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 
Dear Scott
Here we might, as you suggested, discuss two ignored commands: “OK, let’s put the headcovering aside and speak about footwashing. Or about anointing the sick ones with oil.”
Footwashing:
=========
Our Lord Jesus did it, and He said this was an example of murual service. But what did He then command? Just to serve one another or to wash on anothers feet the same way as a repeated example of this service? Which kind of service? It is about cleansing so we can have fellowship with God.
I believe the latter for the following reasons:
It follows the same kind of logic as in two other instances:
In Baptism, He took what was already there (the baptism of John), was baptized Himself, gave Baptism a new meaning connected with His sacrifice. And He commanded His disciples to do so.
In the Lord’s Supper, He took what was already there (bread and wine), partook of it Himself, gave bread and wine a new meaning connected with His sacrifice. And He commanded His disciples to do so.
In Footwashing, He took what was already there (a common act of service), did it Himself, gave the footwashing a new meaning connected with His sacrifice (cleansing from sins after baptism). And He commanded His disciples to do so.
Second:
It is mentioned again in 1Tim 5 in the qualifications for widows. All these qualifications are to be understood literally, footwashing would be the only exception if Paul used the term only figuratively.
Third: Church History
Throughout church History many churches have kept this practice. There is a continuous record at least back to the 2nd century.
Anointing the sick ones with oil:
======================
Twice in the NT it is mentioned that the sick ones were anointed with oil: In Mk 6:13 and in James 5:14+15. It is meant to accompny the prayer for healing and thus is a part of a promise made by God.
I hardly ever heard of Ministers in Evangelical churches or churches of Christ who actually did that. Although it is mentioned twice and seems to be pretty easy to do.
On the other hand, there is a continuos practice throughout the whole church history from the beginnings till today of anointing the sick.
It seems to me, that it is rather typical for ver Bible-Oriented non-charismatic groups to not do this as it is written.
Please understand, Im not writing this to be offensive. I just wonder, if we could explain that to our Lord Himself, why we just do don’t do what he told us to do or offered us to do.
I believe it is not about having “good” explanations but about faith and simple obedience. The texts themselves are very plain and easy to understand.
What do you think about it?
Alexander
These commands are not ignored. The Apostles in Christ’s Church should wash the feet of those who should be washed. Those who pray for the sick should anoint with oil those who need anointing.
Most of members of the Church don’t have those opportunities here.
This was the clearest explanation of this passage I have ever gotten! Thank you. I am a black woman and you know we have “different” hair from most of humanity. Do you think it is wrong for us to keep our hair cut short? Most women, as we age, face hair thinning or lost; so it is easier and looks better cut. Of course, our hair is our glory and we always want it looking the best it can possibly look. Sometimes that means keeping it cut short. Also, verse 10 says a woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels. That verse seems so out of place to me when there is nothing else before or after it concerning angels. Help me out of that one, please.
If a woman needs to cut her hair short because of thin hair, hair loss, or maybe she is having treatment for cancer, then this is certainly not a sin knowing that this is a custom for us to judge without contention (1 Cor. 11:16). If such a woman stills wants to cover her head, then she would better wear a covering that hung down to her shoulders as the word for covering means here.
Regarding the angels, this is one of the most hardest passages in all of Scriptures for many scholars admit that they do understand. This is what we can know. This is clearly referring to authority in verse 10, so let’s look to the context and see what is said about authority. The woman is receiving revelation from God through angels to be able to prophesy (Heb. 2:2, Rev. 1:1) and the woman is having her prayers delivered by angels (Rel. 8:3-4), and therefore “every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Cor. 11:5). The dishonor is to herself being the glory of man. This also goes back to 11:3, “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.” The woman is submitting to the man and is not bypassing the man to communicate with God and God with her through the angels. Her hair hanging down to her shoulders was customary symbol of authority. Again, I must say that if any are contentious about this, then we have no such custom.
May God bless you with grace and peace in Christ Jesus. In addition to our discussion, please be sure to study and understand the purpose and meaning of baptism in Jesus’ name.
“If the accepted custom of the day was fore the women to cover their heads, then, for the sake of unity, Paul instructs them to cover their heads.”
And where did that custom come from – according to the text? It is something the apostle handed down! Where did he get it from?
In the whole of 1st Corinthinas Paul reminds the church that they cannot have it their own way, because what is being taught in ALL churches must be followed in Corinth, too. There are at least 5 reminders in the whole letter of what Paul teaches everywhere – 1st Cor 11 being on of them.
If the accepted custom of the curches today is different than back then (which is the fact), then whom are we to follow? That’s a different but very interesting question.
Every church has different customs from the number of songs in the Assembly to the number and types of Bible studies to their specific acts of benevolence. “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
I interpret the passage on the question of women covering their head/hair in context to the whole of 1 Corinthians; Paul is writing to address specific issues that have brought to his attention, all of which have caused disunity within the “congreation”. His emphasis in Chapter 14 is unity among the believers. In the passage immediately preceeding Chapter 11, Paul teaches us not to do anything that would cause another to stumble. Likewise we should be sensitive to anothers so that they will not be offended by our actions. If the accepted custom of the day was fore the women to cover their heads, then, for the sake of unity, Paul instructs them to cover their heads.
DICK
I agree. That is the heart and the principle of the passage.
Dear Brandon
Imagine the time of the time of the Apostles: Even the Christians back then sometimes had difficulties to understand God’s wisdom (which is natural). As long as the Apostles were there, however, they could correct misunderstandings and set things in order. 1 Corinthians is one of the best examples of how Paul did this.
When the Apostles departed (John died shortly befor the year 100) they left churches, that were well rooted in their teachings. You can see quite well, that in the first two generations after the Apostles there was a great unanimity among all churches in the Roman Empire. They believed the same things and practiced the same things (with some regional variances, but still, very similar). If we were born in these days, we’d have said: “Well, everything is crystal clear! Understanding the faith is easy.” That’s because the word of the book was explained by the apostolic practice of the churches.
But from the 3rd century on, theological debates became more important than a simple Christ-like faith. Starting with Constantine councils tried to clarify what actually has formerly been clear and became obscure due to these debates. Each council added confusion, so to say. The state-church system changed the entire appearance of Christ’s church, infant-baptism tore down its walls. The church became virtually invisible, destroyed in their basic structures, convictions and purposes.
Since the time of the Reformation different theologians tried to restore the church. Can you imagine, how difficult that task was and is?
Luther came from a medieval mindset, became enlighted by the gospel, but his mindset also filtered what he read. He restored a part of the church, but his heart became more and more hardened towards other essential truths. He even persecuted fellow Christians as the Anabaptists.
Zwingly was strongly influenced by Humanism. In a way, their battle cry “back to the roots” helped him to go beyond Luther’s reformation, but still his mindset was shaped by the ideals of the Renaissance. He was a church-man and a politician at the same time, and also became a persecutor of the Anabaptists.
The Anabaptists, who separated themselves from Zwingli came closest to the New Testament church, but due to persecution they soon lost their most gifted leaders, and thus sometimes came up with weird uneducated ideas. As the movement was driven out of Europe it lost its significance and impact.
The Restoration movement comes from the Swiss Reformation and – especially both Campbells – were strongly influenced by the rationalistic mindset of the Enlightenment. They accomplished a great work, however. But rationalism tends to put God in a box and to imprison the Spirit of God between the covers of His book.
Today, as we are called to continue the restoration of God’s church, we are being confused by a pluralistic society, that still lives among the symbols of its Christian heritage, but has lost their meaning completely. “modern”, “post-modern”, “post-Christian”, “hedonistic” or “individualistic”… All this has a strong influence on the way we look at things.
I totally agree, Brandon, that everything has become extremely confusing. The problem is not the Bible, however, but our glasses and our mindset. But the situation is not hopeless at all:
Restoration has to do with a diligent search for historic truth under the guidance of the Spirit of truth. Truth can be found and will be found by those who are willing to follow Him wherever He leads. Christ is the Truth. And the cost for finding the Truth is nothing less than the cross. He wave to be willing to die to our upbringing, to die to our status in society, to die to our man-made wisdom and mindset, to die to our flesh in order to become conformed to His resurrected life.
Following this rule and guideline makes understanding the Bible fairly simple again. At least, that’s how I (gradually) experience it.
All glory be to God. And may He bless our search for truth
Alexander
Seek, and you will…
Passages like these make me doubt the validity of the Bible. I don’t wish to cause any discouragement among anyone who reads this, but I don’t understand why the Bible has to be this way. I feel as though I have to go on a scavenger hunt to know the truth of what God wants, and everybody in the world is coming up with a different answer, which makes me question, is the Bibile really the immutable word of God? Becuase of passages like these and the way people think they have THE right interpretation, I am quite discouraged.
The Bible is meant to be understood (Eph. 3:3-5). Yet, the Bible is not always easy to understand. In this case, translation has caused much problem. Jesus did not mean that all His parables be understood (Matt. 13:31ff). Also, the Spirit of Christ through Paul said, “our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”
No matter the custom here of hair being a covering and, or a cloth mantle being a covering, the principle is that customs of respect should be kept unless “if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16).
Doubt can be a point of growth in understanding or become an excuse for rebellion.
I’ll try to give you some links to the resources. The authors that write specifically on the veil are: Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian (from Carthage), Hipploytus (from Rome) and the Apostolic Constitutions (from Syria). We then have frescoes from Catacombs that show, how it was applied in Rome, and from Dura Europos, near the Persian border. All these sources are Ante-Nicene, from a time, when the churches had no central leadership to govern such matters.
There were also different applications in the details. Clement wrote, for instance:
“And a Christian woman will never fail, if she puts before her eyes modesty and her veil. Nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word (Logos, meaning Christ), since it is becoming for a woman to pray veiled.” (Paidagogos III,11 – about going to church)
You will notice that a) Clement ties the veil to the teaching of modesty and b) that the application included veiling the face. (That was about 400 years before the rise of Islam).
On the other hand, if you look at the images in the catacombs, you see, that the sisters wore a scarf over their head while praying, but when they did not pray, they had a bare head. You can see examples for this at La Vista CoC: http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/ImagesOfHeadCoveringsDuringWorship.htm
Tertullian wrote a lengthy essay on the question whether virgins also shall be veiled, or married women only (there is an ambibuity in the text of 1 Cor 11 concerning this). There he made the noteworthy statement:
“Likewise the Corinthians themselves understood him in this manner. In fact, at this very day, the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the Apostls taught, their disciples approve.” (On the veiling of Virgins chapter 8)
In this same chapter, just in the lines before, he says (still dealing with the question of virgins): “As virgins are not to be compelled to be veiled, so let the boys not be bidden to be unveiled (in other words: Be consistent! Alexander). Why do we partly acknowldge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to “every man”, without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute to “every woman”. “If any”, he says, “is contentious, we have not such custom, nor has the church of god.”
So, this is one of the few “commentaries” on verse 16. You will notice that he deals with a different question, but he understands that “no such custom” not to point to contentiousness, but to praying unveiled.
The whole text can be read at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.iv.html
I don’t want to make this too long, though. Just an anectote to close this post: The veil got lost in the Roman Catholic Church at Vatican II. A journalist asked one of the cardinals whether the prayer veil will be an issue at the council. The cardinal answered, it won’t be an issue. But the newspapere next day had the headline: “Women are no longer required to wear the veil”. The cardinal tried to correct that, but actually, that was the end of that practice (in the west). The prayer veil was still canonical law until 1983 (!), when they took it out, following the “downgrade” in general practice (in the west). But even today, women who have an audience with the pope, are to come veiled (such was the case even with Laura Bush!).
I hope this helps a little (I could provide more information, but maybe that’s too much for this comment-part of your blog).
Alexander
Thank you. I have much to consider. Any further comments are welcome that other readers may get a balanced look at this subject.
The writings and pictures are not authoritative sources. The “coverings” mentioned in the sources are clearly customary. The picture of Greek pagan women worshiping shows her with cropped hair.
The Scriptures makes clear that these coverings are hair and that having hair upon the shoulders of women was customary and not to be kept in contentions.
I think it is very hard for us to define the precice meanings of Greek terms, since we are not born in this language (I myself followed the terms through the LXX, too). So sometimes our commentaries provide educated guesses rather than facts. That’s why I strongly recommend the understanding of the Early Church as a commentary to such questions. Not one teacher or elder in the second or third century who grew up a native-speaker in Koine-Greek understood verses 14 and 15 the way these modern commentaries do. This should let us reflect our academic knowledge with a little more self-criticism. The Holy Spirit did not just come in the second half of the 20th century.
Concerning verse 16, I am convinced that it answers verse 13:
Q: Is it appropriate when women pray with an uncovered head?
A: We don’t have such a custom, neither do the churches of God.
Custom does not refer to being contentious (which is not a custom, but a sin), but to the question in verse 13. So the point that Paul makes is that there is a uniform custom in all churches, which is – actually – an apostolic tradition which to hold to is praiseworthy (verse 2) and even commanded (2 Thess 2:15).
Between verse 13 and verse 16 he introduces an illustration as a secondary argument. But this was not meant to confuse the whole chapter but to help us understand what is appropriate and what isn’t.
Again, the understanding of verse 16 that in all churches of God the women cover their heads is confirmed by the testimony of the Early Church throughout the whole Roman Empire and throughout the whole church history up to the days of my childhood. Even today men generally are expected to remove their heads in prayer (which is the other side of the coin – verse 4).
Please understand that I don’t want to be pushy. It is just that I see where a wrong explanation of this passage has led in the last 50 years. I appreciate, that you still teach the Biblical headship – so why not restore the Biblical symbols and reminder of headship even if we only did it for the angels?
The Lord be with you
(By the way: A very good article on Spurgeon and baptism, you wrote)
Please, I would be grateful to get those sources from the early church writers. I would hope that Clement of Rome had something to say.
No offense, but I am not grasping your words on 1 Cor. 11:16. I do not see the separation between coverings being the custom in verse 13 and not in verse 6 too. Could you rephrase your words?
I appreciate your compliment.
Dear Scott
I am from Vienna/Austria, and I think you make some wrong assumptions (or the commentary you use). Most commentators, as I observe, constantly ignore the understanding of those churches, that lived in the time, cultere and language of the apostels or shortly after. In these churches, whether you ask in Egypt or Carthage, or Rome or Syria, there is but one unaninmous understanding of this passage.
And this understanding was practiced among all churches and denominations until the mid 20th century. I hate to tell you, that these novel ideas are nothing but an adoption of secular opinions, a discord among the churches causing schism and unnecessary quarrels. I am sad and really upset to see this happen in our churches, to see almost none of the brothers taking a firm position against the tide of the world.
But in detail, so it does not remain just an emotional statement:
There is an important difference between a natural and permanent covering/veil such as long hair for women, and a temporary covering, that is used only on special occasions such as prayer and prophesy. You cannot have long hair all week or all day, but when you have a time of prayer, you cut it short. This makes no sense.
You cannot say to a woman: If you do not want to have long hair, then we should cut your hair. (see 1 Cor 11:6) This makes no sense, either.
You also have to understand that Paul has a primary line of arguments in the verses 3-10, which includes headship, glory and the angels; and that he has a secondary line of arguments, that he uses for illustration; which are the verses 14 and 15. Here he points to nature, saying that it is completely natural to make a distinction between men and women. Here he makes the “famous” statement, that the hair is given her as a veil.
But does that mean, she doesn’t need to cover her head in prayer? Not at all! He simply says, that even nature veils women with long hair, which is her glory. BUT in the presence of God all human glory is to be covered. It is not by chance that Paul uses two different words: Veil and Covering.
Long hair as a natural veil and glory is permanent. The covering Pauls speaks of in the verses 3-10 ist temporary and is meant to cover men’s glory in the presence of God: The woman being man’s glory, the long hair being the woman’s glory.
If you make a graphic illustration based on Verses 3 and 7-9 and 16, that shows heads, man and woman, and their glories; you can cover up what needs to be covered on your peace of paper:
Christ is the head of man => uncovered
Man is the head of woman => covered
Man is God’s glory => uncovered
Women is Man’s glory => covered
Her hair is Woman’s glory => covered
So in the end, both (!!) the man and the woman are covered, only Christ remains uncovered (symbolized by the man’s uncovered head).
The man’s and the woman’s glory are coverd, only God’s glory remains uncovered (symbolized by the man).
So it is all about God’s glory and headship, a point virtually all commentaries miss, who try to explain away what has been practiced faithfully for 1900 years.
This was a common practice even among churches of Christ until the 1950s. Now a growing number of congregations even let sisters preach and become elders. It only took one generation from giving up the symbol of headship to giving up headship in general.
You know the tree by the fruit. Please reconsider your exegesis.
Your brother
Alexander
Alexander,
Thank you for your commentary. It is certainly a good balance of reason and clear references to the commentary above. I certainly agree on the understanding of authority. I wholely agree that it is said that many congregations have expanded the roles of women beyond what the Creator of women instructed to be ideal.
Of all the subjects for me to retract, I am more willing on this than any other. One thing that defends the position above is that the word for “covering” meant a full covering and a mantel as long hair. First Cor. 11:6 is a strong point except that long hair may be cut short, and short hair may be cropped, and the cropped hair may be shaved. Despite this you have me on the verge of a retraction here. I will study this again very soon. All further comments are welcome.
I still do not believe this custom is practice concerning Christian fellowship, because of verse 16.
Grace and peace to you in Christ.
Thanks for the info, I am a Mennonite and have worn a veil most of my life but recently I have taken it off because I no longer have a conviction for it. I’ve come to the point in my life where instead of just doing what I’ve been told to do all my life, I wanted to find out for myself what I believe, God bless!!