Head Coverings: Applying 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Today

The ninth and last post in a Veracity summer blog series….

Here is our passage which has perplexed many Bible readers over the centuries, from the English Standard Version (1 Corinthians 11:2-16):

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

We have surveyed seven views held by scholars who have studied this (frankly) weird passage, which I have hyperlinked below to the previous blogs posts in this series:

• The Traditional View
• The Hyper-Conservative View
• The Symbol of Protection View
• The Hairstyle View
• The Quotation/Refutation View
• The Interpolation View
• The Supernatural Sexual Modesty View

As we conclude this blog post series on head coverings, it is worth coming back one more time to examine more closely the question of how all of this applies to the believer today. Is Paul instructing women to wear head coverings as a universal practice, applicable to all times and places, or is this applicable only in certain cultural settings?

Everything about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 (well, maybe not “everything,” but we try to hit the highlights here at Veracity)

“Reclining at Table” and a “Holy Kiss”: Binding Universal Commands or Cultural Custom?

One of the biggest challenges in interpreting Scripture is trying to figure out if something in the Bible is limited to a particular cultural setting, or if it is an instruction which transcends culture. There are certainly commands in the Bible which transcend culture, such as the Ten Commandments. However, there are also other practices linked to the Bible that are better described as “customs” as opposed to “commands.”

For example, Jews in Jesus’ day typically reclined when eating. Jesus himself “reclined at table” in a house (Matthew 9:10). A number of scholars say this practice was adopted from the Persians and Chaldeans during the period of the Babylonian Exile. But in Jewish tradition “reclining at table” is sometimes drawn from part of Exodus 13:18, “God led the people around,” where the Hebrew word for “around” sounds very much like the word for “to lean.” Therefore, a Jew had been encouraged to recline at the Passover feast as if he were a nobleman.

All Jews today do not follow such a custom, so it would be difficult to defend the idea that this is some universalizing command from the Old Testament which transcends cultures. In fact, Ashkenazi Jews in the 12th century C.E. began to abandon the custom of reclining during the Passover feast since in medieval Europe, as it was not fashionable for the nobility of Europe to recline. The principle the “reclining” had in mind was not the act of “reclining” itself, but what the “reclining” signified. Clearly, not all Jewish practices that were considered to be equally binding, as opposed to divinely sanctioned commands that were; such as circumcision.¹

There are also practices described in the New Testament that are better thought of as culturally-limited customs as opposed to universally-binding commands. For example, many Christians would say that Paul’s instruction to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (2 Corinthians 13:12) is obviously a culturally-limited custom. Paul is not encouraging just any kind of kissing, but rather Paul is encouraging believers to extend hospitality and acceptance of others. Extending a warm greeting to another person is the transcendent, universalizing command, but an actual kiss is a custom which varies from culture to culture. While it might make sense to kiss someone as part of a culturally-acceptable greeting, in another culture, kissing would not be acceptable. In America, if you tried to greet someone for the first time visiting your church with a kiss, you might find yourself receiving a horrified look, or even worse, receiving a slap on your face for such an affront!²

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul teaches believers to greet one another with a “holy kiss.” But perhaps in our highly-sexualized society today, it would be better to greet one another with something like a “Hershey’s Kiss” instead, as a way of extending Christian hospitality towards one another.

Going Overboard with the “Culturally-Limited” Argument

On the other hand, you can easily go overboard with the “culturally-limited” argument. Many Christians know that Paul teaches that “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith…. [and] not by works” (Ephesians 2:8-9). But if this is a culturally-limited instruction, suggesting that salvation by grace through faith only applies to Paul’s first century Greco-Roman cultural context, then the whole message of Scripture gets abstracted away from us 21st century humans, and the teaching of the Bible becomes essentially meaningless for today. It would be spiritually disastrous to think that Paul thinks that salvation by works might be God’s will in a different cultural context other than his own. Are only first century Greco-Romans saved by grace through faith, and perhaps a different logic applies to 21st century Americans? Now that would be absurd!

Here is another example: When Paul admonishes husbands to “love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25), are we really expected to think that this is a “culturally-limited” teaching? Would Paul realistically think that in another given time and place that it would be perfectly acceptable for a husband to mistreat or beat up his wife in some other cultural situation? Again, the abuse of this method of interpreting Scripture is pretty startling. But it is sadly altogether too common.

Essentially, the whole argument of “well, that is just how it was in the culture of the Bible, but we live in a different culture today” simply gets overused. So much of this type of thinking just leads to utter disaster for the church. The more that Christians acquiesce to trends in the culture, without adequate Scriptural justification for such a move, the more we risk diluting the Christian message to the point of meaninglessness.

For example, the United Methodist Church, as of 2023, is currently undergoing the largest schism probably ever in its history with a number of local Methodist churches leaving the United States denomination to join the Global Methodist Church in order to hold onto the historic Christian teaching on marriage, while those churches which remain United Methodist are saying that how we think about marriage is a purely “culturally limited” concept. The logic suggests that if contemporary cultural views about marriage change, then Christians should change right along with the culture. While many godly, historically orthodox believers remain in the United Methodist Church, the situation within that denomination remains one of disorientation and confusion.

So then, how do you go about determining if a New Testament instruction is universally binding or culturally-limited? A good rule of thumb is to say that every New Testament instruction has a universal, timeless quality to it, transcending the immediate first century New Testament context, unless there is some definite contextual clue that alerts us to a particular cultural situation the New Testament author has in mind.

Universal Commands vs. Cultural Customs in the Complementarian/Egalitarian Debate

This is particularly relevant to the complementarian/egalitarian debate, which often revolves around the controversial question of whether or not women may serve as elders in a local church (Explore this Veracity blog series for an extensive overview of this on-going debate). An egalitarian might argue that just as head coverings are not obligatory for Christian women today that restricting women from serving as elders in a local church is a culturally-limited practice, that only makes sense in Paul’s first century, patriarchal Greco-Roman world. Therefore, limiting the office of elders to qualified men has no applicability in a 21st century Western context.

Complementarians will push back on this interpretation by pointing out that Paul’s teaching about qualifications for the office of elder in a local church is grounded in the doctrine of creation (1 Timothy 2:11-3:7; Titus 1:5-9). Appealing to the doctrine of creation suggests something which has a universalizing character, as opposed to merely a custom which may change according to a cultural situation. Nevertheless, egalitarians will often push back on complementarians on this point by calling out an apparent inconsistency in complementarian thinking: “So, what about head coverings?”

In other words, this particular egalitarian argument against complementarian theology suggests that if you are going to say that only men are to serve as elders in a local church, to be fully consistent all complementarian women should wear head coverings. If you are going to say that women should not serve as elders, due to some timeless principle, then you should say that women wearing head coverings is a timeless principle as well.

When was the last time you were in a church where only men served as elders, and all the women wore a head covering to the church meeting? That is rare in evangelical churches today. Are those churches just being inconsistent in their application of New Testament teachings?

There are a number of Christians who do share a complementarian outlook, who follow that logic of transcending culture quite easily, ranging from the Amish, to certain Mennonite traditions, to older non-Protestant traditions, like the Eastern Orthodox. In these traditions, not only is the office of elder restricted to qualified men, women wear head coverings when gathering together for corporate worship. Or at the very least, they wear head coverings when in the act of praying and/or prophesying.³

Furthermore, it is quite easy to see that a surface level reading on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, without any historical background and without any Old Testament background might lead a believer to the conclusion that Paul is teaching a universal practice, where in a corporate worship setting, men are not to wear a head covering and women are to wear a head covering. On top of that, Paul includes an argument from creation to support the practice. Verse 16, in particular, might also strongly indicate that Paul’s teaching was adopted in all of Paul’s other churches, which is why he wants the Corinthians to comply as well.

Historically speaking, in the 1960s during the Sexual Revolution, we know that a big shift began to take place whereby women began to stop wearing head coverings in churches, a tradition that at least in America extended back into the colonial era. Older traditions, such as Eastern Orthodoxy, contend that the practice goes right back to the early church. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, for example, testify that in the 2nd century and early 3rd century, women regularly gathered together for Christian worship with their heads covered.

The anti-head covering shift in the 1960s was a movement explicitly tied to feminism. For example, in 1969 the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) through the leadership of radical feminist theologian Elizabeth Farians called for an “Easter Bonnet Rebellion.” Farians and others objected to the social practice of women wearing a new hat at Easter services as “the veiling of women historically symbolizes their subjugation.” As a response, the National Organization for Women “urged all women to resolve that as of now to join in this first action of the ‘National Unveiling’ of all women in all churches throughout the nation.”  Since Farians’ well-publicized activism, along with other events during that time period, the practice of Christian women wearing head coverings has dramatically declined in American churches over recent decades. ⁴

Likewise, we still often see Christian men taking their hats off of their heads when they pray. This practice is clearly less controversial as the whole oppressor/oppression dynamic associated with feminist concerns is less relevant with men NOT wearing head coverings.

Even the well-respected late leader of Ligonier Ministries, R.C. Sproul, without any fanfare, where even in his church very few complied, quietly argued that head coverings was meant to be a universally binding practice. But is it entirely true that a woman covering one’s head is an instruction by Paul meant to transcend all cultures, times and places? ⁵

An example of a woman’s hair being “done up” consistent with the Hairstyle view of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

The Disputed Symbolism of “Head Coverings”

At the heart of this “command” vs. “custom” debate is the exact symbolic meaning of the “head covering.” For example, if the advocates of the Symbol of Protection View are correct, then the commonly held assumption that a head covering represents a sign of a woman’s subjection to her husband is completely misguided. So according to the Symbol of Protection view, Elizabeth Farians completely misinterpreted the passage!! Therefore, ascertaining the meaning of “head covering” is essential to discerning the difference between a universal command versus a culturally-limited custom.

Throughout this summer blog series on the topic, a careful analysis of our 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 text, within the larger evidence found in Scripture, shows us that a solid case can be made that physical head coverings themselves are not universally binding for women when they worship, even for those who hold to a Traditional View, or a Hyper-Conservative View, or similar views. This also applies for those who hold to some variation of  the Hairstyle View, where a cloth head covering is not in view, but rather the length or style of a woman’s hair is at issue. Instead, different cultures have different ways of distinguishing between men and women that do not exactly line up with the first century New Testament world.

There are a number of defenders of the Traditional view who do not agree with the claim that head coverings themselves are a prescriptive practice to be applied universally. Such traditionalists would agree that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 makes an appeal to creation. Yet the appeal to creation is to defend the principle of male headship as set forward in verse 3. The call for head coverings is but a cultural outworking of the creation principle, and not something universally binding in and of itself. In other words, according to this version of the Traditional view we were created with male headship in mind, and not head coverings. The same kind of logic would then apply to even more egalitarian friendly readings of the passage, where the logic of male headship is more about head as “source” instead of head as “authority.”⁶

Therefore, regardless of one’s particular adherence to any of various viewpoints covered in this blog post series, a common thread is that Christians need to find the appropriate, culturally-sensitive way of distinguishing between male and female, in whatever culture they are in. This evidence from Scripture would help both complementarians and egalitarians, despite disagreements in other areas, in trying to apply most faithfully the teaching that Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. But there is more to the argument to be addressed in a moment.

An important caveat should be mentioned before going on. The specific requirement for women wearing head coverings or having a particular hairstyle pertains to women leading in prayer and/or prophecy. Likewise, the requirement for men NOT to wear a head covering applies to those while leading in prayer and/or prophecy. These practices are not required when one is neither praying nor prophesying in the Christian meeting. Furthermore, these are not definitive requirements for those who are merely visiting the worship service. For example, Paul’s teaching here does not preclude prostitutes nor men dressed in drag from visiting/attending a Christian worship service. ⁷

Of course, adherents to other views, such as the Quotation/Refutation View or the Interpolation View  reject the whole idea of head coverings as something which Paul is either refuting against or is simply not advocated anywhere in the teaching of Paul.

Orthodox Jewish conservative news commentator, Ben Shapiro, is known within the public eye for his wearing a traditional head covering, the yarmulke. The yarmulke is the modern day descendant of the Old Testament turban, worn by some Jewish men.

Men and “Head Coverings”: An Often Overlooked Aspect of the Debate

Still, others are not convinced by the distinction between command and custom, with respect to head coverings. So, what then is the best case for the “culturally-limited” practice of women wearing head coverings? Most readers of our text get hung up on the idea of women wearing head coverings, but they completely ignore what Paul says about men and head coverings. The key to identifying this is in verses 4-5:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

At first glance, this would indicate that Paul is instructing the men not to wear a head covering when gathering together for corporate worship. This might lead one to assume that it was a normative practice for Paul, as a Jew, that Jewish men should never wear a head covering in a synagogue, or anything like that.

However, this assumption conflicts with what we read about in the Old Testament. When describing the priestly garb, Exodus teaches us that the priests, who were all men, wore a head covering, when they were to go about their priestly duties (Exodus 28:4, 37, 39). The English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible renders the Hebrew word for this head covering as a “turban.”

So what is going on here? Does the Bible teach that men should wear a head covering or they should not wear a head covering? It would make no sense for Paul to contradict the Old Testament Scriptures, if this was a universally binding command. Coming from a loyal Jewish background, Paul would not do that. Instead, it is more reasonable to conclude that the male head coverings along with the woman’s head coverings were a custom and not a command, where the symbolism behind the practice varied from cultural situation to cultural situation.

The Jewish men who were priests were to wear a head covering in worship in their Ancient Near East context, and even up through the Second Temple period. On the other hand, the practice of male head coverings for non-priestly Jewish men arose later in Jewish history, well after the time of Jesus. This practice continues today, with the use of the yarmulke, among orthodox Jews.

It is quite possible that Paul had the Jewish practice of non-priestly men in mind not wearing a head covering, with respect to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. But it is odd that Paul never mentions the exception about Jewish men who were priests, performing their duties in the temple. However, since we are dealing with the situation in Corinth, and not with the Temple in Jerusalem, this might explain Paul’s silence regarding this exception.

Furthermore, we need to consider the cultural context in Corinth that Paul was addressing. The evidence we have suggests that Roman pagan men in Corinth would have head coverings, but primarily for use in their pagan worship ceremonies, perhaps part of the garment they were wearing draped over their heads.⁸

This might suggest that Paul wanted Christian men to distinguish themselves differently from the practices of pagan men who did wear hair coverings in their pagan temple ceremonies. The non-head covering practice for men would be different from head covering practice performed by women. In this manner, such a custom would communicate in a culturally appropriate way that men are different from women. In other words, Paul is envisioning a practice that made sense for Corinth and other primarily-Gentile churches which he founded, but that need not be applicable universally.⁹

Roman emperor Augustus took himself the status of pontifex Maximus, the chief high priest of the College of Pontiffs in Rome. Note that as pagan man, he used a cloth head covering, part of his worn garment, wrapped over his head, as part of his religious devotion.

A Better Case for a “Culturally-Limited” Application for Head Coverings

It should be reasonably inferred that the issue of head coverings was a cultural custom as opposed to a universalized command. However, the “culturally limited” perspective makes even better sense if what Paul has in mind is the Enochian view of angels, as explained in the previous blog post on the Supernatural Sexual Modesty View.

In that interpretation, Paul still cares about men looking like men and women looking like women. Yet according to the Supernatural Sexual Modesty view, the Corinthians would have viewed the function of hair quite differently from the way we think about hair and head coverings today (back to the whole “testicles” weirdness). Furthermore, since the head covering practices might apply mainly to times when leading in prayer or prophesy, we can better appreciate that Paul had the function of spiritual warfare in mind, and not just some general use (or non-use among the men) of head coverings more broadly.

As far as head coverings go today, no one really believes that women’s hair are genitalia, so it really makes no sense for women today to necessarily wear a head covering out of a sense of modesty. Paul is not giving us a human biology lesson in 1 Corinthians 11, but he is teaching about the importance of modesty.

This is perhaps the strongest argument that can be made to show that head coverings themselves are not the sticking point that Paul is trying to make with respect to men or women. Rather, it is what the use (or non-use) of head covering signifies. What is at stake here is not a particular head covering, nor even a particular hairstyle. Rather, it is about an act of spiritual warfare. With respect to creation, it is about recognizing that the appropriate sexual partner for a woman is another man, and not an angel. That is what God created marriage for: the union of male and female humans. It is also about modesty, and finding a culturally appropriate way for distinguishing between male and female. That is the principle that is binding on the Christian today, and not any one particular cultural expression of that principle.¹⁰

So while we may not look at head coverings or hairstyles the same way today that the ancient Greco-Romans or Jews did, we still have concerns about reverence in worship, modesty, and differentiating between male and female that are timeless, universal principles to consider. Therefore, if God leads a woman to wear a head covering as an expression of those universal principles, then by all means, other Christians should not look down upon such a practice. If God leads a woman and/or a man to express such principles in a different and yet culturally-appropriate way, then by all means, we should encourage that as well.

God took Enoch (Genesis 5:24). From Figures de la Bible, Gerald Hoet and others, 1728.  In this blogger’s estimation, the case for an Enochian perspective on the meaning of “head coverings” in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is the most persuasive.

Landing the Plane: The Supernatural Sexual Modesty View Offers the Greatest Explanatory Power

Regardless of where someone lands on this issue, it should be evident that two extremes need to be avoided. First, even if a Christian decides that a head covering is not for them, one should not look down upon another Christian for their adoption of a head covering. Likewise, the adoption of a head covering should not lead a Christian to misjudge another believer who does not use a head covering.

Secondly, the idea promoted by the National Organization for Women back in the late 1960s, that head coverings were meant to signal that women are somehow to be considered inferior to men, should be rejected as false and misleading. The Bible does not present that meaning, and therefore, we should not either.

If you have made it this far through the Veracity head coverings series, then you might have figured out where I finally land on this issue. My analysis of the evidence tells me that the Supernatural Sexual Modesty view makes the most sense of the passage, with the greatest explanatory power of the data. The Supernatural Sexual Modesty view is my name for it, though scholars might better think of it as something like the “Enochian Angelic” view.

If a Veracity reader is still puzzled as to why the Supernatural Sexual Modesty view offers so much explanatory power for such a weird passage, I would highly recommend grabbing a copy of the late Dr. Michael Heiser’s book, The Unseen Realm, or its more accessible version, Supernatural. Dr. Heiser’s work has done much to make sense out of weird passages of the Bible that most Christians just tend to ignore. Once the intent of the biblical authors can be understood within their ancient context, the message of the Scriptures comes alive in ever fresh and new ways, with amazingly broad explanatory power.

However, it is important to say in conclusion that I have no desire to be dogmatic on this issue. Mainly, my wife will be happy that I actually landed on a conclusion, instead of just laying all of the views out for display, and then walking off leaving everyone hanging. But really, I do think the Supernatural Sexual Modesty is better than the others, recognizing that competent, Bible-honoring, inerrancy upholding scholars, way smarter than me, come to different conclusions. Give me enough evidence to support an alternative viewpoint, and chances are, I might change my view.

Notes:

^{1. There is good evidence to suggest that the origins of what is known as the specific method of the Seder, or Passover Feast, in the time of Jesus was actually patterned after the Greco-Roman symposium, as opposed to something uniquely drawn from the Old Testament Scriptures. To clarify, the particular Greco-Roman shape of the Passover feast only means that in the time of Jesus, it was practiced a certain way. But prior to that time, the Passover feast could have looked very different. ↩}

^{2. The whole topic of the “holy kiss” is an interesting rabbit trail to go down. Paul’s instructions to “greet one another with a holy kiss” appear near the end of four of his letters: Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26. In some Christian traditions, such as the Eastern Orthodox, this is considered an ancient tradition practiced in liturgical settings, but even there the specific practice is uneven, and differs from culture to culture. In the words of one Eastern Christian blogger, they have been “kissing strangers for 2,000 years.” But among many, many Christians throughout the ages, the practice of the “holy kiss” has been either dropped completely or modified and re-imagined through the “passing of the peace,” when believers are encouraged to simply greet someone near them in the worship service, through something like a handshake, or these days, a fist-bump. As you might guess, sometimes the practice of the “holy kiss” has gone too far, prompting church leaders to restrict or even avoid the practice altogether. Another reason why the practice of the “holy kiss” declined in early Christian tradition was the association with the Gnostic heresy. In the apocryphal Gospel of Philip, Jesus gives a kiss to Mary Magdalene. But the kiss is not sensual. Instead, the kiss signifies the exchange of elite spiritual knowledge, suggesting that Jesus was imparting a special word of knowledge to Mary that only she would possess. The church rejected such a doctrine as heretical, and along with it, eventually any practice which would encourage the symbolism represented by this Gnostic teaching. The bottom line: Greeting one another is a timeless principle, yet doing so with a holy kiss is a symbolic act that varies from culture to culture. See Tom Schreiner on this video about interpreting hard New Testament texts. ↩}

^{3. For a more detailed look at the complementarian/egalitarian dispute regarding whether or not the office of elder/overseer is restricted to qualified men, please see the Veracity blog series on this topic. Though it is a long blog post, the best summary of my views are found in a book review of Andrew Bartlett’s Men and Women in Christ, where I suggest that the evidence indicates that a male-only eldership is not merely an Ephesian or Cretan “culturally-limited” custom of the first century, but a universalizing command going back to Paul. Notably, there are those who reject this universalizing interpretation and insist that the passage is “culturally limited” to a situation in Ephesus. For example, Anthony Thiselton argues that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 ” clearly relates to those wealthy women in Ephesus whose self-worth was connected more closely with costly jewelry and flamboyant ornamentation than to serious prayer and propriety” (Anthony Thiselton, Puzzling Passages in Paul: Forty Conundrums Calmly Considered, p. 61). He even suggests that this passage is more about the relationship between husbands and wives, as opposed to a church gathering context. However, numerous problems are associated with Thiselton’s conclusion: (1) one’s self-worth being connected to costly attire and clothing was not simply an issue in ancient Ephesus. It continues to be an issue in nearly every culture since!  (2) Contextually, 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is more closely connected to qualifications for elders/overseers as articulated in the following chapter, 1 Timothy 3:1-7.   (3) Thiselton, as well as others, contends that 1 Timothy 1:3 indicates that the problem of false teachers in Ephesus serves as the contextual basis for the instructions found within Paul’s letter. But is not the problem of false teachers an issue for any church? Why would Paul only have Ephesus in mind?  (4) To date, I have yet to find any critical scholar, who does not hold to an evangelical egalitarian reading of the text, who can find any clear distinctive limitation associated with 1 Timothy linked to Ephesus and/or the Artemis cult specifically.  Nevertheless, and interestingly contrary to his own conclusion, Thiselton is correct to note that Paul’s prohibition on women “teaching” is not all-inclusive: “since ‘teach’ has no direct object, this is hardly a blanket prohibition about teaching anyone. It is best taken in conjunction with chapter 3 concerning church leadership and order” (Thiselton, Puzzling Passages, p. 61).   To clarify, 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is not directed towards restricting any and all women from any form of Christian leadership, as some extreme complementarians contend, as 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is not focused on every and all other positions of leadership within the Christian church.  Rather, it is focused on the particular qualifications of elder, as an office in the local church. There are plenty of other Scriptural examples of women serving in leadership in many other capacities within the Christian movement, which should not necessarily be considered as a negative in any cultural context, including a 21st century Western one.}  .↩

^{4. See Elizabeth Farians, “NOW Papers on Women and Religion,” self-published pamphlet, c. 1971-72.↩}

^{5. See R.C. Sproul discuss 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Some Christian women wear head coverings all of the time, even outside of the community worship context, at home and/or in the marketplace. But 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 only mentions this practice within the context where women are praying and prophesying, which imply a corporate worship gathering.↩}

^{6. Mike Winger holds to this defense of the Traditional view in the video from the first blog post in this series. ↩}

^{7. Thanks to scholar Philip Payne for noting this important caveat. Christians should be welcoming of non-believers and young Christians to the worship gathering, who may not understand Paul’s teaching yet. Instead, let those who are leading the worship set the example for others to follow. Also, while the reference for this escapes me, Tom Schreiner has written about the idea that “prophecy” understood within our contemporary context could be about the reading of Scripture in the worship service; that is, the head covering custom would be applicable directly only to the public reading of Scripture, along with leading in corporate prayer, during the worship service…………..AS AN ASIDE: for those drawn to the Quotation/Refutation View of this passage, it puzzles me as to why a number of egalitarians tend to be so attracted to this perspective. Depending on where you delineate where Paul is quoting the Corinthians, it does not necessarily help the overall egalitarian argument for women participation in the worship service, for 1 Cor 11:2-16 is perhaps the clearest point of evidence showing that Paul approved of women praying/prophesying in a church meeting setting. If the part about women praying/prophesying is quoted, and then Paul refutes the idea, how does that enhance the overall egalitarian argument? Puzzling.↩}

^{8. Egalitarian Philip Payne acknowledges the evidence for this practice, “the capite velato custom. This was not disgraceful, but a sign of piety.” (Interview with Ben Witherington).  It should be noted that some sources suggest the Jewish males normally did not wear head coverings, not even in the synagogue (see Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible, 1st edition, note on p. 2154.  The Jewish Annotated New Testament , p. 340, “Roman and Jewish priests traditionally covered their heads when in the divine presence (Ex 28.36–40; Ezek 44.18–20; Plutarch, Quaest. rom. 10; Mor. 266C). However, non-priests did not cover their heads when viewing (or, in the case of Romans, performing) sacrifices. Paul mandated this non-priestly practice for all males (11.4), perhaps to preserve a sense of unity or to avoid pagan ritual associations. Rabbinic tradition describes male head covering (Heb sudaraʾ) as a “crown of glory” and as signifying the “fear of heaven” (b. Ber. 60b, quoting Ps 8.5; b. Shabb. 156b; see also b. Qidd. 31a). Widespread wearing of head coverings by Jewish men is a post-Talmudic custom. Some Jewish women began wearing wigs instead of head coverings in the sixteenth century (Shulchan Arukh, Orech Chaim 75, 2).”
The point here is to suggest there appears to be conflicting evidence for uniform normative practice of head coverings for Jewish men, illustrating cultural flexibility for the use of head coverings in Paul’s day.}   ↩

^{9. Advocates of the head covering view as a divine requirement spelled out by Paul will pushback by saying that the teachings/practices under the New Covenant supersede the teachings/practices of the Old Covenant. However, superseding the Old Covenant is one thing. Possibly contradicting the Old Covenant is a separate issue, which concerns the unity and consistency of the Scriptures, which is really at stake here, which suggests that this pushback is not only not convincing, but curiously wrong-headed. At the same, there is nothing necessarily wrong associated with practicing an ancient custom established by the Apostle Paul. For example, while it can be argued that Paul is superseding the Old Covenant practice of circumcision with the New Covenant practice of baptism, this does not involve a contradiction within the Bible. Instead, Jewish Christians can still practice circumcision. Paul is not prohibiting Jews from practicing circumcision. Rather, he is opening up membership to the New Covenant for the Gentiles through baptism, without requiring circumcision. In other words, Paul understands that the Gospel revealed to him through Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament message, and not a contradiction of it. See the Veracity blog series looking at the issue of Christian Zionism, and the larger issues behind the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, for more background on this debate.↩}

^{10. One could also add that verse 1 Corinthians 11:16 itself suggests that Christians should not be inclined to be contentious about the head coverings issue, as it could be translated as “we have no other custom,” as the Christian Standard Bible puts it, which might be an indication that the head covering practice is a custom, rather than being a universal command.↩}