Head Coverings
in Public Worship
By: Brian
Schwertley
Introduction
A controversial topic that is avoided by many pastors and sessions today
is the issue of head coverings in public worship. There are many reasons why
this subject is avoided. (1) It is viewed as a “no win” situation by sessions
that do not want to offend people of diverse opinions on the topic. (2) The
passage that deals with head coverings is difficult to understand and thus has
been used to prove completely different viewpoints. (3) The use of head
coverings in public worship today is both rare and unpopular. Indeed, a number
of women and even a few men are greatly offended by the use of head coverings in
public worship. (Pastors have been fired or asked to resign simply because their
wives covered their heads.) (4) Sadly, many pastors in our day view their job not as one of the proclamation of truth,
but as primarily one of people management. Therefore, doctrine and practices
that are controversial must be either avoided or explained in a manner that
justifies current practice.
Although the use of head coverings in public worship is
controversial and unpopular there are some important reasons why it needs to be
considered. One obvious reason is that the apostle Paul devotes a major portion
of a chapter in an epistle to this topic. The Spirit inspired apostle gave
detailed argumentation in favor of the practice of head coverings. Everything in
God’s word merits our utmost attention. Also, Paul commands the use of head coverings for
women in worship. If this practice is to be ignored or avoided today, the church
must have clear exegetical reasons why. As Christians our utmost allegiance is
not to the status quo or the spirit of the age but to our Lord Jesus Christ and
His infallible word.
Before we examine the apostle’s teaching regarding head coverings in 1
Corinthians 11:2-16 there are a few preliminary considerations. (1) Paul’s
teaching on head coverings comes within a larger section of the epistle in which
he deals with disorders related to the public worship of God: the veiling of
women (11:2-16); improper conduct at the Lord’s supper (11:17-34); and, the
abuse of spiritual gifts (12:1-14: 40). Therefore, the passage under
consideration does not speak to the
issue of whether or not women ought to wear head coverings at all times. (2)
Although there is no way to ascertain how Paul became aware of the head covering
problem at Corinth, it is likely that he was informed of the abuse by a letter
(e.g., see 1 Cor. 7:1). In any case, he considered the
problem to be serious enough to deal with at length. (3) This section of
Scripture presupposes that at least some women at
(4) The apostle begins the section dealing with abuses in
public worship by praising the Corinthians for keeping the traditions (v. 2).
The word translated “traditions” (paradosis) or
“ordinances” (KJV) in this context refers to the Word of God as handed down by
Paul. This praise before correction has puzzled a number of commentators. Why
does the apostle begin a section correcting false practices by praising the
Corinthians for obeying inspired apostolic doctrine? There are a number of
sensible answers to this question. It is possible that the abuses in
Paul’s
Argumentation for Head Coverings
(1) Interestingly, the apostle begins his teaching on head coverings in
public worship not with a rebuke or delineation of the problem but with a
foundational theological statement. “But I want you to know that the head of
every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”
(v.3). This theological statement serves as a reference point for verses 4 and
5. The fact that some women in
There are a number of things to note regarding Paul’s initial statement
on authority. (a) The apostle does not set out to prove the principle of
authority and subordination but merely asserts it as an established fact of
God's created order. (b) The authority structure that Paul sets forth is
universal with respect to time and place. As a creation ordinance (that is, a
law or principal that is founded upon God's created reality) the headship of the
man over the woman is not in any manner a product of culture of social
evolution. The covenant headship of the man over the woman applies throughout
all history to each and every culture. Any attempt to circumvent Paul’s teaching
regarding this matter is an act of rebellion against God Himself who established
this authority structure. (c) The word translated “head” (kephal) means “ruler,” “leader,”
or “the one who has authority over.” Feminist and egalitarian attempts to avoid
the clear meaning of this passage by interpreting the Greek word kephal as
“source” have been thoroughly discredited.[4]
(d) Paul’s statement regarding man’s authority over the woman does not mean that
women are inferior to men. Men and women are metaphysically (i.e., as regarding
their being, essence or nature) equal, although different in many ways (e.g.,
Men are physically stronger than women. Peter refers to women as the weaker
vessel [1 Pet. 3:7].) Also, they are equal spiritually before God. They are
saved and sanctified in the same manner and have the same status as redeemed
children of God in Christ (see Gal. 3:28. 1 Pet. 3:7). Therefore, women are not
second-class citizens in the family, church or society. The difference between
men and women that Paul describes refers to function and purpose. Man was
created to lead in a loving manner (i.e., as a ministering, servant leader; Mt.
20:25-28; Eph. 5: 25-33). The woman was created as a helpmeet to submit to her
husband in a respectful manner and assist him in the task of godly dominion
(Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:9; Eph.
After delineating God’s ordained order of authority, Paul proceeds with
concrete examples of violations of this principle and additional arguments in
favor of the use of head coverings in public worship.
(2) In his second argument Paul sets forth a hypothetical situation in
public worship in order to discuss the shame of appearing in public worship with
(for men) or without (for women) a head covering. “Every man praying or
prophesying having his head covered, dishonors his
head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors
her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a
woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman
to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered” (1 Cor.
11:4-6).
Before we consider the apostle’s argument from shame there are a number
of things to consider in this passage. (a) There is a need to define the
apostle’s reference to praying and prophesying in public worship. Many
commentators consider the reference to women praying and prophesying in public
worship problematic because in 1 Corinthians
Probably the best interpretation is that the acts of prayer
and prophecy mentioned by Paul represent congregational participation in public
worship. (Scholars refer to a description of a part [in this case a part of
public worship] for the whole as a synecdoche). The commentator John Gill gives
an excellent explanation of this passage. He writes: “Not that a woman was
allowed to pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to preach or explain
the word, for these things were not permitted them: see 1 Cor. xiv.34, 35. 1 Tim. ii.12. But
it designs any woman that joins in public worship with the minister in prayer,
and attends on the hearing of the word preached, or sings the praises of God
with the congregation.”[7]
While it is true that women do not teach in the public assemblies or lead in
prayer they do pray liturgically (i.e. in unison with the whole assembly, e.g.,
the Lord’s prayer) and they do sing inspired songs that
are prophetic scripture when they sing the Psalms.
The reason it is important to properly understand the meaning of prayer
and prophecy is that if coverings were only required during the specific act of
setting forth divinely inspired prayer or new divinely inspired teachings
directly from God then one could argue that head coverings for women applied
only to the first century for the gift of prophecy ceased with the death of the
apostles and the close of the canon. Since the use of head coverings in both the
Eastern and Western church was universal in the post apostolic era, it is
extremely unlikely that head coverings were used only during the exact time that
divinely inspired teaching or prayer was being spoken.
(b) What does Paul mean when he says head covering? Does he refer to a
piece of cloth (i.e., a veil), which is the traditional interpretation, or does
he refer to long hair? There are a number of reasons why the head covering must
be interpreted as a piece of cloth--a veil. First, words and phrases that Paul
uses to describe the head covering are used in other places in Scripture to
describe a fabric head covering over the head. In verse 4 the unusual phrase
kata kephales echon translated
“having his head covered” which literally means “having down the head” is
used in the Greek Septuagint to translate Hebrew phrases referring to cloth head
coverings. “[A]lthough Paul’s idiom is somewhat
unusual, it is not without precedent. In Esther
The contrast that Paul sets up between men and women in v. 5 is even
clearer than v. 4. Here the apostle uses the phrase “having her head uncovered”
or literally “unveiled.” The Greek word in all its various forms used throughout
this section (e.g., v. 5, akatakalupto-
“unveiled”; v. 6, ou katakaluptetai- “is not veiled”; v. 6, katakaluptestho- “let her be veiled”; v. 7, ouk opheilei katakaluptesthai- “ought not to be veiled”; v. 13, akatakalupton- “unveiled”) clearly refers to a cloth
covering or veil.
This interpretation is supported by the Septuagint (i.e., the Greek
translation of the Old Testament completed in 247 B. C.), which used the various
forms of katakalupte to describe a fabric
of cloth covering. In Geneses 38:4-15 the same word (ekalupisato , katekalupato) is used to describe Tamar covering
herself with a veil. It is obvious that it does not refer to a hair covering. In
Isaiah 47:2-3 we read: “Take the millstones and grind meal. Remove your
veil
(apokilupsai to katakalumma), take off the skirt (anakalupsai tas polias).... Your nakedness shall be uncovered (anakaluphthesetai). Once again the covering is cloth
or fabric.
The word akaluptos or
covering is derived from the word kalumma, which means a veil. Regarding kalumma Greg
Price writes: “This word is used some eighteen times in the Greek Old Testament
(Ex. 26:14; 27:16; 34:33, 34, 35; 39:20; 40:5; Num. 3:25; 4:8, 10, 11, 12, 14
twice, 25 twice, 31; 1 Chron. 17:5). In all of its
uses in the Greek Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament (2 Cor.
Second, the covering of a man’s head is associated with shame by the
apostle Paul. The background of this assertion is the Old Testament where in
times of sorrow or when men experienced shame they covered their heads with a
cloth covering. In 2 Samuel
Third, the idea that the covering refers to hair and not a cloth veil is
rendered impossible by Paul’s comparison between being uncovered and having
short mannish hair. In verse 5 the apostle says that being uncovered is bad
because it is shameful like having short hair (i.e., shorn or shaven). It would
be absurd for Paul to say that it is wrong or shameful for a woman to have short
hair in public worship because having short hair is like having short hair. Note
further what the apostle says in verse 6: “For if a woman is not covered, let
her also be shorn.” Would it make sense for Paul to say, “If a woman has short
hair, then let her also have short hair”? No, not at all! The apostle is saying
that if a woman is going to appear in church without a veil or cloth covering
which is shameful then she might as well cut her hair short like a slave or
lesbian. The apostle’s analogy only makes sense if he is comparing one shameful
activity to another shameful act. If both activities are identical, then the
whole analogy is nonsense. Some Christians have attempted to circumvent this
analogy by defining shorn and shaven in two different manners: one meaning short
hair, while the other pointing to a bald head. This argument falls to the ground
when we observe the fact that Paul uses the terms as synonyms in verse 6: “shorn
or shaved.” The covering can only refer to a cloth or veil; hair simply does not
and cannot work in this context.
Fourth, in
verse seven Paul says that man is not to be covered because “he is the image and
glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” Thus, the woman must be
covered. Only God's glory is to be uncovered during the service. In verse 15 we
are told that a woman’s long hair is her glory. Since only God’s glory is to be
uncovered during public worship the woman’s glory must be covered. “The hair of
a woman cannot be both the glory and
that which covers the glory! Nothing can be both ‘A’ and ‘non-A’ at the same
time and in the same way. Paul taught us that the object which is the glory
cannot also cover the glory! And he taught us that only God’s glory is to be
seen in the worship service.”[11]
Obviously then, the woman's glory (i.e., her long hair) must be covered with a
cloth fabric of some kind.
There is one common objection to all the proceeding arguments. It usually
takes the form of a question. Doesn’t Paul explicitly say in verse 15 that her
hair is given to “her for a covering”? In other words, why should a woman wear a
veil for a covering when Paul says that long hair is her covering? There are a
number of reasons why long hair could not be the covering that Paul requires
throughout this chapter. As noted, the meaning of the word for covering used in
verses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13 clearly refers to a cloth covering or veil in
Scripture. Interestingly, when the apostle refers to long hair as a covering he
uses a completely different Greek word (paribolain) in order to
distinguish one type of head covering from another. “The fact Paul consistently
uses different forms of kalumma (katakalupto, akatakaluptos,
akatakalupto) in 1 Corinthians when referring to
the veil to be worn in worship, but suddenly introduces peribolaion when referring to the
natural covering of the hair, strongly urges that a distinction is being drawn
between two different kinds of head coverings. Why introduce a different word if
not to distinguish one head covering from another?”[12]
Further, (as noted) if long hair is substituted for a cloth covering in verses 5
and 6, the passages make no sense whatsoever (e.g., “If your hair is cut short,
then let it be cut short”). If Paul’s main concern in chapter 11 is to teach
women that they must come to the worship service with long hair then why not
simply teach on the necessity of women having long hair all the time as a law of nature. There
would be no reason to have a separate discussion about long hair in public
worship because a woman’s hair is not something that can be removed and replaced
in a moment when one desires. Also, the idea that the head covering is long hair
would require one to interpret the head covering in reference to men in verse 4
as long hair, which is extremely unlikely.
Paul’s reference to long hair as a natural covering comes in a series of
reasons for the use of a cloth covering in public worship. The argument for long
hair takes one of Paul’s sub-points
for the use of a cloth veil and makes it the main proposition of the whole
section. If Paul’s only and main concern was simply that women keep their hair
long while men keep their hair short, then why not begin the discussion with
this point? Also, why would Paul use a word for a cloth covering throughout his
argument and then use a different Greek word in verse 15 if he was only
concerned about hair styles? One of the greatest problems for the long hair
argument is that short lesbian-like hair on women and long effeminate styles on
men is not simply a problem for public worship but is also a clear violation of
God’s law relating to maintaining the God ordained difference between the sexes.
If women were trying to look like men, which was common lesbian behavior in the
Greco-Roman world, Paul would have dealt with this perverse behavior in his
section on sexual immorality and would not have treated the matter as something
only improper in public worship.
Obviously then, the apostle is pointing to nature or the
natural order where a woman’s long hair is a natural covering as supporting
evidence for the use of a cloth covering in public worship. “The implication is
that as nature has provided women
with a head-dress of hair, she is intended, not, of course, to consider this as
a substitute for further covering, but to wear a head- dress when she is praying
to God in the company of men, nature being regarded as supplying the norm even
for such attire.”[13]
John Murray writes:
“The Greek of
verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New
Testament,’ and this would justify the rendering, ‘her hair is given her for a
covering.” The covering of long hair provided by nature (verse 15) “does not
interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5,
6, 13,” and indeed Paul appeals to it in support of the artificial covering.
Bruce Waltke observes, “The presupposition is used
here nearer to its original meaning of ‘over against.’ Her long hair stands
‘over against’ and ‘corresponds to’ the covering desiderated for the public
assembly.” The natural covering in verse 15 “asks for” the worship covering of
verses 4- 7.
The point is that verses 5, 6 and 13 contemplate an artificial covering
which is to be put on for the worship assemblies of the church, while verses 14
and 15 “adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which
is enjoined earlier in the passage, but is not itself tantamount to it. In other
words, the long hair is an indication from ‘nature’ of the differentiation
between men and women, and so the head covering requires in verses 5, 6, 13, is
in line with what ‘nature’ teaches.”[14]
The Greek scholar Buchsel has noted that the
preposition anti which has the basic
meaning of “over against” or “in place of” can refer to “a mere equivalent in
estimation...or similarity.” He cites 1 Corinthians 11:15 as an example of
similarity.[15]
In other words Paul is not saying that a woman’s long hair is the head covering
that he is arguing in favor of in the worship service, but rather that it is
similar to the cloth covering. Nature points to the use of a cloth covering in
public worship. Godet writes: “It has been objected,
not without a touch of irony, that for the very reason that nature has endowed
woman with such a covering, she does not need to add a second and artificial one
(Holsten). But this is to mistake the real bearing of
the apostle’s argument. All is spiritual in his view. He means that nature, by
constituting as it has done each of the two sexes, has given both to understand
the manner in which they will fulfill their destiny; for man, it will be public
and independent action; for woman, life in domestic retirement and silence.
Whoever has the least appreciation of the things of nature, will recognize the
profound truth of this symbolism.... Women’s physical constitution is a
revelation of the Creator’s will regarding her. Not to conform to this
indication, is not merely to offend social propriety, it is to transgress the
will of the Creator.”[16]
Regarding the argument in favor of long hair as a covering one more thing
needs to be noted. It has been the experience of this author that virtually
everyone (pastors, elders, sessions, individuals) who argues for long hair as a
covering in public worship, does not require women to have long hair. Why is
this fact important? It is important because it reveals that at least for many
people the long hair argument is little more than an excuse to avoid the real
sign of submission--a cloth head covering. Many avoid this charge by arguing
that the apostle’s main concern in this section of Scripture is to teach
believers that hairstyles must be different for men and women. In other words,
the length is relative. Women’s hair must be at least a little longer or at
least a different, more feminine style than men’s. If this assertion is the
apostle’s point, then (as noted) why bring it up in a discussion regarding
proper attire or decorum during public worship? Are we to believe that a
reversal of sexual roles regarding appearance is permitted outside the worship
service? Unfortunately, most of the pastors who exegete this section of
Scripture today are more interested in justifying current practice than
carefully determining the meaning of the text. Pastors who preach sermons that
offend a large number of the feminist-influenced women in the church usually
suffer some form of persecution.
(c) Paul says that a man with a head covering in public worship dishonors
his head and a woman without a head covering dishonors her head. What does it
mean to dishonor his or her head? There are basically three interpretations of
this statement. The first interpretation regards the term “head” metaphorically.
Therefore, the man dishonors his head, Jesus Christ, while the woman dishonors
her head, the man (i.e., her husband, or father, or for widows the elders,
etc).
In support of
this interpretation Fee writes:
The “head”
that would be shamed is man’s metaphorical “head,” Christ. Several things make
that clear: (1) The asyndeton (no joining particle of conjunction) gives the
sentence the closest possible tie to v. 3; (2) Paul uses the personal pronoun
“his” rather than the reflexive “his own”; (3) to refer to himself in this way
compounds metaphorical usages without warning; (4) otherwise the preceding
theological statement has no place in the argument whatever. Therefore, Paul is
asserting that if the man were to “have down the head” when praying/prophesying,
he would bring shame to Christ in some way, or at least to the relationship
established by Christ’s being “head.”[17]
The
second interpretation regards the term head literally. That is, a man who wears
a head covering dishonors himself; a woman who does not cover her head dishonors
herself. Charles Hodge prefers this interpretation:
1. Because, in
the immediately preceding clause the word is used literally, ‘If he cover his
head, he dishonours his head.’ 2. Because, in v. 5,
the woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonor her own head, i.e. as what follows
shows, herself, and not her husband.
3. It is more obviously true that a man who acts inconsistently with his station
disgraces himself, than that he disgraces him who placed him in that station. A
commanding military officer, who appears at the head of his troops in the dress
of a common soldier, instead of his official dress, might more properly be said
to dishonour himself than his sovereign. For a freeman
to appear in the distinguishing dress of a slave, was a
disgrace. So the apostle says, for a man to appear with the conventional sign of
subjection on his head, disgraced himself. If the man be intended to represent
the dominion of God, he must act accordingly, and not appear in the dress of a
woman.[18]
The third view combines the previous views into one. In other words Paul
purposely uses the somewhat ambiguous term “head” (i.e., ambiguous in this
context) because he wants the people at Corinth to understand that not only does
a violation of proper attire in public worship bring dishonor or shame upon
oneself, but also is a dishonorable act toward one’s authoritative head; that
is, the one in authority over the man or the women. A man who wears a head
covering in public worship shames himself by appearing in the assembly in the
attire of a woman and brings dishonor to Christ by covering God’s glory. The
woman shames herself by appearing as a man and also dishonors her husband by
appearing in a manner that is a usurpation of his authority. “The unveiled woman
dishonors her head, because that is the part in which the indecency is
manifested. Also by claiming equality with the other sex she disgraces the head
of her own sex.”[19]
The third view is the most likely given the fact that immediately before verses
4 and 5, “head” clearly refers to the one who has authority over the man or
woman. But immediately following verses 4 and 5 it is obvious that a woman
without a covering brings shame upon herself for it is the same as being “shorn
or shaved.” A woman who does not wear a head covering shames herself by
appearing in a shameful manner and she brings dishonor to her husband by
usurping his authority.
(d) Paul’s argument for a cloth covering for women in verses 5 and 6 is
dependent upon a comparison between being unveiled in worship and having the
head shorn or shaved. (The term “shorn” [keoro, to shear as sheep)] refers to cutting
the hair short with clippers. The word shaven [churasthai] refers to a hair
cut by a razor. The point of both words is the same: the woman takes on the
appearance of a man). This argument raises the question: what is shameful about
a woman having short hair? Although it is fairly common to hear sermons where
short hair or a shaved head is considered the mark of prostitutes in
In both Middle Eastern and European cultures the shearing
of a woman’s hair is also associated with adultery. Vincent writes:
Among the Jews
a woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn, with the formula: “Because
thou hast departed from the manner of the daughter of
During World War II, French women who were discovered to
have had a relationship with German soldiers had their heads shaved to bring
shame and disgrace upon them for
their unseemly behavior. Regarding the Greeks Moffat adds: “This was a
well-known reproach for Greek woman. One of Menander’s
comedies was on the outrage done to a girl by a jealous lover who cut her hair
short, and the scene was laid at Corinth; a shaven woman was disgraced, even if her head was shaved
or cropped against her will, and much more so if she cut her own hair short, by
way of aping men.”[25]
It is important to emphasize that although the shearing or shaving of a
woman’s hair has been viewed as something humiliating, that brings shame upon
the woman in virtually every culture throughout history, the apostle’s point is
not based on culture or custom. Short hair on a woman is shameful because it
violates God’s natural order. This assertion is evident by the apostle’s
immediately prior statement regarding God’s ordained order of authority (v. 3)
as well as other supporting arguments based on the priority in creation (v. 8-9)
and verses 14-15 where it is asserted that short hair on a woman is against
nature. When God created Adam (man) and Eve (woman) He distinguished them one
from another in a number of ways. Long hair on women and short hair on men is
one such natural distinction. (This point will be discussed at length when we
consider 1 Cor. 11: 14-15). This distinction is also
to be reflected in people’s attire after the fall. Jehovah says that it is an
“abomination” for women to dress like men and vice versa. (Deuteronomy 22:5
reads, “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man
put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your
God.”)
(e) After stating the fact that a woman who attends public worship
without a head covering shames her head because the uncovered head is just as
shameful as being shaved, Paul drives his point home with two conditional
sentences that say essentially the same thing from two different perspectives.
First, he says that if a woman refuses to wear a head covering, then let her cut
off all her hair. In other words if she is not going to wear a head covering
which is shameful, then let her be consistent and thus be even more shameful by
cutting her hair off to look like a man. To paraphrase: “If you are willing to
shame yourself by refusing to wear the sign of submission which is proper, then
make your rebellion and the shame that goes with it explicit, obvious and even
more shocking by appearing in church like a man.”
Then, Paul turns the argument around with another conditional sentence.
If it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off (i.e. “shorn” of
“shaved”) which it most certainly is, then let her wear a head covering. Note
that at the end of verse 6 the apostle issues the imperative or command: “let
her hair be covered.” The use of the imperative means that
Paul is not merely offering friendly advice or offering a suggestion regarding a
voluntary matter. The apostle under divine inspiration orders women to wear a cloth head
covering in public worship. We may not like what Paul has to say. It may not fit
in our modern “liberated” culture where women often want to look and act like
men. It may not be popular in modern evangelical and Reformed churches, which
sadly are often influenced by our degenerate heathen culture. The thing that
matters is that God has made His will known to us regarding this issue in His
authoritative word. Therefore, we must submit to it whether we want to or not or
whether it is popular or not. It is an issue of divine commandment. When Paul
comes to the end of the section that addresses abuses in public worship
(including the issue of head coverings, chapters 11-14) he underlines his
teachings by reminding the Corinthians of his apostolic authority. He writes:
“If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that
the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians
The apostle’s whole argument thus far is rooted upon the way God intended
things to be in creation. The argument from God’s ordained order of authority
and nature should not be construed as and logically cannot be an argument from
culture or custom.
(3) The apostle’s third argument is based on man and
woman’s position in creation as it relates to glory. 1 Corinthians 11:7 reads,
“For man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of
God; but woman is the glory of man.” Paul says that man is morally obligated not
to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. “The verb opheilei [ought], which
appears again in v.10, usually carries moral overtones, this is something that
should, or should not be, done.”[27]
On the other hand, the woman is obligated to wear a head covering because she is
the glory of man.[28]
This statement raises the question: what does Paul mean by “image” and
“glory”? The apostle is clearly referring back to the creation account in
Genesis (see Gen. 1:26-28;
The term glory is not mentioned in the Genesis account. However, Paul’s
use of this term in this context is not difficult to discern. How is man God’s
glory? Man is God’s glory not only because he is the crown of God’s creation but
also because he reflects Jehovah’s divine majesty, kingship or sovereignty as no
other creature does. God created man directly from the dust to rule over all
creation. As the covenant head he has the direct responsibility of leadership, of
pursuing the dominion mandate, of directing the covenantal spheres of life
(e.g., the family, the church, the state). Man is reflective of God’s attribute
of sovereignty in a special way. Therefore, according to Paul’s inspired
teaching, if a man covers his head in public worship, he is symbolically denying
his special place as God’s image and glory. Therefore, it is wrong for a man to
cover his head. “Because of this high dignity Paul feels it right that there
should be no sign of subordination about man when he worships”[29]
The woman, on the other hand, is man’s glory. She was taken out of man to
be a helper suitable to him. She is his special assistant in the task of Godly
dominion. She does not reflect God’s glory as a ruler but rather reflects the
man’s glory as a sovereign; for she serves under his authority. “She receives
and reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station;
becomes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honour which may belong to her husband”[30]
Therefore, a woman must worship with her head covered.
While all of this may seem a bit esoteric to modern minds which have been
conditioned to an extent by our perverse culture that rejects the God ordained
authority structure, it really is a simple and beautiful argument. In public
worship God’s glory is not to be covered. The Christian man who has been
redeemed by Christ and thus restored to his proper position as a dominion man in
Christ should reflect God’s glory publicly during worship. The Christian woman
is to exhibit her faith in Christ and her restoration to her God given task
under her husband by covering her head during public worship. God’s glory is to
be on display during worship, while the man’s glory is covered. Paul’s argument
here makes it abundantly clear that the head covering issue is not simply a
matter of culture or custom. The uncovered head of the man and the covered head
of the woman reflect the horizontal relationship of man and woman established at
creation and the vertical relationship between redeemed man and woman and God
during public worship. The restoration of man and woman’s relationship to
creation, each other and God is on display in Christian assemblies. It is
something that the angels of God can observe and learn from.
The apostle supports the preceding argument by noting two historical
facts recorded in the account of Adam and Eve’s creation. (This verse not only
supports Paul’s argument regarding glory in verse 7 but also the apostle’s
beginning statement in verse 3: “the head of the woman is the man”.) First, Eve
originated from Adam. “Adam was not in any way derived from (ek) a woman; he
was created directly by God. The opposite is the fact regarding woman. Eve was
derived from (ek) Adam: bone of my bones and
flesh of my flesh’.”[31]
Paul makes a similar statement regarding the creation of Adam and Eve to prove
the subordination of the woman to the man in 1 Timothy
2:12-13. He writes: “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority
over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” The
inspired apostle says that God’s method of creating Adam and Eve serves a
distinct purpose. God was setting forth the creation of Adam and Eve as the
archetypes of man and woman for all subsequent generations. Adam was created
first because he is the leader, the covenant head of the woman. Eve originated
from Adam to be at his side as a helpmeet. Matthew Henry points out that this
does not mean that the woman is inferior but that her purpose in life is
different. He writes: “Yet man being made last of the creatures, as the best and
most excellent of all, Eve’s being made after Adam, and out of him, puts an
honour upon that sex, as the glory of the man, I Cor. xi. 7. If a man is the head, she is the crown, a crown
to her husband, the crown of the visible creation. The man was dust refined, but
the woman was dust double-refined, one removed further from the earth.”[32]
The man is created first and is a reflection of the divine glory, while woman is
created second, out of the man and thus is reflection of that original
reflection.
Second, Paul refers to the purpose of the woman. Eve was created for
Adam, as a helpmeet unto him. “[S]he was created on his account, and not he on
hers.”[33]
“She was naturally therefore, made subject unto him, because made for him, for
his use, and help, and comfort. And she who was intended to be always in
subjection to the man should do nothing in the Christian assemblies, that looks like an affection of equality.”[34]
God could have created Adam and Eve at the same time and in the same manner.
But, He created Adam first and then took Eve out of Adam to teach us about
covenant headship and authority in marriage. Paul is telling us that man and
woman’s relationship (where the wife is subordinate to her husband and the woman
is the glory of the man) is founded upon a creation ordinance. These realities
abide forever and must be reflected in public worship. The apostle’s directives
regarding the head covering in connection with public worship are based not on
culture or custom, temporary or contemporary conditions or circumstances but on
two facts from the original creation of Adam and Eve. Therefore, Paul’s teaching
on head covering cannot be circumvented by an appeal to culture as if Paul was
only concerned that Christians not offend the pagan Greek’s principles of
fashion for woman.
(4) Paul in verse 10 gives an additional reason for head coverings “For
this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because
of the angels.” This verse raises two questions. What does Paul mean by
“authority” (Greek, exousia--power, authority) and
what does the term “angels” refer to? The term power or authority refers to the
cloth covering on a woman’s head, which is a sign that she is under the
authority of her husband.
The second word that needs to be defined is “angels”. There are only two
plausible interpretations of this word in this particular context. One
possibility is that Paul is using the word to refer to ministers and officers in
the church, which are sometimes identified as angels in scripture (e.g., Rev. 2:
1, 8, 12, 3:1, 7, 14). The best and most common interpretation is that the
apostle is referring to the angels of God (i.e., the good angels) who are
ministering spirits for the good of God’s elect. The Bible repeatedly affirms
that angels are concerned for and active on behalf of Christ’s church. Luke
tells us (15:7, 10) that the angels in heaven celebrate the conversion of every
sinner. Godet says that:
[A]ccording to Eph. iii .10, they behold with adoration the
infinitely diversified wonders which the Divine Spirit works within the Church;
that, according to 1 Tim. v. 21, they are, as well as God and Jesus Christ,
witnesses of the ministry of Christ’s servants; finally, that, in this very
Epistle (iv. 9), they form along with men that intelligent universe which is the
spectator of the apostolic struggles and sufferings. Why, then, should they not
be invisibly present at the worship of the Church in which are wrought so large
a number of those works of grace? How could an action contrary to the Divine
order, and offending that supreme decorum of which the
angels are the perfect representatives, fail to sadden them? And how, finally,
could the pain and shame felt by these invisible witnesses fail to spread a
sombre shade over the serenity of the worship? In
Christ heaven and earth are brought together (John i.
52).[37]
In
Isaiah 6:2 we are told that the angels cover or veil themselves as they worship.
The angels were also witnesses of God’s original creation of the earth (Job
38:7) where the creation ordinance of covenant headship was established.
Although Paul does not elaborate on why or how angels would understand that
women worshipping without their heads covered is shocking and disorderly, his
whole argument presupposes that such is the case. This point raises the
question: If the head covering issue was merely a matter of custom or culture
would the angel argument make any sense? Are angels offended if women are not
fashionable or if women do not act in accordance with Greek or Roman concepts of
proper attire? No, of course not! Once again note that Paul is not appealing to
cultural norms or temporary considerations.
After going into considerable detail regarding the covenant headship of
the man and the subordination of the woman (especially in relation to creation)
Paul stops to discuss the mutual dependence between man and woman. He writes:
“Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of
man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through
woman; but all things are of God” (vs. 11-12). Why does Paul stop to state the
obvious: that the woman came from the man (Adam) and that since creation all men
have been born by a woman? After stating that woman is man’s glory and created
for his sake, the apostle wants to avoid any impression that woman exists as a
slave to man or that the woman is inferior to the man. “What Paul has been
saying might easily be understood of an undue subordination of women. This is
far from his thought. There is a partnership between the sexes and in the Lord
neither exists without the other.”[38]
God has set up the authority structure the way He has not so men can lord it
over women, but so they can more effectively serve Christ and fulfill the
dominion mandate. “The apostle’s single object is to show the true nature and
limitations of the subordination of the woman to the man.”[39]
Given the great abuse that women have suffered at the hands of heathen men, men
under the influence of satanic religions such as Islam, and the fact that
Christian men must still deal with their sinful natures, Paul’s reminder is
needed. “The subordination of the wife to her husband is tempered in Christ by
the oneness of the spiritual life which they both draw from the Lord.”[40]
(5) After noting the mutual dependence of men and women in the Lord, Paul
makes an appeal to the Christian conscience. “Judge among
yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head
uncovered”(v. 13)? What does the apostle mean by the
statement “judge among yourselves”? Is Paul saying that
the head covering issue is a matter of personal opinion or an issue that can be
determined by human autonomy? No, not at all! He is appealing to the Christian
conscience, which is directed by God’s revelation in Scripture and in nature.
Paul had just given them Spirit inspired teaching regarding God’s ordained order
of authority and the constitution of things as created by God. He had made it
very clear that the facts of creation (e.g., both the manner in which Adam and
Eve were made and the purpose for which they were created) teach that it is
wrong for a woman to attend
public worship with her head uncovered. The apostle will reinforce
the impropriety of woman worshipping without a head covering in the very next
verse where he again appeals to nature or the natural order of things as created
by God.
That Paul is not appealing to
the human conscience, as an independent
standard, is supported by the form of the question itself. The apostle’s
question is rhetorical and is framed in such a manner that it demands a negative
response. Therefore, the apostle is not stopping in the middle of his teaching
on head coverings merely to say, “Well, what do you think about this?”. He is saying, “You know that it is improper, shameful and
wrong for a woman to worship in the public assembly with her head uncovered”.
Paul asks the rhetorical question in order to emphasize the point that everyone
whose judgment is submitted to God’s word ought to know this truth.
(6) In support of the preceding rhetorical question Paul appeals to
nature. He writes: “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long
hair it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to
her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (vs. 14-15). The central
question that arises from Paul's rhetorical question regarding nature is: “What
is the meaning of the term “nature”? One’s understanding of this term will have
a profound impact on the relevance of this section of Scripture for today’s
church. Given the importance of this term we will analyze some of the more
common interpretations before presenting what we consider to be the biblical
meaning of the term.
(a) A common understanding of the passage is that Paul was following the
popular Greek philosophy of his own day, which considered cultural customs as
extensions of natural law. There are a number of serious problems with this
view. First, it ignores the fact that Paul not only wrote under divine
inspiration, but also that he had condemned human philosophy in another epistle
(see Col. 2:2-10, 20-23). Obviously, he had no regard for the opinion of sinful
men in determining church ordinances. Second, this interpretation makes Paul out
to be a pragmatist whose main concern in this chapter is not the upholding of universal
principles that flow from God’s created order, but rather, the avoidance of
social criticism. In other words the apostle wants public worship to conform to
Greek and Roman culture so that the heathen will not be offended and the spread
of the gospel and the peace of the church hindered. Third, the example that Paul
used (men having short hair and women having long hair) was not universally
practiced in Paul’s own day (this point will be examined in more detail below).
Indeed, there has never been a time in history that short hair on men was a universal custom. If Paul was in any
sense merely accommodating culture then: (1) the universal nature of Paul's
argument falls to the ground; (2) one could expect Paul to determine rules
regarding head coverings according to the custom of the region (e.g., in the
Germanic areas a different custom could be observed in public worship than in
Greek areas.); (3) the apostle could not argue that attending public worship
without a head covering was not
practiced in any of the Christian churches (1 Cor.
11:16).
Fourth, the idea that Paul was merely following cultural practices of his
own day (instead of basing his argument on something universal in creation, that
is trans-cultural), turns the apostle into a cultural relativist with regard to
public worship. If we accept this interpretation then this section on head
coverings really has no direct application to our own day, because in modern
western culture virtually anything is acceptable. There are woman with short
hair in virtually every profession. There are even women with Mohawk haircuts
and shaved heads. Further, long hair on men has been acceptable ever since the
1960s even though it is no longer fashionable. People who reject cloth head
coverings on the basis of the cultural argument need to answer the following
questions: If a time comes when virtually all women wear short hair because
society regards it as feminine and fashionable should churches require women to
have short hair in order not to conflict with the surrounding custom? What about
missionaries who must function in strange cultures? If a culture regards a plate
worn in the lip of a woman to be a sign of submission should church authorities
require it in public worship? The answer to these questions is obvious. Once one
connects the apostle’s commands to cultural convention in any way the passage as
a whole becomes determined by culture. For the Christian, culture is to be
determined by God’s law as revealed in Scripture and not the other way around.
(b) Another view (which has much in common with the previous view) is
that Paul does appeal to God’s created order throughout chapter 11, but that the
cultural manifestation of God’s role for men and women is not fixed. In other
words, Paul does teach that women have to wear a cloth covering in public
worship. He also bases the use of head coverings largely on the created order.
But, (we are told) the cloth veil is a cultural manifestation of a universal
truth and thus is only required in cultures that consider veils to be signs of a
wife’s submission to her husband, or, more generally the subordination of women
to men. The gist of this argument is that veils were required in Paul’s culture,
but they are not required in our culture because their use and meaning is no
longer recognized. This view is very common among evangelical scholars today.
While this interpretation is superior to the previous interpretation (where Paul
is essentially mimicking Greek philosophy) it nevertheless is subject to many of
the same objections. Note the following problems with this interpretation.
First, it presupposes that Paul was enforcing a Greek custom with no
historical or textual support. Was it the universal practice of Greek or Roman
women to walk about in public veiled as the cultural argument assumes? If it can
be established that it was not the common practice for Greek or Roman women to
wear veils in public or in their religious rituals, the whole cultural argument
falls to the ground. After an exhaustive study of the dominant practice
regarding head coverings in Paul’s day, the German scholar Oepke essentially concludes that Paul was imposing a
biblical custom upon the Greeks that was contrary to their normal practice. Note
the following conclusions of his study. He writes:
It used to be
asserted by theologians that Paul was simply endorsing the unwritten law of
Hellenic and Hellenistic feeling for what was proper. But this view is
untenable. To be sure, the veil was not unknown in
McKnight notes that William Ramsay, who was an expert on the Greek
culture of Paul’s day, concurs. He writes:
Historically,
it was a covering commonly worn in public by women of Jewish origin but not by
the Greek women. The covering used by Jewish women is thought by many
commentators to have been a large piece of cloth which was a common article of
clothing such a shawl or cape. The cloth would serve as a head covering at any
time it was appropriate. Concerning the difference in Greek and Jewish custom,
we find that Dion Chrysostom
(writing in 110 A. D.) recognized nothing that was “Greek” about the Tarsians (of the Greek city of
If it was the cultural practice of Greek or Roman women to wear head
coverings in public or during their religious rituals, then one could understand
the argument from culture. But, the teaching of Paul was in direct contrast to
the Greco-Roman practices of that day.[43]
The apostle was not honoring Greek practice, nor was he instructing women to
wear cloth veils in worship because their non-use would have been offensive to
Greek society. Paul’s inspired teaching (if any thing) would have been offensive
to Greek culture. It would have been considered a distinctly Jewish or eastern
practice. Clearly, the apostle was imposing a biblical practice upon a
distinctly pagan culture. The idea that Paul was following Greek culture rather
than directing it has no merit whatsoever. What all of this means, then, is that
modern American, European, African or Asian culture must submit to Paul's
directives in 1 Corinthians 11 whether or not his instructions are culturally
acceptable or not. The Bible is to direct culture and not the other way around.
Further, it has been the experience of this author that modern women throughout
the
Second, Paul’s example of men with long hair as being against nature
would not have been acceptable to many Greeks. James Moffat writes:
[H]is Greek
hearers must have welcomed an appeal to nature. But they would be taken aback by
being asked if long hair was not disgraceful for men. What of the long-haired
Spartan heroes in far-off days? What of philosophers at the present day who wore
their hair long as an ascetic trait, or to show their indifference to the world?
Why, ‘the Greek wears long hair on his head because he is a Greek, not a
barbarian,’ as the moralist Apollonius protested (Epist. viii.). Paul thought it effeminate, however, and
praised the braided tresses (I Pet. iii. 3) of women as not merely a glory, or
ornament, but as a sort of covering.
The
implication is that as nature has provided woman with a head-dress of hair, she
is intended, not, of course, to consider this as a substitute for further
covering, but to wear a head-dress when she is praying to God in the company of
men, nature being regarded as supplying the norm even for such attire.[44]
When
considering ancient hair styles Aune
writes:
Long hair was
often regarded by the Greeks a sign of effeminacy in male (H. Herter, “Effeminatus,” RAC 4:629) or moral laxity in a female
Ps. Phocylides 212). Fashions change, however, for
Greek men once favored long hair (Herodotus 1. 82; Plutarch Lysander 1; co.
Plato Phaedo 89 B-C) though by the fifth century B.
C., only Spartan men wore their hair long (Aristophanes Aves 1281-82; Philostratus Vita
Apoll. 8.7). The Romans wore their hair long until
the third century B. C., after which they considered long hair either barbaric
or old fashioned (Juvenal 5.30). The Gauls wore their
hair long, and as a result northern
The
teaching of Paul that long hair on a man is shameful was not universally
accepted in the ancient world, nor is it accepted today.
(c) The only position that makes sense in both the broad and narrow
context of the passage is that nature refers to God’s created order and that the
differences in the sexes that God established at creation are universal and
binding. Therefore, the head covering for women in public worship is not based
on a localized or temporal custom but on creation itself. There are a number of
reasons why this interpretation is unavoidable. First, the word nature (phusis) in
Scripture is never used to describe culturally relative customs. It rather is
used to describe moral principles established at creation. Paul writes: “For
this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their
women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature [phusis]” (Rom.
When Paul asks the historical question regarding nature teaching that
long hair on a man being shameful (Note that the apostle uses the same word
[Greek--atimia] in Romans
Second, if one accepts the interpretation that by “nature” Paul is
referring to Greek and Roman customs and that as customs change the apostle’s
imperatives regarding head coverings can be set aside or applied in a completely
different manner, then one has defined the law of nature in a relativistic
manner. Such a view is totally contrary to scripture which teaches that God has
one law or ethical standard which is communicated to mankind in two ways: through the Bible and through
nature (Ps. 19, cf. vs. 2-3, 8-9). This explains why the Gentile pagan nations
are often condemned by God for transgressing the ethical precepts revealed in
God’s law (including the moral case laws) even though they did not have written
revelation. The natural revelation of God’s law should never be set in
opposition to the special revelation of God’s law. It also obviously should not
be treated as relativistic law that is constantly changing according to corrupt
man’s evolving concepts of what is right and wrong. Once we understand the
manner in which the Bible defines nature as relating to Christian conduct, all
attempts to place head coverings in the category of the foot washing or the
Middle Eastern greeting (e.g., “greet one another with a holy kiss”) are
overthrown.
Third, Paul’s appeal to nature as a reality of God’s created order fits
perfectly with the immediate context. The apostle had discussed God’s ordained
order of authority (1 Cor. 11:3), the shamefulness of
the woman’s uncovered head in worship (1 Cor. 11:6),
the appeal to the creation of man and woman and their created purpose (1 Cor. 1:7-9); and the observation of angels (1 Cor. 11:10). The appeal to nature (biblically defined)
summarizes, emphasizes and serves as a climax to all the preceding arguments
based on creational reality (i.e., the way God intended things to be). The
reason the woman has been created in a certain manner with a different
appearance (e.g., the long beautiful hair--her natural covering) is that women have a
distinctive calling from God. This calling is to be exhibited in public worship
by the use of a veil. The idea that Paul defines nature as a changing, arbitrary
custom undermines the apostle’s previous arguments from creation and the created
order rather that supports them. Something that is in flux that can have
completely different meanings over time and geographical areas cannot serve as
foundation for behavior in public worship. This point is supported by modern
evangelical and Reformed churches that use the custom argument to ignore or
overturn the teaching of the apostle throughout the chapter. In other words, a
decisive argument for head coverings by the apostle has been twisted into a
decisive counter argument against head coverings.
(7) Paul
concludes his discussion of head coverings in public worship by an appeal to
apostolic authority and universal church practice. “But if
anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of
God” (1 Corinthians
(a) Note that
the appeal to apostolic authority both begins and ends the section (1
Corinthians 11: 2-16) dealing with head coverings (see verses 2 and 16). While
the apostle supports the use of head coverings with careful argumentation from
general and special revelation, he reminds the Corinthians of his special
authority in this matter as an inspired apostle. Indeed, Paul emphasizes
apostolic authority by using the pronoun “we”--“we have no such custom”. In
context the “we” refers to all of the apostles. The apostle’s inspired,
authoritative teachings, which have been inscripturated for our benefit, are foundational for the
church and authoritative for all time (Eph.
(b) Note that unlike modern Reformed churches, which teach and practice
diversity on this issue, Paul demands uniformity of doctrine and practice. The
apostle says that if anyone seems to be contentious [i.e., disposed to quarrels
or dissentious argumentation] about this matter they must stop and submit
themselves to apostolic authority and universal church practice. Paul
understands that there are people in the church who disagree with his teaching
on head coverings. He recognizes that some people may even be angered by his
doctrine. This recognition, however, does not cause Paul to act like a spineless
modern church bureaucrat who attempts to ride the fence on controversial issues.
Rather Paul stands on the inspired truth of his argumentation and demands
uniformity of doctrine and practice on this matter. Biblical unity is
established on the teaching of Scripture. Real lasting unity can only be
achieved when believers submit themselves to the authority of Scripture.
The modern idea that unity is accomplished through compromise, through
allowing mutually contradictory practices and doctrines in the church, is
rejected by Paul. The inspired apostle knows that his arguments for head
coverings in worship are not based on contemporary usages but on biblical truth
and creational realities that will last as long as the present earthly economy.
The covenant headship of the husband over his wife and the purpose of the wife
is the same today as it was when Paul wrote (1 Cor.
11:7, 8, 9). A woman’s beautiful hair is still given to her as a natural veil,
as her glory, as it was it times past (1 Cor.
(c) Note, that
the custom (“we have no such custom” v. 16) to which Paul refers is the practice
of women attending church uncovered
(i.e., without wearing a cloth veil on the head). This point is important
because Paul’s statement has been used by some exegetes to overturn the teaching
of the whole chapter.
Before we consider the
reasons why the custom is the non-use of head coverings by women, it is
important to establish a proper translation of the apostle’s statement.
Virtually every modern translation (
Having noted
the proper translation of the second half of verse 16, let us return to the
proper meaning of “custom”. Regarding this term there are three main
interpretations: (1) The custom referred to is the use
of head coverings in worship. This view regards the statement “we have no such
custom” as an abrogation of head coverings altogether as if the preceding
arguments in favor of the practice were insufficient or culturally conditioned.
This interpretation is patently absurd. The idea that Paul, who had just spent
most of a chapter in an epistle giving detailed arguments why his imperative
ordering women to cover their heads in worship must be obeyed, would then turn
around and say, “By the way we the apostles reject the use of head coverings in
worship as do all the churches”, is an implicit denial of verbal inspiration.
Any interpretation that has Paul explicitly contradict himself on the same page
and does violence to his moral character as if he were playing a joke on the
Corinthians should be unacceptable to any Bible believing Christian.
(2) Another view is that the custom refers to the practice of being
contentious (e.g., see Calvin, de Wette, Meyer and
Edwards). While this interpretation does not contradict Paul’s teaching, as does
the previous interpretation, nevertheless, it is not the most plausible
interpretation. Being contentious or argumentative is a fault or bad habit, not
a custom. Further, would Paul need to explain that none of the apostles believe
in being contentious and harassing the elders in a church? Would he need to tell
the Corinthians that none of the churches as an official practice adhere to
nasty argumentation? Of course not!
(3) The only
interpretation that does justice to the context and makes sense is that the
custom refers to women going unveiled in public worship. The only custom of
which there can be any question here is that on which the whole passage has
turned: women attending public worship without being veiled. Godet writes: “Paul means that neither he, nor the
Christians formed by him, nor in general any of the
Churches of God, either those which he has not founded or those properly his
own, allow such procedure in their ecclesiastical usages; comp. xiv. 36, 37,
where the idea simply indicated here is developed.---The material proof of this
assertion of Paul’s is found in the Christian representations which have been
discovered in the Catacombs, where the men always wear their hair cut short, and
the women the palla, a kerchief falling over the
shoulders.”[49]
Charles Hodge concurs. When criticizing the view that custom means the custom of
being contentious he writes: “The only reason assigned for this interpretation,
is Paul’s saying we have no such
custom; which they say cannot mean the custom of women going unveiled. But why not? The apostles and the churches constituted a
whole--neither the one nor the other, neither the churches nor their infallible
guides, sanctioned the usage in question. Besides, no other custom is mentioned
in the context than the one that he has been discussing. “If any one appear
contentious,” is not a custom and suggests nothing to which the words such a custom can naturally refer.”[50]
Let us once again consider the full impact of the apostle’s argument in
verse 16. Paul is asserting that all the apostles are in agreement that women
must cover their heads in public worship; that in every church (regardless of
location--whether in
Conclusion
Although the use of head coverings in public worship is obviously not as
important as the doctrines of the trinity, the two natures of Christ or
justification by faith alone, nevertheless, it is important for a number of
reasons. (1) It is required by Scripture and thus cannot be set aside like a bad
recipe. When God has spoken on an issue, our job is to trust and obey whether we
like it or not. (2) In our day when marriage and family life is at an all time
low, any teaching and practice that supports the covenant headship of the man
and the submission of the wife needs our utmost adherence. Head coverings
represent what God teaches about marriage. Therefore, we should not mock or hate
this biblical practice but embrace it wholeheartedly. (3) Culture at the present
time in
Copyright 2003
© Brian Schwertley
Home Free Downloads Books to Buy
[1] The standard orthodox interpretation of Galatians 3:28 (which was held by the Reformers and was universally accepted until the church was influenced by feminism in the nineteenth century) is that it speaks of the oneness of male and female as beneficiaries of God’s grace in Christ (see Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians (Cambridge: James Clarke, [1575] 1978), 342-343; John Calvin, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 112; John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament, 9:25; Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 6:663; James W. Porteous, The Government of the Kingdom of Christ (Edinburgh, 1873), 168; Ernest DeWitt Burton, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1980), 206-207; Otto Schmoller, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians ([1870] 1978) 2:88; R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, [1937] 1961), 188-189; Ronald Y. K. Fung, Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 175-176.
[2] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 1:353.
[3] John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament (Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library, [1809] 1979), 2:683.
[4] See Wayne Gruden, “The Meaning of Kephale (Head): A Response to Recent Studies” in John Piper and Wayne Gruden, ed., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991), 425 ff.
[5]
Calvin writes: “It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the
woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits
women from speaking in the Church (1 Tim. ii.12). It would not, therefore, be
allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence
it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to covering. It may
be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the
other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he
at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way,
but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in
chapter xiv.” (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
11:356; see also Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians
(
[6] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 6:561.
[7] John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, 2:684.
[8] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 506-507.
[9] Greg Price, Head Coverings in Scripture, chapter three (1996), Internet article, no pagination, no longer available.
[10] Sherman Isbell, Authority and the Woman’s Head: Notes on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (1995), unpublished paper.
[11] Richard Bacon, Paul’s Discourse on the Use of Head coverings in Public Worship: An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, TX: 1997), Internet article.
[12] Greg Price, Head Coverings in Scripture, Internet article, no pagination.
[13] James Moffat, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Hadder and Stoughton, 1938), 154.
[14]
John Murray, The Use of Head Coverings in the Worship of God, A personal letter
written on
[15] Buchsel, “anti” in Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:372.
[16] Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Kregel [1889] 1977), 557- 558.
[17] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 506.
[18] Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, [1857] 1958), 208.
[19]
Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, First Epistle on
[20] See Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 511.
[21] Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 1:298.
[22] See A. T. Robertson, Word Picture in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1951), 4:160.
[23] Fee, 511, footnotes 80 and 81.
[24] Marvin, R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1887] 1946), 3: 247.
[25] Moffat, 151.
[26] Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 307.
[27] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 514, footnote 8.
[28] In verse 7 Paul uses a figure of speech (an ellipsis) whereby the obligation of the woman in 7b is purposely left out because it is already implied as the opposite of what is obligated to do in worship.
[29] Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 153.
[30] Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 210.
[31] R.C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1937), 44.
[32]
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole
Bible (
[33] Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 210
[34] Matthew Henry, 6:562.
[35] Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1963 [1685]), 3:578.
[36] Greg Price, Head Coverings in Scripture, Internet article, no pagination.
[37] Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians, 553.
[38] Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians, 155.
[39] Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 212.
[40] Godet, 553.
[41] Oepke, “Kalupto” in Gerhard Kittle, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:562-563. Emphasis added.
[42] Clyde McKnight, Concerning The Head Covering, Internet article, http:/home:texoma.net/~moses/headcover.htm.
[43]
There was a cult in the Greco-Roman world where both men and women covered their heads
during the pagan sacrifice. This practice, however, was not something that
influenced the apostle’s teaching on public worship at all. Jewish men began to
cover their heads in the public service of the synagogues probably a few
generations after the close of the N.T. canon of Scripture. The priests
who ministered in the temple service covered their heads during their
ministrations. This practice, however, should not be considered a contradiction
to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 because: (a) the priest sacrificial
duty’s were ceremonial; (b) the priests were not worshipping in a public service
with their families but were serving God by themselves as a special class set
apart; (c) The turban on the head of a priest has a completely different meaning
them the veil on the head of a woman. (d) The priests were wearing a special
uniform. “Essentially a uniform draws attention to the office or function of
person, as opposed to his individual personality. It
emphasizes his job rather than his name” (G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979], 138). Regarding the high
priest’s dress, Wenham adds: “In putting on these clothes he took to himself all
the honor and glory of the high priesthood.... His glorious clothing symbolized
the significance of his office. Probably symbolic significance
was also attracted to the individual items in the priestly attire, but that now
escapes us” (Ibid, 139). Kellogg writes: “The official robes of
the high priest marked him...as the servant of the God of the tabernacle, whose livery
he wore. For these colours, various
modifications of light, all thus had a symbolic reference to the God of light,
who made the universe of which the Mosaic tabernacle was a type” (S. H. Kellogg,
The Book of Leviticus (Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1978 [1899]),
193).
[44] James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Houghter and Stoughton, 1958), 154.
[45] David E. Aune, Revelation 6-16 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 532.
[46]
God’s forbidding of those men who take the Nazarite vow to cut their hair (Num. 6:5) raises an obvious
question regarding Paul’s statement about long hair being a shameful and against
the created order. If it is wrong or shameful for a man to have long hair, then
how could God command the Nazarites to let their hair
grow long? There are a number of reasons why the Nazarite vow should not be used to overturn the teaching of
Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. First, it was well known to the Israelites that the
Nazarite vow was extraordinary and that the long hair
of the Nazarite had nothing to do with effeminacy. The
long hair symbolized an increased of the Spirit's power, which increased faith,
virtue and grace. The hair pointed to a greater consecration unto God. Second,
God who established the natural order of things has the right to make exceptions
to the normal order of things; we do not. Third, there are positive elements
regarding appearance that God can or could changed that do not contradict the
moral law in any way. God created Adam and Eve with a difference in appearance.
Eve had long beautiful hair and Adam had short hair. Jehovah could have made the
difference hair color (e.g., men- black hair; women- pink hair) but He chose
hair length as the difference. Thus, while under normal circumstances men should
have short hair exceptions can be made for Nazarites
and for those who couldn’t cut their hair for health reasons. This point,
however, does not mean that we can overturn Paul’s command because of customs or
personal opinion.
[47] Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 214.
[48]
Gordon Clark, First Corinthians
(
[49] Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977 [1889]), 560.
[50]
Charles Hodge, 1 and 2
Corinthians, 214. Leon Morris also gives the correct interpretation
of verse 16. He writes “But Paul has no intention of arguing the matter with any
who is given to wordy battles (contentious, philoneikos, is one who loves strife). Such are capable
of prolonging an argument indefinitely. In the face of such an attitude Paul
points to universal custom. We have no
such custom, i.e., such as women praying or prophesying with head uncovered.
Exactly whom he means by we is not
clear, but the addition, neither the
churches of God, shows that what he has just outlined is the habit
throughout the Christian churches.” (1
Corinthians [
[51] Some people who not want to submit to Paul’s teaching on head coverings seize upon the word “custom” in verse 16 and argue that a custom is a culturally conditioned, temporary practice. This argument should be rejected for the following reasons. (1) Paul’s argumentation in support of the imperative (“let her be covered”) cannot be reduced to a support for a merely local, temporary custom. Appeals to the creation ordinance of covenant headship, the purpose of the man and woman, the teaching of nature or general revelation and the observation of angles render such an argument absurd. (2) The statement that every church everywhere does not allow women to worship without the head covering proves that the use of head coverings was trans-cultural. Keep in mind that Greek women were not accustomed to wearing head coverings in their rituals. (3) The Greek word for custom (sunetheia) in verse 16 denotes the habitual practice of the churches and not a mere custom in the sense of a Dutch wooden shoe festival. Paul K. Jewett (who is certainly no friend of covenant headship or Presbyterian orthodoxy) agrees. He writes: “Therefore the apostle’s remark (v. 16) that the churches of God have no such custom (sunetheia) of women unveiling themselves during public worship cannot mean that he regarded the whole matter as a mere custom. Though one may argue that such is the case, one cannot say that this is what the text means. Quite the contrary, this particular custom, in the thinking of Paul, was part of the apostolic tradition which he had given them and by which they were bound. This, in fact is the note on which he opens the whole discussion, praising them for holding fast traditions (paradosis) ‘even as delivered them to you’ (v. 2)” (Man as Male and Female [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975], p.118).