Head Coverings from 1 Corinthians 11
In 1 Corinthians 11, the Apostle Paul speaks to the church in Corinth about a timeless and universal principle, which is the principle of ‘order of relationship’ or ‘headship’ that God has ordained among the human race, as men and women relate to each other according to God’s word. By ‘timeless’ we mean at all times; and by ‘universal’ we mean in all places. As a timeless and universal principle, ‘headship’ has been in place since the creation of Adam and Eve, and will remain until the New Creation is established at Jesus’ Second Coming.
After instructing the church to look to him as an example of what it is to follow Jesus in verse 1, then briefly praising the church for their obedience in verse 2, Paul states this timeless and universal principle in verse 3, by saying;
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
We know from what Paul says elsewhere that every woman is not subject to every man; since every man is not the head of every woman. Instead, this principle of headship is applied within the home, and within the household of God, the church.
Within the home, Paul teaches us that men are to love and lead their wives as Christ does the church (Ephesians 5:22–33); and within the church, Christ-like men are to be appointed as Christ-like shepherds / elders to love and lead the church according to Christ’s word (1 Timothy 2:8–3:7).
We know this timeless and universal principle should be upheld in both the home and the church because Paul grounds headship in creation in both 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 and 1 Timothy 2:13–14, respectively.
The question we want to answer with respect to headship that comes out of 1 Corinthians 11 is;
Is the practice of wearing a head covering as a sign of obedience to this timeless and universal principle also a timeless and universal law, or is the wearing of a head-covering for women a culturally appropriate sign of headship that was particular to first century Corinth (and in other parts of the world, most notably the Middle East), but not necessarily a law for all Christians everywhere to adopt as a matter of obedience?
As a church, we believe the practice of women wearing a head-covering as a sign of their obedience to the principle of headship was a practice particular to first century Corinth, and not a timeless and universal law.
We believe this is the case for the following 7 reasons;
- Paul’s argument is grounded in a contemporary cultural practice
We know from what we read in 1 Corinthians 11 and from what we know from history that head-coverings for women as an appropriate sign of submission to the principle of headship was a contemporary cultural practice in first century Corinth. This is why Paul urges the church to obey this practice as a sign of their willing submission to the principle of headship, given to them by God.
When we acknowledge the main point of this passage is headship, not the sign of head-coverings per se, we understand why Paul urges the church to adopt the practice of head-coverings because in that culture it was the appropriate sign of headship that everyone in the community recognised. We could say, it was the culturally appropriate sign. And so rather than Paul laying down a timeless and universal law for all people everywhere to follow at all times, the principle he’s laying down is headship, expressed in a culturally appropriate way.
We can see that this practice of head-covering is cultural, not universal, in the way Paul appeals to ‘the very nature of things’ that were particular to first century Corinth. For example;
1 Corinthians 11:6
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
1 Corinthians 11:14–15
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?
In first century Corinth everyone would say, “Amen, Paul. It’s a disgrace for a woman to have short hair, and men having long hair is also a disgrace.” But this is not the case in many parts of the world. For example, there are tribes in Africa where women have short / shaved hair; and the practice of having long hair on men has been common for centuries in places like Japan, India, and other Northern European countries. In all these places they should (and often do) acknowledge the principle of headship, however they each have culturally appropriate signs to demonstrate their submission to this principle, and head-coverings on women are not always the symbol used.
It’s also worth noting that Paul’s appeal to ‘the very nature of things’ teaching the Corinthians that long hair was a shame to men does not even seem to be a custom among the Jews. For men like Samson (Judges 13:5) and Absalom (2 Samuel 14:25–26), it was their glory. The Nazarenes were not allowed to cut their hair, because in their case, as it was for Samson, their long hair was a symbol of their dedication to God (Numbers 6:5). And in Leviticus 19:27, the Israelite men were told, ‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head…’ so all Jewish men would have had long hair, according to God’s word, at least on the sides of their heads, since the days of Moses.
In light of this, it’s hard to believe that Paul’s argument about long hair being shameful for men is a timeless and universal practice grounded in creation, since long hair on men wasn’t an issue for Old Testament Israel. This further indicates that Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11 is grounded in a contemporary cultural practice, and not a timeless, universal law.
Some have argued that Paul grounds this practice as a timeless, universal law since he grounds it in creation in verses 7–10, as seen below;
1 Corinthians 11:7–10
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
However, we have to be very careful not to confuse the main theme of headship with the culturally specific practice of head-coverings. Paul is telling the Corinthian church that since head-coverings are culturally appropriate, it is the sign they are to adopt. The point is not that each church must adopt the one specific sign, even where the practice is not customary, but that each church must worship God by adhering to the universal principle of headship, in a culturally appropriate way.
- Because of the angels
Paul’s comment referring to the angels in verse 10 also confirms that his main point is the principle of headship, not the practice of head-coverings, since Paul says, It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
If Paul’s main point was that head-coverings should be a timeless and universal practice, ‘because of the angels’ makes no sense. What seems to be more reasonable is that Paul appeals to the angels since they are conscious beings who live under willing submission to God’s created order, and if they submit to that universal principle, with joy, so should we. Reference to the angels only makes sense if Paul’s main theme is headship, not the culturally specific practice of head coverings.
- We have no other practice, that is, ‘custom’
In 1 Corinthians 11:14–16, Paul says,
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
After appealing to ‘the very nature of things’ that the Corinthians, specifically, would be able to relate to in verses 14–15, Paul then grounds the use of head-coverings in a practice, or more literally, a ‘custom’ that the Corinthians were familiar with.
The word for ‘practice’ is the Greek word συνήθειαν (syn-é-thy-a), which is the word for ‘custom’. This is helpful to note because it shows that in Paul’s mind, head-coverings were a custom that he was asking the church in Corinth to adhere to, not a universal law. In this, the King James translation (KJV) of the bible is clearest, using the word ‘custom’ and not ‘practice’ there in verse 16.
This ‘custom’, says Paul, is what is appropriate in this context, and so all in Corinth should adhere to it. To say that we all have to apply this particular custom to represent the universal principle of headship is to misapply Paul’s reasoning, again, making the ‘custom’ the main point of his message, not the principle that we need to obey, like the Corinthians, in culturally appropriate ways.
- Misinterpreting this passage in light of missions
As we consider our interpretation of scripture, it’s worth thinking about the effect our interpretations have on the mission of the church to make disciples and see them conform to the image of Christ. With respect to considering the practice of head-coverings as a timeless and universal practice, we’d be wise to consider applying this in cultures where head-covering as a sign of female submission is not customary.
For example, for the Maasai people of Kenya and Tanzania, Africa, both men and women shave their heads. Apart from the three months after a Massai woman gives birth, their custom is short hair. If we were to take Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 as a timeless and universal law, then the gospel message to the Massai people would have to include, at some point, teaching them that the way their women wear their hair is shameful before God, and they need to grow it out if they want to submit to God’s word.
The same would be true for particular periods in Japan’s history where long hair on men, particularly their samurai warriors, was their custom. Many sumo wrestlers continue this custom till this day. However, if we take Paul’s teaching and reasoning on head-coverings from ‘the nature of things’ in Corinth as a timeless and universal law, then Japanese men would need to be told that the way they wear their hair is shameful, and to please God they need to adopt a different haircut, one that would conform them, and all Christians everywhere, to the custom present in first century Corinth.
In a similar way, although the women of Japan mostly have long hair, it is the style of their hair that distinguishes them from one another. Some hair styles were worn by royals to show that they were in a class of their own, others to show they were from particular regions of Japan, others to signify their role, rank or experience as a ‘geisha’ (woman of art), and so on. And again, if we took Paul’s teaching and reasoning on head-coverings from ‘the very nature of things’ in Corinth as a timeless and universal law, then Japanese women would be told to change these traditional customs in order to please God, particularly the custom of how they communicate their submission to their husbands.
We could go on with many more examples, but in short, when we misinterpret scripture, it always affects those we are trying to lead to Christ, and inevitably lays burdens on those we are trying to reach that God never intended for them to carry. With respect to head-coverings, we’d be unnecessarily changing the customs of many people groups, giving them the impression that they are a shame to God because of the way they wear their hair.
Instead, we see in scripture that one of the distinguishing marks of heaven is that those who’ll be there are ‘ … persons from every tribe and language and people and nation’ (Revelation 5:9). Christianity is the universal religion because Jesus is the Lord over every culture. He is worshiped from the heart by Corinthians, Massai, Japanese, Australians, Americans, Peruvians, Italians, Iraqis, etc., and although people from these cultures become one in Christ by their common faith in Jesus, the beauty of the church (and heaven!) is that we don’t all look the same, since we don’t all have the same customs and cultures, though we all share the one Lord Jesus.
As we’d all agree, where traditions are clearly ungodly, they need to change, but where they’re simply a matter of custom, we can worship Jesus knowing that, ‘… the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval’ (Romans 14:17–18).
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for adding burdens for people to carry that God did not command, but were simply a matter of tradition, and I fear that if we misread Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11, we would be guilty of the same sin, applying customs to cultures that are not appropriate, making godliness a matter of particular local customs.
In the same way that we see some churches enforce dress codes for men and women so that every person appears to be ‘modest’ according to a particular time and culture – e.g. where men wear pants and button up shirts while women wear long dresses as if it’s God’s will that we all adhere to a particular Western custom in 1950 – if we applied head-coverings as a timeless and universal practice for all Christians everywhere to obey, we’d be making a similar mistake around the world, misinterpreting the point of Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11.
Churches around the world will also have to inform young men who have long hair that to be pleasing in God’s sight they have to cut their hair, and make a judgment about whether a woman’s hair is too short as she comes to know Jesus. This should make us cringe, since we know that God is concerned about the heart, not hairstyles.
In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is not commanding every church to follow Christ according to the customs of first century Corinth, but to demonstrate their worship of God in culturally appropriate ways.
- Focusing on the inward work of the Spirit
In Matthew 5, Jesus taught his disciples that they are the salt and light of the world. He went on to say, ‘… let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.’
In the same way, as we’ve mentioned above, in Romans 14 the Apostle Paul reaffirms that our focus should be on the inward work of the Spirit, saying, ‘… the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.’
What sets us apart as Christians should not be our jewellery, our clothing, our hair styles, or anything outward like that, but our characters as we unite together in love, showing that Christ is truly among us. When we apply local customs as universal principles, we inevitably begin to focus on outward obedience over inward renewal, and this was not the focus of Jesus’ ministry.
Sadly, churches are prone to misinterpreting scripture, and as we’ve noted, when we misinterpret scripture, people are burdened in ways that God did not intend.
For example, the Seventh Day Adventists believe churches are in sin for worshiping God on Sunday.
Roman Catholics believe we are in sin for eating certain foods (meat) on certain days of the year (Fridays in the lead up to Easter) to honour the death of Jesus.
Mormons believe we are in sin for drinking coffee.
Some churches teach that it’s sin for women to wear pants and for men not to wear pants when the church gathers for worship.
And so on …
But in all these examples there is a misinterpretation of scripture causing those who hold certain convictions to lay burdens on Christians to obey what the Lord did not command. By misinterpreting 1 Corinthians 11, we take one step in the direction of these churches, and focus on outward conformity over inward renewal.
If we were to keep the principle of focusing on the inward work of the Spirit instead of turning local customs into universal laws, we will maintain freedom of the conscience and ensure the good deeds done in love remain the distinguishing mark of our lives as members of the church.
- Consistency in interpretation
As we consider our interpretation of what Paul tells women to do in 1 Corinthians 11, we should also consider what the Apostle Peter says to women in 1 Peter 3:1–6, as he upholds the principle of headship, as Paul did.
Note the way Peter focuses on the inward work of the Spirit over outward conformity to a particular practice before he advocates for a culturally appropriate sign of submission to the principle of headship that we all rightly understand is not to be applied in the same way in our day;
1 Peter 3:1–6
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behaviour of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewellery or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
Of all that we can take from this passage, notice the point of this passage as we consider interpreting scripture consistently is in verse 5–6. After pointing to the ‘unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit’ which Peter says ‘is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves’, he gives an example of outward conformity to the principle of headship, using Sarah as an example, ‘who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord’. Peter then reaffirms his desire for women to follow Sarah in this by saying, ‘You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear’, which seems to imply, you will be daughters of the promise if you follow her example.
So does this mean that Christians wives should call their husbands ‘lord’, as Sarah did in Genesis 18:12? Most would say, no. Why? Because we instinctively know that the principle of headship is timeless and universal, but the godly wife will demonstrate that she submits to that principle in culturally appropriate ways. In Sarah’s time, calling her husband ‘lord’ was appropriate. In parts of India, walking behind your husband will show this more clearly. In Corinth, like in many places in the Middle East today, wearing a head-covering will communicate this, but different cultures will express this principle differently. The point is not that we all have to do what Sarah did, outwardly, but to follow the godly attitude of her heart, and for wives to be intentional to demonstrate their submission to their husbands in culturally appropriate ways.
If we believe this is true from 1 Peter 3, it will help us to interpret 1 Corinthians 11 in a similar way, and ensure we interpret scripture consistently, applying the principle of headship to our hearts, and find appropriate ways to display that in the culture we are in.
- The culture of Corinth that made head-covering so important
In first century Corinth, like in the mid 20th Century in Australia, it was culturally appropriate for men to have short hair and for women to have long hair. What made the issue of head-coverings even more important for Corinth was the way male and female prostitutes would present themselves at pagan temples having their hair out, and uncut. In fact, frescoes (paintings) and other forms of artwork on pottery from that time show that both male and female prostitutes in Corinth typically had a full head of hair, uncovered.
If a man wore his hair long, it was an outward statement that he was promiscuous. If a woman had her hair cut short or shaved, you would assume she had been caught in adultery, since this was one of the ways to publicly shame a woman as part of her punishment.
With that background in place, we can better understand why Paul spoke to the church in Corinth about head-coverings the way he did. It helps us to understand why it was shameful for a woman to have her hair cut short, and why he could appeal to the ‘the very nature of things’ in Corinth that taught them that it was shameful for a man to have long hair. Paul urges the women to adopt head-coverings to show their adherence to the principle of headship, because in their culture, that was the way to do it. And because that was culturally appropriate for them, not to wear head-coverings communicated just as clearly that they did not care about, or have the heart to submit to the principle of headship, at all, and Paul didn’t want that to happen.
As we now do our best to apply this in our culture, we have to think carefully about what is culturally appropriate for us. This would include the way wives speak to their husbands; their body language; the way they speak about their husbands to others; the way they support their husbands’ leadership in the home; the way they work hard to respect their husbands in all things, etc.
In saying this, we respect the freedom of conscience in matters like this. So, if anyone was convinced from scripture that wearing a head-covering was appropriate, we would defend their conviction to do so. Our unity in Christ is much deeper than our agreement on issues like this. Although we believe they are very important, we thank God they are not matters of salvation.
Want to find out more?
Please reach out to us below