Head Coverings, a Symbol of Authority

Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:1-22

Personal Experience

Like many today, upon first examination and reference to Study Bibles I believed that this passage of Scripture could be summarized as applicable in principle but not necessary for practice. That is, that the husband is to be understood as the head over the wife but the head covering was a cultural practice that we need not consider to exercise today. I would think it safe to assume most of us have heard the cultural argument about prostitutes and how head coverings protected Christian women from such confusion and shame of association in the public eye. In my circles this has to be the most common interpretation. For a time I was fond of the interpretation that long hair was the covering Paul had in mind so by default most women practiced it anyway. I now believe that Paul was actually referring to an accessory that women were to wear in corporate worship. My wife Emilee, after meditating on this passage, came to understand it as an accessory and necessary to practice before I did. After time and study on the passage I too came to the same conclusion.

In this brief blog I seek to demonstrate problems with my previous understanding that may help and challenge your own understanding of this text. In the process I will put forth the argument, which I believe is irrefutable, that Paul intended for Christians of all ages to practice this apostolic tradition.

Apostolic Tradition vs Cultural Practice

I really don’t want to spend much time speaking about the supposed cultural practice to remove association with prostitutes that many today use as an argument to negate wearing head coverings but I will briefly respond to this teaching. We must not let our historical research omit or supersede the teaching of Scripture. Nowhere does Paul say that this practice has anything to do with not looking like a prostitute. We, therefore, have no grounds to dismiss apostolic tradition (v1) and supplant our reasoning as his own and then ignore the explicit reasoning he gives to his hearers. Paul grounds his argument in the creation order. Paul uses this very same reasoning in 1 Timothy chapter 2 when teaching that women are not to teach or usurp authority over man. The wearing of head coverings is about authority (v10).

I would stress that if you deny the use of head coverings because of ‘cultural practice at the time’ you have no argument against letting women become pastors and having authority over men for Paul uses the same reasoning behind each of these practices. It should go without saying that supposed cultural norms of the hairstyles of prostitutes in Corinth cannot override apostolic instruction. Was it not also culturally normal for women to be less educated in Paul’s time? In both these instances, head coverings and women teaching over men, Paul appeals to the creation of man and woman as his reason to obey them, he does not appeal to cultural norms.

I would argue, what authority is to principle, head coverings is to practice. What authority is to principle, teaching over men is to practice. More liberal interpreters will argue that Paul's restriction of women teaching (1 Tim. 2:8-15) was cultural and they argue the same is true for head coverings. But you who are against women preachers, on what grounds do you justify excluding women from preaching but reject head coverings when both arguments appeal to creational order? In fact, when speaking of head coverings Paul gives an additional reason: "because of the angels." Is it not inconsistent to separate the practice from the principle in regards to women teaching but then separate practice from principle in regards to women wearing head coverings? Is it not dishonorable for women to pray uncovered? Is not the covering a symbol of authority? Is it not dishonorable for women to teach over men? Is not teaching an act of authority? Does Paul not justify both practices by appealing to Adam being created first? Verily, Verily indeed he does. This is a problem of inconsistency and I would urge you to humbly consider these things. For those of you who ignore both of these passages as cultural, especially women preachers/pastors, I have no argument for you other than you have left yourself open to all sorts of errors that will quickly creep in and overtake you and your hearers.

Moving on from this I want to propose that the practice of women wearing a head covering was common in all the churches as per the Apostles own words. After appealing to creation and women having long hair to demonstrate his point he says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God” (v16). Many interpret these closing remarks as Paul saying that he and others do not have the custom of women wearing head coverings. This is an honest mistake. Even the 1995 NASB has an alternate translation here to say ‘no other custom’ but the footnote corrects this with ‘no such custom’ as the literal translation. 

In order to accurately understand what Paul is saying here we must ask, what is the antecedent of ‘custom’? Verse 13 gives the answer. It reads, “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” After asking this he then makes his argument about women having been given naturally longer hair. This is the custom he is referring to in verse 16 that neither he nor the churches of God practiced. None of the other churches of God had the custom of women praying with their heads uncovered. The antecedent for ‘custom’ is not the broader context of the chapter but it is this question he asked in verse 13. Otherwise it would be very illogical to say this is a tradition he established (v1), that to not practice it is dishonorable (v5, 6), that woman was created for man and thus she ought to have a symbol of authority on her head (v10), appeal to nature and the disgrace of denying it and that long hair is a glory for women (v14, 15), to then say don’t worry about anything I just said if you don’t want to do it.

This apostolic tradition has been consistently practiced throughout church history and is still in practice today by individuals and some denominations. Throughout the history of the church I believe you will find more unanimity on this practice than that of the baptism of infants. Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, varying Confessions of Faith, John Cotton, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, Roger Williams, Charles Spurgeon, R.L. Dabney, Henry Goudge, H.A. Ironside, Watchman Nee, John Murray, Charles Ryrie, R.C. Sproul, and many others all advocate for the practice of women wearing head coverings. Not that teachers are infallible but if we are to make an argument from authority outside of Scripture, like that of historians arguments surrounding 1st century Corinth about prostitutes, I dare say that the aforementioned is a weighty list of supporters to oppose.

External Covering & Not Simply Long Hair

At the end of this section Paul says that hair is given to woman for a covering (v15). Because of this statement it is claimed that the covering that Paul is speaking of throughout the chapter is long hair. I am sympathetic to this understanding as I too once held this position. It was clear enough that the passage was in favor of women covering and men not covering so I, like many, reasoned that long hair was the covering that Paul was stressing and to obey this practice was for men to have short hair and women long hair, subjectively. Yet, upon a more careful reading you will see that this simply cannot be what is intended.

It is important to keep in mind that Paul is using this argument from nature to further prove his point, “Does not even nature itself teach you.” Paul is telling us that nature itself testifies to what he is saying in regards to the apostolic tradition he has given the church (v1, 16). Verse 5 by itself is enough to show that Paul has a garment in mind: "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved." If we apply 'hair' as the intended covering and ‘shaved’ as uncovered this is a redundant and nonsensical argument. Paul would then be saying if a woman doesn't have long hair when she prays it would be the same as if her hair were cut off. To reiterate, if long hair is the intended covering how does one understand verse 6? “For if a wife will not [have long hair] then she should cut her hair short.” The redundancy cannot allow us to interpret in this way. It is also helpful to note that when Paul speaks of hair as a covering he uses a different Greek word for ‘covering’ than the other instances earlier in the passage. From this I believe Paul made it very clear that there is a covering that a woman is to adorn her head with during corporate worship and not simply long hair which is given as a natural covering.

What Now?

First, a word to men. Take your hat off in church, Paul says it is dishonorable to pray with your head covered. If you are convinced this text is teaching that women are to wear a head covering then you ought not to wear one. Be patient with your wives and children as you seek to implement this. I would, and have, encouraged others to just read through this passage with your wife, explain the reasoning, and answer questions and objections. If your wife does respect you and your headship and you’re in a church that is mixed on this doctrine, or in a church that hardly has anyone or no one that practices it, bear in mind the external pressures that while not our reason to obey or disobey are genuine pressures to deal with. Talk with your pastor and perhaps men who you know hold to this doctrine if you desire more counsel.

For the women. If you don’t think this applies to you I simply ask you to meditate on this passage. If you are a bit unsure, do the same. If you are convinced I encourage you to continue to meditate and to now start taking the steps to obey this in faith. Do not hesitate, dear sister, to cover yourself in submission to God’s word, this apostolic tradition, and for your husband,  for we have come to “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels” (Heb.12:22). Thus, we also observe this for the sake of angels. But also bear in mind that the symbol of authority to adorn yourself with is not simply an accessory to your wardrobe. The warning against flashy and gaudy accoutrements to the body applies here also. Don’t stress too much about what style of covering you ought to wear, or how much of your hair is to be exposed but seek to honor your conscience and God will bless you in it even and especially when it is uncomfortable. Find others who wear a covering and discuss it with them. Bear in mind also that since it is a symbol of authority it would be good to have your husband agree this is the intended meaning of the passage. Share this blog with him, discuss the passage with him, being patient also. And if you want more resources I would be happy to direct him to them.

But what about the unmarried women? Some reason this is only for the married women to obey and even that today the symbol of the wedding ring has replaced the head covering. If that’s true, we men need to take our wedding rings off when in prayer (v4). This is a flawed way to ‘obey’ Scriptures plain reading. We don’t get to replace God ordained symbols willy-nilly for what is now a current custom. This is a symbol of authority and the unmarried daughter is under her father’s authority until given in marriage. It would seem quite natural to have your daughters covered for corporate gatherings because of this. So no, no Pope hats either, unmarried men.

A Final Word

I want to end this as it began and that is by way of an appeal to Scripture and an appeal to apostolic authority which here is one in the same. The apostles were responsible for laying the foundation of the church with Christ as the chief cornerstone (1 Cor. 3:10, 11; Eph. 2:20). We do not get to lay a new foundation to the universal/catholic church. This also means we don’t appeal to apostolic authority outside of what the apostles actually wrote. We only build on that foundation which has already been laid (1 Cor. 3:12). So let us seek to expand our foundation where and when it is lacking accordingly. At the beginning of this passage Paul commends the Corinthians for heeding the traditions he gave them. “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (v1). But after this passage on head coverings he cannot commend their behavior on another tradition he gave them, the Lord’s Supper. “Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse” (v17). Setting aside the Lord’s Supper for sake of current custom may have happened in 2020 but even so it is uncommon for anyone to reason that this tradition can be set aside for sake of commodity. Setting aside the symbol of authority on the head for current cultural customs or any other reason isn’t any better. It is good for us to collectively and patiently veer back into this practice. I myself was slow to comprehend this passage but I hope you understand why I now say it is irrefutably true. As there is much more to be said, I am happy to engage in any conversation regarding this passage.

Grace, peace and mercy to you.

Image from garlandsofgrace.com