Post on 27-Oct-2015
description
1 Corinthians 11.2-16: An Interpretation
Bruce K. Waltke
[Bruce K. Waltke, Professor of Old Testament, Regent College, Vancouver, British
Columbia.]
In 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 the Apostle Paul discusses the appropriate headdress
for the sexes. If churches would include that passage (along with 1 Cor 11:17–34)
as part of their reading at the celebration of the Lord‘s Supper, they would be
guarded against some of the extreme positions of the women‘s liberation
movement and the theological error that denies a hierarchical structure of the
sexes. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and as a result many believers are
succumbing to pressures from both without and within the church to abandon
Paul‘s clear teaching on this subject.
Perhaps this text has been neglected because of the many interpretive problems
with which it confronts the expositor. In the light of the present crisis facing the
churches regarding the social ordering of the sexes and the centrality of this text to
that discussion, it seems fitting to reconsider the passage. A fresh interpretation
will be attempted by considering some of its key theological terms and concepts,
by reconstructing its historical background as much as possible, and by
synthesizing its argument to expose Paul‘s intention.
Although Paul does not say so explicitly, it seems probable to suppose that
some of the individualistic Corinthians were proposing that their women throw off
their traditional veils which symbolized their subordination to the men. Such a
radical cultural change, they may have argued, would be consonant with the
radical, revolutionary character of Christian theology.
Indeed, a strong case can be made for the social parity of the sexes and
therefore against the wearing of a veil symbolizing a hierarchical relationship. For
example, the Lord Jesus accepted and
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—47
promoted not the lower standard of the Mosaic law, given after man‘s Fall, but the
higher standard exhibited in the creation before the Fall (cf. Matt 19:3–9). Whereas
the Law assumed a lower social standing for women, the creation accounts assume
their ontological equality. God created man as male and female in His image,
according to Genesis 1:26–28, a text showing their complementary nature and
inferring their ontological equality. Moreover, Adam, when presented with his
wife, exclaimed, ―This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh‖ (Gen 2:23), a
statement showing that he regarded her as his equal.
Then, too, Jesus had accorded women the same dignity He bestowed on men. In
fact, He even commended Mary‘s ―manly‖ posture of sitting in the living room
enjoying theological discourse over Martha‘s ―womanly‖ posture of taking care of
the practical needs in the kitchen (Luke 10:38–42).
In addition, Paul explicitly states in his letter to the church at Galatia that men
and women are spiritual equals as the children of God (Gal 3:26–28). So then, if
they are equal both in the old and new creation, why maintain a hypocritical
symbol that masks the theological reality?
But even more significantly than any of the above considerations is the fact that
God was pleased to give the Spirit‘s gifts to the church without regard to sexual
differences. Through Joel, God had predicted that in Israel‘s future He would do
just that: ―I will pour out my spirit on all mankind, and your sons and daughters
will prophesy‖ (Joel 2:28). Moreover, even as He was pleased to give His gifts to
individual women in the old dispensation, such as Miriam (Exod 15:20–21),
Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14–20), and Anna (Luke 2:36), in the new
dispensation He gives gifts to all as He pleases (1 Cor 12:7–11). Thus it may be
assumed that some of the women at Corinth were indeed prophesying along with
the men (cf. Acts 21:9).1 The old symbol of subordination surely seemed
outmoded.
But Paul, who is otherwise zealous not to bring new converts under old ways
and traditions, demurs here, for to treat the sexes as positionally equal would
destroy the order God intended for man. After introducing the subject of traditions
(1 Cor 11:2), he
1 1. Cullmann shows that in the primitive church the χαρίσματα were part of the worship service
centered in the Lord’s Supper (Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, trans. A. Steward Todd and
James B. Torrance [London: SCM Press, 1953], pp. 26-32).
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—48
bases the practice of women wearing the traditional head covering (in contrast to
men not doing so) on the doctrine of headship (v. 3 ). To reverse this practice, he
argues, would disgrace ―one‘s head‖ (vv. 4–6 ), and he proves his thesis by noting
the order of the original creation (vv. 7–12 ) and by appealing to the nature of
creation as presently experienced (vv. 13–15 ). He concludes, therefore, that the
churches‘ universal practice of women wearing a head covering in contrast to men
in the public assembly be maintained (v. 16 ).
The Doctrine of Headship (11:3 )
At the outset of this argument, using the metaphor of ―head,‖ Paul sets forth the
basic doctrine that there is a social order in the relationship between Christ, man,
woman, and God. Obviously, to understand the doctrine one must have a clear
understanding of ―head‖ (κεθαλή), a word used repeatedly throughout the passage.
Bedale has demonstrated that κεθαλή, like the Hebrew word ראׁש which it
translated in the Septuagint, has two senses: a literal meaning referring to the
anatomy, and a metaphorical sense of ―priority.‖2 In this latter usage two ideas are
present: (1) a chronological priority including the notion of ―source‖ and ―origin,‖
and (2) a resulting positional priority including the notion of ―chief among‖ or
―head over.‖ Concerning this enlarged and metaphorical use of the term Bedale
reasons that ―this idea of ‗authority‘ would seem to be connected, not with the
controlling influence of the head over the limbs [a scientific deduction
anachronistic for Paul] but with the idea of priority…. A chieftain‘s authority in
social relationships is largely dependent upon his ‗seniority,‘ or ‗priority,‘ in the
order of being.‖3 Thus κεθαλή is a metaphorical equivalent of ἀπσή, ―first,‖
―ruler.‖
Paul is using κεθαλή in this metaphorical sense to set forth the hierarchical,
social structure in God‘s economy (v. 3 ). Christ, then, is the ―head‖ of every man
because ―through him are all things, and we exist through him‖ (1 Cor 8:6; cf. Col
2 2. Stephen Bedale, “The Meaning of κεφαλή in the Pauline Epistles,” Journal of Theological Studies 5
(1954): 211-15.
3 3. Ibid., p. 213.
1:16); and man is the head of the woman because ―man does not originate from
woman, but woman from man‖ (1 Cor 11:8; cf. Eph 5:23); and of course, God is
the head of all because ―all things originate
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—49
from God‖ (1 Cor 11:12; cf. 1 Cor 8:6). Thus because of the order in the process of
creation there is both a unity and a hierarchy of social relationships that may be
outlined as follows:
God
Christ
Man
Woman
Concerning this hierarchy, however, Kaiser cautions, ―Such a ranking speaks not
of their relative dignity or worth (Is Christ any less than God? Or is woman any
less created in the image of God than man?), but only of their job relationships,
responsibilities to each other and ultimately to God.‖4
The Practice of Covering the Head (11:4-6 )
To preserve and to symbolize this order of being, Paul now teaches that
whereas men should not wear a covering while praying or prophesying,5 believing
women should have their heads covered when exercising their priestly rights or
when prompted by the Spirit to utter divine truth in the midst of the congregation
for the mutual edifying of those gathered together.6 Later on, Paul informs the
church that apart from prayer or this immediate prompting by the Spirit, however,
4 4. Walter Kaiser, “Paul, Women, and the Church,” Worldwide Challenge, September, 1976, p. 12.
5 5. In primitive Christianity there is a direct connection between prayer and prophecy. See Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, s.v.
“προφήτης,” by Gerhard Friedrich, 6 (1968): 852.
6 6. Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975),
p. 53.
women must not speak at all.7 Thus women may pray and give expression to the
Spirit, but to preserve the Creator‘s ordering of social relationships they must wear
a sign of their subordination.
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—50
Regarding the meaning of the covering in that culture Morna Hooker, Lady
Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, wrote, ―According to
Jewish custom a bride went bareheaded until her marriage, as a symbol of her
freedom; when married, she wore a veil as a sign that she was under the authority
of her husband.‖8
Although Paul does not use the word veil,9 it seems reasonable to suppose that
he has this article of apparel in view. Jeremias describes the veil of a Jewess of
Jerusalem at that time: ―Her face was hidden by an arrangement of two head veils,
a head-band on the forehead with bands to the chin, and a hairnet with ribbons and
knots, so that her features could not be recognized.‖10
Both Jewish and Greek
women wore such a covering, according to Conzelmann. After sifting both the
7 7. Cullmann sharply distinguishes the free expressions of the Spirit, such as prophesying, speaking in
tongues, and interpretation of tongues, from the service of the Word, such as teaching and preaching.
He further notes that “by the time of Justin we find that the free expressions of the Spirit…have
disappeared” (Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, p. 30). For a classic treatment on the cessation of the
χαρίσματα see Benjamin B. Warfield, Miracles: Yesterday and Today (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1965).
8 8. M. D. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI.10 ,” New Testament Studies 10
(1963–64): 413.
9 9. According to Kaiser, “The almost universal mistranslation of this verse *10 + has been ‘veil.’ Dr.
Katherine C. Bushnell traced this mistake back to Valentinus, a founder of the Gnostic sect about A.D.
140, Clement and Origen [Katherine C. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women: One Hundred Bible Studies, 4th
ed. (Oakland: By the author, 1930), Lesson 34+. In their native Coptic tongue, the word ‘authority’ or
‘power’ would be ouershishi while the word ‘veil’ was ouershoun. Valentinus deliberately corrupted
the first term into the second in order to give biblical justification to his needed veil used in the sexual
initiation rites of the Gnostic sect. Without carefully checking it, the church fathers and modern
translators merely followed along in this same erroneous rut” (Kaiser, “Paul, Women, and the Church,”
p. 12).
10 10. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1969), p. 359.
written and graphic sources, he concluded, ―For a Jewess to go out with her head
uncovered is a disgrace (3 Macc 4:6) and grounds for divorce…; it can also be
assumed that respectable Greek women wore a head covering in public.‖11
Paul asserts that for a woman not to wear a covering would be as disgraceful as
having her hair cut, a sign of a disgraced wife or mother. According to Tacitus the
husband of an adulterous wife cut off her hair, stripped her naked, and drove her
from her house; and according to Aristophanes the mother of unworthy children
should have her hair shorn.12
In Judaism a woman going out in public without a
head covering was considered so shameful that it was grounds for divorce without
the husband being obligated to
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—51
pay the ketubah.13
To appear at the public assembly, then, with inappropriate
headdress would disgrace one‘s head.
But when Paul says that one‘s head is dishonored, it must be asked whether the
word head is to be taken literally or metaphorically. Does one dishonor his
anatomical head or his social head? The answer is both. The word head in this
context is an intentional double entendre and serves as the Stichwort, the crucial
term about which the rest of the argument is constructed. First he shows how the
reversal of head coverings would disgrace one‘s metaphorical and social head (vv.
7–12 ), and then he argues that it would disgrace one‘s literal and anatomical head
(vv. 13–15 ).
The Disgrace of One’s Social Head (11:7-12 )
The logical particle ―for‖ (γάπ) introducing this section relates it to the
preceding statement that improper headdress disgraces one‘s social head. In 11:7a
11 11. Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, ed.
George W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 185.
12 12. See C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row,
1968), p. 251.
13 13. Leonard Swindler, Women in Judaism: The Status of Women in Formative Judaism (Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press, 1976), p. 121.
Paul argues that a veil on a man would disgrace Christ because it would veil the
image and glory of God mediated to man through Christ, and in 11:7b–10 he
shows that a woman without a veil would in effect be displaying positional
equality with the man and would thereby usurp the glory that properly belongs to
him by the Creator‘s design. The key word drawing the moral obligation for both
men and women and uniting the first part of this section is ὀθείλει (vv. 7a and 10 ).
Since Paul argues that a man must not cover his head because he is the image
and glory of God, it is obvious that the meaning of ―image‖ (εἰκών) and its
connection to a man‘s face must be clarified. In Greek thought an ―image‖ gives
tangible, perceptive expression and substance to that which is invisible.14
Thus
Christ is the ―image of God‖ (Col 1:15), and significantly this image and attendant
glory is manifested preeminently ―in the face of Christ.‖ Of Christ, Paul wrote,
―[He] is the image of God… [and God gave] the light of the knowledge of [His]
glory in the face of Christ‖ (2 Cor 4:4, 6). According to 1 Corinthians 11:7, man
also gives expression or substance to the glory of God, and this glory is in some
sense resident in the head. This glory, then, like the glory of the gospel of Christ,
ought not to be veiled (2 Cor 3:12–18). Even
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—52
though the new image of God in Christ transcends the old image as the brightness
of the sun transcends the light of the moon, the created glory of God should not be
veiled in the worship of the Creator.
But whereas man ―exists for‖ (ὑπάπσει) God‘s glory, the woman ―is (ἔζηιν) the
glory of man.‖ The particle ―for‖ (γάπ) introducing 1 Corinthians 11:8 points to the
twofold basis for this assertion: she was made out of (ἐκ) the man (v. 8 ; cf. Gen
2:21), and she was made ―for the sake of‖ (διά) man (v. 9 ; cf. Gen 2:18). Because
of this order and purpose in the creation, the logical conclusion is now drawn:
―Therefore, the woman ought to have authority (ἐξοςζία) on her head‖ (v. 10 ).
Almost all will agree that ―authority‖ or ―right‖ is used here as a metonymy for the
covering on the head. Most commentators, however, hold that the headcovering
worn by the woman is a symbol of her being under authority. But this widely held
14 14. Conzelman, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 187-88.
view runs into the strong objection that this is never the meaning of ἐξοςζία
elsewhere, and that in fact quite the reverse is true, for it is a symbol of subjection.
Without investing ἐξοςζία with new meaning the passage most simply means that
the covering gives her the ―authority‖ to pray and prophesy.
But how precisely does it do this? Or to put the question another way, What is
the veil‘s function? Hooker,15
followed by Bruce,16
reasons that the veil is
necessary in order to hide man‘s glory in the presence of God and His angels. ―In
their presence,‖ she writes, ―the glory of man must be hidden. If she were to pray
or prophesy with uncovered head, she would not be glorifying God, but reflecting
the glory of man, and in God‘s presence this must inevitably turn to shame.‖17
This
interpretation has consistency in its favor, for in the case of both the man and the
woman the veil functions as an instrument of hiding another‘s glory. In the case of
man, however, God‘s glory must not be veiled, but in the case of the woman,
man‘s glory should be veiled.
But this interpretation should be rejected because it offers no clear connection
between veiling the man‘s glory and the woman‘s right to pray and prophesy.
Moreover, this interpretation severs the
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—53
connection between the use of the veil in the church with its use in the culture of
that day, a connection assumed in verses 5–6 . Finally, it is unclear in this view
how the woman disgraces the man by not veiling his glory (cf. v. 4 ). Therefore,
this writer prefers the normal interpretation that the veil symbolizes her
subordination to the man. Accordingly, the veil serves two different functions: for
the man it would hide his glory, even as it did for Moses (2 Cor 3:13), and for the
woman it symbolizes her subordination to the man. By wearing a covering she
preserves the order of creation while exercising her priestly and spiritual right.
15 15. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI.10 ,” p. 413.
16 16. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, New Century Bible, ed. Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Block
(Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1976), p. 106.
17 17. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI.10 ,” p. 415.
The Apostle Paul now adds that this symbol of the created order is necessary
―on account of the angels‖ (1 Cor 11:10). Many interpretations have been offered
to explain the connection between the woman‘s headdress and presumably good
angels.18
Caird suggests that the statement means that Christian women must
conform to the normal conventions of society, which are regarded as being under
the control of ―angels‖ for the time being.19
But elsewhere when Paul speaks of
those spiritual beings that control this world he has in view evil forces (cf. 1 Cor
2:6–8; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 1:4; Col 1:13).
Moffatt offered the explanation that Paul refers to the angels because they were
regarded as guardians of the created order. He wrote: ―Paul has in mind the
midrash on Gn. 1:26ff , which made good angels not only mediators of the law
(Gal 3:19), but guardians of the created order….‖20
Consequently, a woman should
wear a covering out of respect for those rational beings who were present at the
creation and are concerned with the maintenance of that creation.
To this function of angels, Moffatt adds yet another, which some commentators
give as the only one, namely, the angels are thought to assist at gatherings of public
worship. Fitzmyer supports this opinion from the Qumran literature which
mentions the presence of angels in sacred gatherings. According to this literature
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—54
no form of uncleanness or blemish should be allowed in the public assembly
because it would be offensive to the angels present in the congregation. He
concluded: ―We are invited by the evidence from Qumran to understand that the
unveiled head of a woman is like a bodily defect [cf. vv. 5–6 , vv. 14–51 ] which
18 18. The ancient notion followed by some modern commentators that the veil protected the woman
against evil angels who lust after them (cf. Gen 6:1–4) must be rejected because nowhere else does the
New Testament conceptualize angels in this way, and the notion that such beings might attack women
in the act of worship seems ridiculous.
19 19. G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956),
pp. 17-18.
20 20. James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1947), p.
152.
should be excluded from such an assembly….‖21
Fitzmyer‘s understanding,
however, is less than compelling for no evidence exists elsewhere that Paul banned
bodily defects from the assembly, and, as Hurd points out, the Qumran parallels
are ―rather distant.‖22
Ryrie considers the unveiled head as conduct offensive to the angels because it
would signify her refusal to recognize the authority of her husband. He notes, ―The
insubordination of an uncovered woman…would offend the angels who observe
the gathering of believers in their church meetings (1 Pet 1:12).‖23
The context of 1
Corinthians 11 strongly suggests that Paul has in mind not to offend the angels, but
the reference to 1 Peter 1:12 is less than convincing, for in that passage the angels
were presented as rational beings seeking to learn about God from the revelation of
Himself on earth. But elsewhere Paul presents both the cosmic powers and angels
as spectators of men‘s actions (cf. 1 Cor 4:9; Eph 3:10; 1 Tim 3:16). Synthesizing
the best from the above interpretations, it may be concluded that the uncovered and
therefore insubordinate woman would offend the angels because they are the
custodians of the created order. Moreover, such insubordination would occur in the
sight of those whom the saints will judge (1 Cor 6:3), an unthinkable incongruity.
In 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 Paul interrupts the flow of his argument by noting
that after the original creation God designed a mutual dependence of the sexes in
carrying on the creation. This is especially true ―in the Lord‖ because in Him they
are not only equal in their humanity but they are also spiritual equals having been
baptized together into His body (1 Cor 12:13). Applying this truth to life will
produce a spirit of humility, mutual respect for each other, and dependence on
God.
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—55
The Disgrace of One’s Literal Head (11:13-15 )
21 21. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1974), p. 200.
22 22. Ibid., p. 204.
23 23. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), p.
303.
Paul now turns to the nature of the creation and draws the conclusion that it
corroborates the order of creation. The order of creation shows that improper dress
disgraces one‘s positional head and deprives him of the honor and glory with
which the Creator endowed him. Nature, on the other hand, shows that improper
dress disgraces one‘s literal head. Here the apostle personifies ―nature‖ as a
teacher of what is seemly and becoming. Since Paul invites his readers to judge for
themselves whether or not nature teaches that long hair dishonors a man‘s head but
honors a woman‘s head, it would be pompous and fatuous to defend his view. This
reality is grasped intuitively or not at all. So then the appropriate covering of the
head according to one‘s sex is congruent with the natural state of creation and not
contradictory to it.
When Paul says that a woman‘s hair ―is given her for (ἀνηί) a covering,‖ he
cannot mean ―in place of‖ a covering, but rather ―asking for‖ a covering. Although
the Greek preposition frequently implies substitution, that is not its sense here, for
such a meaning would render the rest of the argument, especially that in verses 5–6
, nonsensical. Therefore, the preposition is used here nearer to its original meaning
of ―over against.‖ Her long hair stands ―over against‖ and ―corresponds to‖ the
covering desiderated for the public assembly.24
Conclusion (11:16 )
Although the argument from nature may be debated since it must be judged for
oneself, the practice of covering one‘s head appropriate to one‘s sex is not open to
debate as seen in the fact that the whole apostolic church, both Jewish and Gentile,
taught and practiced this regulation. Jewett correctly comments on this point:
Therefore the apostle‘s remark (v. 16 ) that the churches of God have no such
custom (ζςνηθεία) of women unveiling themselves during public worship cannot
mean that he regarded the whole matter as mere custom. Though one may argue
that such indeed is the case, one cannot say that this is what the text means.
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—56
24 24. For an opposite interpretation see William J. Martin, “1 Corinthians 11:2–16: An Interpretation,” in
Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 231-41.
Quite the contrary, this particular custom, in the thinking of Paul, was part of the
apostolic tradition which he had given them and by which they were bound. This,
in fact, is the note on which he opens the whole discussion, praising them for
holding fast the traditions (παπαδόζειρ) ―even as I delivered them to you‖ (v. 2 ).25
Unfortunately, Jewett goes on to say that males have been ―slow to acknowledge
the inadequacy of the argument.‖26
Some argue that even as the modern church has superseded Paul‘s instruction
concerning the subordination of slaves to their masters by freeing the slaves on the
basis of Christian principles, so the modern church is rightfully liberating women
from their subordinate social position on the basis of those principles and truths
suggested at the beginning of this article. But the analogy cannot stand. Paul never
grounded his instructions concerning the behavioral relationship of master and
slave to the abiding order of creation. Rather he both expressly and obliquely
suggests that Christians move beyond this institution. To the Corinthians he says
explicitly, ―If you are able to be free, rather do that‖ (1 Cor 7:21). In his letter to
Philemon he obliquely suggests that Philemon grant the runaway slave Onesimus
legal manumission. It is clear then that Paul did not teach there should be an
abiding master-slave relationship; rather he attempted to humanize the institution
through Christian principles. But in the case of the male-female relationship he
grounded his teaching on theological principles as old and enduring as the creation
itself. Later on, in his letter to Ephesus, he based the husband-wife relationship on
the eternal relationship of Christ and His church.
This writer concludes, then, that a woman who prays or prophesies in an
assembly of believers should cover her head as a symbol of her submission to the
absolute will of God who has ordered His universe according to His own good
pleasure. This picture of His rule must not be seized by believers into their own
hands to shape it according to their own pleasure. Ahaz incurred the Wrath of God
by changing the shape of the altar to conform it to Assyrian demands (2 Kings
16:10–11). Of course, the appearance of the headdress will change, just as the
25 25. Jewett, Man as Male and Female, p. 118.
26 26. Ibid.
practice of the Lord‘s Supper may vary from culture to culture, but the symbol
must be present or the reality and its truth may be lost. Thus the face with which
BSac—V135 #537—Jan 78—57
God chose to reveal Himself to the world is one that the world desperately needs to
see, namely, a man who displays the image and glory of God through Christ, and a
woman who, despite her ontological equality with the man, submits to him.
In the historical process of administering His church, however, God has been
pleased with the completion of the canon of Scripture to withdraw the gift of
prophecy. In the practice of the churches today the apostolic teaching has relevance
directly only to prayer. In this writer‘s judgment, however, it would be well for
Christian women to wear head coverings at church meetings as a symbol of an
abiding theological truth.
1
1Bibliotheca Sacra . 1998 (electronic edition.). Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary.