The purpose of this article will be to provide a thorough exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, on the veiling of Christian sisters, by concentrating on each verse, its meaning, the various words from the original Greek, and consulting the historical evidence.
There is no escaping the passage’s relevancy for Christians today. Paul addressed his epistle to “the church of God which is at Corinth” and with “all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Corinthians 1:2, NKJV). Paul was perhaps foreseeing that his letters were going to be widely circulated. Paul’s apostolic teachings were not unique to Corinth but applied to every church. Paul taught his ways in Christ “everywhere in every church” (1 Corinthians 4:17, NKJV). Again, he wrote, “But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches” (1 Corinthians 7:17, NKJV). Paul had a universally applicable message.
The Ordinances – 1 Corinthians 11:2
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
The Apostle Paul indicated that the following instruct-ions pertain to the ordinances which he gave to the churches like Corinth. The word “ordinances” is from the Greek word παράδοσις (paradosis) which is defined by Strong’s as transmission, i.e. a precept specifically the Jewish traditionary law:– ordinance, tradition. However, Paul was not here referring to the Mosaic traditions of the Law. Neither were these human-manufactured church traditions. Paul also wrote,
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8, NKJV)
The ordinances or traditions in verse 2 are not “traditions of men” but were the divinely inspired apostolic traditions delivered by Paul who was “called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God” (1 Corinthians 11:1, KJV). He praised them for keeping the ordinances. Evidence of a faithful church is one that “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42, NKJV). Though Paul does not tell how this apostolic tradition on head coverings originated, it was probably delivered to the Corinthians in his first year and six months of personal ministry among them (Acts 18:11).
There are serious consequences which the church must put into practice against disorderly brothers or sisters who do not keep the apostolic traditions. In his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul commanded the Christians to “stand fast and hold the traditions (paradosis) which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15, NKJV). Later in the same epistle Paul wrote:
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition (paradosis) which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6, NKJV)
Here Paul was commanding a separation from those brethren who did not keep the apostolic tradition, in this case referring to idleness. He continues,
And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, NKJV)
Either the teaching of the head covering is now being introduced to the Corinthians for the first time, or it is an exception to the ordinances being kept by the church. Paul tells us nothing whatsoever of why he had to remind the Corinthians of the church-wide practice of head coverings. We can reasonably infer that Paul wrote the instructions because at least some of the men and women were out of order. Perhaps the Corinthians were keeping all of the ordinances, including the head covering, and Paul was now explaining it more fully.
Headship – 1 Corinthians 11:3-5
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. [5] 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.
The Greek word ἀνήρ (anēr) can be used to refer to a man or a husband. The Greek word γυνή (gynē) can refer to a wife, a betrothed woman, a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow. The glory of this divine order is applicable to husband and wife, but also applies on a general basis to men and women. Some Bible versions have translated anēr as “husband” and gynē as “wife.”1 This may give a false impression that the head covering teaching only applies to husbands and wives rather than “every” man and woman (verses 3-5). “Every man” (verse 3) and “every woman” (verse 5) demonstrates that Paul is handing down a universal rule, not simply condoning local custom. The New Testament uses the Greek word κοράσιον (korasion) to refer to a damsel or maid (KJV) or simply a girl (NKJV). So gynē (verses 3 and 5) probably refers to all women, including virgins, who have reached an age of sexual maturity.
As stated above, apparently some in Corinth were rebelling against the head covering ordinance, or it is possible that that Paul was praising the Corinthians for obeying the teaching even though they didn’t fully understand the principle underlying it (based on the phrase, “I would have you know” and the preceding verse). But the fact that Paul had been in Corinth for a year and a half nearly ensures that the subject of veiling would have been previously addressed (Acts 18:11). Paul is having to discuss the head covering, first and foremost, because of headship.
From the context of verse 3 it is obvious that Paul is referring to authority, and not to physical heads on physical bodies. Submission within God’s created order is the focus of the teaching. The pinnacle of this divinely established order is God, then it descends to Christ, to humanity (the man over the woman), to animals and to the rest of nature (Genesis 1:28-29; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28; Hebrews 1:6-8; 2:6-8).
Christ is the head of the church, having supreme authority of all Christians. Paul taught this in other epistles also:
And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23, NKJV)
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him, who is the head–Christ–from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:15-16, NKJV)
And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18, NKJV)
Though Jesus is God in the flesh,2 the head of Christ is God the Father. There are many examples in Scripture of Christ’s subordination to the Father.3 Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28, NKJV). Christ’s submission serves as the ultimate example for all believers to pattern their lives in relationship with God. It is important to understand that the Son of God is not inferior to the Father. In fact, they are both equally divine. Jesus “being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:6, NKJV). Yet Jesus is in submission to the Father. In the same way, the female gender is not inferior to the male gender. Man and woman are equal but God has ordained that a wife submit to her husband.
The submission of a wife to her husband is no more done away with than the submission of humanity to Christ. Today our culture teaches it is politically incorrect for a woman to be submissive to her husband or father. But this is not what the Bible teaches. Fashions and styles of women’s dress have changed and will continue to change, but Paul explains very clearly that the head covering signifies something which will never change, that is God’s patriarchal design for the husband and wife. The submission of wives to their husbands is discussed further in the following passages as well:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (Ephesians 5:22-24, KJV)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18, KJV)
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15, KJV)
But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. (Titus 2:1-5, NKJV)
Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (1 Peter 3:1-6, NKJV)
Notice that this divine order is rooted in Creation, not in culture. For Adam was first formed, then Eve (1 Timothy 2:13; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9). In Genesis 3:16, God told Eve, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (KJV). But Eve’s subservience to her husband was a part of God’s order for male headship. Paul even quotes from Genesis 2 in order to establish male headship in the church (see 1 Timothy 2:11-15 above). Eve’s sin in the Garden further nullified woman’s authority over man. Headship is also why a woman ought to cover her head. Far from teaching a woman’s subjection as being humiliating, the Bible speaks of a woman’s subjection as virtuous.
Seemingly, either the Corinthian women had cast off their head coverings in times of prayer and prophesying or merely didn’t understand the head covering practice which they were observing. There may be subtle indications in Paul’s epistle of the beginning of a feminist movement within the church cloaked in the notion of freedom in Christ (1 Corinthians 6:12; 8:9; 10:23). Apparently the women were behaving disorderly in church gatherings (1 Corinthians 14:40), possibly in regard to the head covering and public speaking (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Paul later said to them:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, KJV)4
The male and female roles in the church also reflect the divine order of headship. Man is also head of the woman in church order. Only men were called to be the apostles of the early Church. Only men qualify to be leaders of the Church (the qualifications for elders and deacons appear in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9). But it is worthy of note that without virtuous women there would be no qualified elders according to 1 Timothy 3:11 which says deacons’ wives must be “grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things” (NKJV). Only men are to speak in the church gatherings (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:9-12). God has ordained that men have greater authority and responsibil-ity in leadership than women and children, but this status does not mean they are spiritually superior to them. On the contrary, while God commands subjection to male ministers, fathers, and parents, all people alike may be accepted by God if they fear Him and keep His commandments (Acts 10:34-35).
It is especially needful to dispel the modern myth that the Bible teaches a degrading view of women. Scripture bestows much honor to virtuous women when it says to treat “elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity,” and, “Honor widows that are widows indeed” (1 Timothy 5:2,3, KJV). The Apostle Peter also exhorts husbands to honor their wives (1 Peter 3:1). Husbands are exhorted to honor and love their wives just as Jesus loved the church (Ephesians 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7). Godly women have a vitally important and wonderful role in strengthening their families, the church, and the world when they serve in their God-ordained functions. Apart from specific governing and teaching roles being restricted to men in the church, the Scriptures encourage certain ministries for mature and godly women. Women are not even denied the spiritual gift of teaching when in the proper context of teaching other women and their children:
The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Titus 2:3-5, KJV)
We know that Timothy’s mother Eunice and grandmother Lois passed on their faith in God to Timothy and instructed him in his youth (2 Timothy 1:5). Because of these very influential roles of Timothy’s mother and grandmother, he knew the Holy Scriptures from his childhood (2 Timothy 3:15). Paul wrote, “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Timothy 5:14, KJV). In one of his pastoral epistles, Paul spoke well of a woman who is “well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work” (1 Timothy 5:10, KJV).
We read in the book of Acts about Tabitha who was “full of good works and alms deeds which she did” (Acts 9:36, KJV). The Scriptures are far from teaching that women are inferior to men in any way. Nevertheless, God has created men and women to work together having distinct gender roles.
In verse 4, every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, that is either his own head or Christ. Though it is less common in western cultures for women to cover their heads, it remains fairly common practice that men remove their hats when entering into church sanctuaries or homes. Most of today’s Evangelical churches have transformed 1 Corinthians 11 into the rule that men must remove their hats when entering a church building or when praying, but women don’t have to take off their hats if they happen to be wearing them. Instead of focusing on headship, today’s Evangelical rule teaches that women are a privileged class.
Translated “covered”, the Greek word κατά (kata) appears in the New Testament 480 times. According to Thayer, the word means down from, through out, according to, toward, along. In regard to head coverings, the word kata occurs in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, in Esther 6:12, “And Mardochaeus returned to the palace: but Aman went home mourning, and having his head covered (kata).” This was when Mordecai (Mardochaeus) the Jew was honored in the place of Haman (Aman). Haman was dishonored and ashamed, thus covering his head. In the Masoretic Text of Esther 6:12, the Hebrew word חָפָה (chaphah) is used for “covered.” It is defined by Strong as to cover; by implication, to veil, to encase, protect:—ceil, cover, overlay. The Hebrew word chaphah is a more specific word than the Greek word kata which is used by Paul to speak of a man covering or veiling his head in 1 Corinthians 11:4. Nevertheless, the Hebrew word chaphah can obviously be a parallel word for the Greek word kata. In addition to Esther 6:12, we see the Hebrew word chaphah in other Old Testament passages relevant to the head covering. When King David fled Jerusalem from Absalom his son he “had his head covered (chaphah), and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered (chaphah) every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up” (2 Samuel 15:30, NKJV).
Also in Jeremiah 14:13-14:
And their nobles have sent their little ones to the waters: they came to the pits, and found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were ashamed and confounded, and covered (chaphah) their heads. Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered (chaphah) their heads. (NKJV)
Even within the Old Testament there are several examples of it being shameful and dishonoring for men to veil or cover their heads. But there are also rare examples of Jewish men covering their heads in the Old Testament and it not being shameful. The high priest was commanded to wear a turban or mitre (Exodus 28:4,37,39; 29:6; 39:28,31; Leviticus 8:9; 10:6; 16:4; 21:10). The Levitical priesthood were to have “exquisite hats of fine linen” (Exodus 39:28, NKJV) or “linen turbans on their heads” (Ezekiel 44:18, NKJV). Aaron’s sons had “hats on them, as the Lord had commanded Moses” (Leviticus 8:13, NKJV). Elijah covered himself in the presence of God by wrapping himself in his mantle (1 Kings 19:11-13). When the prophet’s wife died, Ezekiel was told to “Sigh in silence, make no mourning for the dead; bind your turban on your head” (Ezekiel 24:17, NKJV). With these examples from the Old Testament, it must be kept in mind that the head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 is a New Covenant ordinance. Still the New Covenant ordinance is relatively consistent to what was common in the Old Testament for men and women.
In verses 4 and 5, the word προφητεύω (prophēteuō) translated “prophesieth” means to speak under inspiration. This also includes the foretelling of future events. Revelation 19:10 says, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” A simple definition of prophecy would be to speak forth the word of God. The Apostle Peter said, “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11, NKJV). Paul treated the spiritual gift of prophesy as a superior one: “I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied” (1 Corinthians 14:5, KJV). He spoke of the gift of prophecy throughout his epistle to the Corinthians (13:9; 14:1-39), and concluded, “Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:39,40, NKJV). Prophesying is not limited to church gatherings, since this is a spiritual gift which is always in operation. And since we are exhorted to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17; cf. Romans 12:12; Luke 18:1), it is reasonable to say that a woman’s head ought to be covered most of the time, with the exception of being at home in privacy. The four daughters of Philip were “virgins, which did prophesy” (Acts 21:9, KJV) but we cannot assume that they prophesied in church gatherings as this would be forbidden by Paul (1 Corinthians 14:34).5
Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors or shames her head and thereby also dishonors Christ. The text is ambiguous as to what head a woman dishonors if she is uncovered; her “head” could be her own head, her husband or Christ. Whatever the case may be, all “heads” are dishonored if a woman is uncovered. The action of veiling demonstrates a woman’s agreement with divine order and her subjection to her husband and God. The woman covers her head to acknowledge that she is not her own head (i.e. she does not seek to be her own authority). Thus her own physical head figuratively vanishes under the cover of her veil while the physical head of her husband is clearly seen. Her head is veiled and she has accepted man as her head. To accept man as her head means that she has also accepted Christ as head and God as head. But a woman who prays with her head uncovered is equivalent to a woman with a shaved head, which is shameful (verse 6) and against nature (verses 14-15). The shaving off of the hair was actually an insult inflicted upon captive women (See Deuteronomy 21:11-12; Isaiah 3:24; 15:2; 22:12; Jeremiah 7:29; Ezekiel 7:18; Amos 8:10; Micah 1:16).
The word “uncovered” comes from the Greek word ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakalyptos). Thus it is defined as “unveiled” by Strong and Thayer. Vine’s Expository Dictionary says:
“uncovered” (a, negative, katakalupto, “to cover”), is used in 1 Corinthians 11:5, 1 Corinthians 11:13, RV, “unveiled,” with reference to the injunction forbidding women to be “unveiled” in a church gathering. Whatever the character of the covering, it is to be on her head as “a sign of authority” (1 Corinthians 11:10), RV, the meaning of which is indicated in 1 Corinthians 11:3 in the matter of headships, and the reasons for which are given in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, and in the phrase “because of the angels,” intimating their witness of, and interest in, that which betokens the headship of Christ. The injunctions were neither Jewish, which required men to be veiled in prayer, nor Greek, by which men and women were alike “unveiled.” The Apostle’s instructions were “the commandment of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37) and were for all the churches (1 Corinthians 14:33-34).
The word akatakalyptos appears in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, in Leviticus 13:45:
And the leper in whom the plague is, let his garments be ungirt, and his head uncovered (akatakalyptos); and let him have a covering put upon his mouth, and he shall be called unclean. (LXX)
Obviously this was referring to a cloth covering over the leper’s head and not his hair. In Polybius’ Histories, the word akatakalyptos is clearly translated as “unveiled” in an English translation:
Moreover, an action of Agathocles himself served to heighten the anger of the multitude and of Tlepolemus. For he took Danae, the latter’s mother-in-law, from the temple of Demeter, dragged her through the middle of the city unveiled (akatakalyptos), and cast her into prison.6
The Apostle Paul is not giving instructions strictly for the worship services. Some have suggested that Paul was affirming that women could speak publicly in church meetings if their heads were veiled. Others have thought that Paul was contradicting himself.
First of all, praying and prophesying was not limited to the Lord’s Day meeting (See Acts 1:14; 2:42; 6:4; 12:5,12; 13:3; 14:23; 21:9). In fact, prayer and prophesy are probably the most common activities among Christian practices. Prayer and prophesy accompany all of the Christian life. Secondly, Paul states clearly that women should be in silence during the church gatherings (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11,12). Assembly meetings don’t come into view until verse 17, so the instructions concerning the veiling of women in verses 2-16 cannot be confined to church gatherings (though the veil would certainly be applicable during those times as well). The transition is marked in verse 17: “that ye come together” (KJV) and verse 20: “When ye come together therefore into one place” (KJV). From that point onward in 1 Corinthians 11:17-14:40 Paul deals with the church gatherings in which he clearly forbids the women, not only to prophesy, but to speak at all (1 Corinthians 14:34). If women were not permitted to speak during church gatherings, it must be concluded that this ordinance of the head covering was to be observed whenever a woman prayed or prophesied.
A Shame – 1 Corinthians 11:6
[6] For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
In verses 6 and 7, Paul uses the verb κατακαλύπτω (katakalyptō). In verse 6, this verb appears in the passive form and means “be covered” or “be veiled.” For if the woman be not covered (katakalyptō), let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (katakalyptō). For a man indeed ought not to cover (katakalyptō) his head. Strong’s defines katakalyptō as to cover wholly, i.e. veil. According to Thayer, the word means to cover up, to veil or cover one’s self. According to Vine’s Expository dictionary, the verb is defined as:
“to cover up” (kata, intensive), in the Middle Voice, “to cover oneself,” is used in 1 Corinthians 11:6-7 (RV, “veiled”). Note: In 1 Corinthians 11:4, “having his head covered” is, lit., “having (something) down the head.”
In the Septuagint, the verb katakalyptō is used in the following passages to refer to a veil:
And when Judas saw her, he thought her to be a harlot; for she covered (katakalyptō) her face, and he knew her not. (Genesis 38:15, LXX)
And thou shalt screen (katakalyptō) with the veil the ark of the testimony in the holy of holies. (Exodus 26:34, LXX)
And Aaron and his sons shall go in, when the camp is about to move, and shall take down the shadowing veil, and shall cover (katakalyptō) with it the ark of the testimony. (Numbers 4:5, LXX)
This is indisputable evidence that Paul is referring to a cloth covering and not a woman’s hair covering. The burden of proof lies upon those who argue that Paul was referring to long hair when he spoke of the head covering. If that were the case, this would be the only passage in the Bible where the word would be used in regard to hair. Thus, other translations have rendered the passage as follows:
For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. (1 Corinthians 11:5, ASV).
For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil (1 Corinthians 11:5, RSV).
For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. (1 Corinthians 11:5, NABRE)
For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. (1 Corinthians 11:5, NRSV)
For if the woman be not veiled, let her also be shorn. The Greek word for “shorn” is κείρω (keirō) meaning to shear and the Greek word for “shaven” is ξυράω (xyraō) meaning to shave or shear with a razor. However, there may be little difference in these words since both are used with reference to ending a vow in Acts 18:18 and Acts 21:24. Shaving the head was a sign of grief or mourning (Deuteronomy 21:12-13; Isaiah 7:20; 15:2; 22:12; Jeremiah 16:6; Micah 1:16). Shearing is used to describe the shearing of sheep: “like a lamb dumb before his shearer” (Acts 8:32, KJV). Later (in verses 14 and 15), Paul explains that a woman’s hair is given her as a natural covering. A woman ought to wear both the long hair covering and the veil or neither covering at all. According to verse 6, if the woman is not veiled, let her hair also be cut. This is not a command that a woman who offends in this matter should cut off her hair, but that realizing its shame, would wear a veil. If a woman be not veiled, she may as well cut her hair short or shave her head. But if it be a shame for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, then let her be veiled. If the woman refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace, namely cut hair. The woman’s veil should be just as much identified with her femininity as her long hair. The woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled is dishonoring. If she is throwing off the token of her subjection, she may as well, with equal decency, cut her hair short like a man or shave her head bald. This behavior would reveal that she was desirous of changing her female role.
Verse 6 suggests that modesty was perhaps one of Paul’s main concerns with the head covering. It is reasonable to assume that in Corinth, decent and proper women would have been distinguished by modest dress. Certainly in the cases of Jewish women a veil was considered a component of modesty. There was a Jewish community in Corinth (Acts 18:1-6), whose women must have have veiled themselves in public according to Jewish practice. By going unveiled, a woman brings upon herself the same measure of shame that would accompany the shaving of her head. It is disgraceful for a woman to be unveiled similar to that of a woman who has cropped her hair or shaved her head. Paul assumes that his audience already agrees that a woman with short hair or a shaved head is shameful, thought he wants them to acknowledge the shame of her being unveiled. It is shameful for a woman to be unveiled for the same reason that a woman’s immodest clothing and nakedness would be shameful (See 1 Samuel 20:30; Isaiah 20:4; 47:3; Micah 1:11; Nahum 3:5; Revelation 3:18; 16:15). In Isaiah 47:1-3, the prophet declared the humiliation of the virgin daughter of Babylon. In that passage, her nakedness is “uncovered” and her “shame” is seen. Notably the removal of her veil or uncovering of her locks is mentioned alongside the taking off of her skirt and the uncovering of her thigh. This also suggests that the veil is linked to modesty because the removal of her veil is synonymous with the uncovering of her nakedness.
Come down and sit in the dust,
O virgin daughter of Babylon;
Sit on the ground without a throne,
O daughter of the Chaldeans!
For you shall no more be called
Tender and delicate.
Take the millstones and grind meal.
Remove your veil,
Take off the skirt,
Uncover the thigh,
Pass through the rivers.
Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
Yes, your shame will be seen;
I will take vengeance,
And I will not arbitrate with a man. (Isaiah 47:1-3, NKJV)
Creation Order – 1 Corinthians 11:7-9
[7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Paul is introducing his next argument for veiling which has to do with Creation order (verses 7-10). If Jewish men did indeed cover their heads in worship, then Paul’s words would have a deep impact upon Jewish religious practice. The Judaizers were a common problem which Paul addressed in his epistles. Perhaps Paul was addressing first century Judaizers here in verse 7 if they insisted on maintaining the use of the tallith, the fringed shawl worn by Jewish men in times of prayer. In that case, Paul would have been opposing the Jewish tradition of male coverings, but upholding the practice of female veiling.
In verse 7, Paul uses the Greek word ἀνήρ (anēr) for “man”, not the general term ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) for “mankind” or “humankind” which would be inclusive of the female gender as well. Man is the image and glory of God. The woman was not designed to represent God in the way that the man was designed to represent God; he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. The Greek word for “image” is εἰκών (eikōn), similar to our English word “icon.” In Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, the following use is noted:
of man as he was created as being a visible representation of God, 1Cr 11:7, a being corresponding to the original; the condition of man as a fallen creature has not entirely effaced the “image;” he is still suitable to bear responsibility, he still has Godlike qualities, such as love of goodness and beauty, none of which are found in a mere animal; in the Fall man ceased to be a perfect vehicle for the representation of God; God’s grace in Christ will yet accomplish more than what Adam lost.
Obviously Paul is referring to the account in Creation when Elohiym said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Genesis 1:26, NKJV). Man can be referred to as the “glory of God” because he is the image or icon of God. Like an icon on the desktop of a computer which represents a program or file, so man represents God being made in His moral likeness.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:26-27, KJV)
Therefore, the man is the glory of God. But the woman is the glory of man because she was created from man and for the man. For these reasons rooted in Creation, the man should not cover his head. All the glory belongs to God. Therefore, man should be uncovered since he is the image and glory of God. Woman should be covered because she is the glory of man, and the woman’s hair should be covered because it is her glory (verse 15). When the woman’s hair (her glory) is covered and the woman is covered (man’s glory), then the only glory uncovered is the glory of God through the image of the man. In this way man’s glory is covered and God is glorified.
In verse 7, Paul again uses the Greek verb κατακαλύπτω (katakalyptō), the same word used in verse 6. It means to cover wholly, i.e. veil, to cover up, to veil or cover one’s self. Of equal importance to women covering their heads, the men were instructed to remove any coverings from their heads during prayer and prophesying. Even the American military and most churches still hold the tradition that men must remove their caps whenever going indoors (this is done out of honor and respect). There may be cases where it may not necessarily be improper (verse 13) or shameful (verse 14) for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered (e.g. in his prayer closet, in extreme weather conditions, or safety conditions requiring some type of headgear). Generally speaking, a man ought to avoid covering his head because he is the image and glory of God.
The first man Adam was made in the image of God and the woman was made from his rib. And the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18, KJV). The woman was created of the man (verse 8) and for the man (verse 9). Eve was created from Adam to be a helper for him. The Creation account continues:
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:21-23, KJV)
Woman was created for the man (verse 9). The role of the woman being under headship of the man symbolizes submission to the authority of God. This symbolism of the man and the woman or the husband and wife is a well-ordered great mystery which refers to Christ and the church. The husband is called to self-sacrifice and ministry of the Word for his wife’s sanctification.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (Ephesians 5:28-33, KJV)
Because of the Angels – 1 Corinthians 11:10
[10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Notice these renderings of 1 Corinthians 11:10 in the following Bible translations:
For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority. (NLT)
because of this the woman ought to have [a token of] authority upon the head, because of the messengers” (YLT)
That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels” (RSV).
For this reason (the order and roles of the sexes in Creation) ought the woman to have power, or authority, on her head.
The word “power” is from the Greek word ἐξουσία (exousia) meaning authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength. Therefore, other translations say “sign of authority on her head” (AMP), “symbol of authority on her head” (ESV, NASB, NET), or “authority over her own head” (NIV). In this sense, the head covering is a symbol of the man’s authority and the woman’s submission. In that case, the woman should wear a veil as a sign that she is under authority.
The expression “to have power on her head” is probably a reference to the veil itself. Paul literally says that the woman ought to have “power/authority” on her head. In AD 180, Irenaeus wrote: “A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels.”7 The translators noted: “Irenæus here reads κάλυμμα, veil, instead of ἐξουσίαν, power, as in the received text. [An interesting fact, as it betokens an old gloss, which may have slipped into the text of some ancient MSS.]”8 It can be thus understood that “power/authority” is a word used as a substitute for the veil itself. In his New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, Philip W. Comfort noted:
All Greek manuscripts say that a woman should have “authority” . . . on her head. But the word “authority” was changed to “veil” because the latter was considered a metonym for the former. A marginal note in the RSV, which places “veil” in the text, explains that a “veil” is a symbol for the Greek word “authority.” Those who argue that this passage is speaking of the subordination of women say that a woman has to wear a veil in deference to the angels because they were considered the guardians of order and decorum in public worship.9
“Because of the angels” is yet another argument which Paul uses in support of the veiling of women. Whether the angels Paul is referring to are actual angelic beings beholding the church fellowship or brothers (i.e. God’s “messengers”) in the assembly is uncertain. The word Greek word ἄγγελος (aggelos) is used for angels most of the time in the New Testament, but it is also used to speak of human “messengers” such as John the Baptist (Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2), John’s “messengers” to Jesus (Luke 7:24), “messengers” sent ahead of Jesus into Samaria (Luke 9:52), a “messenger” of Satan (2 Corinthians 12:7), and the spies sent into Jericho (James 2:25). If Paul is simply referring to God’s messengers (i.e. men in the church), then it again seems like modesty of dress is a primary concern with the head covering (modesty is addressed in 1 Timothy 2:9,10 and 1 Peter 3:1-5).
The early church writers understood “because of the angels” in two different ways. Clement of Alexandria, writing in approximately AD 195, supported the opinion that the angels refer to “righteous and virtuous men.”10 Clement of Alexandria naturally saw the veiling of women as an issue of modesty also. However, the word ἄγγελος (aggelos) is translated 179 times as angel(s) in the New Testament but only 7 times as messenger(s). Either way, the aggelos are a reason for women in the church to be covered.
If it is angelic beings to which Paul refers, then the head covering is to be observed because angels are taking interest in the activities of the Church. David wrote, “I will give thee thanks, O Lord, with my whole heart; and I will sing psalms to thee before the angels” (Psalm 138:1, LXX). Other passages speak of angels beholding Christian affairs, particularly within reference to the church. Paul said,
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men” (1 Corinthians 4:9, KJV).
Paul also described the “mystery of godliness” as follows: “
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Timothy 3:16, KJV).
God is using Christ and the church as object lessons to teach His manifold wisdom to the principalities and powers in heavenly places. Paul wrote:
Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. (Ephesians 3:8-12, KJV)
The Apostle Peter also describes how angels desire to look into the matters pertaining to salvation and the preaching of the Gospel. Peter wrote:
Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. (1 Peter 1:10-12, KJV)
The angels’ attention is especially drawn to spiritual matters. By the church, God is making known His manifold wisdom unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places. Angels desire to look into the ministry of the Holy Spirit within the church. If angels desire to look into spiritual matters, then they should see Christian women in willful submission to God and man, in this case veiling being modest.
Not only do angles desire to look into the matters of salvation, but angles can also visit us when we least expect (See Matthew 28:1-8; Luke 1:26,27; Hebrews 13:2), perhaps another cause for women to be covered with regard to the angels. If the angelic beings are in view for Paul’s reason for veiling women, then it either refers to elect angels, fallen angels or both.
Jesus said the everlasting fire is prepared for “the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41; cf. Job 1:6; Jude 1:6-7). Commenting on “because of the angels” some have referenced the giants, also known as Nephilim, created by fallen angels who engaged in sexual relations with women (Genesis 6:1-4). The “sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” (Genesis 6:2, KJV). Also mentioned in Jude 1:6, these wicked angels “did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” The Apostle Peter wrote: “God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4, NKJV). From Genesis 6:1-4, one might conclude that the head covering is worn by a godly woman in order to keep angles from lusting after her by the attraction of her hair as they gaze into the affairs of the Church. So the veil would function for modesty’s sake or like a magic charm to put the fear of God into the evil angels. In about AD 198, Tertullian wrote, “For indeed it is ‘on account of the angels’ that he said women must be veiled, because on account of ‘the daughters of men’ angels revolted from God.”11 In the Apocryphal book of Enoch is also mention of angels seducing women. Enoch is sent to intercede for the “Watchers of heaven” and proclaims:
Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. [As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them. (Enoch 15:4-12)12
However, in the New Testament Scriptures the word “angels” unmodified refers to good angels. Indeed there are evil angels but they are referred to as “the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41, KJV), “the angels that sinned” (2 Peter 2:4, KJV), “the angels which kept not their first estate (Jude 1:6 KJV), “the dragon . . . and his angels” (Revelation 12:7, KJV), and “the great dragon . . . and his angels” (Revelation 12:9, KJV). But when Paul says, “because of the angels” in verse 10, the word “angels” is unmodified.
There other problems with the idea that angelic beings are in view here. First of all, prayer and prophesy are common Christian practices not limited to church meetings.13 Therefore, Paul’s instructions concerning veiling must have been applicable beyond the church meetings. That being the case, it seems unlikely that angels would be observing women at all times of prayer such as privately in her prayer closet, alone with her husband, in bed at night or while bathing. If angelic beings were observing women at such times of prayer, then she would be expected to veil her head all the time. On the other hand, if angelic beings are only viewing public prophesy and prayer, this would make the head covering practice applicable to most of the Christian life, whatever is done in public. Similar is the idea that the veil should be worn whenever whenever a woman is in the presence of those who could observe its comeliness if practiced (verse 13) or shame if not practiced (verse 6).
It is unclear exactly what Paul meant by “because of the angels.” But this is no excuse to ignore what Paul wrote that was clear. The “angels” or “messengers” are yet another support for why women should veil. We know that because of the angels (whether earthly beings or heavenly beings) a woman was instructed to cover her head. This much is unarguable. Female veiling is therefore a universal apostolic practice which transcends each and every culture.
Creation Order Continued – 1 Corinthians 11:11-12
[11] Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Verses 11 and 12 reinforce what Paul has already argued. In God’s creation order, the man and the woman are spiritually equal, but distinct in relationship and authority. Nevertheless, it takes both a man and a woman to make a child. All men and women alike have both a father and a mother. If the Corinthian women were refusing to veil themselves, they were proclaiming a rebellious independence from the divine principle of male headship.
The woman is of the man (verse 12), that is to say that Eve was created from Adam in the Creation. “Even so is the man by the woman,” that is to say that every man was born by his mother, a woman. The genders are mutually dependent upon each other. Eve, the first woman came from Adam, the first man, but every man since then has been born of a woman (procreation requires both the man and the woman).
But “all things of God”, that is to say that God is Creator of all things. Both man and woman were created by God. Thus the male and female are equal. “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, NKJV). The man has a role of authority over the woman, but this does not make women inferior to men, just as the Father’s role of authority over Christ does not make Christ inferior to our Father (See John 5:18; Philippians 2:6).
Comeliness – 1 Corinthians 11:13
[13] Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Now Paul is making an appeal to propriety. Paul is calling upon the Corinthians to pronounce a judgement concerning right and wrong. This is not the first time Paul has requested the Corinthians to judge matters (1 Corinthians 5:12; 6:1-3; 10:15; 11:31-32). On the other hand, the question may be rhetorical. Either way, it is obvious that Paul is expecting the Corinthians to judge it improper or uncomely for a woman to pray to God uncovered. The appeal is not to what is comely in light of their upbringing (because the local customs were not uniform), but rather what is comely according to Christian doctrine. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that Paul also says something similar in regard to idolatry: “I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Corinthians 10:15, NKJV).
The Greek word πρέπω (prepō) for “comely” is to be becoming, seemly, fit. The word is also translated in the KJV as become or becometh. (Matthew 3:15; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Timothy 2:10; Titus 2:1; Hebrews 2:10; 7:26). Especially relevant to our present study is Paul’s use of the word in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 where he spoke of modesty:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. (1 Timothy 2:9-10, KJV)
It is unbecoming for a Christian sister to dress immodestly because that would be ungodly and not fitting. Why is it not becoming godliness or comely for a woman to pray unveiled? If Paul’s question is rhetorical, then he must already believe that it is unseemly for a woman to be unveiled in general, and he expects the Corinthians to believe the same. It is unbecoming and uncomely for a Christian sister to be unveiled or immodest. Both the words “shameful” (verse 6) and “comely” (verse 13) only have meaning in relation to someone else. It is not unbecoming for a Christian sister to be immodest in private. In the same way it is not uncomely for a woman to privately pray uncovered (e.g. alone in a prayer closet or with her husband only). It is not uncomely or shameful for a woman to pray uncovered when all alone because there is nobody to observe her. If it is comely for a woman to pray and prophesy veiled, then it must also be comely for her to be veiled in general. Or if it is comely for a woman to pray veiled, then it is because it is comely for a woman to be veiled in general.
Translated “uncovered” here, Paul again uses the Greek adjective ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakalyptos) which is only used one other time in the New Testament (in 1 Corinthians 11:5). It is defined as unveiled by Strong and Thayer (See notes above for verse 5).
Perhaps Paul is not sure that the Corinthians will answer his question in verse 13 correctly because he goes ahead to argue from nature and long hair (verses 14-15) that it is improper for a woman to pray uncovered. But he does not leave the answer up to the whims of individuals or local customs as some would suppose.
Nature and Long Hair – 1 Corinthians 11:14-15
[14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Since there is not a divine decree or divine design in Creation or at birth that men have short hair and woman have long hair, it seems Paul is appealing to natural inclinations within us or the natural order of things when he asks, “Doth not even nature itself teach you?” in verse 14. The implied answer is “yes, nature does teach this.” We do observe men naturally balding in their old age, but women do not lose their hair. There also seems to be a natural feeling built into humankind that men should have their hair shorter (verse 14) and women should be covered (verse 15). The natural inclination is for women to have long hair just as it is for women to dress in clothing that expresses femininity. God desires a distinction between the genders. For example, the Mosaic Law legislates God’s commands for men and women to wear clothes that distinctly pertain to their sex:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Deuteronomy 22:5, KJV)
Typically, we would naturally recognize a man by his short hair and a woman by her long hair and/or veil. Therefore, long hair upon a man would naturally be effeminate and shameful. It is interesting that when women openly rebelled against male headship in the 1960s and 1970s it seems like they instinctively cut their hair short as a token of their “liberation.” At the same time, it seems like the hippie men who wanted to rebel against God’s order instinctively grew their hair long as a sign of their rebellion. But many of these men and women never even read the Scriptures or heard anything about this passage.
Though long hair on men is possible, it is regarded here as shameful, even though many heroic Jewish men of the Old and New Testament kept the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:1-21) and wore long hair including Samson (Judges 13:7), Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11), Elijah (2 Kings 1:8), John the Baptist (Luke 1:15) and Paul himself (Acts 18:18; 21:23-26). The Bible specifically says of the vow:
All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no rasor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. (Numbers 6:5, KJV)
Thus the hair was not to be shaved or trimmed. The Scriptures tell of Samson’s seven locks or hair (Judges 16:7,19). Also the law of the Nazirite also made provision for women to take the vow (Numbers 6:2). Even for women, the Nazirite vow included the shaving of one’s head as an act of consecration (Numbers 6:9,18,19). The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells of when a Jewish contemporary of the Apostle Paul mentioned in Acts 25:13-26:32, Queen Bernice, shaved her head to observe a vow, perhaps the Nazirite vow.14 Apart from these rare exceptions such as those who kept the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:1-21), long hair on men is effeminate and short hair on women is manly.
When Paul says “a covering” in verse 15, it is evident that he is referring to a covering other than the veil: her hair. In verses 6 and 7, Paul uses the verb katakalupto or to veil. Here (verse 15), Paul uses the noun περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) or “a covering” to refer to a woman’s hair. Related to the verb katakalyptō (to veil), the noun for “veil” is actually κάλυμμα (kalymma) which Paul uses in 2 Corinthians 3:13 to speak of Moses who “put a veil over his face.” But Paul chose the noun peribolaion to signify a covering different from the veil, the woman’s long hair. The word peribolaion is used only one other time with reference to God folding up the heavens in Hebrews 1:12: “Like a cloak You will fold them up” (it is also translated as “vesture” in the KJV, and “mantle” in NASB, RSV, YLT).
Thus there are two coverings involved in Paul’s discussion: her hair and her cloth covering. Some have mistakenly concluded that a woman’s long hair is the covering Paul had in mind all along based upon verse 15. But there are several other reasons why this interpretation is unsupportable. For her hair is given her for a covering (verse 15), but not the covering Paul has in mind in the preceding verses. Just as there is more than one head spoken of within the passage: man, Christ and our Father, there is also more than one covering spoken of within the passage: the hair and the veil. Paul appeals to the hair to show that women naturally have more covering on their heads than men; therefore, women should also wear a veil.
In verse 15 Paul is making yet another argument in support of the head covering, an analogy to a natural principle. A woman’s long hair is an expression of her femininity. If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her. Glory means dignity or honor. In this verse, Paul says that a woman’s hair is a glory to her and for a covering.
Even God’s holy creatures cover themselves in the presence of God. Like the women covering their heads, the seraphim and living creatures covered themselves while in the presence of God. In Isaiah 6, the seraphim have six wings, but only use two for flying. In Ezekiel 1, the living creatures have four wings each, but only use two for flying. Their other wings were not created without purpose but for covering.
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!” (Isaiah 6:1-3, NKJV)
Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man. Each one had four faces, and each one had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the soles of calves’ feet. They sparkled like the color of burnished bronze. The hands of a man were under their wings on their four sides; and each of the four had faces and wings. Their wings touched one another. The creatures did not turn when they went, but each one went straight forward.
As for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a man; each of the four had the face of a lion on the right side, each of the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and each of the four had the face of an eagle. Thus were their faces. Their wings stretched upward; two wings of each one touched one another, and two covered their bodies. And each one went straight forward; they went wherever the spirit wanted to go, and they did not turn when they went. . . .
The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads. And under the firmament their wings spread out straight, one toward another. Each one had two which covered one side, and each one had two which covered the other side of the body. When they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of many waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a tumult like the noise of an army; and when they stood still, they let down their wings. A voice came from above the firmament that was over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings.
And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. (Ezekiel 1:4-12, 22-28, NKJV)
These are likely the most holy creatures ever created, yet they cover themselves in the presence of God’s glory. Isaiah saw this awesome glory of God and said,
Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. (Isaiah 6:5, KJV)
It is as if the glory of God was not lawful to behold because it is too beautiful for human eyes. It may be that the creatures covered themselves from God’s glory (from their perspective God’s glory was covered). In con-nection with the head covering, the Apostle Paul says that a woman’s long hair is her glory. Just as the seraphs and living creatures covered their faces and shielded themselves from beholding the glory of God, the woman’s glory should also be covered or shielded so others do not behold her glory. She is thereby giving God all the glory.
Elijah also hid himself from the presence of God by wrapping himself in his mantle (1 Kings 19:11-13). Not that a man should be covered, but it seems natural that humans shield themselves from the glory of God. When God passed by Moses, He covered Moses from beholding His glory. “So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by” (Exodus 33:22, NKJV). There are other references in the Pentateuch to the glory being covered:
Now the glory of the Lord rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud. (Exodus 24:16, NKJV)
Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. (Exodus 40:34, NKJV)
Now it happened, when the congregation had gathered against Moses and Aaron, that they turned toward the tabernacle of meeting; and suddenly the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord appeared. (Numbers 16:42, NKJV)
In all of these cases above, whether it be living creatures covering themselves, men covering themselves or God covering men, the glory is covered. Isaiah says, “For over all the glory there will be a covering” (Isaiah 4:5, NKJV). The Hebrew word חֻפָּה (chuppah) is defined by the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon properly a covering; hence a bed with a canopy. If a woman’s hair is a glory to her (verse 15), it should be covered. If woman is the glory of man (verse 7), she ought to be covered. Over all the glory there will be a covering so that all the glory goes to God.
This argument also relates to modesty and supports the idea that a woman’s veil should be worn whenever she is in public. A woman’s long hair is a glory to her all the time, not only when she prays and prophesies. A woman’s glory is that which draws attention to a her much like the sun, moon and stars draw attention to God. “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1, NKJV). In the Old Testament, glory and beauty are often mentioned side by side (Exodus 28:2,40; 1 Chronicles 16:29; Job 40:10; Psalm 29:2; Isaiah 13:19; 28:5). A woman’s glory and beauty are not something to be flaunted in public but modestly kept for her husband. If a woman’s hair is her glory, she should be avoiding sexual attention and covering it out of charity for her brothers. Peribolaion is defined by Strong’s as something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle, veil, by Thayer as a covering thrown around, a wrapper, a mantle, a veil. Coverings are intended to conceal whatever is underneath. A veil ought to cover a woman in the same manner in which her long hair covers her. Take note of how a woman’s hair is used as sex appeal in advertisements and entertainment. A woman’s hair can be just as seductive to men as her body, maybe even more seductive to some men. For this reason her hair (her glory) ought to be covered. It’s interesting how John describes the locusts in the vision he recorded in Revelation:
And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. . . And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. (Revelation 9:3,8, NKJV)
In what this author believes to be a demonic invasion, John describes these locusts with “hair as the hair of women.” It seems the Holy Spirit has used the provocative hair of women as a symbol to communicate the seductive doctrine of devils. “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1, NKJV).
Church Practice – 1 Corinthians 11:16
[16] But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Instead of “we have no such custom” many translations say “we have no other custom” or “we have no other practice.”
Now if anyone is inclined to be contentious [about this], we have no other practice [in worship than this], nor do the churches of God [in general]. (AMP)
But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (NASB)
If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God. (NET)
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. (NIV)
But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches. (NLT)
If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. (RSV)
All of these translations would support Paul’s arguments for the practice of veiling women. He would be saying that the churches of God have no other practice than veiling the women. This would agree with Paul’s statement later in the same epistle when he says, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37, NKJV).
Though I am no Greek scholar like those who translated the Bible versions above, I found that the Greek word τοιοῦτος (toioutos) is almost without exception translated as “such” and never translated as “other” in the Bible. I do not doubt that those translations above are probably warranted by the translators in some way (though I don’t see how), other than the context. The Greek word ἄλλος (allos) means “other” but that word is not used in the verse.
Perhaps the text should actually read as it is translated in the King James Version. If that is the case, this leaves us with a few possible interpretations. One possibility is that Paul was objecting to the custom of being contentious when he said, “if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” He would therefore mean that we have no custom of being contentious by going against the apostolic practice. Others have argued that Paul was referring to the custom of women not covering their heads. If women normally veiled in public, its possible that they were removing their veils in the church and this is the custom with which Paul took issue. But the problem with both of these interpretations alike is that being contentious or being unveiled are hardly customs in any sense. The act of being contentious has never been called a social custom. Women not covering their heads can’t really be described as a custom in itself. Such an interpretation is possible but not probable.
I suggest a third option that the “custom” Paul has in mind is that of men having long hair. In context, Paul just previously said “if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him” (verse 14). Now he says, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (verse 16). In other words, if any man is contentious and have long hair, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
In the end, none of these possibilities do violence to the overall instruction concerning veiling. The force of Paul’s argument is that apparently some men and women were not following or would not follow the custom already in place in the rest of the church. The commandment of head covering has nothing to do with Corinth. The veiling of women is a universal apostolic practice, part of the Christian faith once for all delivered to the saints.
One common objection to the head covering practice is supported by verse 16. The objectors argue that none of the churches practiced the custom of veiling except for Corinth because verse 16 states “we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” They have mistaken the phrase in verse 16 to mean “we have no particular custom.” In that case, Paul would be suggest-ing that this custom was relevant to the Corinthian church alone, but not to the church at large. They would understand that to mean that if any man was contentious it really wouldn’t matter at all since the other churches didn’t practice veiling anyhow. In other words, if a person wants to disagree about the head covering, he may do as he pleases. But this interpretation would make Paul’s entire discussion of the subject a waste of ink. Paul has devoted some time to this subject because it is of importance to him, not because it is a matter of indifference. It would be illogical to suggest that Paul would void the previous 13 verses by one vague comment in verse 16. Such an interpretation would also contradict the historical evidence we have outside the Scriptures. In reality Paul is appealing to the universal practice of the churches, so he is not saying that one should do what their culture practices.
Historical Evidence
The early Christians, also known as the Ante-Nicene “Fathers” were not apostles, but some of them knew the apostles. Their writings are not inspired Scripture, but their writings are helpful for various reasons. First of all, they had the advantage of time. They were in closer proximity to the apostles than us. Secondly, they had the advantage of speaking the same language as the Apostles. The early Christians could read the New Testament Scriptures in the original Greek of the apostles. Thirdly, they lived in the same culture as Jesus and the Apostles. They lived in the cultural and historical setting of New Testament Christianity. They were in a much better position concerning time, language, and culture to accurately understand the apostles’ writings. Finally, we are dependent upon the same early Christians for putting together the New Testament canon. It was the testimony of the early Christians which tell us which writings of the Apostles are authentic.
This is not to say that their writings are necessary to understand the Scriptures. Neither is this to say that they are a source of authority in themselves. The Scriptures are our final authority. If the ancient Christians are ever in flat disagreement with the Scriptures, we must certainly agree with the Scriptures. But one has to give serious thought to how they understood the New Testament with their advantages of time, language and culture. Many of Christ’s disciples who have taken the Scriptures literally and seriously have arrived at the same conclusions as the early Christians.
In the historic and orthodox Christian writings we have available to us, all the early Christians agreed that women should be veiled. To the primitive Christians there was no issue about whether Christian sisters should be veiled or unveiled. Although the churches were not all applying the head covering in exactly the same style of veil, it is evident that all of the churches were applying the veiling of Christian women. And none of them said that the head covering was long hair. Nobody disputed the head covering regardless of where they lived, whether it was Europe, the Middle East, North Africa or the Far East.15
David Bercot is author of many books on the subject of early Christianity and editor of A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. In his study called What the Early Christians Believed About the Head Covering, Bercot says:
[T]he early Christians tried very hard to follow all New Testament commandments very literally and very seriously. However, in a few situations what is written in the New Testament is not completely clear and there was one issue regarding this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that was not clear to the primitive Christians.
Now it wasn’t with regard to whether a woman should be veiled when she is praying. Everybody agreed on that. In fact, there is not a lot written about this passage because there was no big dispute concerning it. The only issue that was present, and Tertullian is the only one who even has much to say about that, is whether or not this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 applies to: 1) all females of age or 2) only to married women.16
An additional piece of evidence in favor of Christian women veiling are the paintings and etchings on the walls of the Catacombs carved in the substrata rock beneath the city of Rome. The Catacombs were subterranean passageways with chambers used as burial place, as constructed by the ancient Romans. They extend almost 550 miles and are often six levels deep.
Beginning in the 2nd century AD, the Catacombs were used as underground cemeteries mainly as a response to overcrowding and shortage of land. People of all the ancient Roman religions are buried in Catacombs though they are most famous for the underground Christian tombs. During various waves of persecutions against the church, Christians took refuge for brief periods of time in these dark and silent hand-carved caverns.
The Catacombs are very important for the history of early Christians and early Christian art, as they contain the great majority of examples from before about 400 AD, in frescos and sculptures. In a chapter entitled “The Veil in Christian Art” within an online article “…Let He Be Veiled”, Tom Shank wrote a few conclusions which can be drawn in in surveying these pictures:
- There is no single style of veiling used, although most are of the draping type. A couple are cap-like, and most of this style also have draping material attached.
- Modest dress is evidenced throughout, with a conspicuous absence of jewelry and other finery. The example of the Samaritan woman at the well is given to stand in contrast with this, with her earrings, hairdo and uncovered head.
- Of interest is the representation of the majority of the departed saints with hands raised up in worship, for they were depicted as experiencing the joy of fellowship with their Lord in heaven.17
Such evidence gives us insight to how the early Christian women applied the Apostle Paul’s instructions regarding the head coverings.
Conclusion
In biblical times, female veiling and male bare-headedness was observed with rare exceptions. Throughout the ages, veiling has been considered a key component of female modesty.
The historical information we do have about the first century is an interesting study, but the head covering commandment in 1 Corinthians 11 really has nothing to do with Greek, Roman or Jewish customs in Corinth. Paul’s explanations pertain to an established Christian custom, which may or may not have corresponded to any Greek, Roman or Jewish customs of the first century.
In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul’s arguments in support of veiling such as headship (11:3-5), uncovering bringing shame (11:6), Creation order (11:7-12), the angels (11:10), comeliness (11:13), nature or long hair (11:14-15), and church practice (11:16) are still valid today!
Early Christian writings and some of the earliest Christian art in the Catacombs of Rome give clear evidence that the veiling of Christian sisters and the uncovered heads of Christian brothers was the universal apostolic practice.
The major opposing views concerning the head covering are not supported by sound exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The opposing theories also contradict the historical information and views handed down from the early Christians.
Unfortunately most churches today have completely lost the knowledge of these truths. Therefore women are in leadership roles in churches, they speak and teach in churches, they do not dress modestly, and they do not veil their heads. The glory has departed from the churches which call Jesus their Lord but refuse to do what He says. I hope that you will stand in the gap.
Be exalted, O God, above the heavens, And your glory above all the earth. (Psalm 108:5, NKJV)
Endnotes:
1 See the following Bible translations: CJB, DLNT, ESV, NABRE, NLV, NSRV.
2 See John 1:1-3; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30-33; 20:28; Philippians 2:5-6; Colossians 1:16-17; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8-10.
3 See Matthew 20:23; John 5:19; 6:38; 14:28; 20:17; Mark 14:36; Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27-30; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28; 2 Corinthians 1:3; Philippians 2:5-8; Revelation 1:7; 2:8.
4 “The Law” is probably a reference to Genesis 3:16, specifically when God says to Eve, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (KJV). Part of the curse is a woman’s desire to rule over her husband. Paul’s reasoning for women to keep silence in the churches has to do with women being submissive to their husband as God told Eve that Adam would rule over her. He is appealing to God’s moral principles of subjection and order. Again, Paul points to the Genesis creation account in 1 Timothy 2 when he says his reasoning for women not to teach men is that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13, NKJV). Female speakers or teachers in Church would violate divine family order.
5 When Paul and Luke stayed in Philip’s house in the company of his four daughter prophetesses, it is interesting that God sent a man by the name of Agabus to deliver a prophesy to Paul rather than prophesying through Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:10-12).
6 Polybius, Histories (as published in Vol. I of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1922-1927), 15.27.
7 Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 327.
8 Ibid.
9 Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), 510.
10 Clement of Alexandria, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, 578.
11 Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 688.
12 The Book of Enoch, (tr. R.H. Charles, 1917).
13 Assembly meetings don’t come into view until verse 17, so the instructions concerning the veiling of women in verses 2-16 cannot be confined to church gatherings. The transition is evident in verse 17: “that ye come together” (KJV) and verse 20: “When ye come together therefore into one place” (KJV). From 1 Corinthians 11:17–14:40, Paul deals with the church gatherings. In these public meetings, Paul forbids the women, not only to prophesy, but to speak at all (1 Corinthians 14:34).
14 “Now she [Bernice] dwelt then at Jerusalem, in order to perform a vow which she had made to God; for it is usual with those that had been either afflicted with a distemper, or with any other distresses, to make vows; and for thirty days before they are to offer their sacrifices, to abstain from wine, and to shave the hair of their head. Which things Bernice was now performing, and stood barefoot before Florus’s tribunal, and besought him [to spare the Jews]. Yet could she neither have any reverence paid to her, nor could she escape without some danger of being slain herself.” Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews (tr. William Whiston, 1737), 2.15.1.
Note: “This vow which Bernice (here and elsewhere called queen, not only as daughter and sister to two kings, Agrippa the Great, and Agrippa junior, but the widow of Herod king of Chalcis) came now to accomplish at Jerusalem was not that of a Nazarite, but such a one as religious Jews used to make, in hopes of any deliverance from a disease, or other danger, as Josephus here intimates. However, these thirty days’ abode at Jerusalem, for fasting and preparation against the oblation of a proper sacrifice, seems to be too long, unless it were wholly voluntary in this great lady. It is not required in the law of Moses relating to Nazarites, Numbers 6., and is very different from St. Paul’s time for such preparation, which was but one day, Acts 21:26. So we want already the continuation of the Antiquities to afford us light here, as they have hitherto done on so many occasions elsewhere. . . . However, Noldius well observes, De Herod. No. 404, 414, that Juvenal, in his sixth satire, alludes to this remarkable penance or submission of this Bernice to Jewish discipline, and jests upon her for it; as do Tacitus, Dio, Suetonius, and Sextus Aurelius mention her as one well known at Rome.–Ibid.”
15 David Bercot, What the Early Christians Believed About the Head Covering (Scroll Publishing, 2007), 9.
16 David Bercot, What the Early Christians Believed About the Head Covering (Scroll Publishing, 2007), 5.
17 Tom Shank, ed., “…Let Her Be Veiled” (third edition, 1992), Ephrata Ministries, http://www.ephrataministries.org/book-veiled.a5w.