these women that the city was crowded with people and grew rich; for instance, the ship-captains freely squandered their money, and hence the proverb, “Not for every man is the voyage to Corinth.” Moreover, it is recorded that a certain courtesan said to the woman who reproached her with the charge that she did not like to work or touch wool: “Yet, such as I am, in this short time I have "taken down three webs" (meaning "sensually indulged 3 sea captains").

For more documentation of prostitution at Corinth refer to this Link.

As we have touched on earlier, some scholars and early church fathers have interpreted "the angels" mentioned in Paul's teaching as a reference to human messengers. In Paul's day, the Christian movement was under intense scrutiny, and the reputation of believers was at stake. Is it possible that the women who accepted Jesus in the book of Acts may have shed their customary head-coverings in order to take away the system of hierarchy and social status among women, but for the Corinthian culture, Paul urged them all to cover themselves? It is plausible that being uncovered during worship would have identified them by outsiders, as prostitutes since the pagan temple in Corinth was historically known for its prostitutes, and culturally, prostitutes were forbidden to be covered.

If, however, Paul had the transgression of Genesis 6 in mind when referencing the angels, his reasons for commending head coverings were likely rooted in the deeply ingrained assumptions that women occupy a key position where boundaries between different parts of the cosmos are most likely to be violated. This view breaks through to the surface in his argument, despite his view on gender mutuality of which he also emphasizes.

This perspective is especially worth taking into consideration, since even prior to Paul, certain earlier Jewish interpretations of Genesis 6, attributed blame to women for the fall of the angels, a view that was then adopted by many early church leaders. One such leader, Tertullian, used this interpretation of the transgression of Genesis 6, when advocating for both married women and virgins to veil their hair. He writes:

If “the woman ought to have power upon the head,” all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the essence of the cause (assigned for this assertion). For if (it is) on account of the angels—those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females, who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise?

So perilous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty of its head,—(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes. But even if they were females already contaminated whom those angels had desired, so much the more “on account of the angels” would it have been the duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels’ sinning.

In a work written much earlier, one of the 12 Patriarchs, Reuben, in his testament to his children writes:

Therefore flee fornication, my children, and command your wives and your daughters that they adorn not their heads and their faces; because every woman who acteth deceitfully in these things hath been reserved to everlasting punishment. For thus they allured the Watchers before the flood.

Over 2000 years after Paul's letter to the Corinthians, the specific identity of the angels he was referring to in this passage remains unclear. In any case, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has had a significant impact on the conduct of churches for the past two millennia. Given the consensus among Christian denominations regarding the canonical authority of Paul's letters, it is not improper to inquire about the applicability of his teachings on traditions in our contemporary times, and consider, to what extent these traditions he delivered, were influenced primarily by the worldview of his day.

Hair Length: Paul's Argument From Nature

In 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, Paul writes:

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

In antiquity, the hair length of both men and women was usually considered a topic of gender differentiation or a way of expressing that they were "set apart" for God. There are some written works implying, that in Paul's day, learned men of philosophy would grow their hair and beards as long as they could, to show off their status as a student or teacher of philosophy. There is documentation in both scientific and religious works, of men having long hair. These men were often considered "womanish" by the authors.

One clear Biblical example of both men and women being prohibited from cutting their hair, appears in Numbers 6:1-21, which describes the Nazarite vow. It reads:

(Verse 1-2) Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord...

(Verse 5) All the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the Lord, he shall be holy. Then he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

(Verse 13) When the days of his separation are fulfilled, he shall be brought to the door of the tabernacle of meeting.

(Verse 18) Then the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the tabernacle of meeting, and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offering.

Philo, in his commentary on Exodus 2:16 expounds on Moses' retort to the male shepherds who had driven the women away from the well. He writes:

You are masses of long hair and lumps of flesh, not men. The girls are working like youths, and shirk none of their duties, while you young men go daintily like girls.

Clement of Alexandria in his instruction on hair, writes:

Let the head of men be shaven, unless it has curly hair. But let the chin have the hair. But let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets. For an ample beard suffices for men. And if one, too, shave a part of his beard, it must not be made entirely bare, for this is a disgraceful sight.

And again, he writes:

But for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, to arrange his hair at the looking-glass, to shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them, how womanly! And, in truth, unless you saw them naked, you would suppose them to be women.

Tatian, in his address to the Greeks writes:

What great and wonderful things have your philosophers effected? They leave uncovered one of their shoulders; they let their hair grow long; they cultivate their beards; their nails are like the claws of wild beasts.

In the ancient world, a woman's long hair was recognized as her glory. Not only was a woman's long hair especially desirable to men, but resources from many ancient authors communicate a thematic mindset that a woman's long hair (uncovered) was also attributed to the reason for the transgression of the angels in Genesis 6. If women had their hair cut, it was usually because they were mourning or wished to remain unmarried. Sometimes cutting a womans hair served as public shaming. In antiquity, a woman with short hair was considered undesirable to look at. Below are a few examples and excerpts from scripture and other ancient literature. These examples pose to delineate a theme of cultural assumptions as it relates to the woman's hair.

In Deuteronomy 21:12 we have an example of a situation where the woman's head was to be shaved. It reads:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.

Both Philo and Clement of Alexandria, expound on this passage. In his Stromateis ("Miscellanies"), Clement writes:

The master who has fallen in love with his captive maid it does not allow to gratify his pleasure, but puts a check on his lust by specifying an interval of time; and further, it cuts off the captive’s hair, in order to shame disgraceful love: for if it is reason that induces him to marry, he will cleave to her even after she has become disfigured.

In the New Testament apocryphal story of Paul and Thecla, Thecla, after choosing to remain unmarried tells Paul:

I shall cut my hair and follow thee whithersoever thou mayst go.

The Testament of Job is an ancient work that provides additional details on the story of Job. Although the authenticity of the information contained therein may be questionable, the cultural and theological themes of the author break through the surface. Chapter 24, which discusses the hair of Job's wife, reads as follows:

He said to me: “Give me money for bread.” I told him about our misfortunes. And he said to me: “Then you give the hair of your head.” I in my heart said to him: “Take as much as you need.” He got up and took some scissors and shaved my head as an insult in front of the whole city.

As we can see through these various examples available to us, hair length, just as the veiling, was surrounded by assumptions placed there through cultural practices and mindsets.

Although it is true that most beauty pageants are still won by women with long hair in modern society... Hair length tells us nothing about a person's personal status the way it did in the ancient world. We don't look at a woman with short hair in our contemporary times and consider her "disfigured" or of "low status." Neither do we assume she is grieving, or any of the other ancient cultural assumptions associated with a woman's short hair or shaved head.

Some closing thoughts

The purpose of this study was not to advocate for a specific interpretation regarding the theological topic of head coverings. Rather, to offer additional cultural, literary, and grammatical perspectives for those interested in the matter. I'll be the first to admit that not much was actually resolved with absolute certainty. Most of what we've explored was simply done so perspectively, and for some, it may still seem hard to escape the notion that Paul's instruction implies that a woman, even when she prays or prophesies, is the social inferior of the man. What is most notable tho, is not what he concludes on the matter, but rather his struggle to come to terms with Christian identity within a complex matrix of culturally conditioned mindsets and social practices prevalent in the Mediterranean world. We observe his attempt to negotiate between the principle of human equality (which he considers as the ultimate eschatological reality in the Lord), and that of the culturally conditioned views and assumptions which have perhaps mitigated his vision. This effort of negotiating involves considering what such a principle of equality may imply for social relationships between men, women, and even angels.

Today, it is commonly still asserted by some, that the practice of veiling should be continued in light of the fact that early Church Fathers endorsed it. While this assertion may hold some truth, it is important to examine the reasons behind their endorsement and to determine whether or not the practice remains relevant in modern society.

This hypothesis put forward by early church fathers regarding the necessity of head coverings, was to prevent men (or angels) from engaging in immoral transgressions. This theory is contradicted by the high incidence of sexual abuse within cultures where women cover their heads. Despite claims that the outward expression of divorce rates is low in settings where women's heads are covered, it does not necessarily indicate a low percentage of divorce rates of the heart. In fact, it is often observed that men who pose the greatest danger are found in religious environments where women are repressed and covered.

I personally, have a strong inclination to read and study the doctrinal writings of these early church Fathers. However, I find it concerning, when individuals use the early church, as a justification for specific theological stances, without taking the time to thoroughly study and comprehend those writings. It is important for us to analyze how much of what they wrote and taught, aligns with our understanding of the teaching of Jesus. Therefore, if we want to hold to theological views in the name of "early church tradition", may we each be challenged to conduct a thorough examination of these written doctrines, in order to gain a deeper insight into their beliefs, and to determine how much of it resonates with God's overall message.

Currently, there still exists different denominations and individuals who continue to practice the physical head covering. It is important to note, that this practice in and of itself, does not imply that these women are oppressed. There are both, Christian and non-Christian women who genuinely choose to cover their heads for cultural or religious purposes.

It is important for individuals (both men and women) to identify their personal preferences and beliefs regarding the state of their head and hair in relation to their faith. Such choices should be made without imposing judgement on others who may choose to express themselves differently.

Thank you for joining me in exploring different aspects of this topic. While this study may not necessarily persuade you to take a particular stance, I hope it provides you with valuable insights that can assist in your journey of sifting through Paul's message.

Galatians 3:26-29 is a fitting way to close.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.