Head Covering

THE HEAD COVERING

by Elliott Nesch

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 has generated much confusion and division in the body of Christ. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33). This author does not believe this issue of the head covering is worthy of church division. On the other hand, it should not be overlooked either; we must be balanced. This passage can be understood through a closer examination of the Scriptures. The following is my bias understanding of the text (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) concerning the head covering.

However, there are several understandings of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16:

1) First, there are those who believe that the principle of patriarchal authority is to be practiced today as it was in Corinth by covering the woman's head, but that the style of the covering may be varied.

2) Secondly, there are those who interpret the head covering as a woman's long hair.

3) Thirdly, there are those who would hold to the principle of male authority in the home and in the church but would regard the whole question of head coverings to be negotiable and dependent upon local and modern customs.

4) Then, there are those who will spiritualize the head covering completely suggesting that neither a veil nor long hair is in view but that the coverings are the husband to the wife and Christ alone to the husband or male.

5) Fifth, there are the feminists who will suggest that the head covering and the patriarchal principles of the the text should be abandoned altogether.

6) Lastly, then there are those who say the custom should be followed in precisely the same way as it was by those in Corinth which would require us to know exactly what style of head coverings were worn by the Corinthians so we could duplicate them for modern church worship.

While this author believes that the text certainly speaks of spiritual principles, it is not to be regarded wholly as such because there is definitely a practical head covering in view. I would fit best into the first camp but believe there is much in question within the text to lend credibility to views two and three. Those of the last camp, and sometimes the first camp, tend to be divisive over the issue of head coverings if it is not practiced in precisely the same manner as them (I am not one of these). I know many Christians who do not interpret the text as I do, yet I do not doubt they are Christians.

This author appreciates the convictions of brothers and sisters who support the different interpretations of this passage, some believing the head covering is entirely spiritual, some believing the head covering is the long hair of women and some believing the head covering is a piece of cloth which goes over the hair. I am fully persuaded of the position to which I hold but at the same time believe there is too much in question within the text to state any view dogmatically. This author is encouraged as long as brothers and sisters are taking the Bible seriously and live according to the convictions which they conclude from the reading of this passage. The problem is when this passage is disregarded completely or when pastors teach that it applies to a woman's long hair meanwhile failing to encourage women to keep their hair long.

First of all, the head covering can not be dismissed as not applying to us, but must be acknowledged and practiced in some manner as a commandment of the Lord: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37).

And the text may not be dismissed as applying to the Corinthian church alone, but it most definitely still applies to our assemblies today. Paul opened his letter to the Corinthians and us by saying, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:2). Therefore, along with the church at Corinth, the head covering applies to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord! Since this teaching directly applies to our lives today, we must, next, interpret it correctly. Whether the text is encouraging all Christians everywhere in transcendent principles (patriarchy, modesty) as a basis for relating to local and cultural practices (the cloth head covering) or is encouraging all Christians everywhere to cover their sisters with a veil is debatable.

Moreover, the head covering may no more be dismissed than the Lord's supper which is spoken of in the same chapter of Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Along with the head covering, women being prohibited to teach are both issues offensively viewed by many "churches" and "Christians" today as out of date practices because of the rise of feminist movements in the world and even the "church." The "evangelical" feminists will dismiss all of these principles as uninspired Scripture.

Today, the world teaches it is politically incorrect for the woman to be submissive to the authority of the male. But this is not what the Bible teaches. For any woman or man who disputes these teachings, the Scriptures clearly teach that this is not a cultural issue but an issue of authority appealing to God's creation: For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (1 Timothy 2:13,14). 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.

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul stated that the head covering was to be observed not for cultural reasons but because of the angels (1 Corinthians 11:10). Whether the actual cloth veil or the spiritual principle of God's and the husband's authority was in view here is questionable, but since the angels (and God) remain the same and do not change with the times as do styles and cultures, so does this teaching of the head covering.

Since God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, this author will hope to explain this passage more entirely: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. I will also incorporate some of the early Christian writings upon the matter. These writings are helpful since these Christians were more directly influenced by the early church spoken of in the book of Acts and the ordinances of the that church were directly handed down to them.

As I will share, I believe that the head covering to which Paul refers is indeed a veil which goes over the hair during praying and prophesying. However, I am not entirely certain that it should be observed precisely in the same manner today because, like avoiding meat sacrificed to idols, the text may be appealing to a similar spiritual principle that would be observed differently in other cultures. As the main concern in not eating meat sacrificed to idols was not making a brother stumble, so the main concern of the head covering would be the principle of male authority in the home and in the church.

Personally, I prefer my wife to cover her head especially during prayer and prohpesying for the sake of modesty, in order to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels and to be above reproach.

[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 instructions pertain to the ordinances which he gave to the churches like Corinth. The word "ordinances" is from the Greek word "paradosis" which means transmission, i.e. a precept specifically the Jewish traditionary law:-- ordinance, tradition. Paul was not referring to the Mosaic traditions of the law in "ordinances" but the apostolic traditions delivered by Paul (of which the head covering is addressed separately, not an apostolic tradition).

So, in the Gentile church of Corinth, this custom of the head covering may have been a cultural custom practiced by the Greeks at Corinth, or it could have been established after the example of the Jewish custom of veiling women. The Christian women at Corinth were expected to cover their heads but not their faces.

In A.D. 211, Tertullian wrote, "Among the Jews, so usual is it for their women to have their head veiled, that they may thereby be recognized." Just as the Jewish women were to be recognized as such by their veil, the Christian Corinthian women were to be recognized by the head covering as women set apart for God and submitted to the authority of their husband. The following verses speak of the Jewish custom of the woman's veil: Genesis 24:65; Genesis 38:14,15; Song of Solomon 5:7; Isaiah 3:17-23.

Right away, I'd like to explain why the head covering is not an issue worthy of church division. Those who say it is such will usually quote, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15); "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6); "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thessalonians 3:14).

Some would like to broaden 2 Thessalonians to include the head covering observance by citing "the tradition(s)" mentioned prior. However, there is a distinction between the authority of customs such as the head covering and that of the apostolic "traditions" mentioned by Paul in verse 2 of 1 Corinthians 11. Though some Corinthians women were unveiling themselves during prayer, the Corinthians were not in violation of the apostolic traditions which were transmitted by Paul during his first year and six months of personal ministry among the Corinthians (Acts 18:11). Hence, he says, "I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." Apparently the Corinthians were unaware that Paul would discourage the abandonment of the head covering practice. He continues, "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." The point is this, if the head covering were an apostolic tradition, then Paul wouldn't have praised the Corinthians in keeping all of the ordinances (because they weren't covering their heads which is treated separately).

So, it seems the head covering was a cultural tradition practiced by the Greeks at Corinth and the Jewish people but was not an apostolic tradition. Generally speaking, practices that have universal application to all Christians such as baptism and the Lord's supper are confirmed repeatedly in the New Testament (in the teachings of Jesus, the apostolic practices in Acts, and in the teachings of the epistles). Paul then affirms this custom, I believe, because of it's universal moral principle (authority of the male and authority of Christ).

With that being said, I'd like to stress yet again why the outward practice of veiling is not an issue worthy of church division while a woman's submission to her husband could be.

Nonetheless, it seems to be a custom that functioned as symbolic and temporal much like the sacrifices, festivals and other ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant. The head covering seems to be a "shadow" rather than "substance" or spiritual reality judging by the externality of the practice and the connection in context with the dietary restrictions upon eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8-11). There is nothing wrong with a Christian's observance of "shadows" such as dietary restrictions, sabbaths, and even ceremonial law of the Old Testament, so long as they do not mistake them for the "substance" (Christ) and seek righteousness through their observance! See also Hebrews 8:5, Colossians 2:16,17, Romans 14:1-6. Again, Paul affirms and encourages the cultural practice because it displays outwardly the Christian principle of a woman's submission to her husband! Paul is about to explain this custom more completely and meaningfully so that the Corinthians might understand and observe it more willingly, not merely as a dead religious act.

[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.

Again, Paul is making a distinction between the apostolic traditions and the custom of head covering. The Corinthians were honoring the apostolic traditions (v. 2) but were not following the custom of head covering. Paul considers the custom to be agreeable enough with the principle of gender roles (v. 3) and this is why Paul appeals to them to maintain the custom. In view of the context of chapters 8-10, it could have been Paul's appeal to the Corinthians not to cast off this custom in order not to make others stumble and offend the local culture which practiced such a policy. So, he now relates the custom to the principle of patriarchy. This divinely ordained hierarchy is as follows: Christ is directly under the head of God the Father; men are directly under the headship of Christ and women are under the headship of man. The submission of the woman to the man is no more done away with then the submission of men and women to Christ. This hierarchy is discussed further in the following passages as well:

1 Corinthians 3:21-23

[21] Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

[22] Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

[23] And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

1 Corinthians 15:28

[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Colossians 3:18

[18] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Ephesians 5:22-24

[22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

[23] 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.

[24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

[15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Notice that this order God has established is not a cultural scheme of things but appeals to the creation. 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. This is also why a woman ought to cover her head. Paul's argument proceeds from the establishing of this divine order which God created in nature not only applying to husbands and wives in marriage but all men and all women in Christ. Hence, Paul later states in verses 4 and 5 "every man" and "every woman."

Seemingly, the Corinthian women had cast off their head coverings in times of prayer and prophesying. This demonstration may have been 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). Here, in chapter 11, the Apostle Paul goes straight to the root of the problem, but also spoke later to the Corinthians concerning this problem saying:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

[34] 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.

[35] 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.

[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.

Those who will completely spiritualize the text will say something along the lines of this, "The head of the man is Christ, so if any man is praying or prophesying having his Head (Christ) covered, he dishonors Christ. Paul was not referring to a material head covering here as some would suppose. Paul was using the physical (the oral law/tradition/ordinance) 'physical head covering' to show the spiritual application of wisdom." First of all, Paul was not referring to the Mosaic traditions earlier but the apostolic traditions. Secondly, to spiritualize the text to this extremity suggests some obscure meaning unfamiliar to Paul's teachings. For example, he specifically writes of hair and the shaving of the head yet these are not to be taken spiritually, nor should the head covering.

Again, the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. So, every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head [Christ]. Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head [her husband or her father]: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The Apostle Paul is not giving instructions strictly for the worship services. Prayer was not limited to the Lord's Day and "prophesying" for the women must have been referring to less formal prayer meetings held in private homes and not actual church service because elsewhere Paul states clearly that women should be in silence during the church service:

1 Timothy 2:11,12

[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

[34] 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.

[35] 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.

So, it can be concluded that this ordinance of the head covering was not only to be observed during church service, but whenever a woman prayed or prophesied. The word "prophesieth" means to speak under inspiration and is not limited to church service. And since we are exhorted to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17), it can be argued that the woman's head is to be covered most of the time. It seems likely that the women were, in fact, covered mostly all of the time with the exception of being at home in privacy, and that Paul was writing concerning the Corinthian women removing their head coverings during church service.

[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 "katakalupto" or to cover wholly. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. This leaves the suggestion that modesty was one of Paul's main concerns with the head covering (the issue of modesty is also addressed elsewhere in Scripture by Peter and Paul). It seems reasonable to assume that in Corinth, decent and proper women (such as Christian women professing godliness) would have been distinguished by modest dress, of which a veil may have been a part. 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.

The Greek word for "shorn" is "keiro" meaning to shear and the Greek word for "shaven" is "xuaro" meaning to shave or shear with a razor. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn [with scissors]: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn [with scissors] or shaven [with a razor], let her be covered.

Later, in verses 14 and 15, the Apostle Paul explains that a woman's hair is given her as a natural covering. Thus, what the passage means is this: a woman ought to wear both the hair covering and the veil or no covering at all. If the woman refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace, a shorn or shaved head. In other words, the woman's veil should be just as much identified with her femininity as her long hair.

I know of one sect who translates this verse as follows: "Do you hear that men? If you know a woman who does not wear the veil, shave her head." Obviously Paul is not commanding the brothers to militantly shave a sister's head if she does not wear a veil. He is only making a point (not a command) that a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered is like a woman with a shaved head, and if a shaved head on a woman is uncomely then let her be covered. Matthew Henry, in his commentary on the Bible published in 1706, explains it well, "The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man. She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a manifest affection of the superiority which God had conferred on the other sex."

[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.

Of equal importance, 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). This aspect of the passage seems to give weight to the case of the custom of head coverings for women (or men removing a head covering) being cultural to the Corinthians. For instance, Elijah covered himself from the presence of God by wrapping himself in his mantle (1 Kings 19:11-13), and other Jewish men of the Old Covenant covered their heads (especially during prayer): the Jewish priests (Exodus 39:28; Ezekiel 44:18), the high priests (Exodus 28:4; 29:9; 39:28; Leviticus 8:13) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 24:17). This suggests that God does not know any universal wrongdoing in a man covering his head. I might pray to God on a cold morning with a hood or hat on, but there is no dishonor in my heart toward the Almighty (and I don't believe a hood or hat will hinder my prayers or dishonor Christ). I do, however, remove my hat when praying with others or entering into church buildings out of respect for my brothers and sisters not to make them stumble. Nor do I believe a sister's prayers are hindered by her not wearing a veil if she is submitted humbly to God and her husband with an obedient and contrite heart.

This is the Apostle Paul's a second argument in which the head covering is described as a symbol. In like manner, the man and the woman are symbols pointing to the purposes for which they were created. The man was made in the image of God and the woman was made from or out of the man as a helper for the man:

Genesis 1:26,27

[26] 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.

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:18,21-24

[18] And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

[21] 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;

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

[23] 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.

[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

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 man reflects the glory of God by his willful submission to God while she reflects the glory of man by her willful submission to the man. This is unsettling to many women, but it takes a Christian sister filled with the Holy Spirit to overcome the temptation of being independent of and ruling over the man: "Unto the woman he said, 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" (Genesis 3:16).

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.

Ephesians 5:28-33

[28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

[29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

[30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

[31] 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.

[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

[33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

[10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Power, that is, a veil (the symbol), not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband or father and being subjected to him. The word "power" is from the Greek word "exousia" meaning authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength. From what has already been said in verses 7-9, it would not make sense to conclude that this authority belongs to the woman. The head covering is a symbol of the man's authority. For this cause [the symbolism of the man and woman] ought the woman to have power [or authority] on her head. Therefore, the woman should wear the head covering as a sign of her personal acknowledgment that she is under the man's authority.

However, it could also be translated as "power over her head." If we translate this to mean, "the woman ought to have authority over her head," then it would not so much be a reference to the veil in this verse as to her relation of subordination to her husband as the factor required for woman praying and prophesying (this interpretation is preferable to me). Those who spiritualize the head covering will interpret all of the verses in the manner. While I believe this concept to be universally true, I still think Paul has the custom of the head covering in mind in the other verses of the chapter (but maybe not here specifically).

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. The angels are now mentioned as another reason for the woman's head covering. This idea lends credibility and further evidence to the argument that the actual veil head covering custom is intended for universal practice.

Whether the angels Paul is referring to are actual angels beholding the church fellowship or brothers in the assembly is uncertain. The word Greek word "angeloi" 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), John's messengers to Jesus (Luke 7:24), messengers sent ahead of Jesus into Samaria (Luke 9:52), and the spies sent into Jericho (James 2:25). If this is the case, then it seems modesty of dress is the main concern with the head covering (an issue addressed elsewhere in 1 Timothy 2:9,10; 1 Peter 3:1-5). Clement of Alexandria, writing in approximately A.D. 195 validates this opinion: "'Because of the angels,' By the 'angels,' he means righteous and virtuous men. Let her be veiled then, so that she may not lead them to stumble into fornication. For the real angels in heaven see her, even though she is veiled."

It seems more likely to me that Paul is speaking of actual angels since the word "angeloi" is used much more often in the New Testament in regard to angels (almost 100 times) than it is to messengers. If true, the head covering is to be observed because it is a practice in which the angels take a real interest. Other passages speak of angels beholding the affairs of men and women:

1 Corinthians 4:9

[9] 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 Timothy 3:16

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: 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 Peter 1:10-12

[10] Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

[11] 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.

[12] 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.

Ephesians 2:8-12

[8] 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;

[9] 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:

[10] To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

[11] According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

[12] In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

As God's watchers, the angels attention is especially drawn to spiritual matters. However, if we interpret the verse as follows (as I think it should be): "For this cause [the symbolism of the man and woman] the woman ought to have authority over her head because of the angels" then the important observance before the angels is the woman's submission to her husband and the man's submission to Christ, not the actual wearing of the veil for women and the uncovering of the head for men (the outward custom of head covering was only the external indication of that submission but not the submission itself).

Notice, like the women covering their heads, the seraphs in Isaiah chapter 6 covered their faces and their feet while in the presence of God:

Isaiah 6:1-3

[1] In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

[2] Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

[3] And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Besides our Lord, these are most likely the most holy creatures ever created, yet they cover themselves in the presence of God. The seraphs' wings served as natural coverings like the hair of a woman, but the seraphs also willfully covered themselves as the woman is instructed to willfully cover herself with a veil. If the seraphs cover themselves, how much more should a woman cover herself?

Another thing to consider in light of Isaiah 6 is that the seraphs covering kept them from beholding the glory of God. Isaiah, on the other hand, 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). It is as if the glory of God was not lawful to behold because it is too beautiful for human eyes. 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. In connection with the head covering, the Apostle Paul says that a woman's long hair is her glory (v. 15). Just as the seraphs 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. Her glory is not something to be flaunted in public but modestly kept for her husband I believe. If a woman's hair is her glory, she should be avoiding sexual attention and covering it out of charity for her brothers.

Following this train of thought, that a woman's glory should be covered, in A.D. 207, Tertullian wrote, "Since they veil their heads in the presence of pagans, let them at all events conceal their virginity in the church. After all, they veil themselves outside the church. If they fear strangers, let them stand in awe of their brothers too." In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria said, "it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it appropriate for a woman to desire to make herself conspicuous by using a purple veil." Compiled in about A.D. 390, the Apostolic Constitutions read: "When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons. . . . Look downward when you walk in public, veiling yourself, as becomes women."

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). In what this author believes to be a demonic invasion, John describes these locusts with "hair as the hair of women." It seems God has used the provocative hair of women as a symbol to communicate the seductive doctrine of devils. The Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1).

Another point we may consider is that the devil has many angels as well (Matthew 25:41). In about A.D. 207, Tertullian wrote, "Even if it is on account of the angels that she is to be veiled, the age from which the law of the veil will come into operation will no doubt be that from which the "daughters of men" were able to invite lust of their persons and to experience marriage." Tertullian is referring to the account in Genesis speaking of the giants also known as Nephilim created by fallen angels who engaged in sexual relations with women. For this cause ought the women wear the head covering.

Genesis 6:1-4

[1] And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

[3] And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

[4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Job 1:6

[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Jude 1:6,7

[6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

[7] Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

From Genesis 6:1-4, one might conclude that the head covering is worn by a godly women in order to keep her brothers and angles from lusting after her by the attraction of her hair. Not only do angles desire to look into the matters of salvation, but angles can also visit us when we least expect (this may be another cause for women to be covered in reference to angels) such as the following biblical accounts:

Hebrews 13:2

[2] Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Matthew 28:1-8

[1] In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

[2] And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

[3] His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

[4] And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

[5] And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

[6] He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

[7] And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

[8] And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Luke 1:26,27

[26] And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

[27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Whether the head covering was a symbol that angels were pleased to look upon in light of salvation, or the headcoveing was in order to prevent angels (good or evil) from lusting after women, or was something else completely concerning the angels is unclear exactly what Paul meant by "because of the angels." Nevertheless, we can know and trust that because of the angels a woman was instructed to cover her head as a sign of her submission to her husband. Whether the submission or the veil itself is in view when Paul said, "because of the angels," is open for interpretation. If angels desire to look into spiritual matters, then they should see the Christian women in her willful submission to her head, in this case wearing a head covering.

In A.D. 180, Irenaeus wrote, "A woman ought to have a veil upon her head because of the angels." Likewise, Tertullian wrote, "A woman should not appear with her head uncovered -- on account of the angels."

[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.

The word "nevertheless" from the Greek "plen" can also be more accurately translated meaning moreover or besides; thus, making Paul's next argument supplementary as opposed to "nevertheless." Verses 11 and 12 reinforce what Paul has already argued that in God's creation there is no such thing as an independent woman or an independent man in the Lord. Therefore, let the woman be before God and the angels with a sign of her womanhood, i.e. her head covering. By the Corinthian women refusing to cover themselves, they were proclaiming a rebellious independence from their husband.

[13] Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Notice Paul does not say "pray or prophesy" in this verse, but only "pray" indicating that prayer is of most importance with respect to women being covered. However, if the head covering were the symbol of a woman's submission to her husband and God, then the head covering does not necessarily signify a sister in prayer only. Rather, it signifies a sister who seeks to honor her husband and God in all that she does. A woman ought to know she wears the head covering primarily because she is a woman, not simply because she prays.

The idea that Paul later refers to natural instinct and not nature itself is strengthened by him saying, "Judge in yourselves." This lends credibility to Paul appealing to the natural instincts of the local Corinthian culture and not universal ordinance.

[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.

Early Christian Tertullian, in about A.D. 211, wrote, "In respect of the woman's veil, he says, 'Does not even nature teach you?'"

In verses 6 and 7, Paul uses the verb "katakalupto" or to cover wholly. Here, Paul uses the noun "peribolaion" which means something thrown around, i.e. a mantle, veil. Again, this suggests that modesty was one of Paul's main concerns with the head covering.

Since there is not a divine decree that woman have long hair in creation or being born, it seems Paul is referring to the natural instinct within us when he asks, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" The idea that Paul is referring to natural instinct and not nature itself is strengthened by him saying in the previous verse, "Judge in yourselves."

Although long hair is not given for a woman as divine decree in God's creation or at birth, the natural inclination is for them to have long hair just as it is to dress in clothing that expresses femininity such as dresses. In the same sense, the Bible speaks about God's commands for this same principle in the Old Testament, "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). When the Apostle Paul uses the word "nature" he probably refers to our natural inclinations when judging what is proper for each sex. He uses an analogy of the woman's hair comparing it to the cloth head covering.

The woman's long hair, dresses and femininity is an outward expression supplied by God in the inward man while the head covering is the woman's sign of her acknowledgment of her place and faith in the Lord. Depending on the culture, "nature itself" would teach different ideals and standards for male and female appearance. Nonetheless, those ideals should be observed.

Though long hair on men is possible, it is regarded here as shameful. I cannot be fully persuaded as to why Paul would say long hair was shameful since long hair was not shameful in Jewish culture or in the Old Testament, e.g. many heroic Jewish men of the Old and New Testament kept the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6) 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). Additionally, Flavius Josephus tells of when the Jewish queen Berenice (a contemporary of Paul) shaved her head to observe the Nazarite vow (Wars of the Jews, 2,15,1).

Additionally, it was not shameful for a man to grow his hair long and for a woman to shave her head wile taking a Nazarite vow. Some would argue that those who took the Nazarite vow were only prohibited to put a razor to their head but there hair was to be well trimmed. However, 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). Thus the hair was not to be shaved or trimmed. Still some will claim the Nazarite vow required trimming of the hair claiming, "Samson says that he has never 'shaved' his head, he does not say, however, that he never trimmed his hair." But the Bible clearly tells of Samson's seven locks (Judges 16:7,19). Granted, "long hair" is a relative term, but your hair must not be trimmed for a long time in order to have locks. We cannot escape the fact that these men who vowed a Nazarite vow had long hair.

This leads me to question whether the head covering was a cultural custom observed by the Corinthians to demonstrate the principle of authority since the veiling of women and short hairstyles for men were Greek customs familiar and natural to the Greek-minded Church at Corinth but not identical to other cultures such as the Hebrews.

Thus, it would be understood that the Corinthians were to observe the custom in obedience to the general principle of male authority while elsewhere the principle would be observed differently according to dissimilar manners and customs. In this sense, Paul would have been validating the customs of both Jews and Greeks (both of which had head coverings for women I believe) in their respective cultural contexts. "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law" (1 Corinthians 9:20,21).

While different cultures have different customs about how men and women should dress and whether or not they should have long or short hair, I believe there is a natural inclination that men and women should not cross-dress (men should dress masculine and women should dress feminine) and men should demonstrate their authority by dressing their wives modestly (by covering or veiling them in the case of Corinth and Jewish culture). It's difficult for me to think of a modern-day cultural example that would be similar to the head covering to the Corinthians in the first century and signify the woman's submission to her husband. Wedding bands are not quite the same, but I could see how it might offend the conscious of another and make them stumble if a married Christian couple were not to signify outwardly that they were married by wearing wedding rings.

If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her. The word "glory" in Greek is the word "doxa" meaning dignity or honor. The head covering which covers the head is like a woman's hair and may be seen in the same way. Typically, we would naturally recognize a man by his short hair and a woman by her long hair and/or head covering. In other words, our natural sense of standards regarding the hair of a woman may be carried over in regards to the head covering. However, other cultures such as those in Africa would commonly expect women to have shorter hair (and possibly also in a cloth head covering). I believe Paul is again relating to the natural cultural inclinations of the Corinthians which was taken for granted by them when they received the letter and cannot be known for certain today but may be similar to our own natural inclinations. Nevertheless, I believe a woman's femininity and modesty is her glory.

Her hair is given her for a covering. While her hair is a covering, it is not the covering called for in the preceding verses. Just as there is more than one head spoken of within the text: man, Christ and our Father, there is more than one covering spoken of within the text: the hair and the head covering. Thus, "nature" teaches that a woman ought to have long hair and be covered while the man ought to have short hair.

Those that suggest the head covering should be exactly duplicated as the Corinthians suggest that verse 15 can be translated as follows, "the hair reveals the place of [the] veil itself." That may be so (I don't think so), but the problem is when they proceed to take that interpretation too far by suggesting that this actually reveals what parts of a woman need to be covered: "The head, the back of the neck and the ears. These are the parts of a woman that she must cover with a veil, the hair itself must be covered as well for it is her 'glory,' or, in other words, her 'attraction' – the thing that makes men attracted to her." This is dangerous speculation. The hair may reveal the place of the covering but to suggest more than that is inferring something that is not necessarily there.

Recently, many commentators have interpreted this to mean that the hair is adequate for a covering. I can see how this interpretation can make sense although I do not hold to it. Following this interpretation, the passage would be read as follows: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered [with long hair], dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered [with short hair]dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered [with long hair], let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered [with long hair]. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head [with long hair], forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of god. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered [with short hair]? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

For the following reasons, I cannot agree with that interpretation:

1. Cloth head coverings and veils were very commonly used. Substituting the hair as the head covering spoken of earlier in the chapter would not fit the historical context.

2. There was no reason for Paul to convince the Corinthian women not to have cropped or short hair. It is simply taken for granted that such short hair would be shameful (vv. 5, 6) and against nature (vv. 14,15). It can no longer be taken for granted in the twenty-fisrt century but it was a given during Paul's writing to the Corinthians. Paul was not encouraging the Corinthian women to keep their hair long, but to cover their heads. Furthermore, since the fact of women having long hair is taken for granted in verses 5, 6, 14 and 15, why would Paul need to go any further by asking, "is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If it is already an established fact in our hearts and in Paul's letter that women ought to have long hair, why would he need to go further and say that women should have long hair when they pray?

3. If natural inclinations toward women teach that her head should be covered with long hair, then she should be glad to wear a head covering in addition to her long hair. 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. Almost universally and throughout all cultures, saved and unsaved women recognize the natural pattern for women to have long hair (although there are some exceptions). However, the woman that voluntarily embraces her role in God's order will wear the head covering in addition to her hair as a symbol of that submission. This symbol of the head covering will not only set her apart as a woman, but also set her apart for God pointing to the authority of the man and the authority of God. The interpretation of the passage which removes the head covering by saying Paul is only requiring long hair for the women is no resolution, because this simply makes long hair the symbol of submission, which is no different than the heathen practices both in our time (for the most part) and the time of the early church.

4. Why wouldn't Paul just say "long hair" rather than "covering" to clear up any confusion? If the hair is the covering, why nebulous word choice for all of the verses previous to verse 14? It seems peculiar to me that Paul would use the language he did if he was simply referring to a woman's hair. There are two coverings spoken of here for the women: (1) her hair (nature's covering), and (2) the head covering.

5. Notice, in verse 6, there is a distinction between the words "shorn" and "shaven." "Shaven" is not mentioned until later saying, "if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn [with scissors] or shaven [with a razor], let her be covered." Before mentioning "shaven" Paul says "shorn" which is a different word. If shorn and shaven had the same meaning, Paul would not have mentioned them both in the same phrase. The Greek word for "shorn" is "keiro" meaning to shear and the Greek word for "shaven" is "xuaro" meaning to shave or shear with a razor. With the proper meaning of these words in mind, if we substitute "with long hair" for the word "covered" in verse 6, we would read: "For if the woman be not [with long hair], let her also be shorn [with scissors]: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn [with scissors] or shaven [with a razor], let her be covered." If one maintains that the hair is the covering, then they are faced with an impossibility, specifically, two sequential removals of the hair. This is nonsensical. It simply does not make sense to say, "If the woman does not have long hair, then let her hair be cut," if it is already cut in the first place! If her hair is already cut with scissors, why would he say cut it again with scissors before mentioning the shaving of the head unless the covering was something more than hair? He then takes the argument of the short hair a step further by saying "shaven." If it be a shame for a woman to be shorn (with short hair) or shaven (bald), let her be covered! In other words, if she does not like to wear her head covering, then let her be shaved with a razor also. "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn [with scissors]: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn [with scissors] or shaven [with a razor], let her be covered." Paul is saying that if a woman is not covered, then she might as well cut her hair short; but if it is a shame for a woman to cut her hair short (or additionally to shave her head bald) then let her be covered.

6. Some have argued that 1 Peter 3:3 and 1 Timothy 2:9, speaking of women's adornment, is supportive of the argument in favor of long hair as the head covering. The passages say, "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel," and "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." This author believes that these passages are just as much supportive of the argument in favor of the head covering being a piece of cloth over the hair. They are speaking against plaiting of the hair and against broided hair, in favor of the head covering (that which becometh women professing godliness) (1 Timothy 2:10). Peter and Paul are speaking of what not to do (plaiting the hair, adorning the hair), and these practices cannot be done if she is covered. It may be that Paul and Peter were speaking of the heathen practices (plaiting the hair, adorning the hair) which may have seemed beautiful to the secular world but were vain and contrary to the head covering of a godly woman. Again, this could have also been dependent upon local culture.

7. Paul clearly treats the hair as a separate covering from the head covering. Paul uses the noun "peribolaion" which means something thrown around, i.e. a mantle, veil. However, the Corinthian women could not remove their hair when they prayed or prophesied, but they could remove the head covering. Verse 7 speaks of a man not covering his head using the verb "katakalupto" or to cover wholly: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head." This verb is used in the previous verse: "For if the woman be not covered [katakalupto], let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered [katakalupto]." This verb or action word "to cover" in regard to the head does not seem to be referring to the hair as in "to grow," but adding or removing a more temporary covering: "to cover."

And what about Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair (Luke 7:38-44, John 11:2)? Her hair could have been covered with a veil as she wiped his feet with her hair. Just because a sister's hair is covered does not necessarily mean it must be bound.

John Chrysostom who lived from A.D. 340-407, sums it up well, "'And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering?' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. And now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

[16] But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Depending on how this verse is interpreted, the case for Paul relating to a cultural custom is made or broken I believe. At this point, I believe the case for him relating to a cultural custom is stronger. I previously understood this verse to be rendered, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom [no such custom contrary or contentious to the head covering], neither the churches of God." If that were the case, then Paul does not appeal to the custom of the surrounding culture but of the churches of God. As verse 16 suggests, the ordinance of the head covering was being faithfully observed in all the churches with the exception of Corinth . . . until they were corrected. But there are problems with this interpretation of the verse because the act of being contentious has never been called a social custom. Furthermore, the "custom" of women not covering their heads can hardly be described as a custom in itself.

This verse would be better understood to me if it were as the RSV Bible says, "If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." Also, the NASB, TEV and NIV have translated the Greek word "toioutos" (such) as "other." However, there is also problems with these interpretations because there is no warrant for the Greek word for "such" to be translated as "other" because it is always translated as such, such a thing, such an one, like, such a man, such a fellow. The text should actually read as it says in the King James.

In that case, if the verse is to be read just as it is written, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God," then it seems likely that the custom Paul is speaking of is the head covering itself (the only custom discussed in the previous passages). In this case, Paul would be suggesting that this custom was relevant to the Corinthian church, but not necessarily to the church at large. This would also suggest a local and cultural, not universal, application for his instructions (while not dishonoring the principle of authority in view).

This lends credence to the spiritual approach of the text that a veil is not even in view at all but the authority of a man over the woman and Christ over the man is necessary in praying or prophesying. However, it seems more likely to me in light of what was said prior in the chapter along with the early church fathers' testimonies that the veil is in view here (even if it was only a cultural custom observed for spiritual principles). Even if it was such, this does not change my opinions on practicing the head covering for the sake of modesty and a symbol of the patriarchal authority in the home and the church.

Some have interpreted this to mean, "If anyone is contentious, let us just say it is a matter of indifference." Paul has devoted some time to this subject becuase it is of importance to him, not because it is a matter of indifference. More importantly, this would fail to take the Bible seriously as the inspired Word of God. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (1 Timothy 3:16).

Tertullian wrote in approximately A.D. 207, "Likewise, the Corinthians themselves understand him in this manner. In fact, at this very day, the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve." This author must add that the Apostle Paul was not only speaking of virgins only but "every woman" (1 Corinthians 11:5). In addition to the previous evidence, trusting this early church father Tertullian would leave us to conclude that Christian women were to be covered in willful submission to the authority of the man and, in turn, the authority of Jesus Christ and God our Father.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS:

Personally, I find it more of a blessing when a sister's face and countenance is framed with modest clothing and a head covering. My wife can testify that her head covering is a symbol that points to God and presents several opportunities for her to witness in public. I am honored that my wife respects my interpretation of the text by covering her hair and keeping her glory for me and me alone. When asked how much hair the covering should cover or what type of covering a sister should wear if inclined to do so, we cannot know for sure (see notes on verse 15).

The manners and customs of the time were for women to be covered. Thus, we might say that this whole passage has a much more broad context having not as much to do with the putting on of the head covering during prayer, but keeping the head covering on for prayer and church service (this is my opinion).

While there is much within 1 Corinthians 11 concerning the head covering that the Corinthians took for granted, depending on how we interpret certain verses will determine whether the custom is local and cultural or universal. To me, the universal application to all the churches of God is the principle of authority and I believe there is much evidence within the text to present a strong argument suggesting that the actual head covering practice itself was a cultural manifestation and observance of the deeper spiritual principle.

To apply this practically in our homes and churches today, I am not personally an advocate of forced veiling. With my daughters, for instance, I do not impose the head covering upon them but I hope the Holy Spirit will bring them to their own convictions without me as He did me and my wife, and this, I think, should be our attitude within the church. I do require, however, that they submit to my decisions and standards made with the authority God has given me within the home. I don't want to stand in the way of God's working by imposing rules and regulations.

Again, I would also like to stress the importance of not dividing over this issue or making it a focal point of the gospel message. In other words, I do not believe that a woman veiling her head is crucial to a sister's salvation that would be worthy of separation such as those sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5:11. But the principle of male authority within the home is the much more serious issue.

This author's personal opinion and preference (not to be taken dogmatically), in light of the Scriptures and in addition to the early Christian testimonies, is that a woman should keep her head covered (veiled) as a symbol of authority to her husband and Christ whenever she is in public or whenever she is in the presence of men and women outside of her own family (because of the angels and for the sake of modesty). Though the custom of head coverings may have been cultural to Paul's audience, I don't believe we should dismiss it based upon that but establish and practice it because it is in the Word of God and written upon people's hearts.