Are Christian women neglecting the command for head-coverings in church? Some consider this section of Scripture as completely cultural and identify all parts as the custom of contention (1 Cor 11:16). However, Christians cannot avoid that the apostle Paul commanded that Christians must maintain tradition just as delivered to them (1 Cor 11:2). Many believe that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that women must wear cloth coverings hanging over their heads when practicing their faith around men. The interpretations of this passage vary among believers concerning whether the covering is spiritual, garment, or hair. This study draws observations from the Scriptures with consideration of historical background.
Covering and Glory
Long hair is the only covering that Paul specifically mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11. However, some women may not have long hair and need another covering. The text reveals, “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor 11:15). Verses 6 and 7 use the Greek word katakalupto, which literally means “to cover downward” (Gingrich and Danker’s lexicon, BDAG). A woman’s head being uncovered was the same personal shame as having her hair sheared or shaved (1 Cor 11:4–6).
Starting from verse 4, this passage is about what will personally shame the woman’s head. Verse 5 indicates that a personal shame for a woman to shear or shave her head. As other scriptures explain, the woman who elaborately arranged her hair uncovered her head and disregarded her God-given glory and God’s headship. Having long hair is a God-given glory to the woman (1 Cor 11:15). The Scriptures teach that the Christian woman should cover her head in subordination to God’s order of headship and thereby glorify God, Christ, and man (1 Cor 11:3–6). God made male and female in His image and yet He has given each a different glory. “Woman is the glory of man” because man is the “glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7).
Humility, Modesty, and Hair
The woman who washed Jesus’s feet demonstrated how a woman letting her hair down was an act of humility (Luke 7:36–50; cf. Matt 28:9). Lazarus’s sister, Mary of Bethany, demonstrated humility by wiping Jesus’s feet with her hair and anointing him with oil in preparation for his burial (John 12:1–8). In the Journal of Biblical Literature, Charles Cosgrove cited numerous ancient sources depicting how women let their hair down as an act of humility within the Greco-Roman and Jewish societies.[1]
Both Paul and Peter instructed modesty and humility among women in 1 Corinthians 11. In 1 Peter 3:1–6, Peter also applied caution to the external decorating of hair and clothing where a woman’s adornment must exist within her heart. Peter explained, “Your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God” (1 Pet 3:3–4 NASB). The braiding of hair appears to mean putting up the hair against the head rather than hanging and covering the head. This practice of braiding with gold and peals demonstrated a lack of humility and modesty.
In Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Ferguson noted,
Portrait sculpture of the Flavian period gives specificity to the type of hairstyles and jewelry forbidden in 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3. The braiding of the hair was very elaborate and ostentatious, quite unlike the simple braid of modern times. The items mentioned in the biblical texts were characteristic of the wealthy upper classes and those who imitated them.[2]
God also instructed the Christian women in 1 Timothy 2:9–10, “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided [woven] hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.” The apostle Paul described elaborately adorned hair as immodest, insubordinate, and not proper for a woman’s claim to godliness. The immodest women in the church at Corinth most probably had put their hair up and probably elaborately adorned their hair woven with gold and pearls demonstrating immodesty, wealth, and authority that was not proper in the church.[3]
Headship and Head-Covering
By not letting their hair hang down, women dishonored God’s headship by dishonoring the man who is head of woman. This headship is not dominance of one over another, but this is like God’s headship to Christ and Christ’s headship to man. Headship implied servant leadership (Mark 10:42–45). Christ led by service, and so men are to lead women by service. By elaborately braiding and adorning hair with gold and pearls, women behaved or appeared as wealthy and immodest, and thus some women exercised authority over men. Thereby, they appeared to reject the man’s God-given instruction to lead and teach because God created man first for this purpose (1 Tim 2:13–14; cf. 1 Cor 11:3, 7–9).
In the Greco-Roman world, the custom for powerful women of authority was to braid their hair with gold and pearls and dress as though higher than others. Pagan women in this time led worship to Diana and Dionysus, and thus women exercised power and influence through the cults.[4] Among the churches, some women arranged and adorned their hair with gold and pearls, and they did not let their long hair hang down to show the God-given glory of woman and the glory of man in woman (1 Cor 11:7, 15). The apostles taught that a woman’s hair was to demonstrate modesty and humility to glorify her God-given glory of man and God’s headship. However, the shame of a woman cutting her hair short was her personal shame. The Greek word for this “shame” is kataischuno appearing in verses 4 and 5, and this word specifically refers to a personal shame or humiliation among people. This word also appears in 1 Corinthians 11:22 where those who partook of the Lord’s Supper without waiting for other Christians were trying to humiliate and shame them (cf. 1 Cor 1:27).
Custom and Contention
The context of 1 Corinthians 11 is that a Christian is not to offend another’s conscience with one’s liberty (1 Cor 10:23–33). The message is a matter of modesty between men and women under the headship of God and Christ. Christian women must display Godly principles of modesty and humility even in dress. Women are not to shame their heads with claims of authority or shame of cutting her hair short. These Scriptures guide Christians to present God’s headship as God is head of Christ, Christ is head of man, and man is head of woman. Christians should remain considerate of demonstrating humility and modesty.
Because of contention, the apostle Paul affirmed that the churches of God have no such custom of women praying with their heads uncovered (1 Cor 11:13–16). Christians must avoid contention over customs. In 1 Corinthians 11:13, Paul expressed, “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (NASB). The use of the word “proper” indicates whatever is for modesty and to respect authority. That same Greek word for “proper” also appears in 1 Timothy 2 to a related matter. In 1 Timothy 2:10, Paul revealed what is proper that Christian women are to adorn themselves with good works “as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.” The translators interpret “proper” from the Greek word prepo meaning “becoming,” “appropriate,” or “fitting” (Matt 3:15; Eph 5:3; Titus 2:1; Heb 2:10; 7:26). Therefore, these Christian women were to pray with their hair hanging to cover their heads as is proper and fitting for demonstrating the headship that God established. In this setting, these Christian women were to allow their hair to hang down in humility because long hair is a God-given covering and glory. In other words, women are to maintain feminine appearance especially in how they keep their hair.
Nature reveals that men and women differ in their pattern of hair. The apostle Paul exhorted, “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor 11:13–15). The apostle Paul observed that long hair for a man and cropped hair for a woman is a “disgrace” according to nature. Nature as God’s created order affects customs and culture despite society’s resistance.
Coffman’s Commentary
Furthermore, consider the insight of James B Coffman who comments upon a woman’s hair as her covering:
Verse 4
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
Having his head covered…
Here is where the misunderstanding of this passage begins. This clause, as rendered in the popular versions, is commentary, not Bible. As Echols noted:
“Having his head covered” is a commentary, not a translation. Lenski translated the sense correctly: “having something down from his head.” What the “something” is is neither stated nor implied in 1 Corinthians 11:4.
The logical understanding of this would refer it to “long hair,” being long enough to hang down from the head, as clearly indicated by the apostles’ words a moment later: “If a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him” (1 Corinthians 11:14).
The ancients accepted Paul’s dictum on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an infraction of Paul’s words.
“The hair of the head may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes … cropping is to be adopted … let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets.”
Significantly, the words “hang far down” strongly resemble Paul’s words “having something down from his head.” The above is from Clement of Alexandria and was written in the second century.[5]
However, some may ask about verses 5–6. These verses seem to imply that not covering with a garment is like a woman’s hair being sheared or shaved. Paul is simply affirming that short hair and hair drawn up on the head is the same as a cropped or shaved head. A literal translation is:
Every woman praying or prophesying with head uncovered disgraces her head; for this is also one and the same as being shaved. For if the woman is not covered, she must also become sheared; and if this is a disgrace to the woman to become sheared or shaved, she must remain covered. (1 Cor 11:5–6)
Coffman noted,
If Paul meant “hair,” why did he use the word “covered”? The answer is that in the vocabulary of the Old Testament “to uncover the head” was to shave off the hair. When Nadab and Abihu sinned (Leviticus 10:1ff), God commanded Aaron not to “uncover his head” in mourning at their death; and this meant not to cut off his hair (the customary sign of mourning). Job shaved his head when he learned his children were dead (Job 1:20). Many examples of this usage could be cited.[6]
“If it is a shame to a woman to be cropped or shaven, let her be covered” in verse 6 clearly refers to a covering of hair as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:15, “And if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her long hair is given to her for a covering.”
Because of the Angels
What about verse 10’s reference to angels: “because of the angels”? Verse 10 is referring to authority. This scripture shows how women should have authority on their heads. The woman who prophesies also receives revelation from God through angels to prophesy and angels also deliver prayers (Heb 2:2; Rev 1:1; 8:3–4). This instruction has to do with the woman’s service in prayer and teaching before God. She is to serve with apparent respect and modesty. Therefore, “every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Cor 11:5).
By not covering her head, the Christian woman dishonors herself being that God created her as the glory of man and in the image of God. Paul revealed, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). The woman is subordinating to the man by her modesty and covering. Her hair hanging down is her glory for she is the glory of man. This is how the Christian woman honors the headship of God, Christ, and man.
[Last edited June 28, 2021]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Charles Cosgrove, “A Woman’s Unbound Hair,” JBL 124 (2005): 675–92.
- Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 97.”
- Ferguson reported, “In which cultures in the first centuries women wore veils in public, in what numbers, and with what significance are not perfectly clear now. Jewish sources rather uniformly call for women to be veiled in public, but Greek and Roman sources are mixed in their evidence. In classical Greece the veil was worn outside the house by women who had reached sexual maturity — married and young women of marriageable age, and Jewish sources may be read the same way. In depictions in a Greek wedding, the bride lifts her veil to her husband. A Roman woman on her wedding day was a given a red veil. Statuary makes clear that the Greco-Roman veil was the top of the garment pulled over the head; one should not think of the modern Arabic and Islamic veil that covers most of the face as well as the head. In Roman religion the men as well as women were veiled when offering a sacrifice. The Jewish custom for men to cover their heads when praying and studying the law is later than New Testament times” (97).
- Bruce Morton, Deceiving Winds, (Nashville: 21st Century Christian, 2009).
- James Burton Coffman, “Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11.” Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, <www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/1-corinthians-11.html> (Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, TX) 1983-1999.
- Ibid.
- Coffman perceived, “With her head unveiled…
The word here rendered ‘unveiled’ is [Greek: akatakaluptos]. ‘There is no intrinsic meaning in this word which suggests either the covering material or the object covered; it is simply a general word.’ (See under 1 Corinthians 11:15.) Only in 1 Cor. 11:15 does Paul mention any kind of garment ([Greek: peribolaion]) and even there he stated that the woman’s hair took the place of it. [Katakaluptos] means covered completely. [Akatakaluptos] means not completely covered. Thus again, the passage falls short of mentioning any kind of garment. To suppose that Paul here meant ‘mantle’ or ‘veil’ or any such thing is to import into this text what is not in it. We have seen that he was speaking of ‘hair’ in 1 Cor. 11:4; and that is exactly what he is speaking of here. ‘Not completely covered’ would then refer to the disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian women in cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes; which, if they did it, was exactly the same kind of disgrace as if they had shaved their heads. It is crystal clear that Paul is not speaking of any kind of garment; because he said in 1 Cor. 11:15, below, ‘For her hair is given her instead of a covering.'”
The Breath of God 
thanks for the great reply. where i am sitting with it right now, is that a woman is to have long hair, no veil necessary — that was simply Corinthian custom – the custom that is in question just here — it is the natural, or inborn thing. as i mentioned earlier, men and women both can do that which is against “nature,” Romans 1. i believe this to be one of those times. again, the word for covering is “hanging down from.” this the man was not to have, but the woman was to have. we are told that “long hair” is a shame for a man to wear. Why? because it is unnatural. one might say, who says it is unnatural? i believe God does in this text. this is why it is stated in v.15 that a woman’s hair (long hair) is given her instead of a covering. i found a much different idea from what you did for this word covering. it was used as a mantle, a garment which had length enough to wrap around, etc. Surely this better fits the text as well. if one will stop and think though, a turban is a single, long piece of cloth. wrapped round and round. this would fit the idea of long hair as well.
One text that has always interested me just here is that found in rev. 9:7-8. the locusts had faces as the faces of men (mankind), and hair as the hair of a “woman.” This is a Jew writing to Gentiles, and yet the Holy Spirit chooses a universal type wording just here. All of the other body parts are discernible, as is this one. This locust did not have a little tuft of hair on its head as so many women wear today. it had long hair as that found in 1 cor. 11 — this again was understood universally. This hair was such a length as not to be shorn or shaven, as a man’s. Isn’t it interesting as well that in Paul’s letter to Timothy (likely while timothy was in ephesus, one of the 7 churches of Asia) in chap. 2, we do not find Paul’s demanding a veil of the women, but that they not fix their hair in what most think is a fashion like that of one desiring to catch a few looks – 2:9 — notice that the women’s hair was long enough to braid. Corinth was an entirely different area, yet this appeal to length of hair as opposed to the custom of making the women wear a veil (which the greek women would have done, but not the jewish — and the greek men went uncovered while, if what we see today of jewish men is any sign, the jewish men did not). this certainly could have added to the dissention in corinth.
so we have John, a jew saying to the gentiles of ephesus and elsewhere, and for all times, that one can distiguish a woman’s hair from that of a man. You have Paul writing to timothy, and not commanding a veil, but telling the women not to braid their hair, likely refering to entwining as did the harlots, gold and pearls. We can find from numbers 6 and the nazarite vow, that it was one of the true signs that a man was under the vow, because he had long hair. this was therefore an oddity among jewish men.
in corinthians, the Spirit through Paul has reached all the way back to the beginning, according as God would have things, to squelch this schism in corinth over the veil (v.15). V.13, after this run on the natural order of things for the man and woman — we then have v.13 – he tells them to judge for themselves as to whether it is fit or right for a woman to pray without something “hanging down.” He then answers his own question in vs. 14-15 — nature, or that which is natural, the same thing or order he has been discussing in most of this section — nature teaches them, and therefore us, that if a man has long hair it is a shame — but if a woman has “long hair” it is a glory for her —- why? for it is given her (when was it given her for this purpose? — i believe in the beginning, when she was created for the man) instead of a mantle. Your thoughts on when.
well, there are my thoughts again.
thanks for the excellent dialogue.
fred
The word for “veil” is “Periboleion” not the usually word for veil. This means simply a cloth that can be a turban or any type of clothing. Here are the only Scriptures that use this word: Gen. 49:11, Ex. 22:26, Deut. 22:12, Judges 8:26, Job 26:6, Psalm 102:26, 104:6, Isaiah 50:3, 54:12, 59:17, Jeremiah 15:12, Ezekiel 16:13, 27:7, 40:5, 42:20; Heb. 1:12, 1 Cor. 11:15 (OT is LXX).
The usual word for veil is “kaluma” (see 2 Cor. 3:13ff).
Are you suggesting that the coverings were both hair and a garment depending on amount of hair? That could be possible looking at 1 Cor. 11:15. There, depending on the length of hair a woman with short hair should wear veil while a woman with long hair is covered.
As Coffman quoted, “For her hair is given her instead of a covering.” Given by who? God.
Nevertheless, thank for the discussion.
another quick thought scott,
her long hair was given “instead” of a veil (the only time the word for veil is used in the text. therefore, there must have been some issue with veil binding in corinth.
hi scott,
think we are in agreement here. think paul was telling them not to divide over the veil because God has already decided that the distinguishing factor would be the length of the hair, and any culture can follow that law. women are to have long hair hanging down from the head, and men are not. agreed?
Fred,
Thank you for commenting.
Yes, “veil” is put in contrast to hair, but that does not show that hair is not the covering or that the covering is cloth. This is clearly a man-made custom that we need not divide over.
God bless you.
just jumping in here. never done this before, but here it goes. since the word is “veil” in 11:15, it would seem to imply that this is what the “hanging down from the head” contention was over would it not? Otherwise, why the word?
Second, is this word nature found in v.14. it is interesting that this is the same word phusis found in such passages as those in Romans 1:26-27 where the women did with the women, and men with men that which was against “nature” or the “natural” use. some say that since men can grow long hair as do women, this could not be what God meant, that is that men must have short hair and women long. well, God meant that a man sleep with a woman, and that was the “natural” use — yet sex can be performed man with man, and woman with woman. just because something may be done against nature as God intended it, does not justify the action.
Third, it does not say “Customs”, it says “Custom”. Paul was discussing one custom. since we have the word veil in v.15, and the women were to have hanging down from the head, and long hair was their glory, and men were not to have hanging down from the head, and long hair is a shame to them, does it not fit that since her her was given her for a covering — literally “instead” of a covering (look this one up for yourself, it is truly an eye opener for this text0 — it appears to me that they did have an issue over “veil” wearing v.15 in corinth. To say it was to separate them from the harlots is extra biblical commentary since such can be found nowhere in the text, though I am inclined to hold to such myself — nonetheless, there was one custom over which there was dissention. that one custom dealt with the “hanging down from the head” issue. Veil or no veil, though I believe it was about the corinthians requiring a veil, and paul enforcing that as a cultural requirement under “all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient” and the Romans 14 and 1 Cor.8 concept —- he then turns, and explains to them that they need to realize that although he has encouraged this arrangement there for the sake of unity, this is a man-made law or custom, and the churches of God as a whole follow no such law. This is why he ends his dissertation to them with — but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory (as per v.14) for hair (notice the word her is in italics) is given her “instead” of a “veil.”
thoughts?
One more thing. I have a few atheist friends who always bring up Corinthians verse 3 “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Now, these friends are girls, and they quote many more versus after this which they view as oppressive and sexist. I have to say, I might be a little disgruntled at what Paul has to say if I were a woman to. What can I tell them?
Tell them Galatians 3:28. Tell them that everyone submits to someone else even Christ. Tell them that if God made them then He would understand women better than they know themselves (a word originating in 1967). Those who cannot submit to others, humble themselves, and become disciples will not be saved. If they will not submit to Christ, then they certainly would despise and struggle with submitting to a man.
From the atheist’s perspective, evolution is sexist (and racist too -see story of Ota Benga). According to evolution, it was evolution that made 2 sexes where one could dominate the other and where one sex could carry, birth, and nurse. That’s sexist!
Hey Scott.
The scope of my understanding of the scripture is quite narrow. Let me just clear this up as I understand it right now. Paul is giving us a natural law in which we can-and should submit to in order to demonstrate our love for God. Second, if there is to be contention which I assume means conflict, this natural law should no longer be a focus point. For isn’t the main underlying point of our relationship with God faith in Jesus Christ? So, if we can do it we ought to. But it should never be given the spotlight to the point where it causes divisions and hard hearts. Tell me if I am understanding this please.
Aaron,
Did you read the article? It was informative not instructing a command. Verse 16, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Why did you make that assumption that I took a narrow position on this?
You make an excellent point. We should not be contentious over this. Before I completely understood what this passage was saying, I was content and I am still am with 1 Cor. 11:16, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
Is it not possible that in 1 Cor. 11:16 Paul is saying that we have no such custom as being contentious. In this case he is forbidding the spirit of contentiousness. It would be wrong to be contentious about something that Paul has clarified.