I have a friend on Facebook who posted some comments about Jason M. Garwood’s book on head covering, Paul & Head Covering: A Biblical Reassessment.
Garwood splashed on the scene back in 2024, with an article on Kuyperian. You can read the article here. I’m sure the book is nothing more than his expansion of the article, which was nothing more than an elaborate way of saying: “Has God indeed said?”
This is how those who oppose head coverings always handle 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. They find creative ways of saying the section does not say what it says. For Garwood, his creative way out is to say that the first portion (verses 4-9), is actually a quote that the “contumacious Corinthian men” were saying, and that he is coming along to help us see that Paul wasn’t actually saying this. His only support for this solution is that Paul makes other quotes elsewhere, so why can’t verses 4-9 be a quote?
Hardly proof.
There is nothing in the text that sets these verses apart as a quote. There are no clear grammatical, rhetorical, or transitional signals (like “you say” or obvious shifts). This makes the boundaries arbitrary and the theory “contrived” or “overly complex.”
Garwood even admits this, saying this is “one simple line of thinking.” The problem with that is that if Garwood is wrong, and he is, then he is leading women to believe that they are under their own authority (see below), and can make up their own minds about head coverings (unless they are in favor of wearing them). He is basically allowing women to sin against Christ’s word, through his “one simple line of thinking.” That is the problem with those who take this position. They have no real clear evidence that their position is correct. Garwood couches many of the things he says in phrases like “it seems” or “I believe,” never focusing on what the text actually says.
Again, this is what people do when they don’t like to accept what a text actually says. They go to great lengths to show just how complicated the text is, asking all kinds of questions, giving all kinds of irrelevant opinions, all in the hopes of making it look like they are the only ones that can make sense of the passage. And of course, the only sense they can make of the passage is that it is not saying that women should wear head coverings in worship or while praying, even though that is what the text is saying.
You never see those of us who advocate for head coverings in worship, looking to the culture of the Greco-Roman world, or the culture of Corinth, or the culture of the Jews. This is because we know that the surrounding culture is irrelevant. While head coverings for men were prescribed in the Old Testament, as Garwood notes, Paul isn’t writing to those under the Old Covenant. He is writing to those under the New Covenant. Things have changed.
The veil in the temple was torn, meaning that men who belong to Christ do not have to wear coverings on their heads as those under the Old Covenant did. Through Christ’s blood, we are admitted into the holy of holies. As the glory of Christ, men are not to cover so that Christ’s glory shines forth. Women do cover so that their glory does not compete with God’s in worship (see Bnonn Tennant’s article here).
Now, here is Garwood’s main point. Using a chiastic structure, he shows that verse 10 is the focus of the text, which reads: Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
He makes the case that the word “a symbol” is not in the Greek. (It is not, and I’m in favor of leaving them out of the translation). But then goes on to say that the Greek phrase that means “authority on her head” is like a king who wears a crown. His authority is on his head, and therefore, her authority is on her head.
Basically, Garwood is saying that the woman has her own authority and can make up her own mind about head coverings (unless she chooses to wear one, then she is sinning — see Uri Brito, who doesn’t go as far as to say the woman is sinning, but makes it clear, head covering is not welcome in his church).
The problem with Garwood’s position of the authority on a woman’s head as her own is that this isn’t possible given the context. We are already given the order of authority before we get to verse 10. It is what Paul expressly says he wants us to understand… in other words, this is Paul’s main point: But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
This headship is one of authority, yet Garwood fails to see it:
Pro-head coverers who are partial to patriarchalism[18] assume that the issue in the text is primarily about authority and submission, whereas I have pointed out, the only mention of authority is in verse 10.[19] Scholars have long debated what kephalē(“head”) means. I cannot exhaust that discussion here. Sometimes the word means the literal part of the body[20] that contains the brain, sometimes it can mean “ruler,” other times it can refer to higher rank. Sometimes it can refer to “source of life.”
He does what these men always do: he points out the debate around the meaning of “head” which is nothing but a red herring. It is kind of obvious given the structure of the sentence. But more on that below.
Then he quotes egalitarian Gordon Fee:
“Paul’s understanding of the metaphor, therefore, and almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped, is “head” as “source,” especially “source of life,” or origin. This seems to be corroborated by the two explanatory sentences in the next paragraph (vv. 8–9), the only place where one of these relationships is picked up further in Paul’s argument.”
The problem with this explanation is that if “head” means source of life, as they claim verses 8-9 indicate, then how does that apply to Christ and God? Is God the source of life for the Second Person of the Trinity? Because if that is true, then Jesus was given His source of life from God, showing that He is a created being.
Garwood can’t just muddy the waters on this and keep going. This is irresponsible on his part. Yes, God is the head of Christ, in the economy of the God-man. But the two are still of the same essence and authority.
Christ is the head of man. He is also the source of man, and the source of the new man. This means the man in Christ is a new creation, with Christ as the sovereign King over him. The King actually has authority over man as the head of man.
Man also has authority over the woman. While he was the source of woman, in the Garden, he is now her authority, just as Christ is his authority. Matthew Henry puts it this way:
“…as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the whole human kind, so the man is the head of the two sexes: not indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the kind or God has over the man Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he has, and the woman should be in subjection and not assume or usurp the man’s place.”
It seems to me that the egalitarian Garwood is turning this principle on its head by claiming that the authority on the woman is that of her own. This plays right into the feminist mindset of the day and is one reason such papers like Garwood’s are so popular.
They are also easy. Men are basically cowards, playing Adam in the garden by remaining quiet on what the text in 1 Corinthians 11 says. They don’t want to know what it says. Life is so much easier by not saying what it says. Yet, this is not being a man. We are called to wield the sword, and the sword we must wield even when it is unpopular.
The issue of head coverings is important. Many want to discount it as a little thing, but Jesus made it clear, he who is faithful in the small things will be blessed in the large things as well. Yet, I don’t think this is a little thing because it muddies the waters of the distinction between men and women. It opens the door for women to take on the appearance of men and is part of the reason there is so much gender confusion in the culture. The church is to be the pillar of truth in society, and when men like Garwood come along with his errant “line of thinking,” it weakens the church.
Women should rejoice at wearing head coverings because in doing so, they are honoring their head, and Christ. Yet, men like Garwood and Brito want to make them ashamed of their humility before the LORD. The shame should be on men like these, and not women for seeking to please Christ.
(For an analysis of Garwood’s tactics in his article by Grok, go here.
