Although Corinth was in Greece, it was a strongly Roman city. It had been re-established as a Roman colony, through which there was a deliberate attempt to encourage Roman language, laws and religious practices.

Rome was a highly class-conscious society. Seats at the theatre were marked out to show social distinction: important people at the front, slaves at the back, other classes in between. Clothing played its part in marking social class: you were what you wore.

In the large civic building at the end of the forum in Corinth stood a larger-than-life statue of the Emperor Augustus, his head covered by his toga as he offered sacrifice.[1] Augustus had been appointed pontifex maximus (chief priest of Rome) in 13 BC. Roman priests regarded it as essential to cover their heads when offering sacrifice. In this context we can understand “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head [i.e. Christ].” In other words, any brother who followed Roman practice gave the impression of honouring not Christ but the Roman gods.

 He would do this in several ways:

(a)  People would see him in the same light as they had seen him before he became a Christian, and would think of him as giving glory to Zeus or one or other of the pagan gods.

(b)  Only an elite citizen would do this, so for a Christian brother to do so would be to claim a higher position than the others brothers, thereby claiming a leadership position for himself instead of honouring God as a servant, modelled on Jesus as “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27).

By contrast, headcovering for women had a different significance. In Paul’s native city of Tarsus it was the custom for women to be totally veiled. Dio Chrysostom (first century AD) wrote:

...many of the customs still in force [in Tarsus] reveal in one way or another the sobriety and severity of deportment of those earlier days [i.e. first century BC]. Among these is the convention regarding feminine attire, a convention which prescribes that women should be so arrayed and should so deport themselves when in the street that nobody could see any part of them, neither of the face nor of the rest of the body, and that they themselves might not see anything off the road.                         

(Thirty-Third Discourse, 48)

It does not follow that the practice in Corinth was the same, but this shows how the veiling of women was perceived at least in some places. Plutarch describes putting on a veil as part of the marriage ceremony.[2] According to various ancient sources, respectable wives always wore veils in public. Any wife who did not wear a veil would be thought to be renouncing her marriage vows and her action would be grounds for divorce. The Jewish Talmud said:

The following married women are to be divorced without the marriage portion: Such as go out with their heads uncovered. ... It is a godless man who sees his wife go out with her head uncovered. He is duty bound to divorce her. [3]

Tertullian, about 201 AD, commented:

Among the Jews the veil upon the head of their women is so sacred a custom, that by it they may be distinguished.                     (De Corona, IV)

Feelings in the Roman world were similar.  The intention of being veiled was to hide the woman from the gaze of other men, and thus indicate that she was to be seen by her husband alone.[4] This explanation of the veil is given by Valerius Maximus writing in the first century AD about Gaius Sulpicius Gallus, Roman consul in 166 BC:

He divorced his wife because he had caught her outdoors with her head uncovered: a stiff penalty, but not without a certain logic. “The law,” he said, “prescribes for you my eyes alone to which you may prove your beauty. For these eyes you should provide the ornaments of beauty, for these be lovely: entrust yourself to their more certain knowledge. If you with needless provocation, invite the look of anyone else, you must be suspected of wrongdoing.”            (Memorable Deeds and Sayings, 6. 9.)

1 Corinthians 11:5 says:

… any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head [i.e. her husband] – it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.

According to Dio Chrysostom (first-second century AD) :

a woman guilty of adultery shall have her hair cut off according to the law and play the prostitute                   (Dio Chrysostom, Oration 64.3)[5]

If this is the attitude in society, it is understandable that married women in the ecclesia who were taking a prominent part by praying and prophesying might be thought to be denying their marriage relationship if they did not wear the customary veil. This was probably not their intention, but it is how many people could perceive what they were doing.[6] If we consider how this problem may have arisen, it could be because meetings took place in houses. The brothers and sisters were, in Christ, a family and when at home with the family women would not feel the need to be veiled. However, in a sense the meeting was in public, and Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians 14:23 of “outsiders or unbelievers” entering. The sisters may not have been deliberately flouting conventions, but there was a risk that this is how their lack of a veil could be seen.

Women in the Ancient World

Women in the ancient world were always very much second class citizens. The extent to which they could act independently from their husbands or male guardians varied, but women had nothing like the freedom and independence – social, financial, or educational – of women today. The opportunity provided within the ecclesia was a radical change, and it is not surprising, therefore, that difficulties arose.

Valerius Maximus expressed Roman disapproval of women taking part in activities regarded as a man’s preserve:

What business has a woman with a public meeting? If the ancient custom be observed, none.[7]

It may be that, because in Christ they could pray and prophesy like the brothers, they considered (probably rightly) that in itself traditional manners of dress were no longer appropriate. What they failed to realise was the need to take account of the extent to which they could endanger the spreading of the Gospel by rejecting accepted concepts of propriety or by appearing to reject their marriage vows. If some sisters in Corinth were rejecting (or appearing to reject) their marriage relationship, it is understandable why Paul needed to remind them of what was universally agreed: “… the head of every woman is her husband.”