Some thoughts on the Headcovering in Worship

The Preamble

1. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Paul tells the recipients of his letter to follow him in his way of life as a Christian, just as Paul follows Christ. This and the next verse set the context for the entire chapter, not just this passage. We are to interpret everything that comes after in light of these two verses.

2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul here praises the Corinthians for being mindful of him and for keeping the teachings and practices he has given them through his apostolic authority within the Ekklesia (Church). These two verses are in keeping with instructions of his as in 1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17 and 2 Tim. 1:13-14 for example. All these verses show approval and encouragement for obedience. He wants all the congregations—regardless of their specific circumstances—to carry out His instructions to the best of their sanctified understanding and obedience. While all of Paul’s letters have specific recipients in mind, they are also meant for the Ekklesia in general. That is, Paul’s teachings are intended for and are applicable to all congregations within the greater Ekklesia or Assembly (i.e. the Church).  The teaching that begins with verse three is no exception to this rule (but see our concluding remarks below).

The Argument

3. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

This is the key verse of this passage and sets up the structure underlying the entire discussion. God (the Father) is the head of Christ; Christ is obedient and submissive to God the Father, always perfectly doing His will. Christ is the head of the man; He is the Saviour and Lord. The man is the head of his wife. Since it is the role of the head to be the one who determines the nature of a relationship, it follows that the husband as head of the family and of the wife must exemplify and model this covenantal form of relationship.

4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
Because Christ is the head of the man, for a man to cover his head is symbolically to dishonour Christ through concealing His glory. (Jewish and pagan men alike before and during the Christian era often wore a covering on their heads during worship. The coverings were not a simple hat that sat on top of the head, such as the kippah (skullcap). The covering was probably the tallit (prayer shawl). Paul is saying that during private prayers it was permissible to pull the tallit up over the head, but not so during public prayers or worship.

5. but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
She does this by symbolically announcing, through her uncovered head during public worship, that she is no longer of one flesh with her husband, that is, no longer in the covenantal form of relationship that Paul has already defined in verse three and which is based on such passages as Genesis 2:23-24. When this happens, not only is her husband dishonoured but so also is the institution of biblical, covenantal marriage. The intention is to conform to the biblical principle outlined in verse three. The rest of the passage is really just an unpacking—in terms of the accepted customs of the day—of the relationship already outlined in verse three.

6. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
Paul shows the circuitousness of the situation: if she is uncovered, she may as well be shaven, which in the context of the society in which they all lived at the time of writing, was a sign of disgrace. Generally speaking, only “loose” women or prostitutes went around in public with their heads uncovered. By this practice, the woman was “marketing” her availability. (The Greek word for covering in this verse, katakaluptomai, implies that her hair, not a garment, should cover her.)

7. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
This is a summary verse, restating the argument so far. The way for woman to show forth her proper relationship to the man is the opposite of how a man should show his proper relationship to Christ. In the context of their day, a woman’s hair was her glory and to not cover it up would put her in the position of publicly saying, “My glory is just the same as my husband’s glory.” This would detract from the proper covenantal relationship established at creation (outlined in verse three). This practice is no longer the accepted custom of our own time and society but I believe the principle or pattern of moral rectitude, of which the head covering is a specific example, is still relevant.

8. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
To authenticate his thesis, Paul gives the order of precedence according to scripture: the woman came from the man (Genesis 2:22) and is therefore related to man in a subordinate positional role just as Christ proceeds from the Father and is related to Him in a subordinate positional role.

9. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Here Paul reminds his readers of the purpose of the creation of woman (Genesis 2:18, 22) that she is to be to him a helpmate and fit companion. This logical statement adds the weight of further evidence to Paul’s argument by clarifying that what is of most importance is the proper relationship between men and women generally, and a man and his wife particularly, and all to Christ.

10. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
It is for this reason (the two parts of which are given in verses eight and nine) that the wife owes honour to the man (because of his positional authority, as per verse three) regardless of what kind of man he may be in and of himself. And too, it honours angels who are partakers, in some mysterious way, of the true worship of God. I believe that whenever God’s people are gathered together for true, biblical worship, angels are gathered to watch and listen (and perhaps enjoy and offer praise to God for the glory He receives from His supreme creation, human beings).

11. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

Here Paul reminds husbands and wives not to be independent. It is not for ourselves that we engage in the ordinances Paul has been talking about. We do not have ultimate authority in this. Men and women are equal and have the same worth (Genesis 1:27-28a). Here Paul tells us it is not a question of which is better or innately superior: husband or wife. We are both to be in obedience to God’s commandments. Both the husband and the wife are dependent on God and His ordinances. This is the core of the covenantal relationship and this is the (universally operative) principle within the Ekklesia. This principle is symbolically represented here by the custom of the head covering.

12. for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
Since woman comes from man, owing her existence partly to him (Adam provided the raw material as it were) and since all men since the Fall are born from (and nurtured by) women, so men and women are mutually dependant and of equal worth. We are to be mindful that men and women (and therefore husbands and wives) have equal value, but that God has supreme value over all His created order and so has a right to make demands upon it. All things come from God as Creator and owe allegiance to Him.

13. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
In this verse, Paul confidently asks his readers to use their common sense as well as their status as born-again Christians to discern the truth in their hearts and minds and to apply what he has told them to their own situation in the society of which they were members.

14. Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
Paul introduces the argument from nature here but he seems to have something of an unspoken assumption in mind. I think by “nature” he really means the world of human social customs, prohibitions, mores and the like, not the world of the forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world. Clearly, if that is what Paul meant he would be seriously mistaken as the material world of nature teaches no such thing. It was not the custom of most Jews, before and during the Christian era, to wear long hair as we see so often depicted in popular art and film. Jewish men at the time wore short hair. The main reason being that long hair in a man of Paul’s time and place was a sign of effeminacy and (probably) homosexuality. In Paul’s mind, homosexuality was a perversion of the proper order of nature and this created social stigma. In this sense Paul can say that nature teaches that long hair on a man is a disgrace.

15. but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
The word for covering used here, (Gk.  peribolaion) indicates, tangentially, being covered by fabric or a garment that could be wrapped about oneself, such as a veil or shawl. This indicates that a woman’s hair acts as a kind of veil or shawl. The word “for” (GK. hoti) means “because of” or “because.” So Paul is saying in effect “A woman’s glory is because of her hair (her natural covering).”

In any event, showing off her long (glorious) hair in the society of which she and her husband were members was tantamount to a denial of the sanctified relationship between man and wife established by God in the Garden of Eden at the very beginnings of our world. The ordinance of the head covering for both men and women was a social recognition of the covenant nature of marriage and of submission to the purpose and wisdom of God by husband and wife, man and woman.

Conclusions

16. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

If any man appears to be, or is accounted as, willing to engage in strife or argumentation, Paul says that (in his time and place, i.e. first century Palestine) there is no other habit, ordinance, custom or practice than the uncovering of the man’s head and the covering of the woman’s head during public, corporate worship.

The NET Bible translates the word “contentious” as “quarrel”, thus reading, “If anyone intends to quarrel about this (practice of the head covering)….” It could also be understood as “If anyone has a problem with this practice, too bad. This is the only practice (or custom, tradition, teaching) we have, none of the other congregations have a practice which is any different.”

I believe the word “such” (Gk.  toioutos) should be translated as meaning “this is the only custom we have” and I conclude that this (the covering of the head) was the custom (Gk. sunetheia) of other congregations besides the Corinthian.

In line with this, it behooves us to be cognizant of the overall Pauline context in all his writings. Three variants in particular stand out; the authority of Christ, the obedience, respect, and submissive attitude that wives are to display toward husbands, and Paul’s clear instructions for strong and assured believers to give way to the needs, beliefs and practices of weaker Christians, as is found in passages such as Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8. And in light of Paul’s admonishing of Christians not to turn back to the law and legalism (as for instance in Gal. 3) we perhaps may understand that each Christian married couple has a degree of liberty in regard to such issues as the head covering, so long as they recognize the creation order of first man, then woman and so act accordingly (that is to say men with respectful consideration and women with willing submission).

After considering this passage, and the greater context of Paul’s ministry as well as the underlying OT context, I’m inclined to think that Paul is recommending that husbands and wives follow local custom for the sake of order, expediency, peace and unity (in keeping with Paul’s overall concern for decency and propriety in the Assembly) and that if anyone chooses to practice something different, it is their own business so long as it doesn’t cause strife within the local body of believers.

My own, personal belief is that if the husband sincerely believes his wife should wear a covering (a shawl, mantle, veil) in keeping with first-century NT custom, then as a decent Christian wife, she should respectfully submit, regardless of her personal preferences. I do not wish, however, to give the impression that this issue is black and white, but that a mutual decision should be reached after both husband and wife have offered the matter up in prayer, asking for guidance and blessing.  As I have said, this is open to Christian liberty; it is not a practice of NT law. That would be sheer legalism, the very thing Paul is quick to warn against in many places.

Personally, I can think of no better gesture of voluntary, loving submission to Christ than for a woman to wear a covering such as a veil or shawl during public worship. (I know that if Paul had said that it is seemly for a man to cover his head with a prayer shawl during public worship, I would do it as an act of grateful submission to the will of God, regardless of what any person within the Assembly thought about my actions.

For a woman to cover her head is a beautiful act of graceful obedience and a very public announcement that she belongs to Christ—heart and soul—and is neither afraid or ashamed of the Gospel. However, done in any other attitude but loving submission, as an act of spiritual service (Rom. 12:1) or for any reasons not in keeping with the overall teachings of joy and peace in Christ, then it is done in pride, defiance and disobedience and would be best if not done at all. We must each search our hearts and arrive at a solution that is honourable and edifying for all parties in the particular context in which it takes place. This always requires sensitivity and sometimes even sacrifice on the part of the husband or the wife.  If we come to the Lord in prayer, and there find even a hint of guilt or shame because of our decision and action, then we must repent, seek forgiveness and alter our behaviours accordingly.