M Veronica

Reflection on the Veiling Instruction in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

In 1 Corinthians 11:6, the Apostle Paul insists that women are subject to the tradition of the head

covering. This instruction is regarded as one of the most cryptic Pauline teachings and has always been

one of the most divisive and controversial topics debated within the ecclesial circles of believers. Why

does the Apostle insist on such a commandment, and consecrate 15 verses (1 Cor 11:2-16) in arguing for

it? Doesn’t this matter present a clear contradiction with Galatians 3:27-28, erasing the distinction between

men and women? This paper aims to reflect more on these two questions. It argues that veiling and

covering the woman’s head is not merely a matter of individual freedom, but is rather a sign of reverence,

unity and orderliness on the social, theological and ecclesial levels. It is not a symbol of oppression or

distinction between the genders but is rather a symbol of peace, harmony and mutual submission within

the community, which is the body of Christ. Accordingly, it is a great testimony for the outsiders as well.

Since these two matters are tightly intertwined in the Pauline discourse of 1 Cor 11:2-16, we are going to

approach them conjointly in the course of our studious gaze at this passage.

It is befitting first to contextualize this biblical part within the first epistle to the Corinthians. It

should be examined as well within the broader frame of the Pauline reasoning and theology in general.

The Corinthian community was founded by the Apostle Paul himself; therefore, as a pastor and a father,

he is writing to this “stubborn” and individualist community. 1 His first epistle to the Corinthians is

considered as an “extended appeal for unity” for the Corinthian community, torn up by dissensions.2 The

veiling of women in the worshipping assembly is the third of four topics previously sent to Paul by the

Corinthians as contentious inquiries.3 Women had begun to remove their veils and to loose their hair while

1
Luke Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, Revised edition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999),
295.
2
Richard Hays, First Corinthians: Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 9.
3
1 Cor 7-11.
M Veronica

praying and prophesying in public worship. We do not know exactly the reasons behind this behavior:

either the Corinthians had misunderstood the absence of the distinction between male and female in Christ,

which Paul has already proclaimed in Gal 3:27-28,4 or the Corinthian women might have been behaving

in a familiar manner, like within a household frame, since churches were still held in houses. 5 No matter

the motives of the new custom, what was clear is that a social line had been crossed, and was threatening

the unity of the community. The heart of Paul’s response to the Corinthians is repeated three times in

different ways (1 Cor 6:11; 10:23; 10:31-33). Interestingly, the third time “bridges directly” to his

discussion about hair covering:6 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of

God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please all men in

everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. By this bridge,

Paul launches to a lengthy discussion about the veiling of prophesying women. His arguments are founded

on theological, social and ecclesial bases. He inaugurates his discourse by presenting in v.3 a hierarchical

statement based on a scriptural and theological truth: Christ is the head of every man, man is the head of

woman, and God is the head of Christ. The word “head” here refers to the metaphorical meaning of

preeminence and leadership. Some interpreters, specifically motivated by feminist concerns, argue that

the word “head” (kephalē in Greek) rather means “source”,7 but since that meaning was not rendered by

Greek lexicons,8 the metaphorical meaning referring to authoritative headship and leadership of the man

should be kept. The syntaxial order of v.3 is significant since the order of the hierarchy included in this

verse is not ascending or descending, but rather reflects a very deep and mystical meaning. Paul declares

in the beginning two theological facts: Christ the head of man, and man the head of woman. This chain

4
Hays, “First Corinthians,” 182-3.
5
Preston Massey, “Gender Versus Marital Concerns: Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Address the Issue Male/Female or
Husband/Wife?” Tyndale Bulletin 64 (2013): 239-56, 245-7.
6
Sherri Brown, “The Dialectic of Relationship: Paul and the Veiling of Women in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” Salesianum 67
(2005): 457-77, 459.
7
Hays, “First Corinthians,” 184.
8
Brown, “The Dialectic,” 464.
M Veronica

refers to the scriptural order reflected in Genesis. By placing at the end of this chain God as the head of

Christ, it is as if Paul was presuming some objections from those who would consider these facts as

antifeminist. He was responding in advance to them by this statement: it is a fact that the head of man is

Christ and the head of woman is the man, but take heed, for no one whether man or woman can

communicate to God except through Christ the only High Priest.9 On the other hand, by introducing the

pattern of the head of Christ is God, Paul is urging the believers to follow the example of Christ in his

relationship with God the Father. While being one with the Father, Jesus Himself in His kenotic humanity

emptied Himself and was always obedient and subject to the Father.10 Paul is therefore asserting that being

subject to the other within the frame of a hierarchical ordering is not a sign of oppression for women or

distinction between the sexes, but rather a symbol of harmony and mutual subjection within the body of

Christ,11 following the example of Christ himself in His relationship with the Father. In fact, the usage of

the word “head” in this passage has become so problematic and contentious because we sometimes receive

scriptural truth according to our own worldly perceptions and attitudes, apart from the Pauline theology

as a whole, and more importantly apart from the divine mind and economy of God for his Church. We

always think of the “head” to be a symbol of superiority, dominance and control. Yet, a thorough reading

of 1 Corinthians 12 illustrates how in the wise economy of our Lord, the inferior parts of the body of

Christ are counterbalanced by a greater part of honor, surpassing the honor given to the seemingly

presentable parts such as the head. Therefore, all the members are equally seen and appreciated by the

divine eye. For the divine mind, that should be also ours, all members are important and indispensable for

the body. The diversification of the members of the body makes its own richness and perfection and allows

9
Paul Tarazi, The Chrysostom Bible: First Corinthians (OCABS Press, 2011), 196.
10
Jn 8:29b: I always do what is pleasing to Him. Lk 22:42, Not My will, but Yours be done.
11
This mutual subjection is in fact one of the main features in the Pauline theology. Tarazi points to the significance of this in
Eph 5:21-22, when Paul says: Be subject to one another, out of reverence for Christ in Tarazi, “Chrysostom,” 197.
M Veronica

the body to perform its different tasks and functions. They should never become source of conflicts and

disputes.

A further point worth noting is that, in v.3, the Greek words used for man and woman (ανήρ and

γυνή) could be equivalent as well to husband and wife (the RSV is the only translation that preferred this

option: “the head of a woman is her husband”). This translation would have important theological

implications. In this case, it ought to be read in conjunction with Eph 5: 22:23, depicting the wonderful

hierarchy of women subjected to their husbands in resonance to their husbands’ sacrificial love for them,

resembling Christ’s love for His church. These two biblical parts superposed together (1Cor 11:3 and Eph

5:22,23) highlight how the woman, as a sign of her loving subjection to her husband, and not out of

oppression, is covering her head to hide her own glory which is her hair (1Cor 11:5) and becomes fused

with her husband. The man or the husband, having his wife now united in him and hidden in him, does

the same. He denies himself to confirm this unity, and hides his own glory by uncovering his head as a

metaphoric sign, to allow Christ, his own head, to appear and be alone glorified. Christ become thus the

head of this couple united and fused together with love and modesty (and on a larger scale the head of the

whole community). All the glory will be given to God alone. In that sense, v.3 introduces the theological

base allowing a better understanding for verses 4 and 5.

In verses 4-6, Paul emphasizes the fact that covering or uncovering the head is not merely a matter

of individual freedom, but that it rather reflects respect or disrespect for the superior in the hierarchy. Even

more, it brings shame upon men present in the community.12 There were many reasons why this behavior

was deemed shameful. For one, it was an inappropriate transgression for social norms and customs, a sign

of disrespect for men of the community, and thus would be a stumbling block for the outsiders and

unbelievers who might be present, since worship was done in a public setting (as Paul denotes in 1 Cor

12
Hays, “First Corinthians,” 184.
M Veronica

14:23).13 Finally, it had negative sociocultural and religious connotations since unbounding and loosening

the hair was associated with the attire of prostitutes and prophetesses in the pagan worship of that time. 14

In a word, the main concern of Paul in these verses was to avoid shame within and without the community,

and showing respect for sociocultural boundaries and traditions. The hyperbolic syllogism in v.6 aims at

emphasizing and underscoring this “shame.”15 As we have seen in 1 Cor 10:32-33, Paul was presenting

himself as an example in this respect and asks the Corinthians to follow his pattern.16

After making sociocultural, theological, and scriptural arguments, Paul appeals in v.10 to an

ecclesial criterion with a cryptic statement to do with angels. How are angels relevant in this context? Two

suggestions. Firstly, Paul might be considering the loosened hair of woman to be a sexual provocation for

the fallen angels, as in Genesis 6:1-4. However, if this was the case, Paul would have provided a further

and “fuller explanation”17 to expand his argument. On the other hand, the presence of angels in a worship

setting of divine presence recalls the theophany of Isaiah 6:1-3, where divine presence was accompanied

by angels covering their faces in reverence with two wings. The whole scene conjures up the divine council

presided by God, among whose members are the angels. Within the context of worship full of awe and

reverence, the women worshippers must behave in consonance with the angelic worship and have

authority over their head to give glory to God rather than themselves, since the hair of a woman is her

glory and pride, as v.15 suggests.18

In vv.13-16, Paul is using the only imperative in the whole passage to appeal to nature and to the

Corinthians “common sense”.19 The logic of Paul’s injunction depends mainly on the code of honor/shame

13
Massey, “Gender,” 245.
14
Hays, “First Corinthians,” 185.
15
Brown, “The Dialectic,” 467.
16 1 Cor 10: 32,33; 11:1.
17
Hays, “First Corinthians,” 188; Susan Calef, “Kephalē, Coverings, and Cosmology: The Impenetrable ‘Logic’ of 1
Corinthians 11:2-16,” Journal of Religion & Society. Supplement Series 5 (2009): 21-44, 39.
18
Brown, “The Dialectic,” 472.
19
Tarazi, “Chrysostom,” 197.
M Veronica

in first century Greco-Roman culture. To be able to understand the core of his argument in these verses,

we should consider some analogical customs from our culture and social world. For example, men wearing

caps during the salutation of the flag or in church would be certainly perceived as irreverent behavior.20

Paul desires orderliness for the community as a whole, based on respect of social, scriptural, ecclesial

norms for both men and women. Presuming that he has covered and discussed the question of head

covering from all respects, Paul concludes in v.16 by an authoritative notice, exhorting that unity should

characterize and sustain the Church of God, and closing the door before further vain discussions and

debates. It is an instruction for conduct in a socio-ecclesiastic settings, presuming that the Corinthians

would respect the “uniformity of practice” in other churches.21

Through this analysis of Paul’s commandment about women head covering in 1 Cor 11, major

conclusions are to be underlined. Firstly, the passage does not contradict Galatians 3:27-28, for Paul allows

women in Corinth to take a place equal to men in the community level: to pray and prophesy, which means

to announce God’s revelation and exhortation to His people. That was not even practiced in Jewish

synagogues.22 His objections were centered on the manner and attire adopted by women while fulfilling

this function. This is an important notice underlying equality between men and women in Christ in the

Pauline theology. Secondly, for Paul, the churches of God are called to unity and harmony as the body of

Christ. This unity is achieved through relationships, respect of social norms and customs, mutual

subjection and imitation of Christ. Thirdly, Paul re-envisions the veil23 as a symbol of reverence and

harmony in the body of Christ. The whole biblical passage of 1 Corinthian 11:2-16 is not a call for

subordination of women, but rather a symbolic distinction between the sexes. The main concern of Paul

is to avoid bringing shame to the community and ensuring a good testimony for the outsiders. In a time of

20
Hays, “First Corinthians,” 186.
21
Hays, “First Corinthians,” 189-190.
22
Tarazi, “Chrysostom,” 196.
23
Brown, “The Dialectic,” 476.
M Veronica

alarming confusion about gender and identity and rampant disorder related to sexual distinction, the voice

of Paul should be echoing loudly, now maybe more than any other age.

Bibliography

Brown, Sherri. “The Dialectic of Relationship: Paul and the Veiling of Women in 1 Corinthians

11:2-16,” Salesianum 67 (2005): 457-77.

Calef, Susan. “Kephalē, Coverings, and Cosmology: The Impenetrable ‘Logic’ of 1 Corinthians

11:2-16.” Journal of Religion & Society. Supplement Series 5 (2009): 21-44.

Hays, Richard. First Corinthians: Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997.

Johnson, Luke. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, Revised edition.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.

Massey, Preston. “Gender Versus Marital Concerns: Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Address the

Issue Male/Female or Husband/Wife?” Tyndale Bulletin 64 (2013): 239-56, 245-7.

Tarazi, Paul. The Chrysostom Bible: First Corinthians. OCABS Press, 201