Gender distinction, religious observance, and social equality were some of the hot button topics under discussion in Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth. In particular, the question of whether to cover your head during the worship assembly was addressed. Why would the apostle Paul say that a man “dishonors his head” (i.e. Christ) when he prays with his head covered, and that women “dishonor their head” (i.e. their husbands) if they pray uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:1-7)?
That question requires a lengthy discussion with a careful analysis of the context, both biblically and socially. While I do not purport to have all the answers or seek to explain every facet of the text, I nonetheless offer a few brief observations that might help to clarify a few elements connected to this controversial topic, and the images above could very well aid us in that discussion.
First, it must be remembered that important principles regarding conscience, influence, the rejection of idols, and the power of messaging are key principles discussed prior to the issue at hand (1 Corinthians 8-10; 10:32-33). Paul argued that what a person does, eats, or wears can send an important message. While certain actions in and of themselves may or may not be wrong, something can become wrong if it is divisive, adversely affects others, or harms the cause of Christ (1 Corinthians 8:12). He likewise taught that “none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself” (Romans 14:7). The unity of the body, the conscience of others, and the influence of the church on the community must always be paramount (1 Corinthians 9:22-23).
Second, it is essential to note that the larger context of head coverings as revealed in I Corinthians 11 addresses issues relating to the gathering of Christians in corporate worship (chapters 11-14). These chapters focus on matters relating to public worship. Various social customs and other types of behavior on display by church members within those assemblies had been sending an inappropriate and confusing message to fellow members in the body of Christ. Paul also noted that their behavior was leaving a false impression upon guests and observers in attendance (14:22-23).
Third, it should be observed that in the early years of Christianity, the body of Christ often assembled in private homes (e.g. 1 Corinthians 16:19; Acts 2:46; Romans 16:3-5, 23; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:1-2). Some of those homes belonged to wealthy Christians. Based on what we know about Roman housing, the domus (a typical home for upper class citizens) ranged between 3,000 to 5,000 square feet and could accommodate some 12 to 20 in residence, and many more for informal gatherings. Guests, therefore, could have easily scattered throughout the atrium, triclinium, and other rooms.
This seems to be the basis for separate gatherings or class distinctions being made while eating the Lord’s supper, as was condemned by Paul (1 Corinthians 11:18). The Roman domus or house setting may also have created the false impression that the worship assembly was therefore not a public setting and that women who normally wore veils in public were therefore free to remove them in a residential context.
Fourth, the cultural practice of wearing a veil or covering in public could, for women, either be seen as a status symbol associated with wealth or as a sign of an honest woman (Ennius, Tragedies, 862L). In describing a virtuous woman, a first-century historian said of the mother of Sabina Poppaea, “Seldom did she appear in public, and it was always with her face partly veiled, either to disappoint men’s gaze or to set off her beauty” (Tacitus, Annals 13.45). While the archaeological record reveals that head coverings for women weren’t always consistently practiced or depicted, it nevertheless cannot be denied that veil wearing was perceived by some as either a status symbol or as an indicator of humility and respectability. Both Jewish and Roman custom also offer support for this view (see Tertullian , De Corona militis 4).
By instructing all the women to wear veils in the public worship of the church, even if they are meeting in someone’s home, perhaps Paul was seeking to “level the playing field” and emphasize equality among the Christian women who may have been either slaves, married, or wealthy. It also appears that he was seeking to eliminate any potential disparagement of their virtue against the backdrop of Roman social custom that at times expected various types of women to wear a veil in public. While the church was meeting in a house, the worship was nevertheless deemed as public.
On the other hand, Paul’s instruction for men not to pray or prophesy with their heads covered may seem confusing. Were some men covering their head? It seems so…but why? Based on the archaeological discoveries at Corinth and in other places around the Mediterranean, it appears that a normative religious and/or social practice among the pagans had entered the church.
As a standard practice among the Romans, pagan priestly officiants who prophesied and offered sacrifice were known to cover their heads with parts of their long flowing toga. This practice is found both in ancient literature and in the archaeological record. It was called capite velato (i.e. “covers the head”) and is a well-known custom associated with Roman priestly officiants (see the book Roman Religion by Valarie M. Warrior, Cambridge University Press, p.21).
In his treatise called Roman Questions, Plutarch likewise tells us of this practice. It can also be seen in several ancient reliefs such as on Augustus’ Altar of Peace in Rome. It can also be discerned by examining various busts and statues of Caesar Augustus who, in a brilliant propaganda campaign, often aggrandized many of his roles and duties as emperor.
In the statuary evidence, Augustus is often depicted as a military leader, esteemed citizen, but also as Pontiff Maximus (i.e. supreme priest). In the latter he is always portrayed with his head covered (as seen in the photo above). I have personally observed this at several locations and particularly in the archaeological museum at Corinth.
While much more should be presented and considered, these brief observations have led me to conclude, first and foremost, that gender distinction was unequivocally to be observed. Men and women are different and have different roles, as indicated both by nature and principles established at the creation of the world (1 Corinthians 11:1-3;1 Corinthians 11:14; cf. 1 Timothy 2:13-15). We also should recognize that one’s attire and/or religious practice could reveal a pagan practice or convey elite social status.
Thus, in view of the above-mentioned points, it seems some customs are meant to be broken while are others are to be observed. Class distinction and worship practices which mimic pagan worship must be rejected. The principles of love and respect for others must be embraced. In other words, Christians are not pagan nor elitist, but the church was to see itself as a family that recognized gender distinctions and different roles, and which also demonstrated virtue, honor, and godliness (1 Timothy 2:8f).
Finally, it must be remembered that in I Corinthians 11 Paul argues that the principles of gender identity, roles, and equality are non-negotiables. However, the way and manner in which those distinctions are communicated and displayed are, at times, dependent upon culture and judgment.
Regarding mandatory head covering, Paul said the real head covering is a woman’s hair (1 Corinthians 11:15), and that in the entire matter at hand the brethren must not “be contentious” regarding it (1 Corinthians 11:16). Fashion and style aren’t regulated and are always changing, but the principles of humility, modesty, and love are always in vogue and essentials of the faith .
by John W. Moore
*All photo rights reserved and used with permission from Bible Passages.
Comments