Paul in Conflict with the Veil: An Alternative Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

By Paul Schirrmacher

Thomas Schirmacher argues that from the biblical teaching that man is the head of woman (1 Cr 11:3) the Corinthians had drawn the false conclusion that in prayer a woman must be veiled and a man is forbidden to be veiled, and that the wife exists for the husband but not the husband for the wife. Paul, however, rejects these conclusions and shows in 11:10-16 why the veiling of women did not belong to God's commandments binding upon all the Christian communities. Schirmacher presents an alternative exposition, discusses quotations and irony in 1 Corinthians, and deals with other New Testament texts about women's clothing and prayer and about the subordination of wives.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Luviri Press
• Release date: Apr 2, 2023
• ISBN: 9789996066917

Book preview

1. For the Reader in a Hurry: The Alternative View of 1Corinthians 11:2-16 in 13 Theses

1.1. The Thesis of this Book

This book proposes 1.) that the Corinthians’ teaching that the woman must be veiled when praying (1Cor 11:4-6); 2.) that men are forbidden to veil themselves (11:7); and 3.) that the woman is to live for her husband but not the husband for his wife (11:8-9), was derived from a misunderstanding of the Biblical teaching that the man is the head of the woman (1Cor 11:3). In dealing with this question, according to the interpretation of this book, Paul first repeats the Corinthian position, then carries it to extremes (11:4-9), contradicts it (11:10-15) and finally explains that the veiling of the woman is not God’s Law and thus not binding to all churches. In teaching the Biblical differentiation between man and woman (11:3), one may not draw conclusions which ignore the significance that the wife has for her husband, and which overlook the fact that neither is the man independent of woman (11:11).

1.2. Alternative Translation of 1Corinthians 11:2-16

The following translation reflects this thesis. The Corinthians’ position is indented, Paul’s opinion is not.

Alternative Translation of 1Corinthians 11:2-16

(2) I praise you, however, that you remember me in all things and that you keep the traditions which I left you.

(3) I want you, however, to know that every man’s head is Christ, but that every woman’s head is her husband. Christ’s head is God.

(4) Every man who prays or prophesies with anything hanging from his head disgraces his head.

(5) Every woman, however, who prays or prophesies with a bare head disgraces her head, for she is then the same as one whose head is shaved.

(6) If a woman does not cover herself, then let her have her hair cut off. Because, however, it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shorn, she should wear a veil.

(7) The man, of course, should not veil his head, for he is the image and glory of God; the woman is the glory of the man.

(8) The man does not come from woman, but the woman from man;

(9) for the man was not created for the woman’s sake, but the woman for the man’s sake.

(10) Therefore, let the woman have authority over her head, because of the angels.¹

(11) For in the Lord, neither is the woman without the man nor the man without the woman.

(12) For, just as the woman is from the man, so the man is also from the woman; but all are from God.

(13) Judge for yourselves! It is fitting that a woman pray to God unveiled!

(14) Nature does not teach that it is indecent for a man to have (long) hair,

(15) but when a woman has (long) hair, it is an honour for her! Her hair has been given to her instead of a veil.

(16) If, however, anyone finds it good to be quarrelsome, (let him consider that) we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

An Alternative Translation of 1Corinthians 11:2-16 (structured)

Paul’s interpretation

(2) I praise you, however,

that you remember me in all things and

that you keep the traditions

which I left you.

(3) I want you, however, to know that

The Corinthians’ opinion

(4) Every man

who prays or prophesies

with anything hanging from his head

disgraces his head.

(5) Every woman, however,

who prays or prophesies

with a bare head

disgraces her head,

for she is then the same

as one whose head is shaved.

(6) If a woman does not cover herself,

then let her have her hair cut off.

Because, however, it is disgraceful for a woman

to have her hair cut off

or to be shorn,

she should wear a veil.

(7) The man, of course,

should not veil his head,

for he is the image and glory of God;

but the woman

is the glory of the man.

(8) For the man does not come from woman,

but the woman from man;

(9) for the man was

not created for the woman’s sake,

but the woman for the man’s sake.

Paul’s opinion

(10) Therefore, let the woman

have authority over her head,

because of the angels.

(11) For,

in the Lord,

(12) For, just as the woman is from the man,

so the man is also from the woman;

but all are from God.

(13) Judge for yourselves!

It is fitting

that a woman prays to God unveiled!

(14) Nature does not teach

that it is indecent,

for a man to have (long) hair.

(15) but when a woman has (long) hair,

it is an honour for her!

Her hair has been given to her

instead of a veil.

(16) If, however, anyone finds it good

to be quarrelsome, (let him consider that)

we have no such custom,

nor do the churches of God.

1.3. An Alternative Interpretation of 1Corinthians 11:2-16

²

Surprisingly, most interpretations and applications of 1Cor 11:2-16 for today generally consider only one of two alternatives; either that the woman must wear a veil when praying, or that this text is bound to its past cultural context and not applicable today. Few apparently realize that there are other interpretations according to which Paul is actually contradicting the command to use the veil at prayer.

I would therefore like to present one of these interpretations. The propositions begin by considering the end of the text and then work forward to the beginning.

Proposition 1

The text does not clarify what kind of "custom" Paul means. Only verse 15 names a concrete object, the veil, but the headscarf we know today is in any case a modern garment. If Paul is talking about an article of clothing at all, he does not mean a scarf, but a veil or a cloak. The expression, with anything hanging from his head (usually translated vaguely as having something on his head) indicates this interpretation, as does the later Jewish and Middle Eastern custom of veiling. It is not clear whether the eyes and nose were covered, or - as most assume - they were free, as is the case with the substitute veil, the hair.

Proposition 2

Few of those who teach that women should be veiled while praying have investigated the actual customs and clothing concerned. They correctly point out that Scripture, not one’s own culture, must be the rule, and that 1Cor 11:2-16 cannot be rejected just because it does not suit our culture. We make exactly the same mistake, however, when we interpret Scripture from the standpoint of our own culture, by interpreting the text to describe our European article of clothing, the headscarf, without investigating the actual historical custom. I doubt that any Christian defender of the headscarf would accept a complete veiling which would leave only eyes, nose and mouth free, for today.

Proposition 3

Of those who require a headcovering for praying women, few have investigated the exact situation discussed in 1Cor 11:2-16. Did the custom apply to Communion (as some believe), to prophetesses (as others believe), to church meetings, prayer meetings, or were they a general everyday rule? It appears that these interpretations also tend to follow a cultural norm. This suspicion is strengthened by claims about the customs believed to be followed by the Romans, the Greeks or the Jews. There is, for example, no proof that Corinthian prostitutes had short hair, whereas ancient Roman, Greek and Jewish men all wore their hair long. The only reliable, admissible, cultural background for 1Cor 11:2-16 is the Jewish custom (unknown in Old Testament times, however) that women were to be veiled in public.

Proposition 4

The only verse which mentions the veil (verse 15) states clearly, "Her hair has been given to her instead of a veil." Whatever position Paul had been proposing before, his direction here clearly opposes veiling. If he is recommending the veil in verses 2-14, then verse 15 means that the woman already has one. If he is opposing the veil, then verse 15 argues against it.

Proposition 5

The final verse supports this conclusion: "We have no such custom." The custom which Paul rejects here is not quarreling (11:16) which was very common in Corinth, and which Paul in this very letter describes as sin, not as something out of the usual. The term custom here can only indicate the subject Paul has just been treating, the veil which we cannot describe more closely. The Corinthians had a custom unknown to other Christian churches. If Paul rejects this custom, its details and interpretation have little significance for us. We learn simply that a local church may not raise its own private customs to the status of Divine Law.

Proposition 6

Verses 13 and 14 are generally rendered as three rhetorical questions. Since the original Greek text has no question marks, the reader can only distinguish questions by the use of interrogatives or from context. Thus, these three sentences could equally well be rendered as statements: Judge for yourselves: It is decent for a woman to pray unveiled! Neither does Nature teach you that it is disgraceful for a man to have (long) hair, but an honour for a woman. The second sentence even must be a statement, because the word oude never introduces a question. In this case, nature is not referred to as proof of Divine command - that would be unique in Scripture! On the contrary, it becomes quite clear that no nature can prescribe divine laws (but only the Word of God).

Proposition 7

Verses 11 and 12 refute verses 7 and 8, but agree with the description of Creation which verses 7 and 8 contradict, for the woman is just as much the image of God as the man. If we assume that Paul is either repeating or exaggerating the Corinthians’ position in verse 4-10, the problem is solved. He uses this method frequently in 1 and 2Cor (for example, 1Cor 6:12-13; 7:1,5; 8:4-7,10,14-22, 2Cor 12:11-15). Beginning with therefore in verse 10, Paul then introduces his reply and his refutation.

Proposition 8

Most of those who teach the alternative interpretations of 1Cor 11:2-16 assume that Paul ends his repetition of the Corinthians’ position in verse 9. Verse 10 would then express his own opinion which gives the woman authority over her head. The formulation, to have authority over (exousia epi) is always used in this sense in the New Testament (for example, authority over the demons) and is never used in the passive form (to be subject to another’s authority) and also never refers to one object lying on another. To have authority over means that the woman may decide for herself what she does with her head.

Proposition 9

Others who agree with the alternative interpretation add verse 10 to the Corinthian position, because of its seemingly inexplicable reference to the angels. According to this view, the authority over the head because of the angels in verse 10 need not be explained in reference to lusting angels, but in reference to the Jewish or Gnostic teachings which Paul continually fought in Corinth. For this reason, there is still no reasonable explanation for the reference to the angels. The possibility that Paul mentions the angels because the Corinthians worshipped them, would correspond with the interpretation that verse 10 contains Paul’s answer. Paul would therefore be pointing out, as in 6:3, that Christians, including women, would judge the angels, and that women are therefore equally capable of deciding about their own heads.

Proposition 10

Old Testament practice which describes both long-haired men, such as priests and Nazarites, and women who prayed unveiled, confirms the interpretation that Paul opposed both the veiling of women and the Corinthian rules about hair length. Veiling was not always a sign of honour, but could also have a negative significance. Thamar, for example, wore a veil to indicate that she was a prostitute (Gen