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 
actually akatakaluptos is translate has loosen hair. Not only that but the Talumund teach it’s a custom. Jewish Law not christian law.
verb katakalupto can’t be translate has a noun. Also, there was a pagan teaching in roman men did not have long hair has they did in Israel but short hair. Anyone teaching need to understand men had long hair but not in roman. AN cult broke that social norm men had long hair and women were wearing their hair loosen.
Not sure if my post went through. Here it is once more.. Is “long hair” uncut or simply hanging past the shoulders?
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (1 Corinthians 11:5 KJV)”
That particular verse is just talking of the covering and doesn’t mention hair until farther on in versuses 14-16 of the same chapter but you see the concept of uncut hair from versus 5 and 6…
For if the covering is hair, and a woman were to cut her hair, would she not be removing a part of her covering?
Yes. That is what I find.
So, is “long hair” long as in hanging past the shoulders? Or uncut long hair?
The word for “long hair” simply means hanging hair. That would be the definition of “long hair”. The covering refers to that which can be wrapped.
If Paul were herewatching this conversation I’m sure he would say: Neither head coverings or uncovering means anything. What matters is a new creation.”
Guy Woods I don’t know. But I read virtually every quote on the Head Covering from Paul to the early 400s – not one thought or taught that long hair was to be considered the covering Paul spoke of in 1Co 11:5-6. On the contrary they all rebuked such an idea as false. This is true wherever you look in the realm of the church: East, west, south, north, Greek, Latin, they all said the same. Yes, there was NO CONTENTION among them. I hold to their position, you defend an innovation: Please show me the earliest reference to the view you hold to, Scott. I show you how it originally looked: http://1.2.3.9/bmi/www.scrollpublishing.com/store/media/Head-Covering.jpg (I’m sure you know this picure) We might ask who it is that is contentious, the ones who hold fast to the teaching handed down by the Apostles or the ones who departed from it last century (mid 1900s)? BTW The sources I refer to are church leaders (!) who were fluent in Koine-Greek, the customs of their time and who grew up in churches that had a very close connection to the original teachings of the Apostles. If I were to choose between a doctrine from before 200 AD or a doctrine from the 1900s (both claiming to be founded on scripture) which one would you recommend me to trust more?
Th lack of early church writers mentioning head-coverings is in the favor this a culture practice representing honoring Christ as the head of the man and man as the head of the woman within that specific society.
Two things have to be admitted here. First, verse 15 says that hair is a covering whether you include the garment covering or not. Second, because of contention, the churches of God have no such custom. From the Greek toioutos, this word occurs 61 times in 59 verses, and it always means “such” and never “other” (cf. Acts 21:25). Please, just do an honest word-study. Here are the scriptures to do so:
Mat. 9:8; 18:5; 19:14; Mark 4:33; 6:2; 7:8,13; 9:37; 10:14; 13:19; Luke 9:9; 13:2; 18:16; John 4:23; 8:5; 9:16; Acts 16:24; 19:25; 21:25; 22:22; 26:29; Rom. 1:32; 2:2,3; 16:18; 1Co. 5:1,5,11; 7:15,28; 11:16; 15:48; 16:16,18; 2Co. 2:6,7; 3:4,12; 10:11; 11:13; 12:2,3,5; Gal. 5:21,23; 6:1; Eph. 5:27; Php. 2:29; 2Th. 3:12; 1Ti. 6:5; Tit. 3:11; Phm. 1:9; Heb. 7:26; 8:1; 11:14; 12:3; 13:16; Jas. 4:16; 3Jn. 1:8;
I toally agree with Alexander Basnar on this one. The Bible is our standard, society which will have us being blown around with every wind of doctrine. Guy N. Woods even admitted the covering was the veil or cloth covering. He said a man would have to pray bald headed to not be covered “if” the hair was the covering, being that, if the hair is the woman’s covering, it must therefore be the man’s also.
Read Guy Woods again. Hair is a covering and so is the garment for short hair. Yet, this is a custom that the churches of Christ do not have when others are contentious. Why be contentious over this?
Just a side question, since I had such a discussion last week: Would you address a brother wearing a baseball hat during worship?
To me it is step two orf eroding scripture gradually. We have the awkward situation than some men start “covering” themselöves with thiese abhorrable baseball hats, while women remain uncovered, with stylish short hair. Gender Mainstreaming in church, I call it.
When I addressed the brother he sheepishly asked: “Where does that stand?” After 30 years of Bible Study he never stepped acroos this text? He did, more than once, I suppose; but he was blinded to it, because since the women do not veil themselbves anymore, the veil is put over 1Co 11 so that no one reading it, grasps its meaning. It became an unpreached and unstudied Text that calls for no application whatsoever anymore. I think no New Testament Text should be treated that way.
But my question: (How) Would you address a brother wearing a baseball hat to church?
I would address the man but not because 1 Corinthians 11 gives a social custom of no covering for men, but because 1 Corinthians 11 teaches the tradition of observing the respect of our social customs. Our courts do not permit men to wear hats out of respect, and none of our official meetings of business and organization do not permit men to wear hats for due respect. Therefore, we observe the tradition of respect according to culture.
I don’t see what you are seeing mainstreaming styles and fads. Our younger women have long hair, and as our ladies of the babyboomer generation get older, most of them have longer hair. I imagine that our women of my generation will keep longer hair. The older women in our congregations have had short hair from their youth.
So your addressing of the men would become oblete in a few years, because then weraing baseball caps will be socially and culturally accepted by the world. The brother I rebuked asked nme for book, chapter and verse – and he got it. When you go by culztute, you might as well leave such topics, because you’d be forced to change your opinion every other year … Why was it again that you are against instrumehts in worship?
Brother Basnar,
Your questions are not going to prove anything unless you are wrapping your mind around observing customs of respect. There is no inconsistency here. You need to address 1 Corinthians 11:16 about “no such custom” and 11:13-15 about “long hair” being a covering. These you must recognize. I can’t imagine another way of understanding what is plainly stated. I am not interested in word wrangling.
If it changes every year, then it is isn’t a tradition or custom of respect, but a fad. Even wearing American flags by US athletes since 911 has become a custom of respect. You miss what Paul taught here in 1 Corinthians 11 that we must respect the culture of respect and appropriate Christian behavior. As some have asserted, if the Corinthian Christian women were dressing like Corinthian temple prostitutes, then you would see the problem there and the need for Christians to not resemble prostitutes or idolaters. Now, I do think this is the actual situation in 1 Corinthians 11 as some say, but we do not look like the world. Even though culture changes like profanity, this does not mean that we can justify using filthy language because it was not offensive 100 years ago or will not be 100 years from now. Is this not a tradition of God to show the headship of Christ and the headship of men before the world. Are we not to be lights?
I am for singing only with words by the mind and the spirit, which excludes musical instruments. Our music conforms to culture only by language, but contrary to God’s Word. We are to maintain the traditions of God as 1 Corinthians 11:2 says. The Lord’s Supper is also one of those traditions in 1 Corinthians 11 for which we must not add or take from. The other tradition of God is to show respect without offending society. To give honor to where honor is due, and not to insult.
May God bless your studies.
It is not about offending society, but angels, Scott. But I leave it at this. I am repetetive and so are you. I stand with the witnesses of 1900 years, you with the crowd of the last 50-60 years. I know to whom I’d rather listen.
I want to heartily concur with Mr. Basnar. The scriptures and early Christian testimony on this subect are quite clear, if we take them for what they say. We also have 2000 years of Christian women obeying this commad, with very little dissent util Women’S Lib.
The cloth veil that Paul writes about in his letters to the Corinthians is a Kalumma, as Basnar says. That is the noun. The words katakalupto and akatakalupto refer to being covered or not covered with that veil.
In 2 Cor 3, Paul uses the same terms he uses in 1 Cor 11 for the literal cloth veil that Moses places over his head to hide the glory. Obviously, Moses was not hiding behind hair!
We get further evidence for the usage of these words when we consult the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. That is an INVALUABLE resource because it provides a context for the Greek terms we see in the NT, establishing their usage among God’s people.
The terms that Paul used for the literal cloth covering are used throughout the OT some 80 times, referring to a literal cloth covering. The NRSV and other translations do a good job by using the words “veiled” and “unvelied” throughout 1 Cor 11, and only at the end using “covering”, accurately reflecting that the word Paul uses for covering is quite different from the “veiling” he is requiring throughout.
Interestingly, Alexandar Campbell did a good job in his translation of the passage in “Living Oracles, 4th Edition) using the word “veiled” throughout. Unfortunately, he also used veil for parabeilon in vs.15, reflecting his erroneous view that long hair satisfied it, but a literal cloth was veil was neccesary if she had short hair. Other early COC writers like Lipscomb upheld the biblical headcovering requirement.
Paul’s point with the hair is an appeal to nature, that even in nature men “naturally” appear uncovered and women “naturally” appear covered. He uses a Greek word that is related to “shadow”- the effect of which being if you looked at the shadow of a man he appears unveiled, and the shadow of a woman appears veiled. The hair is given to her as a type of covering, but NOT the veiling that the rest of the chapter calls for. The OT women in Septuagint were NOT veiled with just their long hair but a literal cloth covering, just a Moses was veiled with one as well.
The biblical, patristic, linguistic, and historical evidence is OVERWHELMING! Just accept it and eat the humble pie I had to after fighting it for a long time.
Yet, the covering still includes long hair and not just garments (1 Cor. 11:13-15), and this is a custom for which there is to be no contention (1 Cor. 11:16). Hair is also consider a covering in the OT. Campbell and Lipscomb had it right that this was a social custom of respect and the covering included the veil and long hair.
If Campbell and Lipscomb said it was a social custoim, they were wrong. What I have read from Lipscomb however was different: He insisted on women being covered.
It ist BTW impossible (!) to point to ANY social custom of that time where women were to be covered in worship and men uncovered. Such a rule existed neither among the Greeks, nor among the Romans, nor among the Jews – not in a single cult that is known where such a rule existed. So it made no sense however to conform or to separate from a specific custom, because Corinth was as multicultural as New York City. Again, the reasons Paul gave were as follows:
a) It is a tradition he handed down to them (i.e. he brought it to Cornth and did not take from Corinthian culture)
b) It is about creation order
c) It is about the headship of Christ and the Glory of God
d) It is – SPECIFICALLY – because of the angels
Long hair Paul used as an illustrative argunment, not as the “cornerstone” of the discourse, and – as I have said before more than once – long hair is something you have or have not all the time! It is not limited to the two actions prayer and prophecy that Paul links the covering to in the veres before the illustration. You know, the Early church Fathers were well aware that these words were there and NONE of them understood long hair to be THE covering. They said, in effect: “Since nature covers women, EVEN MORE SO should they cover themselves with a veil!”
I don’t know when these new explainations started, 100 ior 200 years ago, probably. But they did not get acceptance until the veil was discarded due to a wave of secularisation that swept through the churches after WWII in the West. Note – we deal with an entrirtely Western phenomenon. I’d estimate that more than half of nominal Christan women still veil their heads in church today.
You are in a difficult postion, Scott: You side with apostates in this matter, you side with destructive forces that undermine the churches of Christ bit by bit, generation by generation. Take a step back to see the big picture, the downgrade of churches of Christ in the 20th century. Ironically the conservative wing clings stubbornly to an innovation which is as signifcant as the introduction of instrumental music (this hurts, brother ;-) doesn’t it).
The early Christian writers did know about it as noted in the article above. As discussed before, there are no early Christian writers who excluded hair from being a covering or that head-coverings were a custom for all churches.
If I found this to be a custom of the Church given by God, then I would still affirm the covering of garments for women with short hair and hair is the covering for women with long hair. “And if anyone considers this contentious, we have no such custom, nor does the churches of God” (ASV and Gr. 1 Cor. 11:16). If the word “such” meant “other” as misinterpreted in the RSV, then little children are not such but other than those of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:14). For this is the same Greek word that is used 61 times throughout the New Testament. Jesus did not mean that we should receive other children in His name, but such children (Matt. 18:5). Herod heard such things and not other things (Luke 9:9). God does not seek worship other than worship of spirit and truth, but such who seek to worship Him (John 4:23).
Yet, after reading this text over and over in the Greek, the tradition is to observe customs of respect. Therefore, we maintain the traditions as delivered in verse 2 and we are not contentious over customs in verse 16, and thus the tradition is to observe the custom that reflects headship of Christ. How can I teach otherwise if I cannot find in the scriptures otherwise? If this were common custom among churches of Christ in the States, then I would encourage our brethren to be united in peace and love concerning this matter.
I find that this was true of the Jews with other impressions of shame from the Corinthian culture.
If Western secularization caused this disregard for this tradition of respecting, then the whole of the churches of Christ would have gone into apostasy on other matters including women teaching and ruling over men. Yet, that is not true. We do not find anything like that among the churches of Christ in the West.
“The early Christian writers did know about it as noted in the article above. As discussed before, there are no early Christian writers who excluded hair from being a covering or that head-coverings were a custom for all churches.”
I’m not sure whether I get you right. Let me break it down a bit, just to find my way:
A) “There are no early Christian writers who excluded hair from being a covering”
This is not clear enough. No one said that long hair was not a covering, that’s right; but ALL agreed that the covering spoken of in verses 4-13 was something else than the veil provided by nature. I went through all quotes until the 400s. They all agreed on the following things:
a) What is meant is a cloth veil
b) It is not cultural, but because of the angels – in fact, I found at least four different explanations of the “angels” (human messengers or heavenly beings, fallen or holy angels); but all agreed that women ought to be veiled with a cloth veil because of the angels.
B) “There are no early Christian writers who … [??] … that head-coverings were a custom for all churches.”
I miss a word that would say either “no one taught it was a universal command” or “no one denied it was a universal command”. However you meant it: Elders in Alexandria, Rome, Carthage, Syria, Asia Minor or Konstantiple – everywhere! – agreed that the female headcovering was a command to be followed everywhere. There is not one exception to it.
“If I found this to be a custom of the Church given by God, then I would still affirm the covering of garments for women with short hair and hair is the covering for women with long hair.“
But it was never understood that way. IF – condition Nr 1 – you can accept that this is a clear Command (which it is), then you might come up with a “Necessary Inference” on how to apply it, but then it would be very wise to follow the Examples of the Early Church, esp. Where they were unanimous – So CENI forces us directly to veil our women.
See, we use this rationale concerning non-instrumental worship, where in scripture we only have silence; hence our main argument is church history, because instruments were introduced into worship no sooner than the middle ages. For veils we do have an express command, and the veil were discarded only a few decades ago! Let’s be consistent here!
“And if anyone considers this contentious, we have no such custom, nor does the churches of God”
It is not about the word “such” (as you try to make your point), but what “no such custom” means. What is the custom Paul refers to? Women praying uncovered (Verse 13) – we went through this before. More than once. If you read it in context, it is evident, because Paul starts with a question, gives an illustration and closes with a conclusion. Picking on the meaning of “such” is not the way to approach this text, but the context, the whole flow of thoughts starting in verse 2 down to verse 17 (where all of this is even called a command).
“thus the tradition is to observe the custom that reflects headship of Christ.”
Now, here we come to an important aspect: We are to observe the custom that reflects the headship of Christ.
No, it is not a custom, but a handed down Apostolic Tradition/Teaching. But anyway, the point is to symbolically demonstrate the headship of Christ by the uncovered heads of men. Right? Are the symbol and the message in any way unrelated (physical heads making a statement about headships)? Not at all. And the counterpart is as significant, women veiling their heads, veiling male/human authority and glory. Again this is fitting, easy to do and easy to understand (physical heads making a statement about headships)!
When we are to observe a practice (command or custom) that reflects the headship of Christ, how do you teach it? Do you invent a different symbol or go by what was handed down to us from Paul to the generation of our mothers? I think the latter is far less disputable than any innovation or departure from Scriptural Ordinances.
“If this were common custom among churches of Christ in the States, then I would encourage our brethren to be united in peace and love concerning this matter.”
Here you do what most do today: Making our generation and culture the standard. That’s why it is so crucial to understand that Paul in 1Co 11 did NOT follow culture, not at all. And we are not to follow culture either.
“If Western secularization caused this disregard for this tradition of respecting, then the whole of the churches of Christ would have gone into apostasy on other matters including women teaching and ruling over men. Yet, that is not true. We do not find anything like that among the churches of Christ in the West.“
That’s because you do not count the “progressive wing” or the “Disciples of Christ” or the “denominational of Church of Christ” (as ACU) among the churches of Christ. As a matter of fact, they all broke away to a different degree, and churches of Christ who do not cover their women are simply disobedient and/or misled in this area, and there is worse to come: You know how hard we are pressed by our dear Christian Universities to go with the flow! Don’t wait till in your very own church women preach – veil them now! Reverse the process of apostasy!
Chris,
This would be a strange thing to conform to no cloth veils because of women’s liberation with women not being able to lead, speak, or rule over men. These we oppose and recognized the headship of Christ and that the man is the head of the wife.
God bless you brother and thank you for your comment.
From Mrs. Larry Joe Morgan:
I wear a hat during worship not for decor but because I believe it is a biblical teaching that a woman should cover her head to prophesy or pray. The veil may need to cover all the head and hair to be most pleasing to God-I am still praying and studying on this thought. However, angels cover themselves with their wings when worshipping God. It is an effort and it is submission. I believe submissiveness is a key truth in these scriptures of which takes effort. Having long hair, to me, is no effort as I love my hair. Wearing something on my head is an effort as it requires submissiveness. So I must do what I feel the Lord is pleased with and that is to cover my head when worshipping my Lord and Savior.
Thank you for your comment and welcome written conviction. I admire you conviction of the humble role of women in the Church. For that I commend you. Yet, please let me challenge you some.
Consider the effort of the men not to cover their heads. I find it no effort to keep my head uncovered though some men may differ. Yet, men by not having their heads covered show subordination to Christ, who is their head.
Who gave woman her hair as a covering (1 Cor. 11:15)? We would say God and her hair is her glory. If we keep this custom today, women should be covered by their glory for she is the glory of man. Women with short hair would be wise to cover their heads with a veil.
What is your understanding of verse 16 that we have no such custom if this becomes subject of head-covering becomes contentious?
After I used the word effort, I thought that the word humble would have been most appropriate. It is humbling to wear a head covering such as a hat during worship. At least, this is my experience. To me, it takes humbleness. My long hair does not humble me personally like a head covering such as a hat. Please look at I Cor. 11:6-“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:… Substitute without hair for the words not covered that is, “For if the woman be without hair, let her also be shorn:… It does not make sense.
With regard to I Cor. 11:16-He who contends that men pray with covered heads and women pray with uncovered heads are alone in so doing. No apostle or church of God had such teaching.
I believe that if the woman is humbled that the man is also that is, if they are one flesh. What better way to come before God?
Thank you for the challenge!
Look at the scripture again. The woman who is covered has long hair, and the man uncovered has short hair (1 Cor. 11:13-15). The covering is “long hair” in 1 Corinthians 11:15 (not to exclude the garment covering for women with short hair). With this in mind, verse 6 says that a woman is uncovered by not having long hair, and that if she is not covered with long hair (but with short), then she is just as shameful as the cropped or shaved head. This was the custom of that society (1 Cor. 11:16). Verse 6 being used to refer to hair would not refer to “no hair” but to “short hair”. Yet, verse 6 must include either hair and, or a garment for the covering, because verses 13-16 show that the uncovered head of a woman is that lacking long hair and the women who already have short hair must have time to grow their hair and yet be covered, which must include a garment.
Again, consider the humility and effort of man to keep his hair short and thus be uncovered. You do not seem to understand this point. If a man’s hair is long, he would then be covered according to 1 Corinthians 11:13-15. A man is not only uncovered by lacking hair being bald, cropped, or shaved, but also by not having long hair or a garment covering. Should it not be the same if not greater humility from men? The man must humble himself too before his Head, Christ. Yet, in our society, length of hair does not display respect or disrespect as in the 1st century.
Our difference is simply this. I understand that the covering can include the garment and, or the long hair as stated in the passage. You do not prefer the long hair as a covering, but rather have specified a need for a garment to show humility under a custom clearly foreign to the modern perception of the Western world.
I agree that it takes effort for the man to keep his hair short as well as it takes effort for a woman with long hair to wear a covering such as a hat during worship. I believe there are two coverings with regard to women being spoken of in I Corinthians 11:1-16. One is the long hair for the woman and also a covering such as a hat. In order to be in agreement with you I will have to agree that we disagree on the subject. Thank you for your response! Being a born again child of God is the most important thing whereas sanctification is a daily process of growing in the Lord after we have had the born again salvation experience. Blessings!
Hello,
I respect both positions and have read numerous articles both stating why it is or isn’t required. I am a bit confused by the subject. I have heard headcoverers say that the word cover to describe long hair is different than the physical covering which discusses some kind of cloth covering.
I sincerely don’t want to argue, just hoping you can sincerely explain the meaning for the different word choices. It is also difficult for me because people in history covered. However if you are saying that women with short hair covered and women with long hair typically didn’t, I would love to see some catacomb pictures that lined up with this interpretation.
Forgive me for the question, but just re-asking, can you point me to any website or greek dictionary so I am confident for myself that both greek words (women needs to pray covered) and long hair, are referring to the same thing.
People that believe in headcovering also state that the fact that Paul discussed covering when praying or prophesying means he had a removable garment in mind.
I would love to hear your thoughts. I really want to be convinced. I have been covering with a hat and I don’t condemn those who cover. It can be either a biblical command for them or a personal one, but I am a bit shy about covering my head. Thank you.
Hi Stephanie,
As far as the Scripture says, we find that the covering is hair in verse 15. Is this a different Greek work for covering than in the previous passages? Technically, we see even in English that the noun “covering” does not appear anywhere else. Yet, we do read the translation of a verb “covered” in verse 4 & 6, and this is a different Greek word from the “covering” in verse 15. The verb for “covered” in verse 4 & 6 does mean “hanging from the head”. One may be inclined to interpret this either as a hanging garment or as hanging hair. Yet, there is no reference to a garment for covering in the whole text, and the covering of a garment is neither implied by this verb nor explicitly rejected. I find that we cannot read into the text that the covering was anything other than hair.
I also see that the reference to covering in verses 5-6 are contrasted to cropped hair or being shaved of hair. If we interpret this covering as a garment, then Paul is saying that if a woman is not covered with a hanging garment, then she is the same as a woman, who has had her hair cropped or shaved off. Otherwise, if we interpret this covering as hanging hair, then Paul is saying that the woman without hanging hair is the same as a woman, who has had her hair cropped or shaved off. This again would be according to their custom of how they honor their head, who is man. I find the most decisive answer in the next verse 7, which is that woman is the glory of man, and then verse 15, which shows that a woman’s hair is her glory and her covering. This indicates that the coverings in verses 5 &6 are the same as the covering in verse 15.
If you still doubt, then you should cover your head with a garment hanging from the head (Rom. 14:23). Also, you mentioned wearing a hat. Let it be noted that if you still interpret the verb for covering to be a garment, then you would not use a hat, but a shawl that hangs down. The Greek verb is katakalupto in verse 6, and this covering means that which hangs from the head. Also, these verses from 3-16 do not indicate that these women were prophesying or praying in the presence of men or the Assembly.
As far as using a garment for short hair, that is only my application. In that culture, the woman with short hair could not instantaneously have grown hanging hair when converted, so she would need a garment. Yet, I imagine a woman with short hair would be a new Christian, and her service of prophesying and praying before other women would be limited.
Using the pictures in the catacombs as an ancient commentary, the images are indecisive about this. Yet, we do see in the catacombs women with heads covered with garments hanging from their heads while standing with lifted hands before other uncovered women. The length of the hair cannot be determined for the covered woman, and yet the other women are not covered by a garment do have hanging hair. This would imply that a garment covering was used for this woman, who was praying or teaching before the other women. Christian women are to teach other women (Titus 2:2-3). Also, these pictures show that the praying and prophesying is not before the men, and that the women did not have to have their heads covered with a garment but with hanging hair when they were not leading. Search “woman praying catacombs” for pictures.
Thank you for the questions. God bless your studies. Let me know if you can shine anymore light on these things, and show me if I need to reconsider.
Respectfully, even Guy N. Woods acknowledged that the head covering in verses 4-10, 14 is a veil or cloth covering. Paul was only concerned with the head being covered by the additional cloth covering. The command concerns covering the head, not the shoulder or body (1st Cor. 11:5,6). This alone should show the difference in the woman’s natural long hair covering for everyday life, all times, and the cloth covering to cover the head to show subjection in the worship. As Guy N. Woods says, if hair is the worship covering for the woman; then, hair is the worship covering the man is not to wear in worship; therefore, only a bald headed man could be considered “uncovered” (1st Cor. 11:4,7,14,15).
God Bless,
Michael Baggett
Like Guy N. Woods, I find that this occasion of women praying and prophesying was not the Assembly. Also, no where in published writings can I find him saying that the coverings were cloth, garment, or anything other than hair.
In Guy N. Wood’s “Questions and Answers Open Forum Freed-Hardeman College Lectures,” Copyright 1976, pp. 95-97, Guy N. Woods says the head covering for praying or prophesying could logically be nothing other than a veil or cloth covering. He affirms this command was required for all the churches. Even though he concludes that he believe it was a custom of the day, he does say that if any sister feels compelled to wear a covering in worship “by all means wear it.” By the way, I accidentally came across these remarks myself as they are left out of the index of this book. I wonder why?
Thank you so much :-)
You are right, Michael. Thank you. I certainly missed it. Now, I see that Guy Woods thought the covering was a veil covering made of cloth. He thought it strange that some would think the covering to be metaphorical or that the covering was hair. His whole point against this being hair was that the covering could be removed and replaced, which does not consider the length of the hair. The passage also talks about the removing of hair.
Woods also notes that it is a custom of the times. I agree. Woods noted that women today are not in rebellion to men and God without the covering, and that if they wore the covering, this would not be proof of a woman’s subjection to God, Christ, and man today.
I guess people will go back and forth over the hair. Paul was using hair as a lesson from nature to procure the need for the cloth head covering in worship, so I believe and teach.
You did indeed. I looked for them, too. Anyway, something that adds to it, I was pointed to a few months ago: Given that long hair is the covering, one would read verse 4 that a man “having down from his head” refers to men having lkong hair. This strange wording in Greek reads: κατὰ κεφαλῆς. Technically no “physical” covering is mentioned – but what was the meaning of this wording which is unique in the NT? There are two important sources to draw from:
In ancient Rome it referred to pulling the Toga over your head as it was customary in Roman Pagan worship – I think this is to be found in Plutarch’s writings (I don’t have the source at hand, just now, but I checked it out back then).
The second one comes from the Greek translation of the OT, namely the book of Ester: We read in our transaltions of Est 6:12: “And Mordecai came again to the king’s gate. But Haman hurried to his house mourning, and having his head covered.” The Hebrew word for “to cover” means just that (Strong: châphâh / khaw-faw’ / A primitive root (compare H2644, H2653); to cover; by implication to veil, to incase, protect: – ceil, cover, overlay.) The Septuagint however renders this: κατὰ κεφαλῆς. The same words as in 1Co 11:4.
From this the matter is settled: (God through) Paul forbids men to cover their heads with a “physical covering” – the conclusion is that women are to cover their heads with a cloth or veil. Long hair is not the kind of covering Paul is talking about from verses 2-13, but a mere illustration to support the point he was making by nature. Period. THe churches have always understood and applied it correctly by veiling the women in the assemblies of the church – for 1900 years! Some 50 years ago, some denominations in the Western hemisphere started breaking with this teaching, and many churches of Christ (not all of them) followed them …
Hi
Is it possible though that Paul was commanding women with short hair to be covered if the Greek word for men was a physical covering?
I read articles stating long hair on women was nearly an illustration to make a point for the physical covering but if the literal translation is long hair is given instead of s veil then it would make sense that covering was s command for women with short hair.
I know you can’t ignore history, but the author mentioned to me that catacombs did show women in worship and not all had covered heads. Just s thought
Keep in mind there are also old pictures of men pouring water over people’s head for baptism! Wha t proves too much, proves nothing. Why can’t we just accept the fact that men should not veil their heads in worship nor wear long hair at any time (since 1 cor. 11). Why can’t we just accept that women should veil or cloth cover their heads un worship and let their hair be long at all times. Of course, hair disease and chemo treatment make exceptions, then wear a wig everyday, but cover with covering in worship. If it was any other matter, we would not stumble at this!
Hi Michael,
I am undecided but am seeking an answer. You may be right. I am trying to find scripture to come to a conclusion, not peoples opinions, but the long hair was given instead of a covering, which Scott says is a clear translation of “veil” it seems like that is the correct interpretation.
However,
I have not made up my mind yet and I want to obey what it says. I will tell you from personal experience (and personal experience is NOT an excuse to disobey, just sharing) that I have covered before and have experienced anxiety covering outside the house. that doesn’t mean that is a “sign” I am not “supposed” to do it. Personally I don’t mind covering in private or possibly at church, but I feel like it’s hard not to think about the “covering” I am wearing when I am out in public.
As a woman (once again, im just explaining my feelings, not looking for excuses) the most I am able to do is to wear a hat that covers the head, but not all my hair.
I sincerely hope I can come to a conclusion based on scripture, because there are so many commentaries on the internet sometimes it just makes my head spin.
I have wriiten at least 20 articles on the covering. Feel free to email me direct and I can send you some more information on “for a covering.” Hopefully, we all just want to obey God. God bless. Yes I am a gospel preacher.
Hi Michael,
I have read quite a few articles already and have been on the headcovering movement webpage. in order to not get myself all confused, I would only be seeking an answer to the verse that Scott says is translated, “long hair is given to her INSTEAD of a VEIL.
I have heard the word “anti” does not always mean “instead of”. I was not aware though, that according to scott, covering in this sentence “clearly” (or so the research article states) meant a veil. If you could simply help me with this particular verse, I could make a more informed decision. Thanks =)
For a covering, anti, over against. Paul certainly did not change his mind on the fly. Verses 15 and 16 are not the rubic’s cube of the Bible. They must teach or harmonize with verses 4-13. Two coverings are discussed and both are necessary in their place.
It would seem strange indeed if Paul replaced the cloth cover for worship in verse 15 after arguing for it so strongly from verses 5-10. If “for” in verse 15 means “instead of”; then, why can’t it mean that the long hair on the woman is given her for a covering in nature and everyday life “outside” of worship? Long hair at all times for a covering, and, the cloth covering to cover the head when praying or prophesying (worshiping)? In fact, this may harmonize the entire issue at hand.
Good thoughts and an honest heart.
This is beautiful and very helpful. We are studying this in bible study at my church.