Paul’s Language of Hairstyles or Head-coverings in 1 Cor 11: The Meaning of Kephalē Part 11

Introduction 

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is an exegetical minefield. Almost every line is subject to debate. Some even seem downright heretical, like when Paul seems to say that women aren’t created in God’s image (11:8). Fortunately, not every question is relevant for addressing the main questions we’re wrestling with: what Paul means when he says that “the man/husband is the head of woman/wife” (11:3) and whether Paul believes that men should be in authority over women in the church. Over the next few pots, I’m going to wrestle with a few of the more important exegetical questions in this passage before we come back to the meaning of kephalē in 1 Cor 11:3 and what this passage as a whole says about men and women in the church. After I come to a somewhat satisfactory reading of the passage, I will then put this reading in conversation with the complementarian reading of this passage, which I laid out in the previous post.

Head-coverings or Hairstyles? 

One of the most perennial debates is whether Paul is talking about head-coverings or hairstyles (or hair length) in this passage. Most readers simply assume that Paul is addressing head-coverings, but the scholarly work on the passage is a bit mixed. While most scholars do think head-coverings are in view[mfn]Just a small sampling includes: Thistleton, 1 Corinthians, 823-26; Winter, Roman Wives, 77-96; idem., After Paul Left Corinth, 121-42; Westfall, Paul and Gender; Watson, “Authority of the Voice;” Keener, Paul, Women & Wives; Preston Massey, in several articles; Thiessenn 1987; Engberg-Pedersen 1991; Dunn 1995; Martin 1995; Witehrington 1995; Horrell 1996.[/mfn] (a view held “almost unanimously” by the early church Fathers)[mfn]See Finney, “Honour,” 31, who cites Irenaeus, Haer. 1.8.2; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11; Tertullian, Cor. ch. 14; Or. Chs. 21-22; Marc. 5.9; Cult. Fem. 2.7; Virg.; Augustine, Ep. CCXLV; Jerome, Ep. CXL VII.5. But see Chrysostom, In Ep. 1 ad Cor., Hom. 26.1, who understood Paul to be referring to hair not head coverings (according to BeDuhn, “‘Because of the Angels’,” 297 n. 7.) A. Phillip Brown points out that both Chrysostom and Epiphanius understood 1 Cor 11 to be talking about hair length (Brown, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius”). Phil Payne also cites Macarius Aegyptius (d. circa AD 390) and Ambrose (AD 354-407) as evidence for the hair style/length view (Man and Woman, 150-51).[/mfn], a decent number of scholars have argued that Paul is talking about hair length and style, not head coverings.[mfn]See Payne, Man and Woman, 141-73; Hurley, “Man and Woman in 1 Corinthians,” 43-56; Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 488-500; Gundry-Volk, “Gender and Creation,” 151-171; Horsley, 1 Corinthians, 153-54; Hays, 1 Corinthians, 185.[/mfn]

Let’s first understand what these two views are arguing for, keeping in mind there are variations within each view: 

The “head covering” view says that it was quite common—if not required—for married women to cover their heads or “veil” in public. (We shouldn’t think of “veil” as something different from “head covering.” In ancient times, “veil” simply meant “with face or head covered,” and it usually referred to pulling the back of your garment over your head. I’ll use the terms “veil” and “head-covering” synonymously throughout).[mfn]See Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, Aphrodite’s Tortoise, 9; MacMullen, “Women in Public,” 210.[/mfn] They could uncover when they were at home or in the presence of their kin. But when they were out in public, and especially in a public setting like a worship gathering, they would have covered their heads. The only kinds of women who didn’t cover their heads were single women (who were sexually available), prostitutes, slaves, or married women who were looking to have an affair. Paul’s concern, then, is that some married women were uncovering their heads (perhaps taking their newfound freedom in Christ a bit too far) and were giving the impression that they were sexually available (and therefor dishonoring their “heads;” that is, their husbands) or downright promiscuous. Even if this wasn’t their intention, Paul is concerned that outsiders might misinterpret their behavior (cf. 1 Cor 14:23). 

As far as the men go, it was very common in Roman culture for men of high social standing to cover their heads while they worshipped pagan gods. Paul therefore wants to distance the Christian men from these practices since they reinforced the social hierarchy he was trying to dismantle, and (possibly) also in light of the association with pagan practice. 

The “hairstyle/hair length” view says that Paul was telling men not to wear long hair, since long hair on men blurred gender distinctions and was commonly associated with effeminacy and homosexuality.[mfn]It’s usually described this way, but calling it “homosexuality” is way too broad and anachronistic. The specific cultural taboo would have been for men of status to play the passive role in male same-sex sexual relationships. Many Romans would not have a problem with a Roman male of status playing the active role in such sexual liaisons. What would have been taboo is a man of status playing the passive role. Using the world “homosexuality” or “homosexual” to express this—so common among modern scholars—is unfortunate, since it’s too modern and way too broad. It basically refers to any person who experiences same sex attraction, which wasn’t a defined category in the ancient world and certainly wasn’t Paul’s concern here.[/mfn] As for the women, respectable married women would wear their hair bound up above their head. Only sexually promiscuous women—or women who belonged to the cult of Dionysius—would wear their hair unbound and disheveled. Paul therefore is concerned that women honor the cultural codes of modesty and respectability, and that men would follow God’s design for their masculinity. 

To analyze these two views, I’ll first look at Paul’s language in this post to see which view is better supported by the actual words he uses. In the next post, I’ll examine the cultural context of first-century Corinth to see whether hair style/length or head-covers makes the most sense.  

Paul’s Language 

Paul uses three different words or phrases to describe “coverings” in this passage, and each one is subject to debate. The first phrase is kata kephalēs echōn, which occurs in 11:4. The NIV reads: “Every man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head…” The NIV’s “with his head covered” is kata kephalēs echōn, which literally means something like “having down from the head.” Paul doesn’t specify what kind of object is “down from the head.” He could have in mind either a material covering or hair. 

Unfortunately, the exact phrase kata kephalēs echōn without an explicit object occurs nowhere else in the Bible. In fact, it occurs nowhere in Greek literature, except, of course, in places where the early church fathers were quoting Paul.[mfn]See A. Philip Brown II, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius,” 366-67.[/mfn] We do see the phrase with an explicit object, however, in several Greek authors.[mfn]All of the following quotations are from the LCL translation as cited by A. Philip Brown II, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius.”[/mfn] Plutarch provides us with what is probably the closest parallel to 1 Cor 11:4, when he writes: 

after disembarking, he was walking with his toga covering his head (kata tēs kephalēs echōn to himation). (Moralia, “Sayings of the Romans,” 200F)

Here, the phrase kata tēs kephalēs echōn is used, but unlike Paul, Plutarch provides us with an explicit object, himation(“toga, garment”), so it’s clear that a head covering is in view. There are three other places in Plutarch where similar phrases occur: 

that fellow [Demetrius] would be already reclining at table in great state, having the hood of his toga drawn down behind his ears (echōn …kata tēs kephalēs to himation). (Lives, Pompey 640C)

but when he [Caesar] saw Brutus with his sword drawn in his hand, then he pulled his garment over his head (epheilkusato kata tēs kephalēs to himation), and made no more resistance. (Lives, Caesar 739D)

the second [divorce] was Sulpicius Gallus, because he saw his wife pull her cloak over her head(ephelkusamenen idōn kata kephalēs to himation). (Roman Questions, 267C)

The first two references have the verb echō (“have”) with the phrase kata kephalēs (“according to the head”). The second two have a different verb connect to kata kephalēs. All four refer to head coverings, but all four provide an explicit object, to himation, whereas Paul does not.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (circa 60 B.C. – 7 B.C.) also uses phrases similar to Paul’s kata kephalēs echōn on three occasions, but like Plutarch, he supplies an explicit object in every case: 

shorter than a man of average stature, having a mantle over the head (echousa kata tēs kephalēs). (Roman Antiquities 3.71.5)

Camillos…since he had prayed and had drawn his garment over his head (kata tēs kephalēs heilkuse to himation), desired to turn… (Roman Antiquities 12.16.4)

When he was about to depart, he both drew his garment over his head (peribolen kata kephalēs heilkuse) and held up his hands to the sky, as the custom is, and made prayer to the gods. (Roman Antiquities, 15.9.7)

There’s one more reference in the LXX that’s significant, since kata kephalēs (without echō) is used to refer to a covered head: 

Afterward Mordecai returned to the king’s gate. But Haman rushed home, with his head covered (kata kephalēs) in grief. (Esth. 6:12)

Here, the translator used kata kephalēs to translate hapori rōsh, which means “head being covered.” While kata kephalēsby itself can refer to a wide variety of things that don’t involve head coverings,[mfn]A. Phillip Brown lists the following places where kata kephalēs occurs where it’s not referring to head coverings: Dionysius, Roman Antiquities, 6.3.3; 11.26.4, line 6; 19.8.3, line 6; Plutarch, Vitae Decern Oratorae 842B; Pyrrhus 399B; Les Papyrus Fouad 129.11; P.Oxy. 33.2672dupl, lines 15-18;Josephus, Ant, 1.50.4; 2.252.2; 13.117.5 (Brown, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius,” 371).[/mfn] at least in this one case, it does refer to a head covering without an explicit object (e.g. himation, peribolen) in view. Interestingly, a later editor substituted kata kephalēs with katakekalummenos—the same verb that Paul uses 3x in 1 Cor 11:5-7.[mfn]Both Watson (“The Authority,” 529) and Massey (“The Meaning,” 512) see this as evidence for the head covering view, while A. Phillip Brown (“Chrysostom and Epiphanius,” 371) says that this editorial correction “suggests that at least one Greek scribe felt that kata kephalēs was too ambiguous a rendering and changed it to a more explicit construction.” I think Massey is probably correct when he says “the fact that kata kephalēs not only points in the direction of meaning katakaluptein, but these equivalents convey the sense of ‘to cover the head with a garment’” (“The Meaning,” 512).[/mfn]

The evidence above can be interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, since kata kephalēs echōn always occurs with an explicit object when coverings are in view, one could argue that these parallels are irrelevant for understanding Paul’s phrase, since he doesn’t mention an object (i.e. garment, toga). If Paul was talking about head coverings, he would have mentioned the garment covering the head (e.g. himation), but he does not.[mfn]It also should be noted that John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) and Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. A.D. 315-403) interpreted Paul to be referring to long hair on men (see Brown, “Chrysostom and Epiphanius”).[/mfn] On the other hand, one could argue that all the parallels above, especially LXX Esther 6:12, are close enough to suggest that Paul doesn’t need to specify the garment; it’s implied in the phrase kata kephalēs echōn. Perhaps Paul’s other words in this passage that refer to some kind of covering, akatakaluptō (“uncovered”) and katakaluptein (“to cover”), can help supply the meaning of kata kephalēs echōn.

Unfortunately, those words too are fraught with ambiguity. In v. 5, Paul contrasts men who pray and prophesy kata kephalēs echōn with women who are “uncovered,” or akatakaluptō, a word he uses again in v. 13. Figuring out the meaning of akatakaluptos should help us understand kata kephalēs echōn

Advocates of the head covering view point out that akatakaluptos is used in Philo to refer to a head covering (that is, a head without a covering) and not a certain hairstyle or hair length.[mfn]Spec. Laws, 3.60 uses the same words Paul does, akatakalyptō te kephalē, the context “is clear that Philo is speaking of a head covering” (Schreiner, “Head Coverings,” 126). See also Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 2.29 and in Polybius 15.27.2 (Schreiner, “Head Coverings,” 126).[/mfn] In commenting on Numb 5:18, Philo writes:

When these preliminaries are completed, the woman is to come forward with her head uncovered (akatakalyptōte kephalē), bringing the barley-meal, as has been said, and the priest holding the earthen vessel with the earth and water in it stands fronting her and pronounces as follows… (Philo, Spec. Laws, 3.60)

Philo’s phrase akatakalyptō te kephalē is the exact some phrase Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:5 and it can only mean “with her head uncovered.”[mfn]Massey, “The Meaning,” 519. Massey points out that Josephus also comments on Numb 5:18 and interprets the passage the same way (i.e. the woman’s head covering being removed) (Ant. 3.270).[/mfn] Another text from Lucian (ca. A.D. 125-180) has akatakaluptos in connection with kephalē, which is similar to Paul’s use in 1 Cor 11:7. 

Sosandra and Calamis shall adorn her with modesty and her smile shall be noble and slight like that of the original, from whom shall come also the simplicity and decency of her drapery, except that she shall have her head uncovered (akatakaluptos autē estai tēn kephalēn). (Portraiture, 6)

Interestingly, Lucian latter admits that the statue of the woman will be modest in every way, except for one thing—she’ll be unveiled. This suggests two things which will be relevant when we discuss the cultural background of head coverings and hair styles/length. First, the veil was considered to be a sign of modesty. Second, artists took some liberties to portray women unveiled, even though this was contrary to custom.[mfn]See Massey, “The Meaning,” 518, who also cites G. Ferrari, Figures of Speech, 17-25 (esp. 19); L. Llewellyn-Jones, “A Woman’s View? Dress, Eroticism, and the Ideal Female Body in Athenian Art,” in L. Llewellyn-Jones (ed.) Women’s Dress in the Ancient World (Swansea: Duckworth, 2002), 171.[/mfn]

There’s an important and much debated reference to akatakluptos in LXX Lev 13:45. The CSB and NASB interpret the Hebrew text as:  

The person who has a case of serious skin disease is to have his clothes torn and his hair hanging loose (tiprāʿû), and he must cover his mouth and cry out, “Unclean, unclean!” (Lev. 13:45 CSB)

As for the person who has the leprous infection, his clothes shall be torn and the hair of his head shall be uncovered (tiprāʿû) and he shall cover his mustache and call out, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45 NASB)

The difference in translations are due to the different meanings of the Hebrew word pāraʿ.  According to Jacob Milgrom, “The root prʿ has something to do with the hair of the head.”[mfn]Milgrom, J. (2008). Leviticus 1–16: a new translation with introduction and commentary (Vol. 3, p. 608). Yale University Press.[/mfn] It can mean “untrimmed, uncovered,” or “disheveled.” Milgrom opts for “disheveled” hair for Lev 13:45, but says that the LXX (where akatakluptos translates pāraʿ ) and some later rabbis interpret the word to mean an “uncovered” head; that is, the removal of a head covering. 

It’s worthy to note that Num 5:18 uses the same phrase “uncovered head” (pāraʿ rōsh) and the LXX translates this phrase with “will uncover the woman’s head” (apokalupsei tēn kephalēn tēs gunaikos). Both Philo and Josephus interpret Numb 5:18 to mean “uncovered head.”[mfn]Josephus, Ant. 3.270; Philo, Spec. Laws, 3.60, who uses the phrase atakapluptō te kephalē to describe the woman’s head, the same phrase Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:5; see Massey, “The Meaning,” 519, contra Padgett, “Paul on Women,” 70, who says that Philo interprets Numb 5:18 to mean “with unbound or loosened hair.”[/mfn] So when Phil Payne and others say that the only time akatakaluptō is used in the LXX is in Lev 13:45, where it means “to let the hair on the head hang loosely,”[mfn]Payne Man and Woman, 167; Murphy O’Connor, “Sex and Logic,” 488 (cf. Num 5:18 where the cognate verb is used to mean “loosen the hair of the woman;” see Fee, 1 Corinthians, 562). The Hebrew phrase in Lev 13:45 here is rōsh porua. Thistleton points out, however, that akatakaluptos can mean loose hair or head covering and it really depends on the context (Corinthians, 831).[/mfn] I think they’re being overly confident in this translation. This might be an accurate translation of the Hebrew, but it goes against the LXX, Josephus, and Philo, who all use a Greek phrase that means “uncovered head” not “disheveled hair.” 

A third word Paul uses to refer to “covering” is katakaluptein, which occurs three times in vv. 6-7:

For if a woman does not cover (katakaluptetai) she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover (katakaluptesthō).⁷ A man ought not to cover his head (katakaluptesthai tēn kephalēn), since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

This same verb is used in several places in the LXX to refer to a head covering or veil. For instance, in the book of Susana, it clearly refers to a veil, not hair:

They…ordered that she be unveiled (apokaluphthenai), for she was veiled (katakekalummene), in order that they might be filled with her beauty (Sus 32)

The same goes for Genesis 38 and the reference to Tamar veiling her face:

when Judah saw her, he thought that she was a harlot for her face was veiled (katekalupsatō gar to prosopōn) (Gen 38:15)

And although it’s not technically about a head covering, Isaiah 6 is relevant: 

Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces (katekalupton to prosōpon) with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. (Isa 6:2)

In extra biblical Greek literature, katakaluptein is used in context where a head covering or veil is in view. Most important are instances where there is no stated direct or indirect object; the veil/head covering is simply assumed. For instance, Plutarch writes: 

In Boeotia, after veiling the bride (tēn numphen katakalupsantes), they crown her with asparagus (Advice to the Bride and Groom, 138D)

Here, the verb katakaluptein clearly refers veiling the bride, even though no material object (veil, covering) is specified. This is similar to Paul who also uses the verb without mentioning the kind of material that one is being covered with. 

There are other uses of katakaluptein in Plutarch, where people “cover” statues and it’s implied that some kind of fabric is used, without the fabric being named (Alcibiades, 34.1; Mulierum virtutes 253E; see also Dio Chrysostom, Roman Antiquities, 60.13.3; 63.27.3). Preston Massey boldly concludes: “The verb katakaluptō, from Homer to Athenaeus (a period stretching approximately 1000 years), means ‘to veil’ or ‘cover the head’ in texts describing dress and physical appearance.”[mfn]Massey, “The Meaning,” 523.[/mfn] Paul’s phrase katakaluptesthai tēn kephalēn (“to cover the head”) in 1 Cor 11:7, then, “is not idiosyncratic; it conforms to conventional usage. No first-century Greek would find the phrase puzzling.”[mfn]Massey, “The Meaning,” 517.[/mfn]

Plus, katakaluptein is applied equally to both men and women. Women are to katakaluptein (v. 6) while men are not to katakaluptein (v.7); that is, to not do what the women are supposed to do. If Paul is telling women to put up their hair when they pray and prophesy, it’s unlikely that Paul telling the men to do the opposite, to not put up their hair, since this was not a practice among men.[mfn]Rightly Fee, 1 Corinthians, on 11:7.[/mfn]

The linguistic data so far seems to heavily support the head covering view. But the hair style/length view is not without evidence. To my mind, one of the strongest arguments for this view comes in 1 Cor 11:13-15, where Paul not only explicitly talks about hair length, but does so as further proof that a woman should not pray with her head “uncovered” (akataklupton, v. 13).

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered (akataklupton)? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair (koma), it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵ but that if a woman has long hair (koma), it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (1 Cor 11:14-15)

Paul’s statements about hair length are correlated with the word akataklupton, which is the same word used in 11:5 to refer to “uncovered” (akatakaluptō) women. This suggests that Paul might have been talking about hair all along. The lexical data surveyed above heavily supports the head covering view, to my mind, but this view will have to address Paul’s language in vv. 13-15, which seems to support the head style/length view. We’ll return to this point below.  

Further support for the hair style/length view comes in vv. 5-6, where Paul talks about women being shaved or shorn as a logical corollary to being “uncovered” (akatakaluptō). After all, shaved and shorn heads are about hair. Therefore, it makes more logical sense that Paul is talking about hairstyle/length, especially since, as we just saw, akatakaluptō is correlated with hair length in vv. 14-15. According to this interpretation, Paul explains himself clearly in v. 15b, where he says that a woman’s long hair has been given to her as, or instead of (anti) a “covering” (peribolaiou). “This implies that Paul did not require women to wear any item of clothing on top of their modestly-done-up hair,” says Phil Payne. “After all, why would Paul end his argument by stating that a woman has been given long hair as a covering if his point all along was to require a garment head covering?”[mfn]Man and Woman, 206[/mfn]

Francis Watson, who finds the hairstyle/length view to be “awkward and improbable,” raises a good point about what Paul says in vv. 14-15. “If his [Paul] problem were with loosed hair, one would not expect him to speak so positively about long hair (v. 15).”[mfn]Watson, “Authority,” 534.[/mfn] In other words, if long hair is a woman’s glory, shouldn’t she let her glory shine instead of covering it up on her head? Watson goes on to argue that Paul’s discusses hair length in vv. 14-15 as an analogy to head coverings, not as the covering: 

Nature provides a covering for woman, in the form of her long hair, and this natural “covering” is said to confirm the appropriateness of the head-covering that Paul seeks to impose…The covered female head is equivalent to long hair, the garment that nature itself has provided for women (v. 15).[mfn]Watson, “Authority,” 533.[/mfn]

While I think both views have merit based on Paul’s language and argument, I do think the head covering view makes better sense of Paul’s actual wording. The words Paul uses most naturally refer to head coverings not hair styles/length. As far as women being shaved or shorn in vv. 5-6, this actually makes good sense if head coverings are in view, once we understand the cultural significance of head coverings (see my next post). In short, if married women uncovered their heads in public, this would be a sign of sexual availability, if not infidelity. The penalty for such an act would be to shave the woman’s head. Paul’s logic in 11:5-6, then, would fall right in light with cultural custom. 

As for the explicit reference to hair length in vv. 14-15, this could go both ways. Not only is it an odd way to encourage women to wear their long hair bound up on their head, as Watson points out, but it also shows that Paul knows very well how to talk about hair length. Why, then, would Paul opt for words that most naturally refer to head coverings in vv. 4-7, when he could have just said “long hair” (koma) all along? 

Conclusion 

In light of Paul’s wording throughout 1 Cor 11:2-16, I think the head covering view makes the most sense. In any case, I don’t think the issue can be solved by looking at Paul’s language alone. Paul’s cultural context is just as important. Both head coverings and hair styles/length carried much currency in Paul’s first-century culture. And I think it’s rather clear that Paul is assuming and interacting with certain cultural taboos that would have been familiar to his audience. We’ll explore what those may be in the next post.

[mfn_list]