Sermon Tone Analysis

The Issue of headcoverings for women is a question of the interpretation and application of a single passage in I Corinthians 11:2-16.

In this passage, Paul urges the women of the Corinthian church to wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying, and states that the men should not cover their heads in like circumstances.

He also speaks of the impropriety of women cutting off their hair and of a man growing his hair long.

In some sectors of the church this passage has become a matter of controversy, the disagreement centering on the question of whether Paul is enunciating customs applicable to all Christians of all times, or simply for those of a particular culture.

It is unusual, if not unheard of, for the Bible to speak only once upon subjects of importance to the Christian’s conduct and worship.

Yet, even if a subject is spoken of only once in Scripture, it must be taken seriously.

This is especially so if the matter is one which must be understood properly before a believer can begin to live or worship acceptably.

When a Christian duty is universally applicable (as all real duties are), we can trust in the faithfulness of God to clearly communicate this duty in terms that honest seekers could hardly misunderstand.

The first sixteen verses of I Corinthians eleven have not proven to be so clear as we could wish.

No doubt there are some who would say that they find the teaching clear enough.

“It simply means what it says.”

Those who talk this way are possibly bringing a fair amount of their own cultural assumptions to the text, whether they realize it or not.

For example, the Bible nowhere makes it altogether clear exactly what Paul meant by a “covering,” and it is probable that he meant something quite different (at least in style, if not also in extent of coverage) than the coverings that many modern Christian women use to cover themselves.

Nor is it any sense clear what the rationale is for women veiling themselves.

It could be an issue of modesty.

On the other hand, it may be that the symbolism of wearing a veil (to depict the woman’s subordination to her husband) is paramount.

Another consideration, which many subscribe to, is that Paul’s concern may have been nothing more than that Christian women not offend the cultural sensitivities of their Corinthian neighbors.

!

Four Approaches

Among modern interpreters, there are four distinct approaches to the application of this passage:

* 1) There are those who see the entire passage as a bit of unfortunate accommodation to outdated, patriarchal ideas, which society has since outgrown.

This option is that of the so-called “evangelical feminists,” whose views on the woman’s issue are consistently more feminist than evangelical.

To these, both the custom of headcovering and the patriarchal ideas behind it should be abandoned together.

* 2) There are those who say that the custom described is to be followed precisely as it was by those of first-century Corinth.

Both the patriarchal ideas and the precise expression of those ideas in veiling women should not be altered in any particular.

This option would require that we know precisely what style of headgear was worn by women in the ancient Greek culture so that such items could be duplicated for modern use.

* 3) There are those who believe that the general principle of patriarchal authority is transcendent and permanent, and should be perpetually celebrated by the covering of the woman’s head, but that the style or form of covering may be varied to include hats, scarves, small pieces of cloth, etc. - rather than being restricted to the precise kind of veil worn by first-century Greeks.

* 4) Finally, there are those who would retain the principle of male authority in the home and in the church, but would regard the whole question of covering to be negotiable and contingent upon local customs.

Both options 3 & 4 require the retention of a transcendent principle (patriarchy), but allow for modification of practice in some degree to accommadate local modern culture (altering or discarding the covering of women).

The only difference between these two last options is the degree to which Paul’s words are seen as culturally conditioned.

!

Particular vs. Universal Application

That the Scriptures were addressed, in the first instance, to people other than ourselves, must be acknowledged by any who have studied the Bible with care.

When Paul writes, “I was with you...”(I Cor.

2:3); “...I preached the gospel to you” (Gal.

4:13); and “Do you not remember that when I was with you...?” (II Thess.

2:5), we are reminded that most of his epistles were written to persons who had known Paul’s personal ministry among them.

We have never met Eunice or Lois, Phoebe, Onesimus or the household of Stephanas.

Yet the persons to whom Paul’s epistles were addressed were familiar with these people, and could put faces to the names when they read of them.

We cannot, and must therefore approach with a certain sense that we are reading “somebody else’s mail.”

There are abiding principles in every epistle, which is why we still read them with profit, but these principles are sometimes illustrated with reference to local customs that do not carry a universal application.

When we turn to I Corinthians 11, we immediately realize that we are reading an attempt to correct a problem that was present in a particular church.

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you” (v.2) is a verse speaking of a specific state of a particular congregation.

As we read on, we find that the specific problem had something to do with women and headcoverings.

The precise problem and its cause is never made clear.

Paul’s teaching in the chapter takes for granted a shared knowledge of the situation between himself and his readers, which allows him to write less explicitly than we may wish he had.

The customs of Corinth, as well as those of “the churches of God” (v.16), were common knowledge to them, while we are left to puzzle over the conflicting reconstructions of disputing historians in order to try to grasp the situation.

For example, every woman in Corinth knew what Paul meant by a “covering” (they probably even knew what he meant by his cryptic reference to “authority on her head” and “the angels” in verse 10!).

They knew whether the word kephale (head, verse 3) meant “source” or “chief” or “ruler” (I personally have no doubt about this point, though it is a matter of contemporary dispute).

They knew what length of hair was considered too “long” for a man, and in what sense “nature” taught this to be shameful (v.

14).

They also knew whether “no such custom” (v.16) meant the custom of women covering or that of women uncovering their heads.

From our vantage point, twenty centuries removed, we have greater difficulty knowing these things.

The very meaning of the passage and its range of application depend on exact knowledge of these factors.

The very obscurity of Paul’s references to these things may call into questions whether it was God’s intention for Christians of all ages to observe the Corinthian customs, about which He did not choose to preserve exact information.

!

What is a “veil”?

The first obscurity that meets us in the investigation of this passage centers on the definition of what Paul means by “covering.”

Two words are found in the Greek text.

In verses six and seven, we find the verb “cover” with reference to the head-i.e. it is proper for the woman but not for the man to “cover” the head when praying or prophesying.

This verb in the Greek is katakalupto , which Strong’s [2619] renders “to cover wholly.”

The word is a compound having two parts.

The first, kata [2596], means “down.”

The other part is kalupto [2572], for which the given meaning is: “to cover up, hide..to wrap around, as bark, skin, shell or plaster.”

The other word Paul uses is the noun peribolaion in verse 15, where Paul says a woman’s long hair is given to her for a “covering.”

The meaning of this word is given as “something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle, veil.”

Whatever other data may be consulted, the words themselves which Paul used suggest that what he had in mind was something much more like a wrap-around shawl, which covered the whole head (and possibly the face), than merely a small piece of cloth pinned to the hair.

This leaves room for the suggestion that a woman’s modesty was the object of Paul’s concern, rather than the observance of a merely symbolic ritual.

!

What Custom?

One of the more debatable points in the present passage is found in its closing verse (16), where Paul concludes, “If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” [For some reason, several newer translations, e.g. the NASB, TEV and NIV, have arbitrarily translated the Greek word toioutos (such) as “other.”

This has no warrant in the Greek nor in manuscripts and appears to be the imposition of an idea that translators thought Paul should have written!]

Considerable disagreement revolves around the identification of the “custom” to which Paul refers.

If the custom referred to is that of women covering their heads (the only custom discussed in the previous passage), then Paul would be saying that these instructions are relevant to the Corinthians, but not necessarily to the church at large- suggesting a local/cultural, not a universal, basis for his instructions.

Those today who would advocate a universal application of the head covering practices have suggested two alternative identifications of the “custom” in question.

One suggestion is that he means the “custom” of “being contentious” or of contending against an apostolic dictum.

The other suggestion is that he means “custom” of women disregarding the head covering custom.

Either of these latter proposed meanings, if true, would make Paul’s meaning to be, “If you women stop covering your heads, you will be out of harmony with the practices of all the other churches.”

However, unless some moral fault could be cited in their behavior, this argument would not be compelling any more than if, say, a group of Christians decided to have their main weekly meeting on Sunday nights, whereas most churches have theirs on Sunday mornings.

To tell this church, “No other churches are doing what you are doing in this respect,” would not necessarily provide any argument against the practice- unless some spiritual or moral reason could be adduced for the traditional morning services.

The word used by Paul for “custom” is sunetheia [Strong’s #4914].

Strong gives as its meaning: “mutual habitation.”

The two parts of the word are, respectively, sun [4862], meaning “with or together” and ethos [2239] (a strengthened form of 1485, “a usage prescribed by habit or law; custom, manner, be accustomed”), which means “habits, manners.”

It speaks of community manners, established by local habits or laws.

This word is found only one other place in the New Testament, where it refers to the Roman custom in Palestine of releasing one prisoner from jail at Passover season (John 18:39), which was clearly a local and arbitrary practice, rather than something God required for moral or spiritual reasons.

The wearing of veils by women was just such a custom in Corinth, and has been in many other cultures, suggesting that this local practice is the “custom” Paul has in mind.

On the other hand, the act of being “contentious” or of defying an apostle’s instuctions, though a practice of some individuals, has never risen to the status of a social custom, and is therefore not likely to be the “custom” of which Paul speaks in verse 16.

Likewise, the casting off of veils may have been the practice of some individuals in Corinth, but such an action would better be described as a rejection of prevailing custom, rather than an actual custom itself.

Since the veiling of women and short hairstyles for men were Greek customs of just the kind suggested by the Greek word, it seems best to understand Paul’s use of this word to be saying that the Greek customs, though relevant to the Corinthians as Greeks, were not necessarily practiced in other cultures.

For example, long hair on a man would not be regarded as shameful among the Jews, since both the law and Paul’s own practice validated the growing of one’s hair and beard as a mark of one’s special consecration to God through a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6).

The Jewish heroes who had such a vow and wore long hair included Samson (Judg.

13:7), Samuel (I Sam.

1:11), Elijah, apparently (II Kings 1:8), John the Baptist (Luke 1:15), and Paul himself (Acts 18:18; comp.

Acts 21:23-6).

In addition, the Jewish priests (Ex.

39:28/Eze.

44:18), the high priests (Ex.

28:4/29:9/39:28/Lev. 8:13), and Ezekiel the prophet (Ezek.

24:17) were all commanded to wear headcoverings while ministering to God, suggesting that God does not know of any universal impropriety in a man covering his head or having long hair.

The law allowed both men and women to take this vow (Num.

6:2).

Significant to our present consideration is the fact that a Nazarite, after growing his or her hair out long, was to shave his or her head (Num.

6:18).

This makes it plain that for a Jewish woman to shave her head was not, under some circumstances, considered a shameful thing before God.

Josephus tells of a time when the Jewish queen Berenice (who was contemporary with Paul, and once met him) had shaved her head to observe a Nazarite vow (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews , 2:15:1).

There was no shame in this.

Clearly, Jews and Greeks had different customs from each other in this respect, and Paul validated both, in their respective cultural contexts (Consider I Corinthians 9:20-21 in this light).