Praying with Your Head Uncovered

By Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Girzhel

Thank you to my friends for your support and encouragement!

Warning and disclaimer: This article is for adults only. It is rated “R+” and in no way represents scholarly consensus. This article is based on two peer-reviewed journal articles: Martin, Troy. “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13–15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering.”  Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 1 (2004): 75–84 and “The Veil and the ΦΑΛΛΟΣ: A Note on the Translation of περιβόλαιον in 1 Corinthians 11:15.” Novum Testamentum 58, no. 2 (2016): 139–50. For a dissenting opinion, please see Goodacre, Mark. “Does Peribolaion Mean ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15? A Lexical and Exegetical Discussion.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 2 (Summer 2011): 391–96.

The Ancient Puzzle

The Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians presents one of the New Testament’s most perplexing and culture-and-time-specific passages. We read:

³ But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, ⁵ but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. ⁶ For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. ⁷ For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. ⁹ Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; ¹² for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. ¹³ Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, ¹⁵ but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. (1 Cor 11:3-16)

For centuries, theologians have grappled with Paul’s argumentation, which is grounded in concepts of honor, disgrace, nature (φύσις, physis), and an enigmatic saying, “because of the angels,” among other things in this text. But recently, the groundbreaking scholarly work of Professor Troy W. Martin demonstrated that the key to understanding this passage lies in the unfamiliar-to-us ancient Greco-Roman (faulty) medical consensus.

By interpreting Paul’s argument through the lens of first-century medical scientific thought (today we would have called it pseudoscience), Professor Troy W. Martin explains a rationale that, while foreign to contemporary minds, would have been immediately comprehensible to the Corinthians. This essay will look at Martin’s argument that “nature” here refers to the biological ideas of the time, linking hair to reproductive anatomy, and that the “covering” (περιβόλαιον, peribolaion) should be understood as a metaphor for “male testicles.”

The Principal Issue in 1 Corinthians 11

The central contention of Paul’s discourse is whether men and women ought to pray or prophesy with heads covered or uncovered. A man who does so with his head covered “dishonors his head,” and a woman who does so with her head uncovered “dishonors her head” and is as one whose head is shaved (11:4–6). Paul bases this distinction upon a chain of being (“the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband…”) and, most significantly, upon an appeal to “nature” (φύσις, physis):

“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering (περιβόλαιον, peribolaion).” (1 Cor. 11:14-15, ESV)

It is at verse 15 that interpretation becomes particularly complex. If a woman’s long hair is given to her as a “covering” (περιβόλαιον), why does Paul repeatedly insist within the passage that she must wear an additional physical veil? Such an interpretation appears to generate a contradiction. Paul’s rhetorical question, “Is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (11:13), also suggests that the answer should be self-evident from “nature” (φύσις). What conception of nature renders this response so apparent?

Interpretive struggles center on Paul’s use of “nature” (φύσις). Is the veil about cultural symbolism, marital authority, or created order? Yet if so, why does Paul’s culminating proof rest on the intrinsic disgrace of long male hair? This suggests his “nature” isn’t modern convention, but a first-century physiological understanding of the human body itself, making the biological argument his self-evident foundation.

Hair as Reproductive Anatomy

Given that all explanations offered by scholars over the centuries have ultimately proven unsatisfactory, let us consider an alternative that, despite its initially startling effect, in the end makes a remarkably coherent case.

Professor Troy Martin proposes that ancient medical views on physiology provide the missing piece of the puzzle. He demonstrates that within Greco-Roman medical literature—particularly the works of Hippocrates and Aristotle—hair (θρίξ, τρίχες, thrix, triches) was conceived of as a living, hollow structure integral to the reproductive system.  This ancient, misguided but still scientific perspective, prevalent two millennia ago, shockingly held the following:

Semen Production and Storage: The brain was believed to generate or store semen (σπέρμα, sperma).

Hair as a Conduit: Because hair was considered hollow, it functioned as a conduit for this reproductive fluid. Its primary role was to attract, channel, or retain semen.

Sexual Differentiation: Semen was thought to descend from the brain throughout the body during puberty. In males, their “hotter” nature (φύσις, physis) caused the semen to be “frothed” outward, producing body hair and facilitating seminal emission. Long hair on a man was problematic because it would draw semen upward to the head and away from the genitalia, thereby contravening his natural function.

The Female Physis: A woman’s body, by contrast, was designed to draw semen inward and upward to facilitate conception. Her long hair enhanced the uterine suction. Thus, long hair was not merely ornamental but functionally integral to female reproduction. Martin cites pseudo-Phocylides: “Long hair is not for men but for voluptuous women.”

In the outdated physiological framework Paul was using, his argument becomes clearer. Long hair on a man is “disgraceful” because it is contrary to his φύσις (nature). For a woman, long hair is her “glory” because it is essential to her nature.

Martin shows that in specific contexts, the plural περιβόλαια (peribolaia) means “testicles.” Therefore, 1 Corinthians 11:15 can be read: “Her hair is given to her instead of testicles [a περιβόλαιον].” A woman’s hair serves the procreative function corresponding to male organs, acting as an extension of her genitalia.

Clarifying the Practical Injunction

Paul is essentially asking the Corinthians, “You judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her genitalia uncovered?” (cf. 11:13). The answer, grounded in Jewish religious customs that forbade exposure to genitalia during worship, would have been a resounding negative. Therefore, during worship, her hair—being her functional genitalia—must be covered with a veil. The veil is not superfluous; it is an essential garment of modesty necessitated by hair’s physiological significance.

“Because of the Angels”

This helps explain the passage’s most mysterious line: “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (11:10)

This, with a high level of certainty, connects to the story in Genesis 6. There, heavenly beings (“sons of God”) saw human women, had sexual relations with them, and had giant offspring. We read:

הַנְּפִלִ֞ים הָי֣וּ בָאָ֘רֶץ֮ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵם֒ וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם׃

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when (וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ) the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. (Gen 6:4)

The Hebrew can be interpreted in two ways: as a one-time event (indicating that those things happened back then) or as an ongoing possibility, suggesting “whenever” instead of “when.”  Paul knew this well, and he was familiar with traditions like the book of 1 Enoch, which elaborated and sought to fill in “the gaps” in the Genesis narrative regarding the heavenly rebellion of Genesis 6:1-4.

In Paul’s time, medical and cultural views strongly argued that a woman’s hair was part of her sexuality, and her uncovered hair was inappropriate for everyone to see. However, he was particularly concerned about the angels. In a worship setting filled with spiritual beings (“angels”), leaving it uncovered could risk repeating the ancient transgression that caused immense chaos in the Biblical world (Gen 6:4-6). The veil is a sign of the authority of a human husband over the angelic transgressor; it properly contains and protects human sexuality from that spiritual disorder.

Conclusion

Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11 was crafted for a specific congregation navigating the intersection of worship, cultural propriety, and the scientific understanding of their era. By employing the prevailing Greco-Roman medical consensus—which viewed hair as an extension of the reproductive system—Paul provided a physiological rationale for head coverings that would have been immediately persuasive to his original audience. The veil served as a necessary garment of modesty, ensuring that worship was conducted “decently and in order.” Furthermore, his cryptic directive “because of the angels” rooted this practice in a potent theological narrative: the prevention of a repeat of the angelic transgression described in Genesis 6, where boundaries between the spiritual and human realms were catastrophically breached.

This historical reconstruction, however, prompts two profound questions for contemporary readers, as highlighted in the responses above. First, if we conclude that the ancient medical rationale is obsolete and the specific injunction about veils is culturally bound, does that also mean we dismiss the implied premise that angelic beings are present in our worship? Second, does our modern worldview cause us to overlook the same metaphysical realities—the existence and activity of unseen spiritual beings—that the ancients took for granted?

These are not merely academic questions. They strike at the heart of how we apply scripture. The lasting principle of Paul’s argument is the call to reverence and communal care within worship, a principle that must be incarnated anew in every cultural context. For Paul’s community, that meant veils. For us, it will mean something different. Yet the underlying theological assertion—that our worship occurs within a cosmos populated by spiritual realities, including angelic beings—remains a consistent biblical theme. Whether and how the warning “because of the angels” translates today is a matter for theological discernment. It challenges us to consider if our application of biblical texts, in rightly contextualizing ancient practices, sometimes risks over-correcting and dismissing enduring spiritual truths about the very nature of reality.

Thus, our task is twofold. We must, with historical integrity, understand passages like 1 Corinthians 11 within their first-century framework, freeing ourselves from literalistic misapplications. But we must also, with theological humility, remain open to the possibility that the ancients perceived dimensions of spiritual existence that our own context may obscure. The goal is not to reinstate the veil but to cultivate a posture of reverence that is both intelligible to our modern world and faithful to the biblical witness of a created order, seen and unseen.