Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 9
The lesson claims verse 10 is mistranslated (“symbol of authority”) and should read “power/authority over her head,” tying it to modesty, hair, and guarding against gazes (humans, good angels, demons); what parts of that argument feel compelling or disturbing, and what would you need to be convinced that uncovered hair can legitimately be treated as an issue of modesty?
Another way to ask: The lesson says verse 10 should mean a woman has “authority over her head,” connected to modesty and guarding against wrong attention (people, angels, demons). What feels convincing or troubling about that, and what would you need to believe that uncovered hair can be a modesty issue?

Direct Answer Based on Finny’s teaching, the compelling part is his grammatical case that verse 10 speaks of a woman having “power over” her head (control over what’s displayed), which naturally links to modesty; the disturbing part is the claim that uncovered hair can function like “nakedness,” which challenges modern instincts and requires re-learning biblical and historical categories.

Support from Transcript:

  • He argues “symbol of” is added: in NKJV/NASB it’s italicized because “it’s not in the original Greek,” and he contends “this should not be there.”
  • He prefers KJV: “the woman ought to have power on her head,” closer to Greek “exusian… epi… genitive,” like “power over the nations/waters/fire” (Revelation 2:26; 11:6; 14:18).
  • He says this explains early church modesty reading: “verse 10 explains why… the early church… took 1 Corinthians 11 to be about modesty,” citing Clement and Tertullian.
  • He supports “uncovered = shame” with Isaiah 47:2–3: “Remove your veil… Your nakedness shall be uncovered… your shame will be seen,” and mentions Numbers 5 uncovering as humiliation.
  • He adds a pagan witness (Apuleius) about lustfully seeking “heads and tresses,” and modern marketing examples showing hair is “erotic and enticing.”
  • He broadens “angels” as “messengers”: good angels, demons, and humans; demons “move in” when women are immodest; humans can be tempted.
Discussion Follow-ups What would it take for us to let Scripture (Isaiah/Numbers) define “shame” instead of our culture? How should we weigh early church consensus and cross-cultural modesty instincts against modern American normalizing?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10
Back Questions Next