Dear Christians,
Do you trust your "authorities" ("pastors," "scholars," and theologians)? Can you trust what your "authorities" tell you about the Bible? Most "church" attendees will ignorantly and blindly answer, "Yes," to these questions. Why? Because they have been conditioned not to question what their "authorities" have told them. Would you like to see just how easy it is for your "authorities" to be completely wrong and to deceive you and lead you astray? Let's begin, shall we.
"Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for 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 one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the congregations of God." 1 Corinthians 11:1-16
What was Paul talking about here? A veil? Long hair? Both? Neither? The New Testament has very little to say about the topic of the woman’s prayer covering. This passage has several ambiguous statements that modern Christians have interpreted in a variety of ways. Here are four (4) typical preconceived ideas and understandings as to what this passage might mean:
- Paul is saying that men must not wear any veil or cloth covering on their heads when praying or prophesying, but women must wear a cloth veil or other cloth covering when praying or prophesying.
- Paul is saying that women must not cut their hair, for their long hair serves as a covering when they are praying or prophesying.
- Paul is directing the sisters to veil themselves so as to not be mistaken as prostitutes, since the prostitutes in Corinth did not veil themselves. Being a cultural thing, these instructions do not apply today.
- Paul is directing each sister to wear her hair long so as to not be mistaken as a pagan priestess, since it was customary for a pagan priestess to shave herself bald or to cut her hair short. Once again, these instructions do not apply today.
You may have some other preconceived idea or understanding of this passage. Whatever your understanding of this passage is, temporarily set it aside. Read through this passage slowly, verse by verse, and ask yourself, "If I didn’t know any better, what would I probably think that this verse was saying?"
John Calvin interpreted this passage to be addressing public worship:
"It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1 Timothy 1:12) It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14."
However, the passage not only makes no mention whatsoever of "public assemblies," but the passage that immediately precedes it (1 Cor. 10:23-33) does not concern "public assemblies" at all. Virtually every commentator since has copycatted Calvin’s error.
Matthew Henry: "Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies."
John Gill: "In this chapter the apostle blames both men and women for their indecent appearance in public worship."
Adam Clarke: "The apostle reprehends the Corinthians for several irregularities in their manner of conducting public worship; the men praying or prophesying with their heads covered, and the women with their heads uncovered."
Albert Barnes: "In regard to the first, it seems probably that some of the women who, on pretence of being inspired, had prayed or prophesied in the Corinthian church, had cast off their veils after the manner of the heathen priestesses."
Charles Hodge: "Having corrected the more private abuses which prevailed among the Corinthians, Paul begins in this chapter to consider those which relate to the way they conducted public worship."
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown: "1 Cor. 11:1-34. Censure on Disorders in Their Assemblies."
People’s New Testament: "Dress and Conduct in the Church. Summary – Men in Church to Pray with Uncovered Heads. Women to Be Veiled."
John MacArthur: "Worship in the Church. (11:2-14:40)"
It is extremely absurd to interpret this passage to be speaking of "public assemblies" because it directly contradicts 1 Corinthians 14. Here we have a clear case of the blind (Calvin) leading the blind (the other commentators). Commentators have made many fictitious claims presented as fact concerning Corinth. Where do they get their information from? Why do they never source it in their writings? Because they are making it up as they go and lying through their teeth! This is shameful behaviour for professing believers to be doing! Yet many professing believers feel the need to lie in order to prop up their views. Christianity stands on its own without the need for you to lie because you have a weak character that either fails to read the Scriptures or else does not do research correctly. There is no harm in admitting, "I don't know."
Was Paul talking about a cloth veil, or was he talking about long hair? Or was there actually no custom at all about either one? The proper thing for us to do is to consort the primary sources. What would these be? The primary sources would be the apostles and the recipients of their letters. Since you and I cannot ask Paul or the Corinthians what was meant by this, what can we do? Is there anything we can do? Of course there is! We can consult Church history and examine the course of performance (how they understood and practiced it) of the early Christians (AD 90-300).
The record reveals that the early congregations all—without exception—understood Paul to be talking about a cloth veil, not long hair. The only thing that was not clear to some of the early Christians was whether or not Paul’s instructions apply to all females or only to married women. The reason for this is because the Greek word guné (γυνή), used by Paul, can mean either "a female" or "a married woman."
At Carthage, North Africa, around the year 200, Tertullian wrote a tract entitled, "The Veiling of Virgins." In this tract, he argued that Paul was using the word guné (γυνή) in the sense of "a female." In the course of his argument, Tertullian described the various practices throughout the Church, including the practice in the congregation at Corinth. His tract gives us a wealth of information:
"I also admonish you second group of women, who are married, not to outgrow the discipline of the veil. Not even for a moment of an hour. Because you can’t avoid wearing a veil, you should not find some other way to nullify it. That is, by going about neither covered nor bare. For some women do not veil their heads, but rather bind them up with turbans and woolen bands. It’s true that they are protected in front. But where the head properly lies, they are bare.
Others cover only the area of the brain with the small linen coifs that do not even quite reach the ears.... They should know that the entire head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when it is unbound. In this way, the neck too is encircled.
The pagan women of Arabia will be your judges. For they cover not only the head, but the face also. . . . But how severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who remain uncovered even during the recital of the Psalms and at any mention of the name of God? For even when they are about to spend time in prayer itself, they only place a fringe, tuft [of cloth], or any thread whatever on the crown of their heads. And they think that they are covered!"
Earlier in his tract, Tertullian testified that the congregations that were founded by the apostles did insist that both their married women and their virgins be veiled:
"Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of congregations keep their virgins covered. In fact, this practice is followed in certain places beneath this African sky. So let no one ascribe this custom merely to the Gentile customs of the Greeks and barbarians.
Moreover, I will put forth as models those congregations that were founded by either apostles or apostolic men. . . . The Corinthians themselves understood him to speak in this manner. For to this very day the Corinthians veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, the disciples of the apostles confirmed."
Around the year 190, Clement of Alexandria, an elder writing from Egypt, counselled:
"Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happens to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled."
Around the year 200, Hippolytus, a leader in the congregation at Rome, compiled a record of the various customs and practices in that congregation from the generations that preceded him. His "Apostolic Tradition" contains this statement:
"And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of think linen, for this is not a true covering."
Do you still think you can trust what your "authorities" have told you concerning the Scriptures? You have just witnessed one example of your "authorities" not understanding Scripture in the least, and yet attempting to speak authoritatively about the issue as if they have a clue, which you have witnessed they do not.
Having asked the early Christians, those recipients of the apostles’ teachings and/or the teachings of the disciples of the apostles, we are now faced with a choice: Will we be obedient to what we have discovered and put it into practice? Or will we be disobedient and rebellious and make excuses for our disobedience and rebellion? The choice is yours. You will have to answer for it before the Judgment throne.
"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."