73. Head Coverings -1 Co 11:13–16

Once again, we find ourselves grappling with a challenging passage, particularly from the perspective of 21st-century Christianity. So, what can we glean from this passage?

Paul's discourse on head coverings concludes with clear instructions: men should not cover their heads during prayer or prophesying, as it dishonors their head, Christ. Conversely, women are instructed to cover their heads when engaging in prayer or prophecy, as failing to do so would dishonor their head, which is their husband. The symbolism here suggests that a woman's head covering represents her submission to male authority.

A woman’s natural hair, her covering?

We would have agreed with many who believe a woman’s natural hair is her covering in times past. But after considering the text once again, can we argue this is Paul's intended meaning? And would it also mean that the man should be bald to be consistent with the text?  Here are some reasons we no longer adhere to such a view.

Contextual Inconsistency: The passage explicitly distinguishes between the head covering and hair. If hair were the intended covering, there would be no need for such a distinction.

Logical Incoherence: If hair were the covering Paul refers to, it would be redundant to instruct women to cover their heads while praying or prophesying, as hair naturally covers the head.

Cultural Significance: Covering one's head during prayer or prophesying was a cultural norm in the ancient world, unrelated to hair length. Therefore, it's unlikely that Paul would conflate hair with a culturally specific practice.

Symbolism of Authority: Paul speaks of a "symbol of authority" (verse 10), suggesting a tangible object or garment rather than hair, which is not typically understood as a symbol of authority.

Appeal to Nature: Paul's argument regarding hair length as a sign of honor or dishonor relies on societal norms, not spiritual symbolism. Therefore, it's more coherent to interpret his reference to cover as a cultural practice rather than a biological characteristic.

Early Christian Practices: Historical evidence suggests that early Christian women wore head coverings, supporting the interpretation that Paul's instructions were understood and followed as a cultural practice rather than a reference to hair length.

Church Tradition: Paul emphasizes the importance of adhering to established traditions (verse 2), implying that head covering had been established and was not simply a reference to natural hair.

Now, let’s jump into the passage.

The passage commences with an imperative: "Judge for yourselves," swiftly followed by the question, "Is it proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered?" This prompts us to question whether Paul suggests that individuals make this decision themselves. While some may interpret it this way, such an interpretation seems inconsistent with the overall message of the passage, as verse 16 states:” if anyone seems to be contentious on this issue, we have no other practice in the churches of God.”

We conclude that in the first century and the churches that Paul oversaw, the simple custom was that women wore head coverings; the text says as much. But it’s always curious to know the line of thinking and why Paul made the statements in this text that he did. Let’s start by considering the following: Paul justifies these instructions by appealing to the order of creation. Man was created first, then woman, and woman was made for man. However, he also acknowledges the interdependence of men and women, as they both ultimately come from God.

It makes us think humorously of a song written by James Brown and Betty Jean Newsome:

"This is a man's world. This is a man's world. But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl."

So, back to the text. Paul questions whether it is proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, appealing to the sense of decency and nature's example. He argues that long hair is a natural covering for women and symbolizes her glory. But what about women in the first century who did not wear head coverings? Did all women wear head coverings? Most did, but not all.

In Greco-Roman culture, prostitutes were identifiable by their attire or lack of modesty. They would wear their hair loose, without veils or head coverings to attract attention. Additionally, they would dress in more revealing clothing compared to women not in the profession of prostitution. These practices were intended to signal their availability for sexual services and distinguish them from women who married or women who held to a higher moral standard.  So, as we read this passage, we must not forget the historical and cultural context of Paul’s time.  

However, it is interesting that a woman wearing a head covering in almost every culture is culturally universal. It's true! Women's head coverings hold significant cultural and religious symbolism in diverse cultures globally.

In Islamic cultures, such as those in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, the hijab, niqab, or burqa signify marital status and adherence to religious modesty. Similarly, headscarves denote marriage in Eastern European/Balkan cultures, especially during religious ceremonies. Amish and conservative Mennonite communities use prayer coverings to symbolize marital status and submission.

Among Native American tribes like the Navajo, specific head coverings indicate tribal affiliation or marital status, often adorned with jewelry or feathers. Among the Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania, elaborate beaded headdresses signify marital status and social standing.

Throughout the Americas, various cultures have traditions of women wearing head coverings or headdresses with specific cultural and ceremonial significance. Finally, in traditional Jewish communities, married women often cover their hair for modesty, using wigs, scarves, or hats, reflecting adherence to religious law.

The question we would pose here is whether the tradition of women wearing a head covering evolved from a familiar story or tradition. While we understand this may sound like crazy talk, give us a few moments of grace to explain.

The Flood Story

Let's take a moment to consider the story of the Genesis flood. In virtually every culture across the globe, there exists a flood narrative, each with its unique elements yet sharing remarkable similarities that suggest a common origin.

Examples of these flood stories span continents and epochs, including the biblical tale of Noah's Ark in Judeo-Christian tradition, the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Hindu legend of Manu, the Greek myth of Deucalion and Pyrrha, and indigenous stories like the Māori tale of Tawhaki and the Babylonian myth of Atrahasis.

If we synthesized these stories to their essential common elements, what do we have, and how close does it match the biblical narrative?

“A god or a powerful being tells someone that a big flood is coming. This is often because people have done something wrong, and the flood is a punishment. The main character, usually a person or a group of people, builds a huge boat or ark to save themselves, their family, and sometimes animals from the flood. The main character gathers animals or representatives of different species to keep them safe during the flood. The rain pours down, the rivers overflow, and the world is covered in water. Everything on land is drowned. The main character and everyone on the ship stay safe during the flood. They wait until the water goes down. After the flood, there's often a promise made between the god and the survivors. This promise might be that the flood won't happen again or that people will be cared for.”

Okay, now you're asking yourself, what does this have to do with head coverings? We want to propose a simple question. If all the traditions of the flood stories seem to point to one biblical event, could it be that the tradition of women wearing head coverings evolved from a joint biblical event, too?

Because of the Angels?

The book of Genesis recounts a narrative that explicitly mentions the sons of God descending to earth and taking the daughters of men as wives. Although perhaps not part of your Bible, the Book of Enoch is found in the Ethiopian bible and, as such, sacred scripture, expands upon the Genesis story identifying the fallen sons of God as the Watchers. According to the Book of Enoch, these Watchers descended to earth, corrupting humanity by imparting forbidden knowledge and intermingling with human women. This unholy union resulted in the birth of the Nephilim, who were described as giants.

The sons of gods and daughters of men

In the Bible, there's this wild story about divine beings hooking up with humans, and their kids are these legendary figures called Nephilim. These Nephilim are like super impressive ancient heroes, the real heavyweights of their time. In Egyptian mythology, it is similar. You've got gods chilling with mortals, but the vibe differs from what you find in the Bible.

Then there's Greek mythology, where Zeus, the big shot of the gods, is famous for getting involved with mortal ladies. And guess what? He ends up having all these demigod children running around, half-human, half-divine, causing all sorts of drama.

Moving on to Mesopotamian mythology, this story is about Ishtar, the goddess of love, mixing it up with Dumuzid, just your average mortal shepherd. Talk about a love story with some serious divine intervention!  In Hindu mythology, in the Mahabharata epic, you've got Indra, the top dog of the gods, getting cozy with mortal women. And let me tell you, these unions produce some significant players, like Arjuna, who's a big deal in the whole epic saga.

Like the flood story, these stories share common elements of divine or supernatural beings (or perhaps “Fallen angels,” as both Moses and Enoch seem to indicate) interacting with humanity, leading to the birth of, shall we say, “interesting beings.” In each of these narratives, these interactions resulted in the birth of extraordinary or powerful beings and shaped mythological history.

Combine all these stories to their commonalities alone, and what story emerges?

“In a distant age, divine beings descended from the heavens to dwell among mortals. Drawn to the allure of mortal women, these celestial entities, took humans as their earthly partners for the procreation of mighty beings.“

Across various cultures and mythologies, stories emerged of divine beings interacting with humanity, specifically women.  And one must wonder if the Genesis narrative commentary provided by Enoch informed Paul when he says:

Interpretations

Angel Witnesses: This interpretation emphasizes the presence of angels as spiritual witnesses during worship gatherings. Women wearing head coverings are seen as showing reverence and submission in the presence of these angelic beings. The focus is on maintaining order and respect in the worship setting by acknowledging the spiritual realm.

Angelic Influence: In this interpretation, the emphasis is on angels' protective or spiritually covering role. Wearing a head covering is viewed as a symbolic gesture acknowledging the need for divine protection and recognizing the supernatural realm's presence, especially in acts of prayer and worship. It underscores a sense of dependence on divine assistance and guidance.

Symbol of Authority: Here, the focus is on the symbolic significance of head coverings as a sign of authority. Women wearing head coverings are interpreted as acknowledging their submission to divine authority, represented by angels, and respecting the established authority structures within the Christian community. It highlights the importance of recognizing and submitting to higher spiritual authority.

Angel as a Human: This perspective acknowledges that "angelos" can mean messenger but argues that interpreting "angel" as a human messenger might not provide much clarity in this context. It suggests that focusing on human messengers could raise more questions than answers regarding their specific role or significance in head coverings.

Application

We grapple with the meaning of Paul's directive regarding head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:10. The notion of head coverings protecting women from angels and symbolizing submission perplexes us, for we struggle to see how mere cloth can carry such significance beyond symbolism.

In our experience observing families where some women wear head coverings while others do not, we have found no discernible difference in protection or submission. We've witnessed both respectful and disrespectful behavior toward husbands from women, irrespective of whether they wear head coverings.

So, should women wear head coverings today?  We refrain from offering a definitive answer, believing it best for individuals to decide for themselves. However, we cannot ignore the straightforwardness of Paul's directive. He unequivocally states that women should wear head coverings without qualification, suggesting its importance in the Christian community.

It's worth noting that head coverings have been a longstanding tradition in Christian churches until recent decades, coinciding with the women's liberation movement of the 1960s and 70s. The argument against women wearing head coverings today often hinges on cultural norms.

Navigating this passage proves challenging, as it forces us to question the cultural context of biblical teachings and their relevance today. If we claim that cultural norms influenced Paul's directive on head coverings, we must also consider how this applies to other imperatives, including sexual morality. Thus, this remains a complex issue with no easy answers.