Why Head Coverings Are For Today

by Kevin Williams

“The giveaway that the reason for head-coverings in 1 Cor 11, has absolutely nothing to do with not offending a cultural practice, is why on earth would Paul say in v3 “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”? If Paul was only giving advice not to offend a secular custom of that day, then surely he would not have said that.”

“Paul clearly gives us the reason in the text as to why women should have their head’s covered in worship, and it has nothing to do with keeping up with a Pagan culture, but is because of God’s created order that goes back to Creation, v8-10 “For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

The subject of ‘head coverings’ is something of a hot potato. So hot that virtually all Pastors today are not only unwilling to give it proper attention, but many otherwise good commentators throw sound hermeneutics out of the window when it comes to interpreting this passage and instead embrace a liberal approach to this Scripture.

In fact several years ago, after reading 1 Corinthians 11, my wife asked me “should I be wearing a head covering?” And very early in my Christian walk, I simply looked up a study Bible note, and then brushed it off as ‘a cultural thing’. Unfortunately it is a reality today that most pastors would do the same when asked this question, and just brush it off with a reply like “well I don’t think it’s for today,” when in fact in virtually all cases, I suspect it would be far more honest of them to admit that they had not really given it much attention, but rather they had just read a very modern study note, without testing all things (1 Thess 5:21-22).

For many years I was guilty of neglecting a proper examination of 1 Cor 11:2-16, but when I came around to re-examining it, the text seemed to clearly imply that women should have their head’s covered during worship and it was more than a little puzzling that prior to World War II, pictures of women in churches always seemed to show women with their heads covered. What really sent alarm bells ringing was that all commentators from the early church fathers through to the likes of Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, John Bunyan, A. R. Fausset, A. T. Robertson and basically everyone until recent times saw head coverings for all time. As R. C. Sproul pointed out: “Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind?”

In examining this passage we’ll first look at the common arguments against head coverings being for today:

Argument Against 1): The most common argument people give against head coverings being for today is to say that “it was just a cultural thing for that time only and so it doesn’t apply today”. This trend of trying to overrule the plain and obvious grammatical reading of the text with some historical argument is a worrying trend of late. Now there are several problems with this argument:

Firstly) There is nothing in the text that gives the slightest indication that Paul is referring to keep in line with the secular cultural practices of the day.

Secondly) If it was referring to keep in line with the customs of the day and so not to offend the culture, then why would Paul talk about it in the context of worship (praying and prophesying (v5), when unbelievers were not even present?

Thirdly) The giveaway that the reason for head-coverings in 1 Cor 11, has absolutely nothing to do with not offending a cultural practice, is why on earth would Paul say in v3 “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”? If Paul was only giving advice not to offend a secular custom of that day, then surely he would not have said that.

Fourthly) Paul clearly gives us the reason in the text as to why women should have their head’s covered in worship, and it has nothing to do with keeping up with a Pagan culture, but is because of God’s created order that goes back to Creation, v8-10 “For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

Argument Against 2: Some argue a woman’s hair is her covering. Now this argument is just silly and shows the person making it hasn’t paid much attention to the text. (In fact the NIV in its footnotes has gone to great lengths to give this text what is really a feminist interpretation rather than a translation.) There are a number of reasons why the woman's hair is not the covering:

Firstly: Was Paul saying in v6 If a woman does not have hair then shave her? Obviously not. There would be no point.

Secondly: Paul purposely uses a completely different Greek word for covering when talking about hair in verse 15, than in the rest of the passage.

Thirdly: In Verse 15 Paul uses nature as an example to say women naturally have long hair as a covering so wear a veil when in worship as obedience to God and submission to His Created order.

Argument Against 3: Similar to the custom of the day argument, some argue ‘well Paul says ‘Greet one another with a Holy Kiss and we don’t greet each other with a Holy Kiss today’
Problems:

Firstly: Strong language is not used when talking about a Holy Kiss. Nowhere does Scripture say that in failing to 'greet one another with a Holy Kiss' you will “dishonour your head,” and the head of every woman is a man and the head of every man is Christ. Nor is not giving a Holy Kiss described as ‘shameful’. This is strong language here by Paul, and where the Apostle writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit uses such strong language, and is so clear on the actual reason v9-10, then we ought not to be so patronizing and dismissive of it.

Argument Against 4: “Well if it’s saying that women need to cover today then it needs to be a full veil covering the whole face". This argument is ridiculous, but some have gone to great lengths to build a straw man to try and discourage head coverings, by claiming that if it’s for today then the whole face must be covered like that of a Muslim.

Firstly: It does not refer to covering the face, but if it did that wouldn’t somehow change the fact that God requires the covering.

Secondly: There are different Greek words for head and face. The word for head was used, and if Paul had meant 'cover the face' he would have said 'cover the face', but he didn’t, he used the word for head because he meant 'cover the head'.

Argument Against 5: “Well it’s a conscience thing”
The context clearly gives no indication that this is something like eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols. If it’s up to each individual person to make up their own mind, then does that also apply to the Lord’s Supper in the very next verses? Obviously not! As stated above why on earth would Paul use God’s created order in his reasoning, if it was an issue of the conscience.

Argument Against 6: “Well if you want to wear a head covering then fine, but we can’t become legalistic about it”.

As Leonard Ravenhill once said “When people find something in the Bible they don’t like, they call it legalism.” As stated above this is not an issue of the conscience. Head coverings are either to be worn by all Christian women today or they are not. And from the text itself it is indisputable that head coverings are clearly for all time. Using words like “shameful” “dishonour” and v16 “if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Paul clearly does not take a passive attitude towards this and so neither should we.

Reasons Why Head Coverings Are For Today:

Reason 1) Because they are given as an ordinance.

Paul in verse 2 says “and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” The traditions here are not man made traditions, but ordinances that the church was to adhere to. Paul is saying that for the most they are doing well, but they need correcting on this and also their conduct in the Lord’s Supper. The same Greek word for tradition/ordinance is used in:
2 Thess 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”
And also in 2 Thess 3:6 “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 which he received from us”.

Reason 2) The reason why women should have their head’s covered in worship is given in the text, as stated above, it is that of God's created order and no amount of theological gymnastics are going to change that:

“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.”

Reason 3) Church History Supports that Head Coverings are for all time.

Whilst past interpretations of Scripture through the ages do not overrule or determine the meaning, sound hermeneutics requires that you check your interpretation against past commentaries through church history, and if in 2000 years no one has come up with your interpretation apart from a complete heretic, then it’s a good indication that you’re probably wrong. For nearly 2000 years until very recently Head Coverings were interpreted to be for all time.

As R C Sproul said "Though the many authors differ on various issues associated with headcoverings, one important issue upon which they are all agreed is that Paul was not commanding the women in Corinth either to let their hair grow long so as to use their long hair as a headcovering in worship, or to neatly place their hair upon their heads as a headcovering in worship, but rather to place upon their heads a fabric headcovering when they worship before the Lord. This conclusion is reached by scholars from various denominational backgrounds, from different geographical locations, and from many periods of church history. The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is "the pillar and ground of the truth""

Side two of the coin: The Scripture also teaches that men’s head’s should be uncovered during a church service.

There is no separating that whilst a women's head should be covered, a man's head should not be covered, and for the same reasons.

There is a growing trend amongst younger males today to wear ‘cool’ hats to church. But Paul clearly teaches here that a man should not have his head covered, because they dishonour Christ v4+3. But in any case if we ask why is a male wearing a fashionable hat to church? I suggest the answer is clearly out of vanity and to bring attention on himself, and that should not be.

So as we have seen, it is not really a question of "Are head coverings for today?" But rather "Are we willing to be obedient to the obvious teaching of God's Word or do we instead choose to bow to a feminist culture?"

See also John Calvin's Commentary