Uncovering the Headcovering Movement, pt. 2

In my previous article, I attempted to show that 1 Corinthians 11 is one of the more difficult passages in the Bible. There are at least 10 questions posed by the text that aren’t immediately answered for us. While I’m certain that the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul meant by his words, we don’t have the same luxury. Every theory on 1 Corinthians 11 must rely on assumptions from outside the text. The task before us is to examine those assumptions and see which ones are the most biblical.

What follows are my conclusions on each of the 10 questions. Please remember that I acknowledge the impossibility of proving every point with certainty. In fact, my goal is not to provide the definitive interpretation of headcovering. As we examine the assumptions, we’ll find that there are multiple valid interpretations. But each of them come to the same conclusion: that artificial headcovering is not an on-going practice for the church.

My hope is to sort through the questions in the most logical order possible. We will start with some of the easier ones and move to harder ones. (Don’t miss the footnotes along the way.)

Is the covering a woman’s hair, or is it an artificial covering?

Many pastors and theologians maintain that the covering is simply a woman’s hair. She’s not required to cover with a fabric; her hair is sufficient. This is a reasonable option since Paul says a woman’s hair is a “covering” for her in verse 15. How can you blame someone for relying on one of Paul’s clearest statements in the text? Everyone should agree that a woman’s hair is a natural covering for her. For this reason, the hair-theory is a valid interpretation to hold.

But personally, I am not a proponent of the hair-theory. I’m not persuaded that Paul is talking about hair when he says the woman should have a “covering” to pray and prophesy. I agree with the headcoverers that he is speaking of a fabric. This is best demonstrated in verses 4 and 7, where Paul talks about men: “A man praying and prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head…a man ought not cover his head, for he is the image and glory of God.” Paul cannot be referring to hair in these verses, or else he is commanding men to be bald. If hair is the covering, men couldn’t have hair. Surely this is an absurd conclusion.

Paul, therefore, must be talking about artificial coverings for men. It stands to reason that he means the same thing for women. For the comparison between men’s coverings and women’s coverings to work, they must be the same kind of covering. Paul would be engaging in radical equivocation if he meant that men ought not wear an artificial covering and women ought to wear a natural covering. Instead, he means an artificial covering in both cases. I find the fabric-theory to be the most reasonable assumption.^a

Is the covering a symbol?

In verse 10, Paul says a woman ought to have “authority” on her head. English translations add “symbol” to make sense of it – she ought to have a “symbol of authority” on her head. If the covering is a fabric, as I believe, then “symbol” is a fine and proper understanding. The fabric represents some kind of authority in (or over) the woman. The fabric isn’t the authority, but it points to an authority. What exactly that authority is will be determined below.

Is Paul speaking of husbands and wives, or men and women in general?

It’s not clear whether Paul is addressing the genders broadly or marriages specifically. Even headcoverers are split on this question. Some think headcovering is for married women only, others think it is for every woman including children. It is my position that Paul has men-in-general and women-in-general in view, not just married people. Two reasons lead me to this assumption.

First, Paul says the man ought not cover his head “since he is the image and glory of God” (v. 7). Being the image and glory of God is true for every man, whether he’s single or married. Case in point: Adam was an image of God prior to being a husband. Second, Paul makes other general statements in verses 11-12: “Neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man…for as woman came from man, even so man also comes through the woman.” He is making reference to Genesis 2. Eve was taken out of Adam (his rib), but men have been taken out of women (through birth) ever since. This is true about men and women whether they are married or not. Therefore, it makes most sense that Paul is addressing men and women in general, not just husbands and wives. Does he have children in view? This will be clarified as we continue.

Has headcovering always been in effect?

Has God always commanded women to wear artificial coverings? Paul makes reference to creation and Adam and Eve in his argument. Are we to think that this rule goes back to the garden? Some headcoverers make that claim, but it simply has no backing. There is no command for women to wear headcoverings anywhere else in the Bible, including the Old Testament. If headcovering was a creation ordinance, it would have to be recorded in God’s law. But it isn’t. We have several descriptions of women (and men) wearing veils and coverings, but these were a matter of custom, style, and utility.^b The only headcovering command in God’s law was for a man – the priest’s turban and crown (Exodus 28:40, Leviticus 8:9).

We can do away with the notion that headcovering was a long-standing, creational command. Paul was talking about something new. Something changed in the new covenant to bring about this rule. Men ought not cover their heads, even though priests were commanded to in the old covenant. Women ought to cover their heads, even though no such law existed in the old covenant. So what changed? This leads to our next question.

What does Paul mean by “praying and prophesying”?

Headcoverers insist that Paul means any kind of praying, but this simply cannot be the case. Regular prayer had always existed and women never needed a fabric to pray to God. There’s no discernible reason as to why that would change in the new covenant. Neither is Paul requiring that women wear the fabric all day, every day. Regular prayer can occur at any time, in any situation (in the bed, in the shower, etc.). Needing an artificial covering in every instance is impractical and unworkable. Most headcoverers will agree. Indeed, if women had to wear a covering all the time, then men could never cover: “Sorry, fellas…no hats! If the rule for women is all the time, so is the rule for men.” Yet no one seems to take this proposal seriously.^c

What else could Paul have meant by “praying”? We should ask if there was a type of praying unique to the new covenant, something different from the old. If there was, it would be a top contender for what Paul has in mind. Consider the significance of Paul placing prayer alongside prophecy, prophecy being a charismatic sign-gift. That’s the most common form of prophecy in the Bible and the kind that Paul references elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. We know that prophecy wasn’t new in the apostolic age, but was there a new type of praying? Yes, there was. It was called praying in tongues, also a charismatic sign-gift. There is no record of speaking in tongues prior to Pentecost.^d This phenomenon was brand new in the first century. Men and women were praying in foreign languages with miraculous power. This must be the change that Paul was addressing.

Chapter 11 is not the only place that Paul places prayer and prophecy together. He also does so in chapter 14, which is all about supernatural gifts. Paul spends much of his time correcting the charismatic abuses in Corinth. That’s his primary concern in chapters 12-14. It would make sense that he’s doing the same thing in chapter 11. Paul uses the verb form of “pray” (proseuchomai) 8 times in the epistle, each time in the context of charismatic gifts. The noun form of “pray” (proseuché) is used only once, which is in 7:5. In that instance, prophecy is absent. Prayer is mentioned alongside fasting, thus indicating regular prayer. All other instances would be supernatural tongues.

Sadly, headcoverers fail to recognize the charismatic context of Paul’s audience. They quickly dismiss this theory, but I’ve yet to see a refutation of the data. They will assert that it is false by claiming that “praying and prophesying” is code for corporate worship, but the claim lacks evidence. It seems to me that Paul is talking about supernatural tongues, not regular prayer and not simply attending worship. A woman was to wear a covering only when she spoke in tongues or gave a prophecy. Is this an assumption? Yes, of course it is. But it’s more biblical than the other assumptions.

I was first introduced to this theory by James Jordan, and you can find his treatment here. I have been convinced of his position the more I study the passage, though we differ on a few points. If this theory is correct, then your view on headcovering will depend on your view of charismatic gifts. If tongues and prophecy are still in effect, then women should keep a fabric close by. But if those gifts are no longer normative for today (my position), then headcovering is no longer applicable. When tongues and prophecy fade away, so do the headcoverings.^e

This theory sheds light on whether female children were required to wear headcoverings. I presume that most charismatic activity occurred in adults, not children. Therefore, female children would not have needed a covering. Hypothetically, if the Spirit gave sign-gifts to a female child, the headcovering rule would apply.

What does Paul mean by “because of the angels”?

Why must the woman wear a covering to pray in tongues and prophesy? “Because of the angels” (v. 10). What ever could Paul mean by this? “Angel” is most often used for spirit beings, but it is also used for humans. The Greek term simply means “messenger.” John the Baptist is an angel/messenger (Matthew 11:10) and the pastors of the 7 churches are angels/messengers (Revelation 2:1ff, 3:1ff).

Let’s explore the option of spirit beings. Why would a woman need to cover her head, when praying and prophesying, because of heavenly angels? Some headcoverers point to the seraphim in Isaiah 6. The seraphim are described with 2 wings covering their face and 2 wings covering their feet. If the seraphim cover themselves in God’s presence, so should human women. Or so the argument goes. But this view can be discarded quite easily.

First, the angelic covering is for the “face” and “feet.” Nothing is said about the angels’ head or hair. Paul is not talking about veils that cover the woman’s face, he’s talking about her head and hair. Furthermore, Paul says nothing about women needing to cover their feet. Second, the angelic coverings are with their wings, something that’s a part of them naturally. This would not be analogous to the woman’s artificial covering. Third, this view implies a special comparison between angels and women. Where does that idea come from? Angels almost always appear as men (not women) and Isaiah specifically refers to the seraphim as males. If headcovering is “because of the seraphim,” why is it only women who must cover and not the men? This theory cannot stand under scrutiny.

Another theory in favor of spirit angels is to guard the angels against lust. Yes, you read that right. This theory is more obscure, but it does exist. Some people believe that Genesis 6 describes angels lusting after human women and having sexual relations with them. Thus, Paul commanded headcovering to prevent angels from marrying humans and having children with them. This is partly why some people view headcovering as a matter of modesty. I reject this view of Genesis 6 and therefore reject this theory of headcovering.^f It presupposes too many unbelievable things: (1) that angels can still fall from glory, (2) that angel-human marriage and procreation takes place in our current day, (3) that angels are sexually aroused by hair, not other parts of the female body, and (4) that humans are responsible for the purity of creatures we cannot see, hear, or interact with. These assumptions are improvable, and frankly, ridiculous.

I’ll also add that if these were spirit beings, then women would have to cover all day, every day. Angels are always around us, watching everything we do. Why would their lust be limited to praying and prophesying? This view would require women to cover all the time, which is impractical and unworkable, as noted earlier.

We are left with only one other option: that the “angels” are human rulers, specifically the officers of the church. This is not a new or novel interpretation. It hasn’t been the majority view throughout history, but you can find it in the late 300s and early 400s.^g This theory maintains that women wore a covering as a sign of submission to their pastors. It was a sign that they were under the authority of male leadership, and that they weren’t trying to usurp that authority. This would be important given that women were speaking miraculous words of God by the Spirit. Authoritative teaching is normally limited to men, but the charismatic age came with exceptions. If a woman were to pray in tongues or prophesy, she must signify her submission to the church officers.

God has created distinctions between men and women and these distinctions are inherently good. Headship and submission are what’s “creational” in the passage, not the headcovering. Paul deduces that these distinctions must be maintained in church leadership, and the fabric served that purpose. It was a symbol of the woman’s submission to authority. We could go further and say it was a sign that her words were authoritative when praying and prophesying. In that moment, she was not speaking on her own accord. She was speaking the words of God.

This theory lands a blow against one of the headcovering movement’s primary tenets. Headcoverers believe that covering is a sign of submission to their husbands. It was actually a sign of submission to their pastor. Some husbands are pro-headcovering because they think it’s about their headship and authority. It was actually about another man’s headship and authority – the pastor’s headship over the church. Indeed, headcovering cannot be about husbands if this was a command for women-in-general. Not every woman has a husband, after all.^h

What environment does Paul have in mind?

Where does Paul expect praying and prophesying to take place? He gives no clear indication, which must have been on purpose. It is likely that Paul envisions this phenomenon occurring anywhere – in worship, at a Bible study, in the public square, etc. Anytime a woman was about to pray in tongues or prophesy, regardless of her location, she was to put on the covering. Wherever she was, it was a sign that she was a part of the church and in submission to the church. In verse 18, Paul will be specific about worship because he switches topics to the Lord’s Supper. He moves from the broad to the narrow.

In my view, the charismatic gifts were an exception to Paul’s rule in 14:34, that women “must be silent in the assembly.” Some pastors take a different approach. The other option is to say that Paul’s argument in chapter 11 is clarified in chapter 14, thus making headcovering a moot point. Women would not have been speaking in worship, for any reason, therefore headcoverings were never actually needed. Though that seems to be a convoluted way for Paul to write, I think it’s a valid interpretation. But it doesn’t address women using their gifts outside of the assembly, which was not prohibited. I presume they would have still worn a covering in those instances.

How should the covering be worn?

Headcoverers disagree on how the fabric should be worn. Some cover the entire hair, some partially cover the hair. They say it doesn’t matter which style you choose, as long as you are trying to obey the passage. But if this passage needs to be “obeyed,” we should expect it to give us further insight. It is my position that the hair was to be fully covered. Paul affirms that a woman’s hair is her glory (v. 15). While praying and prophesying, the feminine glory must be concealed because she is a mouthpiece for God in submission to the church officers. Men were ordinarily the ones to lead and speak God’s words, but in the charismatic era, women were an exception. When a woman was to participate in that role, she had to symbolically make herself look like a man. She was to cover up her glory by covering up her hair.

This theory gives insight into verses 5 and 6: “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered…that is one and the same as if her head were shaved…if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn…if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn…let her be covered.” I take Paul to be saying this: If a woman were to use her charismatic gifts without a covering, she would have to cut off her hair. That’s the only other way she can look like a man. But since it’s a shame for women to be shorn, that’s not a viable option. Instead, she must symbolically lose her hair by covering it up.

When modern headcoverers keep their hair visible and stylish, with a small fabric on top, I think they are doing it wrong. Their glory isn’t being concealed. This means that most headcoverers are not covering in the proper manner.

What does Paul mean by “custom”?

Verse 16 says, “If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” This is puzzling, because it sounds like Paul is undoing his own argument. Can we discard everything he just said about headcovering? As tempting as that might be, I don’t think it’s a legitimate option. Throughout church history, the common views were that the “custom” is either (1) being contentious or (2) letting women be uncovered. Both of these options are acceptable, for they carry the same conclusion: You must obey what Paul has written on headcovering.

Although, I will point out that the most recent thing Paul said was that men should have short hair and women should have long hair (vv. 14-15). Could he be referring to that? “Long hair is dishonoring to men and short hair is dishonoring to women, but if anyone be contentious, we have no such custom.” Meaning, no such custom to be judgmental over hair length. I’m not totally convinced, but I think it’s worth meditating on. It was the most recent thing he said, so I don’t think it’s an unfounded suggestion.

In fact, this would help us reconcile the Nazarite vows of the old covenant. When a man or woman took a voluntary Nazarite vow (Numbers 6), they weren’t to cut their hair. When the vow was over, they had to cut off their hair and offer it to Yahweh. This means that women would have short hair for a time and men would have long hair for a time. This was at God’s direction, so we can’t say it was wrong or sinful. Lifelong Nazarites – Samuel, Samson, John the Baptist – would have had long hair. That wasn’t dishonoring to them. It wasn’t a sign of effeminacy or gender-confusion. Perhaps Paul is saying, “I know there are exceptions to hair length for men and women, so we can’t be too contentious over it.”

What does Paul mean by “nature”?

In verse 14, Paul says that “nature itself” teaches that men should have short hair and women should have long hair. This claim cannot be deduced from scientific observation, so what does Paul mean by “nature”? It seems to me that Paul must mean God’s intention, his design and purpose, for men generally and women generally. This intention would have been revealed to Adam and Eve and their descendants. When God created man and woman on Day 6, do we imagine that they both had short hair? Or did they both have long hair? Did Adam have long hair and Eve have short hair? Surely not. Most of us would agree that Adam had shorter hair and Eve had longer hair. That would have been God’s doing to set the standard. Sure enough, that standard has been followed throughout history, up to our present day. There will always be exceptions to hair length for men and women, but the fact is that most men have shorter hair and most women have longer hair. This will always be the case, because it’s how God designed us to be.

Further proof of this design can be found in Ezekiel 44:20. During the vision of the new temple, God says the priests “shall neither shave their heads nor let their hair grow long, but they shall keep their hair well trimmed.” This indicates that God’s standard, at least for priests, was short hair. (I do not think Jesus had long hair, and it’s a shame that most artistic depictions give him long hair. Christian artists should start popularizing a short-haired Jesus.)

On the other hand, we cannot make hard and fast rules about hair length. The biblical data won’t allow us. As mentioned above, Nazarite men had long hair during the vow and Nazarite women had short hair after the vow. This wasn’t wrong or sinful; it was an exception to the norm. We also have the case of Absalom in 2 Samuel. Absalom was not a good guy, but he was known for his long, glorious hair. There’s no indication that anyone thought it was wrong for him to have long hair. The author praised Absalom’s appearance: “From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him” (2 Samuel 14:25). Apparently, his long hair was not a blemish.

What do we make of this? Men, generally, should have shorter hair than women. Long hair is a normal characteristic of women, short hair is a normal characteristic of men. But long and short are relative terms, and we don’t have infallible measuring sticks. There will always be exceptions to the norm that aren’t necessarily sinful. It would be sinful if a man was trying to look like a woman, or if a woman was trying to look like a man. Otherwise, there are longer hairstyles for men that don’t look feminine and shorter hairstyles for women that don’t look masculine. As long as the distinctions between the sexes are maintained, hair length is not something we should be too concerned about.

I believe it was Doug Wilson, years ago, who said that a husband shouldn’t have longer hair than his wife. That’s a good rule of thumb. Longer hair is the woman’s glory, not the man’s. When a man has longer hair than his wife, the glory is being misplaced. God made men and women to have distinct appearances, including hair, and those distinctions must be maintained. They must be maintained especially in church leadership. There will always be some exceptions, and we need not denounce them as sinful.

Conclusion

This has been a lengthy essay, but I trust it has benefited your study of 1 Corinthians 11. You’ll notice that I did not address the cultural traditions of the Corinthians, how the prostitutes dressed, etc. These are frequently appealed to in order to interpret the passage. I do not put much stock in those theories because they are based on extra-biblical information. It’s possible that Paul has those things in mind, but he doesn’t list them in the text. These theories cannot be justified from exegesis alone.

Another view of 1 Corinthians 11 says that Paul must be quoting the Corinthians throughout the text. The passage is mixed with false views from the Corinthians and Paul’s corrections. This theory assumes that the Corinthians became legalistic over headcoverings and Paul was correcting them. The conclusion being that women do not have to wear headcoverings. This theory is intriguing, and it could have legitimacy. It’s possible that Paul was doing something similar in 7:1 (“It is good for a man not to touch a woman, but…”). However, I see no way for this theory to be proven. Paul did not write with quotation marks, therefore any claim of quotations will be arbitrary.

I hope you’ve seen that there a few valid options for interpreting Paul’s teaching on headcoverings. I think a strong case can be made in one direction, but it is by no means absolute. The assumptions that make the most biblical and logical sense conclude that artificial covering is not an on-going practice of the church. The positions of the headcovering movement lack evidence and practicality. If God wanted headcovering to be a continued practice, he would have made this passage clearer for us. We must believe that, because we do not serve a God of confusion. When it comes to moral duties, he doesn’t keep us guessing. He doesn’t hold us accountable to laws that haven’t been preserved for us. Let your conscience be at peace. There is no requirement for women to wear headcoverings for religious reasons.

In the next installment, we will discuss the history of headcovering and the potential dangers of headcovering.

1. Also consider that if hair is the covering, why is Paul making a big deal about it? Are we to imagine that most Corinthian women were bald and Paul was exhorting them to grow out their hair? This leads to absurdity, for Paul expects the Corinthians to agree that women having long hair (and men having short hair) is “natural” (vv. 14-15).  (back)
2. See Genesis 24:65, 38:14; Exodus 34:33; Numbers 5:18; Song of Solomon 5:7; Daniel 3:21, Isaiah 47:2.  (back)
3. Consider 1 Timothy 2:9. Paul says women shouldn’t adorn themselves with elaborate hairstyles in worship. Why would he need to say that if the women wore coverings all the time? Wearing a fabric covering would prevent elaborate hairstyles. We deduce from this that women were not wearing headcoverings all the time, not even in worship.  (back)
4. We could say that people spoke in tongues at the Tower of Babel, but that was part of God’s judgment upon them. Speaking in tongues, as a good thing, was brand new at Pentecost.  (back)
5. Compare Paul’s teaching in 7:26. He says it’s better for a man to stay single, but he didn’t mean for all times. He meant “because of the present distress.” His advice was limited to the historical situation of his audience. Once that situation changed, the advice was no longer relevant. We see here that not all of Paul’s commands are universal.  (back)
6. You can listen to my sermon on Genesis 6 at wordmp3.com.  (back)
7. See Ambrosiaster and Severian of Gabala, cited here.  (back)
8. Some say that single women should wear a covering in submission to their fathers. But not every woman has a living father, or a godly father, and in what sense are adult women (living on their own) still under their father’s authority?  (back)

headcovering