Replacing Old Custom Arguments 

with

New Custom Arguments

Rex Banks

The Nature of the Covering

Throughout the Christian era, most students of scripture have understood the apostle Paul to be discussing an artificial head covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16, and this is the position of the great majority in the church today. In my view this is the correct position. However some good brethren deny that Paul is discussing an artificial head covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16, and they have suggested alternative interpretations of certain key words and verses in this passage. Although most remain unconvinced by their arguments, this approach represents a sincere attempt to deal with a controversial subject and deserves serious consideration.

One argument which has surfaced in recent years is that in 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul is discussing hairstyles rather than head coverings. Note: the “hairstyle” position is not to be confused with the position that hair itself is the covering. In my view both positions (hairstyles and hair) are unconvincing. Advocates of the “hairstyle” position suggest that the uncovering which causes shame is not the absence of an artificial covering, but rather loosed hair, or long hair flowing loose down over the shoulders. Fee tells us that “This (position) was first argued by Isaksson, Marriage p. 166, and followed without acknowledgment by Hurley, Veils pp. 197-200..." (ibid p. 496 footnote 17 [emphasis mine]).  Isaksson's book appeared in 1965. While not dismissing the argument out of hand, Fee adds that in his view "it seems more likely that some kind of external covering is involved" (ibid p. 510). In Appendix 1 - Loosed Hair I have explained why, in my view these positions (“hairstyles” and “hair”) are unconvincing.

Breaking with the Past

In Appendix 1 - Loosed Hair we will look at some of the main points in the hairstyle and hair arguments. The main focus of this Appendix is the hairstyle position, but at the outset I must confess that I have very real reservations about a position which was "first argued" some 1900 years after the Corinthian epistle was written, and which is so radically different from the "artificial covering" position, a position which can be traced back to the earliest period of church history. Let me explain my objection by saying a word about a topic which has given rise to much debate in recent decades, namely the matter of male headship and female subordination.

For over 1900 years there was general agreement among believers that scripture teaches male headship and female subordination.  From the very earliest period of the Christian era, virtually everyone agreed that certain passages of scripture mandated male leadership and prohibited women from teaching in the public assembly. However this all changed a few decades ago. With the rise of liberationism, the Biblical doctrine of male leadership and female subordination became very unpopular with many, and traditional interpretations of certain key words and verses were discarded by those seeking a wider role for women in the church. For example a few decades ago,  liberationists began to suggest alternative meanings for the word translated "head" (κεφαλή) in 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:23, arguing that the word did not carry the idea of "authority over," and that therefore these verses did not teach male leadership. Today arguments in support of this position are widely quoted with approval by those who are opposed to gender-specific roles in the church. Wayne Crudem, who carried out an exhaustive study of κεφαλή, comments that, to his knowledge, until the 1980s, "no commentary and no lexicon in the history of the church (had) denied the meaning 'ruler' or 'authority over' in this passage" (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Appendix 1 note 5). The point is that it took almost 2000 years for this position to surface.

In similar vein, some liberationists have suddenly discovered that for almost 2,000 years, students of scripture have misunderstood those Biblical statements which appear to limit the role of women in the public assembly. Harold O.J. Brown writes:

"For about 18 centuries, 1 Tim 2:12, as well as 1 Cor 14:34 and related texts, was assumed to have a clear and self-evident meaning.  Then, rather abruptly, some, hardly a quarter-century ago, began to 'discover' a different meaning in the apostle's words. Did God suddenly permit 'more light to break forth from his holy Word' as the old Congregationalist put it?  Or is there reason to suspect that the many modern interpretations of 1 Tim 2:12 are primarily the result of certain conscious or unconscious presuppositions?" (Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 p. 197 ed Andreas J. Kosttenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin).

Brown adds that "when opinions and convictions suddenly undergo dramatic alteration, although nothing new has been discovered, and the only thing that has dramatically changed is a spirit of the age, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that that spirit has had an important role to play in the shift" (ibid p. 199 emphasis mine).

This is an excellent point, and it is one which has been repeated by many of those who are disturbed by the new and novel interpretations which have accompanied the rise of liberationism. For example, under the heading History, Hermeneutics, and Terminology, Thomas R. Schreiner has the following to say in Two Views on Women in Ministry:

"Throughout most of church history, women have been prohibited from serving as pastors and priests... The tradition of the church is not infallible, but it should not be discarded easily.  The presumptive evidence is against a 'new interpretation' for we are apt to be misled by our own cultural context and may fail to see what was clear to our ancestors. An interpretation that has stood the test of time and has been ratified by the Church in century after century - both in the east and the West and in the North and South - has an impressive pedigree, even if some of the supporting arguments used are unpersuasive. Moreover the view that women should not be priests or pastors has transcended confessional barriers.  It has been the view throughout history of most Protestants, the various Orthodox branches of the Church, and the Roman Catholic Church.  All of these groups could be wrong, of course.  Scripture is the final arbiter on such matters.  But the burden of proof is surely on those who promote a new interpretation, especially since the new interpretation follows on the heels of the feminist revolution in our society" (pp. 178, 179).

In my view Grudem, Brown, Schreiner and others are making a good point. Today liberationists are deriving a meaning from 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 14:34 that no one had even suggested for 1900 years. They are attaching a definition to kephale in 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:23 which was unknown in antiquity. True, tradition is not infallible, but modern challenges to practices and interpretations which have been virtually unchallenged since the apostolic age must be carefully evaluated.

Application

Now all this has a bearing upon the discussion of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and the suggestion that Paul is discussing hairstyles rather than head coverings (Appendix 1 refers). We recall that “This (position) was first argued by Isaksson, Marriage p.166, and followed without acknowledgment by Hurley, Veils pp.197-200..." (ibid p 496 footnote 17 [emphasis mine]). Isaksson's book appeared in 1965, and the point is that it took more than 1900 years for the hairstyle (not to be confused with the hair argument) to appear. What's more, it is clear that from the very earliest days of the church, students of scripture understood Paul to be speaking of an artificial covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16, and thus the hairstyle position represents a complete break with the past. Evidently it would have been as foreign to the early church as the liberationist's position on kephale, and on 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 14:34.

Why is this view being proposed now? Joan E. Taylor has:

“Recent discussions of 1 Cor 11:2-16 have raised the possibility that the real issue was not about covering the head with some kind of draped veil, but rather about hairstyles. This is proposed because in a Roman context such as Corinth the evidence suggests that there was no necessary social shame as such associated with a woman not covering her head” (The Woman Ought to Have Control over her Head because of the Angels – Gospel and Gender: a Trinitarian engagement with being male and female in Christ – Douglas Atchison Campbell p. 48).

Thus having recognized that the evidence does not support the traditional custom position, some have tried to find another custom to explain Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11:2-16

The Testimony of History on the Nature of the Covering

As the following quotations show, the available evidence makes clear that from the very earliest period of church history and for centuries after the death of the apostles, it was taken for granted that Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 11:2-16 related to an artificial head covering. (We are not here discussing the kind of artificial covering involved, [e.g. full face covering or head covering] but I have more to say on this later).   

Valentinus and Ireneaus

In his Against Heresies, Ireneaus (born c 115 -125 AD) describes the heretical teachings of Valentinus, (born c 100 AD) the mystic and poet who founded the Roman and Alexandrian schools of Gnosticism. The following quotation from Ireneaus concerning the Valentinian teaching does not make a lot of sense divorced from its context but it does help us with the nature of the head covering and that is our present concern:

"Again, the coming of the Saviour with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle, when he says, 'A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels. Now, that Achamoth, when the Saviour came to her, drew a veil over herself through modesty, Moses rendered manifest when he put a veil upon his face" (1:8).

Clearly the quotation from 1 Cor 11:10 is understood to refer to an artificial covering since it is explained in terms of  Achamoth's drawing a veil over herself and Moses' use of an artificial veil. In his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger refers to Ireneaus' reference to the Valentinian heresy in his comments on the word translated "power" or "authority" in 1 Cor 11:10. He says:

"The presumed meaning of the difficult exousia in the passage is given by the explanatory gloss kalumma "a veil" read by several versional and patristic witnesses (...Valentinians acc. to Ireneaus, Ptolemy acc. to Ireneaus, Ireneaus Gr, lat Tertullian Jerome Augustine)" (emphasis mine).

Keep in mind that this material is very early indeed. Valentinus was born only about 35 years after the death of Paul. Ireneaus, who was born about 15-25 years later still, was acquainted with Polycarp who was born about 69 AD.  According to tradition, Polycarp sat at the feet of the apostle John and was acquainted with some who had seen the Lord. Everett Ferguson points out:

"Given a historical continuity between the first century and second centuries ...  certain conclusions follow. If beliefs or practices existed in the first century church there should be some trace of them later. Conversely, if they are not found in the early centuries, a serious question is raised about their presence in the New Testament unless there is explicit and unequivocal evidence in confirmation"         (Early Christians Speak p. 11 [emphasis mine]).

Thus this evidence that an influential figure like Irenaeus and the widely-dispersed Valentinians understood Paul to be discussing an artificial covering is very significant for this present study.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement is thought to have been born about 153 AD, some years before the death of Irenaeus, and to have died about 215 - 217 AD. About 190 AD he became director of a school of oral instruction in the city of Alexandria, which at the time was a centre of culture and trade. In short Clement was a figure of influence, well placed to know about issues facing the church. Jerome describes him as the most learned of all the ancients. In The Instructor Clement says concerning women that “this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" (3:12).

Clement appears to have some kind of burka-type covering in view and we will say more about this later, but the point is that he clearly understood that the woman needed to wear an artificial covering in order to "pray veiled," (c.f. 1 Cor 11:5) this being "the wish of the Word."

Tertullian

Tertullian was born about 160 AD, probably within a decade of the birth of Clement, and some years before the death of Irenaeus. His views on a number of Biblical topics were decidedly odd, and in later life he joined the Montanist sect, only to leave after a few years to found a sect of his own.  Our interest is in his discussion of the head covering rather than in his theology.  

In his On Prayer, (written before he joined the Montanists) Tertullian discusses the question of “whether virgins ought to be veiled or no" (chpt 21). Throughout the churches some of his contemporaries have made a distinction between married or engaged women and virgins, arguing that whereas the former must wear the veil, the latter have "immunity from head-covering." In discussing the head covering Tertullian cites Paul as follows to prove his point: "But, withal, the declaration is plain: 'Every woman,' saith he, 'praying and prophesying with head uncovered, dishonoureth her own head.'" Tertullian understood Paul's words here to refer to an artificial covering, and he takes for granted that his contemporaries will understand these words in the same way.  While details relating to the covering were disputed, the fact that it was an artificial covering was not.

In his On the Veiling of Virgins (written before he joined the Montanists) Tertullian has a great deal to say about women and the head covering, and in the course of his discussion he again appeals to Paul's words in 1 Cor 11:2-16, making it clear that he and his contemporaries understood the apostle to be speaking of an artificial covering. He criticises some women who, “with their turbans and woolen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare” and others who “are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions …not reaching quite to the ears.”

Finally Tertullian affirms that the Corinthians themselves understood Paul to be speaking of a head covering. He writes: “In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.” It’s difficult to believe that the Corinthians could have so quickly fallen into error, and that the true meaning of Paul’s words was lost until the modern era.

We have more to say about Tertullian’s views elsewhere but the point here is that he is discussing an artificial covering.

John Chrysostom

Born in 347 AD, John Chrysostom is regarded by many as the greatest preacher of the early church and “His sermons and writings, remarkable for their purity of Greek style, afford an invaluable picture of 4th-century life" (The Columbia Encyclopaedia, Sixth Edition, [emphasis mine]). Holding a prominent position in the church at Constantinople, and well known for his writing and preaching, Chrysostom was an influential figure in his day.

From his Homilies on First Corinthians (Homily 26) it is clear that Chrysostom too understood that Paul was discussing an artificial covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16. On v 2 he says: 

"Having finished therefore all the discourses concerning all these things, he next proceeds also to another accusation. And what was this? Their women used both to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare, (for then women also used to prophesy;) but the men went so far as to wear long hair as having spent their time in philosophy, and covered their heads when praying and prophesying, each of which was a Grecian custom."

On v 6 he comments:

"Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that the head be not bare: (emphasis mine) but as he proceeds he intimates both the continuance of the rule, saying, "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven," and the keeping of it with all care and diligence. For he said not merely covered, but "covered over," meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side" (emphasis mine).

In his comments on v 15 Chrysostom makes a clear distinction between long hair and the artificial covering:

“'And if it (hair [Rex]) be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering?' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered, nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

Significantly on v 16 Chrysostom says

"However, even if the Corinthians were then contentious, yet now the whole world hath both received and kept this law. So great is the power of the Crucified."

Just what he means by "the whole world" is open to question, but certainly the churches that he knew of understood Paul to have been discussing an artificial covering.

"Ambrosiaster"

Erasmus (mistakenly it seems) attributed certain fourth century writings, including commentaries on the Pauline epistles  to one “Amrosiaster.” These commentaries are the oldest Latin commentaries on the Pauline epistles. According to Catholic Encyclopedia  the teaching of the commentary “is entirely orthodox, with, perhaps, the sole exception of the author's belief in the millennium.” We are told:   

“The Latin text of the Pauline Epistles differs considerably from the Vulgate. According to all appearances it was taken from the version known as the 'Itala'. Reference to the Greek text is rarely found; in fact the writer seems to be ignorant of the Greek language.” 

The Vulgate was commissioned by Pope Damascus in 382 and likely the writings of “Ambrosiaster” predate the completion of this translation which was largely the work of   Jerome. 

On 1 Cor 11:5-7 “Ambrosiaster” has:

“Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head because the image of God should not be hidden” (Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians Ambrosiaster translated and edited by  Gerald Lewis Bray p. 172).

“A woman therefore ought to cover her head because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection. Because transgression began with her she ought to indicate this by covering her head in church out of reverence for the bishop” (p. 172). 

On v 13 he says:

“Now we see why Paul censured the Corinthians …. It was the church's tradition for women to be veiled but since the Corinthians were ignoring it Paul made his appeal not to the authority of tradition which they had disregarded but to the argument from nature and what he says is right” (p. 173).

Likely “Ambrosiaster” resided in Rome.

Jerome

Born about 340 - 342 AD Jerome is best known for his revisions and translations of the Bible. In his Letter to Sabinianus, Jerome makes the following passing comment which is useful to this present study:

"It is usual in the monasteries of Egypt and Syria for virgins and widows who have vowed themselves to God and have renounced the world and have trodden under foot its pleasures, to ask the mothers of their communities to cut their hair; not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostle's command, for they wear a close-fitting cap and a veil" (emphasis mine).

Jerome associates "the apostle's command" with an artificial covering, not hair or hairstyle.

Augustine

Born in 354 AD, Augustine of Hippo was "one of the towering figures of medieval philosophy whose authority and thought came to exert a pervasive and enduring influence well into the modern period" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The following quotations from Augustine's Of the Work of Monks do not make a lot of sense out of context, but they do show that Augustine understood Paul to be discussing an artificial covering in 1 Cor11:

"Just as if the Apostle were teaching pride when he says, 'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;’ and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.' Consequently he who says, 'Ought not' knows not perchance how to teach humility! However, if this same disgrace in time of the Gospel, which was a thing of a holy meaning in time of Prophecy, be by these people courted as matter of humility, then let them be shorn, and veil their head with haircloth (emphasis mine) " (39).  

"The part, namely, which they signify in the very fact of their being women, is that which may be called the concupiscential part, over which the mind bears rule, itself also subjected to its God, when life is most rightly and orderly conducted ... Of which sacred import the Apostle speaks when he says, that the man ought not to be veiled, the women ought" (40).

The Apostolic Tradition

Some scholars believe that this document was composed in approximately 215 AD by one Hippolytus, a leader in the church at Rome. Others point out that grounds for the work's authorship and dating are very weak. However there is reason to believe that churches in the fourth and fifth centuries at least were familiar with material in this document. Section 18 reads:  

"When the teacher finishes his instruction, the catechumens will pray by themselves, separate from the faithful. The women will also pray in another place in the church, by themselves, whether faithful women or catechumen women. After the catechumens have finished praying, they do not give the kiss of peace, for their kiss is not yet pure. But the faithful shall greet one another with a kiss, men with men, and women with women. Men must not greet women with a kiss. All the women should cover their heads with a pallium, and not simply with a piece of linen, which is not a proper veil" (emphasis mine).

The Catacombs

The Roman catacombs are located about 5 km from the city centre and date from about the middle of the second century AD to the fourth century AD. One of the most significant symbols in the catacombs is the Orante or Orans, which is typically a female figure praying with uplifted hands. This picture from the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome, is thought to date from (c) 220 AD. The female figure with uplifted hands has an artificial covering on her head. 

Conclusion

Brother Coffman insists that in 1 Cor 11:2-16, Paul is discussing hair rather than an artificial covering. He brings his discussion to a close by asking “How could this passage have been so long misunderstood?” He continues:

“(Eldred) Echols' explanation is as good as any. He said: 'A clear understanding has been obscured by ambiguous English translations, as well as by established custom. There can be little doubt that the custom itself derived largely from Roman Catholic practice during the Middle ages.'”

This is a surprising statement in view of the fact that Augustine, Jerome, Irenaeus and the rest did not use “ambiguous English translations” and lived prior to the Middle ages.

All of the witnesses above agree that in 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul is discussing an artificial head covering. I have limited this discussion to the first four centuries of church history, but it is not difficult to show that for centuries to follow, those who commented upon these verses took this position for granted. Thomas R. Schreiner (above) pointed out in connection with 1 Tim 2:12 that "An interpretation that has stood the test of time and has been ratified by the Church in century after century - both in the East and the West and in the North and South - has an impressive pedigree." This is also true in connection with 1 Cor 11:2-16.

The witnesses mentioned above were influential figures living in places like Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, which were centres of trade and culture, and they were well informed on the issues confronting the church in their day. They take us back to the very earliest period of church history. All of them take for granted that Paul is discussing an artificial covering and none of them show familiarity with the hairstyle position (which does not seem to have surfaced until the 1960s). Does this not strongly suggest that the latter is the product of cultural bias rather than exegesis, just like the explanations of 1 Tim 2:12 which were unknown in antiquity and have accompanied the rise of feminism?