Guest Post: The Head Covering Issue for Paul - An Exegetical and Historical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16

By Romeo Fulga

In order to find out the truth we need to look deeper than a simplistic analysis on the surface of the text. First, we need to understand the nature of text in front of us as a Sitz im Leben account regarding the issue of authority in the Church of Corinth.  The main argument of Paul here is that women need to be under the authority of the man, and as such, Paul uses the term ἐξουσία (authority).  Covering comes as secondary in Paul's argument, as a means by which this 'placing' under the authority of the man was customarily expressed in their Greco-Roman culture. During that time, in their society, married women covered their hair in order to show submission to their husbands. In Paul's address it is obvious that he thinks he is dealing with a breach in community, hence his extensive and varied arguments.  He advises women to adhere to the customs and practices of their society, for the sake of the integrity of the Christian community.  In the Greek text, the language and grammar used by Paul is very casual and culturally loaded. Paul's choice of words and expressions vividly shows the cultural nature of the head covering issue.

In the exegesis below we will see this truth.  The subject is very vast, however I will do it succinctly since I do not have the time (nor is it the space here) to go in minute historical detail.

I.  The Variegated Cultural milieu of Corinth.

We can see the cultural aspect permeating the entire pericope.  Chapter one reveals four distinct cultures present in Corinth behind the four representative "pillars" mentioned in verses 11 and 12.  Verse 12 especially is the crux when it comes to proper interpretation and understanding of this epistle. "For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, 'I am of Paul,' and 'I of Apollos,' and 'I of Cephas,' and 'I of Christ'. (1 Cor. 11-12)"  These groups show a variegated cultural environment in the church of Corinth that gave birth to much discord, dissension and rivalry between these four (at least) groups that formed that congregation.  Their allegiance to their leader is most probably on the basis of cultural mindset and not doctrines and teaching, although elements of the latter two may have been present too.

The group behind Peter were mostly Jews coming from a more rudimentary cultural background. They were most probably Jews that have been converted through Peter somewhere else either in Jerusalem or diaspora, who moved later in Corinth after the church has been established by Paul.  They were most probably  marked by deep Judaic convictions rooted in the OT law, similar to the Judaizers mentioned elsewhere.  Those behind Apollos were mostly Greeks and/or Hellenized Jews probably born in diaspora, originating from Corinth and Ephesus, having been evangelized and converted by Apollos.  They were better educated and with a more sophisticated cultural makeup, being rooted in the Hellenistic wisdom (Sophia) tradition that Apollos represented, and were deeply marked by Hellenistic intellectualism as well as Greek philosophical and rhetorical mindset.  The group associated with Paul were mostly of gentile origins and were characterized by a Pauline more libertarian outlook, namely freedom from the law and and a gospel of grace.  They could be the core initial group that converted at the preaching of Paul and his helpers.  The group that Paul associates with Christ, were probably Christians of mixed origination, that followed a more strict Jesus tradition.  Since the Gospels were not written yet, there were plenty of oral and written traditions circulating among Christians, about the teachings and sayings of Jesus.  They probably did not want to identify themselves with any of their contemporary leaders (Paul, Apollos or Peter).  This variegated religious, social and cultural milieu have generated many debates among these groups in Corinth, on many issues, and this was the reason Paul addressed to them this pericope of the epistle.

This pericope is impregnated with many difficulties of differing nature.  These difficulties were both of theological, such as the issue of the chain of authority in creation, angels, etc., and cultural, such as hair and cover issues of men and women.   Paul at one point addresses a problem caused by a group and then at another point he attends to a problem caused by another group, sometimes in the same verse.  When we interpret this passage, we need to keep in mind the situational nature of the epistles in which the author addresses specific issues, subjects or problems.  The situational characteristics are visible here too. The following exegesis and commentary will attempt to discern through these difficulties and offer an explanation based on the text and culture of the recipients. 

II. Exegesis Proper and commentary.

A.  In the first subdivision of the pericope (verses 2-6) Paul offers an argument from culture and shame.

In verse 2, after reinforcing his apostolic authority, Paul uses the term παράδοσις (traditions), indicating the cultural nature of his subject here.  It is evident that Paul was teaching Corinthians these traditions when he was in Corinth.  He commends them for "remembering" the traditions he taught them at the time of his visit there.  Paul by referring to his teachings as being traditions, in this case, with reference to the head covering that follows, Paul shows unequivocally, right at the onset, that this issue is a cultural one.

In verse 3 Paul's argument is theological in nature.  He goes directly into the subject of authority by using the term κεφαλὴ (head, corner-stone, ruler, source).  The usage of this term in the present context is metaphorical having the meaning "source."  The adversative conjunction δὲ (thus, therefore, moreover) that introduces the next verses, connects Paul's thought in this verse to the previous verse, indicating that Paul is elaborating on some of these traditions mentioned in verse 2.  He starts with the milder expression "I want you to know" suggesting that Paul's language in what follows is casual. What he wants them to know, has the form of a "theologoumenon" (theological statement) in his following thesis.

Thus, Paul establishes the "umbrellas" or chain of authority by the use of the "source" argument.  God is the source of Christ, then Christ is the source of man, and lastly the man is the source of the woman, thus exercising authority over her.  This statement is in fact the thesis of Paul's argument in this pericope.  In terms of creation, Christ is the source of man's life and soteriologically, in terms of the "new creation," Christ is the source of the believing man (in Col. 1:18 Paul portrays Christ as the head of the church in a context signifying that He is the source of its very being/existence.  Nevertheless, the final clause of Paul's thesis is not necessarily a Christological statement in the ontological sense, but rather it refers to the incarnational work of Christ.  Next Paul will proceed with the issue of head covering for men.

In verse 4, Paul addresses the culture of the Jews, since the Greeks or Romans did not have a problem with covering their head.  He proceeds by showing the workings of this authority chain in the relationship between the man and the woman.  Going down the chain established in his thesis, Paul starts here with the man, stating that, according to the traditions of that time in the Roman Diaspora, the man that prays with the head covered dishonors his head, namely Christ. Archeological and literary evidence in Rome and the rest of the Roman empire shows that the practice of the man praying with the head covered was considered shameful (numerous studies of social and cultural anthropology in Roman society underlines this point as well as the point about women in the next verse). This was the situation in Corinth with regards to the Jews in that congregation who were praying with their heads covered. Here Paul goes directly after a Jewish tradition that was considered shameful in the Greco-Roman settings. The statement in this verse serves as the basis for Paul's argument regarding the women in the following verses. 

The dual participial formula προσευχόμενοςἢ προφητεύων (prays and prophesies) is a liturgical construct indicating that Paul has in view Christian worship and thus he is representing the dual facets of this worship.  Note that the main verb here is the present indicative active verb is καταισχύνω (to confuse, frustrate, dishonor, disgrace, humiliate, disappoint).  Paul's reference here, as the context shows, is not long hair but rather a cloth head covering.  The choice of Paul's verbiage here shows the cultural aspect of his argument again. Kαταισχύνω is used in a context of societal human relationships as well as relationships between divinity and humanity. It is a weak term, not as strong as other terms Paul could have used such as offend, insult, affront, etc. (used often by Paul in doctrinal issues).

In verse 5, by way of contrast Paul links his argument regarding the woman to the previous verse using an antithetic parallelism, again through the adversative conjunction δὲ.  This verse and the next one targets the Greek group using arguments from the Greek society and culture, since the Jewish women did not have the habit of uncovering their head.  Paul is saying that, in the same manner, the woman who prays with her head uncovered, dishonors her head, namely the man (in terms of male-female relationships) not the husband, as the context of verses 3-4 and the analogy of the verses 5-6 clearly shows.  The verb here is yet again καταισχύνω pointing to the cultural aspect of the issue at hand.  By using the analogy of having the hair shaven Paul is pointing again to a cultural custom.  As the Greco-Roman literature shows, the custom of having the head of a woman shaved, was used in those times and culture, to put an unfaithful woman to shame, or to disgrace her in the sight of the people looking at her.  Building on this common predicate, Paul actually states that for a woman to have her hair uncovered is ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ (is indeed one and the same) thing with being shaven.  It is extremely important to note that Paul never makes this kind of comparisons (doing this is the same thing as doing that) when uttering a command or affirming a doctrine.

In verse 6, continuing the theme of woman's shame (started in verse 5b) Paul says that if the two things, namely being uncovered and being shaven, are one and the same, then she might as well shave her head bringing thus shame on her.  Note again Paul's style in this verse pointing unequivocally to custom and culture. It is needless to say again that Paul never writes this way (if this, then she should do that) in doctrinal or commandment contexts.  But if doing so is indeed shameful, then Paul urges women in the final conditional sentence, to cover their heads.  This analogy demonstrates vividly the cultural aspect of the head covering issue since having the hair shaven does not signify shame anymore in our culture in the present.  The conclusion ensuing from these verses is that literal enforcement of the head covering to the church in all cultures and all times is not mandatory.  This is also confirmed by the absence of such advice in the rest of the New Testament.

B. In the second subdivision of the pericope (verses 7-12) Paul is submitting an argument from creation. 

In verse 7, Paul ties both the Jews and the Greek together, thus repeating by way of review his arguments of verses 4-6.  Here he uses the present active indicative verb ὀφείλω (to owe morally, to be indebted, to be obliged to rectify a debt, ought).  Paul's choice of the verb here again demonstrates the cultural aspect of the issue.  "The verb "ought" is a weaker term than the verb "must," and is translated in various English translations as "should."  The overarching meaning of this term in scriptures is that of "moral necessity" thus the casual language of Paul is again evident.  It is important to remember that having the head covered in no longer a moral necessity in our day.  His language and stylistic tenor in our pericope suggests advice rather than commandment.  By using the explicating conjunction γάρ, connecting this verse to the preceding paragraph, and through the use of the contrasting particles, Paul aims to reinforce the point made in vs. 4-6. 

The structure of this paragraph suggests that Paul now offers a supporting argument for the content of the preceding paragraph.  He does so by presenting the reason for it, namely because the man is the image and glory of God and the woman is the glory of man.  This is indeed surprising since in verse 3 Paul states that Christ not God is the source of man.   Here the conditional factor of being covered, in reference to the woman, is missing.  Note that it does not say that the covered woman is the glory of man.  She is simply presented as the glory of man with or without the veil.  Therefore, the authority of man over woman, which is the main point of the entire pericope, is made manifest in Paul's expression here. 

The phrase εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα (image and glory) draws its force from the semantics of Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:18, 22 where the LXX term borrowed here by Paul is εἰκὼν and refers to the Hebrew term "tselem" (image). By using the word δόξα (glory) the author borrows from the LXX, by way of parallelism, the term ομοιωσις referring to the Hebrew term "demuth" (likeness) in Gen.1:26-27.  The term glory here denotes a sign of honor.   Paul then proceeds to explain the reason why she is man's glory in the verses that follow. 

In verse 8, Paul documents, invoking an argument from creation, why the woman should place herself under the authority of man.  The term "source" of verse 3 is brought home here with detail.  The man is the source of the woman and not vice versa. In Paul's argument the source is the basis of this authority.  Literally, the verse reads this way: "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man."  By invoking the order of creation in verses 8-9 here Paul shows that the woman is the glory of man because the man was created first, directly in the image and likeness of God.

In verse 9, Paul strengthens his argument by way of repetition of the content of the previous verse as an explicating parallelism.  Here Paul qualifies his use of "source" in the preceding verse by using the aorist, passive, indicative verb ἐκτίσθη in order to denote that the woman was created for man and not the other way around. While in the preceding verse the order of creation is invoked, here Paul invokes the functional purpose of creation.

Verse 10 is the crux of Paul's argument in this pericope.  This verse is a difficult verse that has mesmerized the minds and imagination of many theologians throughout centuries, from Church fathers, through the Reformation until today and defied the explanations of Bible scholars again and again.  Paul opens his argument in this verse through the explicating expression διὰ τοῦτο (because of this, for the purpose of this) thus directly linking it to the verses 7-9.  In other words, on the established basis of the order and purpose of creation mentioned in the previous verses the woman should have authority over her. 

It is important to note that Paul does NOT say that the woman should have a sign or symbol of authority as some translations on the basis of the rich and variegated interpretive tradition of the church throughout centuries, have it. Inserting the extraneous interpretative interpolation "sign, symbol" pointing to head covering has no basis in the Greek text.  Here Paul goes into the heart of the issue, addressing the main purpose of the head covering, namely the issue of authority.  It is the authority that underlines the purpose of the head covering in the first place.  The reason given by Paul for having authority over her is the prepositional phrase διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους (because or on account of the angels). 

Note that Paul is NOT saying that the woman should wear a head covering because of the angels, rather he is saying that the woman should have ἐξουσία (authority) over her because of the angels.  These angels are the reason for the authority and NOT the cloth head covering.  Here Paul makes it clear that it is the object of the symbol (head covering) and not the symbol itself that which is important.  

It is sad that some Christian groups (such as Romanians) focus on the symbol rather than the object of that symbol.  It is the issue of authority that Paul addresses in this pericope having as a symbol in the Greco-Roman culture the head covering.  At that time when people saw women covered, they knew that they had an authority over them, namely husbands.  In this sense the head covering functioned as the wedding band of today.  It was not intended as a religious practice, but rather as a societal human relationships issue.  This aspect is no longer present in our society.  When people see women with head covering walking down the street, they, at best, know (if they even do)  that it is a religious practice.  In fact most have no clue.

The true difficulty derives directly from the ad hoc character of the passage.  The mention of the angels comes abruptly without any sign in the flow of the argument.  Although the difficulties lie in the grammar, it begins with the syntax of the passage.  The introductory formula introducing this verse by way of the inferential conjunction διὰ τοῦτο (for this reason) can be interpreted in two ways, either pointing backwards or forward.  In other words it can draw an inferred conclusion from what has been stated or it can anticipate a reason for the statement that follows, namely the finale of the passage expressed in the syntactical parallelism of the prepositional phrase διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους (because of the angels).  Most likely as Paul customarily does often in his writings, it was intended by the author to point in both directions at once.  In other words Paul is saying firstly that the woman should have authority over her for the purpose of the previously stated reason that she is the glory of the man, and secondly because it anticipated reason on the account of the angels. 

The difficulty proper within the difficulty itself is twofold, first the usage of the noun ἐξουσία(authority) and the interpretive semantics of the preposition ἐπὶ (on, to, at,on the basis of, against).  One way of interpreting the issue of authority is in a passive way, that is, the woman should have authority "over" her head.  In other words someone else has authority over her, namely the man.  The problem in this view lies in the fact that there is no known evidence of the usage either in scriptures both NT and LXX as well as the classical Greek literature, ofἐξουσία in a passive way.

Another way of interpreting this verse is to understandἐξουσία in a metonymic way referring to the head covering as many people do because many Bible translations use that expression on account of the variegated historical church traditions. Here, the veil is taken to mean the sign of authority.  However this interpretation is superfluous because it is NOT supported by the Greek text and is therefore extraneous to the scripture. 

A third way of interpreting is to understand the expression ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ (to have authority on) in the sense that the woman herself has authority in her, that is, she has the freedom or the right to chose.  However, this interpretation goes contrary to Paul's argument flow in the context of the pericope.  Given the nature of the difficulties analyzed above it seems that the easier one to reconcile is the first one, that is because an existing antecedent does not always preclude

In the last clause of the verse as we have seen, Paul mentions the angels.  The purpose and function of the angels present a perplexing difficulty for interpretation for us today.  The interpretation that women should use a veil on their head due to the"male" angels who could lust over them is not at all tenable and is at best eisegetical.  What is the identity, purpose and function of the angels then?  We must admit that we do non readily know. The usage of the word angels in other parts of Corinthian letters may at least give us a clue.  In 1 Cor. 4:9 angels are presented as a part of the whole universe in creation, and therefore on the basis of Qumran evidence as well as other texts of the Bible suggest (ie. Luke 15:10) the angels assist humans in public worship.  That is why this authority, needs to be respected when the woman prays and prophecies. At Paul's time it was expressed by wearing a veil.

How does this affect the angels we do not really know, however hierarchical order in the angelic realm as presented in the scriptures may give us a clue.  The angels function within an established chain of authority with ranks and subordinates just like we have in the army. For example, an archangel has authority over a regular angel.  These angels have no problem functioning within the parameters of the chain of authority established by God.  It is because of that humans should also do the same.  God has authority over Christ,which in turn He has authority over man, which in turn he has authority over the woman.  Some interpret this on the basis of the 1 Cor. 6:3 where Paul says that the saints will judge the angels.  Women being part of these saints should operate within the same parameters of authority chain as the angels in order not to forfeit their own authority to judge the angels.

The aspect rendering this verse truly difficult is the mention is indeed the angels. We must admit that we do not really know why Paul mentions the angels here in the context of human relationships. Most likely the solution to this perceived by us difficulty lies with the Corinthian Christians.  Nevertheless, as Gordon Fee put it, we are left outside looking in.    It is probable that the function of the angels with regards to the male-female relationship was part of the "traditions" that Paul delivered to the Corinthian church, and therefore Paul's statement was readily understood by the recipients of his letter.  Since we do not have that information, we are restricted to speculate why the angels were mentioned here.

Verses 11 and 12 unpack Paul's argument in an Aristotelian manner, as cause and effect.  The woman comes from man and gives birth to man.  In verse 11, Paul is changing his argument whereas men and women are not treated with distinction, but in unity.  In other words the Christian men and women are not separate.  Paul introduces this paragraph by way of the adversative conjunction πλὴν (nonetheless, however) and qualifies it with the ending expression ἐν Κυρίῳ (in the Lord).   It is important to note that Paul continues his thought from verse 10 by way of contrast, using two sets of sentences in which both man and woman are in balanced pairs in order to qualify the previous difficult verse in some way.  These two pairs form a perfect chiasm with the following verse (11a,11b--12b,12a; or a,b,a,b--b, a, b, a).  One part of this perfect chiasm ends with the phrase "in the lord" and the corresponding counterpart of the chiasm ends with the phrase "all things from God". 

In verse 12, moreover, Paul turns the argument around and says that, in the Lord, just as the woman has her origination from the man, so too the man originates (is born) through the woman.  Paul wraps his argument a this point with the clause δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ  that is all things, including both men and women originate from God.  This also shows that casual nature of Paul's argument.

C. The third subdivision of the pericope (verses 13-15)  presents Paul's argument from propriety.

Verses 13 and 14 unifies two arguments in one to grasp both Jews and non-Jews together.  In verse 13, it is important to note once again the cultural aspect of Paul's argument. Paul introduces this verse by asking the opinion of his readers through the rhetorical question ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς κρίνατε (judge for yourselves).  Paul here appeals to the opinion of the readers in the sense of inviting them to think for themselves.  This clearly denotes a casual language by Paul.  Paul never uses such language when he presents a commandment or formulates a doctrine.  Moreover, the cultural nature of Paul's argument in this pericope is also seen in the opening of the clause that follows.  He introduces this clause through the phrase πρέπον ἐστὶν (is it becoming, is it fitting, is it proper). 

Paul's choice of words here once again clearly shows the casual nature of his argument.  Paul appeals to the reader's culture by using this verbiage: is it fitting, is it becoming? It is interesting that Paul uses this appeal to culture with regards to the central theme of the entire pericope, namely that of praying (worshiping) with their heads uncovered.  Here the angels are left out and as expected, the praying is aimed directly to God without the intermediary agency of angels.  Again nowhere  Paul uses this kind of language when addressing God's commandments or when formulating doctrine. 

In verse 14, Paul proceeds with a second rhetorical question to reinforce the point of the preceding argument.  Once yet again Paul uses casual language when communicating with the Corinthians through the expression οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴδιδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι (doesn't even nature teach you that...?).  Paul's appeal to nature is directed not outward to the (mother) nature, but rather inward to the human nature that is the natural human feelings.  In other words Paul is asking, in essence, "does it feel right"  for a man to pray with his head uncovered?  Yet again Paul never used this language when addressing a commandment or when formulating doctrine.  In this verse, just like in the preceding arguments Paul begins again with the man, by preparing and setting up the stage for his forte argument about woman.  It is evident by the many archeological discoveries of paintings, drawings, reliefs and sculptures as well as literary writings that in the Greco-Roman world the men were always wearing short hair (with exception for a short time in certain special situations. 

Verse 15 presents another difficulty and it seems to be directed to the Greeks, Romans and Hellenized Jews. Whereas Paul used a veil as a head covering in the previous verses of the context, here he turns his argument around once more and identifies the woman's hair as covering.   Here as well as in the previous arguments, what is true for the man, namely short hair, it is also true in the contrary about the woman, namely long hair.  Here Paul juxtaposes in opposition the hair of the woman and that of the man.  Note that in verses 14-15 Paul is addressing the length of the hair and not the covering thereof.  It is, therefore, not the same the issue of long hair for the woman that was given to her as a veil and the issue of woman's covering .  The long hair of the woman in this case does not give glory to the man, but serves as glory to herself because the hair was given to her as a natural adorning.

D. The forth and last part of the pericope (verse 16) as a conclusion, Paul presents his final argument form the customs of the Churches of God.

Verse 16. In the preceding verse, Paul brings to a final conclusion his arguments for the appropriateness of a woman in keeping the societal established cultural customs of her time.   In this verse, by the way of using the adversative conjunction δέ (moreover) connecting the thought of this verse with the preceding paragraphs, Paul brings his previous arguments together into a final argument where he appeals to the authoritative  customs of the churches of God.  Here once again in a final conclusion on the matter it is evident the cultural aspect of his argument by way of a final appeal to the custom of the churches of God.  Paul starts this verse by a protasis directed to the readers, whereby by asking them if anyone is inclined (δοκέω) to be contentious (φιλόνεικος).  Paul is setting up his apodosis in what follows.  Here Paul is using again a culturally loaded language by mentioning that they, the Christians have no such custom, practice or habit (συνήθεια), and so, neither do the churches of God. 

Final conclusion of the entire pericope. 

As we have seen over and over again the weak cultural arguments permeate the pericope. We have seen that in the city of Corinth and its surroundings there were present a variety of cultures and subcultures, each with their own way of life, such as, but not limited to, Romans Jews, Hellenized Jews,  and Greeks.  Since Corinth was part of the Roman empire, the Roman and Greek cultures were dominant.   Because of that, Paul's language is casual and it is clear that he is not spelling out a norm that has to be followed by all churches of all times and all places.  The very nature of his argumentation in the present pericope reveals that the practice of the head covering should not be enforced as a doctrine or as canon law.   It is erroneous to take the monolithic unique cultural environment of the Greco-Roman society and transfer them directly over the board to the multifaceted and variegated modern cultures in which the church finds itself today.   

There are, nevertheless some Christian groups (especially Romanian protestant Christianity) that raise and uphold the practice of the veil (batic) to a canon law in their denominations. Those that do it, in spite of the evidence, betray a strong bias and a unwillingness to learn and grow.  It is important to note the great difference in Paul's language between the one he used in our pericope and the next one centered around the Lord's Supper (verses 17-34).  While in this passage, Paul's argumentation is mild, casual and culturally loaded, in the next passage Paul will take a very strong stance and as such he will use a very strong and imperative language.  If he had here an advising demeanor, there will be a prescriptive and admonishing, reproving and correcting language in the next.  If Paul was a counselor here, he will be a "prophet" in the next! The total absence of the issue of head covering in the rest of Paul's letters as well as in the rest of the New Testament, clearly shows that the head covering is not to be taken as mandatory practice for all Christians in all cultures and all times. 

It is important to note, in the end, that my position about the veil covering espoused here, that the head covering is no longer mandatory, is in fact the position of the vast majority of the contemporary Bible scholars such as but not limited to Fee, Fitzmyer, Thiselton, Brown, Garland, and many, many others, of course each differing in some details.

Concluding notes:

There are some that will invoke the historical argument in which various church fathers in the patristic era and others throughout the middle ages until the beginning of the 20th century were practicing and even defended this custom of head covering.  However, there is a problem with this argument because it actually proves the contrary.  The practice of head covering throughout the Church history was indeed a cultural custom of those times. 

During Paul's time, in the Greco-Roman culture much prior to writing the letter to the Corinthians, women already were practicing the covering of the head. This practice flowed naturally into Patristic time and continued through the middle ages. It was a natural, cultural development, and it was not caused by the writing of the epistle. If Paul had not written this in his epistle, the same practice would have continued naturally, just as it did. Therefore, the Church Fathers' interpretation was indeed in line with their own culture also.

NOTES: The image from the top of this post was taken from here. No part of this document can be copied / distributed on other sites unless you specify the source this article was taken from. Please include this final note at the end if you use this material on other sites. On the right is a picture of Romeo Fulga, who had the generosity to offer me the exclusive of posting this article on this blog. Thank you.