The Head Covering

Many Christians gasp when they read the above title. Thoughts of suppressed woman come rushing into the mind. Perhaps you envision some gothic monastery filled with elderly nuns, cleaving to a tradition from ancient times. Or maybe when it comes to the head covering, you just don't know what to think. Whatever the impression, we can't erase 1 Cor. 11:1-16 from our Bibles. There it stands. The question now becomes, what do you do with it?

Let's jump right into the passage itself. At the end of our examination we will note the spiritual lessons behind the practice of head covering, some objections, an interesting historical fact and how we are to apply the head covering today.

I. THE PASSAGE

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

"Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me; and that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions." (1:2)

Paul tells the Corinthians to keep the directions. The word for 'directions' in the Greek is used for "any instruction or ordinance given by word of mouth." (DBY) As we shall see, the practice of the head covering was an important direction for the Corinthians to keep. He now goes on to illustrate four reasons why a woman is to wear a head covering.

REASON 1. Headship

"But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman's head is the man, and the Christ's head God." (11:3)

Please notice the words "I wish you to know." Paul's basis for the head covering comes from an appeal to knowledge. Paul would have the practice of head covering stem from an awareness saints should have regarding a principle. That principle is headship.

Headship is simply God's authority structure. God is Christ's head, Christ is man's head, and man is woman's head. The word 'head' refers here to authority. Attempts have been made to undermine this, but such attempts do injustice to the word itself and the context in which we find it. Paul is stating a simple fact. Just as there is an authority structure in the Godhead, there is also an authority structure among men and woman.

Paul has now laid out for us the principle behind the head covering. He will next show how the principle of headship touches the practice of the assembly. It does this in two ways.

The first way:

"Every man praying or prophesying, having anything on his head, puts his head to shame." (11:4)

If man prays or prophesies with a covered head, he dishonors Christ who is his head. (v. 3)

The second way:

"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved woman." (11:5)

If a woman prays or prophesies with an uncovered head, she dishonors her own head. If she is not covered, it is though she was shaved. In the ancient world, prostitutes were shaved in order to shame them. The shaved head of a woman is a mark of disgrace. Paul is saying that the uncovered head of a woman bears a similar disgrace to a shaved woman.

"For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it be shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered." (11:6)

Please notice Paul's logic here, for it is designed to force a single conclusion. If the woman will not be covered, then she potentially, as it were, has one other choice - she can be shaved. But that choice leads to the same place an uncovered head leads to - shame! Paul, therefore, masterfully seals his argument for the covering in the face of any potential choices that would undermine it.

So we see that the principle of headship translates practically amongst God's people by men having uncovered heads and woman having covered heads. This is to occur when they are engaged in spiritual things (praying and prophesying).

REASON 2. Glory

"For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God's image and glory; but woman is man's glory." (11:7)

The main thought behind the word image is representation while glory is manifestation. Keeping this in mind will help simplify things greatly.

As head, man represents the authority of God and manifests His authority through his God-given task as leader. On the other hand, woman is the glory of man. This is based on the following two reasons:

"For man is not of woman, but woman of man." (11:8)

1. She came from man. (Adam was taken from the dust of the earth and received the breath of life, but the woman was taken from the rib of Adam. Gen 2:7,22)

"For also man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man." (11:9)

2. She was created for man. (Woman is man's "helper." Gen. 2:18)

These are two reasons the Bible gives when it says that the woman is the glory of the man. She manifests his splendor because her origin and function are connected to him.

Now consider this. The uncovered head of a woman pictures the manifestation of man's glory in the assembly. This is a dreadful picture, for the assembly is a place where Christ's glory is to be seen, not man! (Eph. 3:21) We will expound this point later.

In the assembly, all are to see the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ alone. But not only does God want His children to behold this glory, He also wants the angels to! Many today are unaware of this fact, but it is true. God uses the assembly to reveal His wonderful wisdom to angelic beings.

"To me, less than the least of all saints, has this grace been given, to announce among the nations the glad tiding of the unsearchable riches of the Christ, and to enlighten all with the knowledge of what is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, who has created all things, in order that now to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies might be made known through the assembly the all-various wisdom of God." (Eph. 3:8-10)

Though the modern church may be quite ignorant of this truth, the early church was not. The assembly is used by God to teach angelic hosts about His manifold ("all various") wisdom. He uses it as a sort of divine object lesson to reveal to them wondrous things about Himself. Therefore...

REASON 3. Angels

"Therefore ought the woman to have authority on her head, on account of the angels." (11:10)

The phrase "authority on her head" is undoubtedly referring to the head covering. I believe Paul uses this phrase because he is emphasizing the spiritual meaning of the covering itself, a meaning that spiritual beings are to take account of. That meaning is God's authority owned. By seeing "authority on her head," angels learn how seriously men and woman are about what's important to God. Unlike the world, the assembly is where God's authority is to be owned and Christ's glory alone to be seen. What a lesson for these hosts of heaven!

Paul now goes on to state two reasons why men and woman should not abuse his teachings and set themselves against one another. The first reason is our Christian dependence on one another and the second reason is our natural dependence on one another. As always, the spiritual takes precedence over the natural, hence the order.

Our Christian Dependence

"However, neither is woman without man, not man without woman, in the Lord." (11:11)

As Christians in the Lord, men and woman are to be dependant upon one another. One group cannot claim independence from the other. According to our gifts and responsibilities "the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee." (1 Cor. 12:21) The same principle holds true regarding the sexes.

Our Natural Dependence

"For as the woman is of the man, so also is man by the woman, but all things are of God." (11:12)

Men and woman derive their natural existence from one another. This is a simple fact of life that Paul brings to bear here so that men would not set themselves as "superior" nor women expect belittlement from men.

Ultimately, it is God who holds the first place because "all things are of God." He alone is the Independent Originator.

REASON 4. Nature

The Judgment of the Natural Conscience

"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman should pray to God uncovered?" (11:13)

Here is an appeal to conscience, that mechanism of judgment within man that tells him what is right and wrong. We are now left to judge the matter for ourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray uncovered?

The answer is no! This is because of the reasons he has just given (headship, glory, the angels) and what he is about to say. As we shall see, the reason why we should judge the matter as inappropriate is because of what the natural realm teaches us.

The Judgment of the Natural Realm

"Does not even nature itself teach you, that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?" (11:14)

Please notice the phrase "even nature itself." Paul has just drawn an argument for the head covering based on the spiritual realm (i.e. the angels) and now point to the lessons of the natural realm. It is though heaven and earth are bearing witness to this fundamental truth of headship and the application of it in our lives. The spiritual realm demands it and the natural realm teaches it!

Paul's argument now stretches beyond what man should naturally think to what nature thinks! In appealing to the natural realm, the apostle would have us come to grips with a common truth. One way mankind distinguishes masculinity from femininity is hair length. This is found to be true in many cultures around the world. While this is no longer the case in many Western countries (which have been influenced by a unisex philosophy), it would've been the case in the ancient world. Historically, a woman's hair has always been significantly longer than the man's.

Paul is saying here that long hair on a man pictures the covering on his head. This picture is a dishonor to him.

"But woman, if she have long hair, it is glory to her; for the long hair is given to her in lieu of a veil." (11:15)

Remember, Paul's basis for appeal is conscience and nature, that is, what mankind judges to be true according to what the natural realm teaches him. (11:13-14) Nature teaches that long hair on a man is a shame, but long hair on a woman is not. Why? Because long hair on a woman pictures the covering that she's been given, illustrating Paul's point that nature teaches the truth of the head covering. Therefore, if saints are good students of what the natural realm teaches, they ought to "judge in themselves" and see that a woman ought to be covered. (11:13)

What is meant by long hair being given to her in place of ('in lieu of' DBY) a covering? It simply means that God, in the natural realm, places long hair on the woman's head instead of a literal veil. Why does He do this? He does this in order to teach her His desire for a literal covering. This is the point. Long hair is picturing the covering, not taking its place! The long hair of a woman is a natural picture of the head covering that God has given her through nature. This is a glory to her.

Now some will tell us that the woman's hair is not a picture of the covering, but the covering itself and, therefore, she does not need to wear a head covering. While such an interpretation is blind to the entire context of the chapter, it also fails to recognize these important facts.

  1. If hair is the covering then why are men not told to shave their heads, since a covered man dishonors Christ? (11:4)
  2. If hair is the covering, then why does Paul say a woman is to be shaved if there be no covering on her head? (11:6)
  3. In 11:10 the sense of the Greek is that something is being ADDED TO her head. That is, it takes for granted her hair and places something atop it. Therefore, hair cannot be the actual covering.
FINAL WORDS

"But if anyone think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God." (11:16)

The word for 'contentious' is made up of two Greek words. These words are "phileo" which is to love and "neikos" which is strife. (Vine) Therefore, it refers to those eager to contend.

Contrary to popular opinion, the battle of the sexes did not start in the 21st century! Nor did women start to assert their independence in the 60's and 70's. That spirit began asserting itself all the way back in the garden, when Eve ate the fruit. And that same spirit of independence was still around during Paul's day.

Paul knew that this teaching would be controversial in Corinth and abroad. To those who would be eager to argue with him, he makes it quite clear, "we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God." I believe that "we" refers to the apostolic company and, therefore, represents the truth as we have it in the New Testament. To disregard the truth of the head covering is to put one's self outside of God's Word!

Also, please notice that Paul does not say, "the assembly at Corinth," but "the assemblies of God." This custom belongs to the church universal. Therefore, not only does neglecting this truth put one on the outside of Scriptural teaching, it also puts one outside of all God's churches! This does not mean that such a one is now removed from the Body of Christ. What it does mean is that, when one resists the teaching of the head covering, that individual stands in direct disobedience to what God's Word says and is adopting a practice that lies outside His will for all His assemblies! What a sad commentary of those who disregard this teaching.

Finally, if Paul did not have in mind the practice of placing a literal head covering on one's head, why talk about the possibility of contention? Why would individuals argue with what Paul is saying if the head covering is not applicable? Some would say that he is referring to those that would argue about the truth of headship, not an actual covering. But this cannot be. First, the context is against this. Secondly, Paul says, "we have no such custom," not "we have no such belief." The word for "custom" puts before the readers a practice. (see Jn 18:39) It was the practice of the covering, not simply the belief of headship that was is in his mind.

II. MAJOR SPIRITUAL LESSONS

As with the Lord's Supper and baptism, the head covering is a practice that the church is to apply today because it is rooted in spiritual truth and is to communicate spiritual lessons.

So what are Christians showing when they embrace the practice of the head covering?

  1. When we embrace the practice of the head covering we are showing that as in the Godhead and according to our distinctive roles, we are all willing to submit and act accordingly.
  2. When we embrace the practice of the head covering we are showing that we are willing to be used by God so that angels might see His wisdom and authority.
  3. When we embrace the practice of the head covering we are showing that the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ is alone to be seen.
  4. When we embrace the practice of the head covering we are showing that the glory of man has no place in the assembly.

We would like to briefly comment on these last two points.

It is the conviction of the writer that a major reason the practice of the head covering is lost among Christian's today is because the modern church has become a place for the glory of man. The zeal for Christ and Christ alone to be seen, known and expressed during the meeting of the church, is a lost affection. Men and women would rather assume their rights than Christ's glory, otherwise, why not adopt this practice that so marvelously speaks of the truth of Christ's glory in the assembly?

In Ephesians 1:39 Paul says, "to Him be the glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the ages of ages. Amen." The assembly is a place where God alone is to receive all the glory in Christ Jesus. The uncovered head of a man symbolically represents the manifestation of the glory of Christ, since Christ is his head. What a striking picture it would be if saints would see, in the uncovered head of man, God's desire for glory in His Son! Such a picture would undoubtedly move our hearts to give Him such glory!

In 1 Corinthians 1:29 we read, "no flesh should boast in God's presence." It is interesting to note that we find this statement in a book where the head covering teachings the same truth! Since the woman's head is man, to not cover her head would to symbolize man's glory in the assembly - flesh in God's presence! As we've said before, this is a dreadful picture. A woman's covered head pictures that "no flesh is to glory in God's presence." Because woman is man's glory (11:7) and her uncovered head is a manifestation of that glory, her head should be covered in order to show that that which draws attention to man is not to be seen. This is a sober warning to men who, when viewing the covered heads of the sisters, may think to draw attention to themselves and not Christ! The head covering is a powerful reminder to men (and all) that Christ alone is to be seen!

Women who reject the head covering often times do so on a fleshly basis and reflect the carnal attitudes that so often categorize many church gatherings. May this not be said of our reader! May we all think God's thoughts after Him and evaluate things on the basis of how He sees things, not how we see things.

III. OBJECTIONS

Having looked at the passage itself, it's meaning appears to be quite plain to the unbiased mind. But man is ever ready to raise objections, even when convinced against his own will, for "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still!"

We believe that we have already addressed some major objections in our examination of the text itself and, therefore, will confine ourselves to two arguments advanced by those that view the head covering as either cultural or symbolic.

The Cultural Argument

When advancing this view, many lead us into a detail exposition of the mysteries and rites of the Corinthian pagan temples. They talk about the head covering's relationship to these things, as they give some detailed historical information of ancient Corinthian practices. All this is put forth in order to show that the head covering was a cultural thing in the Mediterranean world and that Paul just used it to prove a point.

This argument is obliterated by highlighting one simple, little fact. It is surprising that so many commentators (as well as Christians) seemed to have missed it! The reasons for the practice of the head covering have nothing to do with culture! Does putting on a head covering because of God's headship order, the issue of glory, angelic witnesses above and the lessons of nature sound like culturally conditional reasons? In fact, the one reason that sounds cultural would be the appeal from the natural world, but even there it is a trans-cultural reality, not simply a Corinthian one. Determining masculinity and femininity by hair length is not confined to the culture of Corinth.

So all Paul's reasons are trans-cultural and spiritual, finding their source in fundamental truths of God's Word.

We could stop here, but feel compelled to further expose this argument that really has its basis in judging truth by one's circumstance.

Some try to say that the city of Corinth had a particular culture or custom. While it was mainly a Greek city, it was also a cultural "dumping ground" between the East and the West. This was because it's ports and strong economic system brought many to its shores and gates. Some historians say that it was second to Alexandria in regards to its centers of learning, making it a popular intellectual hub. History bears witness to the fact that Corinth was a multi-cultural society, something like our modern day New York.

Why is all this important? Because some try to explain that Paul's basis of appeal for the head covering was rooted in the culture of Corinth. To this we respond: Which one? Some try to point to pagan temples and customs stemming from various cults, but Paul mentions none of these. And since when does God's church take its cue from pagan practices? As we've said before, Paul's reasons for the covering are not cultural, but spiritual.

Also, converted Jewish men who may have found it quite comfortable to pray with their heads covered (as was the custom under the Jewish traditions), were now told to remove their coverings. What about these men? This point is often left out of the discussion because, for us, the "uncomfortable factor" has to do more with the Western woman. Isn't it interesting - just as many modern woman today think it odd to wear a covering, many converted Jewish men living in Corinth probably thought the same thing! Whether a converted Jew in Corinth or a Christian woman in America, all must submit to God's Word.

Divine truth transcends culture because it originates in God and is binding on whatsoever He determines. All throughout the first epistle to the Corinthians, the Spirit of God uses language to emphasize the universal applicability of His truth and the practices that stem from it. Please take the time to read 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33,36; 16:1. God knew that men would de-emphasize the authority of His Word by saying certain assembly practices are more determined by culture than Scripture. If you've read the above quotes then you can clearly see that what God has commanded of the Corinthians is binding on believers everywhere: "To the assembly of God at Corinth...with all that in everyplace call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ..." (1:2) This is how the epistle begins and runs throughout. The practices of Corinth were rooted in truth. This truth was not Corinthian, it was Christian.

The Symbolical Argument

Many commentators believe that the language and grammar of the text stand, that is, Paul literally says what he means - women are to wear a head covering.

Wait a minute, you say, what's the problem then? Well these commentators go on to say that though the Greek text is literally clear, it's practical application is not. The covering is then made not to represent a literal covering, but whatever best communicates the 'concept' of the covering and is, therefore, the most meaningful symbol to a particular group.

Dr. Daniel Wallace, Greek scholar and professor from Dallas Theological Seminary, represents this view under the title "The Meaningful Symbol View."

"This view adopts the exegesis of the real head-covering view with one exception. It does not regard a real head covering as essential to the view. This is the view I currently adopt."(p. 6) 1

Wallace outlines the four general views that Christians hold with respect to the head covering. They are: 1. It is not applicable. 2. The head covering is the hair. 3. The head covering is a real head covering. 4. The head covering is a meaningful symbol in the ancient world and needs some sort of corresponding symbol today. (p. 1) 1

He rejects points one and two. Regarding point three, he states:

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable to us today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically." (p.5) 1

So he affirms that, based on the Greek, a literal covering is "in some respects" the easiest to defend. So why not defend it? Because "it's hardest to swallow practically." Truth becomes dependant upon his own tastes and, for Wallace; the head covering doesn't taste so good.

For him, since a literal head covering is hardest to swallow, he recommends that churches adopt a symbol that best corresponds to the head covering, a symbol most meaningful to them. What symbol should we adopt?

"If the actual symbol used [the actual covering] is not the issue, but what it represents is, what symbol should we use today? There can be no universal answer..." (p.7) 1

And, according to his logic, he is right. There can be no universal answer. If a literal head covering is removed for a "meaningful symbol" dependant upon what communicates best to a given Christian group, then the choosing of the symbol itself will be relative based on what is best for a particular community.

But Wallace would not leave his reader's to grasp at the air regarding what he believes may best symbolically communicate the covering. He offers his "tentative" suggestion:

"I think wearing a modest dress is an appropriate symbol. It does not pick up every correspondence in the passage, but it does do justice to many." (p.7) 1

Modest dress is an "appropriate symbol" of the covering? Does this mean that men are to be inappropriately dressed, since they are not to be "covered?" The logic Wallace uses to escape a literal head covering is not only ridicules, but leads to ridiculous conclusions.

Can you imagine if we applied this type of thinking to the Lord's Supper or baptism! The actual practice of the Lord's Supper (bread and wine) and baptism (being immersed in water) are vital in order to communicate the spiritual lessons behind each! Wallace's logic, when applied to the Lord's Supper, would lead us to using whatever elements we thought best, to the exclusion of bread and wine. Or perhaps being baptized in water doesn't "meaningfully communicate" to some their death and resurrection with Christ. Maybe, for them, laying on the floor and then standing up are actions that best communicate the meaning behind baptism. After all, shouldn't we be able to choose whatever modes of expression we desire?

The answer is no. The literal symbol helps communicate the spiritual truth behind it. To remove the symbol is to obscure the picture of the truth.

In the end, this position is just a sophisticated way of saying, "Okay, we can't argue with the text in the original language because it's quite clear, so let's try to apply it in our own way." Hence, men try to uphold the dignity of the text by admitting it's true, but translate it practically according to their own tastes, thereby upholding, rather, the dignity of self-will and in actuality removing the dignity of God's will in the text itself.

IV. INTERESTING HISTORICAL FACT

Many years ago, the practice of woman covering their heads was adhered to in many denominations. The student of history could easily trace this fact. Up to about 35 yrs. ago, many women from different denominational backgrounds wore a head covering. So what happened? Was the practice shown to be wrong from Scripture? Was some new truth from the Bible brought to the surface in order to cause many to rethink their position? Sadly, this was not the case.

One may be surprised to discover that what led to the removal of the head covering from many Western churches was not a clarifying of biblical truth, but the Women's Liberation Movement. This movement, combined with the spirit of rebellion during the 60's and 70's, served to influence the way many women thought. Such thinking, sadly, penetrated into the church and gave birth to what would be defined as "evangelical feminism." Evangelical feminism simply provided an outlet for many women to embrace the feminist thought of the Women's Liberation Movement. This movement claimed that women could still hold on to their Christian beliefs and be a feminist at the same time. This (as well as other factors) has led to much confusion. It has also served to foster the hostile environment that exists amongst Christians today when talking about such issues as the head covering. It is striking that so many individuals seem to have forgotten this.

The absence of the head covering in many churches has largely to do with the effects of a movement inspired by the Enemy himself, not the truth of Scripture.

While we do not want to say that women who do not wear head coverings are feminists, we do expect women to evaluate their position and see whether they are convinced from Scripture about the matter or whether they are simply embracing the spirit of the age.

V. APPLICATION

We can say with utmost confidence that the heart willing to obey a given truth, even if it doesn't completely understand all that may be involved, will surely be given wisdom as to it's application in God's time and in God's way. To say this is not to dodge the question of how we apply the covering, nor to makes it's application relative. God does not hide truth to hearts willing to obey Him, nor does He hide the application of that truth from such either. To the convicted and obedient spirit, God will give wisdom as to the application of the covering.

We will now end our examination with what we believe to be good suggestions as to the application of the head covering.

The covering should be worn anytime the assembly meets and spiritual activities begin (praying and prophesying).

The larger context of the Corinthian epistle is assembly order. It is not far fetched to suggest that when Paul speaks of "praying and prophesying" 2 he is putting before us general spiritual activities that occur during the assembly meeting. Spiritual activity takes place in such a meeting, so it is natural to assume that Paul has the gathering of Christians in mind. Women should definitely be covered during these times. But this does not need to be confined to a Sunday morning meeting. Sisters gathered during mid-week Bible readings and meetings should wear the covering, since that is a meeting of the assembly too.

Can a woman pray and prophesy audibly in the assembly if she is covered?

We must be careful not to associate the covering with the issue of public, oral ministry in the assembly. When Paul talks about praying and prophesying with respect to the woman, he is thinking about her sphere of spiritual activity, not authorizing her to audibly speak when covered. How can we say this? Because in other passages Paul restricts woman from speaking orally in the assembly. (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11-12) Wearing a head covering does not free a woman from remaining silent in the meeting - that is an assumption that does not take into account other portions of Scripture.

What about woman who gather with other woman for prayer and teaching?

In such a situation, since they are gathered and engaged in spiritual things (praying and prophesying), they should be covered. They obviously need not be silent, since in such a gathering no men are present to" teach and have authority over." (1 Tim. 2:12) Scripture does not restrict woman from teaching other woman or children. (Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Tim. 5:14)

What about at home with family?

God will give wisdom as to this. We know of many sisters who delight to wear a head covering during prayers and Bible readings at home with their spouse. That this is not a formal meeting of the assembly is true. Many sisters do it out of love for what it represents, not simply because the assembly gathers. Surely God does not reject such hearts that would honor Him in this regard! But some women may not wish to do this. Each should be convinced before the Lord. Grace and wisdom, not dogmatism, should regulate this practice at home.

What about Anna the prophetess in Lk. 2:36?

The head covering does not deny the reality that a woman can possess the gift of teaching. But neither does her possessing such a gift remove the restriction of her silence in the meeting of an assembly where men are present.


Vin Santanelli

1. "The Head Covering in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today" www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/covering.htm

2. We acknowledge a two-fold definition of prophecy. Prophecy can be either a foretelling of the future or it can be a forth telling of the truth. Regarding the later, when we speak of a prophet today we mean a teacher. (see 2 Pet. 2:1 where prophecy is equated with teaching.)